Where We Stand as a Nation on the Eve of the Fourth of July

You know, pro-aborts, you can reach a point where, in your effort to be all postmodern and ironic you circle back to simply speaking the truth about yourselves.  I would submit that you have just achieved that goal as you chant “Hail Satan” in your struggle to make sure that child slaughter remains unsafe, legal and common.

  • Joseph

    Well, at least their self-parody has finally come full circle. Lady GahGah altered the words of the National Anthem to celebrate the end of DOMA with “… the home of the free, and the land for the gays…”.

    10-15 years ago, that would have offended me, not because of the *gay* stuff, but because of the disrespect shown to the National Anthem (think Rosanne Barr). When I read about Lady GahGah’s rendition, the first thought that came to mind was, “So what?”. I guess I’ve already come to the realization that the US that I once knew is no longer. The body snatchers have long since placed this weird substitute in it’s place. Seeing as the US no longer exists, I couldn’t care less what they do with the National Anthem anymore.

    That’s not necessarily a digression to your post as it’s how I look at my former country on the eve of the 4th. None of this surprises me at all.

    • SandyRavage

      The US you once knew is no longer and humanity is better for it.

      • lspinelli

        Your little slice of humanity. Less than 5 percent of the population. Sexually active homosexuals and atheists combined. Not the rest.

        • SandyRavage

          I’m neither an atheist nor a sexually active homosexual. Nor are most of the 2/3 majority of Americans under the age of 50 who support gay marriage and upholding Roe v Wade.

          • Stu

            “But Mommmmm…..everyone else is doing it.”

            • SandyRavage

              That doesn’t work. I was directly responding to Ispinelli who was incorrectly claiming that my position was a minority one. The fact is that the vast MAJORITY of people actually share my feelings. That doesn’t necessarily mean that my position is correct, but it does necessarily mean that most people are happy with the current trends that Joseph is bemoaning.

              • Stu

                Good. I’m glad you realize that. But I dispute your “vast MAJORITY” claim especially when you take into account being informed.

                • SandyRavage

                  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/01/poll-supreme-court-gay-marriage-affirmative-action-voting-rights/2479541/

                  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323301104578255831504582200.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth

                  It’s pretty cut-and-try

                  Edit: I imagine you’ll also (unfoundedly) say that the majority of Americans in the cited poll don’t know what Roe v Wade entails. I’d also point out that a significant majority of the respondents in that same poll indicated that abortion should either be always legal or almost always legal. And even the “illegal with exceptions” respondents may also agree with the holding in Roe, as Roe allowed for some restrictions on abortions.

                  • Stu

                    Well. No, it’s not.

                    While polling can be absolutely accurate in terms of the mathematics involved, at issue are the polling samples AND questions. In fact, those things often make it very hard. Further, you disregarded my point about being informed.

                    As many entertainers have shown, one can walk down the street with photos of individuals who hold significant leadership roles and find very few people who even know who they are. The same is true with attempts at asking basic history questions or relevant current events. These are the people who are giving their opinion in these polls. When they are really informed, minds change. I have seen it first hand.

                    As people begin to understand how redefining marriage affects us all, especially children or they connect dots on how accepting inhuman treatment of the most defenseless robs us all of our humanity, they come to their senses.

                    • SandyRavage

                      *In fact, those things often make it very hard*

                      Then tell me what’s wrong with the sample size and the questions in the polls I provided.

                      *Further, you disregarded my point about being informed.*

                      Because its nonsense. It’s thought-terminating cliche and a no-true scotsman fallacy rolled into one. You have provided no evidence that it’s the case and I doubt you even could if it were true. It’s mental diarrhea. Moreoever, the consequence of this bankrupt argument is that the American people were somehow very informed about gay marriage, but have lost that knowledge, as support for gay marriage is skyrocketing.

                    • Stu

                      It’s nonsense in your mind because it goes against your narrative. Most people can’t even articulate the societal purpose of marriage much less comment on why redefining it will have repercussions. That’s why you see such non-sense arguments like “How does it affect YOUR marriage?” as some manner of conversation ending trump card on the part of the homosexualist proponents.

                      Based upon what we see as the knowledge of most people on most things, I see little reason to believe that somehow the American people are absolutely “wired” when it comes to discussing such issues. They can tell you all about Kim Kardashian or Snooki.

                      And BTW, its not the sample size that is the hard part. That is the mathematically easy part to ascertain. It’s picking the right people to be in the sample that presents the challenge. That’s why polling is different from source to source.

                    • SandyRavage

                      *Most people can’t even articulate the societal purpose of marriage much less comment on why redefining it will have repercussions.*

                      Who says marriage even has to have a societal purpose? It could be for procreation, money, love, social stability, or for any other number of reasons. Your opinion of what marriage should be about carries no more weight than anyone else’s. The only issue the state needs to be concerned with is whether it applies what it calls marriage equally.

                      *Based upon what we see as the knowledge of most people on most things, I see little reason to believe that somehow the American people are absolutely “wired” when it comes to discussing such issues. They can tell you all about Kim Kardashian or Snooki.*

                      All you seem to be able to tell me about is your own personal feelings and anecdotes. Everyone I’ve talked to on the subject has a fairly sophisticated and nuanced opinion on the subject.

                      *And BTW, its not the sample size that is the hard part. That Most people can’t even articulate the societal purpose of marriage much less comment on why redefining it will have repercussions.is the mathematically easy part to ascertain. It’s picking the right people to be in the sample that presents the challenge. That’s why polling is different from source to source.*

                      Ok, well I’m waiting to tell me what the problem is. What mistake did the pollsters make in picking the right people?

                    • Stu

                      My opinion (nor yours) matters. What matter is why society deemed it necessary to define marriage in such way. What purpose did it serve? (And I will give you a hint, it has nothing to do with love unless you think the state has some vested interest in sanctioning emotion). And nor does it have to apply “equally” because not everything is in fact equal.

                      Those who demand to make changes to something like this are the ones who should be able to answer these question. But they can’t because quite frankly, they haven’t thought about it. And that clearly includes you and makes your ability suspect to judge the opinions of others on this matter of being “sophisticated” or “nuanced.”

                      You are my “Exhibit A.”

                    • SandyRavage

                      *What matter is why society deemed it necessary to define marriage in such way. What purpose did it serve? (And I will give you a hint, it has nothing to do with love unless you think the state has some vested interest in sanctioning emotion).*

                      It doesn’t matter what purposes it serves. In fact, it doesn’t need to serve any purpose at all. All that matters is how the state applies its laws.

                      *it has nothing to do with love unless you think the state has some vested interest in sanctioning emotion*

                      Well if enough of its citizens think it does, then it does. That’s the beauty of democracy.

                      *And nor does it have to apply “equally” because not everything is in fact equal.*

                      Maybe not, but all Americans are under the law equal.

                      *Those who demand to make changes to something like this are the ones who should be able to answer these question.*

                      The only people who answer that question are the people who are getting married themselves. I imagine you’ll find a slightly different answer for each couple.

                    • Stu

                      “It doesn’t matter what purposes it serves. In fact, it doesn’t need to serve any purpose at all.”

                      Then why get the State involved?

                      Friendly advice. Stop digging.

                    • SandyRavage

                      *Then why get the State involved?*

                      That’s a good question. It’s not one that I have an answer to, however. Nor is it one that is relevant to this discussion. It is simply a brute fact that the government involves itself in marriage. So long as it does, it is bound by the Constitution to apply it evenly.

                    • Stu

                      No, it does matter because it speaks to it’s purpose which you can’t articulate because you haven’t really thought about it. You keep invoking “equality” as your goal but you can’t and won’t even establish that the two thing in question are actually equal.

                      You have nothing but platitudes.

                    • SandyRavage

                      I’ve thought about it’s purpose. If I got married, I’d probably do it for love about any other reason. Maybe somebody else would do it for procreation or for money. To each their own.

                      And I already established that the only two things that need to be equal in this equation are two consenting adult American citizens. For more information, read the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

                    • Stu

                      Strike three.

                      I don’t care why you would get married. That’s not relevant to the discussion. The issue is why society has marriage. Think outside of yourself.

                    • SandyRavage

                      And again, why does that matter to this discussion? Why does there need to be a reason? Does the mere presence of A reason justify the existence of civil marriage?

                    • Stu

                      If you don’t understand the reasons for it, then you aren’t in a position to change it.

                      More free advice. Don’t go into Explosive Ordnance Disposal. It’s much more involved than just “cutting wires.”

                    • SandyRavage

                      I understand my reasons for it. I don’t need to understand anyone else’s.

                      If the state made a law that said brown-eyed people had to pay a 10 percent tax on all their income, would I need to know the state’s reason for putting the law in place to feel that it was not constitutional?

                    • Stu

                      I like how you continue to “raise the bar” on your ability to “sink to even lower” in your rhetoric.

                    • SandyRavage

                      That’s nonsense. I don’t understand the reasons why people came to believe African Americans were inherently inferior to Whites. Does that mean I can’t challenge that based on my own experiences?

                    • Stu

                      It means again that you are equating things that aren’t equal.

                    • Fred

                      “I don’t care why you would get married. That’s not relevant to the
                      discussion. The issue is why society has marriage. Think outside of
                      yourself.”

