Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 144
  1. #21  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    I just don't see how you can even attempt to justify the ending of a life for the sake of expedience and convenience. You seem to want to view humans at the same level as the lesser animals. A male lion who takes over a pride will kill the cubs of the previous leader for the sake of promoting his genetic line. You promote the killing of human life for the sake of convenience. To live with this you've convinced yourself that it is not as human your killing but something non-human and you use science to justify and validate your beliefs. A misuse of science...
    bullshit - he sees us as less than animals - at least children are. :mad:
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    I just don't see how you can even attempt to justify the ending of a life for the sake of expedience and convenience. You seem to want to view humans at the same level as the lesser animals. A male lion who takes over a pride will kill the cubs of the previous leader for the sake of promoting his genetic line.
    Well I really wasnt trying to have the abortion conversation again.... I'm right, you're wrong, and the world agrees with me on this one... thats about all there is to say about it anymore;)

    My comments in this thread have been about the logic of "pro-abortion is a learned behavior, pro-life is simply natural inclination (allegedly)" and the implied conclusion that "therefore pro-life is better".

    X is a learned behavior
    Y is a natural inclination
    Therefore, Y is better than X

    Obviously nonsense.
    Last edited by wilbur; 02-28-2009 at 11:55 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    because learning to dealue human life is of course far superior to the natural instinct to preserve it . . . .
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Senior Member Mythic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    352
    Again, I submit to the logic that if pro-life is a 'natural inclination' that it is by no means necessarily desirable... hence we should seek a cure.
    This whole natural inclination argument is ridiculous no matter what side anyone is standing on. But let me point out the difference between a "natural inclination to homosexuality" and a "natural inclination to protect a fetus".
    First of all homosexuality is not just some variation like brown or blue eyes. It is either a mental disorder developed in life or a genetic disorder. What else could it be? The whole purpose of opposite-sex attraction from a scientific perspective is to further the population of a species. Why would it be natural for an animal human or not to have attraction for the same sex? It would not be able to procreate with the same sex.

    You are playing with the definition of natural. I do not think that it is "natural" for a person to be homosexual. If you say that it is, then the opposite of being heterosexual must be unnatural, which obviously makes no sense.

    If humans naturally wanted to protect a growing baby they would be allowing for the furthering of their race. If humans were naturally homosexual they would not.

    A species that values single cell organisms beyond that of a live human being may not be fit for survival... at least not a prosperous one.
    By single celled organisms do you mean a human fetus? If so you are incorrect. We do not value the life of a fetus more than a grown person. They have the same worth. Both human. Without that single celled organism there is no species. Not that hard to understand.
    "Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives."
    -Ronald Reagan

    Life is a story; if you stay on the same page forever you will never finish it.
    "There are days you are the pigeon and days you are the statue."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Senior Member Mythic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    352
    And I loved that girl's speech. It was excellent. She spoke better than most politicians in Washington. I loved her quote at the ending too, it added a nice touch :).
    "Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives."
    -Ronald Reagan

    Life is a story; if you stay on the same page forever you will never finish it.
    "There are days you are the pigeon and days you are the statue."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Mythic View Post
    This whole natural inclination argument is ridiculous no matter what side anyone is standing on. But let me point out the difference between a "natural inclination to homosexuality" and a "natural inclination to protect a fetus".
    First of all homosexuality is not just some variation like brown or blue eyes. It is either a mental disorder developed in life or a genetic disorder.
    What else could it be? The whole purpose of opposite-sex attraction from a scientific perspective is to further the population of a species. Why would it be natural for an animal human or not to have attraction for the same sex? It would not be able to procreate with the same sex.

    You are playing with the definition of natural. I do not think that it is "natural" for a person to be homosexual. If you say that it is, then the opposite of being heterosexual must be unnatural, which obviously makes no sense.
    That makes no sense. It doesnt follow at all that if one is natural, the other must then be 'unnatural' by default.

    I'm not playing with the definition of natural at all. You are twisting it to align with your moral view.. just like Policon. When you say 'natural' its meant to mean that 'its the way its supposed to be according to some unquestionable authority' or something like that. A disguise for an empty, meaningless platitude and bankrupt belief.

    And if you consider homosexuality a 'disorder'... well whatever, it doesn't matter. Policon opens the door to all kinds of silliness.... genetic disorders are natural, and by his rationale, we should consider them wonderful... along with homosexuality.

