Roe v. Wade: 42 Years in the Past

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
381

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote] Perlenbacher15 wrote:

Personhood itself is a construct, we are matter that has gained consciousness.

[/quote]

Personhood is a “construct?” What does that mean? You mean there is no distinction between a living organism and ordinary matter? Is that what you’re saying?

Not “real” or “tangible?” So are morals abstract entities then? “Constructs” like personhood? If morality is not “real” then there is no right and wrong right?

So rape is not really immoral right? In fact, nothing is immoral for an existential nihilist is it?
[/quote]

Morality is a construct, rape is immoral, if you support certain moral codes, like we have in our society. But sure, there is no real right or wrong, that was my point about how most of us, even if athiest are christian atheists, we hold most of the moral teachings that hundreds upon hundreds of years of christian society and its culture has imprinted onto our society.

Morality changes throughout history, hence why the fictions of the bible, the koran, the hadith etc all contains stuff that would be considered “evil” today, but was just reality at the time they were written.

This is why it is funny to see christians and muslims attempt to theologically bend their religion to fit todays moral code.

We see the real literalist interpretation that was upheld for the majority of the time of the religions existence being dropped and cherrypicking and the bandaid of a non literal reading being pushed.

What was moral 300 years ago is not moral today, what is moral today will be seen as savage 300 years in the future.

I am not a nihilist I merely subscribe to the same principle the scientific method is based on, materialism, which is basically dealing with fact over the unprovable aka the soul, spirit, other nonsense.
[/quote]

You are a nihilist. Everything you just described is what a nihilist believes.

Moral relativism is a defunct moral philosophy because it requires the rational justification of the most horrific actions for no other reason than someone felt like it.
Moral relativism necessitates that the objective value of to sentient human beings changes based on one’s will to inflict suffering on another. In that, by that reasoning a person becomes morally superior simply by choosing to do evil to another.

Even your atheist hero’s like Hitchens (Christopher not Peter) and Sam Harris for instance, in no way support this notion of moral relativism. It’s dead position and has been for centuries. It’s has only received new life because Dawkins resurrected it and pitched it to the brain-dead, who have no capability to think for themselves. But even Dawkins is being ousted out of the New Atheism movement he helped to create because even Atheists realize that he’s an idiot who it truly lost touch with any semblance of reality.

382

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[/quote]

You do realize you started your shit arguments using the “science” line of justification, and have gone on to post nothing even remotely related to scientific sources to back up anything?

Now we have a morning show on the radio as assertions to your position?

It’s rather pathetic. [/quote]

Also they mock the moronic pro life propoganda where a fetus narrates from the room and then does a song about why his mummy killed him. Hillarious bit. Shows the mindset of people who are adamant sucking out a fetus is akin to hitting a two year old with a five iron.

[/quote]

I am sorry but this has not been answered and it needs to be. Please provide scientific proof that the organism living inside the womb of a human female is not a human being.
You have no argument, you have no point until you have proven that the life you are taking is not a human one.
Ignoring this fact doesn’t make it go away. You cannot just ignore the question when it is the central, most important… Actually, it’s the only question that matters.

If the child in the womb is a human being, then killing it is wrong and there is nothing you can do about that fact.
If the child in the womb is not a human being, then all bets are off and it does not matter what you do to it.

You claim science. So provide scientific proof that the organism inside the womb of a female human being, is itself not an autonomous human being. That’s all you have to do and you win. Do it not, you lose.
It really is this simple. Everything else is a waste of everybody’s time. Race, creed, Religion, sexual orientation, dysfunction, money, population, evolution, etc. have nothing to do with it, at all, in anyway.[/quote]

No, you see the demand for proof is on the one making the claim, basic scientific principle.

Pro lifers are claiming personhood starts at conception, I am saying there is no proof of that. If you can prove such a thing I am waiting…

383

“Sure you are. You don’t believe that life has any purpose and you don’t believe in morality. That’s okay, but be honest about it. You’re a nihilist.”

Life has purpose?

384

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
^ Fact in point: Varq posting a link to man’s purported evolution from ape-like primates and labeling it as “truth.” Not a hypothesis derived from “curiosity driven truth waiting to be found,” just “truth.”

This was a statement based on good ol’ fashioned fairh.[/quote]

Modern Homo sapiens are apes, as are every species of the genus Homo. We have ample fossil evidence of Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis, all of which are undoubtedly more “human” like than “ape” like. Do you deny that human species other than our own have existed? [/quote]

[/quote]

Yeah, here’s your hero Dawkin’s espousing the morality of infanticide up to 2 years old.

Invoking somebody as morally repugnant as Dawkins does not help your argument in anyway. [/quote]

“If a baby turns one years old and has an awful terminal disease, I am in favour of infanticide”

Also the clip cuts off just before he says he is in favour of that for everyone if they choose it

But of course you picked one of the many christian user videos where someone edits it, puts a new title on it and tries to give the impression of something else.

