How Materialists Mutilate Language in the Service of Evil

Barry, I look at liars as pathetic people. Murder is evil. Compared to murder lies are a joke. If liars are evil then they the clowns of evil. Virgil Cain

Virgil Cain make up your mind. First you say Zachriel is not evil. Then you say he is a pathological liar (which is true enough). But pathological liars are evil. So your first statement cannot be true if your second statement is true. Barry Arrington

Zachriel isn't evil. Zachriel is an ignorant and insipid troll who is in love with substance-free double-talk. And yes, Zachriel is also a pathological liar. But hey, what else would you expect from an evolutionist? Virgil Cain

If buildings could self-assemble and grow to maturity the way a fertilized egg does, then yes. Silver Asiatic

Immoral person: A fetus is not a person. Moral person: A fetus, in fact a zygote, has a separate DNA, making them a person, and making abortion murder.

So, having a unique blueprint of how to build a person makes them a person? Does having a unique blueprint of how to build a building make it a building? Popperian

The problem, which Barry seem to have difficulty grasping, is that all words are ultimately undefined. As such it's not possible to make a pure moral statement outside of a particular moral problem to solve. All we can hope to achieve is to define words well enough so that we can all understand their usage in the context of a specific problem. Yet, Barry is demanding that Zachriel somehow do otherwise as if it were possible, in practice. It's unclear how this is a reasonable or even rational request. I've seen arguments here along the lines of: if same sex manages are good then everyone should have same sex marriages and the entire human race would go extinct. But this completely ignores the fact that what we face, in practice, are moral problems which require moral solutions. People actually find themselves feeling attracted to and falling in love with people of the same sex. This is a concrete moral problem, not some abstract statement. Another moral problem is the problem of unwanted or dangerous pregnancies. Unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing preventing us from achieving it is knowing how. This includes solving this moral problem. For example, if we knew how, we could build an artificial womb and transplant unwanted pregnancies so they could go to term for couples that cannot conceive a child. All we need is knowledge of how to achieve it. Yet, I suspect this would be met with resistance here as the natural order of things would be violated. To be more specific, implicitly included in Barry's 'argument' is the assumption that everything has an ultimate essence and purpose, which includes a ultimate, unchanging, precise and perfect moral form. However, Barry still hasn't explained how he can infallibly identify an infallible source or how he could manage to interpret it infallibly should if he identified one in the first place. In the absence of such an explanation, when actually faced with moral problems in practice, it seems Barry's only recourse is to conjecture solutions to moral problems and rationally criticism them. For example, how does Barry Arrington infallibly distinguish his personal views on same sex marriage, abortion, etc. from this supposed infallible source of essence? The very idea that there is a infallible source requires the concept of criticism to distinguish that source from others, decide under what conditions it is infallible and how to interpret it. Again, reason and criticism always comes first. So when actually faced with a moral problem, it's unclear how Barry has any other recourse other than to conjecture solutions to moral problems and rationally criticism them. Furthermore, I would suggest that if anything is morally wrong, promoting the dichotomy that there can be no knowledge or morality unless our folk views of morality and knowledge are true qualifies. Essentially what Barry is doing is denying our ability to make progress on ideas because his ideas assume that no progress an actually be made. However, it's unclear why he would expect our folk views of anything to be right in the first place. Again, some philosophical view is at work here, which he hasn't explicitly presented or argued for. Popperian

Zachriel, "We apologize for not making the original statement clear, but did add a comment to indicate ..." There's a vast stretch between harvesting the organs of a dead person and, “splitting a baby’s face in two to extract his brain while his heart is still beating”, then “chopping them into pieces, and distributing the pieces”. Happy to accept your apology when the "but" part is taken away. You say that I am happy to support abortion "where continuing the pregnancy would result in physical danger to the woman." This is not my position. My position is that in the rare case that the woman's life is in peril, I would support abortion under the principle of self-defense. Self-defence has always been a reasonable defense for homicide. That said, if there were any way that a fetus/child's life could be saved while protecting the mother's life (such as replanting the fetus/child in a surrogate) then I would only support the option that protects the child's life. This, Zachriel, is how a person with an independent moral code works out his values. Courts and legislations do not determine right and wrong. They only determine what is currently lawful. bFast

Zach has no problems a good exorcist couldn't take care of. The number included in the "we" he uses so often instead of "I" might be legion though, so it could take a while. harry

asauber at 13 Z and whomever argues from legalism is broadcasting that they are not interested in a serious discussion. absolutely. moral person: The Constitution guarantees the right to life for every person. Immoral person: A fetus is not a person. Moral person: A fetus, in fact a zygote, has a separate DNA, making them a person, and making abortion murder. IP: But abortion is legal by definition. MP: The definition of murder is ' the unlawful intentional killing if one person by another." IP: Right so by definition it isn't murder. MP: So you agree with the definition? IP: Why yes. If the government allows a person to kill their offspring, it's none of my business. MP: Right, so then a fetus is a person being killed? IP: Well, yeah, I guess so. MP: So our Constitution guarantees life to persons. IP: Right, but it's a very old document and times have changed. the Constitution is subject to interpretation..... CannuckianYankee

Zachriel's argument is a nutshell: "Everything is gray, so go ahead and kill those little boys and girls, chop them into pieces, and sell their pieces like meat." Evil. Unspeakable evil. Facing evil like Zachriel's is exhausting and physically and emotionally draining. That we have to face the fact that some people are so evil that they openly defend the practice of slaughtering little boys and girls and selling their pieces like meat in a market is daunting enough. Having to refute lie after lie after lie as they try to make evil seem good is nauseating. I am quite literally sick of Zachriel and I need a break. Since he seems unwilling to stop his lies even for a moment, I have elected to put him in the moderation queue so I can get some rest. I will let him out in a couple of days. Barry Arrington

BFast: Could you point to where I said this? We apologize for not making the original statement clear, but did add a comment to indicate you only support abortion in cases where continuing the pregnancy would result in physical danger to the woman. If you support abortion in such cases, it inevitably means feticide. You also indicated you would support tissue donation in such cases. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/how-materialists-mutilate-language-in-the-service-of-evil/#comment-576959 Zachriel

Zachriel compounds his earlier lie with another lie: Z told the following lie:

Most late term abortion are necessary due to health problems with either the mother or fetus.