    We are naturally inclined to have genetic disorders.
    Cures and treatments for genetic disorders are learned.
    Therefore genetic disorders are better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Senior Member Mythic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    352
    That makes no sense. It doesnt follow at all that if one is natural, the other must then be 'unnatural' by default.
    There are multiple definitions of natural and it is not a good word to use to illustrate the point that is trying to be made.
    "based upon the innate moral feeling of humankind"
    "having or showing feelings, as affection, gratitude, or kindness, considered part of basic human nature"
    Normal would be a better word. Normal is actually a synomym of natural. The definition that is meant by people having a natural want to protect children is that it is normal/natural for people to want to help protect their children, but it is not normal for people to want to kill their children. That is all the point is. How homosexuality got into this I don't know. It is not normal/natural for a person to be homosexual. There is nothing wrong with being homosexual just as there is nothing wrong with having other mental/genetic disorders. It is normal to be heterosexual. That was my point.

    I'm not playing with the definition of natural at all. You are twisting it to align with your moral view.. just like Policon. When you say 'natural' its meant to mean that 'its the way its supposed to be according to some unquestionable authority' or something like that. A disguise for an empty, meaningless platitude and bankrupt belief.
    By playing with the definition I meant that you were interpreting the normal definition of natural to mean something more along the lines of occuring in nature. Not everything that occurs in nature is normal.
    Natural is meant to mean that "it is the way it is supposed to be according to NATURE." According to what is logical. It is not logical to make homosexuality normal because the natural purpose of sex (before humans decided to create ways to prevent the child) is to procreate. Homosexuals cannot have children together.

    And if you consider homosexuality a 'disorder'... well whatever, it doesn't matter. Policon opens the door to all kinds of silliness.... genetic disorders are natural, and by his rationale, we should consider them wonderful... along with homosexuality.
    Genetic disorders are not wonderful. People with genetic disorders can be wonderful but the disorders are obviously not.

    We are naturally inclined to have genetic disorders.
    Cures and treatments for genetic disorders are learned.
    Therefore genetic disorders are better.
    Again, the normal definition is what was meant. The "occuring in nature" definition is the one you are using. It is abnormal to have a genetic disorder (abnormal is synonymous with unnatural)
    To fix this abnormality cures and treatments for genetic disorders are learned.
    "Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives."
    -Ronald Reagan

    Life is a story; if you stay on the same page forever you will never finish it.
    "There are days you are the pigeon and days you are the statue."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    By playing with the definition I meant that you were interpreting the normal definition of natural to mean something more along the lines of occuring in nature. Not everything that occurs in nature is normal.
    Natural is meant to mean that "it is the way it is supposed to be according to NATURE."
    Ok.....

    According to what is logical. It is not logical to make homosexuality normal because the natural purpose of sex (before humans decided to create ways to prevent the child) is to procreate.
    Homosexuals cannot have children together.
    So not just anything should be considered be normal just because it is natural, but we shouldn't consider homosexuality normal because it goes against the natural purpose of sex. Come again? You are doing exactly what I pointed out... again... appealing to nature to justify your moral norms.... and arbitrarily singling out what you don't want to accept... and pretending it has to be that way by authority of nature (ie. "the natural purposes of sex" is X... therefore any other use is not normal").

    The purpose of eating is simply to continue living. But we have many other purposes for it as well... such as bonding and pleasure, etc. Sex is no different.

    Again, the normal definition is what was meant. The "occuring in nature" definition is the one you are using. It is abnormal to have a genetic disorder (abnormal is synonymous with unnatural)
    To fix this abnormality cures and treatments for genetic disorders are learned.
    Thats not how it was used in its original context. It was used as "what occurs naturally as a default state" vs "what is learned".

    In the end anyways... the whole line of reasoning started by Policon fails spectacularly on another level. It really isn't a natural inclination to value microscopic organisms over that of more mature human beings. It has to be TAUGHT, indoctrinated, brainwashed, to believe otherwise.

    A building is in flames.... you, a stranger who needs your help to escape, and a case of hundreds of frozen embryos are inside. You only have time to save the person OR the embryos, but not both. Who do you save? I will have to laugh (or possibly cry) at any person here whose 'natural inclination' would be to save the embryos and let the person burn to death. But if you hold to the courage of your convictions, that's exactly what you should do.
    Last edited by wilbur; 03-01-2009 at 01:03 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Wilbur has his head so far up his own ass - he can see his own tonsils. I point out that disregard for human life must be TAUGHT and he spins a web trying to make it mean anything else other than what was stated. Typical fucking leftist tactics.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    Wilbur has his head so far up his own ass - he can see his own tonsils. I point out that disregard for human life must be TAUGHT and he spins a web trying to make it mean anything else other than what was stated. Typical fucking leftist tactics.
    Well no.. in so many words, what you tried to do was justify pro-life by saying it was 'natural'.. and demonize pro-choice by saying its 'against nature'. You said it, not me. I'm just having a little fun belaboring on about how daft that was ;)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •