Quote :

"^I mean that in many ways. Definitely the fetus (but you can't agree with me if you deny them personhood I understand). And I mean in his insistence that we ALL follow his framework in our day to day lives"

He's not asking you to follow his framework, though. You're free to choose not to abort.

Quote :

"And in fact, if applied to abortion, we're certainly glad our mommies didn't kill us!"

It's irrelevant because you'd never know you didn't exist, as bullet said.

11/20/2013 12:02:42 PM

so if someone doesn't know something, we're justified in harming them? That justifies all sorts of date rape you know.

11/20/2013 12:06:47 PM

uh, no, he said that we can't possibly be glad that our mommies didn't kill us because we wouldn't have known otherwise. I don't think he is claiming that this is the argument supporting choice, or by extension having anything to do with rape.

[Edited on November 20, 2013 at 12:09 PM. Reason : .]

11/20/2013 12:08:10 PM

Quote :

"no, i want you to explain how one's thoughts on moral absolutes reflects how they would respond to a "reasonable argument in favor of the existence of God" you need to show a connection between those things if you want to make that argument"

Oh. The existence of God would definitely mean he's the source of the absolutes, maybe that he wanted to reveal them to his, and so maybe that we could find them out. (Those aren't assumed. I'm not proving that. I'm not saying trust me. I don't have time to walk you through that. "The Reason for God" by Tim Keller is a great place to start)

11/20/2013 12:09:04 PM

so what is your hangup, you want to know why rape is bad?

11/20/2013 12:10:00 PM

from a materialistic atheistic point of view yes

11/20/2013 12:12:27 PM

define what you mean by "materialistic atheistic"

11/20/2013 12:14:52 PM

Quote :

"Why?"

Why does less people being raped result in less people being raped? Or why do I find less people being raped morally preferable? The answer to this is I admittedly arbitrarily choose that rape is bad. You're welcome to have a morality that says rape is good but I and the rest of civilization will arbitrarily call you a monster and arbitrarily throw you in prison. Unless you're a football player in a small town, or already in prison.


[Edited on November 20, 2013 at 12:32 PM. Reason : .]

11/20/2013 12:25:42 PM

Wow.

What a terrible response. All of your political and moral reasoning, you've just admitted, has been reduced to..."It's bad because I say so."

If you can't see the problems with that, then nothing can help you.

So you have no right to judge the culture where slavery, genocide, female circumcision, child sacrifice, or rape is allowed and encouraged. It's right because they say so. And your ideas about "what's best for the individual and the collective" are bad because they say so.

[Edited on November 20, 2013 at 2:25 PM. Reason : ]

11/20/2013 2:23:07 PM

It's the only intellectually honest position. You are in exactly the same position that I am but you think conjuring a god will get you out of the epistemic trap. It doesn't.

11/20/2013 2:32:22 PM

Ok. Thank you for the admission. A lot of people aren't willing to reason that far.

I realize I haven't "won" anything with regards to proving my position. But I do hope that we can admit exposed serious flaws in your framework/worldview.

Now I understand, if all world views are all seriously flawed, and it's a crapshoot, sure, choose whatever you think suits you. But in the God thread, maybe we can work towards the notion that one worldview offers a better alternative. (the idea is that once you get there, then yes, what "God" or whatever that truth says, should determine what we think and do about everything, especially issues like abortion...just so you see the relation...I'm not PROVING a theistic worldview in this post!)

11/20/2013 2:38:01 PM

^
I don't think there's any trap here. Rape is bad because it causes undue suffering on another. I'm pretty sure I know how you're going to respond but I'll let you pose it.

[Edited on November 20, 2013 at 2:39 PM. Reason : .]

11/20/2013 2:39:03 PM

Quote :

"Here at Columbia's grad school, I've grown quite used to it"

.



[Edited on November 21, 2013 at 1:13 PM. Reason : .]

11/21/2013 1:11:55 PM

^"While roughly 18 percent of the general U.S. population believes the Bible is an 'ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts,' almost 52 percent of professors in general, and 73 percent of those professors teaching in elite universities, hold the 'ancient book of fables' view."

The general point should be clear: academia is not always welcome or open to the religious point of view. The dominant secular ethos operates as a powerful control over what is or is not acceptable as public knowledge, often resulting in the marginalization or outright attack on Christianity (or religion in general)..." -Paul M. Gould

The focused attack on religion is much more prevalent at places like Columbia than NC State. It's the result of living in a postmodern age which has reduced truth to a pragmatist's terms, thus concluding that God is dead and religion is now useless. I'm studying at Teachers College which was founded by John Dewey, the biggest early proponent of philosophical pragmatism, which now functions as an unchecked assumption in the secularist's mind, and leads to ideas like "Abortion is best for society". Universities function as the gatekeepers of the ideas that function as the mind of civilizations. Dewey is practically a god here, and has arguably had more to do with influencing education in the West than anyone else. I went on to mention Dewey in the God thread and have been reading some of his works.

But you are free to read it as arrogance, and being irrelevant to the discussion. It certainly makes it easier to dismiss anything I might say.

Anyways, what do you guys think about this? I think Breitbart's a hack, and I don't usually read his stuff, but I came across this link. All the links he cites are legit. (Ignore his adhominem attacks on de Blasio towards the end lol, and ignore your own on Breitbart.)

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/06/NYC-Mayor-Elect-De-Blasio-Promises-To-Open-More-Abortion-Clinics-Wipe-Out-Pro-Life-Crisis-Pregnancy-Centers

[Edited on November 23, 2013 at 12:48 PM. Reason : ]

11/23/2013 12:41:36 PM

Quote :

"How do you feel about abortions for pregnancies that result from safe casual sex?"

I'd say you rolled the dice and lost. My stance certainly isn't that "deciding you don't want a child before you have sex absolves you of any responsibility of having a child".

Quote :

"Question begging, question begging, tra-la-la-la-la."

My statement absolutely is NOT begging the question there, unless you want to suggest that an unborn child is somehow not a human life. Is it a dog? Is it a cat? is it a monkey? No, it's human.

Quote :

" If you force her to carry it to term, it is a form of slut shaming: you're punishing her for having sex, even though both parties took all precaution."

I can't comprehend how you think it is "slut shaming" to protect the life of the innocent. What I think is not "hey you're bad, you had sex, we'll punish you with a kid"; rather, it's "hey, you shouldn't be able to kill an innocent human life just because you didn't think of the consequences of having sex and you find them inconvenient."

Quote :

"Let's say a woman who never wanted a child, and was careful trying not to have one, is suddenly forced into giving birth to one."

No one forced her to have sex. If you absolutely don't want a kid, then absolutely don't have sex.

Quote :

"The point is of course as stated many times now that if aaronburro or anyone has an exception for rape then obviously their idea that the fetus is an innocent human being is flawed. If it truly was innocent and needed to be protected as any other person then how would the way that it got there matter at all?"

That only holds true if the position is "all unborn should always be protected, no matter what." That is in no way my position. Rather, my position is that unborn have rights that we should balance against the rights of the mother; the desire of the mother not to be inconvenienced with a child (which is what we're talking about in the vast and overwhelming number of cases of abortion) does not outweigh the right of the unborn to exist. I don't think that is an unreasonable position.

Quote :

"A [clump] of cells has [no] rights....."

By all rights, you are nothing more than a "clump of cells"

Quote :

"no, the argument is that since it is still a part of her body, she gets to decide what to do with it."

Uhhh, come again? What part of the anatomy chart does the "fetus" belong on? A fucking fetus is NOT a body part.

11/23/2013 7:26:54 PM

Quote :

"Even if we could establish a robust definition, that doesn't say that life is deserving of any particular protections."

Then I hope you will never, ever, speak of human "rights" in any fashion again, because, by that statement, they don't exist in any way, shape, or form.

11/23/2013 8:08:50 PM

Quote :

"My statement absolutely is NOT begging the question there, unless you want to suggest that an unborn child is somehow not a human life. Is it a dog? Is it a cat? is it a monkey? No, it's human."

Human, but not a person. Your finger is human.

Quote :

"That only holds true if the position is "all unborn should always be protected, no matter what." That is in no way my position. Rather, my position is that unborn have rights that we should balance against the rights of the mother; the desire of the mother not to be inconvenienced with a child (which is what we're talking about in the vast and overwhelming number of cases of abortion) does not outweigh the right of the unborn to exist. I don't think that is an unreasonable position. "

So if she was raped the innocent should be sacrificed? How does that make sense?

Quote :

"By all rights, you are nothing more than a "clump of cells""

Now you're finally getting it! What makes the clump of cells that is capable of forming thoughts and communicating them over the Internet different than an embryo?

11/23/2013 8:17:57 PM

Quote :

"Human, but not a person. Your finger is human."

My finger is human, but it is not a human life. see the difference?

Quote :

"So if she was raped the innocent should be sacrificed? How does that make sense?"

Because, as I've stated before, we're then in a situation where all possible choices suck. If I say "allow the abortion", the choice sucks, because you're killing the innocent. If I say "don't allow the abortion," the choice sucks, because you're continuing the rape. My position is not "never allow the innocent to be killed". Rather, like I said in the very quote you gave, it is a matter of balancing rights.

Quote :

"Now you're finally getting it! What makes the clump of cells that is capable of forming thoughts and communicating them over the Internet different than an embryo?"

Moving the goalposts. The original claim was "it's just a clump of cells, so it has no rights."

11/23/2013 10:44:24 PM

Quote :

"My finger is human, but it is not a human life. see the difference?"

Neither is a zygote or an embryo by any definition of "a human life." No, I don't see the difference between the cells that make up a finger and the cells that make up an embryo. Unthinking flesh is not *a* life, even though it is alive and has the genetic makeup of a particular species.

Quote :

"Because, as I've stated before, we're then in a situation where all possible choices suck. If I say "allow the abortion", the choice sucks, because you're killing the innocent. If I say "don't allow the abortion," the choice sucks, because you're continuing the rape. My position is not "never allow the innocent to be killed". Rather, like I said in the very quote you gave, it is a matter of balancing rights."

How is forcing a woman to have her rape baby "continuing the rape?" Would you advocate if she did have the baby letting her kill her son/daughter at any point in their life? If no, why not? The thing inside her is no different than a person according to your bullshit logic.

Quote :

"Moving the goalposts. The original claim was "it's just a clump of cells, so it has no rights.""

LOL, I didn't make the original point. Answer my question instead of being a hack.

11/23/2013 10:52:25 PM

Quote :

"But you are free to read it as arrogance, and being irrelevant to the discussion. It certainly makes it easier to dismiss anything I might say."

Nah, I just took it as humble bragging/name dropping. Some of us already finished grad school at places other than NCSU, so while it's great that you're continuing your studies, I'm not exactly impressed- especially since literally NONE of your thoughts are your own and all you do is copy/pasta quotes from others.

11/23/2013 11:00:01 PM

Quote :

"Neither is a zygote or an embryo by any definition of "a human life."

It's not? What is it? Is it a cat? Is it a dog? Is it a fucking rock? What kind of life, exactly, is a human zygote? Bear? Rabbit? Donkey?

Quote :

" No, I don't see the difference between the cells that make up a finger and the cells that make up an embryo."

Then you're being purposefully obtuse.

Quote :

"How is forcing a woman to have her rape baby "continuing the rape?" Would you advocate if she did have the baby letting her kill her son/daughter at any point in their life? If no, why not? The thing inside her is no different than a person according to your bullshit logic."

How is a constant reminder of a rape being inside you, causing affects to your body, "continuing the rape?" You can't honestly be this fucking obtuse. And no, "the thing insider her is no different than a person" is NOT my "bullshit logic." This is what happens when you argue from the position of a strawman. As for, "would you advocate...", I'll ask if you would advocate allowing a woman to kill her child at the age of 18 months or any other point in the child's life outside the womb. Why or why not?

