I mean, if your baby comes out looking as ugly as, let's say Troutbum, it's pretty much a forgone conclusion it has to be killed, right?
Killing A Newborn No Different Than An Abortion
- Thread starter Scat
- Start date
Granted, I was an odd looking baby. I mean, not many new born baby boys have a 6" weenus and a full beard, so I can totally see why people would classify that as "ugly".
DutchJazzer
Banned
so by your qway say the woman is giving birth the head is sticking out. then how about murdering it hthen just when the head starts to stick out. he is tecnically at that moment still dependant on the woman
This is already performed. It's called a partial birth abortion.
GVC
Well-Known Member
That's not how it works.
Pics or it didn't happen.
DutchJazzer
Banned
does he fart?
The Black Swordsman
Well-Known Member
Dang 6 inch elbow flap skin and hairy as a monkey that's nasty.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
Let me just say this. Roe v. Wade has helped crime out a boatload in this country.
This absurd claim is from the book Freakonomics which abuses statistics to such an extent, it should be criminal. You cannot just find two correlated trends at random and claim one causes the other.
But sometimes you can. For instance, the more BluesJersey, BeanClown, and Craig1221 post, the dumber I get.
Don't make me kill you.
AtheistPreacher
Well-Known Member
Some people are just too rationalistic for their own good.
Charles Hartshorne, who was a genius philosopher-theologian, and one of my primary influences as I do my PhD in theology, actually made some similar sort of arguments. He didn't come right out and say that it was okay to kill babies, but he defined the worth of a person in the same way the people in this article do, so that it was hard not to draw the same conclusion. I love Hartshorne, and I can see where the argument makes rational sense, but c'mon people. At some point you need to drop the rationalistic moralizing and just say, "Dude, shut up. It's wrong because it just is."
This whole thing strikes me as a lot like the Epicurean argument that death isn't a harm to the dead person, because the dead person no longer exists to be harmed. Well, um, yeah. Thanks for that. And that means murder is okay, because the person murdered no longer exists to experience their lack of existence? Riiiight.
Charles Hartshorne, who was a genius philosopher-theologian, and one of my primary influences as I do my PhD in theology, actually made some similar sort of arguments. He didn't come right out and say that it was okay to kill babies, but he defined the worth of a person in the same way the people in this article do, so that it was hard not to draw the same conclusion. I love Hartshorne, and I can see where the argument makes rational sense, but c'mon people. At some point you need to drop the rationalistic moralizing and just say, "Dude, shut up. It's wrong because it just is."
This whole thing strikes me as a lot like the Epicurean argument that death isn't a harm to the dead person, because the dead person no longer exists to be harmed. Well, um, yeah. Thanks for that. And that means murder is okay, because the person murdered no longer exists to experience their lack of existence? Riiiight.
So, Ok. I'll borrow some Vegan philosophy, some Vernadsky Noosphere nonsense, and some of the original Law of Moses, mix them all up, and worship Gaia or Nature and crap out the notion that Life is Sacred, no matter what it is, and it is our duty to Nature to do all we can to cultivate, nurture, preserve, protect, and propagate Life. With or without the booze and the parties, bros. Increase the biomass, extend the biosphere.
It might be a sort of ultimate sacrifice, maybe complete self-abnegation. But the bottom line is, for me at least, kids are worth it. My wife says we'll adopt any you don't want.
It might be a sort of ultimate sacrifice, maybe complete self-abnegation. But the bottom line is, for me at least, kids are worth it. My wife says we'll adopt any you don't want.
good distinction between the two...
on a somewhat related topic, I don't understand why some of those who oppose abortion favor restricting a woman's access to birth control
agree, this is seems to be the epitome of irony to me!
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
You're kidding I hope. Or do you actually believe that crime went down significantly during the exact time periods referenced, not just nationally but on a state by state basis, because of um, other factors? Yeah, I'm sure it was just a coincidence.
Not only is it a "coincidence" it is not even true (I mean the claim about the crime rate). I am surprised people can't see this **** for what it is. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that there is no convincing mechanism for the suggested causality.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/article/2005/may/09/00021/
https://www.economist.com/node/5246700?story_id=5246700
https://online.wsj.com/public/artic...P0pDWul8rc_20061127.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top
https://www.isteve.com/Freakonomics_Fiasco.htm
https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/jhr/2004ab/joyce1.htm
https://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/spring2006/mueller.html
In fact, there are about a thousand academic responses that dismantle that silly claim in every conceivable way. And I'm not even against Roe v Wade (I am morally opposed to abortion, but I recognize the need for compromise in making such laws). But lets not distort reality to fit our desires.