Democrat Rep: ending taxpayer abortion funding an imposition of ‘religious beliefs’

[kimmielittle]

From where would it come from?

Read the thread

Care to prove my statement wrong - not circular reasoning?

 

[1holycatholic]

My point is, as in my example.] “Their” objective truth Morality eg cruelty to animals is bad ] also fulfills all other definitions of morality - including Catholic.

“They” don’t have objective truth, they have subjective truth that happens to coincide with objective truth. Nothing says “they” can’t redefine truth.

FACT: Morality, can / does exist outside of the Church / Religious belief.

Only as a manifestation of moral relativism which is a mutable and subjective morality with no basis in objective truth. That’s not saying much.

 

[kimmielittle]

“They” don’t have objective truth, they have subjective truth that happens to coincide with objective truth. Nothing says “they” can’t redefine truth.

“Life has intrinsic value” is an objective truth…the truth stated ] came from an Atheist - how they got there???

BUT it remains an objective truth.

Only as a manifestation of moral relativism which is a mutable and subjective morality with no basis in objective truth. That’s not saying much.

Agreed!!

I do know what you are saying

But to say Atheists have / posses no objective truths to form their base of morality?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Let’s make this simple:

Here is my original statement:

Prove it wrong

To say that life in an of itself has value is an example of circular reasoning. A Christian can say:

A. God doesn’t create anything without value.
B. God created life.

Therefore:

C: Life has value because God created it.

How does an atheist form the sequence of logic that acerts the prima facia value of life just because it is?

 

[kimmielittle]

To say that life in an of itself has value is an example of circular reasoning. A Christian can say:

A. God doesn’t create anything without value.
B. God created life.

Therefore:

C: Life has value because God created it.

How does an atheist form the sequence of logic that acerts the prima facia value of life just because it is?

A. Life exists in nature
B. Nature allows / encourages life to exist / thrive

Therefore;
C; Life has value because it exists in nature.



Note: This is just an exercise in logic. I’ve debated / read from Atheists on CAF for 2 years now - and still haven’t figured them out

 

[estesbob]

A. Life exists in nature
B. Nature allows / encourages life to exist / thrive

Therefore;
C; Life has value because it exists in nature.



Note: This is just an exercise in logic. I’ve debated / read from Atheists on CAF for 2 years now - and still haven’t figured them out

But with that logic all life would have eqaul value-thus swatting a misquito would be the moral equivalent to aborting a child.

 

[kimmielittle]

But with that logic all life would have eqaul value-thus swatting a misquito would be the moral equivalent to aborting a child.

Yeppers!!!

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

But with that logic all life would have eqaul value-thus swatting a misquito would be the moral equivalent to aborting a child.

Read up on Peter Singer. He is a bioethics “professor” at Princeton University and preaches that very thing.

 

[kimmielittle]

Read up on Peter Singer. He is a bioethics “professor” at Princeton University and preaches that very thing.

Mr Singer - Ack!!!

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Mr Singer - Ack!!!

Ya, I’ve read some of his work. If anyone on the planet needs prayer, its him. He endorses not only abortion, but infanticide up to one year of age. Beastiality. Animal rights (with lawyers and everything). Euthanasia for the handicapped. Its sickening.

 

[kimmielittle]

Ya, I’ve read some of his work. If anyone on the planet needs prayer, its him. He endorses not only abortion, but infanticide up to one year of age. Beastiality. Animal rights (with lawyers and everything). Euthanasia for the handicapped. Its sickening.

Yeppers!!!

The voice of many Green Terrorist Agendas.

Margret Sanger - Marie Stopes - Peter Singer

 

[Tsuwano]

I don’t wonder. They are secular Statists. Individual belief and accomplishment mean nothing and are considered counter-productive to the collective and the State. Just shut up and comply with your master.

I think your comment is a little odd considering that those who support abortion do so based upon the individual’s right to privacy and control of his or her own body. Abortion is not about adhering to a collective mentality or State control over the individual, rather it is about selfish individual concerns which ignore the right to life of a separate individual. It is individual belief over and against communal values and beliefs which underlie abortion. Abortion is ultimately a very liberatarian position and emanates from a liberatarian and self centered view of the world.