Quote :

"LOL, I didn't make the original point. Answer my question instead of being a hack."

Or, stop moving the goalposts. My statement was made regards to someone calling it "a clump of cells." Calling ANYTHING a clump of cells is a meaningless statement, meant to divert attention away from the actual issues at hand.

11/24/2013 12:16:14 AM

Quote :

" It's not? What is it? Is it a cat? Is it a dog? Is it a fucking rock? What kind of life, exactly, is a human zygote? Bear? Rabbit? Donkey?"

A zygote is a fertilized, yet immature, egg in the earliest stages of human development. A zygote is pretty underdeveloped compared to a fully formed baby. While this isn't the greatest analogy, try thinking of it this way: If you ever go to a restaurant and order chicken, they are likely to serve you cooked parts of roasted chicken or a chicken breast, instead of chicken eggs. We usually consider humans 'people' when they've developed enough to move outside of the womb on their own.

Quote :

" How is a constant reminder of a rape being inside you, causing affects to your body, "continuing the rape?" You can't honestly be this fucking obtuse. And no, "the thing insider her is no different than a person" is NOT my "bullshit logic." This is what happens when you argue from the position of a strawman. As for, "would you advocate...", I'll ask if you would advocate allowing a woman to kill her child at the age of 18 months or any other point in the child's life outside the womb. Why or why not?"

Sorry, but that wasn't a strawman. Answer the fucking question.

Quote :

" Calling ANYTHING a clump of cells is a meaningless statement, meant to divert attention away from the actual issues at hand.<!--"

Oh, so I guess a human organ isn't a clump of cells. A liver is a human being, as is the patch of skin that exists between my butthole and ballsack.

11/24/2013 1:11:45 AM

just be pleased, as men, that none of you can get pregnant

and will therefore never be forced to make these difficult choices

I'm amazed you're all keeping up this discussion

though I understand that some of you believe that women are incapable of making their own decisions and therefore need to rationalize this all out so as to force your will upon them without feeling bad about it

to those of you, I'd say you should reconsider the depth your misogyny

and leave us the fuck alone

11/24/2013 9:47:03 PM

Opposition to abortion has nothing to do with imposing of wills upon women out of misogyny. Jesus fucking Christ that's naive, or maybe it's willful suspense of critical thought because it's easier to just minimize the other side with a talking point. Ironically, that would be, at least arguably...whatever the opposite of misogyny is.

I mean, I'm not really exactly anti-abortion. I'm for more restrictions than are currently in place, but certainly not against all abortions. In fact, I assure you that I have been presented with that difficult choice.

If you want to attack opponents of abortion, then do it on merits of positions--not with an ad hominem attack, and a piss-poor, false one at that.

11/24/2013 11:19:42 PM

...and what about women who are anti-abortion? That argument doesn't fly at any level there.

Look, it's simple:

It's a balance of the rights of the mother against the rights of the unborn child, and I think that the vast majority of people think that decision really hinges upon at what point you're dealing with a human being, because a human being's right to life should (in most people's view) trump the mother's rights to pretty much anything but life.

The debate, in that sense, should be pretty simple: where do you draw that line? There are handful of severely delusional (or else, utterly deplorable) people who would say "birth". I would argue that "external viability" is a really shitty metric, too. On the other side, there are a number who would draw the line at conception, most of whom are grounding their decision in religion rather than any sort of science or serious consideration. Everybody else is somewhere in the middle, and I think there is legitimate range of grey area that is where the debate should lie.

11/24/2013 11:28:04 PM

Welcome back to the Soap Box Duke where you can continue to ride the inoffensive fence until it falls over!

Just call people who put the demarcation at birth "delusional" with zero evidentiary support. That's called 'poisoning the well' in case you've lost your debating chops.

