What Was And What Will Be

[BlindBoo]

Every reader of our individual posts recognizes that I posted the actual words of the Democrat.

"alluding to the physician and mother discussing whether the born infant should live or die."

These are not words of the Democrat. He never said it. You lied again.

Let me remind you, the convesation between the doctor and the mother/family would naturally depend on the nature of the malady. It might be whether or not the infant "could" survive but it most certainly would not be if the infant "should" survive. The law is clear. The infant must be cared for because killing it, even by neglect, would be infanticide. Infanicide is illegal in all 50 states.

Beat it, liar.


Everyone can see what you are.....supporter of infanticide.

Debating abortion is pointless because you want the other side to admit you are right and they are wrong. It will not happen.

It's not an abortion debate. She accuses Democrats of supporting infanticide which is a lie.

I never mind proving you a sack of offal and a liar.



Hussein Obama supported infanticide...wouldn't vote to support the baby.

Obama named Peter Singer, champion of infanticide, as his 'science adviser.'
The Democrat administration in Virginia offered a law for...in favor of....infanticide....stopped by Republicans.

The Democrat governor of Virginia actually agreed with the bill for infanticide.

"New York abortion law changes allow infanticide"
New York abortion law changes allow infanticide

"Anti-infanticide bill blocked by Senate Democrats"
Senate Democrats block Republicans’ anti-infanticide bill



The CDC tells us that, between 2003-2014, at least 143 infants died after being born alive during an abortion procedure, and the report even admits that this number is underestimated.

That’s an average of one infant a month! According to the report, some of these infants hung on to life for more than 24 hours after the induced abortion before they died!”
What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.

The Infants Born Alive Act of 2002 says you're lying.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Every reader of our individual posts recognizes that I posted the actual words of the Democrat.

"alluding to the physician and mother discussing whether the born infant should live or die."

These are not words of the Democrat. He never said it. You lied again.

Let me remind you, the convesation between the doctor and the mother/family would naturally depend on the nature of the malady. It might be whether or not the infant "could" survive but it most certainly would not be if the infant "should" survive. The law is clear. The infant must be cared for because killing it, even by neglect, would be infanticide. Infanicide is illegal in all 50 states.

Beat it, liar.


Everyone can see what you are.....supporter of infanticide.

Debating abortion is pointless because you want the other side to admit you are right and they are wrong. It will not happen.

It's not an abortion debate. She accuses Democrats of supporting infanticide which is a lie.

I never mind proving you a sack of offal and a liar.



Hussein Obama supported infanticide...wouldn't vote to support the baby.

Obama named Peter Singer, champion of infanticide, as his 'science adviser.'
The Democrat administration in Virginia offered a law for...in favor of....infanticide....stopped by Republicans.

The Democrat governor of Virginia actually agreed with the bill for infanticide.

"New York abortion law changes allow infanticide"
New York abortion law changes allow infanticide

"Anti-infanticide bill blocked by Senate Democrats"
Senate Democrats block Republicans’ anti-infanticide bill



The CDC tells us that, between 2003-2014, at least 143 infants died after being born alive during an abortion procedure, and the report even admits that this number is underestimated.

That’s an average of one infant a month! According to the report, some of these infants hung on to life for more than 24 hours after the induced abortion before they died!”
What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.

The Infants Born Alive Act of 2002 says you're lying.

Let's let readers decide who is lying....,m'kay????

 

[alang1216]

For there to be infanticide there needs to be an infant, not a fetus. Once a child is born they are under protection of the Infants Born Alive Act 2002.

The OP cannot defend the using the term either. Infanticide is illegal in all 50 states.

Frist, a fetus is an unborn human baby (or infant)!

fe·tus
/ˈfēdəs/

noun

1. an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

Second, my observation is neither bound by nor predicated on your acquiescence to the ever-shifting norms and mores (laws) of any given society that disregards the universally objective standard of morality and the attending imperatives of natural law. The unnecessary, premeditated destruction of innocent human life by the hand of any creature is evil.

Infanticide is a form of homicide which occurs if the child is killed after birth and up to a year (I think), even if the birth is due to a botched abortion.

Abortions are legal.

You're just repeating yourself per your acquiescence to the ever-shifting norms and mores (laws) of any given society that disregards the universally objective standard of morality and the attending imperatives of natural law. I got your reasoning, such as it is, the first time.

I said, relative to the universally objective standard of morality and the attending imperatives of natural law, abortion on demand is homicide.

#Winning

Unfortunately there is no universal, objective standard of morality. Morality is defined by the society you are part of.

One more Nazi.....er, Democrat, advancing ‘moral equivalence,’ or postmodernism.

1. "The roots of postmodernism can be traced to the anthropologist Franz Boas, who, in an effort to study exotic cultures without prejudice, found it useful to take the position that no culture is superior to any other. Thus was born the idea of cultural relativity.

