Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-alabama-iran-or-saudi-arabia-we-checked-where-abortion-laws-are-better-for-women-1.7271623

Women in Alabama who don't like the laws should move to Saudi Arabia then

hardline muslims: we're gonna pass sharia law to control and dominate our women

christian conservatives: hold my beer

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
hardline muslims: we're gonna pass sharia law to control and dominate our women

christian conservatives: hold my beer funny stuff isn't it.

So Saudi Arabia no longer has any laws dominating women? Interesting.

if you're too dumb to address the point, kick the strawman

It's a silly point though, Saudi Arabia is still not a good place for women. Millions in this country think abortion is akin to murder and you feel highlighting "Saudi Arabia is more okay with it" accomplishes...what? Lol. Genuinely curious

the point was about severity of law, and it is valid. but please, continue your tushy tantrum and lay waste to all the strawmen. show no mercy! none shall stand!

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
the point was about severity of law, and it is valid. but please, continue your tushy tantrum and law waste to all the strawmen. show no mercy! none shall stand!

You are projecting quite a lot here

nope, i don't kick the strawman. that's your sport, sport.

also 'projecting' has to do with negative emotions, not idiotic debating tactics

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
nope, i don't kick the strawman. that's your sport, sport.

also 'projecting' has to do with negative emotions, not idiotic debating tactics

Do conservative christians in america treat women better than saudi arabia?

nobody said that they did. thats why the completely true and valid point of the topic is shockingly ironic.

everyone knows that you're too stupid and intellectually cowardly to face that truth, though. it's okay

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
nobody said that they did. thats why the completely true and valid point of the topic is shockingly ironic.

everyone knows that you're too stupid and intellectually cowardly to face that truth, though. it's okay

Ah I understand now, you used the "hold my beer" thing without grasping what it truly implies.

All is forgiven, carry on

I have an ad blocker running so I can't read the article still Alabama has some cornpone laws and this didn't help. Sadly Missouri just had legislation signed that bans abortions after 8 weeks I believe also, talking embryonic bans.

Originally posted by Surtur
Ah I understand now, you used the "hold my beer" thing without grasping what it truly implies.

All is forgiven, carry on

Originally posted by Bashar Teg

everyone knows that you're too stupid and intellectually cowardly to face that truth, though. it's okay

continue doing your little ad hominem deflection dance routine. it was expected

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
continue doing your little ad hominem deflection dance routine. it was expected

Have you ever used an ad hominem against someone?

if someone intelligent had asked that, i would think they were being comedically ironic and commend them; but alas....

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
if someone intelligent had asked that, i would think they were being comedically ironic and commend them; but alas....

You avoided answering. You whine about ad hominems a lot. I will ask you again: have you ever done the same thing to someone?

what you are doing is deflecting from the valid point of topic with personal shenanigans, which is ad hominem. i will not participate

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
what you are doing is deflecting from the valid point of topic with personal shenanigans, which is ad hominem. i will not participate

You mentioned ad hominems, surely you who has whined over them so much has not also participated?

perhaps at some point in your 9-post tushy tantrum (so far) you'll address the point of topic?

You mentioned ad hominems, are you aware you yourself have used the same tactic? We can move on to the topic once you acknowledge you have

perhaps for your 11th post you'll address the topic, which is factually on point?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
perhaps for your 11th post you'll address the topic, which is factually on point?

Have you ever engaged in the very same tactics you cried about? Lol this ain't going away.

perhaps #12 is the charm?

Originally posted by Putinbot1
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-alabama-iran-or-saudi-arabia-we-checked-where-abortion-laws-are-better-for-women-1.7271623


That banner saying "Pope caught, drugs and hookers" has me slightly doubting the bias of the site.



I don't doubt a bit the story is true, though. Alabama heartbeat laws are a tough act to follow.



To be fair, I think these shenanigans only started after a New York law where politicians started talking about letting babies die comfortably on the table. It was all bullshit, but that's how we got to where we are..

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
perhaps #12 is the charm?

Why are you avoiding the question? Weird.

Well I'll keep on asking.

Have you ever done the same thing you whined about? I'll just keep re-quoting this until you answer, we can derail this thread until you do

Originally posted by cdtm
That banner saying "Pope caught, drugs and hookers" has me slightly doubting the bias of the site.



I don't doubt a bit the story is true, though. Alabama heartbeat laws are a tough act to follow.



To be fair, I think these shenanigans only started after a New York law where politicians started talking about letting babies die comfortably on the table. It was all bullshit, but that's how we got to where we are..

Bingo, but pshhh only adults would take this into account

Originally posted by Surtur
Why are you avoiding the question? Weird.

Well I'll keep on asking.

Have you ever done the same thing you whined about? I'll just keep re-quoting this until you answer, we can derail this thread until you do REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

let's try for lucky #13? the topic?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
let's try for lucky #13? the topic? Originally posted by Surtur
Why are you avoiding the question? Weird.

Well I'll keep on asking.

Have you ever done the same thing you whined about? I'll just keep re-quoting this until you answer, we can derail this thread until you do

more ad hominem tushy tantrum. the topic is "Saudi Arabia more Liberal on Abortion than Alabama", and your goal should be to refute it.


aaaaand GO!

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
more ad hominem tushy tantrum. the topic is "Saudi Arabia more Liberal on Abortion than Alabama", and your goal should be to refute it.


aaaaand GO! Originally posted by Surtur
Why are you avoiding the question? Weird.

Well I'll keep on asking.

Have you ever done the same thing you whined about? I'll just keep re-quoting this until you answer, we can derail this thread until you do

what are you trying to convince me of? that you're too much of an intellectual coward to address the topic? well you sold me at post #1

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
what are you trying to convince me of? that you're too much of an intellectual coward to address the topic? well you sold me at post #1

I don't care what Saudi Arabia does in regards to abortion.

The point is, of course, you have no room crying about ad hominems

If you think you do, by all means: say you've never done it

Originally posted by Surtur
I don't care what Saudi Arabia does in regards to abortion.


then why you derailing the topic? because you just confessed that you're a time-waster troll?

again: sold

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
then why you derailing the topic? because you just confessed that you're a time-waster troll?

again: sold

I've confessed to shit posting here in the past, so what? You're not revealing anything new. And trolls like putinbot don't get to whine about thread derailments, nor do his pals lol. Mods don't hold you guys accountable for anything, so that ship has sailed

Originally posted by Surtur
I've confessed to shit posting here in the past, so what? And trolls like putinbot don't get to whine about thread derailments, nor do his pals lol. Mods don't hold you guys accountable for anything, so that ship has sailed

so you are a confessed time-waster troll who only knows how to derailing threads as a sad substitution for topical discourse? shocking!

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
so you are a confessed time-waster troll who only knows how to derailing threads as a sad substitution for topical discourse? shocking!

Lol yes I am 100% trolling you. Aaaaand?

no, you are derailing another topic for everyone, because the truth of it wounds your fragile emotions.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
no, you are derailing another topic for everyone, because the truth of it wounds your fragile emotions.

You're more naive than I thought if you think the "truth" about abortions in Alabama matters to me

Originally posted by Surtur
You're more naive than I thought if you think the "truth" about abortions in Alabama matters to me

your feelings are more important than the topic? noted

You seem upset, why? Is this an important issue to you?