I refuted that lie with the truth as set forth in this article: http://www.aaplog.org/american-issues-2/late-term-abortion/is-late-term-abortion-ever-necessary/ The article states that the killers themselves admit there is no medical reason for "vast majority" of the killings:

Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, shocked the general public in 1997 when he admitted that the vast majority of partial-birth abortions were performed on healthy mothers and babies

Z compounds his lie with another lie by linking this article and pretending it somehow refutes the article I linked. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/10119109/Irish-abortion-law-key-factor-in-death-of-Savita-Halappanavar-official-report-finds.html Click on Z’s link. It does not support his claim or refute the article I linked. It is about a single case. I never said late term abortion is never necessary. I said Z’s statement that MOST late-term abortions are necessary is a lie. And it is, as even the killers admit. Zachriel is evil and utterly shameless when his evil is pointed out. Barry Arrington

Zachriel

Most people simply do not assign the same moral value to a blastocyst as to a baby.

Notice how Zachriel seeks to shift the blame. It is he that does not assign the same moral value to a blastocyst, and for that reason, it is he that is happy to have it killed. The term "most people" is a calculated distraction. And, of course, he is all to ready to kill late-term babies as well, because he also doesn't assign any value to them either. So, there is no question that he supports the cutting up of even those fetuses who are old enough to feel pain. Again, the blastocyst ploy is a distraction.

So you advocate locking up women to prevent them from having abortions, or imprisoning them if they have had an abortion?

No. I advocate putting the abortionist in prison. StephenB

Voice in the Ceiling: And we will answer it as soon as you demonstrate it is not merely a distraction. You can demonstrate that by answering our question about the other 99%. Z: Ultimately, there’s no arguing values. If you place a very high value on a fertilized human egg, there’s no conclusive argument otherwise. You can show the implications of such a position, such as whether you would preferentially save a human baby, or a vat of human blastocysts from a fire at a fertility clinic. If you consider the value of a fetus on a gray scale, there’s no conclusive argument otherwise. You can show the implications of such a position, such as when exactly should rights be accorded, but it’s the nature of grays to have no strict dividing line, and lines that are drawn tend to be arbitrary. The U.S. Supreme Court drew the line at viability. Before then, the right to autonomy for the woman prevails. After that, states can legislate more protections for the unborn. That seems like a reasonable compromise. We support efforts to reduce the number of abortions, but do not support the criminalization of abortions early in pregnancy. UDEditors: "Ultimately, there’s no arguing values." And Z values slaughtering little boys and girls, chopping them into pieces, and selling the pieces like meat in a market. Hitler valued killing millions of Jews, homosexuals and mentally disabled. Who am I to say Zach and Hitler were wrong. There is no arguing values. Zachriel, you are more evil than Hitler for the simple reason that you have have his example to learn from and refuse to heed it. Zachriel

Comrade Zachriel "We already pointed out that just because something is legal doesn’t mean that it is morally justified." You were...eh? Problem is: your morality went to secularist gymnastics class, it's very flexible. Right now it's bending backwards to reach the latest Hollywood morality bandwagon. Eugen

Zachriel, "BFast says he would be okay with “splitting a baby’s face in two to extract his brain while his heart is still beating”, then “chopping them into pieces, and distributing the pieces”." Could you point to where I said this? If so I very much misspoke. In the interest if dignity of life, I see no justification whatsoever for killing humans by harvesting organs from them while they are living. I only respect the well established principle of self-defense in response to a pregnancy that is clearly being fatal to the mother. Once a child is dead, if the parents are innocent (haven't chosen to wantonly murder their child) they should be able to provide the authority for the child to donate organs. However -- "extract his brain while his heart is still beating" is EVIL! bFast

Barry Arrington: Notice Zachrial’s response to being caught. What has been true throughout the discussion is that you insist abortion decisions should be black and white, but most people find there are often shades of gray. Indeed, the fact that you resist answering simple questions, such as whether you are against abortion to prevent serious harm to the mother, suggests that you see the gray, but it leaves you conflicted. Zachriel

JimFit, When the fetus is dying it can be extremely dangerous to the mother. Voice in the Ceiling: http://www.aaplog.org/american-issues-2/late-term-abortion/is-late-term-abortion-ever-necessary/ "It was her first baby, first pregnancy and you know she was on top of the world basically" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/10119109/Irish-abortion-law-key-factor-in-death-of-Savita-Halappanavar-official-report-finds.html Voice in the Ceiling: A tiny fraction of 1% of abortions are necessary to protect the life or serious physical health of the mother. Yes, that was the question. Are you against abortion, even to prevent serious physical health consequences to the mother? UDEditors: And we will answer it as soon as you demonstrate it is not merely a distraction. You can demonstrate that by answering our question about the other 99%. Zachriel

In a sense, as disgusting as he is, I am glad Zachriel continues to post. His very vileness demonstrates how evil corrupts. He is OK with chopping little babies up and selling their pieces. Is there any wonder that he is also a liar? Barry Arrington

Notice Zachrial’s response to being caught. In 61 I hammered him and exposed his dishonesty. He got caught red handed. In 64 he posted another comment. He acted as if 61 never happened. Again, SteRusJon is spot on:

I am reminded of a snake, a writhing, lying snake. Zachriel is a son of a Serpent. And an apple that didn’t fall far from its tree.

Barry Arrington

Zachriel

Most late term abortion are necessary due to health problems with either the mother or fetus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics JimFit

Barry Arrington: Z suggests drugging late term babies when they are being slaughtered. Most late term abortion are necessary due to health problems with either the mother or fetus. UDEditors: That, like pretty much everything else you say, is a lie. http://www.aaplog.org/american-issues-2/late-term-abortion/is-late-term-abortion-ever-necessary/ Are you against abortion, even to prevent serious physical health consequences to the mother? UDEditors: A tiny fraction of 1% of abortions are necessary to protect the life or serious physical health of the mother. If we permitted those would you join us in opposing the other 99%? If not, then your question is merely a distraction, like much of what you say. Zachriel

Zachriel @ 60 says he would be against having executed Polish army officers’ bodies cut into pieces after their executions and then distributing the pieces in exchange for money that would reimburse the cost of the executions. But he is in favor of having executed babies’ bodies cut into pieces after their executions and then distributing the pieces in exchange for money that would reimburse the cost of the executions. Of course, the only difference is the babies are smaller, more defenseless and more innocent. Woe until those who call evil good and good evil. Barry Arrington

Whoever supports pro choice he must take a minute to think about his existence because he himself could be a victim, abortions became so easy that women today kill babies like ants. Imagine this, back in time, when you were in your mother's womb, your mother was thinking to drop you, some pseudoscientists have persuade her that its nothing to drop you, its not a sin, its not unhealthy, you are not even a person yet,your mother does it and you don't exist today, imagine how many humans didn't had the chance to make this existential question, you are so lucky that back in time to chance to drop you were so much lower than today... JimFit

Zachriel @ 52:

Fetal anesthetic can be used for late term abortions.

Barry @ 59

And one could hold babies who have been born down and inject them with anesthetics so their screams while they are being slaughtered won’t bother one. And it would be just as evil as what Z suggests.

Zachriel @ 60

Most people simply do not assign the same moral value to a blastocyst as to a baby.

For those unfamiliear with the term, a “blastocyst” is a structure formed in the early development of mammals. So Z suggests drugging late term babies when they are being slaughtered. I said that is just as evil as drugging a born baby while she is being slaughtered. Z responds by pretending we are talking about blastocysts. Zachriel, have you no shame? At long last, have you no shame sir? SteRusJon, talking about Zachriel, nailed it:

I am reminded of a snake, a writhing, lying snake. Zachriel is a son of a Serpent. And an apple that didn’t fall far from its tree.

Barry Arrington

Barry Arrington: would you be in favor of having the executed Polish army officers’ bodies cut into pieces after their executions and then have the pieces distributed in exchange for money that would reimburse the cost of the executions? No. Barry Arrington: And one could hold babies who have been born down and inject them with anesthetics so their screams while they are being slaughtered won’t bother one. And it would be just as evil as what Z suggests. Most people simply do not assign the same moral value to a blastocyst as to a baby. So you advocate locking up women to prevent them from having abortions, or imprisoning them if they have had an abortion? Zachriel

Zachriel:

Fetal anesthetic can be used for late term abortions

. And one could hold babies who have been born down and inject them with anesthetics so their screams while they are being slaughtered won't bother one. And it would be just as evil as what Z suggests. I am sickened by the vile, evil, putrescent slime Zach spews into the UD combox. I am conflicted. On the one hand, I can ban him and prevent him from using this combox as a platform to spew his venom. On the other hand, evil must be exposed, confronted and stamped out like roaches scampering across the floor when the lights are turned on. Barry Arrington

The executions would go like this: after signing identification papers, (Polish) officers were led with their arms bound into a small room that was equipped with soundproofed walls, a drain, a hose, and a door or hatch- it was a room designed for executions. Forced to their knees, a member of the Kommandatura would deliver a single shot to the back of the prisoners’ heads, killing them instantly. Their bodies would be dragged through the second door or hatch in the ceiling, the room would be hosed down, and the next prisoner would be brought in.”

Zachriel, would you be in favor of having the executed Polish army officers' bodies cut into pieces after their executions and then have the pieces distributed in exchange for money that would reimburse the cost of the executions? After all, your logic is they've been slaughtered, might as well make good use of the carcasses. You are a nauseatingly evil bastard. Barry Arrington

mohammadnursyamsu @ 53

@Seversky Speaking as a materialist / atheist, you do not acknowledge people’s emotions / spirit because they are not material, and therefore you have nothing whatsoever to say about ethics

I have the same consciousness, the same emotions, the same subjective experiences as anyone else, as far as I can tell. I neither deny nor reject them What I am unable to do is provide a detailed account of how they arise from the physical brain. What we do know is that there is no evidence of consciousness existing apart from a physical substrate like the brain. What we observe is that when the brain ceases to function then consciousness disappears. If brain function can be revived then consciousness can reappear. If brain function cannot be restored then the associated consciousness is gone for good. That’s just the way things are. Seversky

Eugen: …everything was legal here We already pointed out that just because something is legal doesn't mean that it is morally justified. Zachriel

Comrade Zachriel you would be loyal Stalin's apparatchik... "The executions would go like this: after signing identification papers, (Polish) officers were led with their arms bound into a small room that was equipped with soundproofed walls, a drain, a hose, and a door or hatch- it was a room designed for executions. Forced to their knees, a member of the Kommandatura would deliver a single shot to the back of the prisoners’ heads, killing them instantly. Their bodies would be dragged through the second door or hatch in the ceiling, the room would be hosed down, and the next prisoner would be brought in." ...everything was legal here comrade Zachriel... http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/03/the-man-who-personally-executed-over-7000-people-in-28-days-one-at-a-time/ Eugen

Z @52: BFast says ... * * Only in cases to prevent serious physical harm to the mother from continuing the pregnancy. Zachriel

@Seversky Speaking as a materialist / atheist, you do not acknowledge people's emotions / spirit because they are not material, and therefore you have nothing whatsoever to say about ethics. mohammadnursyamsu

StephenB: So if, in the present moment, a baby female is tortured, Thalamocortical fibers don't appear until 23 weeks, while brain scans indicate that pain perception doesn't begin until about 29 weeks. Fetal anesthetic can be used for late term abortions. UDEditors: File this one under "damned lie." Clinical research demonstrates that babies feel pain far earlier than Zach would have you believe in his unspeakably evil defense of the slaughter and dismemberment of unborn babies. See here.http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10H06.pdf And of course, whether they feel pain makes no difference in the moral question of whether they should be killed. No one would argue that it is not murder to kill someone while they are sleeping. Except maybe Zach. It is not surprising that Zach is a liar; those who advocate killing generally are. StephenB: murdered, murder, the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. We're discussing legal abortion. StephenB: sliced up, and distributed, Just like Aunt Martha, after her accident, when her family let her die of natural causes rather than keeping her alive artificially. When making the organ donation, they knew she would appreciate that her body might provide some benefit to others. StephenB: but if an adult female may someday be thought of as a baby factory, that is immoral. It has nothing to do with reputation, but the slippery slope leading desperate people to take desperate measures. As that is contingent on social circumstance, there is no hard and fast moral rule. For instance, some jurisdictions allow compensation for blood or blood plasma, but not for kidneys, certainly not for hearts. Barry Arrington: there really is no difference between your position and the Nazi position. Hitler. StephenB: So, you reject the profitable sale of human organs and Jewish flesh into lampshades, but you support the profitless distribution of human organs and Jewish flesh into lampshades. Sorry, but no, and you know otherwise. We do support limiting the power of government to force women to bear children they do not want, especially in cases where continued pregnancy would lead to dire physical health consequences to the woman. Providing better options for women to avoid elective abortion makes sense, but empowering the government to imprison women for abortion or to prevent abortion would be a dangerous encroachment. Some abortions are done to save the life or health of the mother. Would you allow abortion in these cases? If so, are you against donating the fetal tissue? BFast says he would be okay with "splitting a baby’s face in two to extract his brain while his heart is still beating", then "chopping them into pieces, and distributing the pieces". Barry Arrington dodged whether he would allow for abortion to save the life of the mother, but said he was "not in favor of the use of human organs for any reason without the consent of the organ donor," which seems like a weaselly way to say it requires the consent of the fetus, which would also apply to Aunt Martha, or any organs donated by the parents of a child who died. The latter would mean no more heart transplants for children. Zachriel

Seversky, in the first paragraph you state: "I don’t see the Zachriel collective as being any more immoral or amoral than anyone else here." In the second paragraph you state: "As for claims about a foundation for a moral code, they are without foundation," Don't you see the inherent contradiction? In the first paragraph you claim that Zach is just as moral as anyone else and then in the very next paragraph you undermined any foundation you had to be able to make that judgement. Moreover, although all men are sinners and have fallen short of moral perfection, (thus the necessity of the propitiation of Jesus Christ), the fact that atheists tend to be more immoral than Christian Theists is now an established fact:

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/barbarians-inside-the-gate/#comment-577053 Religious students more 'moral' than atheists or agnostics – study - March 2015 Excerpt: The study of 10,200 students and 250 teachers from 68 UK schools took place between February 2013 and June 2014 and is the largest of its kind. Researchers used surveys, moral dilemma tests and interviews. The religious students scored higher on the moral dilemma tests and within the religious group, those who practised their religion scored more highly than those who did not. Girls also scored higher than boys when faced with moral dilemmas.,,, The report takes as its starting point the growing consensus in Britain that virtues such as honesty, self-control, fairness, gratitude and respect, which contribute to good moral character, are part of the solution to many of the challenges facing society today. http://www.christiantoday.com/article/religious.students.more.moral.than.atheists.or.agnostics.study/49315.htm

as to the propitiation of Christ:

Falling Plates (the grace of propitiation) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGlx11BxF24 Turin Shroud Quantum Hologram Reveals The Words 'The Lamb' On A Solid Oval Object - video http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=J21MECNU Solid Oval Object Under The Beard http://shroud3d.com/findings/solid-oval-object-under-the-beard

bornagain77

bFast @ 49

Axel (35), “surely Zachriel is immoral, rather than amoral.” I think I had it right the first time. Amoral means “lacking any morals” or “lacking any moral foundation”. Immoral is to breach the moral code. Zachriel, as with all materialists, simply has no foundation for a moral code. He is amoral.

Speaking as an atheist/materialist v2.0, I don’t see the Zachriel collective as being any more immoral or amoral than anyone else here. They take a different view on the morality of abortion than others here - myself included. But having concern for the rights and well-being of the mother as much as for those of the unborn child - such as they are under current law - is neither immoral or amoral. As for claims about a foundation for a moral code, they are without foundation, in my view, other than through inter-subjective agreement (ISA). Who should decide the moral code which binds them other than those who are to be subject to it? And that means all of them. I need hardly point out that, in past centuries, these matters were decided by the few: the monarch, the aristocracy, the rich, those who wielded political and religious power. Even the Founding Fathers were relatively well-off, well-educated white males. For all the lofty rhetoric about “unalienable rights” they did not extend them, at that time, to the poor or slaves or women. Subsequent generations came to the view that denying those rights to those groups was immoral and changed the law. Does this mean that the Founders were immoral or amoral? Seversky

Axel (35), "surely Zachriel is immoral, rather than amoral." I think I had it right the first time. Amoral means "lacking any morals" or "lacking any moral foundation". Immoral is to breach the moral code. Zachriel, as with all materialists, simply has no foundation for a moral code. He is amoral. bFast

I have been watching Zachriel's antics in the recent threads. I have, also, been engaged in some back and forth with this we-gomaniac in some past threads. Zachriel reminds me of a writhing snake. His comments always attempt to leave wiggle room. Never state a position. Deny much. Affirm little. Latch onto some semantic nuance to evade the obvious intent of the queries of others. Never make a position statement with justification so others may know what Multiple-Personality-Disorder-Zachriel believes. For example, "We are not naturalists." All well and good. But would it have hurt all that much to state what it that you are? And how that specifically differs from a naturalist? But no! That might provide clarity. Can't have any of that. As it is, Zachriel need not take ownership of anyone's criticism of the naturalist's worldview or the ethics/morals standards that flow from them. After all, "We are not naturalists." If the topic were not so deadly serious, Zachriel's antics would be hilarious. As it is, they are revolting. As I said, I am reminded of a snake, a writhing, lying snake. Zachriel is a son of a Serpent. And an apple that didn't fall far from its tree. Stephen SteRusJon

As a well-known historian has said,

"A man who deliberately inflicts violence on the language will almost certainly inflict violence on human beings if he acquires the power. Those who treasure the meaning of words will treasure truth, and those who bend words to their purposes are very likely in pursuit of anti-social ones. The correct and honorable use of words is the first and natural credential of civilized status."

--Paul Johnson, Enemies of Society Or as I like to paraphrase it, "The sincere and honorable use of words is the first test of someone's character." EDTA

StephenB @ 45. Zachriel has told so many lies that he stumbles over himself trying to keep it all straight. Outrageous boners like that are bound to happen in such a case. Prediction: He will not respond at all or if he does respond it will be your and my fault for not understanding him. Evil and lies get complex really quick. The truth is usually pretty simple. Barry Arrington

Barry

Besides, are you really going to say that if the concentration camps charged for the Jewish skin it would have been evil, but they gave it away it would have been fine? Do you really want to go there?

Barry, that is exactly how I interpreted Z's comment. I posted my comment @44 before I read your comment @43. StephenB

Zachriel

We are against the sale of human organs or most tissues from whatever source. That would encompass turning Jews into lampshades.

So, you reject the profitable sale of human organs and Jewish flesh into lampshades, but you support the profitless distribution of human organs and Jewish flesh into lampshades. StephenB

Zach,

That would encompass turning Jews into lampshades.

Nonsense. No one charged for the Jewish skin that was turned into lampshades. Besides, are you really going to say that if the concentration camps charged for the Jewish skin it would have been evil, but they gave it away it would have been fine? Do you really want to go there? As much as it might make you squirm, Zach, there really is no difference between your position and the Nazi position. You are evil and dangerous. People like you are what make it possible to have concentration camps, gulags and killing fields. And what do I mean by "people like you"? I mean people who divide other humans into "humans that it is OK to kill" and "humans that it is not OK to kill." Barry Arrington

Zachriel

Distributing fetal tissue, such as after an abortion countenanced by bFast above, is moral and legal. Selling fetal tissue is not because it can lead to a situation where women become factories for body parts.

So if, in the present moment, a baby female is tortured, murdered, sliced up, and distributed, that is moral; but if an adult female may someday be thought of as a baby factory, that is immoral. At least we now understand your position more clearly. You do, indeed, support the act of murdering and slicing up innocent babies and distributing them, provided no profit is realized. We further understand that if, indeed, selling those baby parts does produce a profit, it is immoral not because of what is done to the babies but because of how those babies' mothers may someday be perceived. StephenB

Barry Arrington: Even Guttmacher’s highly suspect, self-interested statistics peg life/health at no more than 3%. Not sure if sneering represents a substantive objection to research. Barry Arrington: So you admit that you are trying to justify 97% of abortions with 3% of abortions. No. Those abortions are justified by appeal to the life and health of the mother. Other abortions must look elsewhere for justification. Barry Arrington: no, I am not in favor of the use of human organs for any reason without the consent of the organ donor. Presumably that means only an adult can donate their organs; not their spouse or next of kin. In particular, it means children will never be able to have a heart transplant from another child who may have died from natural causes. You missed the first question. Would you allow abortion in cases where continuing the pregnancy would lead to dire physical danger to the mother? Barry Arrington: we might as well chop him to pieces and sell those pieces. We've corrected you on this repeatedly. We are against the sale of human organs or most tissues from whatever source. That would encompass turning Jews into lampshades. Zachriel

Even Guttmacher's highly suspect, self-interested statistics peg life/health at no more than 3%. So we can be certain the real number is far less than that. So you admit that you are trying to justify 97% of abortions with 3% of abortions. That should tell you something Z. It should tell you that even if there is a moral grounding for the 3% (and I am not saying there is except in the life of the mother case), there is certainly no moral grounding for the 97%. Otherwise, why would the 3% be the only thing you want to talk about. And to answer your question, no, I am not in favor of the use of human organs for any reason without the consent of the organ donor. You on the other hand seem content with reasoning that since that baby was murdered anyway, we might as well chop him to pieces and sell those pieces. Who knows. Some good might come of it. By the same logic, Z would have been in favor of using the skin of Jews to make lamps in 1943. After all, those Jews were dead anyway and they had no further use for their skin and those lamps need shades. You really are a moral monster Z. If you've ever condemned the Nazis you should apologize for your hypocrisy. Barry Arrington

Barry Arrington: First he says whether he approves of chopping up little babies and distributing their parts turns on whether the butcher complied with the law. Then he says he does not think that just because something is legal it is also moral. No, Barry Arrington. Your original question concerned the sale of fetal tissue. You purposefully changed the wording, and we responded accordingly. UDEditors: If by "responded accordingly" you mean "told a damned lie" then you are most certainly correct. BFast, for instance, thinks it's okay to "chop up little babies and distribute their parts" in certain dire situations, so the constant repetition of your charged language does little to further the discussion. Barry Arrington: Newsflash, “life/health of the mother” is a tiny fraction of 1% of abortions. Actually, about 3% are due to maternal health consequences. But given your own statistic, would you allow abortion in these few cases? If so, are you in favor of allowing women to donate the fetal tissue for medicine in the hopes it will save other lives? See Guttmacher Institute, "Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States", August 2011. Zachriel

StephenB: sean’s example is hopelessly confused, as I made clear. StephenB: There is a big difference between paying an agency to help children and paying an agency to slice them up into parts for profit. That wasn't the point of comparison, but the difference between paying standard fees for delivery and paying for the thing being delivered. The example illustrates this quite well. StephenB: you keep changing your position about the morality of murdering innocent children and selling their parts. Is it immoral or not? You seem to have the same problem with comprehension as Barry Arrington. Our position is clear and found in the original post. Distributing fetal tissue, such as after an abortion countenanced by bFast above, is moral and legal. Selling fetal tissue is not because it can lead to a situation where women become factories for body parts. bb: And Zachriel lets judges, rather than scientists like himself, define what is “human”. Wrong. We reach our own conclusions. However, the U.S. judicial compromise balancing the value of the fetus with the autonomy of woman is reasonable; but there's no perfect solution. People wail about abortion, but they have little idea how meager this controversy will seem in a few years. Cloning and other genetic technologies will create far more complex and dangerous situations, and those that are inflexible will have no influence on the rapid social changes that are coming. bb: A baby in the womb is in no substantive way different than a baby that is born. Most people see life from conception to birth as a continuum. Few see a zygote as having the same claim to life as a baby. That's why people will fertilize many eggs in the hopes of creating a single baby, and only the rare person would consider it child endangerment. bb: As with all materialists Wrong. We're not materialist. bb: As with all materialists, he is amoral to the core. Wrong. Many materialists are moral. Zachriel

Zach, One of the reasons I know that abortion supporters such as yourself really know that abortion is evil, is that invariably and without exception they try to hide behind "life/health of the mother." Newsflash, "life/health of the mother" is a tiny fraction of 1% of abortions. And trying to use the 1% to justify the 99% is an absolutely certain indication that you know the 99% can never be justified standing alone. Barry Arrington

Axel,

Barry, surely, Zachriel’s moral blindness, wilful or not, resides in his equation of morality

Axel, part of Zachriel's depravity is that he is a damn liar. First he says whether he approves of chopping up little babies and distributing their parts turns on whether the butcher complied with the law. Then he says he does not think that just because something is legal it is also moral. In this regard, Zachriel is the consummate materialist. Words have no meaning; lies are as good as the truth, because there is no truth. So there is no need to be consistent. He is evil, and evil despises rationality. In a sense, even though he really does nauseate me, I am glad he posts here. He is the poster boy for what it looks like when materialism causes one to cast off all restraint. And it is ugly beyond words. Barry Arrington

bFast @ #2: 'Zachriel knows this. As with all materialists, he is amoral to the core.' Since 'he knows his', bFast, surely Zachriel is immoral, rather than amoral. Axel

Barry, surely, Zachriel's moral blindness, wilful or not, resides in his equation of morality with the law of the land, which, in fact, in the West, in tandem with the attrition of the Christian zeitgeist, has become increasingly depraved in its rulings. Axel

Zachriel

Sean samis’s example was spot-on.

sean's example is hopelessly confused, as I made clear. It cannot be rescued. Meanwhile, you keep changing your position about the morality of murdering innocent children and selling their parts. Is it immoral or not? StephenB

Barry Arrington: In your own words, your entire argument for why you support “distributing” baby pieces as opposed to “selling” baby pieces rests on the legal issue. No. There's a difference — in fact — between selling orphans and charging conventional fees for placing them with families. You forgot to answer: Some abortions are done to save the life or health of the mother. Would you allow abortion in these cases? If so, are you against donating the fetal tissue? bFast: Save the health of the mother is the greatest crock going. There are cases where a pregnancy can be dangerous to the mother, such as when the fetus is dying. bFast: If an abortion is seriously necessary to save the life of the mother, then the principle of self-defense can justify an abortion. So you support abortion, at least in some cases. bFast: I would not have a problem with the parents choosing to allow their child’s organs be donated. Which means there would be a process of harvesting the organs and other tissues. This can also occur after a miscarriage. bFast: I doubt if Planned Parenthood ever asked the murderous mother her permission to “harvest the organs”. In the few states that allow fetal donation, the law requires the woman's consent. Zachriel

Zachriel, "Some abortions are done to save the life or health of the mother." Save the health of the mother is the greatest crock going. Where such is required, doctors declare that the mother is experiencing "anxiety", so needs an abortion. If an abortion is seriously necessary to save the life of the mother, then the principle of self-defense can justify an abortion. However, never should the understanding that the child is a person be disrespected. If an abortion is necessary to save the life of a mother, I would not have a problem with the parents choosing to allow their child's organs be donated. Note, however, that the child's parents must be an integral part of this process. I doubt if Planned Parenthood ever asked the murderous mother her permission to "harvest the organs". bFast

Barry Arrington @29

Z, I have to be honest with you. I get a little nauseated when I deal with you. You are that disgusting.

Now I’m feeling left out! sean s. sean samis

Z @ 7: Of course they can both be true . . . anyone knows that a gift and a sale have a different status in the law.

Z @ 26: "Nor do we think that just because something is legal that it is moral."

In your own words, your entire argument for why you support "distributing" baby pieces as opposed to "selling" baby pieces rests on the legal issue. And when you later say it doesn't rest on the legal issue, that makes you a damn liar in addition to a supporter of killing little babies, chopping them into pieces, and distributing the pieces. I suppose if you are the latter it should not surprise us that you are also the former. Z, I have to be honest with you. I get a little nauseated when I deal with you. You are that disgusting. Barry Arrington

Zachriel @26

Huh? We didn’t mention the Supreme Court @7. Nor do we think that just because something is legal that it is moral.

Zachriel; don’t worry if Barry puts words in your mouth; that’s his shtick. sean s. sean samis

StephenB: There is a big difference between paying an agency to help children and paying an agency to slice them up into parts for profit. Sean samis's example was spot-on.

Hypothetical: Should we sell orphans like cattle? No. Should we facilitate their adoption? Yes. Should adoption agencies be able to charge fees to cover the costs of adoption? Seems reasonable. Since fees are just a selling price, it seems we should sell orphans like cattle.

Indeed, there is a valid distinction between charging fees and selling orphans. Similarly, and as the law {and common practice} makes clear, there is a difference between charging fees sufficient to cover costs, and charging for fetal tissue. If there is a miscarriage, should the woman be able to donate the remains to medicine? Zachriel

Barry Arrington: Zachriel @ 7 says that if the Supreme Court has made it legal then it is OK by him. Huh? We didn't mention the Supreme Court @7. Nor do we think that just because something is legal that it is moral. You forgot to answer: Some abortions are done to save the life or health of the mother. Would you allow abortion in these cases? If so, are you against donating the fetal tissue? Zachriel

If fetal tissue is being sold, then so are orphans. If one is bad, so is the other. You don’t get to hide behind legalism and then complain if others do likewise.

sean, You are blowing smoke again with your fuzzy logic. There is a big difference between paying an agency to help children and paying an agency to slice them up into parts for profit. That difference does not, in any way, nullify Barry’s original point that selling is tantamount to collecting a fee. This is more evidence that materialists allow their ideology to turn their minds into mush. First, Zachriel tries to legitimize torture and murder by arguing that it may be legal, and then you confuse yourself by sliding in and out of context and attributing your inconsistency to Barry. Just try to follow the arguments as they are presented. Don't try to latch on to what Zachriel says. You will just confuse yourself all the more. StephenB

I do have to hand it to Zach and Sean; if their goal was to distract from the main point they have succeeded. At the end of the day, it does not matter whether the money that changes hands is in exchange for goods (pieces of baby) or services (cutting the baby up and storing the pieces) or for reimbursement of the cost of cutting up the baby and storing the pieces. The only reason the distinction was interesting to begin with was to point out how Zach tries to hide behind hyper-technical legal distinctions to obscure his barbarism. The main point is that a baby is still getting crushed and dismembered, and her pieces are still being delivered to others in exchange for money. Zach and Sean support that, and that makes them unspeakably evil. Barry Arrington

Sean Samis's arguments have degenerated to the second grade "I know you are but what am I" level. Discussion ended. Barry Arrington

asauber @21

“That’s a nice legalistic distinction” Except for its not a legalistic distinction.

Except that “legalistic” distinctions are “objective”. Your dislike of legalism is “subjective”, but legalism itself is objective. sean s. sean samis

"That’s a nice legalistic distinction" Except for its not a legalistic distinction. It's an objective distinction. Andrew asauber

Barry Arrington @18

I have on my desk a copy of an invoice to one of the buyers. Under the description of the items being sold it says “fetal liver.” It does not say “services rendered.”

That’s a nice legalistic distinction, but as Andrew wrote:

...whomever argues from legalism is broadcasting that they are not interested in a serious discussion.

... so it seems you have a legalism bone to pick with Andrew. Enjoy. I understand you have an axe to grind and you are wearing your self-righteous blinkers. Still, you really need to stop it. You are embarrassing yourself. If fetal tissue is being sold, then so are orphans. If one is bad, so is the other. You don’t get to hide behind legalism and then complain if others do likewise. sean s. sean samis

"That may be the stupidist statement ever put in the UD combox." It's almost amazing that people pretending to be Super Smart can in reality be as dumb as a chunk of matter. Andrew asauber

Sean,

And what is being sold in the abortion context is not the fetal tissue but the services of the agency.

That may be the stupidist statement ever put in the UD combox. I understand you have an axe to grind and you are wearing your hyper-liberal political blinkers. Still, you really need to stop it. You are embarrassing yourself. As I write this I have on my desk a copy of an invoice to one of the buyers. Under the description of the items being sold it says "fetal liver." It does not say "services rendered." But I would like to thank you for demonstrating the point of the OP about how materialists such as yourself mutilate language in the service of evil. Barry Arrington

"what is being sold in the abortion context is not the fetal tissue" Facepalm. Andrew asauber

Barry Arrington @15

And what is being sold in the orphan context is not the children but the services of the agency, a distinction that any idiot could have worked out for themselves if they had not been intent on spewing snarky, smartass comments into the UD combox.

Facepalm. And what is being sold in the abortion context is not the fetal tissue but the services of the agency (for preparing, storing and transporting the tissue) a distinction that any idiot could have worked out for themselves if they had not been intent on spewing snarky, smartass comments into the UD combox. If all this is about is your dislike of abortion (a reasonable opinion) then the fee for fetal tissue is irrelevant. You made the fee the issue in your OP. sean s. sean samis

Sean,

“charging a fee” is the same as “selling”.

Yes, it is. And what is being sold in the orphan context is not the children but the services of the agency, a distinction that any idiot could have worked out for themselves if they had not been intent on spewing snarky, smartass comments into the UD combox. Barry Arrington

Barry Arrington @11 Asks if I “understand the difference between a fee for facilitating the placement of a whole, live person and cutting that person into pieces and selling the pieces.” Of course I understand this difference. But if “charging a fee” is the same as “selling” then we are “selling” orphans. The point of your OP was that “charging a fee” is the same as “selling”. Remember your OP? Wasn’t that long ago... If all this is about is your dislike of abortion (a reasonable opinion) then the fee for fetal tissue is irrelevant. You made the fee the issue in your OP. Do you recall your OP yet? sean s. sean samis

Z and whomever argues from legalism is broadcasting that they are not interested in a serious discussion. Andrew asauber

Zachriel @ 7 says that if the Supreme Court has made it legal then it is OK by him. So if Zachriel had been alive in 1857, he would have been OK with saying black humans are not persons (Dred Scott) just as today he is OK with saying unborn humans can be cut into pieces and sold. If he had been alive in 1896, he would have been OK with the apartheid regime the court approved (Plessy) He is now OK with forced sterilization (Buck v. Bell). Thanks for clarifying your position Z, which amounts to "I'm OK with splitting a baby's face in two to extract his brain while his heart is still beating, just so long as that is legal." Barry Arrington

My God! Sean Samis seems not to understand the difference between a fee for facilitating the placement of a whole, live person and cutting that person into pieces and selling the pieces. Barry Arrington

"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words! " - Samuel Adams bb

Better (more accurate) title for this thread: Arrington mutilates logic in the service of his evil. sean s. sean samis

Hypothetical: Should we sell orphans like cattle? No. Should we facilitate their adoption? Yes. Should adoption agencies be able to charge fees to cover the costs of adoption? Seems reasonable. Since fees are just a selling price, it seems we should sell orphans like cattle. Correct? sean s. sean samis

Barry Arringinton:

Q. Are you in favor of chopping up little babies and selling the pieces like meat? A. No. Q. Are you in favor of allowing Planned Parenthood to chop up little unborn babies and distribute their pieces like meat as part of their fetal tissue donation program? A. When a woman decides on a legal abortion, donating the tissue for medicine is appropriate.

Which one is the lie Z? They can’t both be true.

Of course they can both be true. The first concerns the sale of tissue, the latter concerns a donation of tissue. Most anyone, even an attorney, knows that a gift and a sale have a different status in the law. Barry Arringinton: “Selling” pieces of babies – bad. “Distributing” pieces of babies – good. Turns out that it is legal to donate human tissue, but not legal to sell the same tissue. There are legitimate reasons for this law, in this case, to not encourage pregnancy and abortion just so the woman can make money. You made an accusation which was unwarranted, but have yet to correct your error. Barry Arringinton: My dictionary defines “selling” as “to transfer goods to another in exchange for money; dispose of to a purchaser for a price.” And Planned Parenthood admits that it receives money in exchange for the pieces of babies. Why isn’t that selling? Whether Planned Parenthood did, in fact, sell fetal tissue is not the question, but whether fetal tissue donation should be allowed. Some abortions are done to save the life or health of the mother. Would you allow abortion in these cases? If so, are you against donating the fetal tissue? Zachriel

@mahuna "I would point out that this 'reimburse' thing is part of the whole 'non-profit' thing. Non-profit organizations simply arrange their annual expenses (including salaries and decorating the lobby) so that there is no income left to declare as 'profit'." That's a common misconception, which is rebutted at http://www.blueavocado.org/content/nonprofit-budgets-have-balance-false RalphDavidWestfall

I would point out that this "reimburse" thing is part of the whole "non-profit" thing. Non-profit organizations simply arrange their annual expenses (including salaries and decorating the lobby) so that there is no income left to declare as "profit". Note that this business model encourages what any in for-profit company would be considered inefficiency. That is, if PP's reimbursements for selling pieces of babies produces "too much" income, then somebody has to get a raise. The last thing a non-profit wants to do is reduce costs. mahuna

It's not only Materialists, but liberals seem to have the same trouble when it comes to the US Constitution. The understanding of freedom of religion and what is and is not permitted in the US and the understanding of the phrase "separation of Church and State"(not in the Constitution)is changing. But I do not think the Founding Fathers intended to allow for such changes. That was the whole purpose of ratifying the Constitution and setting rules in place to make it hard to change. Words have lost their meaning. I think many people approach the Bible in the same way unfortunately. tjguy

Zach: "The first is a question about selling, the latter is a question about distribution." This is obviously much more consequential, but it's the same stunt he pulled with the term "niche" in Mass extinctions can accelerate evolution?. Z will mutilate language just so he can think he won, regardless of the subject at hand and its consequence. Materialist dodge? Reminds me of this Monty Python classic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTmBjk-M0c bb

And Zachriel lets judges, rather than scientists like himself, define what is "human". A baby in the womb is in no substantive way different than a baby that is born. Zachriel knows this. As with all materialists, he is amoral to the core. bFast

If a pro choicer doesn't think its a baby human that was killed then , logically, they would not care about selling the remains. Morally they would be right. The only contention in the abortion problem is whether abortion kills a human being. The vast majority of people are morall especially at the level of respecting human life. The pro-life cause , along with overthrowing court decisions and legislating pro-life laws, is to persuade enough people that abortion kills a child. Pro0lifers waste our time accusing the opposition of malice and then trying to make them good. Its a intellectual contention and not a moral one. Pro-choicers rightly ask why its , greatly, Evangelical Protestants and serious Roman Catholics who most oppose abortion? They say its proof we are convinced the fetus has a soul and thats what makes it a baby. The soul thing added to a opinion on its humanness from science etc is the source of our conviction. YET we argue only about the science. Pro-lifers must show that the belief in a fetus being a human is not based on the soul. Also its not, in this extreme issue, because observant Christians are more moral people. more civilized and more loving. its an intellectual contention. No way around it. Robert Byers