The idea spread like wildfire through the universities, catapulted by the radical impetus of the sixties, ready and willing to reject "the universality of Western norms and principles."
Bawer, "The Victim's Revolution"


"Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual's own culture. This principle was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the 20th century and later popularized by his students. Boas first articulated the idea in 1887: "...civilization is not something absolute, but ... is relative, and ... our ideas and conceptions are true only so far as our civilization goes."[1] but did not actually coin the term "cultural relativism."
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/t...elativism.html



2. In terms of religion, the two extremes are the one that fueled Western Civilization and the founding of our nation, and the other extreme, Militant Secularism. The test between the two is their view of human life. Whether personal beliefs, or what we call 'politics,' or perhaps 'religion,' the real idea that determines what we will do in any and every situation, is one simple idea. Either one believes that human lives are sacred, or one believes that they can be exchanged to achieve some secular material goal.

a. From Schindler's List: “Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”
or
b. Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


3. Just as the former one, the Judeo-Christian religion, has variations, or denominations, so does Militant Secularism. You know them as the totalitarian forms of political plague, and none have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).

They only differ in the final outcome: slavery, serfdom, or death.

So infanticide is just fine with this sort of immoral savage.

Since you mentioned slavery, let me ask you a simple question which I'm sure you won't answer.

Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were slave owners. Without going out on a limb here, I'd guess that you and the vast majority of people living today do not approve of slavery and feel that if there is anything evil in this world it is slavery.

The question is, were Thomas Jefferson and George Washington evil? Extra credit to say why or why not.

 

[alang1216]

Unfortunately there is no universal, objective standard of morality. Morality is defined by the society you are part of.

Horseradish. But if you think you can defend the rank irrationality of moral subjectivism/relativism go to this thread: Alex O'Connor vs Frank Turek | The Moral Argument DEBATE

Good luck with that. I'd strongly recommend you carefully read through the thread, paying close attention to my and ding's observations, before posting.

too many pages.

 

[Ringtone]

You really should stop repeating lies that others have told you, it makes you sound stupid. I'm sure you're not but it does make you sound that way. Or can you explain what makes me a fascist?

Repeating lies, alang? Do you mean like the lie that classical liberals of natural law, whom you oppose, are fascists?

crickets chirping

I've understood what the political left is for years. I routinely refer to humanists as democrats (mobocrats), Jacobins, Hebertists, leftists, statists, progressives, collectivists, socialists, communists, Marxists, Bolsheviks, fascists, Nazis. . . . In fact, pre-WWII Americans generally understood that humanist regimes are leftist and that theocratic/monarchic regimes are rightist, as arranged along a linear political spectrum graduating from the center toward the extremes of totalitarianism and authoritarianism, respectively.

You think of me as an authoritarian as you foolishly fail to observe that abortion on demand, for example, undermines the sanctity of human life and liberty. You mistake the nihilism of moral relativism/subjectivism for freedom because you lack the moral and political insight of objectivity.

You lack empathy, alang.

Hence, the real-world consequences (or outcomes) of your lunacy elude you as the tyranny of your own making surreptitiously closes in on you.

I recently had a hilarious encounter with dblack, who, I suspect, doesn't grasp the real-world outcomes of libertarianism proper. He's one of these libertarians who poo-poos so-called social conservatism and characterizes what is in fact his understanding of things as word salad. LOL! Zoom Right over his head. He told me to Google it. I didn't have to because the historically ignorant and politically obtuse definition of it in popular culture is routine. Social conservatism proper is not the gobbledygook of Google: the social politics and movements of traditionalism relative to those of gradualism and pluralism.

Social conservatism proper is historically rooted in the classical liberalism of natural law. It emphasis negative rights, limited government, and the dangers of nihilism, namely, the avarice and depravity thereof. The classical liberalism of natural law = genuine liberty. It's the moral and political standard of liberty at the center of the spectrum.

I've got clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right. Here I am stuck in the middle with Sue.

That's my wife's middle name, by the way.

Historically, the classical liberalism of natural law is extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity: Love God above all other things, and love your neighbor as you love yourself. Hence, God, not the state, is the Source and Guarantor of human rights. These rights are inalienable. They cannot be given, taken or transferred. They can only be violated or suppressed.

As I have written before:

Everyone knows that to violate the life, liberty or property of another is evil, as everyone knows they would not wish that their life, liberty or property be violated by another. Even the apathetic ghouls of sociopathy know that a desperate state of fight or flee ensues on the heels of an injustice.​

 

[PoliticalChic]

For there to be infanticide there needs to be an infant, not a fetus. Once a child is born they are under protection of the Infants Born Alive Act 2002.

The OP cannot defend the using the term either. Infanticide is illegal in all 50 states.

Frist, a fetus is an unborn human baby (or infant)!

fe·tus
/ˈfēdəs/

noun

1. an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

Second, my observation is neither bound by nor predicated on your acquiescence to the ever-shifting norms and mores (laws) of any given society that disregards the universally objective standard of morality and the attending imperatives of natural law. The unnecessary, premeditated destruction of innocent human life by the hand of any creature is evil.

Infanticide is a form of homicide which occurs if the child is killed after birth and up to a year (I think), even if the birth is due to a botched abortion.

Abortions are legal.

You're just repeating yourself per your acquiescence to the ever-shifting norms and mores (laws) of any given society that disregards the universally objective standard of morality and the attending imperatives of natural law. I got your reasoning, such as it is, the first time.