I feel like you have a solid case for abortion...incest is usually an exception

Originally posted by Surtur
You seem upset, why? Is this an important issue to you?

I feel like you have a solid case for abortion...incest is usually an exception

your fee-fees >>>>>> topic

noted

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
your fee-fees >>>>>> topic

noted

Is abortion an issue that matters to you?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
your fee-fees >>>>>> topic

noted

noted, sold, signed, sealed, delivered, stamped, filed, case closed.

what more is their to convince me of?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
noted, sold, signed, sealed, delivered, stamped, filed, case closed.

what more is their to convince me of?

Weird, so abortion isn't even an issue for you? So you're whining just to whine. In other words: virtue signaling

Also...*there

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
your fee-fees >>>>>> topic

noted

open and shut case. moving on...

Do you even care about abortion?

ad hominem?

I'm asking for your opinion on a subject. Why get mad?

my feelings on abortion have nothing to do with the topic. they are not super-important and very special like your feelings

Dude you're just virtue signaling. Lame.

that wasn't virtue signaling. are you drunk?

Originally posted by Surtur
Dude you're just virtue signaling. Lame.

refusing to submit my ethical/moral/emotional stance on a topic is the exact opposite of so-called "virtue signalling".

what more can i conclude from this tangent, besides the apparent fact that you don't know how to pace yourself while drinking?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
refusing to submit my ethical/moral/emotional stance on a topic is the exact opposite of so-called "virtue signalling".

what more can i conclude from this tangent, besides the apparent fact that you don't know how to pace yourself while drinking?

Pretending to care about abortion is virtue signaling kid.

Stop projecting your alcoholism onto other people, I wouldn't want you to get banned

Originally posted by Surtur
Pretending to care about abortion is virtue signaling kid.

Stop projecting your alcoholism onto other people, I wouldn't want you to get banned

more time-waster ad homimen deflection. you don't even understand your own cult's buzz-words

i find it incredible this thread is 2 posters exchanging the most boring and empty shitstorm for 3 pages

I find it incredible that you believe you're above it all with a non-contribution like that

Typical american strategy: let's minimize issues from other countries in order to talk internal politics by implying other places are sh_t countries.

Surtur once again proves to be the most feminist poster in this forums

You know why people who are pro-life in America's attitude differ fundamentally from the attitude towards women in Saudi Arabia?

Because the attitude towards women in Saudi Arabia is "we need to put the whamen in their place and make them subservient," and the attitude of western pro-lifers is "Don't kill the baby."

Is Alabama known for it's feminism DMB?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
You know why people who are pro-life in America's attitude differ fundamentally from the attitude towards women in Saudi Arabia?

Because the attitude towards women in Saudi Arabia is "we need to put the whamen in their place and make them subservient," and the attitude of western pro-lifers is "Don't kill the baby."

Yeah, women are not subservient in the US, they just have to fix their most important life choices to an insensible life form disregarding whether such organism is going to be valued by society at all. That's entirely different.

Originally posted by Bentley
Typical american strategy: let's minimize issues from other countries in order to talk internal politics by implying other places are sh_t countries.

Surtur once again proves to be the most feminist poster in this forums

Just to be clear: it's not minimizing issues to imply Christians treat their women worse than Saudi Arabia treats its women...?

Cuz see, when someone does the "hold my beer" joke, it's taken to mean "What I'm about to do is gonna surpass what you did". In this case those saying it were the Christian conservatives, Christian conservatives do not surpass Saudi Arabia in their domination of women lol.

Oh and hell yeah I'm feminist as f*ck, it's why when I heard California was gonna set gender quotas for corporate boards I was like "what about the construction workers and garbage workers? Give them a piece of those sweet sweet mandatory quotas, the feminists wouldn't only want to work on corporate boards!".

Waah, waah,, waah, Alabama is ending abortions, waah, waah, waah...


Cry me a river, snowflakes.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
You know why people who are pro-life in America's attitude differ fundamentally from the attitude towards women in Saudi Arabia?

Because the attitude towards women in Saudi Arabia is "we need to put the whamen in their place and make them subservient," and the attitude of western pro-lifers is "Don't kill the baby."


Well said and spot on.

Originally posted by Surtur
Just to be clear: it's not minimizing issues to imply Christians treat their women worse than Saudi Arabia treats its women...?

Cuz see, when someone does the "hold my beer" joke, it's taken to mean "What I'm about to do is gonna surpass what you did". In this case those saying it were the Christian conservatives, Christian conservatives do not surpass Saudi Arabia in their domination of women lol.

This is pretty much what I implied, so we are in agreement here.

Originally posted by Bentley
This is pretty much what I implied, so we are in agreement here.

Legit can't tell if your posts are made with sarcasm in mind sometimes...heh lol.

The worst part is that it works just the same in real life, people who know me best are always asking the same stuff again and again to make sure if I was not teasing them

Originally posted by Bentley
Yeah, women are not subservient in the US, they just have to fix their most important life choices to an insensible life form disregarding whether such organism is going to be valued by society at all. That's entirely different.
Yes protecting a human organism from death is an entirely different reason from "wear this burka, otherwise you're a whore if you get raped" and "you can't drive because **** you." There's a reason why a large proportion of the country is pro-life, and why not even remotely that number of people are pushing for other measure's like ending women's suffrage, or not allowing women to drive, or wanting to make women sex slaves, or making it illegal for them to show their knees in public.

If anything men are subservient to women in the US under the current paradigm in this situation. The woman can just choose to end the life of a man's child, or keep it and demand money from him for child support.

Also over the past 21 years, my parents have had to fix most of their most important life choices to me... because that is what parents do and that is what is generally expected of them.

I wonder though, if a woman in SA is married and gets pregnant...she can truly just go out and get an abortion? Her husband has no say? If true, that IS shockingly progressive for SA.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yes protecting a human organism from death is an entirely different reason from "wear this burka, otherwise you're a whore if you get raped" and "you can't drive because **** you." There's a reason why a large proportion of the country is pro-life, and why not even remotely that number of people are pushing for other measure's like ending women's suffrage, or not allowing women to drive, or wanting to make women sex slaves, or making it illegal for them to show their knees in public.


I did say it's entirely different awesr


Originally posted by Emperordmb
If anything men are subservient to women in the US under the current paradigm in this situation. The woman can just choose to end the life of a man's child, or keep it and demand money from him for child support.


There is a difficult balance to achieve because being servant to others is not exactly a linear process. Your example about the parents/child relationship is a good one: by not having to work for several years you reaped benefits off your parents efforts but you certainly did not had the same liberties and your responsabilities were different. Women used to have several big benefits when they were dedicated housewives that have been slowly disappearing for decades. Being able to leave a healthy, rich and protected life just by getting married was a big boon.

So I'd argue that even in past paradigms men were subservient to women.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Also over the past 21 years, my parents have had to fix most of their most important life choices to me... because that is what parents do and that is what is generally expected of them.


And you thanks them by coming to this sh_thole of a forum!

Originally posted by Bentley
Yeah, women are not subservient in the US, they just have to fix their most important life choices to an insensible life form disregarding whether such organism is going to be valued by society at all. That's entirely different.