                      He’s already articulated some reasons why some people would want to get married. Just because you have one specific reason in mind doesn’t obliterate the many other reasons why people would choose to get married.
                      Think outside of yourself.
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

      • B.E. Ward

        So, just to hash this out a bit.. what, in your mind, has changed in the US for the positive, especially in light of Joseph’s comment?

        • SandyRavage

          My gay friends like that they can get married now. My female friends like the fact that they can do what they want with their bodies irrespective of what somebody else’s religion tells them to do.

          • B.E. Ward

            Is it possible for these to happen while still showing respect to the country (the one, ironically, where people have the right to vote for this sort of thing) by not slaughtering its anthem and offending people who hold it dear?

            It sort of strikes me as biting the hand that feeds you.

            • SandyRavage

              American citizens disrespecting the United States and their fellow Americans is nothing new. Nor is there anything atypical about the current level of it. If you think otherwise, you need to brush up on its history.

              • B.E. Ward

                You really don’t need to be so strident. We understand where you’re coming from.

                Here’s the problem.. Lady Gaga obviously didn’t think she was disrespecting anything. The owners of the crushed, shot, and dismembered bodies underneath those matching white headstones all over the country and Europe might have thought otherwise.

                • SandyRavage

                  How is that a problem?

                  • B.E. Ward

                    You’re not really here for a conversation or authentic debate, are you?

                    • SandyRavage

                      I’d ask the same question to you. If you can’t articulate why your “problem” is a problem, then the fault lies with your argument, not my understanding of it.

                    • B.E. Ward

                      Ok, let’s start with this:

                      Should anything be held sacred? If so, what?

                    • SandyRavage

                      What you consider to be sacred is your business and what I consider to sacred is my business.

                    • B.E. Ward

                      So then all sacred things are equally sacred? You can’t say your sacred thing is more sacred than mine if they’re all nobody else’s business.

                    • SandyRavage

                      Of course I can. That’s what “subjective” means. Like Einstein said, I may think your beliefs are superstitious and childish while respecting your right believe them.

                    • B.E. Ward

                      While at the same time completely discarding any care for the fact that Lady Gaga offended scores of people?

                    • SandyRavage

                      There’s nothing in the Constitution that says you have a right not to be offended.

                      edit: And if you’re offended by the fact that a pop musician paraphrased the national anthem, I don’t have much sympathy for your offense either.

                    • Dillon T. McCameron

                      Why hold the Constitution sacred?

                    • SandyRavage

                      Who said I did?

                    • B.E. Ward

                      So, really, why are you here? Do you think you’re going to change people’s minds this way?

                    • SandyRavage

                      Absolutely. I was vehemently pro-life for a very long time. In fact I made many of the exact same arguments you are here. It took people making the same arguments I’m making now to make me come to reason.

                    • Ian Bibby

                      And by “reason” you mean “my passions” rather than “the truth”

                    • SandyRavage

                      My “passion” here is finding the best way of organizing society so that everyone is allowed the greatest amount of freedom to pursue their goals in life. And through reason I came to the conclusion that criminalizing abortion was antithetical to that.

                    • Ian Bibby

                      My “passion” here is finding the best way of organizing society

                      And by “best” you mean, “that which satisfies my passion.” How wonderfully circular. You’ve achieved near-perfect intellectual and moral inversion. By “coming to reason” you actually mean the very opposite – that you’ve abandoned the very notions of reason and objective truth, and decided to wallow in subjective emotionalism.

                      And through reason I came to the conclusion that criminalizing abortion was antithetical to that.

                      And yet, since you hold that reason merely rationalizes your whims rather than leading to objective truth, you have no reason to think your conclusion (that criminalizing abortion is antithetical to maximal freedom) is actually true.

                    • SandyRavage

                      Did you just stop reading? I defined “Best” as the way that provides maximal freedom of all members of society. You’re free to disagree with that if you want, of course. If your passion is to subdue and subjugate others and force them to behave however you think God wants them to, that’s your prerogative, though you’d better get ready to start an armed insurrection.

                    • Ian Bibby

                      Don’t play dumber than you actually are. The whole basis for belief that “maximum freedom” is “best” is, as you’ve made clear, merely your whim.

                    • SandyRavage

                      I don’t know whether you’re playing at poor reading comprehension or if you sincerely misunderstood. By best I meant the system that was *best* able to provide maximal freedom for people to pursue their preferences. That can be determined by reason, not by whim.

                    • Ian Bibby

                      I’d accuse you of being too “unsophisticated” to “comprehend” what I’ve written, but it’s pretty obvious that you’re just a liar. Your identification of “maximal freedom to pursue preferences” as being best is nothing more than your whim.

                    • SandyRavage

                      Again, you misunderstood. here’s the definition of Best:

                      *Adjective

                      Of the most excellent, effective, or desirable type or quality: “the best pitcher in the league”.*

                      I sought out the “best” i.e. most effective or desirable method of allowing greatest amount of freedom to pursue their goals in life seeing as promoting freedom and the pursuit of preference satisfaction is my desire or passion. This is the third or fourth time I’ve explained this.

                    • Stu

                      Well then. Make your best pro-life argument for us.

                    • SandyRavage

                      I believed that a human organism and human person could be used synonymous. I also erroneously believed that abortion was worse for a woman’s health than childbirth, that women overwhelming regretted having abortions, that fetuses were capable of at least some level of sensation or even conscious thought.

                    • Stu

                      That’s your best argument?

                    • SandyRavage

                      Well, that’s the gist of it. It’s basically a cookie-cutter pro-life argument.

                    • SandyRavage

                      Who said I did?

                    • Dillon T. McCameron

                      No one that I’m aware. But you state that the Constitution provides no right against being offended, and also that it states that women have the rights to murder their children.

                      It just seems fairly superstitious (to me) to attribute human rights (sacred! undeniable! irremovable! inviolable!) to couple of hundred year old piece of paper.

                      That is to say, I subjectively find your subjective exaltation of subjectively defined human rights quite quaint.

                    • SandyRavage

                      I think it’s superstitious and quaint that you think rights have any dimension beyond social convention and personal preference.

                    • Dillon T. McCameron

                      Your adherence to whatever rights are afforded in the Constitution is therefore based entirely upon your personal preferences and the social conventions of the particular society you happen to be living in?

                      You have nothing to say of slavery, of genital mutilation, of throwing acid in women’s faces? Nothing of rape as a weapon of war? All these might be the preferences of those that commit them, the conventions of whatever society they occur in; to this you say, “Such is their subjective right, to imagine their own subjective rights.”

                      You might say, “Ah! But the slaves are persons! And slavery infringes upon the slaves (subjectively assigned) right to self-determination or what have you.”

                      But surely regarding the slave as the property of the slave-owner is part and parcel of the social conventions of the slave-owning society?

                    • SandyRavage

                      “Your adherence to whatever rights are afforded in the Constitution is therefore based entirely upon your personal preferences and the social conventions of the particular society you happen to be living in?”

                      No, I obey the laws of my country. I try to repeal laws I think are unjust and I support the adoption of laws I feel are just. If passing a certain laws in unconstitutional, I may support amending the Constitution to fix that.

                      *Ah! But the slaves are persons! And slavery infringes upon the slaves (subjectively assigned) right to self-determination or what have you.”*

                      Exactly and through reason we can try to balance everyone’s subjective desires for the greater good of all. In many cases that balancing act is pretty lopsided. For example in the case of rape or slavery. Especially given that those who support slavery don’t support being slaves themselves.

                      *But surely regarding the slave as the property of the slave-owner is part and parcel of the social conventions of the slave-owning society? *

                      It is, and from a legal perspective, it is a right they hold. From an ethical standpoint it may not be.

                    • Dillon T. McCameron

                      The laws of your country? Whatever country that might be? Unless you imagine you were destined to be born in the USA?

                      “If passing a certain laws in unconstitutional, I may support amending the Constitution to fix that.”

                      Ergo, if the Constitution does not allow for a law, fix to Constitution till it fits?

                      “reason we can try to balance everyone’s subjective desires for the greater good of all”

                      Whose reason? Is not reason as subjective to the person as the imagined rights of said person?

                      “Especially given that those who support slavery don’t support being slaves themselves.”

                      Elucidate me as to why that objectively matters.

                      “From an ethical standpoint it may not be.”

                      ETHICS? What on earth are these ethics you speak of, aside from a vague sentimental urge for “fairness”?

                    • SandyRavage

                      *The laws of your country? Whatever country that might be? Unless you imagine you were destined to be born in the USA?*

                      I’m American, so I’m gonna stick to talking about America here.

                      *Ergo, if the Constitution does not allow for a law, fix to Constitution till it fits?*

                      In theory yes. In practice that’s difficult, for good reason. It’s also the only honest way for pro-lifers to accomplish their aims.

                      *Whose reason? Is not reason as subjective to the person as the imagined rights of said person?*

                      Is logic subjective? Mathematics?

                      *Elucidate me as to why that objectively matters.*

                      Objectivity? It’s not at all objective, its inter-subjective.

                      *ETHICS? What on earth are these ethics you speak of, aside from a vague sentimental urge for “fairness”?*

                      A discipline which seeks to distinguish right from wrong conduct.

                    • Dillon T. McCameron

                      “I’m gonna stick to talking about America here.”