I said, relative to the universally objective standard of morality and the attending imperatives of natural law, abortion on demand is homicide.

#Winning

Unfortunately there is no universal, objective standard of morality. Morality is defined by the society you are part of.

One more Nazi.....er, Democrat, advancing ‘moral equivalence,’ or postmodernism.

1. "The roots of postmodernism can be traced to the anthropologist Franz Boas, who, in an effort to study exotic cultures without prejudice, found it useful to take the position that no culture is superior to any other. Thus was born the idea of cultural relativity.

The idea spread like wildfire through the universities, catapulted by the radical impetus of the sixties, ready and willing to reject "the universality of Western norms and principles."
Bawer, "The Victim's Revolution"


"Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual's own culture. This principle was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the 20th century and later popularized by his students. Boas first articulated the idea in 1887: "...civilization is not something absolute, but ... is relative, and ... our ideas and conceptions are true only so far as our civilization goes."[1] but did not actually coin the term "cultural relativism."
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/t...elativism.html



2. In terms of religion, the two extremes are the one that fueled Western Civilization and the founding of our nation, and the other extreme, Militant Secularism. The test between the two is their view of human life. Whether personal beliefs, or what we call 'politics,' or perhaps 'religion,' the real idea that determines what we will do in any and every situation, is one simple idea. Either one believes that human lives are sacred, or one believes that they can be exchanged to achieve some secular material goal.

a. From Schindler's List: “Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”
or
b. Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


3. Just as the former one, the Judeo-Christian religion, has variations, or denominations, so does Militant Secularism. You know them as the totalitarian forms of political plague, and none have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).

They only differ in the final outcome: slavery, serfdom, or death.

So infanticide is just fine with this sort of immoral savage.

Since you mentioned slavery, let me ask you a simple question which I'm sure you won't answer.

Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were slave owners. Without going out on a limb here, I'd guess that you and the vast majority of people living today do not approve of slavery and feel that if there is anything evil in this world it is slavery.

The question is, were Thomas Jefferson and George Washington evil? Extra credit to say why or why not.

And, those Founders:

1. Usually, the ‘Founders’ refers to these six: Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin.
   1. The three non-Southerners worked tirelessly against slavery.
   2. While reading Ron Chernow’s book Alexander Hamilton, though, I found out that Hamilton was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery. During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton’s work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamiltonhttp://angelolopez.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/alexander-hamilton-and-the-new-york-manumission-society/
   3. Many of the other Founding Fathers were activists like Alexander Hamilton. In 1787 Benjamin Franklin agree to serve as president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which set out to abolish slavery and set up programs to help freed slaves to become good citizens and improve the conditions of free African Americans. On February 12, 1790, Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society presented a petition to the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to take steps for the gradual abolition of slavery and end the slave trade. As a young lawyer, Thomas Jefferson represented a slave in court attempting to be set free and during the 1770s and 1780s, Jefferson had many several attempts to pass legislation to gradually abolish slavery and end the slave trade. John Jay was the first president of the New York Manumission Society and was active in Society’s efforts to abolish slavery. Ibid.

2. An excellent read on the matter is a brilliant book called Miracle in Philadelphia, by Catherine Drinker Bowen, which recounts the actual history and debates around the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Slavery was a huge issue during that convention, and many of the Founding Fathers wanted it outlawed, but ran into an impasse after many hours of debate with the southern colonies whose agricultural productivity depended on it.

The Founders who wanted to set the stage for the abolition of slavery came up with a compromise involving the issue of apportionment.

The southern colonies that favored slavery wanted all residents of their states, slave and free, counted equally when it came to deciding how many seats they were going to receive in Congress. Some of the northern colonies, who mostly had few slaves and thus nothing to lose didn’t want slave residents counted at all.

The Founder’s compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a man for the purposes of apportionment, and when that passed after a great deal more debate and lobbying, legislators from the slave states were permanently limited to a minority. With that one stroke, the state was set for slavery’s eventual demise, and the proof of how effective it was came in 1804, when the slave states were powerless to stop Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves to the new nation.

The stage was set, even if it took 70 years and a bloody war.


Media - Latest News
Big Journalism debunks the spin and narratives from the Democrat-media complex, and rips the lid off faux media objectivity.
bigjournalism.com

 

[Ringtone]

For there to be infanticide there needs to be an infant, not a fetus. Once a child is born they are under protection of the Infants Born Alive Act 2002.

The OP cannot defend the using the term either. Infanticide is illegal in all 50 states.

Frist, a fetus is an unborn human baby (or infant)!

fe·tus
/ˈfēdəs/

noun

1. an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

Second, my observation is neither bound by nor predicated on your acquiescence to the ever-shifting norms and mores (laws) of any given society that disregards the universally objective standard of morality and the attending imperatives of natural law. The unnecessary, premeditated destruction of innocent human life by the hand of any creature is evil.

Infanticide is a form of homicide which occurs if the child is killed after birth and up to a year (I think), even if the birth is due to a botched abortion.

Abortions are legal.