By "insensible life form" do you mean "unborn human child"?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
By "insensible life form" do you mean "unborn human child"?

Yes, I meant exactly that: a bunch of animal cells incapable of processing suffering or pain.

Originally posted by Bentley
Yes, I meant exactly that: a bunch of animal cells incapable of processing suffering or pain.

Only as much an animal as you or I. Does that mean we have equal value of life to that of a rat or mosquito?

Humans are not animals regardless of what Bentley or any other abortion advocate may think. Humans are clearly seperate and far above any animal. I know that is one of the primary goals of brainwashing students with this evolutionary nonsense: to get them to believe they are merely animals and so they are justified in acting like animals and that abortion is no big deal because it is "just an animal" in the mother's womb but it is a lie. It is a human being from conception.


Ernst Haekel's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" which was based on his fake drawings was proven to be a hoax way back in the late 1800's yet it is still in biology books today as so-called "proof" of evolution nonsense.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Only as much an animal as you or I. Does that mean we have equal value of life to that of a rat or mosquito?

I see where you are going: mass extinction of species is truly the biggest issue of our time.

In a more serious note, you are spot on in one the notion that we don't value all life equally. Death is a natural reality and we demonize it. Somehow we are convinced that killing someone is a bigger penalty that putting him in jail for two thirds of their lifespan. We are unable to see Death as a socially acceptable outcome which is problematic because dying is personal and social interest targets whole communities

Originally posted by Bentley
I see where you are going: mass extinction of species is truly the biggest issue of our time.

In a more serious note, you are spot on in one the notion that we don't value all life equally. Death is a natural reality and we demonize it. Somehow we are convinced that killing someone is a bigger penalty that putting him in jail for two thirds of their lifespan. We are unable to see Death as a socially acceptable outcome which is problematic because dying is personal and social interest targets whole communities

That is a very strange reply to a very basic comment and question on your choice of words. None of what I said implied nor pointed to any of that.

Maybe address the comment/question directly and not leap light years ahead of the discussion?

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Humans are not animals regardless of what Bentley or any other abortion advocate may think. Humans are clearly seperate and far above any animal. I know that is one of the primary goals of brainwashing students with this evolutionary nonsense: to get them to believe they are merely animals and so they are justified in acting like animals and that abortion is no big deal because it is "just an animal" in the mother's womb but it is a lie. It is a human being from conception.


Ernst Haekel's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" which was based on his fake drawings was proven to be a hoax way back in the late 1800's yet it is still in biology books today as so-called "proof" of evolution nonsense.

The mental gymnastics we use to justify violence against animals are also used to marginalize humans.

I find it funny when christians think it's insulting to be an animal when our God in full dignity and might became a mammal for salvation

Originally posted by Bentley
The mental gymnastics we use to justify violence against animals are also used to marginalize humans.

I find it funny when christians think it's insulting to be an animal when our God in full dignity and might became a mammal for salvation


Uh, God Himself said we are made in His image. God is not an animal and He took on the form of a human being because the first person, Adam, was a human being (created straight from the hand of God, Himself. Adam didn't "evolve" from lower life forms, God got it perfect the first time as an infallible God should). We may be classified as "mammals" according to our classification of living things but it's obvious God doesn't use the same classification system we do.


Any yes, it is insulting to call someone an animal unless of course they are actually acting like animals and thus deserve the label.

Originally posted by Bentley
I see where you are going: mass extinction of species is truly the biggest issue of our time.

In a more serious note, you are spot on in one the notion that we don't value all life equally. Death is a natural reality and we demonize it. Somehow we are convinced that killing someone is a bigger penalty that putting him in jail for two thirds of their lifespan. We are unable to see Death as a socially acceptable outcome which is problematic because dying is personal and social interest targets whole communities





People decry the elderly for siphoning up medical resources, instead of accepting that they've lived their life, and they won't get many more years for all the money being spent on maintaining them.


People criticize families that can't think to "pull the plug" on a loved one who's become a "vegetable".


Some, in my experience, draw a distinction between allowing one to die by doing nothing (Such as giving a child medical care that would cure an early form of cancer, against a parents wish's) compared to killing someone. (Natural evil vs moral evil, they call it.)




I mean, you'd have to look long and hard to find anyone among the l members of the left who really gets worked up about a minority group in some far off country being gassed, in the same way they get upset about alt-right people saying someone offensive (Or how the right gets upset about the left being offended, compared to all that "collateral damage" to protect "US interests."


Hell, I'm not even convinced most in the pro life movement really care about the lives they claim to protect. They wouldn't be so happy to allow people to die of a myriad of other reasons, as they do.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
That is a very strange reply to a very basic comment and question on your choice of words. None of what I said implied nor pointed to any of that.

Maybe address the comment/question directly and not leap light years ahead of the discussion?

Sorry for trying to keep myself entertained here ahah

I don't think I'd save a rat or a mosquito over you. Unless the context is terribly rigged.

For starters you participate of human society and they wouldn't.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Uh, God Himself said we are made in His image. God is not an animal and He took on the form of a human being because the first person, Adam, was a human being (created straight from the hand of God, Himself. Adam didn't "evolve" from lower life forms, God got it perfect the first time as an infallible God should). We may be classified as "mammals" according to our classification of living things but it's obvious God doesn't use the same classification system we do.


Any yes, it is insulting to call someone an animal unless of course they are actually acting like animals and thus deserve the label.

We are made from cells like animals. Every living cell dies and corrupts over time, as mammals we defecate, we ingest corpses and copulate. The fact that Divinity Itself embodied such an organism implies there is nothing insulting about those natural processes which we share with most animals. I find it distasteful to imply animals have no similar dignity to ours when the Bible clearly states they were good in the eyes of God and they are explicitly saved by his hand in the Ark.

But to be fair the metphysics of animality is pretty poor in christianity.

Strange isn't it, Bentley, how God didn't lift a finger when He created the universe and other living things besides man? He simply spoke and the atoms of the universe lined-up to do His bidding. When He created man, however, He took a more up-and-close intimate role in doing so. He formed man directly from the dust of the ground with His hands and literally breathed into his nostrils to create the very first man-- Adam.


It's almost like He was trying to convey to us that, yes, man is much more special than the animals since He took the time to actually use His hands in creating us and with the animals He merely spoke.

Oh, and I never really said the animals aren't special in any way. Of course they are, they are part of God's creation but they are not as special as humans and that is clear from scripture and from the different methods God used in how He created man vs how He created animals. So please don't put words in my mouth. I love pretty much all of God's animals (except reptiles, lol). I have three cats, after all. If I didn't like animals, I wouldn't have any animals of any kind now would I?

Originally posted by Bentley
Sorry for trying to keep myself entertained here ahah

I don't think I'd save a rat or a mosquito over you. Unless the context is terribly rigged.

For starters you participate of human society and they wouldn't.

What's the relevance on my participation in human society tho? Is that the metric you would use in determining my value of life?

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Oh, and I never really said the animals aren't special in any way. Of course they are, they are part of God's creation but they are not as special as humans and that is clear from scripture and from the different methods God used in how He created man vs how He created animals. So please don't put words in my mouth. I love pretty much all of God's animals (except reptiles, lol). I have three cats, after all. If I didn't like animals, I wouldn't have any animals of any kind now would I?

