Barbarians Inside the Gate

_{Barry Arrington

August 17, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Everyone who believes the barbarians among us have declared total war on Western Civilization raise your hand.

The differences between this and Auschwitz:

1. The victims are more defenseless.

2. The victims are more innocent.

3. The victims are smaller.

4. The execution chambers are more sanitary.

Ideas have consequences.

Comments

eigenstate says someone wrote in a dictionary that you can call an unborn human a "fetus," and therefore they are not babies and that means you can cut them into little pieces and sell the pieces like meat. Wow, there's some penetrating moral philosophy for you, based on eigenstate's "solid principles and semantics for good and evil."Barry Arrington_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

16 eigenstate August 17, 2015 at 5:45 pm I’d be fine with some “margin” on that, and agree to say, 15 or 16 weeks, but remember, this is a zero sum equation: every week that I push the cutoff earlier, is that much less freedom and self-determination for the mother
Puzzling. 1) Once the child is born, why does the child have to be killed to preserve the "freedom and self-determination" of the mother? Why not just allow the mother to quitclaim the child to the state? 2) Do you actually see no post-birth paternal rights whatsoever here, or was that simply an oversight? .cantor_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT}

So, about these babies with small minds...Mung_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

All you need to have abortion outlawed is 1) Convince enough people that it is immoral to kill an individual human being at any stage of development without good cause 2) Convince enough people that the concept of personhood is irrelevant to the argument. 3) Convince enough people that it is both irrational and immoral to deny the right to life to an individual human being for the first nine months of their existence. Then the law will be changed.
Hearts and minds, yes. But while the anti-abortion has it wrong on the merits of the question, it's a fundamental issue. For example, I'd be surprised if you would relegate those who were forbidden by law to marry a member of another race to satisfy themselves with "convince the people of 19th century Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws were immoral and unconstittutional". If there is a point on the merits, it warrants interventional by the state, if the state takes its constitutional guarantees seriously. Ownership of slaves is not a matter subject to a public consensus under our Constitution, and it abortion were the unjustified killing of a human person, the same would apply. That should not top advocates from taking their case to the court of public opinion, and doesn't. It's not clear that your suggesting that this is their only recourse, but if so, I'd have to strongly disagree. As I said, they are wrong on the merits, but if they were right, it's not a matter that could be justified as being left until public consensus comes around, any more than it would be justified to wait for the grandkids of George Wallace to "come around" on racial equality or the Bible Belt culture to come around on treating homosexuals as equals under the law.eigenstate_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT}

ES, nothing excuses what is before us. Nothing. Our civilisation is putting darkness for light and light for darkness. We know what we have been slaughtering in global numbers that I cannot bring myself to try to address -- our innocent children, in the womb . . . unable to speak for themselves other than maybe in an ultrasound image. We are guilty, guilty, guilty. KFkairosfocus_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

Why should we expect anything different from those who think we all arrived here by a chaotic and random series of events? Seems to follow that this is not a big deal.scottH_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

All you need to have abortion outlawed is 1) Convince enough people that it is immoral to kill an individual human being at any stage of development without good cause 2) Convince enough people that the concept of personhood is irrelevant to the argument. 3) Convince enough people that it is both irrational and immoral to deny the right to life to an individual human being for the first nine months of their existence. Then the law will be changed.Seversky_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

