A Conception's Right To Life

[numinus]

Very interesting, chip.

What interests me more is your criticism of moral relativism, something that is presently popular. I myself was inclined to it until I came across jp2's book, crossings. In the book, he argued against moral relativism which manifests in the western world's pre-occupation to what he refers to as a 'culture of death'.

This prompted me to re-examine the moral philosophies of hume and the utilitarians as opposed to kant and other idealist and rationalist philosophies.

Now, I'm not suggesting that you are catholic or papist. I'm merely giving mare's pathetic argument another avenue of attack. I'm curious as to how low he's willing to go.

 

[Chip]

Very interesting, chip.

What interests me more is your criticism of moral relativism, something that is presently popular. I myself was inclined to it until I came across jp2's book, crossings. In the book, he argued against moral relativism which manifests in the western world's pre-occupation to what he refers to as a 'culture of death'.

This prompted me to re-examine the moral philosophies of hume and the utilitarians as opposed to kant and other idealist and rationalist philosophies.

Now, I'm not suggesting that you are catholic or papist. I'm merely giving mare's pathetic argument another avenue of attack. I'm curious as to how low he's willing to go.

You broach a truly fascinating topic, one I'd enjoy exploring in a separate thread.

Psychological character and temperament was my first fascination, the one that got me started in the field.

Of the three foundational philosophical bases -- ontological, epistemological and utilitarian -- I have noticed a connection between utilitarianism and Jung, Myers-Briggs, Keirsey psychological character and temperament psychology's "sensing perceptive" Dionysian temperament.

These live-in-the-moment playful people, along with their complement, "sensing judging" Epimetheans who are grounded-in-the-past responsible people, comprise, as Keirsey estimates, around 85 percent of the world's population, split roughly equally between the two.

Dionysians are for the most part respectful of the rights of others, but they are the most susceptible, when suffering relative emotional immaturity, to the violation of the rights of others, and Dionysians greatly comprise the largest percentage of prison inmates.

The Dionysian temperament is indeed at play in the fun, free child, and, in an adult world that can sometimes be stressful and dour, there is a great compensatory attraction to Dionysian-like pleasurable activities.

With regard to the psychological character and temperaments, there are even places in the brain where cerebrally localized activity reflects character and temperament.

This is all fascinating stuff, but I digress from the topic of this thread.

Start another thread on the relationship of psychological character-temperament and philosophy to U.S. political position on the issues, and I'm there, time allowing.

 

[Dr.Who]

Emotional immaturity.

In this case, the utilitarian moral relativist indeed behaves like a freedom-loving child, a child who immaturely wants whatever he or she wants whenever he or she wants it without regard to the consequences, in this case, the consequences being the deadly damage their freedom-at-any-price attitude to do whatever they want whenever they want costs the newly conceived person.

Similar to emotionally immature children, when they receive information from the messenger that they simply cannot behave so abusively, trampling at whim the rights of others to get whatever they want whenever they want it, then, as emotionally immature children sometimes do, they react by attacking the messenger, throwing, in effect, a temper tantrum, complete with name-calling, a trademark of upset immature children who obstinately refuse to behave respectfully.

I find that all very interesting. I used to work with behaviorally disordered kids for about 15 years and that was an observation I made repeatedly. So often the 13, 14, 15, 16 year old kids just wanted what they wanted and were willing to sacrifice so much of their or others rights in an attempt to get what they wanted. It was common to be restraining an out of control child/teen and to hear him saying "I want to get up" as if his wanting to not be restrained made any difference at all and his recent attempt to knock someone's brains out was irrelevant. They struggled so hard against the acceptance that being civilized and respecting the rights of others would gain them more freedom and they continued in self-destructive patterns continually pursuing their own wants even at the expense of their own freedoms. As a Christian I can see this as rebellion, not so much against society and self but against God, as a player in a secular field we called it "acting-out" or Oppositional Disorder or whatever. The kids rarely got what they wanted manifestly but they usually got what they wanted spiritually; they could sit in a padded room or lay strapped to a gurney and proclaim proudly that they did not succumb.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Does anyone here really think that our arguing changes anyone's mind? Do you think all the sound and fury here has caused or prevented one abortion?

I like posting on these sites because it's interactive and thus more fun than television. I also post on gay and trans threads because there are a lot of people still in hiding from the bigots of the world and sometimes one of them will contact me and I can steer them towards sources of information or help.

I don't lie on the threads because I'm a terrible liar and can't remember what stories I've made up, so I just tell the truth as best I can and let the chips fall where they may. I don't lie about my educational achievements because I couldn't support them convincingly any more than the others here who have tried it.

Chip has accused me of misandry which isn't correct either. I dislike men who try to own women, who try to control them, and who abuse them. A lot of men aren't like Chip or Pale, and I have no problem with those men. I have a lot scorn and distaste for the men who feel the need to beat up "f*cking queers" or promote hate against them while ignoring what science has discovered about them.

Dr. Who is the only one here who has posted useful information and kept civil tone in the process, and I appreciate that even if I don't necessarily agree with him completely.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Here you post a list of internet references claiming your mere posting of them reflects my rejection of the science you presented in that thread.

Nothing could be further from the truth, and you know it.

How could you accept them when they had not yet been posted? Did you read any of them?

I can't assissinate your character, Chippo, it's been dead for years.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Now, I'm not suggesting that you are catholic or papist. I'm merely giving mare's pathetic argument another avenue of attack. I'm curious as to how low he's willing to go.

Pale,
You asked about nicknames of posters, well here's another one for you, when people are angry with me on the thread they almost always change their reference to my gender--as Nums has done here. Siho and Chippo have done the same.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It's a drag gentlemen, but I have to work today and since no one has posted anything new except Dr. Who, I'll give you the day to pool your resources for another assault on me this evening. Have a nice day. And I promise not to have an abortion all day long.

 

[Chip]

A review of Mare's posts in this thread reveals that her recent accusations are false and merely a divertive digression.

Mare is always the first person to issue ad hominems, she lies about others and their uses of ad hominems, and when she has her own initiated ad hominems reflected back at her, or when her obvious underlying issues that she herself presents are rephrased in technical terms, she rants and rants and rants and rants in feigned temper-tantrum fashion ... hoping, thereby, to weaken her opponent's winning arguments and divert attention away from the losing substance of her utilitarian moral relativistic argument's disrespect for the right to life of newly conceived people.

Indeed, she can feign emotional immaturity all day ... but the topically relevant substance of the arguments presented from the opening post in this thread are what truly counts in the matter.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

A review of Mare's posts in this thread reveals that her recent accusations are false and merely a divertive digression.

Mare is always the first person to issue ad hominems, she lies about others and their uses of ad hominems, and when she has her own initiated ad hominems reflected back at her, or when her obvious underlying issues that she herself presents are rephrased in technical terms, she rants and rants and rants and rants in feigned temper-tantrum fashion ... hoping, thereby, to weaken her opponent's winning arguments and divert attention away from the losing substance of her utilitarian moral relativistic argument's disrespect for the right to life of newly conceived people.

Indeed, she can feign emotional immaturity all day ... but the topically relevant substance of the arguments presented from the opening post in this thread are what truly counts in the matter.

So did you read any of my science references?

 

[Chip]

So did you read any of my science references?

Irrelevant and divertive.

Please, try to stick to this topic.

If you want to talk about topically irrelevant transsexuality, start a thread on it and I will comment there.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Irrelevant and divertive.

Please, try to stick to this topic.

If you want to talk about topically irrelevant transsexuality, start a thread on it and I will comment there.

On this thread, your post #315 you said I lied about posting information about transsexuals and so I reposted it with the reference number from my previous post. I called your bluff and you were the one who was caught with your pants down and speaking with a forked tongue (to mix a metaphor). Maybe you should rethink your "liar, liar, pants on fire" offense. Sucks to be caught publicly, doesn't it?

