Jump to content

The meaning of life and other ill sh!t


Day Man

Recommended Posts

When have conservatives ever tried to ban tools that enable "responsible family planning"? I've never seen it, unless you are somehow lumping the killing of the unborn into "responsible family planning".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bfargin said:

When have conservatives ever tried to ban tools that enable "responsible family planning"? I've never seen it, unless you are somehow lumping the killing of the unborn into "responsible family planning".

Standard scarecrow tactics.  There are fringe elements on the right that want to ban birth control but they are a minority within a minority - yet the left tries to frame this view as mainstream when it’s far from it.  Catholic organizations that employ folk won’t offer birth control but they are a private organization and birth control isn’t that expensive for one to buy on their own.  Most conservatives I know want the life of the unborn to be protected but believe birth control is a good thing.  The fundamental debate is where life begins.  An argument can be made for conception, but even most conservatives do not believe abortion should be banned immediately after conception.  I always liked the first trimester rule.  After the first trimester, the fetus starts to resemble a baby.  I also think it is a decent compromise to a very polarized topic.  Unfortunately, both sides love said polarization so they can galvanize their base. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Or, hear me out, people don't see it your way. See that's why I called you and idiot. Not because the point is invalid, but because you somehow think it's much stronger than it is, to the point you ridiculed those who disagree.

You can certainly disagree...Murica!, but that doesn't change a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

You can certainly disagree...Murica!, but that doesn't change a fact.

Your fact is that an IUD destroys a fertilized egg, which is you learned, only happens if the primary mechanism of the IUD fails. Every woman I know stopped having periods on they IUD, so your scenario is not common enough to be an unqualified fact.

 

And given the way you phrased it I'm pretty sure you had no idea how an IUD works in 2022.

 

But, let's take your "fact" without any context. IUDs destroy fertilized eggs (which they mostly don't). That's supposed to be the same as abortion. But that's like saying a husband beating his wife to death is the same as a grunt shooting an insurgent. Murder is murder, right? I hope those drone operators realize they are no better than the Nazis who were herding gypsies and Jews into the gas showers.

 

It would also be similar to saying an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy is the same as a partial birth abortion. Sure... Technically.

 

There are some people of course who do believe those things. But they don't represent the entirety of the pro life crowd, or even the fervent pro-life crowd, because people live in a nuanced world. And it certainly isn't the case that the anti-abortion folks here have all expressed an absolute objection to all abortions for any reasons, rape and incest, for example.

 

But your post, ironically posted after you expressed fears about the potentially divisive nature of the ruling, is exactly the mentality that is dividing the country. If you don't agree with me you're a hypocrite.

 

A wise man once told me there's a better way of communicating with people... 

19 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

A simple I disagree goes a long way.

But he was an idiot, so... 🤷🏻‍♂️

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

30 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

And given the way you phrased it I'm pretty sure you had no idea how an IUD works in 2022.

Absolutely untrue.  And I think as your other comments indicate it is you that doesn't understand how an IUD works or that their are different types.

31 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Your fact is that an IUD destroys a fertilized egg, which is you learned, only happens if the primary mechanism of the IUD fails. Every woman I know stopped having periods on they IUD, so your scenario is not common enough to be an unqualified fact.

The "fact" is that an IUD can destroy a fertilized egg which has been articulated as the red line of life by the pro-life crowd here. 

Although you attempt to discount the fact that an IUD can kill a fertilized egg with your scientific observation "every woman I know", I prefer to follow the science.  For the record both the FDA and the industry acknowledge IUDs have a 99% effectiveness rate.  That's a great rate, but it also means that of the 4.4 million U.S. women who use IUDs, approximately 44,000 (I fully acknowledge it is likely less but the FDA lists the rate as "approximately one in 100"), of them end up pregnant while using an IUD.

The women in your observation are likely using a hormone laced IUD that does indeed prevent cycles and ovulation BUT it is not foolproof and when that mechanism fails the backup mechanism kills the fertilized eggs by preventing implantation.  The copper infused IUDs function by deterring fertilization but they also rely on the back up mechanism which kills the fertilized egg.  By default there is a failure rate and eggs are fertilized becoming life using the definition others have provided. 

I am certainly not against the use of contraception or IUDs, I am simply saying that much of the moral outrage about abortion expressed on this forum is centered around killing a fertilized egg.  Given that is your red line for life and the small but existing failure rate of IUDs does make it a fact that IUDs do indeed destroy fertilized eggs.  To me that seems hypocritical and far to convenient.  If you stand on principles and morals then at least be honest.

 

54 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

But, let's take your "fact" without any context. IUDs destroy fertilized eggs (which they mostly don't). That's supposed to be the same as abortion. But that's like saying a husband beating his wife to death is the same as a grunt shooting an insurgent. Murder is murder, right? I hope those drone operators realize they are no better than the Nazis who were herding gypsies and Jews into the gas showers.

Come on man, now you are reaching, as you yourself admit "which they mostly don't" which means sometimes they DO!  The rest of your argument is beyond flawed and punctuated with Godwin's Law...come on man, you are better than that.

 

59 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

It would also be similar to saying an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy is the same as a partial birth abortion. Sure... Technically.

There are some people of course who do believe those things. But they don't represent the entirety of the pro life crowd, or even the fervent pro-life crowd, because people live in a nuanced world. And it certainly isn't the case that the anti-abortion folks here have all expressed an absolute objection to all abortions for any reasons, rape and incest, for example.

I 100% believe abortion is VERY nuanced subject.  On the other side of your example is the fervent pro-choice crowd that thinks abortion is ok up until the moment of birth...absolutely disgusting.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

But your post, ironically posted after you expressed fears about the potentially divisive nature of the ruling, is exactly the mentality that is dividing the country. If you don't agree with me you're a hypocrite.

Again, come on man...having a differing opinion is dividing our country?  Dear god that is what the framers wanted.  Discussion, debate, work to find common ground.  Are we divided, absolutely but in the old days some of the real disagreements led to duels.  I hardly think my pithy repartee equates to a lead ball fired at 10 paces. 

Also, I never said "If you don't agree with me you're a hypocrite."  I was very precise and deliberate.  If you use the fertilization red line and you use an IUD then by default, not my opinion, by scientific fact as outlined by the FDA and research, you are a hypocrite.  Either stand by your principles or stop expressing fake outrage when it is inconvenient to your form of birth control.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

A wise man once told me there's a better way of communicating with people... 

But he was an idiot, so... 🤷🏻‍♂️

Not the first time I've been called an idiot and I am sure I have earned the title repeatedly.  Hell it took me multiple attempts to get through WIC...AND I picked the Air Force over med school despite getting in and being offered a full ride (WTF was I thinking?)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

AND I picked the Air Force over med school despite getting in and being offered a full ride (WTF was I thinking?)

Whoa!!??  Just think CH, you could have became a doctor and be performing abortions!

Sorry man lol…I couldn’t resist the jab (no pun intended).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Whoa!!??  Just think CH, you could have became a doctor and be performing abortions!

Sorry man lol…I couldn’t resist the jab (no pun intended).

Funny...but I wanted to be a proctologist so I could fix assholes like you.  🥃

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Funny...but I wanted to be a proctologist so I could fix assholes like you.  🥃

I've seen your hands. 100% don't want the finger wave from Doctor CH

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Random Guy said:

So that leads us to our first actual post about modern money: banks create money by issuing loans. Most people think of money as a token which is loaned out to someone and then deposited in a bank, and that the deposits is then re-loaned over and over again, multiplied up to create a money supply, which is false.

image.thumb.png.019e72785aeab4e98b86a0a9042f891a.png

https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/page1-econ/2021/09/17/teaching-the-linkage-between-banks-and-the-fed-r-i-p-money-multiplier?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=SM&utm_content=stlouisfed&utm_campaign=7a051d1e-5d0b-4e98-ac43-8f8de89ffb2d

 

 

Banks create deposits when they create a loan, and the only thing a bank needs to create that loan is a borrower. In some cases, the bank can even lend to itself, creating positive equity from nothing in order to meet certain capital requirements, such as how Barclays bank when it created a loan for the state of Qatar to purchase a new issuance of Barclays shares during the GFC. https://www.complianceweek.com/sfo-charges-barclays-a-second-time-over-fraudulent-3b-qatar-loan/2372.article 

 

 

Your article seems to say that banks cannot, in fact, create assets by loaning money to themselves, since Barclay's got slapped with fraud charges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

image.png.e34855f1541f7b4eed0125d4796da99c.png

I vote we keep this thread more focused on abortion / when does life begin / when are rights conferred and take the odd detour to "Banking 101" to a dedicated thread.

Edited by nsplayr
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, nsplayr said:

image.png.e34855f1541f7b4eed0125d4796da99c.png

I vote we keep this thread more focused on abortion / when does life begin / when are rights conferred and take the odd detour to "Banking 101" to a dedicated thread.

I mean to some people money is the meaning of life right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only a dumb ass would try to argue about when life begins. We can discuss when (at what point in our life cycle) we as a society value and bestow "personhood" status on that human life. I'd argue, as I have previously, that they can't be separated (life and value) but many on here argue otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we were created, then humans have intrinsic value simply because we are human and were created in the image of God.  The biologically indisputable fact that human life begins at conception confers the automatic intrinsic value of human life at the point of conception.  Thus the pro-life side should not and cannot compromise.  This both creates a problem and, at the same time, greatly simplifies the position of the pro-life camp.  No compromise is morally permissible. 

 

The problem of life and value with the pro-choice folks is that they ultimately have very little, if any, ground to stand on with life and value, which is why they will always call the baby a "fetus".  Fetus is simply Latin for 'young' or 'offspring' and the pro-choice group has picked that term because it has less emotion; it is an intentional obscuration by obfuscation.  Ultimately, if our ancestors evolved from single cell organisms in a primordial soup, then the only value life has is the usefulness of that life from the beholder's perspective.  Any other value is illogical with the theory of evolution and is simply stealing from the Christian worldview.  If humans were not created, than what makes our lives any more valuable than any life?  For that matter, what makes the normal human cells in my body more valuable than cancer cells?  Only because they are more useful to me because they keep me alive.  Such a viewpoint is incompatible with civilized society, but that is the logical end of the pro-choice argument.

 

Similarly, the viability argument seems like nonsense.  The left may argue that human life begins when the "offspring" is "viable", but it is absurd to base a definition of something so important to what we are based on something that can change.  What is "viable"?  Is a premature baby viable at 20 weeks because some have survived with modern medical care?  In 20 years will the new standard become 20 days because of medical advances?  Is a two year old not viable because he wouldn't last a week without parents actively caring for him?

 

I used to be pro-choice because I looked at the issue with an excessively cold 'what is the best for society' viewpoint.  From that viewpoint, unwanted babies are not best for society as a whole, so abortion should be legal up to the point of delivery.  That viewpoint, by the way, is largely the viewpoint that got Planned Parenthood started and placed in primarily poor minority areas.  Once I became a Christian and re-evaluated the issue with a Christian worldview, I realized I was looking at the issue from the wrong direction and flipped my position 180 almost overnight.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Smokin said:

Ultimately, if our ancestors evolved from single cell organisms in a primordial soup, then the only value life has is the usefulness of that life from the beholder's perspective.  Any other value is illogical with the theory of evolution and is simply stealing from the Christian worldview. ..... that is the logical end of the pro-choice argument.

Consciousness, agency, choice.  If we someday find out that Dolphins are actually conscious in the human sense of the word, your view that they are not made in God's image would make it fine to kill them?  Likewise if an intelligent alien species showed up at our doorstep, not in God's image?

One doesn't need a belief in God to rationally come to the conclusion that moral relativism is dumb, or that your logical end-point isn't logical.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bfargin said:

Only a dumb ass would try to argue about when life begins. We can discuss when (at what point in our life cycle) we as a society value and bestow "personhood" status on that human life. I'd argue, as I have previously, that they can't be separated (life and value) but many on here argue otherwise.

What is life exactly? Do you think sperm is alive? It moves on its own, and it can die if not kept in the right conditions. It has a life span. We develop spermicide to kill it. To die, mustn’t it have some degree of life? It also has genetic makeup and dna of its creator. You’ll see your line is actually arbitrary, even if you wanna call people who disagree with you dumb asses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Banzai said:

What is life exactly? Do you think sperm is alive? It moves on its own, and it can die if not kept in the right conditions. It has a life span. We develop spermicide to kill it. To die, mustn’t it have some degree of life? It also has genetic makeup and dna of its creator. You’ll see your line is actually arbitrary, even if you wanna call people who disagree with you dumb asses.

Hey Socrates.

No one is confused about what life is or if sperm are alive - it's not arbitrary. A sperm is not a human. An egg is not a human. Both are living. Sexually dimorphic species genetic material needs to come together in order to form a unique organism. The line of what constitutes a human is clear and is completely and totally unambiguous. The fact that a zygote doesn't have full human form at all stages of development is not a point in your column of the argument, though it is the fundamental tenet of what all pro-abortion advocates rest their argument upon. The argument is about when elective abortion should be allowed and when it should be disallowed. That's where the disagreement lies. Everything else is an attempt to muddle the other sides' argument.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Banzai, maybe too harsh a statement and I should have said "science and medicine have confirmed what logic and reason have long argued for when human life begins".  The point is we all know, and have for a really long time, when human life begins. Without deliberate intervention, that fertilized egg (not the sperm or the egg individually) will develop into a screaming infant, a precocious 3 year old, an argumentative 14 year old, and finally a douchebag 30 to 60 year old arguing on the internet.

We are now left with trying to come to a political decision on when we as a society affirm "personhood" status (with all rights there bestowed/attached).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, pawnman said:

Your article seems to say that banks cannot, in fact, create assets by loaning money to themselves, since Barclay's got slapped with fraud charges.

AFAIK I can't create a thread (or I'm too old to find the 'create post' button).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Random Guy said:

AFAIK I can't create a thread (or I'm too old to find the 'create post' button).

Yeah I’m looking at this front page here trying to figure out how to start a thread. It is definitely super complicated. Instead of looking harder, I’m just going to start a new thread as a reply within whatever existing thread I happen to be reading. Makes perfect sense, go Air Force.

54272908-CC1C-419B-B305-D3BB79B03532.png

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, ViperMan said:

Hey Socrates.

No one is confused about what life is or if sperm are alive - it's not arbitrary. A sperm is not a human. An egg is not a human. Both are living. Sexually dimorphic species genetic material needs to come together in order to form a unique organism. The line of what constitutes a human is clear and is completely and totally unambiguous. The fact that a zygote doesn't have full human form at all stages of development is not a point in your column of the argument, though it is the fundamental tenet of what all pro-abortion advocates rest their argument upon. The argument is about when elective abortion should be allowed and when it should be disallowed. That's where the disagreement lies. Everything else is an attempt to muddle the other sides' argument.

Hey Occam, thanks for the response, but I still disagree. I fundamentally truly believe that killing a sperm, egg, or using an IUD or birth control to create a prohibitive environment that won’t allow a zygote to adhere to the uterine wall to all be the same outcome as stopping a zygote a few weeks to months later. I do not see why you get to make an arbitrary point that is way too early in the pregnancy the moment life begins (and therefore, the moment you gain control over women’s bodies).

To me and many of my friends, an 8 week zygote is little more than a bad sneeze that a woman should be able to decide whether to carry or not. Sorry if that’s too graphic for you, but not everyone agrees with your opinions. Cue outrage.

As someone who has had multiple children with my wife (and two “abortions” by this definition), I will say that my personal cutoff is around 20 weeks when I consider life to exist and the gradient to shift where abortion should not be allowed. Actually, if you consider her iud and birth control usage, we’ve probably intentionally killed dozens of zygotes.

Finally, I leave you with this. You posit that a human exists at sperm+egg. Let’s go down the developmental path, I’m happy to do it. Is a sperm+egg human if it doesn’t have eyeballs? Is a sperm+egg human if it doesn’t have a functional brain? Is a sperm+egg human if it doesn’t have lungs? Is a sperm+egg human if it’s in your wife’s uterus, but she has an iud (or some forms of birth control) that makes it impossible for the zygote to adhere to her uterine wall?

Ultimately, this all comes down to your own opinion as to the value of bodily autonomy vs potential to develop. You believe there should be almost none for a woman (or a man, to be fair, as we have a say in a relationship) even when potential to develop hasn’t been proven. I believe individuals should be able to make financial, emotional, non-emotional, career, life, and pragmatic future decisions in their best interest if it deals with their body much longer than you.

Edited by Banzai
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An “8 week zygote” has a heartbeat and unique never before seen DNA.

Edit. A woman doesn’t have 20 toes and 20 fingers. Pro life people want nothing to do with controlling a woman’s body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why in the hell are so many pro-choice folks so bad at making a rational argument?

Point of human life is irrelevant.  Living things die all the time, why does the presence of human DNA make one particular life more important than another?  All animals have heartbeats, unique DNA is a characteristic of all non-hermaphrodidic life.

I contend that the ability to make choices based on conscious thought to exercise agency is what differentiates the human species from the rest of the living things on earth.  From that basis, individual rights from a state of nature flow.

While a Zygote will eventually develop into that, it does not have those characteristics yet.  I would argue that a new born has enough of it to qualify.  Where that specific transition happens, I don't know.  

Fetal viability in the original Roe argument is actually a compromise with some logical basis, even if I think it's a ham handed one that misses the point. A better theoretical logical cut off point would be development of consciousness, however I suspect that there is no single light bulb comes on moment.

For the religious folks, I'm also fine with euthanasia, and doctor assisted suicide.  You and I will never see eye to eye on this, I get it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...