Correct, it's on the continued and constant maintenance of an entire society.Not on the continued and constant maintenance of another thinking creature.
Correct, it's on the continued and constant maintenance of an entire society.Not on the continued and constant maintenance of another thinking creature.
You would disregard reason and moralize the death of millions for the opportunity to flip off religion. That's blind hatred.Attributing a woman's bodily autonomy to "a blind dogma of hatred"... Yeah, that makes total sense for you.
Building a broader strawman out of that one line is disingenuous. I mean, this isn't the first time this topic has come up and we know tstorm's position on the matter, right? Even in a broader sense when the discussion has been about marriages and relationships and so on.The starting point for the individual entity to be considered unimpeachable, but not the starting point for that principle-- "life is always the answer if it's an option"-- to hold true. He gave every indication that principle was absolute, no caveats or exceptions. And if that's the case, overriding all concerns of quality of life and suffering, then my point stands.
Right. But that dependence is not only of a much lesser nature, but also a minor part of my mode of existence. I exist as a constituent part of a society, but I also exist as a distinct entity with interests and wishes that are apart from society and all my own. An organ, and a zygote, do not. They have no separate interests or wishes and their dependence is the entirety of their mode of existence.Correct, it's on the continued and constant maintenance of an entire society.
I scarcely see how that's a strawman, but rather a necessary logical conclusion of the position as stated. If one believes that the existence of human life is always and absolutely the best choice, trumping all other concerns, then it necessarily follows that everyone should sacrifice their own wellbeing to bring more human life into existence, even if that human life is unsustainable and miserable.Building a broader strawman out of that one line is disingenuous.
Yes, and I believe there are inconsistencies there.I mean, this isn't the first time this topic has come up and we know tstorm's position on the matter, right? Even in a broader sense when the discussion has been about marriages and relationships and so on.
Flipping off religion is the epitome of reason. So fuck anyone and their religious beliefs that would force someone to carry a pregnancy against their will.You would disregard reason and moralize the death of millions for the opportunity to flip off religion. That's blind hatred.
And now I can only hope that reasonable people never respect another word out of your mouth. "Flipping off religion is the epitome of reason"? Basing your position off of hating another will never make you right no matter how right or wrong the thing you hate is. You let the things you resent define you, and everything downstream of that is worthless.Flipping off religion is the epitome of reason. So fuck anyone and their religious beliefs that would force someone to carry a pregnancy against their will.
Keep your empty rhetoric in your empty churches, yeah.And now I can only hope that reasonable people never respect another word out of your mouth. "Flipping off religion is the epitome of reason"? Basing your position off of hating another will never make you right no matter how right or wrong the thing you hate is. You let the things you resent define you, and everything downstream of that is worthless.
Conservatism.txtAnd now I can only hope that reasonable people never respect another word out of your mouth. "Flipping off religion is the epitome of reason"? Basing your position off of hating another will never make you right no matter how right or wrong the thing you hate is. You let the things you resent define you, and everything downstream of that is worthless.
He just wanted to be Donald Trump minus all the legal issues. Turned out Trump's supporters don't care about those in the least.
Not unexpected, but still, pussed out like a *****
Although I just want to point out that Winston Churchill actually won when it really mattered. Hence why his quotations have so much impact.
Not unexpected, but still, pussed out like a *****
Oh they care. Being a lunatic who can't stop committing crimes just happens to be appealing to them....for some reason. I've heard analysts describe ''Trump with competence and without the crazy'' to be a losing strategy because Trump's voters love the incompetence and crazy more than any actual policy Trump has.He just wanted to be Donald Trump minus all the legal issues. Turned out Trump's supporters don't care about those in the least.
more rational than the reverse, tbfTrump's voters love the incompetence and crazy more than any actual policy Trump has.
To be fair, that's only a tranche of Republican voters. Just, unfortunately, the ones most engaged with the political process who select their candidates. (The Republicans aren't unusual in this: most party memberships overrepresent cranks, extremists and weirdos.)Oh they care. Being a lunatic who can't stop committing crimes just happens to be appealing to them....for some reason.
It's almost like actions have consequences or something. Didn't a political party spend decades telling us that?
It is reasonable to expect things of society generally. It is even reasonable to expect certain things of individuals. Incubation until birth against that individual's will is not one of them. Moreover, we should want the people who are going to have children to want to have children. Obviously. If you still want to see less abortions, there are plenty less invasive ways of pursuing it: make it less expensive to have children-- both in the maternity ward and then to raise them. Encourage contraception. What absolutely should not be done is to enslave the pregnant to carry unwanted children to term and then risk their lives or health in childbirth.Correct, it's on the continued and constant maintenance of an entire society.
Besides, he's going to be "in debt" in the way most very rich people are ever in debt, which is potentially have to flog a portion of their copious assets when they don't want to. Like they've got $50 million in shares, $10 million in property and $1 million in the bank, and try to make out that a $5 million bill is going to leave them paupers.It's almost like actions have consequences or something. Didn't a political party spend decades telling us that?