You're just repeating yourself per your acquiescence to the ever-shifting norms and mores (laws) of any given society that disregards the universally objective standard of morality and the attending imperatives of natural law. I got your reasoning, such as it is, the first time.

I said, relative to the universally objective standard of morality and the attending imperatives of natural law, abortion on demand is homicide.

#Winning

Unfortunately there is no universal, objective standard of morality. Morality is defined by the society you are part of.

One more Nazi.....er, Democrat, advancing ‘moral equivalence,’ or postmodernism.

1. "The roots of postmodernism can be traced to the anthropologist Franz Boas, who, in an effort to study exotic cultures without prejudice, found it useful to take the position that no culture is superior to any other. Thus was born the idea of cultural relativity.

The idea spread like wildfire through the universities, catapulted by the radical impetus of the sixties, ready and willing to reject "the universality of Western norms and principles."
Bawer, "The Victim's Revolution"


"Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual's own culture. This principle was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the 20th century and later popularized by his students. Boas first articulated the idea in 1887: "...civilization is not something absolute, but ... is relative, and ... our ideas and conceptions are true only so far as our civilization goes."[1] but did not actually coin the term "cultural relativism."
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/t...elativism.html



2. In terms of religion, the two extremes are the one that fueled Western Civilization and the founding of our nation, and the other extreme, Militant Secularism. The test between the two is their view of human life. Whether personal beliefs, or what we call 'politics,' or perhaps 'religion,' the real idea that determines what we will do in any and every situation, is one simple idea. Either one believes that human lives are sacred, or one believes that they can be exchanged to achieve some secular material goal.

a. From Schindler's List: “Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”
or
b. Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


3. Just as the former one, the Judeo-Christian religion, has variations, or denominations, so does Militant Secularism. You know them as the totalitarian forms of political plague, and none have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).

They only differ in the final outcome: slavery, serfdom, or death.

So infanticide is just fine with this sort of immoral savage.

Since you mentioned slavery, let me ask you a simple question which I'm sure you won't answer.

Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were slave owners. Without going out on a limb here, I'd guess that you and the vast majority of people living today do not approve of slavery and feel that if there is anything evil in this world it is slavery.

The question is, were Thomas Jefferson and George Washington evil? Extra credit to say why or why not.

And, those Founders:

1. Usually, the ‘Founders’ refers to these six: Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin.
   1. The three non-Southerners worked tirelessly against slavery.
   2. While reading Ron Chernow’s book Alexander Hamilton, though, I found out that Hamilton was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery. During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton’s work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamiltonhttp://angelolopez.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/alexander-hamilton-and-the-new-york-manumission-society/
   3. Many of the other Founding Fathers were activists like Alexander Hamilton. In 1787 Benjamin Franklin agree to serve as president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which set out to abolish slavery and set up programs to help freed slaves to become good citizens and improve the conditions of free African Americans. On February 12, 1790, Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society presented a petition to the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to take steps for the gradual abolition of slavery and end the slave trade. As a young lawyer, Thomas Jefferson represented a slave in court attempting to be set free and during the 1770s and 1780s, Jefferson had many several attempts to pass legislation to gradually abolish slavery and end the slave trade. John Jay was the first president of the New York Manumission Society and was active in Society’s efforts to abolish slavery. Ibid.

2. An excellent read on the matter is a brilliant book called Miracle in Philadelphia, by Catherine Drinker Bowen, which recounts the actual history and debates around the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Slavery was a huge issue during that convention, and many of the Founding Fathers wanted it outlawed, but ran into an impasse after many hours of debate with the southern colonies whose agricultural productivity depended on it.

The Founders who wanted to set the stage for the abolition of slavery came up with a compromise involving the issue of apportionment.

The southern colonies that favored slavery wanted all residents of their states, slave and free, counted equally when it came to deciding how many seats they were going to receive in Congress. Some of the northern colonies, who mostly had few slaves and thus nothing to lose didn’t want slave residents counted at all.

The Founder’s compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a man for the purposes of apportionment, and when that passed after a great deal more debate and lobbying, legislators from the slave states were permanently limited to a minority. With that one stroke, the state was set for slavery’s eventual demise, and the proof of how effective it was came in 1804, when the slave states were powerless to stop Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves to the new nation.

The stage was set, even if it took 70 years and a bloody war.


Media - Latest News
Big Journalism debunks the spin and narratives from the Democrat-media complex, and rips the lid off faux media objectivity.
bigjournalism.com

Careful, Chic, leftists are going to call you a racist for reducing blacks to 3/5 human.

 

[Ringtone]

For there to be infanticide there needs to be an infant, not a fetus. Once a child is born they are under protection of the Infants Born Alive Act 2002.

The OP cannot defend the using the term either. Infanticide is illegal in all 50 states.

Frist, a fetus is an unborn human baby (or infant)!

fe·tus
/ˈfēdəs/

noun

1. an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

Second, my observation is neither bound by nor predicated on your acquiescence to the ever-shifting norms and mores (laws) of any given society that disregards the universally objective standard of morality and the attending imperatives of natural law. The unnecessary, premeditated destruction of innocent human life by the hand of any creature is evil.