But good try though, rather lie to try and preserve your silly religious moral code, than actually address it.
[/quote]

lol… He said what he said and there is nothing you can do about it. The only lie here would be denying he didn’t say it when it’s right there for all to hear. It’s not the first time he said it, either.

Where is the science, btw? I want the scientific proof that the being in the womb of a human female is not a human being.

These tortured attempts to revise what morality is or means, only serves to prove that a) you don’t know what you are talking about. Or b) you know you have dug a hole you cannot climb out of.

I haven’t mentioned religion, you did. I am asking for scientific proof, you have not provided it.

386

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote] Perlenbacher15 wrote:

Personhood itself is a construct, we are matter that has gained consciousness.

[/quote]

Personhood is a “construct?” What does that mean? You mean there is no distinction between a living organism and ordinary matter? Is that what you’re saying?

Not “real” or “tangible?” So are morals abstract entities then? “Constructs” like personhood? If morality is not “real” then there is no right and wrong right?

So rape is not really immoral right? In fact, nothing is immoral for an existential nihilist is it?
[/quote]

Morality is a construct, rape is immoral, if you support certain moral codes, like we have in our society. But sure, there is no real right or wrong, that was my point about how most of us, even if athiest are christian atheists, we hold most of the moral teachings that hundreds upon hundreds of years of christian society and its culture has imprinted onto our society.

Morality changes throughout history, hence why the fictions of the bible, the koran, the hadith etc all contains stuff that would be considered “evil” today, but was just reality at the time they were written.

This is why it is funny to see christians and muslims attempt to theologically bend their religion to fit todays moral code.

We see the real literalist interpretation that was upheld for the majority of the time of the religions existence being dropped and cherrypicking and the bandaid of a non literal reading being pushed.

What was moral 300 years ago is not moral today, what is moral today will be seen as savage 300 years in the future.

I am not a nihilist I merely subscribe to the same principle the scientific method is based on, materialism, which is basically dealing with fact over the unprovable aka the soul, spirit, other nonsense.
[/quote]

You are a nihilist. Everything you just described is what a nihilist believes.

Moral relativism is a defunct moral philosophy because it requires the rational justification of the most horrific actions for no other reason than someone felt like it.
Moral relativism necessitates that the objective value of to sentient human beings changes based on one’s will to inflict suffering on another. In that, by that reasoning a person becomes morally superior simply by choosing to do evil to another.

Even your atheist hero’s like Hitchens (Christopher not Peter) and Sam Harris for instance, in no way support this notion of moral relativism. It’s dead position and has been for centuries. It’s has only received new life because Dawkins resurrected it and pitched it to the brain-dead, who have no capability to think for themselves. But even Dawkins is being ousted out of the New Atheism movement he helped to create because even Atheists realize that he’s an idiot who it truly lost touch with any semblance of reality.[/quote]

So scientific materialist outlook can not be real because you don’t like the fact violence and hardship are not evil but merely events? You can’t wish something to be not real because you don’t like the alternative.

And again I am not a nihilist, I have social constructs I uphold, I just acknowledge none of it is actually real.

I don’t like moral absolutism that your faith has, which has resulted in incredible ammounts of suffering, torture, war and death.

You need to get right with Odin and Thor, I have faith you will find the truth, open your mind.

388

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Far be it from me to try and convince you of the sort but maybe you’d like to look into it a bit more. You don’t strike me as a card carrying member of the Closed Mind Club.[/quote]

Push, is your mind open to the possibility that your faith is misplaced? That there is no god, and the Bible wasn’t divinely inspired?

I fully expect some snarky response, but I’m genuinely curious since you accuse others of having closed minds so often.[/quote]

Have you read the Bible? All of it, not a few lines or a book or two?

389

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
^ Fact in point: Varq posting a link to man’s purported evolution from ape-like primates and labeling it as “truth.” Not a hypothesis derived from “curiosity driven truth waiting to be found,” just “truth.”

This was a statement based on good ol’ fashioned fairh.[/quote]

Modern Homo sapiens are apes, as are every species of the genus Homo. We have ample fossil evidence of Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis, all of which are undoubtedly more “human” like than “ape” like. Do you deny that human species other than our own have existed? [/quote]

[/quote]

Yeah, here’s your hero Dawkin’s espousing the morality of infanticide up to 2 years old.

Invoking somebody as morally repugnant as Dawkins does not help your argument in anyway. [/quote]

“If a baby turns one years old and has an awful terminal disease, I am in favour of infanticide”

Also the clip cuts off just before he says he is in favour of that for everyone if they choose it

But of course you picked one of the many christian user videos where someone edits it, puts a new title on it and tries to give the impression of something else.

But good try though, rather lie to try and preserve your silly religious moral code, than actually address it.
[/quote]

lol… He said what he said and there is nothing you can do about it. The only lie here would be denying he didn’t say it when it’s right there for all to hear. It’s not the first time he said it, either.

Where is the science, btw? I want the scientific proof that the being in the womb of a human female is not a human being.

These tortured attempts to revise what morality is or means, only serves to prove that a) you don’t know what you are talking about. Or b) you know you have dug a hole you cannot climb out of.

I haven’t mentioned religion, you did. I am asking for scientific proof, you have not provided it.[/quote]

You want proof of a non truth? You and pro lifers are the ones making the claim that personhood begins at conception, prove it or stop saying it.

You make the claim, you need to bring the proof.

Also can we have some proof that your religious beliefs are real and if you can’t will you admit it is not real?

390

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Far be it from me to try and convince you of the sort but maybe you’d like to look into it a bit more. You don’t strike me as a card carrying member of the Closed Mind Club.[/quote]

Push, is your mind open to the possibility that your faith is misplaced? That there is no god, and the Bible wasn’t divinely inspired?

I fully expect some snarky response, but I’m genuinely curious since you accuse others of having closed minds so often.[/quote]

Have you read the Bible? All of it, not a few lines or a book or two?[/quote]

Ha! This is the logic of a person of god.

391

According to the Bible,Adam was not alive until God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,and man became a living soul”. So,it appears that is the requirement for life straight from the scriptures

392

Actual video.

393

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Far be it from me to try and convince you of the sort but maybe you’d like to look into it a bit more. You don’t strike me as a card carrying member of the Closed Mind Club.[/quote]

Push, is your mind open to the possibility that your faith is misplaced? That there is no god, and the Bible wasn’t divinely inspired?

I fully expect some snarky response, but I’m genuinely curious since you accuse others of having closed minds so often.[/quote]

Have you read the Bible? All of it, not a few lines or a book or two?[/quote]

In my teens, yes. Not since then.

I was once a believer, but started having those questions that were answered with “You just have to have faith”. That’s when I realized I didn’t have that faith anymore.

394

[quote]confusion wrote:
“Sure you are. You don’t believe that life has any purpose and you don’t believe in morality. That’s okay, but be honest about it. You’re a nihilist.”

Life has purpose?[/quote]

This question is what separates materialists from idealists.

398

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[/quote]

You do realize you started your shit arguments using the “science” line of justification, and have gone on to post nothing even remotely related to scientific sources to back up anything?

Now we have a morning show on the radio as assertions to your position?

It’s rather pathetic. [/quote]

Also they mock the moronic pro life propoganda where a fetus narrates from the room and then does a song about why his mummy killed him. Hillarious bit. Shows the mindset of people who are adamant sucking out a fetus is akin to hitting a two year old with a five iron.

[/quote]

I am sorry but this has not been answered and it needs to be. Please provide scientific proof that the organism living inside the womb of a human female is not a human being.
You have no argument, you have no point until you have proven that the life you are taking is not a human one.
Ignoring this fact doesn’t make it go away. You cannot just ignore the question when it is the central, most important… Actually, it’s the only question that matters.

If the child in the womb is a human being, then killing it is wrong and there is nothing you can do about that fact.
If the child in the womb is not a human being, then all bets are off and it does not matter what you do to it.

You claim science. So provide scientific proof that the organism inside the womb of a female human being, is itself not an autonomous human being. That’s all you have to do and you win. Do it not, you lose.
It really is this simple. Everything else is a waste of everybody’s time. Race, creed, Religion, sexual orientation, dysfunction, money, population, evolution, etc. have nothing to do with it, at all, in anyway.[/quote]

No, you see the demand for proof is on the one making the claim, basic scientific principle.

Pro lifers are claiming personhood starts at conception, I am saying there is no proof of that. If you can prove such a thing I am waiting…
[/quote]

Hmm, well I have asked first. You’ve provided nothing. But I will provide science.

https://www.all.org/abac/aq0203.htm

“Every human embryologist, worldwide, states that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization (conception). Yet, never does one see in the media, nor in the Councils identified above, such a reference, even though it is there in virtually every textbook. We exist as a continuum of human life, which begins at fertilization and continues until death, whenever that may be.”

http://bdfund.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf

"Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the
life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined â??moment of
conception.â?? This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and
independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life
or of human embryos. "

http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

When your done reading all of that, I can easily provide more.

399

So when god aborts a fetus it is ok, when we do it it is an abomination? Just like when god tells Saul to commit genocide against the Amalekites it is ok?

Christianity 101: do as I say not as I do … ermmm and hve said to do in the past.

400

I’ve answered the questions. Got anymore?