|
Smoking Crow posted:I personally like Orthodox Christianity but I'm slightly biased because that's my religion. It's gotta be the Aztec religion, because I don't want the sun to burn out  
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 11:00 |
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:The Romans tried to eliminate Christianity and failed. Muslims crushed Orthodox Rome and conquered Constantinople, so Islam obviously has the Lord's favor. When are you converting?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 10:06
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:Uh, the glorious Third Rome, Moscow is still in existence, sir. That's some mad goalpost shifting. But I guess if Moscow falls, we can always keep moving until we get to Glorious Eighty-Seventh Rome in Tweebuffelsmeteenskootmorsdoodgeskietfontein in Holy Transvaal, South Africa!! But hey, does it matter to you which religion the theocracy is? It seems like it doesn't, since you judge a religions worthiness by who had the biggest army, then I guess whatever religion we pick for our government will be the One True Religion by definition since it will have the power to oppress all the rest of them. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Jul 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:Also, so what you are saying is that the majority of white men in the original 13 colonies were chattel since they didn't have contraceptives or education? Rich white men in the 13 colonies had education; poor white men were disenfranchised. They weren't chattel like women were though, because even poor white men could still own property in their own name, something most women could not do.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Alexzandvar posted:White men cannot get pregnant. Tell that to Arnold Schwarzenegger 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Lasting change is an impossibility, for all of man's works will ultimately be for nought. All that will be left is a dead world made putrid by man's touch, and even that will inevitably be consumed in the fires of a dying star. Everything you work for an believe in will be eradicated as if it never was, and the universe will continue it's slow and inexorable march towards heat death. See this is why Plato knew we have to base society on a comforting lie.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
I love how the OP started with "A Christian Theocracy would be just peachy because it would be full communism and there would be no war, just like Jesus commanded", and then people start asking about things like women's rights and it's all "Well of course women would be held as property with no political enfranchisement, access to education, economic freedom, or agency over their own bodies, it's all right there in First Corinthians. But for the male 51% of the population it'd be a paradise." I'm almost afraid to ask what will happen to gays in this Christopia? Do I get to pay the jizyah and go about my life? Cuz if we're basing this on Russian Orthodox, I have a sinking feeling that I'm gonna end up getting stoned to death.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:Oh, nothing. We are taught to love out brothers and sisters, so probably nothing will happen to them You can be religious and get an abortion too, but you're still planning to ban those. Can I testify against a Christian in court?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:You can if you want to. I'm not stopping you. You keep dodging the question of whether one of the "features" of your theocracy is outlawing sodomy like you want to outlaw abortion and birth control pills. Edit: Or will you just continue the contemporary Russian practise of not bothering to investigate or prosecute crimes against unpopular minorities?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:I didn't say anything about outlawing birth control, but abortion is a no. I think that birth control should be easily available because church teaching on it is "use your conscience." So still not interested in answering what happens to sexual minorities in Glorious Russian Orthodoxia? You already want to outlaw something that religious people can do (abortion) because it's against church law, so it's not a stretch to ask whether you'd do the same for sexual minorities under a "you can be gay and Christian (but you're still getting fileted by the Inquisitor if you suck a cock!)" copout. Or are you going the contemporary Russian route of just denying religious or sexual minorities equal protection of the legal system and not bothering to prosecute crimes against them?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:Well, if anything this thread has convinced me that it's time for another crusade against the Orthodox Church. Nah, it's all good. I tell you what, when I hear "benign theocracy", the first thing that comes to mind is the institution that clung to serfdom and feudalism until a German VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Jul 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:First of all, I would appreciate it if you would respond to my post instead of engaging in this sort of moral cowardice. Second of all, this is vaguely racist against Slavs and I have to ask if you are now, or have ever been, a member of the American National Socialist Party. Thirdly, you fundamentally do not understand the structure of the Orthodox Church and I have to question why we should treat your obvious ignorance with any respect. Did you seriously just ask me if I'm an Nazi because I am opposed to the violent oppression of LGBT people?  Effectronica posted:Catholics, and probably Orthodox Christians too, are more likely than average to be pro-gay in the USA. The position outlined is one of religiously-oriented rule, not adopting the structure of the church into the government. Therefore, the proposed liturgical theocracy would have more support for gay rights than the USA does currently. So you're saying your idealized theocracy will not discriminate against sexual minorities the way it will discriminate against women? That's nice and all, but the OP also claims that a theocracy will be anti-war, which is a questionable claim given the historical record.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:No, I asked if you were a member of an organized antiSlavic organization given your hatred and contempt for Russians expressed in the idea that a German had to "force change down their throats". Expressing skepticism about the human rights record of a particular institution is not the same as hatred or contempt of Russians, any more than criticizing the Roman Catholic Church's stances is hatred of Italians. I was just making a Catherine the Great reference; I don't think Germany should rule Russia, because every time the Germans have tried to do that it was a colossal horrorshow. Conquest is pretty evil. Effectronica posted:In addition, abortion would be legal in this same scenario because the majority of Catholics support broadly-available abortion and so do half of Orthodox Christians. And yet despite this, the Church hierarchy (who would be the ones in charge) are still staunchly opposed to abortion rights and the rights of sexual minorities. Does it matter if the laity is progressive if we're putting a reactionary church hierarchy in charge? Russians, Italians, and even Americans are pretty cool on an individual level, but that doesn't mean I automatically trust any of their churches with the Supreme Temporal Power. Edit: But hey, I didn't mean to come off as anti-Russian or anti-Christian, sorry if what I said offended you. I'll confine my jokes to anti-theocracy in general because insulting the religion of average people isn't cool. Friends?  Smoking Crow posted:Catherine was as opposed to change as Peter was. She did exile constitutional monarchists to Siberia, after all. 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Jul 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:The United States is currently governed by corrupt sociopaths beholden to multinational corporations and other monied special interest groups. You're insane if you think this is preferable to a government run by men of God with a lifetime of moral and spiritual training. This thread is so great. It's like, y'all start with a good case about how American democracy is bought-and-paid for by soulless evil avaricious fiends and go on about how a Christian theocracy would care for the poor and downtrodden and I'm all like "Hell yeah that sounds great" and then you just go off the rails into "Oh but women should totally be property, and infidels of course are second-class citizens, and well I don't want to say we're gonna stone the gays but we all know they've got it coming  ".Like, can't we do the full Christian communism stuff, but skip out on the oppression like Christ wanted us to do anyway, or is persecution just too much fun? Paul was an rear end in a top hat, and he never met Jesus or intended his letters to be gospel anyway. So how about this, cut out Paul's horrible fan-fiction, let's do a Theocracy based on the Gospels and I'm on board. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Jul 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Word to the wise: unaccountable authority figures always end up being corrupt. The idea that if you could only get the good guys in power, and keep the bad guys out, is historical fantasy. What makes this doubly disgusting is that it claims that religious figures are more moral than other people, which as we've seen with the church abuse scandals, is not true. Look Jesus said war is bad, therefore a Christian clerical potentate would never go to war because by definition a Christian cleric would never condone war of any kind for any reason QED. It's basic logic man. (But seriously my point was how amazing I find it that even granting their perfect idealistic Theocracy that hews to all of their values with zero corruption, it's still an oppressive dystopia for anyone who isn't a straight Christian male. That's what I find so hilarious. Like that's the society they want: women are property, gays are in the closet if they want to live, and dissenters keep quiet and pay their extra taxes). VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Jul 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Even taking a strict interpretation of "unlawful" to mean earthly law, it is still possible to murder the unborn. In cases of assaulting a pregnant woman and killing her unborn child, the courts have considered it murder. The Bible doesn't though. The response ranges from a fine (if it's done during an assault) to abortion being totally cool as long as you're forcing it on an unwilling woman because you think she's a cheating harlot. Abortion: Godly as long as the woman has no choice!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Miltank posted:What are the scriptural justifications for outlawing abortion besides PSA 139:13? Considering the multitudes of babies that Jehovah ordered be put to death or dashed upon the rocks, I'd wager not having an abortion or two is the more scripturally risky path.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Miltank posted:do yourselves a favor and don't argue with WWN. He will shitpost all day and never make a single point if you let him. Hey that's not fair. Who What Now has a pretty big dog in this fight because if the Theocracy turns out to be Muslim after all, they will outlaw precious precious booze. But don't worry pony buddy  , based on your posts in the USPol thread your drink of choice should still be available because as far as I know there's nothing haram about paint thinner 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I could not disagree more strongly with this. Some people are more ethical than others, which is to say, they are more proficient in ethics than others. The ideal system of government is going to have good people in power, and not bad people. I'm sure whatever system of government you prefer ultimately rests on this as well. The only real dispute is how you identify and select the good people. Well, putting people in authority based on their level of sexual repression seems to have failed, got any other ideas?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Seriouspost: given that corruption is endemic in human affairs, the effects are best lessened by choosing a system that preserves accountability and minimizes the bad effects of the inevitable corrupt administrators rather than just hoping that we can keep the bad people out of power (we can't). Draping the government with the Mandate of Heaven and equating criticizing those in power with defying God is...problematic.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I was mostly joking in the USPol thread. Ever since I started seeing a psychiatrist and taking medication I haven't actually abused (or even drank much) alcohol in three months. Aw jokes aside, I'm happy to hear that
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I consider the French Revolution a very bad event, what with all the unjust mass murders and reign of terror and general societal upheaval, a republic so unstable it quickly became an empire, and then shifted into kingdom again, and then back into republic, and back into empire, and so on. *Every repressive monarchy on the continent invades at once* My my, look how unstable and war-torn this democracy nonsense is without the Divine Hand of God appointing an appropriately violent overlord to keep the rabble in line 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:The Bourbon Monarchy was a shitshow and it deserved to die but let's not pretend the French Revolution was a great place to be. Well sure, but it's pretty disingenuous to chalk up all of the instability, hysteria, and bloodiness of a revolution to inherent failures of secular government and completely ignore the atmosphere of a simultaneous invasion by every blood-drenched monarchy around them and a huge fifth column of former-aristocrat traitors who were more than happy to invite foreigners in to slaughter their own countrymen in the hopes of getting their posh status back. Dynastic struggles in Christian monarchies were bloody and horrible as gently caress (Wars of the Roses, anyone?), and historical theocracies have been more than willing to slaughter foreigners and their own people as well. It's worth noting that a major contributory to Egypt and the Levant being such a walk-over conquest for the Muslims is that Trinitarian Constantinople had been persecuting and murdering the gently caress out of Egyptian monophysites over obscure theological disagreements about what exactly Jesus' body was made out of.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:There's been a lot of dumb reddit talking points tossed about in this thread, but this is probably the most egregious. Maybe you should do a little research into what Catholics actually believe before spouting off like a petulant child. People in this thread have specifically poo poo on the ideas of female education, enfranchisement, and bodily autonomy. It's not "reddit talking points" when actual posters here are expressing the opinions you accuse me of strawmanning. Education, eh not that important Smoking Crow posted:The Catholic Church doesn't restrict women's access to education though? Also, I think being a chattel slave has more to do with lack of more important freedoms than reproductive rights and education. Women's bodies: property of the state! Smoking Crow posted:I didn't say anything about outlawing birth control, but abortion is a no. I think that birth control should be easily available because church teaching on it is "use your conscience." Dissenters: shut up about your heathen faith or suffer additional economic burdens for picking a God I don't like Miltank posted:They might try to but Islam doesn't really work in secret. It's all about carrying out ceremonial religious actions and I think someone might notice if a family stops eating during the daytime for a lunar month every year. If they really wanna be Muslim they can pay their taxes and be good little subjects. Women's medical decisions about contraceptives: State's prerogative! Miltank posted:I disagree that restricting access to contraceptive options reduces women to chattel. I'd get more but I'm tired. If you don't want to suffer reddit-level criticisms, maybe don't act like reddit religious-strawmen who want to own women, oppress the gays*, and impose sanctions on competing faiths? *To be fair, nobody has come right out and admitted they want to repress sexual minorities, but no one will give me a straight answer about whether they will have equal rights and whether "deviant" sex will be punished which is a pretty strong indicator that they want to perpetrate these repressions but don't want to say so. Feel free to prove me wrong on this point by coming right out and saying that sexual minorities will have full equality and protection from discrimination though! Edit: Oh let's not forget you buttcoin smuggler posted:Is this board really so permeated with community college cultural Marxism that "life begins at conception" is considered a troll position? Really? The Bible is pretty cool with abortion in Leviticus and especially in Numbers, so it kinda just seems like you want to control women regardless of what your holy book says. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Jul 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:Catholics don't want to stone gays, make women property, or treat non-Catholics as lesser beings. In fact, they are staunchly opposed to all these things. So you're telling me that in your ideal theocracy, women will have complete bodiy autonomy and access to contraceptives and abortion, women will have full political equality to include eligibility for the priesthood and the Papacy, there will not be a jizyah for non-believers, and that sexual minorities will likewise be fully protected by the legal system and have full equality to include marrying the person of their choice and freedom from economic discrimination? That's great, but that's not what your cohorts in this thread have been advocating. buttcoin smuggler posted:Regarding your edit, can you really not comprehend that some people have a sincere moral objection to abortion that isn't based in some kind of crypto-misogyny? No. But feel free to present scriptural support for your serious moral objection.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
I like the book of Numbers myself.Numbers 5:14-31 posted:If feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing. Jehovah-approved abortion (as long as the woman is unwilling and has no choice!)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:A five year old girl needs a kidney transplant or she will die within the next 12 hours. A man who has never met the girl is the only valid donor on the planet, and only his kidney could save her life, with the kidney she would make a full recovery and live a full life. For whatever reason, the man refuses to give up his kidney to the little girl. Do you have the right to force him to give up his kidney to save that little girl's life? No because the girl didn't get cancer as a consequence of the man in question being a dirty slut. God that was easy. StashAugustine posted:The point is that I'm not against abortion to restrict women's rights. I have moral objections to birth control in general but I don't think they ought to be illegal since that's entirely your business. I think abortion ought to be illegal since I believe that human beings ought to have full rights no matter their developmental state, and that abortion is the killing of an innocent human life. For the crime of spilling multitudes of preborn humans into Kleenex and old socks rather than making sure they wind up in a vagina, you are charged with eleventy billion counts of murder. How do you plead? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Jul 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
So buttcoin smuggler, do you feel like answering these questions?VitalSigns posted:So you're telling me that in your ideal theocracy, women will have complete bodiy autonomy and access to contraceptives and abortion, women will have full political equality to include eligibility for the priesthood and the Papacy, there will not be a jizyah for non-believers, and that sexual minorities will likewise be fully protected by the legal system and have full equality to include marrying the person of their choice and freedom from economic discrimination? Because it's pretty odd that despite all the conniption fits about reddit strawman attacks on religion and mealy-mouthed stuff about how we're all children of God, when the questions of minority rights are directly asked I can't seem to get a straight answer about what rights women, sexual minorities, and people of other faiths will have. It'd be pretty easy to blunt all of these criticisms by taking an unambiguous position on how minorities will be treated and what the legal penalties for things like abortion, apostasy, or sodomy will be if any.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:For example, I think it's reasonable to suggest that the number of abortions prevented by an abortion ban will outnumber the women endangered by at least, say, 10 to 1. Since I believe life begins at conception, every abortion kills a human being, so applying basically any flavor of utilitarian ethics shows that outlawing abortion is morally obligatory. Your belief that life begins at conception has no scriptural support and that's why it was never a historical teaching of the church until the 1960's when it became politically advantageous to use it as a wedge issue. Numbers gives a recipe for priest-performed abortions. The penalty in Leviticus for assaulting a pregnant woman and causing her to miscarry is a small fine. Fetuses in the Bible are treated as disposable property. This "every blastocyst has a soul" stuff is just something you're making up. Which is cool, because all morality is made up, but when the morality you're choosing to make up is one that just so happens to result in the injury and deaths of women and their oppression as a class, I take a somewhat suspicious view of it. (Aside: I do love that you got all  VitalSigns you're an ignorant redditor saying I want women to be second-class citizens and when I straight-up ask you if a woman can be Pope in your theotopia I get "Well maybe those broads can have some parallel position where they're not in charge of men, don't want them getting any ideas about equality because  " )Effectronica posted:Good stuff That's great, I like your views and I especially appreciate your understanding of the history of Church thought in regard to abortion. But I have to ask: given that the contemporary church hierarchy is massively reactionary and disagrees with the lay beliefs on the rights of minorities as you've outlined here, why would you think that hierarchy would suddenly become progressive if they were handed the Temporal Power to rule us all and impose their beliefs with the power of the State? I don't see Pope-Emperor Benedict XVI smashing the glass ceiling for women and performing gay marriages and it's not like his tenure was that long ago, and even Francis (while better) still expresses views on these issues that are much more conservative than what you've written here. So how do you deal with the very-real situation that the leadership disagrees with the laity, violates the precepts of the faith, and gets away with it because the laity has no effective means to hold them accountable? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:01 on Jul 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 13:51
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:So the moral nihilist finally show his/her true colors. Wonderful. It's great that you say "morality is made up" in one breath and then condemn me for causing injury and death in the next. I'm not a nihilist; that's a specific philosophical position and not at all the same as acknowledging that morality is subjective. Throwing around words you don't understand isn't helping your position. Just because I don't claim that an Ultimate Authority laid down all moral law, that doesn't mean that I don't think no moral system is better or worse than any other. If you think it's axiomatic that misogyny is awesome and women should be chattel then okay, there's no logical proof that I can show you to convince you otherwise because we have no common moral foundation about the dignity of human life; I just have to oppose you. But since you claim to not believe in those things then I certainly can point out that your policies injure and kill women, oppress them as a class, and are not supportive of the quality of human life. buttcoin smuggler posted:(conveniently forgetting to factor in the unborn lives saved) Okay so you do admit that life beginning at conception is just something you made up, has nothing to do with your religion's definition, but you've sure got opinions and you're going to force those opinions on women regardless of what they believe. Seriously, why conception? You drew this big distinction about the difference between "killing" and "letting die" so why not define life at implantation? If a woman doesn't want a fertilized cell to implant in her uterus, she takes a pill and expels it. She doesn't crush it to death on the table; it's not her fault it dies without using her body. Or why not viability, because then you could at least argue that a woman a week before delivery would be committing murder by killing the fetus rather than delivering it and giving it up for adoption, but abortion is already illegal at that point. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Jul 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:I'm going to pass on replying to the rest of your post because this needs to get worked out first. What is the exact metaethical theory you are proposing here? In particular, do you acknowledge that certain acts can be intrinsically moral or immoral? Because from what you're saying in this quote, it seems that you are, at best, a relativist. Since you and I agree on the importance of preserving human life, we share that common ground about murder being immoral so it's not very productive to argue about metaethical theories when the real crux of the issue is that you choose to believe that the definition of murder begins at the seemingly-arbitrary moment of fertilization even though that's (1) not required by your religion your religion which historically considered ensoulment to happen at the first breath, and (2) inconsistent with your own arguments where the "killing" vs "letting die" argument would appear to support a definition of murder based around viability of the fetus outside the womb, or at the very least implantation. Where does your definition of morally significant human life come from? Is it just that a fertilized egg has 46 chromosomes and metabolizes sugars? Because if that's the case I'm committing mass murder every time I scratch my balls. Even from your standpoint of intrinsic morality laid down by a divine Lawgiver, if the fetus Shoah is so important, why didn't God bother to make it explicit the way He made sure to order us to stamp out polygamy? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Jul 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:No, it's in fact very important we work out the metaethical issues first. I was working under the assumption that you were a moral realist, but if you truly believe there's no objective fact of the matter regarding questions of morality and that it's all just made up, then there's no point in continuing this discussion. Okay, for the sake of argument I'm willing to accept whatever metaethics you like as a basis for discussion because we could argue metaethics all day and not get anywhere. What ethical theory do you subscribe to then, and why does it demand that 46 chromosomes plus metabolism equals human life, and why shouldn't you be in jail for blowing your nose?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:The position that "life begins at conception" provides a clear, simple, and logical answer to the question of when life begins. I don't have any killer argument that compels to you to agree with me, but it's ridiculous that you treat this position with such contempt. No no, I don't treat your position with contempt at all. Believe whatever you wish, don't get an abortion if you think it's immoral; I don't care what decisions you make with your own body, those choices have my absolute respect. What I hold in contempt is your willingness to impose your opinion by force on others at great physical harm to them personally, despite your inability to even offer a compelling argument that it's true. And what I mean by harm is real, actual harm on real, actual women. Not harm to something that you have constructed in your head to be a person.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:Are you going to hold in contempt my willingness to impose my "opinion" that rape is wrong on others too? Not-raping doesn't inflict injury or death on men the way banning abortion does on women, nor does banning rape oppress men as a class, and actual people suffer harm from rapes; this might be the worst comparison ever. And remember, you and I don't disagree that murder is wrong, just your unsupported opinion that expelling a fertilized egg is murder. You're going to need something better then "Oh well if you disagree with my opinion then I guess you just don't want any laws at all!" Any law could be justified by such an argument: a vegetarian could just as easily use this reasoning to declare that meat is murder and lock you up. buttcoin smuggler posted:As I've shown you, there are good reasons to believe that life starts at conception and hence that abortion kills a person. You just repeated some high school biology about sperm fertilizing eggs, mixed it in with some nonsense about equivocating this with "when life begins" (every time one of my skin cells undergoes mitosis it creates new life that did not exist before, and every time I scratch I kill some of that life), but you might as well say "life begins" at meiosis of egg cells, or at ovulation since that's when an egg is awakened from its dormancy and is ready to "create a life" so periods are murder. Or you could go the Biblical route and say that life begins with the first breath. Or say life begins at brainwaves because that's when an embryo transforms from a meat machine to a human with the capability to sense and process the world. Or viability or whatever because you've presented nothing but platitudes and declaring that the church-as-state should impose your beliefs on women. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Jul 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:Please read my post again. Skin cell mitosis doesn't create a new, genetically distinct human organism. Neither does ovulation. Why does genetic distinctiveness create some special moral status? An anencephalic baby is a genetically distinct separate organism so this would seem to require that a woman carry one to term, go through childbirth, just to give birth to a sack of meat that will shortly die. You could say "Ah, but we already know an anencaphalic baby will never develop a brain and become fully human" but now you're admitting that it's cognitive ability that gives a human moral status, not genetics and "separateness". On the other side, conjoined twins are genetically identical and not separate from each other, but I doubt you'd say it's okay to just kill one without compunction the way I might have my appendix removed. The whole idea seems really incoherent. buttcoin smuggler posted:If you have a serious competing proposal for when life begins, I'm happy to discuss it with you. However, it's a waste of both of our time for you to shotgun a bunch of proposals that you presumably don't think are correct and expect me to reply to each and every one. Tell me the one you think is right and let's talk about it. I'm going to go with brain activity since that's when the developing human can perceive and process the world. But I'm open to arguments for viability outside the womb.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:Brain activity as measured by what? An EEG? Sure, that's how we define death right? You have to be brain-dead before you can be cut up for organs. Although that is another problem with your definition: a brain dead person is still genetically human and still metabolizing sugars so harvesting his organs appears to be murder under your rubric where cognitive function doesn't matter. But we don't have to EEG every single embryo, just pick a gestation date where brain activity is known to sustain regular patterns of firing neurons. How about sayyyyy 28 weeks? Sound good?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:I don't think it's inconsistent to say that sentience (or cognitive ability, etc), or the potential for it, is one of many factors that give humans a special moral status So I've brought up two situations where your definition would define murder inappropriately (aborting anencephalic babies and harvesting organs from brain-dead people whose bodies are still functioning), and one situation in which your definition would not notice murder (conjoined twins), and you deal with them by...asserting that cognitive ability is necessary to give humans moral status after all. So, it looks like you really do define life that way except when it comes to what to do with sluts who can't keep their pants on. Oh, oh wait the "potential". Well potential is not the same as actual. That's why I'm not committing murder by not having all the potential children that would exist if I were loving every fertile woman I see. Every egg is a potential thinking being if only it's fertilized, just like every zygote is a potential thinking being as long as it's allowed to implant. buttcoin smuggler posted:Ok, cool. Let's start with brain activity. What exactly do you mean by this? The existence of electrical activity in the brain as measured by EEG readings? Sustained brain activity in regular patterns as appears by the 28th week of pregnancy, sure. After that, we can no longer be certain of saying that the woman is the only thinking being involved here, so legislate away.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:(Yes, even brain dead humans like Terri Schiavo. There's a reason we didn't take her out back and shoot her like a common farm animal.) Well if you believe she's a person of more worth than an animal then what we actually did was even crueller since she died slowly of dehydration rather than getting a quick death, but anyway. buttcoin smuggler posted:I don't think electrical activity in the brain is the cutoff we should use. If you want to go the cognitive ability route, the cutoff almost has to be sentience. Electrical activity in the brain alone doesn't necessarily mean anything. Animals have brain activity. Schiavo had brain activity, though in the reflexive, automatic parts of the brain, not the ones that "matter." Electrical activity in brain is not necessarily of more moral import than a digestive process. Okay, I was trying to give the most expansive point possible to address your concerns about killing a human life, but you've convinced me that more than autonomic brain activity is required. If you're fine with disconnecting Terry Schiavo's life support then before we ban a woman from disconnecting an embryo's life support, it should meet the same standard we used for her. So viability outside the womb then? Or should we go biblical and say first breath?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:I didn't say I was fine with disconnecting Terry Shiavo's life support, but this is a poor objection. An embryo still has the potential for sapience, so there's a morally relevant difference between the two situations. Yeah it does. If you actively provide it with certain necessities. As does a sperm. Now you're going to flip back to "but a sperm doesn't have 46 chromosomes" and around we go. You flip between "it's the potential that's important" and "it's the actual that's important" whenever is convenient for you. Which is it? Is it potential for sapient human life that's important, in which case sperm and eggs count? Is it only actual human life that's important, in which case a fertilized egg counts (as does an anencephalic baby and a brain dead organ donor), or is it only actual sapient human life that's important?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 11:00 |
|
|
E-Tank posted:It is true, anti-choicers truly don't give a poo poo about babies after they're born. But until those nine months are up and the timer hasn't popped up, they are god's precious little creatures and must be cared for. For they are more important than the woman giving birth to them. Eh, to be fair he does want his Theocracy to be full communism so this isn't a good criticism of buttcoin smuggler specifically. buttcoin smuggler posted:Human life is valuable for a multiplicity of reasons, as I said. Both the potential and the actual are important. We cannot reduce the value of human life to a single criterion, and any attempt to do so admits obvious counterexamples. Sapience is a mystical, shifting, chimaerical thing that can never be adequately defined...so let's just pick the definition that allows me to vent my wrath upon those filthy whoring women ...but definitely not one that condemns my Onanism for whacking my cock until I spill my seed for pleasure rather than doing it into a vagina or into my pyjamas while I sleep as the Good Lord intended.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 22:55
|
|