[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[Antityranicals]

The damn UN can declare whatever it wants, but that doesn't change anything. If the damn UN declared you a mushroom, would it be so? Why is the idea that the UN is stupid and overly PC so ludicrous to you?

Besides, in order for humans to be born free and equal, wouldn't they have to be so directly before?

I cite the UN because it is a concrete, visible body of nations that has more of a direct effect on peoples' lives than any deity ever has. Citing God is, once again, as worthless as citing Harry Potter.

I don't ever bash religion but I will gladly take a stance against it if it's used as a basis to make laws that can have severe consequences for bodily freedom and women's health. Your God has no business in what I do with myself and never will, neither do you or anybody else that holds your opinion.

The UN is a bunch of idiotic bureaucrats who haven't done anything much meaningful in their lives except declare. They don't even have power to enforce their declarations. Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church, which is a two-thousand year old organization which rebuilt Europe from the ground up after the Dark Ages, invented the university, contributed more to science than any other organization in human history, educated the father of modern genetics, the Big Bang Theory, and modern astronomy, has a billion followers worldwide, and has never been proven wrong on dogma. Do you seriously think that some damn political hacks have anything on that?

[Neutraligon]

But they do have several other traits of personhood usually lacking in the fetus, such as agency, and consciousness.


Using the deeply flawed genetics argument, a tumour is human too.


...and it's thrown straight in the bin.


It's you that keeps using the concepts interchangeably, not me. So don't blame me if your fast and loose use of words is muddying the waters.

In order to be "a human" an organism must have the genetics of the human, and be an individual living organism of that species. Why is that hard to understand?

Wonders about identical twins as well as conjoined twins that cannot be separated. Are those 1 person or two?

[Kernen]

This just in, opinions are fake.

My love for my bf clearly doesn't exist, as it doesn't exist for everyone.

Clearly not. Your love is a lie. A godless illusion, or perhaps a dream. Maybe a dream inside a dream.

[Antityranicals]

This just in, opinions are fake.

My love for my bf clearly doesn't exist, as it doesn't exist for everyone.

It does exist for me. I can accurately say: "The person behind The New California Republic loves their bf."

[Cantelo]

I cite the UN because it is a concrete, visible body of nations that has more of a direct effect on peoples' lives than any deity ever has. Citing God is, once again, as worthless as citing Harry Potter.

I don't ever bash religion but I will gladly take a stance against it if it's used as a basis to make laws that can have severe consequences for bodily freedom and women's health. Your God has no business in what I do with myself and never will, neither do you or anybody else that holds your opinion.

The UN is a bunch of idiotic bureaucrats who haven't done anything much meaningful in their lives except declare. They don't even have power to enforce their declarations. Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church, which is a two-thousand year old organization which rebuilt Europe from the ground up after the Dark Ages, invented the university, contributed more to science than any other organization in human history, educated the father of modern genetics, the Big Bang Theory, and modern astronomy, has a billion followers worldwide, and has never been proven wrong on dogma. Do you seriously think that some damn political hacks have anything on that?

People did those things. I'm not going to argue with you over the downright fucking horrific and corrupt things the Catholic Church has done and still does, but all the good that it has done was because of humans. You can call the UN whatever you'd like but they and their affiliated bodies are the only international body that we can say holds "final judgement" on what goes on in the world, regardless of how weak or strong their power is.

Oh, and don't pull the "God did it through the humans" rhetoric because that's as valid as saying Santa Claus is real because I put Christmas presents under the tree through his will.

[Kernen]

I cite the UN because it is a concrete, visible body of nations that has more of a direct effect on peoples' lives than any deity ever has. Citing God is, once again, as worthless as citing Harry Potter.

I don't ever bash religion but I will gladly take a stance against it if it's used as a basis to make laws that can have severe consequences for bodily freedom and women's health. Your God has no business in what I do with myself and never will, neither do you or anybody else that holds your opinion.

The UN is a bunch of idiotic bureaucrats who haven't done anything much meaningful in their lives except declare. They don't even have power to enforce their declarations. Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church, which is a two-thousand year old organization which rebuilt Europe from the ground up after the Dark Ages, invented the university, contributed more to science than any other organization in human history, educated the father of modern genetics, the Big Bang Theory, and modern astronomy, has a billion followers worldwide, and has never been proven wrong on dogma. Do you seriously think that some damn political hacks have anything on that?

Assuming that's all true, it strikes me that the political hacks are well on their way to overtaking your church, since the church seems to have decided that, not unlike the Amish, we had just the right amount of progress seventy-five years ago.

From many perspectives, your church has been holding us back of late by opposing abortion, birth control, and the various interests of the LGBT and women.

[The New California Republic]

My love for my bf clearly doesn't exist, as it doesn't exist for everyone.

It does exist for me. I can accurately say: "The person behind The New California Republic loves their bf."

Last time I checked, "you" isn't analogous to "everyone."

[Antityranicals]

There's a word for things that aren't objective: "fake." If something doesn't exist for everyone, it doesn't exist. If the sun doesn't exist for both you and I, it doesn't exist.

This just in, opinions are fake.

Opinions aren't fake, they are true for everyone. If I like ice cream, you and anyone else can accurately say "The person behind Antityranicals likes ice cream," even if they don't like it.

[Cantelo]

It does exist for me. I can accurately say: "The person behind The New California Republic loves their bf."

Last time I checked, "you" isn't analogous to "everyone."

I don't believe you love your boyfriend (for the sake of the thought experiment) and thus your love for him is now nonexistent.

[Antityranicals]

It does exist for me. I can accurately say: "The person behind The New California Republic loves their bf."

Last time I checked, "you" isn't analogous to "everyone."

Anyone and everyone can accurately say the statement: "The person behind The New California Republic loves their bf." Assuming, of course, that you do...

[Antityranicals]

Last time I checked, "you" isn't analogous to "everyone."

I don't believe your boyfriend loves you (for the sake of the thought experiment) and thus his love is now nonexistent.

There's a word for that as well: "wrong."

[Neutraligon]

My love for my bf clearly doesn't exist, as it doesn't exist for everyone.

It does exist for me. I can accurately say: "The person behind The New California Republic loves their bf."

A is getting hit because they say their spouse loves them. Other people look at this and say "that is not love." We now have a situation where something exists for one person but not for others.

Guess what, the first person is into BDSM

[Antityranicals]

The UN is a bunch of idiotic bureaucrats who haven't done anything much meaningful in their lives except declare. They don't even have power to enforce their declarations. Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church, which is a two-thousand year old organization which rebuilt Europe from the ground up after the Dark Ages, invented the university, contributed more to science than any other organization in human history, educated the father of modern genetics, the Big Bang Theory, and modern astronomy, has a billion followers worldwide, and has never been proven wrong on dogma. Do you seriously think that some damn political hacks have anything on that?

Assuming that's all true, it strikes me that the political hacks are well on their way to overtaking your church, since the church seems to have decided that, not unlike the Amish, we had just the right amount of progress seventy-five years ago.

From many perspectives, your church has been holding us back of late by opposing abortion, birth control, and the various interests of the LGBT and women.

For very good reasons, mind you. The only thing, however, of those which you mention which is to be banned by law is abortion, because it is, plain and simple, the killing of an unborn human. The rest are meant to be up to individual responsibility to reject.

[Antityranicals]

It does exist for me. I can accurately say: "The person behind The New California Republic loves their bf."

A is getting hit because they say their spouse loves them. Other people look at this and say "that is not love." We know have a situation where something exists for one person but not for others.

Guess what, the first person is into BDSM

One belief is right, the other is not. This is not hard.

[Kernen]

Assuming that's all true, it strikes me that the political hacks are well on their way to overtaking your church, since the church seems to have decided that, not unlike the Amish, we had just the right amount of progress seventy-five years ago.

From many perspectives, your church has been holding us back of late by opposing abortion, birth control, and the various interests of the LGBT and women.

For very good reasons, mind you. The only thing, however, of those which you mention which is to be banned by law is abortion, because it is, plain and simple, the killing of an unborn human. The rest are meant to be up to individual responsibility to reject.

No, its terminating a fetus. Next you'll tell me its murder.

The only one banned by law now. It was within my not overly long lifetime that homosexual acts were illegal and punished.

Holding society back is never good. If people want their society to progress beyond your god's will, let them come to their punishment. Or not, as the case may be.

[The New California Republic]

The UN is a bunch of idiotic bureaucrats who haven't done anything much meaningful in their lives except declare. They don't even have power to enforce their declarations. Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church, which is a two-thousand year old organization which rebuilt Europe from the ground up after the Dark Ages, invented the university, contributed more to science than any other organization in human history, educated the father of modern genetics, the Big Bang Theory, and modern astronomy, has a billion followers worldwide, and has never been proven wrong on dogma. Do you seriously think that some damn political hacks have anything on that?

I trust the UN over the Vatican, yes. However, given that the Vatican has historically been quite confused when it comes to the issue of abortion, I think I can be forgiven for that.

Last time I checked, "you" isn't analogous to "everyone."