eigenstate, you state:
And the “victims” of abortion are not sentient, have none of the precious faculties the human persons had killed in the Holocaust.
Interesting that used used the term 'human persons'. I have a question for you eigenstate, Since the Nazi’s legally took away the status of person-hood from the Jews in order to make it legal to kill them, and since unborn babies were denied the legal status of person-hood in order to make it legal to kill them, and yet atheistic materialists deny that they are really persons with real morals in the first place, does that then make it legal, and/or perhaps even moral, to kill atheistic materialists? If not why not?
8 Horrific Times People Groups Were Denied Their Humanity – July 02, 2014 Excerpt: According to Ernst Fraenkel, a German legal scholar, the Reichsgericht, the highest court in Germany, was instrumental in depriving Jewish people of their legal rights. In a 1936 Supreme Court decision, “the Reichsgericht refused to recognize Jews living in Germany as persons in the legal sense.” Nazis described Jews as Untermenschen, or subhumans to justify exterminating them. http://www.personhood.com/8_horrific_times_people_groups_were_denied_their_humanity Unborn children as constitutional persons. – 2010 Excerpt: In Roe v. Wade, the state of Texas argued that “the fetus is a ‘person’ within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.” To which Justice Harry Blackmun responded, “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.” However, Justice Blackmun then came to the conclusion “that the word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.” In this article, it is argued that unborn children are indeed “persons” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20443281 “The neural circuits in our brain manage the beautifully coordinated and smoothly appropriate behavior of our body. They also produce the entrancing introspective illusion that thoughts really are about stuff in the world. This powerful illusion has been with humanity since language kicked in, as we’ll see. It is the source of at least two other profound myths: that we have purposes that give our actions and lives meaning and that there is a person “in there” steering the body, so to speak.” [A.Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide To Reality, Ch.9] “that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.” Francis Crick – “The Astonishing Hypothesis” 1994 The Confidence of Jerry Coyne - January 6, 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary. http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_r=0
a few more notes:
"The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go, the complexity of these, the mathematical models on how these things are indeed done, are beyond human comprehension. Even though I am a mathematician, I look at this with the marvel of how do these instruction sets not make these mistakes as they build what is us. It's a mystery, it's magic, it's divinity." - Alexander Tsiaras: Conception to birth -- visualized https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKyljukBE70 Duality in the human genome - Nov. 28, 2014 Excerpt: The results show that most genes can occur in many different forms within a population: On average, about 250 different forms of each gene exist. The researchers found around four million different gene forms just in the 400 or so genomes they analysed. This figure is certain to increase as more human genomes are examined. More than 85 percent of all genes have no predominant form which occurs in more than half of all individuals. This enormous diversity means that over half of all genes in an individual, around 9,000 of 17,500, occur uniquely in that one person - and are therefore individual in the truest sense of the word. The gene, as we imagined it, exists only in exceptional cases. "We need to fundamentally rethink the view of genes that every schoolchild has learned since Gregor Mendel's time.,,, According to the researchers, mutations of genes are not randomly distributed between the parental chromosomes. They found that 60 percent of mutations affect the same chromosome set and 40 percent both sets. Scientists refer to these as cis and trans mutations, respectively. Evidently, an organism must have more cis mutations, where the second gene form remains intact. "It's amazing how precisely the 60:40 ratio is maintained. It occurs in the genome of every individual – almost like a magic formula," says Hoehe. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-11-duality-human-genome.html HOW BIOLOGISTS LOST SIGHT OF THE MEANING OF LIFE — AND ARE NOW STARING IT IN THE FACE - Stephen L. Talbott - May 2012 Excerpt: “If you think air traffic controllers have a tough job guiding planes into major airports or across a crowded continental airspace, consider the challenge facing a human cell trying to position its proteins”. A given cell, he notes, may make more than 10,000 different proteins, and typically contains more than a billion protein molecules at any one time. “Somehow a cell must get all its proteins to their correct destinations — and equally important, keep these molecules out of the wrong places”. And further: “It’s almost as if every mRNA [an intermediate between a gene and a corresponding protein] coming out of the nucleus knows where it’s going” (Travis 2011),,, Further, the billion protein molecules in a cell are virtually all capable of interacting with each other to one degree or another; they are subject to getting misfolded or “all balled up with one another”; they are critically modified through the attachment or detachment of molecular subunits, often in rapid order and with immediate implications for changing function; they can wind up inside large-capacity “transport vehicles” headed in any number of directions; they can be sidetracked by diverse processes of degradation and recycling... and so on without end. Yet the coherence of the whole is maintained. The question is indeed, then, “How does the organism meaningfully dispose of all its molecules, getting them to the right places and into the right interactions?” The same sort of question can be asked of cells, for example in the growing embryo, where literal streams of cells are flowing to their appointed places, differentiating themselves into different types as they go, and adjusting themselves to all sorts of unpredictable perturbations — even to the degree of responding appropriately when a lab technician excises a clump of them from one location in a young embryo and puts them in another, where they may proceed to adapt themselves in an entirely different and proper way to the new environment. It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary. Two systems biologists, one from the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in Germany and one from Harvard Medical School, frame one part of the problem this way: "The human body is formed by trillions of individual cells. These cells work together with remarkable precision, first forming an adult organism out of a single fertilized egg, and then keeping the organism alive and functional for decades. To achieve this precision, one would assume that each individual cell reacts in a reliable, reproducible way to a given input, faithfully executing the required task. However, a growing number of studies investigating cellular processes on the level of single cells revealed large heterogeneity even among genetically identical cells of the same cell type. (Loewer and Lahav 2011)",,, And then we hear that all this meaningful activity is, somehow, meaningless or a product of meaninglessness. This, I believe, is the real issue troubling the majority of the American populace when they are asked about their belief in evolution. They see one thing and then are told, more or less directly, that they are really seeing its denial. Yet no one has ever explained to them how you get meaning from meaninglessness — a difficult enough task once you realize that we cannot articulate any knowledge of the world at all except in the language of meaning.,,, http://www.netfuture.org/2012/May1012_184.html#2 The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings - Stephen L. Talbott Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary. ,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer? Despite the countless processes going on in the cell, and despite the fact that each process might be expected to “go its own way” according to the myriad factors impinging on it from all directions, the actual result is quite different. Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-of-beings picture - What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer? http://cdn-4.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/harvardd-2.jpg
Verses
Psalm 139:15 My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart;
bornagain77_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

@Cantor,
OK, let’s take your position and run with it and see how your logic plays out. At what point during pregnancy would you accord basic human rights to the developing child? And if not any time during pregnancy, at what point after birth?
If I were to participate in some legislative process on this, I think the best scientific knowledge we have establishes minimal thresholds for cognitive activity at something like 18 weeks. I'd be fine with some "margin" on that, and agree to say, 15 or 16 weeks, but remember, this is a zero sum equation: every week that I push the cutoff earlier, is that much less freedom and self-determination for the mother -- something the pro-life community lamentably either ignores or holds in contempt. So, one can't just "err on the side of caution", because being too cautious -- say at 8 weeks -- and you aren't really protecting fetuses that qualify in principle, and you are necessarily harming the liberty interests of the woman, as well as (unintentionally in my case) aiding in the cause of cultural subjugation of the females, those interested in abortion controls for subjugative cultural purposes. If there were some instrumental, non invasive, passive way to determine this on a case-by-case base through some new technological development, I'd be interested in looking at that as an alternative to a "bright line" cutoff point of 18 weeks (or whatever the scientific data suggests captures the vast majority of cases).eigenstate_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

This on the same topic at Prager University http://prageruniversity.com/Political-Science/The-Most-Important-Question-About-Abortion.html#.VdJxWbJVhzgSteRusJon_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

“I do regret that, but have not participated or enabled any abortions, myself.” Why not? You seem to want to defend the practice of them. What would stop you from getting in on the act, if you actually believe your own words? Andrew
Because I value human freedom of course. If I were to understand that a 8 week old fetus had the features we understand as the salient thresholds for human personhood -- say, minimally, at least electrical activity in the cerebral cortex, however rudimentary it may be compared to even an neonate -- I'd be obligated by that principle of liberty and the right to one's one life as a human person to defend that person, legally and otherwise. That ain't the facts of the matter, and thanks to religious irrationality that is pervasive on this issue at least in the US, this cruel and wicked idea of "personhood from zygote" confounds and prevents any reason-based principles obtaining -- and, in yet another example of the Law of Unintended Consequences in religious practice, endangers and enables killing that is murderous, at late points in the pregnancy, where a 35 week old is not just credentialed with the salient faculties our reasoning requires for personhood (electrical activity in the cerebral cortex, for example), it's viable outside the womb. If religjous crazies like Barry really were interested in preventing abortions of fetuses, they'd not cling to their religious dogma that thwarts their survival. The demand that "life begins at conception" means that reason has been rejected in favor of religious superstition, and in the resulting vacuum, you have WAY more fetuses at risk and killed than you would if your goal was "pro-life" and not "pro-God" and "anti-woman". As it is though, the benefit of the doubt has to go to the mother, at the risk of many late term fetus who reasonably warrant protection. Religious types like Barry can thank their superstitious fervor over principle and reason for that. Their blood is on them, if anyone. As Barry said, apparently unaware of the irony, ideas have consequences.eigenstate_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

