Brant Gaede Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 6 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said: There is only one world. According to Leibniz, this is the best of all possible worlds.... A tautology. --Brant or call it a contradiction--I think it's mush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 Just now, Brant Gaede said: Trump is saying state governments are sovereign on this issue. Brant, That's a move in the right direction, but it still commits the same logical fallacy. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 1 minute ago, Brant Gaede said: A tautology. --Brant Not a tautology since more than this world is possible... It would be a tautology if only one world (the one we have ) is the only possible world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 4 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said: Not a tautology since more than this world is possible... It would be a tautology if only one world (the one we have ) is the only possible world. Habital? --Brant it's our world he's talking about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 8 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Brant, That's a move in the right direction, but it still commits the same logical fallacy. Michael That's a contradiction. --Bamit! no 4 minute mile running in mud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 Like I said--R v W for up to the quickening and then let the states have at it. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 4 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said: That's a contradiction. Brant, No it isn't. I meant it's a move toward where people can discuss this correctly in the mainstream, show examples in reality from different perspectives, etc., and finally define this sucker--then pass an amendment to the constitution. There will never be that discussion so long as the federal government controls it through legislating from the bench. In that manner, it will continues to be a church and state issue. The churches against abortion and the government for, both based on incomplete definitions (at the foundation) of what human beings are. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 8 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Brant, No it isn't. I meant it's a move toward where people can discuss this correctly, show examples in reality from different perspectives, etc., and finally define this sucker--then pass an amendment to the constitution. There will never be that discussion so long as the federal government controls it through legislating from the bench. In that manner, it will continues to be a church and state issue. The churches against abortion and the government for, both based on incomplete definitions (at the foundation) of what human beings are. Michael The SCOTUS should "legislate" from the bench when it comes to human rights or it's just another branch of the legislature. This country is founded on human rights. The Bill of Rights was to re-enforce this idea if the dumbkoff's in the future didn't get the then common knowledge. --Brant you're half right with R v W (congratulations!) I'm all right (congratulations!) be reasonable: see it my way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 4 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said: The SCOTUS should "legislate" from the bench when it comes to human rights or it's just another branch of the legislature. This country is founded on human rights. The Bill of Rights was to re-enforce this idea unless the dumbkoff's in the future didn't get the then common knowledge. Brant, OK. Then do you think the Founding Fathers considered the unborn as human beings or as blobs of protoplasm? If they believed the unborn were human beings, then--to them--SCOTUS should legislate from the bench about their rights, too. That's the definition that tears all rationalizations apart and why people always disagree. This is actually a good sign. That means Orwell's Newspeak is hard to get across as a unified formal system of thought in America. (I'm using Alex Jones's definition of Newspeak: where you hold two contradictory ideas in your mind and believe in both of them.) Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 Thank you Jean-Claude Van Damme: Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 9 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Brant, OK. Then do you think the Founding Fathers considered the unborn as human beings or as blobs of protoplasm? If they believed the unborn were human beings, then--to them--SCOTUS should legislate from the bench about their rights, too. That's the definition that tears all rationalizations apart and why people always disagree. This is actually a good sign. That means Orwell's Newspeak is hard to get across as a unified formal system of thought in America. (I'm using Alex Jones's definition of Newspeak: where you hold two contradictory ideas in your mind and believe in both of them.) Michael Abortions back then? Not much if any issue. Late-life pregnancy was a virtual death sentence for septicemia was part of the birthing process. You needed youth to overcome the bacteria, much introduced, I think, by mid-wifery. Even during the Civil War a gut shot meant you died. Rights' violations are initiation of physical force or we can talk about it forever. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 Opps! Back on thread topic! --Brant you need a vid to displace me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 1 minute ago, Brant Gaede said: Abortions back then? Not much if any issue. Late-life pregnancy was a virtual death sentence for septicemia as part of the birthing process for you needed youth to overcome the bacteria, much introduced, I think, by mid-wifery. Brant, Blah blah blah. The issue was definition of human being, not availability of procedure. The Founding Fathers agreed that all men have a right to life, irrespective of what means there are to kill people. And they defined humans as created by "The Creator." Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 44 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Thank you Jean-Claude Van Damme: Michael America has Donald Trump. --Brant I never doubted it (this guy's pretty damme damn good and exactly right! A must watch video!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 On 10/21/2016 at 6:38 PM, Brant Gaede said: Space-time is a concept only--just like moral gravity--neither has corporeal existence. --Brant no actual physicalites You can prove the existence moral gravity for yourself. Just do evil and observe what you become. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 Brant asked, “And Hillary Clinton? Is what?” A wound that won’t heal because it is constantly reopened, with bacteria in the blood stream. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 9 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Brant, Blah blah blah. The issue was definition of human being, not availability of procedure. The Founding Fathers agreed that all men have a right to life, irrespective of what means there are to kill people. And they defined humans as created by "The Creator." Michael I said they muddled it--and they should have considering their culture and personal beliefs--for muddled is from the contemporary perspective. the issue is human rights--when do they start and where do they come from and are they a human invention or not or what? Or, two cells = a right to life. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 6 minutes ago, moralist said: You can prove the existence moral gravity for yourself. Just do evil and observe what you become. Greg Nobody is denying consequences except Bob denying some consequences. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Brant, I disagree with Rand's characterization of a fetus as merely a blob of protoplasm (that isn't an exact quote, or maybe it is, but at least it is close). Her insinuation when she said that was that it had nothing to do with human being. Ann Heller mentioned that Rand had an abortion once when she was younger. I don't think the way she was constituted internally would have allowed her to define human as anything different after performing it. When I talked to Barbara about this, she confirmed and mentioned she also had an abortion. I tried to probe the logic of the definition of human being, but it was like a door slammed shut in her eyes and she got very testy. So I let it go. Legally, I consider Roe v. Wade to be like the Dred Scott decision, which defined people of African origin as not having standing to sue in American courts since they could not be American citizens. Michael Post hoc, ergo propter hoc? No, I don't think so. --Brant but painful--yes, at least Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 Brant wrote: Rights appertain essentially to social existence. The unborn's is biological only. Once you have conception you have a human being . . . . Once you have birth you have rights. Between the two we have arguments. end quote Medic! Nobody believes that, not even you. Consider your little finger. It is a group of cells attached to a rights bearing individual. An unborn human at any stage of development is attached to a rights bearing individual. But if you detach or destroy the little finger or the little baby, it is a big deal because of the *human* nature of each. If you were a cave man you would come to the same conclusion, and I mean that literally. 200,000 years ago, value was attached to pregnant women and the unborn baby OR we would not be here to be talking about it. Anything associated with people is more important than life unaffiliated with thinking individuals. The exception to that reasoning could be a fertilized egg in a petrie dish or a birthing machine which is not attached to a rights bearing individual. Yet even then it is not “too sticky” a moral issue if we define a sliding scale of human value to all living creatures, based on their nature at a particular stage of development. Conceptual thought, not conception or birth, is more crucially important to imputing / granting rights to babies. A thinking baby inside the womb equals a thinking baby outside the womb. Put that born or aborted baby in the incubator STAT! Or you have committed murder. Likewise, if a finger is detached because of a buzz saw, it MUST BE wrapped in a wet paper towel to be reattached. Again I am speaking LITERALLY. Consider yourself in that situation. Would you be having *emotions* and reactions because of your detached finger? Of course. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: And Congress, and the Executive and the media... Michael Narcissist alert! Narcissist alert! --Brant I never suspected but the evidence is under-whelming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 52 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Thank you Jean-Claude Van Damme: Michael That Jean Claude is a corker!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 3 minutes ago, Peter said: Brant wrote: Rights appertain essentially to social existence. The unborn's is biological only. Once you have conception you have a human being . . . . Once you have birth you have rights. Between the two we have arguments. end quote Medic! Nobody believes that, not even you. Consider your little finger. It is a group of cells attached to a rights bearing individual. An unborn human at any stage of development is attached to a rights bearing individual. But if you detach or destroy the little finger or the little baby, it is a big deal because of the *human* nature of each. If you were a cave man you would come to the same conclusion, and I mean that literally. 200,000 years ago, value was attached to pregnant women and the unborn baby OR we would not be here to be talking about it. Anything associated with people is more important than life unaffiliated with thinking individuals. The exception to that reasoning could be a fertilized egg in a petrie dish or a birthing machine which is not attached to a rights bearing individual. Yet even then it is not “too sticky” a moral issue if we define a sliding scale of human value to all living creatures, based on their nature at a particular stage of development. Conceptual thought, not conception or birth, is more crucially important to imputing / granting rights to babies. A thinking baby inside the womb equals a thinking baby outside the womb. Put that born or aborted baby in the incubator STAT! Or you have committed murder. Likewise, if a finger is detached because of a buzz saw, it MUST BE wrapped in a wet paper towel to be reattached. Again I am speaking LITERALLY. Consider yourself in that situation. Would you be having *emotions* and reactions because of your detached finger? Of course. Peter Only persons have rights. new born humans are not yet persons. Why? Because they do not have enough brain tissue and neural interconnects to be persons. Fortunately, nature has contrived to make the brain the fastest developing organ in a new born human. Within a month or two our newborn will have the equipment to become a person, so legally we should give it time to happen, which it will in virtually all normal newborn humans. Here is the thing. The vaginal opening in the human female pelvis is too small to permit the ejection (birth) of the newborn if it had a 2.5 lb brain (minimum for being human). So a newborn has a brain that weighs slightly over one pound. In a word, human come half baked from the oven. Fortunately the dough rises within a month or two. But human infants -at birth- are not yet persons. They are biological entities who most likely will become persons if their growth is not interfered with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 5 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said: Only persons have rights. new born humans are not yet persons. Why? Because they do not have enough brain tissue and neural interconnects to be persons. Fortunately, nature has contrived to make the brain the fastest developing organ in a new born human. Within a month or two our newborn will have the equipment to become a person, so legally we should give it time to happen, which it will in virtually all normal newborn humans. Here is the thing. The vaginal opening in the human female pelvis is too small to permit the ejection (birth) of the newborn if it had a 2.5 lb brain (minimum for being human). So a newborn has a brain that weighs slightly over one pound. In a word, human come half baked from the oven. Fortunately the dough rises within a month or two. But human infants -at birth- are not yet persons. They are biological entities who most likely will become persons if their growth is not interfered with. This is too mechanistic. When the sperm hits the egg you have an unrepeatable uniqueness that will eventually be expressed by consciousness--unless aborted, naturally or otherwise. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said: the issue is human rights Brant, And to have human rights, you need to have humans. If nobody agrees on what a human is, the discussion about human rights can get awfully confused. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now