Fair enough, as I said, for me the carrying a negative conotation for the word animal feeds a certain moral barrier that we carry due to human history and I'm not attached to entertaining those notions. If your beliefs allow you to be a good christian I support you on believing what gets you closer to God, my observations don't have any ill intention towards your faith.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
What's the relevance on my participation in human society tho? Is that the metric you would use in determining my value of life?

Mmmh... It's a fair question and I have no simple answer for that. I do believe western morality it's very explicitly linked with social responsablility, specifically it's obviously a central element in christian tradition. But I'm not sure if this is an element that participates in why we care for life itself. For you to be a "good man" in my eyes you need to care for others but if you were a "bad man" would your life be any less important? I'm not so sure.

As far as society goes I think there is definitively a link between the value of life and participation in human society though.

Originally posted by Bentley
Mmmh... It's a fair question and I have no simple answer for that. I do believe western morality it's very explicitly linked with social responsablility, specifically it's obviously a central element in christian tradition. But I'm not sure if this is an element that participates in why we care for life itself. For you to be a "good man" in my eyes you need to care for others but if you were a "bad man" would your life be any less important? I'm not so sure.

As far as society goes I think there is definitively a link between the value of life and participation in human society though.

Children and babies have very little social value IF you look at their direct contributions to society. Does this diminish their value of life in your eyes?

Originally posted by Bentley
Fair enough, as I said, for me the carrying a negative conotation for the word animal feeds a certain moral barrier that we carry due to human history and I'm not attached to entertaining those notions. If your beliefs allow you to be a good christian I support you on believing what gets you closer to God, my observations don't have any ill intention towards your faith.



Hmmm... I would say thank you and let it (our little discussion) end except for the fact it seems like you are claiming my belief in creation is based entirely on faith and no observations while your belief in evolution is based entirely on observation and "science" and no faith.


If that is, in fact, what you were claiming then I'm sorry but you're wrong. If you weren't trying to say that then my apologies. It's just that I've seen plenty of debates on You Tube between creationists and evolutionists and usually the latter tries to claim their belief in evolution is based on "observation" and so-called "scientific facts" and yet they don't actually show any lol and that the creationsts are all dumb or whatever because they "just don't understand evolution" or some similar such nonsense.


I will end the discussion on this particular issue between us here anyway because I don't want the topic derailed.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Children and babies have very little social value IF you look at their direct contributions to society. Does this diminish their value of life in your eyes?


Children and babies are huge targets for several different industries, they get a lot of mileage as far as the economy goes. Their impact on society is massive.

It's implied by the fact they have less freedom that their value is less socially relevant that an adult (since the latter can impact a whole family by its actions). We do treat them as second rate human life forms.

Do I personally think they are less valuable? Maybe? I'm still not fully clear on what makes Life an important thing for me. Experience does play its part and kids tend to have lesser life experience but that's not always the case. As I said before, it's hard to compare the sheer value of one life to another at any given point.

Babies are racist, evil, and sometimes commit murder.

This information has to be accurate, I read it on cracked.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Hmmm... I would say thank you and let it (our little discussion) end except for the fact it seems like you are claiming my belief in creation is based entirely on faith and no observations while your belief in evolution is based entirely on observation and "science" and no faith.


If that is, in fact, what you were claiming then I'm sorry but you're wrong. If you weren't trying to say that then my apologies. It's just that I've seen plenty of debates on You Tube between creationists and evolutionists and usually the latter tries to claim their belief in evolution is based on "observation" and so-called "scientific facts" and yet they don't actually show any lol and that the creationsts are all dumb or whatever because they "just don't understand evolution" or some similar such nonsense.


I will end the discussion on this particular issue between us here anyway because I don't want the topic derailed.

The historical notion I referred to is not necessarily dependant on evolution or creationism, it's more about what I mentioned earlier: the systems we use to ignore and perpetuate animal suffering are similar to those we use to allow human abuse. If we provided animals with more dignity we would surely stop throwing humans under the bus with them.

Originally posted by Bentley
1) Children and babies are huge targets for several different industries, they get a lot of mileage as far as the economy goes. Their impact on society is massive.

2) It's implied by the fact they have less freedom that their value is less socially relevant that an adult (since the latter can impact a whole family by its actions). We do treat them as second rate human life forms.

3) Do I personally think they are less valuable? Maybe? I'm still not fully clear on what makes Life an important thing for me. Experience does play its part and kids tend to have lesser life experience but that's not always the case. As I said before, it's hard to compare the sheer value of one life to another at any given point.

1) If that is your basis, then there is a HUGE industry for the unborn. Pre-natal care, vitamins, doctor visits for ultrasound, nutrition, clothes for expectant mothers, parenting books (w/c are bought prior to birth and not after), etc. I would say I spent far more money pre-birth (and up to point-of-birth) than I did directly post-birth if you consider spent money relative to time.

Does that mean that pre-birth children have more value than directly post-birth according to your metric?

Strange logic, tbh. Personally, one's $$ value should not be the metric that determines value of life to society. But that's me.

2) I disagree. Children have less choice compared to an adult because they are unable to make intelligent decisions for themselves, thus a guardian that can make these decisions are needed. But their value of life (w/c is separate from their individual freedoms) to society is at the very least equal or even seen as more valuable. Or haven't you heard of "women and children first"? Do you not notice that children's deaths make disasters far more tragic?

This is a very strange train of thought I must say. But I am willing to see how deep your logic hole goes.

3) You say you do not fully understand what the value is. Do you think perhaps you undervalue it? Do you think this might contribute to your somewhat callous perception on innocent life?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
There's a reason why a large proportion of the country is pro-life, and why not even remotely that number of people are pushing for other measure's like ending women's suffrage, or not allowing women to drive, or wanting to make women sex slaves, or making it illegal for them to show their knees in public.

They have to start somewhere.

Indeed, today you can't kill babies...tomorrow? Good luck leaving your home without a man accompanying you!

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
hardline muslims: we're gonna pass sharia law to control and dominate our women

christian conservatives: hold my beer

The similarities between these two is undeniable.

Originally posted by Robtard
The similarities between these two is undeniable.

Name all the similarities between how christian conservatives treat women and how saudi arabia does

Are you going to follow me into every thread I post in today and make some hissy-pissy-sissy reply?

Originally posted by Robtard
Are you going to follow me into every thread I post in today and make some hissy-pissy-sissy reply?

How dare I respond to posts you publicly make

LOL. Rob is upset because he knows he can't give you a legitimate answer.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
LOL. Rob is upset because he knows he can't give you a legitimate answer.

He does this "you're following me" tactic sometimes when he has no answer. He's furiously googling now to find anything he can spin that will make what he said true lol.

Oh, I don't doubt it lol.

eat

Weak response. Is that all you've got, robbie?

Originally posted by gold slorg
i find it incredible this thread is 2 posters exchanging the most boring and empty shitstorm for 3 pages

I've tried. You can't get through to them when they get like this.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
1) I think the very foundation of your logic is deeply flawed. You seem to forget that society is made up of many individuals and that the value of life is even more inherent on the person, than those around him/her (essentially, even when no one values a life, there is still one person who values it: the person whose life it is). My child might be far more valuable to me because I care about her but another person's child does not have less value to society just because the parent loves her less.

