If there is ever a doubt in your mind as to why I believe you to be a ghoul and tacit supporter of eugenics, you need look no further than your own words.
Eugenics? Are you serious?!?
This is what eugenics is:
"Eugenics is the "applied science or the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population," usually referring to human populations". In other words, eugenics usually involve controlled breeding for the purposes of engineering the human species (or other living things).
Now, I don't know how on earth you've managed to so perversely mangle my words in your head, but I have never EVER veered anywhere close to eugenics in any way shape or form. My principle, as I've articulated in this thread (time and time again), the principle from which my beliefs about abortion stems, is the conviction that the moral realm consists of things with minds, and that things without minds are excluded from the moral realm.
Engineering the genetics of the human population and/or controlled breeding something else entirely. ENTIRELY.
No matter how you may try and couch it, wilbur, it comes out the same way - death to those "things" that are less valuable.
No, that's your own particular perversion of my words (an offensive, condemnable, deplorable perversion at that). My actual words however, you have all but ignored or pretended that I don't really mean them so you can just continue to claim that I want to kill babies "for convenience", or am in a "death cult".
It starts with placing a value or non-value on life while discounting DNA and heartbeats as "philosophy", and ends up being the foundation to place value or non-value on things with "minds". It is thinking like yours that have brought suffering and misery to human kind for centuries and the killing of the unborn is no different a starting place than any other.
So your argument is that this principle ("things with minds have value") is the foundation for devaluing things with minds? Well, I gotta tell you, that doesnt make any sense at all. So long as one sticks to that principle, it will be impossible to devalue a mindful creature, plain and simple. That's the damn point.
On the other hand, I'd argue that its thinking like yours that harms mindful things unnecessarily. It inevitably leads to some people being subservient to mindless beings. In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, a conflict arises between a woman (a being with a mind) and a mindless being (the pre-sentient fetus). Since you don't care about the mind, and place all the emphasis on ultimately morally insignificant things like heartbeats, or DNA you end up infringing upon the rights and autonomy of real beings, beings who have minds. This does seem to lead many people to bad places... they demonize and dehumanize those who think differently... the evidence right here in this thread.
It was the pro-lifers in this thread who were shouting the cries of bloodlust here. Its the pro-lifers who, on the drop of a hat, are ready completely villify any woman who is considering an abortion - knowing nothing of her circumstances they already know she is depraved or irresponsible or selfish to the extreme.
While on some level I can respect the point of view and the passion many feel about this topic, but enough is enough. The crazy has got to stop.
But, since you have missed the obvious in my posts, I will gladly spell it out for you.
ctual by the name of Houston Stewart Chamberlain that wrote a book on the Aryan Race being in competition with the Jewish Race for world domination; a book called Foundations of the 19th Century. This fed the Volkisch movement in Germany. Incidentally, it made the false distinction of "Jew" being a race instead of a religion; a distinction that liberals and jihadis make to this day. It was the closest thing to a "species categorization" as one could get, wilbur.
Remember how I quite tacitly said that species categorization is NOT a good delimiter for the moral realm!?! Its a naming convention for scientists - that's it. I said that. In relation to Chamberlain, that belief can place me in no other category than that of his ideological foes.... not as a sympathizer, for God's sake.
In other words, wilbur, Chamberlain (whose book "electrified" Alfred Rosenberg from the minute he picked it up) came up with "a useful framework with which to make the right decisions".
Nazi's ate apples. I eat apples too. Oh shit, I must be like a Nazi!
All kidding aside, you do realize that your own conviction - "all life has value" - is the same thing - "a useful framework, with which to make the right decisions"??!? (or, at least you presumably think its useful). You get that right? Right?!
Well damn, I guess that makes you a holocaust loving Nazi too.
<... more irrelevant snippets about Nazi's cut for brevity ..>
To puke up a statement such as "Maybe there have been societies which devalued human life" is both stupid and willfully ignorant. It's a disregard for history just as much as it is a justification for your silent assent of the killing of unborn children; and they are unborn chilhtdren, wilbur, no matter how much you try and spin it otherwise.
Liberals are total failures as students of history, wilbur, and you are no exception.
It might have occurred to a reasonable person, that the intended meaning of that statement wasn't to call into question whether societies which valued human life very little or not at all actually existed. Give me a break, man.... I shouldn't even have to explain this. The "maybe" was the sort of maybe in a "maybe, ......, but ...." clause. Like a "Maybe X is true, but it still doesnt affect Y" sort of thing. I may have omitted the "but" portion, but that was how it read in my head - and really its pretty insulting (though not that you care obviously) for you to even suggest that I would claim that every country in the history of the world valued human life to a high degree.
No mention of "God" or any type of theology was mentioned by me, wilbur. I never claimed to be "God's voice or his messenger" and I did that on purpose. I wanted to see if your liberal reflex would kick in and you didn't disappoint. I took my position from a standpoint of common sense and human decency, a standpoint rooted in technology and reality. Unborn children will attempt to escape/defend themselves in the womb if they are threatened, wilbur; sonograms of abortions will tell you that.
You did mention God. You claimed I was playing God, when you said:
"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." My point was not to lecture you about theology - it was to drive home the point that your own principle is no different in that regard. Your principle has no special authority, nor does it reside in some sanctified place of perfection and flawlessness, impervious to all criticism and hidden from the possibility of being wrong. If I am playing God, then similarly you are playing God. Get it?
Your opinion, wilbur, does not survive first contact with human decency or reality. Like most opinions of pseudo intellectual liberals, it only shows your disdain and contempt for anyone who does not think like you; for them to be "inferior". Which is, BTW, another "useful framework" for not all life having value, "just some of it".
So far, you haven't even addressed my actual opinion. You've still so far, managed to avoid ever dealing my actual beliefs, and have instead so far opted to go on about Eugenics and Nazis - things which have no relevant connection to my core principle.
