Well knock me over with a feather

Leftists are obsessed with sex and death.

Rick Santorum, Christine O’Donnell (odd you’d mention her), and Rick Perry are countering Leftists’ assaults on the sanctity of life and religious liberty. If not for the blood thirst of the left, they’d be no reason for them to discuss such matters, now would there?

Try your sophistry on someone else.

I merely responded to your asinine rationalization, after which you linked a supposedly “thoughtful” examination, which I also responded to. I did not start the “off topic” discussion. You latched on to an anecdotal comment made by John. If anything, you veered this discussion off-topic.

I don’t trust pro-choice blogs because my comments are routinely deleted for their tendency to display how face palmingly stupid the pro-choice camp is.

Point:

I said: “Some scientists suggest that pain can be felt as early as the second trimester, at which point you regard the child as no different than a mouse or squirrel.”

Where in that particular sentence did I say rodents are unable to feel pain? Anywhere? No.

In the piece you wrote you compared a second trimester child to a mouse or squirrel. I merely included that piece of information so all followers of this thread can see how truly ridiculous you are.

Are you going to respond to my remarks or are you going to dance and dodge a little more? You might as well forgo the discussion and save yourself the embarrassment. Your position is irrational, impractical, and totally irrelevant to any conceivable legal status of persons.

NFQ,

This particular post is about the intolerance of Leftists in general. Just thought I should point that out….Ya know, you may not delete my comments, edit my comments, or be intolerant of my comments in any way, shape, or form. But it’s going to take me roughly 60 seconds to dismantle your entire argument, so I don’t see a need to turn this into some big debate on your blog.

If you had read my post, you would have seen that I address the issue of killing newborn babies. I concede that it might have to be permitted by my standard. Unlike you, I do not begin by assuming all of my conclusions and then collect arguments and citations that support those conclusions.

I assume nothing.

My conclusions are rooted in Western culture, Western morality, and the laws under which we live. I would take it a step further and suggest that the taking of innocent life has been condemned in all cultures, across the board, everywhere since the beginning of human history. Short of war and religious crusades, this is absolutely true on a cultural level. You Leftists try to deracinate society with your perversions and pseudo-philosophoical nonsense.

It’s also somewhat telling that you aren’t paused, even for a second, by the reality that your cruel, disgusting worldview would allow the selective slaughter of born children. Among Leftists, the distinction between “born” and “unborn” is not as important as is claimed. You people don’t care because ideology takes precedent – even over human life. This is abundantly clear by reviewing the Leftist regimes that have existed throughout human history.

I started by thinking about the situations in which we might tend to find killing acceptable (self-defense, meat-eating, pest-control) and the situations in which we tend to find it unacceptable (cold-blooded murder, purposeless violence to animals especially seemingly intelligent animals) and then tried to tease out the rationale behind these categorizations (remembering that intuition isn’t perfect and if I had no good reason that was grounds for reconsidering)

You trying to liken non-human animals to human beings and failing miserably. If you’re unable to perceive the moral difference between human beings and mosquitoes – aside from level of ability – then I cannot help you.

It seems to me that we are more hesitant to kill things the more aware they are (and thus the more aware of suffering they are and the more they are capable of desiring to live). This is consistent with a very basic sort of utilitarianism I think everyone implicitly agrees with – happiness means “that feeling we’d like to have more of” and sadness is “that feeling we don’t like having.” Killing a mouse in a mouse trap is more acceptable than slaughtering cows, which is more acceptable than killing Koko the gorilla, etc.

This is absolutely false on every level. Judging by my saunter through Kroger last night, I’d say we’re not anymore hesitant to kill cows, chicken, pigs, and fish than we are mice. Killing both are acceptable. Killing Koko the gorilla is not because gorillas are not used, in our culture, for sustenance, and they human-like qualities. For instance, are you familiar with the Heikegani crab? Do you know why their shell has a human appearance? Look it up.

At the same time, if your life is in danger, you are completely entitled to defend yourself by killing the person endangering you if necessary. I hope this notion is not controversial, but I can defend it if you like.

Is the unborn child packing a piece of something? No. So this argument is only useful when abortion is used to prevent the death of the mother.

One thing this means is that abortion ought to be available for women whose lives are threatened by their pregnancies.

Yes. I said that above.

The other implication is that abortion is more morally acceptable earlier on in the pregnancy and less acceptable later.

No it doesn’t mean that at all.

It’s convenient to your ideology for you to believe there is some great moral debate over the killing of cows, a highly sentient animal. But, in fact, there isn’t. We slaughter cows, chicken, and pigs every single day in this society. We also slaughter deer, moose, bear, and innumerable other animals. Sometimes for sport, but most of the time for sustenance. I see no degree of acceptability. I see, merely, acceptability.

We can cut through the rest of your B.S. with this simple fact alone:

Even though an adult cow is more sentient than a newborn baby, the law protects the newborn baby. That shatters your argument deftly. Because in this society, humanity, not sentience, is what matters.

“I find this outrageous” is not actually a logical argument against mine.

It shows how ridiculous you are and how far we could take things by your argument alone. Your argument could be used to support things that would turn this society into something unlike the world has ever known. It would be the most disgusting, putrid, vile excuse for civilization that has ever existed. We’d be killing newborns, slaughtering grandma, and worshiping chickens. The ridiculousness of that which you support is the only argument I require. I don’t need to get into some great philosophical debate, pointing out your contradictions, in order to show its irrationality.

I actually have no idea what your actual argument is, if it is not that anything with human DNA must have the full moral quality of a conscious human person. (Do you think acorns are identical to oak trees? And so on.)

Are you back to denying the humanity of unborn children again? Are you so ashamed of argument thus far that you’re back to the typical Leftist tactic of being anti-science?

In principle, there is no difference between an acorn and an oak tree; a chicken and an egg; The is a clear developmental difference, however. But conferring worth upon these organisms is directly related to the kind of organism it is. In this society, humanity is worth something, the developmental ability of the individual human aside. So you actually attempt to rest your argument on a worthless, apple-to-tulip comparison.

So, guess what? You lose.

I didn’t immediately realize the following statement upon reading your argument the first time. I merely skimmed it, since it started out being the same pseudo-philosophical balderdash pro-choicers always come up with.

It’s true that your entire argument is gutted by the simple fact that humanity has intrinsic value and must if we are to remain a somewhat civilized species. But I would like to respond to the following foolishness nonetheless.

Killing a small undifferentiated lump of cells is analogous to skinning your knee or swatting a gnat (both cases in which small numbers of living cells die). Killing an embryo in its very early stages might be more like flushing a goldfish down the toilet.

You are again comparing a genetically distinct, intrinsically valuable human being to various parts of another genetically distinct, intrinsically valuable human being. You’re also comparing an intrinsically valuable organism – i.e., a human being – to an organism that is not intrinsically valuable. Neither is an apples-to-apples comparison.

It’s appropriate to quote Winston Churchill. It’s always exhilarating to be shot at without result.

Oh, Terrance, it’s so cute how you started out by saying it would take you 60 seconds to dismantle my arguments completely, and then you left three separate comments answering me over the course of about an hour and a half.

I dismantled your argument in 60 seconds, I assure you. But I felt it necessary to elaborate, clarify, and clear things up because you have shown thus far an inability to comprehend opposing arguments. Based on this most recent reply, I wasn’t clear enough.

You are not even making actual arguments against what I am saying. You are just repeating what I said and being flabbergasted by it.

I have made numerous arguments dismantling your pseudo-philosophical hogwash, but you’re apparently unable to understand them. You talk about “is/ought” fallacies without realizing that you have not once explained why things “ought” to be the way you say. I have explained why your argument is impractical. Whether right or wrong – which is subjective anyway – it cannot work.

You’re right, I do not think there is a moral difference between a human blastocyst and a mosquito. Why do you think there is one? “One is human and one is not!” is a descriptive claim that is true, but it is not an explanation of why that fact carries moral weight.

The worth of an organism – as I have already explained – is related to the type of organism it is rather than its abilities. Your logic dictates that a functionally mature virus should be held in higher regard than a newborn baby, since the virus is, per the abilities of its species, able to do more. Absurd.

(Of course I do see a distinction between a human child and a mosquito, because I see a gradient of moral weight during development. You are the one trying to paint a tiny clump of cells and a newborn baby with the same brush, not me.)
….
why does the value of human life mean that we should only concern ourselves with the simple existence of a life, rather than factoring in the expected quality of that life?

Your logic is reminiscent of social Darwinism, for crying out loud. I have explained why it’s necessary for human beings to have intrinsic value. Without it, society cannot function. Because if our value is transitory, then the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would be worthless. Each person’s value would then be tied to their ability, and should that ability be lost, their life would be worthless and unworthy of protection.

That you are unable to comprehend that this would allow tyranny to take hold is why I regard you as nothing more than a pseudo-intellectual, blood thirsty muttonhead.

You’re right that we have more laws protecting human newborns than protecting cows, but this is an “is” statement rather than an “ought” statement, and it also neglects the fact that we do have laws protecting cows.

Are you talking about sanitary guidelines? These laws don’t protect cows or speak to their value. Not in America, anyway. Don’t believe me? Go to Burger King. I recommend the number 1.

(Also, you may not find hunting or meat-eating morally controversial, but there is controversy about both of those things in society at large, and rightly so. If I were to stoop to your level in this conversation I might well echo your words and call you “cruel” and “disgusting” for finding these things so plainly acceptable.)

95% of the population consumes meat, so the controversy is barely audible. If you want to call me cruel for just having eaten a Big Mac, be my guest. But then be sure to explain why those animals should have intrinsic value.

You make several weak attempts to warrant your assertion that humanity has intrinsic value over all other species, so that it’s perfectly fine for us to slaughter any other animal of our choosing for fun and games but are barbarians if we terminate the development of a just-fertilized human egg.

In what universe is it appropriate to believe that you have explained why humans should not possess intrinsic value? You’ve yet to counter my arguments with anything substantial. You keep saying they’re weak, but don’t explain why.

You’re a pathetically ridiculous person, so if telling the truth is being intolerant, then so be it.

It’s been clear for a while now that you have absolutely nothing substantial to add to this discussion. You say your arguments are thoughtful, but they aren’t. They’re ridiculous, impractical, and irrelevant to the reality we find ourselves living.

Also, you’re apparently unaware of the fact that you’re arguing your support for abortion from an “ought to be” standpoint, which is why I continue to say it’s irrelevant. So don’t accuse me of the “is/ought” fallacy for merely pointing out your folly.

Now run along, child.