 

[kimmielittle]

I think your comment is a little odd considering that those who support abortion do so based upon the individual’s right to privacy and control of his or her own body. Abortion is not about adhering to a collective mentality or State control over the individual, rather it is about selfish individual concerns which ignore the right to life of a separate individual. It is individual belief over and against communal values and beliefs which underlie abortion. Abortion is ultimately a very liberatarian position and emanates from a liberatarian and self centered view of the world.

Agreed!!! But when funded by Federal Monies???

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I think your comment is a little odd considering that those who support abortion do so based upon the individual’s right to privacy and control of his or her own body. Abortion is not about adhering to a collective mentality or State control over the individual, rather it is about selfish individual concerns which ignore the right to life of a separate individual. It is individual belief over and against communal values and beliefs which underlie abortion. Abortion is ultimately a very liberatarian position and emanates from a liberatarian and self centered view of the world.

You really don’t have any idea of what a “libertarian point of view” is, do you? Admit it. Libertarians, first and foremost, adhere to a principle of non-aggression. Violence is only acceptable in the defense against threats to life, liberty and property. How is killing an innocent human in utero not a violation of this principle? Abortion is not about “controlling one’s own body”. It is about doing whatever it takes to eliminate the consequences of irresponsible behavior, because ultimately abortion is about doing violence to someone else’s body, one that the mother has a prima facia duty to protect. And self-centered? Again, your ignorance of libertarianism is astounding. The libertarian premise that “my right to swing my arm through the air ends at someone else’s nose”. Yes, I have the God given right to act in accordance with my conscience, however, that right is tempered by a duty to not violate someone else’s rights. I cannot use my rights to interfere with the rights of anyone else. Statists, which I have come to the conclussion that you are, have no problem using the coercive power of government with their monopoly power over “acceptable violence” to subjugate the rights of one group of people for the sake of another. Which is more selfish, me, who wishes to work hard and keep the money I earn to do with what I deem appropriate, or you, who wishes me to work hard so you can take it from me and do with it what YOU deem appropriate, regardless of whether or not that violates my conscience or not?

 

[SamH]

I think your comment is a little odd considering that those who support abortion do so based upon the individual’s right to privacy and control of his or her own body. Abortion is not about adhering to a collective mentality or State control over the individual, rather it is about selfish individual concerns which ignore the right to life of a separate individual. It is individual belief over and against communal values and beliefs which underlie abortion. Abortion is ultimately a very liberatarian position and emanates from a liberatarian and self centered view of the world.

Only to the Libertarians that don’t believe an individual with a beating heart and function brain is entitle to life.

I’ve always wondered why the “right to privacy” allows a woman to use government funds to kill a baby but doesn’t allow me to sell my extra kidney.

 

[1holycatholic]

Only to the Libertarians that don’t believe an individual with a beating heart and function brain is entitle to life.

I’ve always wondered why the “right to privacy” allows a woman to use government funds to kill a baby but doesn’t allow me to sell my extra kidney.

You have three kidneys?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

You have three kidneys?

You can life a perfectly normal, fully functional life with only one kidney.

 

[Raskolnikov]

Scott_Lafrance:

You really don’t have any idea of what a “libertarian point of view” is, do you? Admit it. Libertarians, first and foremost, adhere to a principle of non-aggression. Violence is only acceptable in the defense against threats to life, liberty and property. How is killing an innocent human in utero not a violation of this principle? Abortion is not about “controlling one’s own body”. It is about doing whatever it takes to eliminate the consequences of irresponsible behavior, because ultimately abortion is about doing violence to someone else’s body, one that the mother has a prima facia duty to protect. And self-centered? Again, your ignorance of libertarianism is astounding. The libertarian premise that “my right to swing my arm through the air ends at someone else’s nose”. Yes, I have the God given right to act in accordance with my conscience, however, that right is tempered by a duty to not violate someone else’s rights. I cannot use my rights to interfere with the rights of anyone else.

I have to agree with Tsuwano. People don’t support abortion because they want the government to have a monopoly on violence (you must not know many pro-abortion folks if you think that); they are, in effect, too libertarian. They do in fact radically support the individual liberties of women (individual liberty is the fundamental principeal of libertarianism, is it not?) - but unbenownst to them at the expense of another’s liberty, that of the unborn. I would say that legalizing murder would in fact be an ultra-libertarian position, as it would allow the extreme excercise of individual freedom, even at the expense of the freedom of some.

To be sure, I’m not attributing this idea to your libertarianism (most libertarians of course are not that extremely libertarian, only a few (anarchists). Ultimately. try as you might, you can’t tie abortion to “statism” (which i presume is what you call everyone who disagrees with you and Murray Rothbard?); it is about taking individual rights too far. In this case, a bit of statism is what we need; the state needs to step in and prevent some individuals from killing others. The rule of law is then a “statist” idea. There’s such a thing as too much of it, but there’s also such a thing as too little of it.

Statists, which I have come to the conclussion that you are, have no problem using the coercive power of government with their monopoly power over “acceptable violence” to subjugate the rights of one group of people for the sake of another. Which is more selfish, me, who wishes to work hard and keep the money I earn to do with what I deem appropriate, or you, who wishes me to work hard so you can take it from me and do with it what YOU deem appropriate, regardless of whether or not that violates my conscience or not?

Of course you assume that he is basically a thief who’s trying to use the state to take your money. You’d probably call me a statist (indicating i think your lack of a true understanding of the word ‘statist’) even though I have nothing to gain from anyone else’s taxes. Do you really believe, by the way, that everyone with money worked hard for it, or that everyone who doesn’t have so much money doesn’t work hard? I guarantee there are plenty of people who work much much harder than you do (and than me as well) and are much poorer.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I have to agree with Tsuwano. People don’t support abortion because they want the government to have a monopoly on violence (you must not know many pro-abortion folks if you think that); they are, in effect, too libertarian. They do in fact radically support the individual liberties of women (individual liberty is the fundamental principeal of libertarianism, is it not?) - but unbenownst to them at the expense of another’s liberty, that of the unborn. I would say that legalizing murder would in fact be an ultra-libertarian position, as it would allow the extreme excercise of individual freedom, even at the expense of the freedom of some.

To be sure, I’m not attributing this idea to your libertarianism (most libertarians of course are not that extremely libertarian, only a few (anarchists). Ultimately. try as you might, you can’t tie abortion to “statism” (which i presume is what you call everyone who disagrees with you and Murray Rothbard?); it is about taking individual rights too far. In this case, a bit of statism is what we need; the state needs to step in and prevent some individuals from killing others. The rule of law is then a “statist” idea. There’s such a thing as too much of it, but there’s also such a thing as too little of it.

Of course you assume that he is basically a thief who’s trying to use the state to take your money. You’d probably call me a statist (indicating i think your lack of a true understanding of the word ‘statist’) even though I have nothing to gain from anyone else’s taxes. Do you really believe, by the way, that everyone with money worked hard for it, or that everyone who doesn’t have so much money doesn’t work hard? I guarantee there are plenty of people who work much much harder than you do (and than me as well) and are much poorer.

First of all, the state DOES have de facto monopoly on violence. Its not what I want, it just happens to be the case. Case in point, if the police bust down my door, erroneously, during while executing a no-knock warrant and I shoot one of them and another shoots me back, I will go to jail while they get decorated as heros. I was defending my home from what I perceive to be invaders, they erroneously labelled me as a criminal. The state has monopoly power on violence.

Yes, abortion is about individual rights gone extremist. However, chaotic anarchy is not what libertarianism is about. Libertarians, by and large, understand that freedom is always intimately tied to personal responsibility. ANd in this regard you have it wrong. The statist position is to coercively steal money for productive people to pay for mothers to kill their children in utero. You may not like it, but that is what we have in effect here in America.

 

[Raskolnikov]

Scott_Lafrance:

Yes, abortion is about individual rights gone extremist. However, chaotic anarchy is not what libertarianism is about. Libertarians, by and large, understand that freedom is always intimately tied to personal responsibility. ANd in this regard you have it wrong. The statist position is to coercively steal money for productive people to pay for mothers to kill their children in utero. You may not like it, but that is what we have in effect here in America.

The acquisition of money by means taxation and what that money is used to do are two seperate issues. Even a diehard socialist could support the highest degree of taxation while utterly opposing the expenditure of revenues on abortion. Likewise, many people likely do oppose the use of taxes to finance abortion but not for moral reasons, and wholly support the legality of abortion.

I’ll concede this much; taxation to fund abortion is theft because of unjust nature of what is done the revenues. Of course I certainly do not believe that taxation is by nature theft, because I am not an anarchist.