Society values the life of the individual because each individual (who, en masse, composes society) is assumed to value their own life (as such a need for self-preservation is encoded into our biology). There might not be "equal" valuation on how much one's life is valued by indviduals around them but society should always value all life within this baseline at the minimum.

I agree with what you just said when it comes to its logic.

The point of contention is here: "there is still one person who values it: the person whose life it is". That assumption is not always true and the concept of self is not fully developped at early stages of human life. I'm not saying society shouldn't respect or protect these lives, I'm just pointing out we are working from a principle.

I believe that in an ideal society abortion shouldn't exist.


Originally posted by Nibedicus
The difference between the lack of agency between slavery and raising kids is that children are incapable of making their own choices because they are unable to understand what they are doing or are fully unable to function on their own thus someone needs to guide them in order to preserve their life/safety/mental health (essentially, we teach our children and we discipline them to protect them and make teach them how to survive). While slaves are aware of their choices and their choices are simply taken away by force.

This is an interesting topic but I feel it somewhat strays from what we want to discuss since I conceeded already that we do treat kids as a valuable entity of sorts.

Infancy is somewhat of an historical novelty since previously mortality rates were pretty high for kids and they were considered differently. I don't believe we have fully strayed from the bad habits from that traditional model.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Kinda like how the choice to life is taken away from an aborted child.

Well, I'm not sure if Life can be considered a choice from the children's perspective without a conscience or responsabilities. It's certainly a biological imperative. Ultimately it doesn't matter to our discussion though, even if the embryo actively desired death we wouldn't let it because "we know better".

(We wouldn't let a slave kill himself either if we can avoid it, that's non agency for you)


Originally posted by Nibedicus
3) And thus their value of life is seen (at times) as even greater than that of full grown adults w/c is what I have been saying.


If the value of life is social then it makes sense for it to be highly dependant on context.


Originally posted by Nibedicus
4) Perhaps your methodology is flawed? Because the very premise of it is flawed? From what I am seeing above, that may well be the case.


The thoughts I'm sharing are not meant to be incompatible with our current moral principles which I believe to be mostly on point. I'm simply of the opinion that principles cannot be the end of ethics because in practice there will never be perfect responsability.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I disagree. Death is always intrinsically bad, to the individual. The need for self-preservation is hard-wired to our biology (and I would argue this is one of the things that make a life, a life).


And we are also hardwired to make off-spring but the planet suffers from overpopulation and we are mass killing animals due to our quest for individual wellbeing. What is good for every individual is not always good for society as a whole.

No, the planet is not over-populated. That is a lie, Bentley, pushed by those who want to drastically reduce the population of this planet.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
No, the planet is not over-populated. That is a lie, Bentley, pushed by those who want to drastically reduce the population of this planet.


How so? Be specific, give examples and statistics as well as long term projections

It is not op'ed, and nothing you say will convince me otherwise so do yourself a favor by saving yourself some time & effort.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
, and nothing you say will convince me otherwise


Exactly why I no longer get in drawn out debates on the internet nor do I usually discuss politics even in person

You can google this stuff. No need to ask people on KMC to answer the question of overpopulation, which we've known is not the case for decades.

We do have a distribution problem, however.

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
How so? Be specific, give examples and statistics as well as long term projections

Maybe this will interest you:

https://overpopulationisamyth.com/episode-1-overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth/

You could fit the entire population of Earth into Texas.

Originally posted by Bentley
1) I agree with what you just said when it comes to its logic.

The point of contention is here: "there is still one person who values it: the person whose life it is". That assumption is not always true and the concept of self is not fully developped at early stages of human life. I'm not saying society shouldn't respect or protect these lives, I'm just pointing out we are working from a principle.

2) I believe that in an ideal society abortion shouldn't exist.

3) This is an interesting topic but I feel it somewhat strays from what we want to discuss since I conceeded already that we do treat kids as a valuable entity of sorts.

4) Infancy is somewhat of an historical novelty since previously mortality rates were pretty high for kids and they were considered differently. I don't believe we have fully strayed from the bad habits from that traditional model.

5) Well, I'm not sure if Life can be considered a choice from the children's perspective without a conscience or responsabilities. It's certainly a biological imperative. Ultimately it doesn't matter to our discussion though, even if the embryo actively desired death we wouldn't let it because "we know better".

(We wouldn't let a slave kill himself either if we can avoid it, that's non agency for you)

6) If the value of life is social then it makes sense for it to be highly dependant on context.

7) The thoughts I'm sharing are not meant to be incompatible with our current moral principles which I believe to be mostly on point. I'm simply of the opinion that principles cannot be the end of ethics because in practice there will never be perfect responsability.

8) And we are also hardwired to make off-spring but the planet suffers from overpopulation and we are mass killing animals due to our quest for individual wellbeing. What is good for every individual is not always good for society as a whole.

1) The exceptions are those that fall inside mental illness or those who are undergoing suffering worse than death (or a combination of both). What other exceptions can you cite w/c would make this assumption "not always true"? I would like to know because I cannot think of any.

And even when sense of self isn't fully developed, you cannot deny that our biology WANTS us to live. That is why we breathe, eat, drink, etc. That is why the fetus will consume nutrients from the mother. If anything, the choice to live is the very first and greatest choice we ever make.

2) It shouldn't. There are extreme cases where it is medically necessary but beyond that, no. But of course, I am willing to concede on rape/incest/etc. as I do understand that there is always a chance I can be on the wrong here so I feel that it is a compromise I can live with.

3) "Of sorts" is simply downplaying the obvious IMO. They have the same value as you and I.

4) I really don't know why you use downplay language in describing children ("of sorts", "novelty" and "animal". I find this kind of language rather disengenuous. If one believes in what they are doing then they should not try and decieve themselves over the truths behind their beliefs. One is free to be pro-choice but at the very least one should grant the victims of abortion their humanity.

You actually go one step further and use downplay language on actual children (see 3). Can't even begin to grasp where your logic is coming from.

Overpopulation or no, valuing life is not a "bad habit" (that's psychopath logic). You would want society to put as much value to your life as you do and society should expect the same from you towards your fellow members.

5) Embryos aren't naturally hardwired to desire death unless there is some huge tragical mishap in the pregnancy. Again, arguing extremes/abberations shouldn't really be a foundation for logical thought IMO.

Again, a slave wanting to kill himself is due to his suffering. A slave owner's power over his slave is an injustice, something we do not want in a just society, I'm assuming. I find the premise where you are using an injustice as a reference on how value of life is measured in (a supposedly just) society to be deeply deeply flawed.

6) No, the value of life is biological, philosophical, spiritual and ethical and more, it is not just one thing. Life has been discussed in far more than simply social sciences. Society is only relevant in our discussion because we are discussing mutual respect of life.

7) Why is "perfect responsibility" required? Why can't we can just start with the golden rule (do unto others and all that) and move on from there? Mutual respect for value of life should be our benchmark, everything can come after that.

8) That is a problem for those who have choice and agency to solve. But such should not include methods that tear the choice away from others when there are better choices available.

Originally posted by Surtur
Maybe this will interest you:

https://overpopulationisamyth.com/episode-1-overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth/

You could fit the entire population of Earth into Texas.

I know the population/Texas model. I also know the effects of negative population growth on "economic growth" (deflation models etc). I guess it just depends on what kind of a world you want. Did you know that humans are the ONLY species of mammal, and this includes rats and mice, that are currently increasing in number? and 95% of mammal biomass on earth is for agribusiness. Most other non mammal species are on the decline as well.

Taking non humans out of the equation the world already has a serious problem with potable water, a situation that is only projected to seriously get worse in the coming decades, then there's rising sea levels which will displace some 2 billion over the next century or so. It goes on and on. But, I guess Mars is an option.

Originally posted by Surtur
Maybe this will interest you:

https://overpopulationisamyth.com/episode-1-overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth/

You could fit the entire population of Earth into Texas.


As the video pointed out, you could even fit them all inside Texas with their own houses. Fact is , you could fit the entire earth's population inside city of Jacksonville, Florida although it would be quite crowded and uncomfortable lol.



Usually though, those who think the world is op think that because of supposed resource shortages (i,e, not enough food to feed everyone) but that is a lie also.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae ]As the video pointed out, you could even fit them all inside Texas with their own housesl.





I'm all for it. Let's move everyone in the world to Texas, and give them their own house

The restrictive abortion laws in this country are a direct result of the failing education systems that hesitate to address evolution, health, genetics, and a variety of other "politicized" topics that only are so in this country.

Using dehumanizing language to describe actual dehumanization is not an absurdity nor a dishonesty. I'm not trying to provide a logic that "fits" injustice but to talk in a way that showcases it openly so it doesn't become just the absence of a better thing.

When entering an abortion debate people will talk about choice, about whether someone owns their body and when does human life "start" having value. For me those are red herrings. My goal here is to provide the grounds that illustrate each aspect of these arguments and provide a paradigm that is common for people that are in the opposite sides of the discussion.

I'm not picking semantics here because I get some sadistic pleasure from overusing language, most of the differences I highlight are something people build their ethics upon (without fully realizing it at times). There is a link of ideas you just illustrated in your last reply that would be a good example of this process I'm describing, I'll gladly develop it tomorrow, but I'm very tired at the moment.

Originally posted by TempAccount
The restrictive abortion laws in this country are a direct result of the failing education systems that hesitate to address evolution, health, genetics, and a variety of other "politicized" topics that only are so in this country.

Yeah, but Saudi Arabia is a f*cking shithole though lol.

It is super silly to attempt any kind of gotcha with the Saudis in comparison to Christian conservatives. Jesus lol, what was the OP thinking? TDS is not good for the soul.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah, but Saudi Arabia is a f*cking shithole though lol.

It is super silly to attempt any kind of gotcha with the Saudis in comparison to Christian conservatives. Jesus lol, what was the OP thinking? TDS is not good for the soul. Depends what you are doing in Saudi tbh, I enjoyed my time there and found it an easy place to live.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah, but Saudi Arabia is a f*cking shithole though lol.

It is super silly to attempt any kind of gotcha with the Saudis in comparison to Christian conservatives. Jesus lol, what was the OP thinking? TDS is not good for the soul.



Most leftists don't appear to actually have a soul though. If they do, they're very sick and twisted ones. They support mass infantacide, after all.

Originally posted by Bentley
1) Using dehumanizing language to describe actual dehumanization is not an absurdity nor a dishonesty.

2) I'm not trying to provide a logic that "fits" injustice but to talk in a way that showcases it openly so it doesn't become just the absence of a better thing.

3) When entering an abortion debate people will talk about choice, about whether someone owns their body and when does human life "start" having value. For me those are red herrings. My goal here is to provide the grounds that illustrate each aspect of these arguments and provide a paradigm that is common for people that are in the opposite sides of the discussion.

4) I'm not picking semantics here because I get some sadistic pleasure from overusing language, most of the differences I highlight are something people build their ethics upon (without fully realizing it at times). There is a link of ideas you just illustrated in your last reply that would be a good example of this process I'm describing, I'll gladly develop it tomorrow, but I'm very tired at the moment.

You have set some lofty goals for the discussion but I the direction that your replies are taking you isn't anywhere close to the direction you purport to want to take it.

1) Using dehumanization language to describe actual dehumanization implies that you agree with me that the fetus is indeed being dehumanized. If such dehumanization is something that you acknowledge exists, then how does your use of such language help alleviate this? IF your direction is not to alleviate this injustice then what exactly is your goal?

2) You used the injustice of the loss of agency due to slavery as a metric to base the value of life of a child when we were discussing what socially-acceptable metrics for the valuation of life of a child should be based on. I feel that is more than simply "showcasing it", it is participating in it (albeit in a very minor near insignificant way).

3) I do not see where you showcased this new paradigm you are talking about. As far as I can read, it has all been about devaluing the life of a child via one absurd language/metric to another. If this is indeed your goal, feel free to get started at any time, however.

4) Well, I will wait until you find the time to properly elaborate your point then as I don't really quite get what you are trying to achieve with your logic and use of language.

I've seen some smoking hot Arabian women though.

I don't think this thread accounted for that enough. 3/10

Originally posted by StyleTime
I've seen some smoking hot Arabian women though.

I don't think this thread accounted for that enough. 3/10 I loved with a Moroccan Arab girl for two years and she was smoking hot as hell. My present wife is Quarter Arabic.

Originally posted by StyleTime
I've seen some smoking hot Arabian women though.


That is probably true but I can assure you from living here myself that Alabama has a Hell of a lot of fine-looking women as well. Of course it also has some ugly women too as pretty much all states do to some extent and I'm certain Saudi Arabia has as well.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah, but Saudi Arabia is a f*cking shithole though lol.

It is super silly to attempt any kind of gotcha with the Saudis in comparison to Christian conservatives. Jesus lol, what was the OP thinking? TDS is not good for the soul. Ain't it funny how the US will lose its shit over Syria and Assad's alleged human rights violations, yet we turn a yuge blind eye to the public decapitations, hangings, lashing, inhumane treatment, corrupt justice system, etc that take place in Saudi Land.

Originally posted by StyleTime
I've seen some smoking hot Arabian women though.

I don't think this thread accounted for that enough. 3/10
Mia Khalifa though...

Fun fact there is a petition for Trump to make her the ambassador to Saudi Arabia

https://www.change.org/p/donald-trump-make-mia-khalifa-ambassador-to-saudi-arabia



Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
That is probably true but I can assure you from living here myself that Alabama has a Hell of a lot of fine-looking women as well. Of course it also has some ugly women too as pretty much all states do to some extent and I'm certain Saudi Arabia has as well.

Well that explains quite a lot.

Originally posted by TempAccount
Ain't it funny how the US will lose its shit over Syria and Assad's alleged human rights violations, yet we turn a yuge blind eye to the public decapitations, hangings, lashing, inhumane treatment, corrupt justice system, etc that take place in Saudi Land.


Mia Khalifa though...

Fun fact there is a petition for Trump to make her the ambassador to Saudi Arabia

https://www.change.org/p/donald-trump-make-mia-khalifa-ambassador-to-saudi-arabia


Well that explains quite a lot.


Oh, indeed dude. It explains why I actually have morals and why I'm not a left-wing dipshit supporter of baby murder and wide-open borders lunacy.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Oh, indeed dude. It explains why I actually have morals and why I'm not a left-wing dipshit supporter of baby murder and wide-open borders lunacy. A zygote is not a baby though...

Of course I wouldn't expect you to know that given your residence in a shit-hole sorry-excuse-of-a-state ranked second to last in terms of overall quality of life and 45th in quality of education.

Makes sense why Forrest Gump is from there really.

Originally posted by TempAccount
A zygote is not a baby though...

Of course I wouldn't expect you to know that given your residence in a shit-hole sorry-excuse-of-a-state ranked second to last in terms of overall quality of life and 45th in quality of education.

Makes sense why Forrest Gump is from there really.


It is a human life at conception; that is a fact.


Uh... FG is a fictional character, moron, in a fictional movie lol.

he means exactly the reason why would the movie's writer put Forrest Gump as coming from that state lol

The writer was obviously a f***ing moron who believes all the bs propaganda put out by leftist media and the snobs in Hollywood who propagate the lie that all southerners are dumb and illiterate. Also, anyone who does believe that propaganda are morons themselves and shows just how easily they can be brainwashed.

i mean, statistics above support the "propaganda" tbh

Originally posted by gold slorg
i mean, statistics above support the "propaganda" tbh


Tbh, it's clear now that you are a moron as well... and a troll. No doubt if we all happened to support baby murder, open borders, socialism, believed in so-called "man-made" climate change nonsense, and that humans all "evolved" from monkeys (lmao) bs then you wouldn't be saying that but since we don't share the same political views and religious beliefs you do you insult us all in typical leftist fashion by calling us dumb. What a shock.

surprise: i can be both moron and a troll and still be right tho

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Tbh, it's clear now that you are a moron as well... and a troll. No doubt if we all happened to support baby murder, open borders, socialism, believed in so-called "man-made" climate change nonsense, and that humans all "evolved" from monkeys (lmao) bs then you wouldn't be saying that but since we don't share the same political views and religious beliefs you do you insult us all in typical leftist fashion by calling us dumb. What a shock.



Also, as someone who lives here myself and lived here for most of my life I can say with absolute certainty that a very small percentage of the overall population is as mentally deficient as the character of FG. So F- you and your bogus "stats." Do we have dumb people? Yes. I'd be lying if I said otherwise but so does every other state in the union.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
I loved with a Moroccan Arab girl for two years and she was smoking hot as hell. My present wife is Quarter Arabic.
Nice. And Morocco has some cuties for sure. Pretty diverse place too.
Originally posted by TempAccount

Mia Khalifa though...

Fun fact there is a petition for Trump to make her the ambassador to Saudi Arabia

https://www.change.org/p/donald-trump-make-mia-khalifa-ambassador-to-saudi-arabia
Really? I feel like that won't go over too well. She already gets death threats from the Middle East just for the porn thing. Lol
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
That is probably true but I can assure you from living here myself that Alabama has a Hell of a lot of fine-looking women as well. Of course it also has some ugly women too as pretty much all states do to some extent and I'm certain Saudi Arabia has as well.
Yeah, I'm mostly lightening the mood. The reality is that all types of people exist everywhere. Attractive, funny, mean, kind, boring, lazy, ambitious, etc.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
It is a human life at conception; that is a fact.


Uh... FG is a fictional character, moron, in a fictional movie lol. An embryo is nothing more than a dividing clump of cells for the first 8 weeks. It is not any more human than a petri dish of bacteria.

Also why so many fat-f*cks in Alabama? Seems to correlate with the sh1t schools, economy, and poverty.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
You have set some lofty goals for the discussion but I the direction that your replies are taking you isn't anywhere close to the direction you purport to want to take it.

1) Using dehumanization language to describe actual dehumanization implies that you agree with me that the fetus is indeed being dehumanized. If such dehumanization is something that you acknowledge exists, then how does your use of such language help alleviate this? IF your direction is not to alleviate this injustice then what exactly is your goal?

2) You used the injustice of the loss of agency due to slavery as a metric to base the value of life of a child when we were discussing what socially-acceptable metrics for the valuation of life of a child should be based on. I feel that is more than simply "showcasing it", it is participating in it (albeit in a very minor near insignificant way).

If you just say "we value the life of a kid" that does not suggest what we are doing wrong with them. We cannot stop talking about ethics with truisms like "Life has value", it serves no argumental purpose. Saying thing like "you dehumanize a fetus" is not advancing the matter either. And I'm not saying the things above are inaccurate, I'm just pointing out they don't get us a deeper understanding of the ethical implications we advance.

I do understand the risks of employing a very wide language that allows to question deeply engrained cultural values. This kind of argumentation that is not supposed to be a teaching tool but a device to allow argumentation and debating. It should make the position we have clear and better fix limits.

Yesterday's example:

Needs = keeping life
Choices = something beyond mere living

Making a difference between Needs and Choices is an effort to narrow down biological life.

You said it yourself: Life has value beyond resisting Death. But many will find that embryos are "just" refusing Death, hence participating in an action that is but a fraction of the living that is conceived as valuable. Which is something those same people wouldn't allow themselves to do concerning most adults

Originally posted by Bentley
1) If you just say "we value the life of a kid" that does not suggest what we are doing wrong with them. We cannot stop talking about ethics with truisms like "Life has value", it serves no argumental purpose. Saying thing like "you dehumanize a fetus" is not advancing the matter either. And I'm not saying the things above are inaccurate, I'm just pointing out they don't get us a deeper understanding of the ethical implications we advance.

2) I do understand the risks of employing a very wide language that allows to question deeply engrained cultural values. This kind of argumentation that is not supposed to be a teaching tool but a device to allow argumentation and debating. It should make the position we have clear and better fix limits.

3) Yesterday's example:

Needs = keeping life
Choices = something beyond mere living

Making a difference between Needs and Choices is an effort to narrow down biological life.

4) You said it yourself: Life has value beyond resisting Death. But many will find that embryos are "just" refusing Death, hence participating in an action that is but a fraction of the living that is conceived as valuable. Which is something those same people wouldn't allow themselves to do concerning most adults

1) You say that you aim to advance the discussion and criticize my points as not moving the discussion yet offer no insight that moves the discussion forward.

If you are trying to advance some form of deeper ethical understanding, then maybe you should get started?

2) What do you mean by "risks" and why is it suddenly relevant in our discussion?

We use certain language because our use of words define our beliefs. Language that seeks to downplay the value of human life (all human life) when it is connected to the act of destroys it is disingenuous, hypocritical and its most extreme: dangerous. This has been done in order to minimize the true impact of heinous acts such as slavery (where they are treated as property) and the holocaust (where jews were seen as vermin) and make them easier to commit.

3) I do not know where you are getting your definitions from but people can want to live too. Need and want are not mutually exclusive. Want is about desire and need is about imperative. But one can desire what is imperative.

Again, this obsession with irrelevant semantics makes me feel like this entire debate is just one big fat red herring. Are you trying to get anywhere with this?

4) Sigh. We evolve and grow as human beings. We are as much about our potential as we are about our current state. But the current state of the fetus only allows for simplistic choices as one's choices expand as they mature. However, a fetus, being the most simplistic form human life can take can only make the most simple choice = the innate biological choice/need/want to live. You are conflating a fetus' ability to only make simplistic choices with its value as a human being. We are not simply valuable based on the choices we are able to immediately make. Again, your logic is flawed from the very onset because you refuse to see past the flawed metric you are proposing.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
3) I do not know where you are getting your definitions from but people can want to live too. Need and want are not mutually exclusive. Want is about desire and need is about imperative. But one can desire what is imperative.

Your position consists in saying there is no meaningful difference between needing and wanting something. But human ethics are still entirely dependant on responsability. Actions taken for survival are evaluated very differently than open decisions. And they do not belong to an inferior category.

If someone aknowledges needs and choices aren't the same thing, then they should also accept that needs are touched by a higher level of personal ethics. Saying an embryo "decides" to live is weakening its position due to wordplay.

The value of life is often linked to freedom of choice, but not always in the right way.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
We are not simply valuable based on the choices we are able to immediately make.

Projecting into the future is something very ingrained in human minds so this can be a compelling argument. As a common ground argument it suffers from the fact we have difficulties transforming something deemed sub-human into a full human. Take a criminal for example: many people with struggle to accept that someone who served prison can become a positive functioning member of society (even when it's obviously possible).

I'd like to build an argument that gives value to life without being terribly dependant on freedom so the embryos are never set into the category of subhumanity to begin with.

Originally posted by Bentley
1) Your position consists in saying there is no meaningful difference between needing and wanting something. But human ethics are still entirely dependant on responsability. Actions taken for survival are evaluated very differently than open decisions. And they do not belong to an inferior category.

If someone aknowledges needs and choices aren't the same thing, then they should also accept that needs are touched by a higher level of personal ethics. Saying an embryo "decides" to live is weakening its position due to wordplay.

The value of life is often linked to freedom of choice, but not always in the right way.

2) Projecting into the future is something very ingrained in human minds so this can be a compelling argument. As a common ground argument it suffers from the fact we have difficulties transforming something deemed sub-human into a full human. Take a criminal for example: many people with struggle to accept that someone who served prison can become a positive functioning member of society (even when it's obviously possible).

I'd like to build an argument that gives value to life without being terribly dependant on freedom so the embryos are never set into the category of subhumanity to begin with.

1). AFAIK, the capacity to take responsibility for one's actions is not a metric for the value of human life. You are conflating the two. And I cannot fathom where you made the connection. Must be a branch of philosophy and ethics I am unfamiliar with (I am a layman after all).

And my primary position is NOT that needs and wants are the same, it is that the definition is irrelevant as the point is that life seeks (whether you define as want or need or choice or whatever) to live by its very nature and we do not have the right to take this away unless we want to live within the same standard of value of life. We give others the same benefit of urgency for the value of their own life the same way we expect them to be considerate of our own life.

You are insisting on something I am not saying and are simply insisting that we push the discussion towards a direction I am not even interested in making.

2). And this is where our disconnect lies. You accept the presumption of the fetus as subhuman until proven human. I am of the thought that the fetus was human to begin with. My basis: DNA and future potential. A lot of things actually make sense now. Your use of language especially. :-/

Criminals are not subhumans either.....! People might use it on the figurative sense but not the literal definition of it.

:-/ Are you being serious here?

You keep saying that you aim to do something but you have taken zero steps (from what I'm seeing) towards this so-called goal of yours. I have been discussing in good faith. You're gonna have to level with me. Am I getting trolled here?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
You accept the presumption of the fetus as subhuman until proven human.

I don't and I'm saddened that after all this back and forth you still think I have been this dishonest.

I aknowledge some individuals act as if fetuses were suhuman and consider those mental gymnastics accordingly. Do you think these people ignore a human embryo has future potential or that DNA exists? This doesn't stop them from actively dehumanizing the fetus. In order to counter that idea my take is that you need to understand how these processes perpetuate themselves so they can be fully dismantled.

I'm not even sure the notion of subhumanity makes sense, but that's still a concept we are forced to challenge to grow as a society.

Originally posted by TempAccount
Ain't it funny how the US will lose its shit over Syria and Assad's alleged human rights violations, yet we turn a yuge blind eye to the public decapitations, hangings, lashing, inhumane treatment, corrupt justice system, etc that take place in Saudi Land.

I agree that shit is hilarious, but so is this very topic...attempting to get a "gotcha" by using a shithole to compare it to the eeeeeeeeevil christians.

Originally posted by Bentley
I don't and I'm saddened that after all this back and forth you still think I have been this dishonest.

I aknowledge some individuals act as if fetuses were suhuman and consider those mental gymnastics accordingly. Do you think these people ignore a human embryo has future potential or that DNA exists? This doesn't stop them from actively dehumanizing the fetus. In order to counter that idea my take is that you need to understand how these processes perpetuate themselves so they can be fully dismantled.

I'm not even sure the notion of subhumanity makes sense, but that's still a concept we are forced to challenge to grow as a society.

How am I supposed to understand the processes that perpetuate dehumanization if the logical points behind these perceptions are not being presented (beyond "it exists", you have not presented any of these so-called processes from what I can see, maybe you're being too subtle about it?)?

How am I supposed to believe that you do not share this same perception when the first thing that started this debate off is your use of the same dehumanizaiton language these same individuals (as you say) are guilty of?

The problem I have with your replies is that you keep saying that you want to formulate some sort of ideal logic but I have not seen anything beyond cherrynitpicking and irrelevant semantics. You are perhaps moving this too slowly and I feel that you need to make your point.

And if such a point exists that addresses the flawed reasoning of the dehumanization crowd better than simply "we are all human and we must mutually respect each others' value of life" then I await it with bated breath.

I've brought several mechanisms on this discussion already:

- People attach value to life due to liberty (implicity taking value away from non-agents).
- People dismiss value from other life due to being different (implicitly subhuman).

I'd argue that we aren't moving towards a direction where empathy towards non agents is increased. I've heard many people throw around the term "playing victim" as an insult, heavy criticizing passive opinions of others (even when your own opinions are as stale) and all around becoming more unforgiving towards past errors. If society were to admit that passive roles are as functional and as important a decision roles then we'd move towards a more benevolent concept of society that would be good for unborn humans.

The ability to make a choice is an individual value. Reaching a consensus, which is its social counterpart, should be favored instead.

I don't think that just "mutually repect each other's value of life" is enough, but it's ok for a logical baseline. For starters life is not an on/off switch, you can have different qualities of life and situations such as emprisonment, forced povert or violence are all inclusive on respect of life. But in the case of abortion we take it a step further: parents become responsible of life not just in the biological sense but also in all its qualities. By following the same principle you could tackle it in several ways: increasing the quality of life (making sure the unborn child gets proper upbringing, the mother proper care), decreased responsability (preemptively apply temporary sterilization to individuals) or increase responsability (make sex education free and contraception free and easily available). I think taking those actions speaks volumes of societies attachment to the respect of life but none of these ideas have pierced into society as being any "urgent".