Infanticide is a form of homicide which occurs if the child is killed after birth and up to a year (I think), even if the birth is due to a botched abortion.

Abortions are legal.

You're just repeating yourself per your acquiescence to the ever-shifting norms and mores (laws) of any given society that disregards the universally objective standard of morality and the attending imperatives of natural law. I got your reasoning, such as it is, the first time.

I said, relative to the universally objective standard of morality and the attending imperatives of natural law, abortion on demand is homicide.

#Winning

Unfortunately there is no universal, objective standard of morality. Morality is defined by the society you are part of.

One more Nazi.....er, Democrat, advancing ‘moral equivalence,’ or postmodernism.

1. "The roots of postmodernism can be traced to the anthropologist Franz Boas, who, in an effort to study exotic cultures without prejudice, found it useful to take the position that no culture is superior to any other. Thus was born the idea of cultural relativity.

The idea spread like wildfire through the universities, catapulted by the radical impetus of the sixties, ready and willing to reject "the universality of Western norms and principles."
Bawer, "The Victim's Revolution"


"Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual's own culture. This principle was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the 20th century and later popularized by his students. Boas first articulated the idea in 1887: "...civilization is not something absolute, but ... is relative, and ... our ideas and conceptions are true only so far as our civilization goes."[1] but did not actually coin the term "cultural relativism."
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/t...elativism.html



2. In terms of religion, the two extremes are the one that fueled Western Civilization and the founding of our nation, and the other extreme, Militant Secularism. The test between the two is their view of human life. Whether personal beliefs, or what we call 'politics,' or perhaps 'religion,' the real idea that determines what we will do in any and every situation, is one simple idea. Either one believes that human lives are sacred, or one believes that they can be exchanged to achieve some secular material goal.

a. From Schindler's List: “Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”
or
b. Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


3. Just as the former one, the Judeo-Christian religion, has variations, or denominations, so does Militant Secularism. You know them as the totalitarian forms of political plague, and none have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).

They only differ in the final outcome: slavery, serfdom, or death.

So infanticide is just fine with this sort of immoral savage.

Since you mentioned slavery, let me ask you a simple question which I'm sure you won't answer.

Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were slave owners. Without going out on a limb here, I'd guess that you and the vast majority of people living today do not approve of slavery and feel that if there is anything evil in this world it is slavery.

The question is, were Thomas Jefferson and George Washington evil? Extra credit to say why or why not.

But, alang, there is no such thing as evil according to you.

 

[Ringtone]

Unfortunately there is no universal, objective standard of morality. Morality is defined by the society you are part of.

Horseradish. But if you think you can defend the rank irrationality of moral subjectivism/relativism go to this thread: Alex O'Connor vs Frank Turek | The Moral Argument DEBATE

Good luck with that. I'd strongly recommend you carefully read through the thread, paying close attention to my and ding's observations, before posting.

too many pages.

Just read ding's first two or three posts. That'll lace you up.

 

[alang1216]

You really should stop repeating lies that others have told you, it makes you sound stupid. I'm sure you're not but it does make you sound that way. Or can you explain what makes me a fascist?

Repeating lies, alang? Do you mean like the lie that classical liberals of natural law, whom you oppose, are fascists?

Apparently my post was too long for you to read otherwise you would have seen that I was accused of being a fascist, I did not accuse anyone.

I've understood what the political left is for years. I routinely refer to humanists as democrats (mobocrats), Jacobins, Hebertists, leftists, statists, progressives, collectivists, socialists, communists, Marxists, Bolsheviks, fascists, Nazis. . . . In fact, pre-WWII Americans generally understood that humanist regimes are leftist and that theocratic/monarchic regimes are rightist, as arranged along a linear political spectrum graduating from the center toward the extremes of totalitarianism and authoritarianism, respectively.

I think it is pretty clear you don't understand the Left at all but those pre-WWII Americans did.

You think of me as an authoritarian as you foolishly fail to observe that abortion on demand, for example, undermines the sanctity of human life and liberty. You mistake the nihilism of moral relativism/subjectivism for freedom because you lack the moral and political insight of objectivity.

You lack empathy, alang.

Sorry but I don't think telling a woman that she must deliver a embryo or fetus shows much empathy on your part. Like most conservatives you focus on justice. The woman got pregnant so she gets what she deserves. If her life is ruined, well that is justice. My sister-in-law has an autistic son. She is a caring mother but I doubt many people would wish to change places with her or the rest of her family. Tell me again how I lack empathy.

 

[alang1216]

For there to be infanticide there needs to be an infant, not a fetus. Once a child is born they are under protection of the Infants Born Alive Act 2002.

The OP cannot defend the using the term either. Infanticide is illegal in all 50 states.

Frist, a fetus is an unborn human baby (or infant)!

fe·tus
/ˈfēdəs/

noun

1. an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

Second, my observation is neither bound by nor predicated on your acquiescence to the ever-shifting norms and mores (laws) of any given society that disregards the universally objective standard of morality and the attending imperatives of natural law. The unnecessary, premeditated destruction of innocent human life by the hand of any creature is evil.

