For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:13-16)
Instead of explaining why you think abortion is ... "a good" you launch into a bitter tirade about bibtards and the Inquisition.
And both of you call blobs of cells "unborn children", neither one of you can articulate the basis for this claim, neither one of you can make even the magical thinking case for "ensoulment", and both of you have been shown as irresponsible, irrational, impractical, and hypocritical narcissists conflating superstition with morality
The safe, clinical elimination of unwanted pregnancy is an undisputed good. Good for the woman exercising choice, good for the unwanted and non-sentient pre-human who doesn't know any better one way or another - the functional equivalent of a polyp being removed.
13 comments:
Nulan,
Even if you could give a basis for good given your supremacist and psuedo-scientific nature, it is the height of arrogance to claim abortion (in the very narrow and carefully situated context you have given), is an "undisputed" good.
These are the absolutist ravings of a supremacist.
My argument is simple...
Mamma Nulan had/has no moral right to kill glob of baby C Nulan.
Your stance is even starker and mindboggingly inexplicable.
Mamma Nulan had/has a moral right to kill glob of baby C Nulan.
Do you care to explain how or why she "lost" that moral right?
When you sober up, reread what you've written and ask yourself why you asked me to explain YOUR argument?
Josh T. Farst - poster child for the undisputed good of retroactive abortion....,
Come CNu.
You fuggin up my argument for a Global System of Black Supremacy.
Stop ducking.
I believe in you. You can argue your ass off.
(when you have an argument)
Nulan,
You made some claim about my belief in the immorality of abortion and then you go ahead and duck the issue about your own right to live and/or your mamma's moral right to kill you.
Did/does Mamma Nulan have the MORAL RIGHT to kill glob of C Nulan?
Morning..,
Coffee..,
What passes for sobriety in Josh T. Farst world..,
Now that I'm once again the object of your fawning attention, listen up. It would be imprudent of you to assume that I was joking about your status as a poster child for retroactive abortion.
Given our respective "understandings" - you and I really don't have anything to talk about. However, since you kept it simple and direct - I'll give you simple and direct in response.
Did/does Mamma Nulan have the MORAL RIGHT to kill glob of C Nulan?
Absolutely! Right up to the time Cnu was no longer dependent upon her as his sole source of sustenance.
Nulan retorts,
Absolutely! Right up to the time Cnu was no longer dependent upon her as his sole source of sustenance.
Of course, "dependent upon... sole source of sustenance" being that which acts as a demarcation in the quest for legal and moral protection as a human being.
So Mamma Nulan can kill glob of Nulan in utero, but once bigger glob of C Nulan is outside the womb, and therefore under "multiple sources of sustenance," he is legally and morally protected from extermination.
Nulan, now you see why you are disqualified from defining "life?"
Your rationalization is a totally arbitrary and autonomous one. It tells us nothing more than what Nulan happens to think as a autonomous biological mercenary. We can't make any judgement as to the goodness or badness, rightness or wrongness of the rationalization that assents to one's own hypothetical demise. It's absurd for the average person to assent to his own killing. Highly irrational... But you have done it and done it with a claim of reason and rationality.
You think your mom had a moral right to kill you and that's what you think. Such thought isn't rational as you have inexplicably subordinated your own supremacist autonomy to that of another. And it surely doesn't make it rational to apply your same self-capitulation to others. You are actually highly irrational given what we know about your nature.
But further, since you are no longer under control of ANY sources of sustenance, why can you not be legally and/or morally killed?
Dependent on sole source of sustenance = can be killed
Dependent on multiple sources of sustenance = can't be killed
Dependent on no sources of sustenance = ???
Where's the logic that we mortals can understand?
Josh, you're welcome to try.
In fact, you have an open invitation to try.
We can settle all our disagreements in the most expeditious and satisfying manner possible.
say when....,
Nulan,
I am welcome to try, but then that would be futile. You aren't in a position to lose an argument. It's not in your nature. The question is whether your nature is actually an intellectual or moral one. I think it fails on both accounts and if you were "true" (relatively-speaking) to your post-Darwinian "mindset", you would admit to as much.
You are, by all reasonable accounts, an autonomous biological mercenary. You take your understanding of genetics/brain chemistry and manipulated environments (selected selection) and recognize your transhuman ability, i.e. your nature. You despise the general human being and its Darwinian determinism and so your general reverence for what constitutes a morally and legally recognized human being is a shrinking one. This is in the nature of someone like yourself and comes across quite clearly and matter-of-factly. You seem to give elegant incoherence an existence with your retorts. Yet, it is carefully crafted to show contempt for "them."