Did you read any of the citations? No, I suspect not.

This topic is abortion, I disagree with you and your cohorts--rots your socks doesn't it?

 

[Chip]

On this thread, your post #315 you said I lied about posting information about transsexuals and so I reposted it with the reference number from my previous post. I called your bluff and you were the one who was caught with your pants down and speaking with a forked tongue (to mix a metaphor). Maybe you should rethink your "liar, liar, pants on fire" offense. Sucks to be caught publicly, doesn't it?

Topically irrelevant and erroneous.

You are attempting to wipe your blatant lie onto me, which I proved in my previous post on the matter where I referenced the relevant statement numbers.

You have failed.

Give it a rest, Mare, and get back on topic.

Did you read any of the citations? No, I suspect not.

Erroneous and topically irrelevant.

This topic is abortion,

Then stop initiating blatant ad hominems and divertive topics.

I'm done coddling you on the matter.

I disagree with you and your cohorts

Okay, then if you have nothing new to post on the matter, leave the thread.

--rots your socks doesn't it?

Erroneous and irrelevant.

You are simply an insequential foil used as an example with which to educate others.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I'm done coddling you on the matter.

Is that what you call it? How're you at "bundling"?

You are simply an insequential foil used as an example with which to educate others.

I want to thank you, Chippo, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and your last statement is a copy of one of mine on the Prop 8 thread. But even copying you couldn't get it right, the word you wanted was "inconsequential". Glad I could help.

 

[top gun]

palerider;81949]Well, it is good to know that you and those like you whose only rational defense of abortion is "its legal" will be out on the streets the day after roe falls supporting the decision of the court. After all, if you trust the court to that extent, rationally, you must agree with everything they decide.

Yea that's gonna happen!:... not ever!

The reason abortion is legal is for multiple reasons. First and foremost is we live in a democracy and the majority sees the justification for it... now that's not a Judicial argument that's just the reality of what would have happened if the anti-women Clinic Creepers had prevailed... the Legislative branch would have simply passed a law allowing for it. For they would know they simply could not stay in office without doing so. Women would revolt as in the Civil Rights movement.

So this whole hullabaloo was really just Clinic Creeper saber rattling without any chance of winning from the start.

But on top of that that court is smart enough to realize that you cannot force a woman to carry a child inside herself anyway.

Add to that the whole conception on theory doesn't hold water to most people the way it does religious fanatics and Clinic Creepers.

Except for the above mentioned most people most do not put the rights of full personhood onto something that starts out as only a couple cells, a fertilized egg. They see that even though it has the possible potential to grow to term and be delivered it also could be terribly mentally and/or physically damaged, miscarried or still born.

Add to that there's the right of the woman not to be government forced to incubate against her will... or be a forced life support source for anything or anybody against her will... or not wanting to be pregnant be forced to have something for lack of a better word "parasite" off her against her will... and the health of the woman issues involved... and the various ways men being stronger can force themselves on women causing pregnancy by rape and incest...

you never had a chance... as I clearly and correctly told you 3 long years ago.

Perhaps you should examine the decision you respect so reverently. It gives women the right to terminate a potential human being. Consider yourself challenged to present some credible evidence that unborns are potential human beings. Picture yourself in a court of law and prove your claim.

I don't have to show that the unborn are not a potential human being. Because it's already understood and a matter of not only law but several other active policies that there are many circumstances in life where because of conflicting interests and realities it is legal and/or justifiable to terminate various types of life.

In this case we are talking about a couple cells (conception) which even the modern safe & effective Birth Control Pill terminates... v. the wishes and rights of a full blow living breathing independently functioning woman.

Women's reproductive rights are not going away. Like it... don't like it... it doesn't really matter.

 

[Chip]

Is that what you call it? How're you at "bundling"? I want to thank you, Chippo, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and your last statement is a copy of one of mine on the Prop 8 thread. But even copying you couldn't get it right, the word you wanted was "inconsequential". Glad I could help.

Irrelevant and divertive.

Stay on topic, Mare.