Since you put in terms of rights between the mother and fetus (you call it an "unborn child" but that term is incoherent in my opinion) birth is really the only place that makes sense IMO. When the child is no longer medically contingent on the mother her choices should have zero impact on its life. Before that point, I see no reason that she shouldn't be able to ingest whatever she wants, have whatever surgery she wants, punch herself in the stomach repeatedly how much she wants or anything else that would result in the stillbirth of the fetus inside her.

Clearly the adult woman with a fetus inside her is a person with full rights and there's a "gray area" concerning the fetus so in what world does a gray area trump an actual unambiguous person?

11/25/2013 12:35:24 AM

Quote :

"just be pleased, as men, that none of you can get pregnant and will therefore never be forced to make these difficult choices I'm amazed you're all keeping up this discussion though I understand that some of you believe that women are incapable of making their own decisions and therefore need to rationalize this all out so as to force your will upon them without feeling bad about it to those of you, I'd say you should reconsider the depth your misogyny and leave us the fuck alone"

That's pretty anti-feminist of you to say that just because we're men, we shouldn't have opinions on abortion. Shouldn't we be hearing ALL voices on something like this or has the definition of listening to "others" fallen out of feminist vogue recently?

11/25/2013 1:07:18 AM

Quote :

"ust call people who put the demarcation at birth "delusional" with zero evidentiary support. That's called 'poisoning the well' in case you've lost your debating chops."

have you not noticed that he thinks his opinion carries some special weight? he always post what he thinks like it matters or is special without actually engaging in the conversation or debate.

11/25/2013 8:55:53 AM

Lol, disco_stu's last post cracks me up.

I can almost hear the collective groan of an entire lecture hall.

11/25/2013 10:09:08 AM

Insightful.

11/25/2013 10:26:14 AM

Yes, dismissing the term "unborn child" as incoherent clearly puts you head and shoulders above the rest of us.

Birth is clearly the logical cut-off time for abortions, because of course children can completely take care of themselves from that point forward.

11/25/2013 10:38:15 AM

^
can you make your point like an adult and not a 16 year old who thinks he knows everything?

11/25/2013 10:41:23 AM

I don't understand why it should matter what it's called, provided that both sides agree on what they are physically describing.

I totally murdered a piece of toast this morning for breakfast. See? Doesn't affect communication.

EDIT:

I just realized something. Going by MacBeth logic, all of us who were "untimely ripped" are, in fact, unborn children. But we should probably avoid treating them as full humans to begin with. They'll betray you when the plot said it was impossible! Damn witch's word games...

[Edited on November 25, 2013 at 10:47 AM. Reason : ]

11/25/2013 10:41:40 AM

You're right; only children use the term "unborn child," not adults.

Also, being able to survive outside the womb is all that matters; human children can fend for themselves just like the large cats (or something).

I'm sorry for being such a t33n.

11/25/2013 10:44:46 AM

a baby doesn't need its mother to survive. its father could help it survive. or a random stranger.

[Edited on November 25, 2013 at 10:47 AM. Reason : ]

11/25/2013 10:47:45 AM

^^
i was actually referring to the overuse of sarcasm. is your ego that starved?

[Edited on November 25, 2013 at 10:48 AM. Reason : .]

11/25/2013 10:47:53 AM

Quote :

"You're right; only children use the term "unborn child," not adults."

And I bet every one of the usernames who do this are unholy products of Caesareans! Rank horn-beasts!

11/25/2013 10:53:43 AM

^^A post dripping with as much condescension as disco_stu's I commented on earlier deserves nothing more-

Not to mention it contains several fairly disgusting points, but whatever, feel free to take him more seriously than me.

After all, he says smart sounding things like demarcation, evidentiary, and unambiguous. Besides his overuse of "imo" he is one of TSB's great scholars.

Especially in threads about abortion and religion. Combine the two or throw in something tasty like circumcision and prepare to be amazed by this jewel of a user.

[Edited on November 25, 2013 at 10:58 AM. Reason : -]

11/25/2013 10:57:43 AM

wtf is this?

11/25/2013 10:59:18 AM

Quote :

"Since you put in terms of rights between the mother and fetus (you call it an "unborn child" but that term is incoherent in my opinion) birth is really the only place that makes sense IMO. When the child is no longer medically contingent on the mother her choices should have zero impact on its life. Before that point, I see no reason that she shouldn't be able to ingest whatever she wants, have whatever surgery she wants, punch herself in the stomach repeatedly how much she wants or anything else that would result in the stillbirth of the fetus inside her."

WTF is this? Very few people actually think this way (regardless of whatever numbers you think you have behind you).

...and yes, I'm fairly certain this is just a continuation of your Foreskin Crusade of 2012 and disgust for religion in general (at least I'm with you there).

11/25/2013 11:03:10 AM

I agree with him, mostly. However:

If she is planning on giving birth, is it still her right to smoke and drink, and otherwise abuse the fetus?

(and if it makes you feel better, i don't take anyone 100% seriously if they don't form calm, rational arguments)

[Edited on November 25, 2013 at 11:12 AM. Reason : .]

11/25/2013 11:11:31 AM

Nothing that I quoted is grounded in reality-

A similarly retarded statement from a conservative user would have been immediately ridiculed.

If I'm the only one who is going to ridicule disco_stu, and the reaction to that is "wtf," then so be it.

I'll be as calm and rational as I can possibly be if thats the key.

11/25/2013 11:18:08 AM

While disco_stu can get a bit uppity, his points seems pretty logical and consistent to me...

11/25/2013 11:20:25 AM

Consistent, yes of course he is (very).

I'm not sure mothers should be drinking or punching fetuses inside themselves.

I'm also not sure children should be aborted on their delivery day.

But obviously I'm just yearning for That Olde Tyme Religion.

11/25/2013 11:23:43 AM

Sarcasm and hyperbole are an artform. Brush up on your skills or GTFO.

11/25/2013 11:40:43 AM

Quote :

"If she is planning on giving birth, is it still her right to smoke and drink, and otherwise abuse the fetus?"

How in the hell would you ever make a law against this?

Do you arrest the smoking mother and feed her asparagus in jail until the pops the baby out, so you can then give it to CPS?

What was the justification for allowing the rest of us to drink, and why would that justification not apply to a pregnant woman?

People are disturbingly statist when it comes to babies.

11/25/2013 12:12:15 PM

If the baby starts coughing in the womb or voices resentment/discomfort, mandatory jail time for the mom.

11/25/2013 12:22:04 PM

^^
Why did you automatically assume I was suggesting there should be a law? Maybe "right" wasnt the best word.

Is it not a form of child abuse, though? There's a line somewhere.

11/25/2013 12:40:13 PM

Quote :

"I'm not sure mothers should be drinking or punching fetuses inside themselves."

And of course I wasn't advocating that they do this, only that they should have the right to that and anything else they want to their body, including abortion. I'm non-sarcastically sorry that I didn't make that point clear and it looked like I was being crass for no reason.

Quote :

"Is it not a form of child abuse, though? There's a line somewhere."

I think the line is when the child is no longer physically contingent on the mother. I'm not comfortable removing or even lessening a woman's bodily autonomy rights due to the fact that she's pregnant.

[Edited on November 25, 2013 at 12:42 PM. Reason : .]

11/25/2013 12:40:31 PM

Quote :

"Why did you automatically assume I was suggesting there should be a law? Maybe "right" wasnt the best word. Is it not a form of child abuse, though? There's a line somewhere."

Why is child abuse illegal? Is it not because a child actively feels pain and suffering? If you think abortion should be legal because a fetus doesn't feel much, then there shouldn't be any problem on account of the pain and suffering of the fetus. That's consistent, and I buy that.

This is different than child abuse. It falls into a very unique category, something like "poising the well" for future society. If you create retarded children, you are somewhat obviously creating a problem for the state. This was the concern of 90s "crack babies" scare, although that later turned out to be overblown. Since the concern comes down to a scientific link, politics would have to take a backseat to science.

And politics never takes the backseat.

11/25/2013 1:01:35 PM