Most North Americans will do nothing about this, and they will do nothing when the same sort of people come for their parents, once euthanasia is legalized. Jesus-hollering notwithstanding, unfortunately. They will wake up one morning and discover that it is no longer even legal to talk about it. Then they will wonder what happened. But one thing they won't do - just for example - is give up the legacy media that are heart and soul fronting it all, as part of a strategy to survive the Internet by becoming the PR for progressive causes - including dismembering babies and killing grannies (neither group matters). If you won't give up Hollywood and legacy media, and find out what is really going on, you can't have respect for life or liberty. But then maybe that is not a priority for you.News_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

You have a mind, by which you say you mean nothing more than that you have a brain. That's plenty by my lights. It seems like the same equipment everyone else has, too. Nothing more than a human brain, the most sophisticated machine known.
Which amount to “I prefer it” means the same as “good” and “I don’t prefer it” means the same thing as “evil.”
No it doesn't amount to that or equate to that at all. I don't choose my natural, evolved psychology any more than I choose the color of my irises. I've inherited both down a millions-of-years long path of development. My innate sense of empathy, fairness, kindness are just that -- innate, just as innate as my impulse towards greed, selfishness and arrogance. I don't "prefer" these anymore than hazel colored irises. I'm hard with them the same way you are (albeit in slightly different ratios, it seems!). Even as you have it, my 'preferring it' even for more frivolous things like my favorite flavor of ice cream, doesn't work the way you suppose. I don't really choose that in your folk-psychological sense of the term. The point being that the moral distinctions and judgments are ground in, and cannot be independent from, human nature, the way we are wired.
You see, dear readers, eigenstate prefers that doctors should be able to chop babies into little pieces and sell the pieces on the open market like so much meat. The fact that he prefers it for reasons that seem adequate to him means it is “good” under his “solid principles and semantics for good and evil.”
You're confusing "baby" with "fetus". It's an understandable maneuver, but it's transparent, Barry. Again, appealing to your doctrinaire nature with respect to the dictionary:
a very young child, especially one newly or recently born. "his wife's just had a baby" synonyms: infant, newborn, child, tot, little one; More
For fetus:
an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.
A baby is a human person we accord legal person status and protection to. A fetus is not. Again, the rich irony in your assessment, here, said as you are one "prefers it for reasons that seem adequate to him means it is “good” under his “solid principles and semantics for good and evil" to cheapen the lives of the human persons who were murdered in the Holocaust, and watering down the horror of real murder by trivializing it by comparison to the abortion of a fetus. God help us. He and many others like him walk among us. Who will he decide next is Lebensunwertes Leben. Those religious fanatics he obviously hates so much? The old? The infirm? Well, you can be comforted that when he or those like him come for you, it will be on the basis of “solid principles and semantics for good and evil.” Ahh, Barry, it's so easy to see what really drives your "thinking", here. Do you realize how much mileage one gets out of this kind of rant on ID's flagship blog, from its owner? Carry on, by all means! This was all prophecied in the book of Revelations, and elsewhere in the Bible. Behold, I see a rider on a pale horse... The end is near, Barry. The end is near!eigenstate_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

"I do regret that, but have not participated or enabled any abortions, myself." Why not? You seem to want to defend the practice of them. What would stop you from getting in on the act, if you actually believe your own words? Andrewasauber_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

4 eigenstate August 17, 2015 at 3:39 pm And the “victims” of abortion are not sentient,
OK, let's take your position and run with it and see how your logic plays out. At what point during pregnancy would you accord basic human rights to the developing child? And if not any time during pregnancy, at what point after birth? .cantor_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

Eigenstate treats us with an extended treatise that we will file away under “the banality of evil.” Why, it’s legal to kill the little brutes he says. That settles it doesn’t it? Newsflash eigenstate, not a single German law was broken at Auschwitz.
But the size of the parts does not signal one’s personhood.
Yeah, those little fingers are not human fingers. Those little feet are not human feet. That little heart was not a human heart. Monstrous.
it comes at the cost of liberty and dignity for (would-be) mother
And it comes at the cost of being chopped into little pieces for the baby.
I do have a mind and solid principles and semantics for good and evil.
You have a mind, by which you say you mean nothing more than that you have a brain.
principles and semantics for good and evil
Which amount to “I prefer it” means the same as “good” and “I don’t prefer it” means the same thing as “evil.” You see, dear readers, eigenstate prefers that doctors should be able to chop babies into little pieces and sell the pieces on the open market like so much meat. The fact that he prefers it for reasons that seem adequate to him means it is "good" under his "solid principles and semantics for good and evil." God help us. He and many others like him walk among us. Who will he decide next is Lebensunwertes Leben. Those religious fanatics he obviously hates so much? The old? The infirm? Well, you can be comforted that when he or those like him come for you, it will be on the basis of "solid principles and semantics for good and evil." Barry Arrington_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

asauber,
Your rant sounds like it has a little abortion-guilt pushing it up the slope. Am I right? Andrew
No, don't have any of that in my history. I'm a guy, so haven't had to deal with the prospect of getting pregnant myself, but have never gotten any fermales pregnant other than my wife, and she's not had any abortions (not would she, per her own choices ). I definitely was part of the same wicked, anti-female, irrational culture growing up. I was definitely guilty of shaming others in my younger, Christian days, having the bad values that go with that, and absorbing subconsciously at least a lot of ant-female animus that drives this issue in American Christian culture. I do regret that, but have not participated or enabled any abortions, myself.eigenstate_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

@Barry.
eigenstate has arrogated unto himself the Godlike capacity to tell us which human organisms should have the right to live and which do not. He knows Lebensunwertes Leben (German for “life unworthy of life”) when he sees it.
There's nothing god-like about it, it's just reasoning based on the evidence and our experience as humans, reasoning without whatever religious dogma that precludes such reasoning. "Life" and "personhood" are not the same concept in law, something you are certainly aware of if you passed the bar. And the basis for that distinction is grounded in reason, reason on the absurdities which obtain -- and which you are here advancing -- if one simplistically equates "living" in a biological (or metabolizing) sense with "personhood". If you need some review of the jurisprudence on this, and the rational basis and history behind it, I and others here can help you out. That’s not a human hand, he tells you. It is too small. That is not a human foot, he tells you. It is too small. Size of the hand neither affirms or disconfirms our decision about the subject as a human person, accorded the rights and protections of the law. I understand that many Christians (i have people in my extended family who earnest believe this!) a just-fertilized zygote is a human being, being just a few cells. This is religious nuttery, and it comes at the cost of liberty and dignity for (would-be) mother. I also know that's not a high priority are weighty concern in Christian circles, like the one I grew up in, but some basic reasoning has to be done to consider both the interests of the pregnant female AND the interests of any human person, when the developing fetus warrants such protections. I am quite sympathetic to science-and-reason based judgments that identify biological milestones, like electrical activity in the neo-cortex, which can serve as qualifiers for "human personhood". There's no such case for an 8 week old fetus, there is only religious fervor, and levied at the expense of the female. But the size of the parts does not signal one's personhood. The capacities we associate with personhood -- mental autonomy (even for persons who are severely disabled or incapacitated in terms of higher levels of cognition, this autonomy persists as a distinguishing feature of personhood.), sensory integration. What happens on the other end when the body is otherwise fully functional, but the brain has completely stopped functioning (brain death)? The person is LEGALLY DEAD, not accorded the rights and protections we accord to human persons. Why do you think that is, Barry? It's a strong clue, and just an area where the frothing religious didn't happen to go contaminate (for the most part).
That was not a human heart that stopped beating when this child was killed (and most assuredly a heart stopped beating). It is too small.
No, size is not probative here. Fail.
eigenstate insists he has no mind. He insists that there is no such thing as good and evil (ironically enough given the morally outraged tone of his comment). He believes there is no such thing as “beliefs.” And he believes humans are not human until they are born.
I do have a mind and solid principles and semantics for good and evil. They just don't correspond to your invincible incorrigible intuitions. Beliefs are real phenomena, they just aren't at all like what your folk-psychology suggests. You continually bear false witness on these accounts, it's boring and pointless to try and constantly correct you on this -- it's clearly not a matter of correction, but dishonesty you deploy purposefully as a part of your telic design for dealing with critics. Again, I understand incorrigibility when I see it. But for the record, your representations of me are not recognizable by me.
Ideas have consequences.
The irony, Barry. You are such a rich source of irony.eigenstate_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

