Checking my premises
I was unsure as to whether I would title this, "Unlearning what I have learned" or "Checking my premises", because in it, I have done both. A couple of recent posts by AmericanGreatness and Eudaimonia, along with a couple of posts from 1-2 weeks ago are relevant.
I have long thought that the US military was an agent for liberation from totalitarian regimes. Now should I think they are mere pawns of their political masters, most often performing altruism to societies that do not appreciate their presence?
I had long thought that having a strong military meant having a strong national defense. After seeing 67 out of 70 purposeful attempts by TSA employees to evade TSA screening in a "test" of TSA security, I know differently. Moreover, the strong military and even the border agents were unable to protect us from an invasion of illegal immigrants because the one holding the leash kept the military and border agents on so tight a leash that they were unable to do what used to be their job.
I had long thought (because I had thought that the US military was an agent for liberation from totalitarian regimes) that the US had the "moral high ground". I still think that abortion is not the best moral decision and have been criticized (perhaps rightly) within the Gulch for that opinion. Moreover, I see a commentator (sorry, but I forget whom) on FoxNews suggest that America has lost the "moral high ground" in light of the Planned Parenthood situation (The commentator said that Muslims must consider us barbarous for having so many abortions. The term barbarous ironically is derived from the Barbary Pirates in Libya.).
I'm just checking my premises.
I have long thought that the US military was an agent for liberation from totalitarian regimes. Now should I think they are mere pawns of their political masters, most often performing altruism to societies that do not appreciate their presence?
I had long thought that having a strong military meant having a strong national defense. After seeing 67 out of 70 purposeful attempts by TSA employees to evade TSA screening in a "test" of TSA security, I know differently. Moreover, the strong military and even the border agents were unable to protect us from an invasion of illegal immigrants because the one holding the leash kept the military and border agents on so tight a leash that they were unable to do what used to be their job.
I had long thought (because I had thought that the US military was an agent for liberation from totalitarian regimes) that the US had the "moral high ground". I still think that abortion is not the best moral decision and have been criticized (perhaps rightly) within the Gulch for that opinion. Moreover, I see a commentator (sorry, but I forget whom) on FoxNews suggest that America has lost the "moral high ground" in light of the Planned Parenthood situation (The commentator said that Muslims must consider us barbarous for having so many abortions. The term barbarous ironically is derived from the Barbary Pirates in Libya.).
I'm just checking my premises.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
I would also point out that the right to life is not a limited right. It can not be. It either is, or is not. Thus the criticality of determining when that binary condition is fulfilled and the right granted. To make the right to life into a "gradual" right is in and of itself a fallacy of reason. One is then arguing that life is not valuable because it is life, but because of some subjective quality of utility, which is by definition individual and highly subjective.
Philosophy affects how we use that science. Philosophy is what leads us to ignore certain conclusions in favor of our own biases, or to use science in furtherance of our philosophy, as did the State Science Institute.
Science is the what/how, philosophy is the why.
That is precisely the argument as it stands, yes. One can hold that sentience and self-will are present from the beginning, or sometime after. It is the nebulous nature of the "sometime after" that abortion proponents must objectify and substantiate.
The rest of your argument is an attempt to discredit an argument I have not made. What one should remember, however, is that it does nothing to substantiate your own view on the matter, and that is what is under the microscope at this point.
You posit that it is only "when the umbilical cord is cut". Do you have any scientific evidence to support this? Is a change in environment all that is necessary to endow sentience and human rights?
The development of limited rights over time concomitant with developing abilities beginning with the birth of a human being has nothing to do with abortion.
He doesn't understand the concept of 'sentient', the meaning of human being, the difference between the potential and the actual, the source of moral principles, and much more. With that as a starting point it's no wonder that he sees "slipping" into "eugenicism", "racial cleansing", "nazis", and "The Black Holocaust" everywhere -- and demands a religious version of the Moratorium on Brains to stop all activity "interfering" with everything from conception on.
No one is exchanging anything with Sanger. She is dead.
That doesn't mean that ideas implement themselves. Some particular people have to act. That has included some Rockefellers (notably in the viro movement, but also other areas), but many many more, all following bad ideas while the public accepted them.
Load more comments...