Anyone and everyone can accurately say the statement: "The person behind The New California Republic loves their bf." Assuming, of course, that you do...

The experience of loving my bf is not though, which was my point. Since said experience is not universal it does not, according to your perspective, exist.

[Neutraligon]

A is getting hit because they say their spouse loves them. Other people look at this and say "that is not love." We know have a situation where something exists for one person but not for others.

Guess what, the first person is into BDSM

One belief is right, the other is not. This is not hard.

Which is not what you originally said.

There's a word for things that aren't objective: "fake." If something doesn't exist for everyone, it doesn't exist.

In one person's view BDSM is not love, it is abuse. In another person's view the BDSM is love. You claimed that the word for something not objective is fake, and clearly the opinion on if BDSM is love or not is not objective and therefore fake. In addition since BDSM being love does not exist for everyone, it clearly being love for even some people doesn't exist. This is going by your own claim.

[Cantelo]

I like how you've conveniently neglected to respond to what I said earlier:

People did those things. I'm not going to argue with you over the downright fucking horrific and corrupt things the Catholic Church has done and still does, but all the good that it has done was because of humans. You can call the UN whatever you'd like but they and their affiliated bodies are the only international body that we can say holds "final judgement" on what goes on in the world, regardless of how weak or strong their power is.

Oh, and don't pull the "God did it through the humans" rhetoric because that's as valid as saying Santa Claus is real because I put Christmas presents under the tree through his will.

[The New California Republic]

A is getting hit because they say their spouse loves them. Other people look at this and say "that is not love." We know have a situation where something exists for one person but not for others.

Guess what, the first person is into BDSM

One belief is right, the other is not. This is not hard.

But it isn't universal then. Which, by what you said earlier, means it doesn't exist.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

I'm fairly certain there are other bases for morality...

Name one.

Fairness is a big one.

[Antityranicals]

For very good reasons, mind you. The only thing, however, of those which you mention which is to be banned by law is abortion, because it is, plain and simple, the killing of an unborn human. The rest are meant to be up to individual responsibility to reject.

No, its terminating a fetus. Next you'll tell me its murder.

The only one banned by law now. It was within my not overly long lifetime that homosexual acts were illegal and punished.

Holding society back is never good. If people want their society to progress beyond your god's will, let them come to their punishment. Or not, as the case may be.

I would say that it is murder, but than you'd go on about how murder has to be illegal to be so, which, in short, is stupid. That would mean that the Holocaust wasn't mass murder...

When society is wrong, holding it back is a very good thing. If society wants to jump off a cliff, we ought not endorse that. For the first 1800+ years of the Catholic Church, it was among the most left-wing institutions in the world. Why? Because society was wrong about many things, and needed to progress beyond them. Now, it is among the most right-wing institutions in the world. It's teachings haven't changed, it's always been right, society has been wrong in different ways. That's no reason to stop teaching the truth.

[Kernen]

None of this particularly matters, since the laws of the US, at least, are unbound from the laws of any god.

[The New California Republic]

I'm fairly certain there are other bases for morality...

Name one.

Fairness is a big one.

Even the Categorical Imperative can act as a basis for morality, by positing an objective standard by which to judge one's actions.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

"The government has no place in your private life, unless you're a pregnant woman."

The government has no place in your private life, unless your private life consists of killing your child.

It ain’t their child until it’s born. Until that time, it’s an entity using their body for shelter and sustenance. If the woman does not consent to that, she has (and SHOULD have) the right to seek a remedy for the issue.

[Kernen]

I would say that it is murder, but than you'd go on about how murder has to be illegal to be so, which, in short, is stupid. That would mean that the Holocaust wasn't mass murder...

From a legal realist perspective, it wasn't. Its the only logical outcome if you are a realist and not a positivist or natural law theorist. I'm not sure how one can support natural law if one doesn't believe in a natural source of right and wrong, so you can see where I'm left from a legal perspective.

This, of course, assumes that the actions of the Third Reich coming to power were themselves legal, which many legal realists, myself included, also dispute.

When society is wrong, holding it back is a very good thing. If society wants to jump off a cliff, we ought not endorse that.

Sure we should. Progress for progress's sake is great. Just think, if we keep it up, we can have actual designer babies and fully automated luxury gay space communism.

For the first 1800+ years of the Catholic Church, it was among the most left-wing institutions in the world. Why? Because society was wrong about many things, and needed to progress beyond them. Now, it is among the most right-wing institutions in the world. It's teachings haven't changed, it's always been right, society has been wrong in different ways. That's no reason to stop teaching the truth.

Then the church should accept that society doesn't care about its version of truth anymore.