Your autonomous biological mercenary nature helps us to understand your perceived sense of supremacy and how that supremacy can be superseded by an even greater supremacy keeping intact the autonomous principle. Your mamma could murder you because she was supremely autonomous in relation to your autonomy.
What your principle fails to explain though is how or when she "lost" that supreme autonomy over you? The autonomous principle seems to suggest that she never had it.
The answer of course comes back to your nature. You believe in the force of will and the autonomous exercise thereof. Your mamma could have killed you and your your wife could have killed your children... But "hot damn," luckily they didn't! And I still have my autonomous biological mercenary status intact just like my mamma and that's all that matters.
Next to this "understanding" everything else is just finding definitions for phrases like "human being."
This in many ways represents your idealized notion of white supremacy and your lifelong pursuit of its genetic causation.
I'm telling you that people are going to start thinking that you're my sidekick with all this crazy talk of yours.
moron..,
Our disagreement is existential and can only be resolved by one means. In consideration of that fact, my response was geared to only one of your comments;
But further, since you are no longer under control of ANY sources of sustenance, why can you not be legally and/or morally killed?
An attempt on your part would take us swiftly and directly to the only satisfactory resolution of our differences.
Obama Lifts Global Gag Rule
February 10, 2009
President Obama signed an executive order lifting restrictions that prevented U.S. aid to international organizations that promote or perform abortions with their own funds. Several MacArthur grantees in the field of population and reproductive health had urged repeal of the “global gag rule,” including the Center for Reproductive Rights, International Planned Parenthood Federation/Western Hemisphere Region, the Center for Health and Gender Equity, and International Women's Health Coalition. Grantees said the policy, originally enacted by President Reagan, was tantamount to restricting the free speech of international family planning organizations. They also criticized the gag rule for impeding the delivery of contraceptives and comprehensive reproductive health services to poor women and people in the developing world. The decision was reported by the The New York Times, Reuters, National Public Radio, and other national and international media.
We have seen that thermodynamic laws promise us less-and-less, while our genes are demanding more-and-more. Although these biophysical laws are now politically incorrect and suppressed from public discourse, these laws will not go away.
Roughly fifteen years from now, the thermo/gene collision will cause people to revert to a fundamentally different set of behaviors. These are the ancient behaviors that we evolved during the many periods of overpopulation which have occurred in our millions of years as animals.
Those in power will use every tool at their disposal - including nuclear weapons - to increase their fraction of the remaining energy thereby maintaining social hierarchy (social advantage) for their children.
If the wars of the twentieth century had killed the same proportion of the population that die in the wars of a typical tribal society, there would have been two billion deaths, not 100 million. The "thermo/gene collision" will ultimately kill billions of people worldwide as nuclear wars, starvation, and social system collapse grip the planet into the future. When our subconscious feels our fitness is best served by lying, cheating, stealing, raping, or killing, then we will do so.
It is our genetic legacy.
Why is it 'playing god' when we speak of abortion, homosexuality, or pulling the plug or euthanasia and not when taking an aspirin or antibiotic? Society locks up parents for neglect if they refuse to have a life saving blood transfusion or antibiotics if they're sick, or vacines, for pete's sake...i guess unless you're an evolutionist or one of those radical religionists who doesn't believe in you know...contraception or wearing rubbers or whatever, what other class can you assign fundamentalists to, and how fundamental is fundamental? i mean, c'mon, think about your arguments, for pete's sake.
But to cnu, i will say, the SC recently heard (last year or two) the case of late term abortions, and much of the argument centered around how much pain is a late term or viable fetus can feel, at this stage of development. Maybe it's having been brought up in a really fundamentalist home, i don't believe we have the right to torture another human being or deny them the things we would want...funny how that didn't noticably clash with 'leave not one alive, man, woman, child [can't remember offhand if 'beast' was included]...idk, i don't think i, personally, could do a late term abortion without at LEAST choosing the optional* [not yet decided when i last read the case] pain med for the fetus/child. And then i think i might have to have serious MORAL (yes, from an evolutionarily moral) viewpoint of 'what is likely to cause the least suffering, for all the immediately affected people in the situation?'
Anyway, the flip side is, i'm very much a literalistic ('fundamentalist') when it comes to the Constitution, as i think it was one of the most genius charters ever penned, and i find studying the religiophilosophical writings of the framers of the Constitution rather fascinating and enlightened. Thus, i believe i have every human right i want to take...right up until it infringes on yours, and i wish everyone else would leave me in peace and do the same, tyvm.
Nice to visit again, dv, you've been doing your homework. :)
About two hours ago, one of Mahndisa and Josh Farst's knuckledragging domestic-terrorist co-religionists shot my parent's close friend Dr. George Tiller to death in the church that I grew up in.
Post a Comment