Infanticide is a form of homicide which occurs if the child is killed after birth and up to a year (I think), even if the birth is due to a botched abortion.

Abortions are legal.

You're just repeating yourself per your acquiescence to the ever-shifting norms and mores (laws) of any given society that disregards the universally objective standard of morality and the attending imperatives of natural law. I got your reasoning, such as it is, the first time.

I said, relative to the universally objective standard of morality and the attending imperatives of natural law, abortion on demand is homicide.

#Winning

Unfortunately there is no universal, objective standard of morality. Morality is defined by the society you are part of.

One more Nazi.....er, Democrat, advancing ‘moral equivalence,’ or postmodernism.

1. "The roots of postmodernism can be traced to the anthropologist Franz Boas, who, in an effort to study exotic cultures without prejudice, found it useful to take the position that no culture is superior to any other. Thus was born the idea of cultural relativity.

The idea spread like wildfire through the universities, catapulted by the radical impetus of the sixties, ready and willing to reject "the universality of Western norms and principles."
Bawer, "The Victim's Revolution"


"Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual's own culture. This principle was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the 20th century and later popularized by his students. Boas first articulated the idea in 1887: "...civilization is not something absolute, but ... is relative, and ... our ideas and conceptions are true only so far as our civilization goes."[1] but did not actually coin the term "cultural relativism."
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/t...elativism.html



2. In terms of religion, the two extremes are the one that fueled Western Civilization and the founding of our nation, and the other extreme, Militant Secularism. The test between the two is their view of human life. Whether personal beliefs, or what we call 'politics,' or perhaps 'religion,' the real idea that determines what we will do in any and every situation, is one simple idea. Either one believes that human lives are sacred, or one believes that they can be exchanged to achieve some secular material goal.

a. From Schindler's List: “Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”
or
b. Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


3. Just as the former one, the Judeo-Christian religion, has variations, or denominations, so does Militant Secularism. You know them as the totalitarian forms of political plague, and none have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).

They only differ in the final outcome: slavery, serfdom, or death.

So infanticide is just fine with this sort of immoral savage.

Since you mentioned slavery, let me ask you a simple question which I'm sure you won't answer.

Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were slave owners. Without going out on a limb here, I'd guess that you and the vast majority of people living today do not approve of slavery and feel that if there is anything evil in this world it is slavery.

The question is, were Thomas Jefferson and George Washington evil? Extra credit to say why or why not.

And, those Founders:

1. Usually, the ‘Founders’ refers to these six: Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin.
   1. The three non-Southerners worked tirelessly against slavery.
   2. While reading Ron Chernow’s book Alexander Hamilton, though, I found out that Hamilton was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery. During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton’s work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamiltonhttp://angelolopez.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/alexander-hamilton-and-the-new-york-manumission-society/
   3. Many of the other Founding Fathers were activists like Alexander Hamilton. In 1787 Benjamin Franklin agree to serve as president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which set out to abolish slavery and set up programs to help freed slaves to become good citizens and improve the conditions of free African Americans. On February 12, 1790, Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society presented a petition to the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to take steps for the gradual abolition of slavery and end the slave trade. As a young lawyer, Thomas Jefferson represented a slave in court attempting to be set free and during the 1770s and 1780s, Jefferson had many several attempts to pass legislation to gradually abolish slavery and end the slave trade. John Jay was the first president of the New York Manumission Society and was active in Society’s efforts to abolish slavery. Ibid.

2. An excellent read on the matter is a brilliant book called Miracle in Philadelphia, by Catherine Drinker Bowen, which recounts the actual history and debates around the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Slavery was a huge issue during that convention, and many of the Founding Fathers wanted it outlawed, but ran into an impasse after many hours of debate with the southern colonies whose agricultural productivity depended on it.

The Founders who wanted to set the stage for the abolition of slavery came up with a compromise involving the issue of apportionment.

The southern colonies that favored slavery wanted all residents of their states, slave and free, counted equally when it came to deciding how many seats they were going to receive in Congress. Some of the northern colonies, who mostly had few slaves and thus nothing to lose didn’t want slave residents counted at all.

The Founder’s compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a man for the purposes of apportionment, and when that passed after a great deal more debate and lobbying, legislators from the slave states were permanently limited to a minority. With that one stroke, the state was set for slavery’s eventual demise, and the proof of how effective it was came in 1804, when the slave states were powerless to stop Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves to the new nation.

The stage was set, even if it took 70 years and a bloody war.


Media - Latest News
Big Journalism debunks the spin and narratives from the Democrat-media complex, and rips the lid off faux media objectivity.
bigjournalism.com

You never let me down... There is no question so simple that you can't avoid answering it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

For there to be infanticide there needs to be an infant, not a fetus. Once a child is born they are under protection of the Infants Born Alive Act 2002.

The OP cannot defend the using the term either. Infanticide is illegal in all 50 states.

Frist, a fetus is an unborn human baby (or infant)!

fe·tus
/ˈfēdəs/

noun

1. an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

Second, my observation is neither bound by nor predicated on your acquiescence to the ever-shifting norms and mores (laws) of any given society that disregards the universally objective standard of morality and the attending imperatives of natural law. The unnecessary, premeditated destruction of innocent human life by the hand of any creature is evil.

Infanticide is a form of homicide which occurs if the child is killed after birth and up to a year (I think), even if the birth is due to a botched abortion.

Abortions are legal.

You're just repeating yourself per your acquiescence to the ever-shifting norms and mores (laws) of any given society that disregards the universally objective standard of morality and the attending imperatives of natural law. I got your reasoning, such as it is, the first time.

I said, relative to the universally objective standard of morality and the attending imperatives of natural law, abortion on demand is homicide.

#Winning

Unfortunately there is no universal, objective standard of morality. Morality is defined by the society you are part of.

One more Nazi.....er, Democrat, advancing ‘moral equivalence,’ or postmodernism.

1. "The roots of postmodernism can be traced to the anthropologist Franz Boas, who, in an effort to study exotic cultures without prejudice, found it useful to take the position that no culture is superior to any other. Thus was born the idea of cultural relativity.

The idea spread like wildfire through the universities, catapulted by the radical impetus of the sixties, ready and willing to reject "the universality of Western norms and principles."
Bawer, "The Victim's Revolution"


"Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual's own culture. This principle was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the 20th century and later popularized by his students. Boas first articulated the idea in 1887: "...civilization is not something absolute, but ... is relative, and ... our ideas and conceptions are true only so far as our civilization goes."[1] but did not actually coin the term "cultural relativism."
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/t...elativism.html



2. In terms of religion, the two extremes are the one that fueled Western Civilization and the founding of our nation, and the other extreme, Militant Secularism. The test between the two is their view of human life. Whether personal beliefs, or what we call 'politics,' or perhaps 'religion,' the real idea that determines what we will do in any and every situation, is one simple idea. Either one believes that human lives are sacred, or one believes that they can be exchanged to achieve some secular material goal.

a. From Schindler's List: “Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”
or
b. Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


3. Just as the former one, the Judeo-Christian religion, has variations, or denominations, so does Militant Secularism. You know them as the totalitarian forms of political plague, and none have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).

They only differ in the final outcome: slavery, serfdom, or death.

So infanticide is just fine with this sort of immoral savage.

Since you mentioned slavery, let me ask you a simple question which I'm sure you won't answer.

Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were slave owners. Without going out on a limb here, I'd guess that you and the vast majority of people living today do not approve of slavery and feel that if there is anything evil in this world it is slavery.

The question is, were Thomas Jefferson and George Washington evil? Extra credit to say why or why not.

And, those Founders:

1. Usually, the ‘Founders’ refers to these six: Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin.
   1. The three non-Southerners worked tirelessly against slavery.
   2. While reading Ron Chernow’s book Alexander Hamilton, though, I found out that Hamilton was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery. During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton’s work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamiltonhttp://angelolopez.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/alexander-hamilton-and-the-new-york-manumission-society/
   3. Many of the other Founding Fathers were activists like Alexander Hamilton. In 1787 Benjamin Franklin agree to serve as president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which set out to abolish slavery and set up programs to help freed slaves to become good citizens and improve the conditions of free African Americans. On February 12, 1790, Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society presented a petition to the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to take steps for the gradual abolition of slavery and end the slave trade. As a young lawyer, Thomas Jefferson represented a slave in court attempting to be set free and during the 1770s and 1780s, Jefferson had many several attempts to pass legislation to gradually abolish slavery and end the slave trade. John Jay was the first president of the New York Manumission Society and was active in Society’s efforts to abolish slavery. Ibid.

2. An excellent read on the matter is a brilliant book called Miracle in Philadelphia, by Catherine Drinker Bowen, which recounts the actual history and debates around the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Slavery was a huge issue during that convention, and many of the Founding Fathers wanted it outlawed, but ran into an impasse after many hours of debate with the southern colonies whose agricultural productivity depended on it.

The Founders who wanted to set the stage for the abolition of slavery came up with a compromise involving the issue of apportionment.

The southern colonies that favored slavery wanted all residents of their states, slave and free, counted equally when it came to deciding how many seats they were going to receive in Congress. Some of the northern colonies, who mostly had few slaves and thus nothing to lose didn’t want slave residents counted at all.

The Founder’s compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a man for the purposes of apportionment, and when that passed after a great deal more debate and lobbying, legislators from the slave states were permanently limited to a minority. With that one stroke, the state was set for slavery’s eventual demise, and the proof of how effective it was came in 1804, when the slave states were powerless to stop Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves to the new nation.

The stage was set, even if it took 70 years and a bloody war.


Media - Latest News
Big Journalism debunks the spin and narratives from the Democrat-media complex, and rips the lid off faux media objectivity.
bigjournalism.com

You never let me down... There is no question so simple that you can't avoid answering it.

Had you remained in school beyond the third grade, you might be able to comprehend answers of more than three words.

 

[alang1216]

For there to be infanticide there needs to be an infant, not a fetus. Once a child is born they are under protection of the Infants Born Alive Act 2002.

The OP cannot defend the using the term either. Infanticide is illegal in all 50 states.