eigenstate, Your rant sounds like it has a little abortion-guilt pushing it up the slope. Am I right? Andrewasauber_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

eigenstate has arrogated unto himself the Godlike capacity to tell us which humans have the right to live and which do not. Like the good little fascist he is, he knows LEBENSUNWERTES LEBEN* when he sees it. That's not a human hand, he tells you. It is too small. That is not a human foot, he tells you. It is too small. That was not a human heart that stopped beating when this child was killed (and most assuredly a heart stopped beating). It is too small. Hitler: "They are Jewish swine." eigenstate: "They are tiny little brutes." eigenstate insists he has no mind. He insists that there is no such thing as good and evil (ironically enough given the morally outraged tone of his comment). He believes there is no such thing as "beliefs." And he believes tiny humans are not human. Ideas have consequences. ______________ *German for "life unworthy of life."Barry Arrington_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

And the "victims" of abortion are not sentient, have none of the precious faculties the human persons had killed in the Holocaust. This kind of comparison is thoroughly wicked, and denigrates and diminishes the real loss of real, sentient, conscious human persons under the Nazis. To equate them with a fetus that is 10 weeks along and has ZERO electrical activity in its cerebral cortex is execrable. I don't expect more from the sewer of anti-human values that ID advocates often make this site, but it's outrageous to see such depraved thinking parading so proudly on these pages. It doesn't even rise to "barbarian" to make this kind of equation. As for numbers, your God kills WAY more than Hitler ever did, or than all the medical abortions ever performed. In your God's barbaric wisdom, the would be mother's body aborts TWO out of every THREE pregnancies. But it's a human being! Out of 100 pregnancies, just 30 some even make to eight weeks development. Clearly, your God doesn't have a problem with the human persons-in-potential being offed in numbers that make the Holocaust look like a nice lunch in the park, This evil nonsense just cheapens the life of actual, realized human persons. It's beyond condemnation to cheapen the realized persons who really were murdered in the Holocaust, or anywhere else. Would toward religion does become a historic footnote eventually, if this is how it patterns humans to devalue and debase humanity.eigenstate_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

5. The executioners are far more callous. 6. The victims are far more numerous.
Wilberforce Redux: What the Planned Parenthood Videos Mean - Michael Egnor August 16, 2015 Excerpt: The abortionists in the Planned Parenthood videos candidly admit selling organs of children and haggle over price -- to ensure they get their Lamborghini and a little extra for the clinic. The workers in the clinic acknowledge with levity the humanity of the children they're dissecting -- "It's another boy!" No remotely sensitive human being can remain unmoved by these videos. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/08/wilberforce_red098601.html Abortion Statistics http://www.voiceofrevolution.com/2009/01/18/abortion-statistics/ At 1,200,000, Abortion is the leading cause of deaths each year in the USA - graph http://skepchick.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/10449486_10154444727070445_6800239725838679585_n-e1406834704889.jpg
When factoring grandchildren missing due to abortion since Roe vs. Wade in 1973, the number escalates dramatically:
Abortion Has Destroyed 117 Million People in the United States http://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/06/abortion-has-destroyed-117-million-people-in-the-united-states Abortion Has Killed 1-2 Billion Worldwide in 50 Years - April 21, 2013 http://www.lifenews.com/2011/04/21/earth-day-abortion-has-killed-1-2-billion-worldwide-in-50-years/
bornagain77_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

Yo. And I've got childhood friends who pretend they don't see anything wrong in pictures like the one in the OP. Andrewasauber_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

Here.OldArmy94_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply