I'm always amazed at the speed with which so many pro-lifers start to view people with reasonable and respectful objections to their beliefs as inhuman ghouls. A little ironic when you think about it.
There is nothing reasonable about what you have posted. It has been the typical rationale of a leftist who is seeking to justify the killing of the unborn and whatever else they deem to be of no value.
It's been spewed by individuals like you ad nauseum.
There are edge cases which you are failing to account for, such as human cadavers (brain dead people who are still "alive"), and other forms of life. We need a framework for all of it.
That, wilbur, is usually covered by the wishes of the brain dead person prior to them being brain dead. Medical directives and the like.
But we are talking about your support of women wanting to kill their unborn children for convenience.
Stay on target, wilbur.
In many cases we are - reality often doesnt offer us any choice in the matter. So we have to come up with a useful framework with which to make the right decisions.
Sorry, wilbur, but I'm not playing along. Many have gone before you, seeking to decide who lives and who dies, and all they need is a "useful framework". There is nothing of intellect that you offer in this area; no more so than any other practitioner of eugenics. It fails on the face of common human decency.
And that failure, wilbur, is what makes you a ghoul.
In case it escaped you, the only distinction between "living cadavers", and you and me is brain function. They are "human life" in every other sense of the word. Yet they have far less rights than we do and we usually leave decisions regarding their medical future to spouses or other immediate family.
No, wilbur, it hasn't escaped me. What you are talking about is higher brain function, not the function of the lower brain.
But, as it were, has nothing to do with a mother wanting to kill her unborn child for being a girl.
Stay on target, wilbur.
They are merely one example where, if we followed your principles at face value, we would be neck deep in total absurdity. So you need to refine your principle in some sensible way. And my suggestion is that you concede that it is minds, not mere life, that hold the real value.
Save your advice for someone who actually gives a **** what you think, wilbur. You know damned good and well that yours is a way of death that, if implemented and handled by liberals, would lead to the next holocaust. It's your line of thinking that exterminated entire villages throughout Europe.
At the very least, if you respected human life the way you claim, we wouldn't have women killing children for something as absurd as their sex.
I also presume that human life is not the only life to which you feel you have moral obligations or duties. Certainly you feel you have some obligation to animal life as well. Well, to whom and to what do you owe these moral duties and how do you determine it, if not by the existence of a conscious mind, pray tell?
I don't play your games, wilbur. I don't give enough of a damn about a pro-deather's point of view other than to expose them for the monsters that they are.
This is a discussion about your support for women to be able to kill their unborn children for whatever reason strikes their fancy.
Try and stay on target, wilbur.
Maybe there have been societies which devalued human life.
Maybe? Are you serious?
I articulate specifically what kind of beings have value and why.
So did Hitler, Mao, Saddam, and Stalin.
None of those societies operated on the principle that things with minds have value, now did they?
No, wilbur, they operated on the principle that they held the choice of who and what had value. They recognized that the things of no value had minds, that's one of the reasons they had to be destroyed.
The overriding philosophy was that
they got to decide what life was of value and what life wasn't. They regarded human beings as a "species categorization" and not a moral boundary. Keep spinning it however you want, it still comes out the same.
History does not agree with your position, wilbur.
No, the inevitable outcome is that we appropriately recognize the value of minds. Re-read that till you get it.
No, wilbur, the inevitable outcome of people playing God is that they kill lots of people. They justify it any way they can and they do it.
History is full of it and it all starts with some pissant pseudo intellectual saying that some life is more valuable than other.
Frankly, wilbur, anyone who would support the killing of the unborn would support the eventual killing of anything. Serial killers start with bugs and small animals, mass murderers start with women and children.
Re-read that, wilbur, until you can see your true self.