Frist, a fetus is an unborn human baby (or infant)!

fe·tus
/ˈfēdəs/

noun

1. an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

Second, my observation is neither bound by nor predicated on your acquiescence to the ever-shifting norms and mores (laws) of any given society that disregards the universally objective standard of morality and the attending imperatives of natural law. The unnecessary, premeditated destruction of innocent human life by the hand of any creature is evil.

Infanticide is a form of homicide which occurs if the child is killed after birth and up to a year (I think), even if the birth is due to a botched abortion.

Abortions are legal.

You're just repeating yourself per your acquiescence to the ever-shifting norms and mores (laws) of any given society that disregards the universally objective standard of morality and the attending imperatives of natural law. I got your reasoning, such as it is, the first time.

I said, relative to the universally objective standard of morality and the attending imperatives of natural law, abortion on demand is homicide.

#Winning

Unfortunately there is no universal, objective standard of morality. Morality is defined by the society you are part of.

One more Nazi.....er, Democrat, advancing ‘moral equivalence,’ or postmodernism.

1. "The roots of postmodernism can be traced to the anthropologist Franz Boas, who, in an effort to study exotic cultures without prejudice, found it useful to take the position that no culture is superior to any other. Thus was born the idea of cultural relativity.

The idea spread like wildfire through the universities, catapulted by the radical impetus of the sixties, ready and willing to reject "the universality of Western norms and principles."
Bawer, "The Victim's Revolution"


"Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual's own culture. This principle was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the 20th century and later popularized by his students. Boas first articulated the idea in 1887: "...civilization is not something absolute, but ... is relative, and ... our ideas and conceptions are true only so far as our civilization goes."[1] but did not actually coin the term "cultural relativism."
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/t...elativism.html



2. In terms of religion, the two extremes are the one that fueled Western Civilization and the founding of our nation, and the other extreme, Militant Secularism. The test between the two is their view of human life. Whether personal beliefs, or what we call 'politics,' or perhaps 'religion,' the real idea that determines what we will do in any and every situation, is one simple idea. Either one believes that human lives are sacred, or one believes that they can be exchanged to achieve some secular material goal.

a. From Schindler's List: “Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”
or
b. Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


3. Just as the former one, the Judeo-Christian religion, has variations, or denominations, so does Militant Secularism. You know them as the totalitarian forms of political plague, and none have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).

They only differ in the final outcome: slavery, serfdom, or death.

So infanticide is just fine with this sort of immoral savage.

Since you mentioned slavery, let me ask you a simple question which I'm sure you won't answer.

Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were slave owners. Without going out on a limb here, I'd guess that you and the vast majority of people living today do not approve of slavery and feel that if there is anything evil in this world it is slavery.

The question is, were Thomas Jefferson and George Washington evil? Extra credit to say why or why not.

But, alang, there is no such thing as evil according to you.

There is no such thing as absolute evil. A question on slavery didn't get an answer from PoliticalChic. Can you answer it?

Was Jeffrey Dahmer evil? Were the cannibals of New Guinea evil?

Was Hitler evil? What about Joshua at Jericho?

 

[alang1216]

Had you remained in school beyond the third grade, you might be able to comprehend answers of more than three words.

So give me a 3-word answer, were the Founding Fathers who owned slaves evil or not. Seems like one word would suffice.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Had you remained in school beyond the third grade, you might be able to comprehend answers of more than three words.

So give me a 3-word answer, were the Founding Fathers who owned slaves evil or not. Seems like one word would suffice.

Remain in school.

 

[alang1216]

Unfortunately there is no universal, objective standard of morality. Morality is defined by the society you are part of.

Horseradish. But if you think you can defend the rank irrationality of moral subjectivism/relativism go to this thread: Alex O'Connor vs Frank Turek | The Moral Argument DEBATE

Good luck with that. I'd strongly recommend you carefully read through the thread, paying close attention to my and ding's observations, before posting.

too many pages.

Just read ding's first two or three posts. That'll lace you up.

ding and I have discussed this already. We agreed to disagree as I recall.

 

[alang1216]

Had you remained in school beyond the third grade, you might be able to comprehend answers of more than three words.

So give me a 3-word answer, were the Founding Fathers who owned slaves evil or not. Seems like one word would suffice.

Remain in school.

Like I said you never disappoint.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Had you remained in school beyond the third grade, you might be able to comprehend answers of more than three words.

So give me a 3-word answer, were the Founding Fathers who owned slaves evil or not. Seems like one word would suffice.

Remain in school.

Like I said you never disappoint.

So true.

 

[Dadoalex]

Reality check: Next time you're at a Nazi rally put on your Biden button and see how much support you get.

YOU'RE why Trump lost.

If that's true you should be very concerned about the dwindling mean in the survival IQ of your country. But you're not because you're a fool.

No. Darwin will take care of them and you.

You're one of the fools. Darwin's gonna get ya.

That's what all the lemmings say just before their little Cheeto colored leader marches them off the cliff.

 

[alang1216]

Like I said you never disappoint.

So true.

Yep. I expect deflection, evasion, and obfuscation and you never disappoint.