                      If you were German, would you stick to speaking of Germany? Just because you happened to roll high on the cosmic lotto (depending on your point of view, I suppose), you’re bound to see and speak of things as an American?

                      You’re not a slave of circumstance, you know. You could speak as a human being, should you like.

                      Ahm, didn’t bring it up before. But do you, in your vast subjectivity, consider the Dread Scott decision wrong, I mean, a travesty of justice?

                      And is that just because your social conventions and happenstance leave you viewing the matter in the crisp light of retrospect?

                      Honestly, what worth are you if you cannot say that rape is absolutely, objectively, always and without question wrong? Surely you can’t leave it to the subjective WHIMS of the rapist?

                      “Is logic subjective?”

                      Apparently.

                      “Mathematics?”

                      Wouldst thou dare to objectively define two plus two as four? Canst thou imagineth something that is true, and fact, and not subject to the perceiver’s whim?

                      Inter-subjective? So that’s a no? You can’t even say that it’s wrong of the slave owners? Just that we’ve agreed that it is?

                      “A discipline which seeks to distinguish right from wrong conduct.”

                      Bwahahahahaha!

                      Right from wrong? Is it possible for you to imagine such a thing? A thing divorced from circumstance and convention and whim? Divorced from opinion and sentimentality?

                    • SandyRavage

                      *If you were German, would you stick to speaking of Germany? Just because you happened to roll high on the cosmic lotto (depending on your point of view, I suppose), you’re bound to see and speak of things as an American?*

                      Of course I am. Germany in particular has a much different political system than we do and a Constitution that holds that fetuses have a right to life and that women have a right to terminate the fetuses life if they have financial need. It’s a different system that I don’t know enough to talk about.

                      *Ahm, didn’t bring it up before. But do you, in your vast subjectivity, consider the Dread Scott decision wrong, I mean, a travesty of justice?*

                      I have the same opinion that Dred Scott did about whether it was right or wrong, morally. But the legality of it is not in question.

                      *Honestly, what worth are you if you cannot say that rape is absolutely, objectively, always and without question wrong? Surely you can’t leave it to the subjective WHIMS of the rapist?*

                      I’d leave it to the subjective whims of the victim, really.

                      *Inter-subjective? So that’s a no? You can’t even say that it’s wrong of the slave owners?*

                      It’s wrong to the slaves and it’s wrong to me. That’s good enough.

                      *Right from wrong? Is it possible for you to imagine such a thing? A thing divorced from circumstance and convention and whim? Divorced from opinion and sentimentality?*

                      Who said right from wrong was divorced from the above? You’re using a very narrow worldview

                    • chezami

                      Might makes right. Goering would be proud.

                    • SandyRavage

                      Wow, Godwin’s law in only 2 posts.

                      And no, you completely fail to understand my position. Might did not make right to his victims.

                    • Fred

                      “Might makes right. Goering would be proud.”

                      And if many religious people are to be believed, God would be proud too. Since it seems to be part and parcel of many arguments that go along the lines of god created everyone and therefore can hold anyone he chooses accountable to obfuscated religious principles.

                    • Ian Bibby

                      In other words, no.

                    • SandyRavage

                      If by sacred you mean “something that nobody anywhere should ever criticize or disrespect” then no, such an idea is childish.

          • Stu

            You illustrate my point in spades. You boil down the opposition to abortion as being about religion only. Most arguments against the practice of abortion are separate from any religious aspect. But that provides a simplistic slogan to rally your base around all while not really addressing the issue at hand.

            • SandyRavage

              The real issue is that Pro-lifers have tried for decades to come up with an argument against abortion that doesn’t rely on a religious basis and have fallen short every single time. If you had a viable argument against abortion that had a secular, Roe v Wade would have been overturned decades ago. In order to be pro-life, you must make some assumption about the personhood of a fetus that is unsupported by science or law.

              • chezami

                No. Prolifers say “It’s alive and is human. Don’t kill it.” Proaborts go in for all the bullshit about “when does the soul enter the the body?” (see La Pelosi on Aquinas) and hairsplitting about how to determine when a fetus (or baby) attains some mystical thing called “personhood”. You guys do all the mystification. We point to 46 chromosomes and metabolism.

                • SandyRavage

                  Which is why your argument is so shallow. What about having 46 chromosomes and a metabolism makes you a person? If a child is born with 47 chromosomes, does that make them more or less of a person?

                  • Stu

                    By that reasoning, you don’t qualify as a person.

                    • Ian Bibby

                      No, no, he’s a person because his whim. That’s what a rational argument looks like, you backwards religionist.

                    • Stu

                      Darn! I forgot about whimsy.

                    • SandyRavage

                      No, I’m a person because I have a first person perspective. I’m capable of both consciousness, sentience, and the ability to create an abstract picture of reality. A baby can’t, but there’s no harm in acting like it can, especially if there are pragmatic reasons for doing so. The same can’t be said of a fetus.

                    • Ian Bibby

                      I’m not persuaded. Can you show me rational proof of your first person perspective? I’ve never seen this 1st person perspective of yours. I’d like some solid physical evidence of these abstractions you speak of while we’re at it. If we’re going to accept such phantoms as a legal basis for your personhood, surely we need that.

                    • SandyRavage

                      You’re asking *me* to prove it to you. So clearly you believe it exists. Why ask for proof of something you already believe?

                    • Ian Bibby

                      Wait, “you” are telling me that *my* opinion determines “your” so-called “personhood,” which is defined by “your” so-called “1st person experience” and other things which I have never observed? Well, that’s easy. I’ve seen no scientific evidence that there is a “you” who possesses such things, so I vouch that “you” have no such personhood, ethically or legally.

                    • SandyRavage

                      You vouch that I don’t exist then? Bold move. Do you vouch that anyone else besides you has a first-person perspective?

                    • Ian Bibby

                      Do I need to repeat myself?

                    • SandyRavage

                      If you gave a position on whether you believe anyone besides you has a first person perspective, then yes, as I missed it.

                    • Dillon T. McCameron

                      Solipsism is the rabbit hole all subjectavists must one day slip down.

                      To take a step back though, especially from ye olde “Brain in a Jar” one might not be a person in these circumstances, but a collection of persons using a single user name.

                      Or a very advanced conversation-bot. Indeed, I imagine many internet arguments might become automated someday.

                      But back to the issue at hand, even if we were all in the same diner right across the table, you’d have no sensible way of proving that anyone besides yourself actually and objectively exists…or yourself even. Much less that anyone is a person.

                    • SandyRavage

                      *Solipsism is the rabbit hole all subjectavists must one day slip down.*

                      Why?

                      *But back to the issue at hand, even if we were all in the same diner right across the table, you’d have no sensible way of proving that anyone besides yourself actually and objectively exists…or yourself even. Much less that anyone is a person.*

                      I wouldn’t? Should I assume that you think you do?

                    • SandyRavage

                      I didn’t claim that I had a rational reason for treating babies like people. In fact, I thought I made it pretty clear that my reasoning *wasn’t* rational. The thing is I don’t need to have a rational reason for treating a baby like a person. I don’t need a rational reason for preferring chocolate to vanilla. I Do need a rational reason if I want to deprive women of their constitutional rights.

                    • Stu

                      Well, at least we agree that you aren’t rational.

                    • SandyRavage

                      Nor are you. Nor is anyone fully.

                      “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions”
                      -David Hume.

                      Reason however does have it’s place, and nowhere is that place more evident when determining what rules we put in place to order interactions in civil society.

                    • Stu

                      Reason. Good tool. But you need to be equipped to use it. That requires knowledge and an understanding of all that is at stake. And that is where you have demonstrated that you are seriously lacking.

                    • SandyRavage

                      Is there anything here besides a shallow ad hominem?

                    • Ian Bibby

                      If reason if for rationalizing and not for finding objective truth, then there’s nothing wrong with ad hominem, so stop whining.

                    • SandyRavage

                      Reason is a tool for coming to logical decisions, often in order to accomplish ones preferences. Unless your objective is to make elementary mistakes in your argumentation, there is quite a bit wrong with making such elementary mistakes in your argument

                    • Ian Bibby

                      Yes, we wouldn’t want to make logical mistakes in our argumentation, because then our reasoning wouldn’t lead to objectively true conclusi… oh wait.

                    • SandyRavage

                      You don’t want to make mistakes in your reasoning because then your arguments won’t be valid.

                    • Ian Bibby

                      And arguments that aren’t valid are bad, because they contain logical mistakes, which means that don’t lead to objectively true conclu… oh wait.

                    • SandyRavage

                      A valid argument can lead to an objectively false conclusion. Learn your logic.

                    • Ian Bibby

                      Can a valid argument lead to an objectively false conclusion when the premises are all true?

                    • SandyRavage

                      No, but that’s not what you said.

                    • Ian Bibby

                      After several posts of dodging and squirming, you finally admit the obvious, that reason is a tool for finding objective truth, but even then you’re too much of an intellectually dishonest weasel to say so outright, and can only do it in an indirect, passive-aggressive manner, by denying its opposite when pressed – and that only after multiple attempts to confound coherent conversation altogether with your sophistic red herrings.

                      The whole reason you went down this rabbit-hole is that you wanted to avoid admitting that the usefulness of reason lies in how its proper use leads to objective truth, while at the same time you wanted to say that we “should” use reason to make our decisions – when the only reason we should do so is that reason leads to objective truth, and we want our decisions to be correct.

                      You want reason to not lead to objective truth on the one hand, because you want to argue the rightness of policy based purely on your subjective whims instead of on objective truths obtained via reasoning from first principles, and because you want to equivocate and contradict yourself with abandon and not have it matter.

                      On other other hand, you need reason to lead to truth, because you want us to think that your position is correct (aka true) on the grounds that it’s supposedly based on “reason.”

                      And faced with this contradiction, as with all your other many contradictions in this thread, you simply attempt to blow up any attempt at rational discussion through yet more equivocation, self-contradiction, and various other sophistries. If there’s one thing you’ve demonstrated here, it’s that you are utterly dishonest and have total contempt for truth and reason, and that any rational person must disregard your position (whatever the hell it is beyond “I like abortion”) as incoherent.

                    • SandyRavage

                      *After several posts of dodging and squirming, you finally admit the obvious, that reason is a tool for finding objective truth*

                      No, reason is a tool. A tool can be used for many purposes. It can be used to determine whether a proposition is true or false and it can be used to determine courses of action. In this instance, I use reason to find the best course of action in how to order society. Seeing as their is no objectively best way to organize society as what constitutes society is contextual and constantly in flux, it doesn’t make sense to say that I’m looking for “objective truth” any more than “Barack Obama is the current president of the United States” is always true.

                    • Stu

                      Again, we agree.

                      You are not looking for truth.

                    • Ian Bibby

                      You’re both dishonest and logically incompetent:

                      It can be used to determine whether a proposition is true or false and it can be used to determine courses of action.

                      Those are the same use, you twit. We use reason to determine courses of action because we want those courses of action to be based on true conclusions about how to achieve our desired effect.

                      Seeing as their is no objectively best way to organize society as what constitutes society is contextual and constantly in flux

                      So the fact that what is objectively the case now may not be the case later means it’s not really objectively the case. It’s not really Wednesday in Maryland because tomorrow is Thursday! Brilliant.

                      it doesn’t make sense to say that I’m looking for “objective truth” any more than “Barack Obama is the current president of the United States” is always true.

                      Either you’re conflating “objectively” with “always” because you’re too incompetent to tell the difference, or because you’re dishonest and too incompetent to realize we’d be able to tell the difference.

                      Either way, Stu’s right. By attempting to justify rather than deny or repent of your disregard for the truth, you’ve only confirmed it.

                    • SandyRavage

                      *Those are the same use, you twit. We use reason to determine courses of action because we want those courses of action to be based on true conclusions about how to achieve our desired effect.*

                      That’s somewhat tortured reason. A course of action can be represented prepositionally, but its not a proposition.

                      *So the fact that what is objectively the case now may not be the case later means it’s not really objectively the case. It’s not really Wednesday in Maryland because tomorrow is Thursday! Brilliant.*

                      The truth value of that proposition is contextual.

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_future_contingents

                    • Ian Bibby

                      You’ve got laughably far afield into irrelevancies in your attempt to distract from your indefensible disregard for truth and reason, but what the heck, I’ll abuse you some more.

                      That’s somewhat tortured reason. A course of action can be represented prepositionally, but its not a proposition.

                      By that “logic”, it must be impossible to use reason to decide courses of action in the first place, since reasoning produces propositions based on other propositions. If you’d spent even two seconds thinking about it honestly, instead of thinking about how to dissemble some more, it might have occurred to you that reasoning out courses of action means trying to reach objectively true conclusions about what actions will accomplish your goals (or possibly it did occur to you, but your rank sophistry required that you BS some more).

                      The truth value of that proposition is contextual.

                      So you’re too incompetent/dishonest to realize that the contextuality/contingency of a truth has nothing to do with the objectivity of truth, just as you don’t understand that its objectivity has nothing to do with its permanence. And despite your fundamental logical incompetence and disregard for truth, you see fit to lecture everyone about their supposed “fallacies.”

                    • SandyRavage

                      *By that “logic”, it must be impossible to use reason to decide courses of action in the first place, since reasoning produces propositions based on other propositions.*

                      That’s logic, actually. Reason encompasses more than just that.

                      *contextuality/contingency of a truth has nothing to do with the objectivity of truth *

                      Rather, you haven’t thought enough about objectivity to realize its relation to absolute statements.

                    • Stu

                      It’s an observation.

                      An ad hominem would be something like, “SandRavage is a poo poo head.”

                    • SandyRavage

                      No, those are both ad hominem. You’re making a fallacy of irrelevance by critiquing your opponent instead of their argument.

                    • Stu

                      No. I’m simply observing from your display here that you are not equipped to engage in this discussion. You haven’t demonstrated that you understand the foundational aspects of the debate.

                    • SandyRavage

                      Yes, and that’s still an ad hominem. Your observation is irrelevant, hence why its called a fallacy of irrelevance.

                    • Stu

                      Yes, the fact that you don’t know what you are talking about is “irrelevant.”

                      But we do agree that you are not rational.

                    • Ian Bibby

                      Actually, saying “SandyRavage is a blithering idiot, therefore he must be wrong” would be an ad hominem.

                      “SandyRavage is wrong, probably because he’s a blithering idiot” would be an astute observation.

                    • Ian Bibby

                      “Reason however does have it’s place…”

                      In particular, it would appear that you see reason as a slave for rationalizing your whims (or passions, as it were) rather than a tool for finding objective truth.

                    • SandyRavage

                      Of course, that’s the point of society to begin with. We exist in social units in order to pursue our wants and needs. We need reason, however, to figure out the best way to accomplish that.

                    • SandyRavage

                      Huh?

                  • BHG

                    Don’t be so concrete. We point to the product of human egg and human sperm–at any stage–just fertilized, at birth, 5 years old, 55, 95, 105— and say–amazingly–human being! Person!

                    • SandyRavage

                      Yes. Unfortunately you don’t seem to have a good reason for actually doing that.

              • Ian Bibby

                So what’s your “secular” argument against killing infants five minutes after birth at the wishes of their parents?

                • SandyRavage

                  Whim. I like babies. Since we live in a democracy and protecting the life of an infant doesn’t infringe upon anyone else’s guaranteed rights, there’s nothing to stop me from supporting a law to make infanticide illegal.

                  • Ian Bibby

                    What about your whim makes someone a person?

                  • Ian Bibby

                    And what are these “guaranteed rights” you speak of? More whim, presumably?

                    • SandyRavage
                    • Ian Bibby

                      So? What proof do you have that those rights exist? And what proof do you have that abortion is one of them?

                    • SandyRavage

                      *What proof do you have that those rights exist?*

                      What proof do you have that a law is a law?

                      *And what proof do you have that abortion is one of them?*

                      Just read the holding in Roe v Wade and in Casey v Planned Parenthood.

                    • Ian Bibby

                      So, by a “right” you just mean whatever the government agrees that you may do, yes?

                    • SandyRavage

                      No, I mean a fundamental normative rule about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.

                      You mean “natural rights” which Bentham accurately described as “nonsense on stilts” and utterly removed from anything in the American legal system.

                    • Ian Bibby

                      So, if the legal system, social convention, or ethical theory that you live under holds that you may do something, then it’s a right, and otherwise it is not, yes?

                    • SandyRavage

                      Sure

                    • Ian Bibby

                      Great, then if we successfully make abortion illegal somewhere, nobody’s rights are being infringed, because then the rights don’t exist. And the only justification we need is whim. The rational basis for our position is simply gravy.

                    • SandyRavage

                      Well, yes in the case of Ireland or Germany, there is no right to abortion. So yes, if we amend the Constitution, there will be no such thing as a legal right to abortion, though, there may very well still be an ethical one.

                    • Ian Bibby

                      Well, I’m just glad to see you admit that illegalizing abortion doesn’t infringe anyone’s rights, and that legalizing it doesn’t make the country “better” in any way beyond pleasing your subjective whim.

                    • SandyRavage

                      Criminalizing abortion would be a violation of a woman’s legal rights if it were done without a Constitutional Amendment. And it will always be a violation of her ethical rights by my reckoning and I imagine the reckoning of the women affected by it. Unfortunately for your argument, an abortion will never be a violation of a fetus’s rights by its own reckoning.

                    • Ian Bibby

                      “Criminalizing abortion would be a violation of a woman’s legal rights if it were done without a Constitutional Amendment”

                      Then you contradict yourself. For if a state (or any other body) illegalizes abortion, and is able to enforce it, then the “legal system, social convention, or ethical theory” that is in effect in that place has changed such that abortion is no longer a right by your definition. Then again, since you don’t believe that reason is for finding truth, I suppose you don’t consider logical self-contradiction a problem for your beliefs.

                      my reckoning… the reckoning… own reckoning

                      Well, shoot. I hadn’t taken into consideration how peoples’ subjective whims define objective reality.

                    • SandyRavage

                      *Then you contradict yourself. For if a state (or any other body) illegalizes abortion, and is able to enforce it, then the “legal system, social convention, or ethical theory” that is in effect in that place has changed such that abortion is no longer a right by your definition. *

                      What? something can be a right in one sense and not a right in another sense.

                      *Well, shoot. I hadn’t taken into consideration how peoples’ subjective whims define objective reality.*

                      You probably should’ve at least tried to figure out how the preferences of individuals within society defined social convention. Rights are normative, they’re inextricably linked with social conventions

                    • Stu

                      Wow. He gets his rights from some piece of paper that a bunch of other guys wrote on some years ago.

                    • SandyRavage

                      Is that a problem?

                    • Stu

                      Not until some other group of guys come along and scribble out some new or more restrictive rights for you.

                      I am gobsmacked that you can’t see your position out to its end.

                    • SandyRavage

                      So we don’t have a problem now then. And in the past 200+ years, our system has done quite a good job of keeping this “other group of guys” from coming in and amending those rights

                    • Stu

                      Great measure for something being sound. That is just wacky on your part. Further, it actually goes against the beliefs of the original group of guys.

                    • SandyRavage

                      prove it. And please spare me some simple rhetoric from Jefferson. The Founders were an incredibly diverse group of people, the vast majority of whom put no stock whatsoever in Locke’s concept of natural rights.

                    • Stu

                      Go read our founding document as a nation….The Declaration of Independence. Note all of the signatures at the bottom.

                      Thanks for playing.

                    • SandyRavage

                      The Declaration of Independence was a polemical document with zero legal standing and one that was bitterly controversial among the Founders themselves. It was explicitly written for the sole purpose of justifying leaving the British Empire. Neither Jefferson, nor anyone else who was involved with its creation had any intention of using it as a basis for the laws of the US. Learn your history.

                    • Stu

                      No legal standing? What were they going to do, take it to the “People’s Court?”

                      It marks our independence as a nation. That’s factual. And it speaks to the beliefs of our founders who signed it.

                      I think we have some lovely parting gifts for you.

                      Johnny, tell him what we have for him.

                    • SandyRavage

                      *No legal standing? What were they going to do, take it to the “People’s Court?”*

                      Well they initially tried legal recourse, actually. But the point was that it has no legal standing on current US law.

                      *It marks our independence as a nation. That’s factual. And it speaks to the beliefs of our founders who signed it.*

                      No, it speaks to the fact that they believed that Jefferson could do the best job of writing a polemical document. Nothing else.

                    • Stu

                      Righttttttt.

                      Are you willing to put your name at the bottom of a document that you don’t believe in if it puts your life in danger?

                      Use your common sense.

                    • SandyRavage

                      All of the Founders were actually, as the document was drawn up as part of a contentious compromise between different factions, many of which had irreconcilable differences. They came to a compromise because they felt the document effectively gave a justification for declaring independence, irrespective of their personal feelings on its truth.

                      They were politicians, politicians lie. Use your common sense

                    • Stu

                      They signed it. They risked their lives for it.

                      Your attempts at mind-reading way after the fact fall flat.

                      Besides, you have also put yourself in the position of being comfortable with known liars determining your rights.

                      Bizarre.

                    • SandyRavage

                      Yes, they risked their lives to separate from the British Crown. If you’re going to release a document that puts your life in danger, wouldn’t it follow that you’d release something that accomplished your goal as effectively as possible, irrespective of how well you felt it represented your issue on other, less critical issues?

                      *Besides, you have also put yourself in the position of being comfortable with known liars determining your rights.*

                      There are a few too many logical fallacies to list here, so I’ll focus on two:

                      First of all, you’re arguing from false premises. The people who wrote the Constitution were, in large part, not the people who wrote the Declaration. So the fact that the Declaration was written by liars doesn’t mean the Constitution was.

                      Secondly:

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

                      Whether they misrepresented their opinions has no bearing on whether they were able to come up with a good legal system.

                    • Stu

                      No. You don’t connect the dots too well. If you are going to assert the writers of the DOI are liars but somehow those who wrote the Constitution were men of pristine caliber then you really are a man of faith. In what I don’t know, but you definitely have faith.

                      So what we have established is that you believe your rights come from a group of politicians who, like other politicians, are prone to telling lies and susceptible to signing their names to anything in order to compromise. And that’s where your rights come from.

                      Yes, you are a man of faith

                    • SandyRavage

                      I was just pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. I wasn’t making any assumption about whether the Constitutional convention was any more trustworthy than the continental congress.

                    • Stu

                      And I am just showing the outcome of your statements.

                    • SandyRavage

                      by making logical fallacies?

                    • Stu

                      I’m confident you see it that way.

                    • SandyRavage

                      This isn’t up for debate. You attacked the system of rights in the constitution because the founders were “liars” which is poisoning the well. You then argued from the false assumption that because the writers of the DOI were liars(did you just give up on trying to prove that whole bit about them being completely honest in the DOI or something?) it followed necessarily that the writers of the Constitution were.

                      Now it’s entirely possible that the Constitution isn’t a good system to base our laws and ethics on, but you’re going to need a whole new argument to demonstrate that.

                    • Stu

                      No. I didn’t.

                      I pointed out that you are comfortable with the type of men you describe as “liars and politicians” determining your rights.

                      You really don’t follow arguments well. I think it because you look for apparent fallacies wherever you can find them in order to throw that charge around. Seems to be a common tactic of those without a good philosophical foundation.

                    • SandyRavage

                      *I pointed out that you are comfortable with the type of men you describe as “liars and politicians” determining your rights.*

                      And that’s poisoning the well and/or begging the question. You’ve given no reason why that would be problem and you seem to be implicitly stating that that is a problem. And again, false premise as I didn’t describe the drafters of the Constitution as “liars” and making the assumption that I felt that they were simply because they were politicans as well is a fallacy of accident. Being ignorant of all the errors you’ve made is a far greater indictment of a lack of philosophical knowledge than misunderstanding on my part would be.

                    • Stu

                      There you go again. Misunderstood? No. Can’t follow is more like it.

                      If it is not a problem, then simply admit that it is likely. I assert that the founders believed our rights came from a higher order and signed their names to such a belief in a manner that would have gotten them killed. Your answer to this is that politicians are liars and that can’t be trusted (funny how you don’t see the fallacy in that argument). But even if your belief is correct, then all men being equal (you like equality) then it does stand to reason that those working on the Constitution were of the same caliber. Now If you want to also assert that it is possible that the men who drafted the Constitution were of a different caliber than the men who signed the DOI, I will admit that such is possible. Highly unlikely, but possible.

                      Now even if the men who drafted the Constitution were similarly flawed, does it preclude them from doing a bang up job in drafting the Constitution? No, it does not. But it also certainly gives no reason to believe that they were perfect in doing so.

                      But you are comfortable with your human rights being defined by this document created by other men.

                      As I said before, you have strong faith.

                    • SandyRavage

                      *If it is not a problem, then simply admit that it is likely. I assert that the founders believed our rights came from a higher order and signed their names to such a belief in a manner that would have gotten them killed.*

                      Some of the Founders believed that their rights came from a higher order. Some believed that their rights were a result of being Englishmen, others believed that rights were entirely a social construct. Some believed that they had natural rights which were unrelated to legal rights. Furthermore, asserting natural rights would not have gotten them killed. Why weren’t Locke and the other Natural Law philosophers executed? Learn your History.

                      *Your answer to this is that politicians are liars and that can’t be trusted*

                      No, my answer was that the Founders didn’t think alike save for the fact that they all wanted to declare independence from Britain successfully. After a contentious process they came to a compromise on how to announce it. One of those compromises was to assert that all men were equal, yet to explicitly allow Southern States to continue treating blacks unequally(and to codify said inequality in law) Do you think Southern plantation owners thought all men were equal?

                      *But even if your belief is correct, then all men being equal (you like equality) then it does stand to reason that those working on the Constitution were of the same caliber.*

                      You’ve almost formally represented the faulty generalization fallacy and you’ve added in a strawman fallacy to boot by saying that I believe all men share identical properties.

                      *Now even if the men who drafted the Constitution were similarly flawed, does it preclude them from doing a bang up job in drafting the Constitution? No, it does not. But it also certainly gives no reason to believe that they were perfect in doing so.*

                      You’ve backtracked from your poisoned well fallacy with an argument from ignorance.

                    • Ian Bibby

                      By all means, please give us a list of which founders did *not* believe their rights came from a higher order, with citation.

                    • SandyRavage

                      Do your homework:

                      John Phillip Reid, “The Irrelevance of the Declaration”, in Hendrik Hartog, ed., Law in the American Revolution and the Revolution in the Law (New York University Press, 1981), 46–89.

                    • Ian Bibby

                      Come now, just give us a name of a founder who did not believe their rights came from a higher order, not a name of someone besides yourself who who claims they didn’t. One wouldn’t be nearly enough to prevent your claim from being a dumb lie, but let’s start with one.

                    • SandyRavage

                      The founders said varying different things about natural rights. The Hamiltonian Federalists, for instance, took a very Hobbesian view of natural rights, namely that man had the right to do whatever he wanted to survive in nature, simply by virtue of being born into it. Though they appealed to religion at various points, the core of this philosophy was, like Hobbes, atheistic.

                    • Ian Bibby

                      Come now, Sandy, I asked you to name only one single, solitary founder who didn’t believe that their rights came from a higher order, and just a bit of evidence that they believed that. Just name one specific guy.

                      By the way Sandy, a bit of advice. I realize that you’re a leftist, and that as such you think truth is created by consensus achieved through any means necessary rather than discovered by reason and observation. But in the future, if you want anyone to buy it, it’s probably not a good idea to make it so bleedin’ obvious that you’re trying to cover your inability to substantiate your lies by engaging in obvious pompous bluster every other sentence. Maybe cut back the dubious “logical fallacy”s and “you should educate yourself”s to only one in ten paragraphs or so.

                    • SandyRavage

                      I already told you. You had founders who were straight deists who believed that a prime mover created the universe, but that natural laws arose from that nature such as Ethan Allen. And then you had the Hobbesian ones such as Hamilton who believed that natural rights existed but were only consisted of the natural right to do whatever one desired to survive. This isn’t hard.

                    • Ian Bibby

                      Hmm, let’s start with that Hamiltonian Federalist known as Alexander Hamilton:

                      “The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”

                      So, yeah, not him. But, I’m just sure you’ve got many examples of his followers at the time of the founding who believed that rights don’t come from a higher order, and that you aren’t merely a liar who’s been caught, and who’s whole already-embarrassing case against Stu has collapsed completely.

                    • SandyRavage

                      Did you miss the part where I mentioned that they appealed to divine will publicly, but privately expressed doubts? You’ll fine the same in the writings of Ben Franklin, Abe Lincoln, And Emperor Josef of Austria

                    • Ian Bibby

                      Nope, I didn’t miss your irrelevant and unsupported assertions. Nor did I miss that you haven’t named a single solitary founding father who didn’t believe that our rights come from a higher order, nor provided a quote or anything else as evidence of such belief, despite the fact that you’ve been challenged to do so repeatedly, and despite the fact that your entire argument with Stu rests on your claim that the founders disagreed with each other on that point.

                      If you actually had such evidence, you’d have thrown it in my face long before now, but you’re unable to do so, because like everything else you’ve said under this post, you pulled it out of your backside.

                      And moving the goalposts to “private doubts” can’t save your case either, even if you did show evidence of it, though I have to point out that you haven’t even managed to do that. The fact that you’re now having to segue into the “private doubts” of men who were born decades after the founding, or who weren’t even Americans, is outright self-parody on your part.

                    • SandyRavage

                      well first of all, my argument doesn’t rest on the assumption that the founders didn’t universally believe in natural rights. Even if they all did, it’s irrelevant as they didn’t put it in the Constitution. Secondly, I pointed out that Hamilton and the other Federalists believed in a Hobbesian, rather than Lockean conception of natural rights. The only natural right in Hobbes’ understanding was “to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own Nature; that is to say, of his own Life; and consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own judgement, and Reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto” or in other words, anything goes. Obviously the Founders didn’t enshrine that into law. The natural rights that you’re trying to say the Founders believed in didn’t exist in law or in the minds of nearly anyone.

                    • Ian Bibby

                      “Secondly, I pointed out that Hamilton and the other Federalists believed in a Hobbesian, rather than Lockean conception of natural rights.”

                      Actually, you didn’t “point it out.” You merely asserted it, and did so with no substantiation whatsoever, just like all your other assertions.

                      Furthermore, you only did so in an attempt to change the subject, after your 2nd (3rd? 4th? Hard to keep track at this point) consecutive failure to substantiate your claim, when challenged, that the founders did not agree that our rights come from a higher order.

                      Look, anyone reading this far knows you been lying pathologically to support your case, and you know it too. It’s not like refusing to admit it and continuing to dissemble and change the subject is going to make your lies true, or cause anyone to un-realize that they’re lies and you’re a liar.

                    • SandyRavage

                      So are you disputing that Hobbes was the primary influence on other founding fathers?

                    • Stu

                      “Some of the Founders believed that their rights came from a higher order….”

                      And as you have now admitted, none believed they simply came from writing them down on paper, which is your belief. That’s what started us on this road. At least we are settled on that.

                      As to the “all men being equal” and your incessant need to squawk “fallacy” at everything….Get a clue. I’m simply using the language because of your desire in earlier exchanges to call everything under the sun “equal.” Good grief, you are so pedantic.

                      You are also so caught up in your fallacy fetish that you simply cannot appeal to common sense or even engage in meaningful conversation. You are the quintessential “too clever by half.”

                    • SandyRavage

                      *And as you have now admitted, none believed they simply came from writing them down on paper, which is your belief. That’s what started us on this road. At least we are settled on that.*

                      As a matter of legal rights many did. Many of the Federalists opposed the introduction of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution primarily because doing so would irrevocably sever the link between the law and “natural rights”.

                      *Get a clue. I’m simply using the language because of your desire in earlier exchanges to call everything under the sun “equal.” Good grief, you are so pedantic.*

                      It’s not my fault that you’ve made a habit of being constantly wrong and are not taking offense that I’m correcting your errors. Never forget but never learn.

                    • Stu

                      You have conflated “legality” with “rights” and I now see you have openly affirmed such belief in your exchanges with Ian. I will say that given that flawed premise, you do logically follow it to it’s natural end of whatever is legally set forth as your rights is such. You would follow it into a ditch but you would follow it.

                      And yes, I know that you think you are correcting my errors. The self-appointed fallacy detectives always think they are doing such but it’s kind of like looking for the bogeyman. You start to see him everywhere even when he isn’t there. You would do better attempting to actually communicate with others because quite frankly, many of the assertions you are attributing to me in your “fallacy work” just aren’t the points I am making. But do go on making your mud pies.

                    • SandyRavage

                      I don’t know how you’d get the idea that I’ve conflated rights with legality. I specifically said that the concept of “rights” can be discussed from a variety of angles. Someone may have a moral right to do something, but lack a legal right to do so or vice versa. Rather it seems to be you that’s conflated the word “rights” with “natural rights”

                      *You start to see him everywhere even when he isn’t there*

                      Well given how you’ve put the brakes on all your fallacious lines of thought so far, it looks like the boogeyman has disappeared.

                      just aren’t the points I am making.*

                      Given that you’ve walked back from so many initial claims, I don’t think you have any points left. Do you still want to try to argue that the signers of the constitution were liars because the signers of the DOI were? Do you still want to argue that the signers of the DOI had to have been honest in the DOI because they were risking their lives by publishing it? Do you still want to argue that simply because a person is not a paragon of honesty, that has ANY implication whatsoever for whether they’re good at coming up with a legal and ethical system for a country(actually with that last one you admitted you didn’t want to argue that, and then hilariously committed another fallacy right off the bat.)

                      I’m not going to forget all the boneheaded mistakes you’ve made. You may as well own up to them and try to do better.

                    • Stu

                      Look! More bogeyman sightings! You again demonstrate what I am talking about.

                      “Do you still want to try to argue that the signers of the constitution were liars because the signers of the DOI were? “

                      You took issue with the fact that all of the men who were involved in the DOI were not part of the Constitution. My point is that as contemporaries there are no reasons to believe that the former were in any way different from the latter. If you want to claim that the latter are somehow special, then make the case.

                      “Do you still want to argue that the signers of the DOI had to have been honest in the DOI because they were risking their lives by publishing it?”

                      I didn’t call them them “honest.” But given they have signed the document with their names, that indicates a general consensus. If you want to claim they are all lying politicians who didn’t believe in the document, again the burden is on you to prove it. (Want to address your own fallacious arguments in that regard?)

                      “Do you still want to argue that simply because a person is not a paragon of honesty, that has ANY implication
                      whatsoever for whether they’re good at coming up with a legal and ethical system for a country(actually with that last one you admitted you didn’t want to argue that, and then hilariously committed another fallacy right off the bat.).”

                      That wasn’t my argument. The point was to ask you if you are comfortable with men that you deem as liars defining your rights? Can they be right? Sure. But are you comfortable with that? Is that a recipe for long term success?

                      You see, you are so caught up in your logical fallacy hunt that you fail to actually say anything. It’s your defense mechanism against having to answer anything of substance. You are, at the core, a sophist.

                    • SandyRavage

                      *You took issue with the fact that all of the men who were involved in the DOI were not part of the Constitution. My point is that as contemporaries there are no reasons to believe that the former were in any way different from the latter. If you want to claim that the latter are somehow special, then make the case.*

                      shifting the burden of proof. King George III was a contemporary of George Washington. Thus, according to your logic, there is no reason to believe they were different from on another.

                      *I didn’t call them them “honest.” But given they have signed the document with their names, that indicates a general consensus.*

                      You explicitly said that because they were willing to risk their lives on this document, that was somehow evidence that they were being honest about their opinion on natural rights. Is that true, yes or no?

                      *That wasn’t my argument. The point was to ask you if you are comfortable with men that you deem as liars defining your rights? Can they be right? Sure. But are you comfortable with that? Is that a recipe for long term success?*

                      Begging the question. Why wouldn’t I be?

                      *You see, you are so caught up in your logical fallacy hunt that you fail to actually say anything. It’s your defense mechanism against having to answer anything of substance. You are, at the core, a sophist.*

                      When there’s nothing worth responding to, I don’t need to say anything. When you start making sense, I’ll give answers that make sense. I’m waiting.

                    • Stu

                      “Thus, according to your logic, there is no reason to believe they were different from on another.”

                      As individuals? Sure they are different. I was speaking of men in general. Burden of proof still remains with you.

                      And yes, people, in general, do not sign their name to statements that they don’t believe and more so when death is a possibility. Perhaps you are different and will sign your name to anything for any reason. But again, your claim is that they are politicians and therefore liars and therefore the DOI is of little consequence. Tell us again about fallacies? Yours specifically.

                      “When there’s nothing worth responding to, I don’t need to say anything. When you start making sense, I’ll give answers that make sense. I’m waiting.”

                      Yet you do respond. Now claiming that you don’t respond. You don’ say anything because you don’t have anything except your squawks of fallacy here and there. Yes, we are all waiting for you to show something. Not expecting anything.

                    • SandyRavage

                      As individuals? Sure they are different. I was speaking of men in general. Burden of proof still remains with you.

                      It doesn’t in any way. You’re arguing that they had identical opinions, you’ve done nothing to support that contention. The burden remains on you.

                      And yes, people, in general, do not sign their name to statements that they don’t believe and more so when death is a possibility.

                      Right, so an murderer wouldn’t sign a testimonial saying that he was innocent even if it would save him from execution. Great logic there. The Founders risked their lives to declare their political independence from Britain, not to defend the concept of natural rights. They could have just done that without declaring independence.

                      Yet you do respond. Now claiming that you don’t respond. You don’ say anything because you don’t have anything except your squawks of fallacy here and there. Yes, we are all waiting for you to show something. Not expecting anything.

                      And I’m waiting for you to come up with an argument that isn’t riddled with fallacies.

                    • SandyRavage

                      You’re not showing the outcome of anything. Fallacious reasoning can’t do that.

                    • Ian Bibby

                      Not much you can do to reason with a person who simply rejects reason itself, and shores up their position by simply engaging in historical revisionism when real history disagrees with them.

                      Anyhow, it was obvious that this is what SR is about when he stated as fact, with a straight face and no caveats, that the Constitution specifies a right to an abortion. He’s clearly working from the post-modernist idea that truth is merely power, and that “interpretation” of history is the same as reality. Our advocate of “reason” believes in having your own facts.

                      And note that he’s now advocated both that we are and are not obligated to respect the Constitution’s conception of rights. As you’d expect from a guy who thinks truth is relative, he’ll both deny and use the very same premise for his arguments, as he finds it convenient to shore up the predetermined conclusion.

                    • Fred

                      Snicker, founding document, LOL.

                    • Fred

                      “I am gobsmacked that you can’t see your position out to its end.”

                      I’m gobsmacked that you don’t realize this has already been done to your own holy book and continues to go on depending on what your local shaman chooses to empathize at your annual meetings.

                    • Sunny Day

                      WIN!

                    • Sunny Day

                      Should probably make it more specific, linking to the Constitution = Win!

                • Fred

                  “So what’s your “secular” argument against killing infants five minutes after birth at the wishes of their parents?”

                  Because now its separate from its host and there are other remedies to the problem of not liking something.

              • Tucker

                There is no moral argument for *any* law that doesn’t rely on a religious basis, including laws against murder, torture, rape, etc. All you’ve done here is to show the foolishness of believing that only “secular” rationales are allowable.

                • SandyRavage

                  That’s silly. Where ever did you get that idea? Even Thomas Jefferson laughed off the idea that America’s laws were based off of religious values.

          • thomas

            One would think that chopping a person into pieces would be considered abhorrent irrespective of religion. Guess not.

            • Stu

              Stop bringing your religion into this.

            • SandyRavage

              Who said it was a person?

          • Ian Bibby

            Glad we’re doing away with the old, outdated concepts of natural rights, rule of law, and the idea that there is anything genuinely worthy or good, so that a few people can feel good about doing whatever they want without regard for the consequences to anyone else. I’m sure it will all work out fine.

            • Stu

              Trophies for everyone.

            • SandyRavage

              The idea of natural rights does not exist in American law. In fact, even Justice Scalia, the favorite Supreme Court Justice of Catholics everywhere, has made rulings against things that he personally feels are natural rights precisely because they have no legal basis.

      • Nate Winchester

        Unlikely. Law of natural selection means that pro-lifers are highly likely to end up outbreeding pro-choicers. Given then that for a majority, parents pass on their morals and beliefs to children (using social, rather than genetic means), humanity is more likely to be “pro-life” with each successive generation. As the saying goes, the only ones who “win” the future are those who show up for it.

        Oh yeah, and there’s your secular argument. Abortion hurts and limits the fitness of the species. Given that homosexuality is infertile and abortion is the literal elimination of offspring, any society overly embracing of them is by default, unself-sustaining.

        • SandyRavage

          Do you have any data to support your contention that pro-life people A.) have abortions less frequently than pro-choicers and B.) that the amount of abortions is in fact causing them to reproduce at a slower rate than pro-lifers?

          • Nate Winchester

            A) How would a “pro-lifer” have an abortion? If they do, then by definition they can’t be pro-life.

            And if you want to go screaming “no true scotsman” no, this is not that fallacy, but one arguing over what the definition of a “scotsman” is. To translate your ‘a’ into nationalities it would be like “do you have data supporting that scotsmen are more scottish than the irish?”

            B) So you want data on whether eliminating offspring has any effect on having less offspring than not eliminating said offspring? What’s next? You going to ask for data that vegetarians kill less cows than steak eaters? Or that those who plant seeds end up with less in their gardens than those who don’t plant anything?

            Seems you should be the one providing the data to counter the obvious logical conclusion. That is !A can somehow lead to A.

            • SandyRavage

              *A) How would a “pro-lifer” have an abortion? If they do, then by definition they can’t be pro-life.*

              By being a hypocrite of course. But being pro-life just means supporting the criminalization of abortion. Most of the women who came into the clinic I used to work at called themselves pro-life and continued to do so afterwards. Being pro-life corresponds with having a low education and low economic status, those people more than anyone else have abortions.

              *So you want data on whether eliminating offspring has any effect on having less offspring than not eliminating said offspring

              Yes. A mother could feasibly terminate her first pregnancy, wait several years, and then have multiple children if she feels that her abortion allowed her to continue her education and make her financially stable.

              *Seems you should be the one providing the data to counter the obvious logical conclusion. That is !A can somehow lead to A.

              It’s only logical if you assume that women are pregnant and giving birth all the time. That’s the only way that abortion would necessarily decrease the amount of children being born.

              • Nate Winchester

                By being a hypocrite of course. But being pro-life just means supporting the criminalization of abortion.

                So in other words, you’re one of those who believe that people are whatever they claim to be. Ok, no reason to take you seriously then, troll mode engaged.

                Most of the women who came into the clinic I used to work at called themselves pro-life and continued to do so afterwards. Being pro-life corresponds with having a
                low education and low economic status, those people more than anyone else have abortions.

                Funny how you like to demand others provide data for logically resulting claims, then do not provide any yourself. So, in that spirit, “No they don’t. Being pro-life correlates with high intelligence and wealth. Thus they don’t abort.” etc etc.

                Yes. A mother could feasibly terminate her first pregnancy, wait several years, and then have multiple children if she feels that her abortion allowed her to continue her education and make her financially stable.

                Not if those years have passed through her peak fertility (leaving aside whether abortion even damages fertility or not).

                Of course, I see you’re also bad at math. For the equivalent, every abortion a woman has would then have to be offset by 1 extra child later. Thus, if hypothetical woman Alice has an abortion, then has a child later, she’s had, 1 offspring, whereas if she had not had the abortion, then she would have had 2 offspring. Meaning (obvious to those who can grasp numbers) every abortion reduces the offspring the person would have had – OH WAIT that’s what I said. XD

                It’s only logical if you assume that women are pregnant and giving birth all the time. That’s the only way that abortion would necessarily decrease the amount of children being born.

                Yes I’m pretty sure women are giving birth all the time, that’s how we have 7bil+ people on this planet. Of course, since humans (women more than men) have a narrow window of fertility, then those of us who understand biology (reminder: women have a finite amount of eggs), time and trade-offs know that every pregnancy forgone is one pregnancy that can’t be “made up” later.

                Thus, again (for those of us not logically or mathematically challenged), a pro-life society would out breed a pro-choice society. If you doubt this, feel free to provide the demographic data proving otherwise.

                • SandyRavage

                  *So in other words, you’re one of those who believe that people are whatever they claim to be. Ok, no reason to take you seriously then, troll mode engaged.*

                  A pro-lifer is anyone who thinks abortion ought to be illegal. Many pro-lifers are hypocrites who think their abortions are necessary despite being against their legality. This doesn’t make them any less pro-life legally.

                  *Of course, I see you’re also bad at math. For the equivalent, every abortion a woman has would then have to be offset by 1 extra child later. Thus, if hypothetical woman Alice has an abortion, then has a child later, she’s had, 1 offspring, whereas if she had not had the abortion, then she would have had 2 offspring. Meaning (obvious to those who can grasp numbers) every abortion reduces the offspring the person would have had – OH WAIT that’s what I said. XD*

                  That doesn’t work. There’s no guarantee that she would have had a second child after her first child. That’s what you’re failing to realize.

                  *Yes I’m pretty sure women are giving birth all the time, that’s how we have 7bil+ people on this planet.*

                  Really? I see a lot of women out there who are fertile and not pregnant. How’s that possible?

                  • Nate Winchester

                    A pro-lifer is anyone who thinks abortion ought to be illegal. Many
                    pro-lifers are hypocrites who think their abortions are necessary
                    despite being against their legality. This doesn’t make them any less pro-life legally.

                    Again, only claimed, no data provided. *yawn* You’re wrong, give it up.

                    That doesn’t work. There’s no guarantee that she would have had a second child after her first child. That’s what you’re failing to realize.

                    1) Then there’s no difference, either scenario results in 1 offspring.

                    2) If she waits long enough (missing her fertility window and/or there are complications from the abortion), then she will have exactly 0 children.

                    Really? I see a lot of women out there who are fertile and not pregnant. How’s that possible?

                    1) How do you know they’re fertile?
                    2) How else are we getting more generations if no women are pregnant?
                    3) This is where you realize you’re bad at reading comprehension.

                    Oh, and in relation to your above edit.

                    1) Who said I was Catholic?
                    2) You yourself asked for a secular argument here:

                    The real issue is that Pro-lifers have tried for decades to come up with an argument against abortion that doesn’t rely on a religious basis and have fallen short every single time. If you had a viable argument against abortion that had a secular, Roe v Wade would have been overturned decades ago.

                    So as I said earlier: the easiest argument against it is the law of nature. He who breeds, wins.

                    • SandyRavage

                      Again, only claimed, no data provided. *yawn* You’re wrong, give it up.

                      http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

                      1) Then there’s no difference, either scenario results in 1 offspring.

                      exactly. Thanks for agreeing with me.

                      2) How else are we getting more generations if no women are pregnant?

                      False assumption. I didn’t say no women were pregnant. I said that not all fertile women everywhere are constantly pregnant or giving birth. That would have to be the case for your argument to make sense.

                      So as I said earlier: the easiest argument against it is the law of nature. He who breeds, wins.

                      That’s appeal to nature fallacy.

                    • Nate Winchester

                      Oh let’s have fun….

                      So you finally provided a link huh? Well what did you say earlier?

                      Being pro-life corresponds with having a low education and low economic status, those people more than anyone else have abortions.

                      From the link (which has data THAT IS NEARLY TWENTY YEARS OLD)

                      “Although few studies have been made of this phenomenon, a study done
                      in 1981 (1) found that 24% of women who had
                      abortions considered the procedure morally wrong, and 7% of women who’d
                      had abortions disagreed with the statement, “Any woman who wants an
                      abortion should be permitted to obtain it legally.” A 1994/95 survey (2,3) of nearly 10,000 abortion patients showed 18%
                      of women having abortions are born-again or Evangelical Christians.
                      Many of these women are likely anti-choice.”

                      Wow, 24% is like… not even close to a THIRD of the total having abortion. So, again, you’re wrong: most people having abortions are NOT pro-life.

                      Oh, and from the link:

                      “A Planned Parenthood handbook on abortion notes that nearly half of all
                      abortions are for women who describe themselves as born-again Christian, Evangelical Christian, or Catholic.”

                      Of course, you yourself claimed that being “pro-life” deals ONLY with making abortion illegal, which means the listing of the above 3 religious categories has nothing to do with hypocrisy. (again, assuming nothing has changed in nearly two decades)

                      So as I said before, you’re wrong.

                      exactly. Thanks for agreeing with me.

                      Only after you disagreed with yourself, so I guess you ended up agreeing with me. Since you’ve forgotten, here’s what you first said:

                      “Yes. A mother could feasibly terminate her first pregnancy, wait several years, and then have multiple children if she feels that her abortion allowed her to continue her education and make her financially
                      stable.”

                      Reminder, since you’re so bad at math. 1 child is NOT equal to “multiple” children. Like I said, since women have a limited window of fertility, so the longer one waits, the less children they will be able to have and the less chance they have of bearing children.

                      I didn’t say no women were pregnant. I said that not all fertile women everywhere are constantly pregnant or giving birth. That would have to be the case for your argument to make sense.

                      No, that’s not what you said. Here it is again:

                      “It’s only logical if you assume that women are pregnant and giving birth all the time.”

                      Of course given that you’re bad at math, biology, logic… maybe it would be easier to list what you’re good at.

                      Well, anyway, it’s not wonder you can’t make any sense of an elementary argument.

                      That’s appeal to nature fallacy.

                      ROTFLMAO No it’s not (see: wikipedia). Or do you like to yell “nature fallacy” at every scientist or teacher that points out, “if I let this go, it will fall to the ground because of gravity”, etc etc.

                      And now… a one-act play.

                      Common Sense: Hey! Don’t go jumping off the edge of the building, SandyRavage! You’ll die.

                      SR: Show’s what you know. That is such an appeal to nature fallacy!
                      *SandyRavage jumps off the building*
                      *SandyRavage is dead.*
                      *Darwin approves.*

                    • SandyRavage

                      Wow, 24% is like… not even close to a THIRD of the total having abortion. So, again, you’re wrong: most people having abortions are NOT pro-life.

                      I wasn’t trying to prove that most people having abortions were pro-life. I only needed to demonstrate that your initial claim that it was impossible for pro-lifers to get abortions was wrong. In fact 24 percent is more than I was even expecting.

                      Reminder, since you’re so bad at math. 1 child is NOT equal to “multiple” children. Like I said, since women have a limited window of fertility, so the longer one waits, the less children they will be able to have and the less chance they have of bearing children.

                      And again that’s irrelevant, particularly in industrialized countries where women tend to only have 1 or 2 children. Your argument would, again, only work if women went from pregnancy to pregnancy in constant succession.

                      ROTFLMAO No it’s not (see: wikipedia). Or do you like to yell “nature fallacy” at every scientist or teacher that points out, “if I let this go, it will fall to the ground because of gravity”, etc etc.

                      That’s not your argument. Your argument is that because of natural selection, abortion should be illegal or is at least morally wrong. That argument makes no sense.

                    • Nate Winchester

                      I wasn’t trying to prove that most people having abortions were pro-life. I only needed to demonstrate that your initial claim that it was impossible for pro-lifers to get abortions was wrong. In fact 24 percent is more than I was even expecting.

                      Well if I had made that claim initially, you would have a point. Your record against strawmen remains in tact. Anyway, if you don’t mean to prove “most”, then don’t say:

                      “Being pro-life … those people more than anyone else have abortions.”

                      (the ‘…’ only cutting out your proof text)

                      And again that’s irrelevant, particularly in industrialized countries where women tend to only have 1 or 2 children. Your argument would, again, only work if women went from pregnancy to pregnancy in constant succession.

                      1) Your argument would only work if women were able to produce children indefinitely.

                      2) Oh right, you just pointed out that women are producing children BELOW population replacement levels. So congratulations, your “counter” argument end up proving mine, the civilization examples are all going to be dying out.

                      That’s not your argument. Your argument is that because of natural selection, abortion should be illegal or is at least morally wrong. That argument makes no sense.

                      Well I’m glad you know my argument so much better than I do. =P Can you perform other mind reading tricks? Though I guess it’s a good thing you can read minds since you’re apparently so bad at reading.

                    • SandyRavage

                      Well if I had made that claim initially, you would have a point

                      Here’s you making that claim initially:

                      A) How would a “pro-lifer” have an abortion? If they do, then by definition they can’t be pro-life.

                      If you made that claim initially, I would have a point
                      You made that claim initially
                      Ergo, I have a point

                      1) Your argument would only work if women were able to produce children indefinitely.

                      Not true. It works fine so long as women do not produce the maximal amount of possible children during their fertile years.

                      2) Oh right, you just pointed out that women are producing children BELOW population replacement levels.

                      No I didn’t. That was just an analogy.

                      Well I’m glad you know my argument so much better than I do. =P Can you perform other mind reading tricks? Though I guess it’s a good thing you can read minds since you’re apparently so bad at reading.

                      I read you saying that abortion should be illegal because of natural selection. Did I read wrong?

                    • Nate Winchester

                      Here’s you making that claim initially:

                      If you made that claim initially, I would have a point
                      You made that claim initially
                      Ergo, I have a point

                      Except by my definition, pro-life are people who act pro-life. (sort of like how being opposed to murder would mean someone, doesn’t murder)

                      Not true. It works fine so long as women do not produce the maximal amount of possible children during their fertile years.

                      You can claim it all you want, doesn’t make it true or change the facts. Opportunity costs and finite resources, look it up and educate yourself.

                      No I didn’t. That was just an analogy.

                      Then you should work harder at your analogies, make sure they don’t prove your opponents’ arguments next time. you know, if you and your kind are still around in a few generations… (math says… nope)

                      I read you saying that abortion should be illegal because of natural selection. Did I read wrong?

                      Like most everything else, yes you did read wrong. Right or wrong don’t really matter, if you don’t show up in the future to claim it. And the math shows, you and your ilk, aren’t going to be there.

                    • SandyRavage

                      Except by my definition, pro-life are people who act pro-life. (sort of like how being opposed to murder would mean someone, doesn’t murder)

                      Nobody cares about what your definition is. The actual definition of pro-life is believing that abortion should be criminal. Also make up your mind, you just admitted that some pro-life people had abortions.

                      You can claim it all you want, doesn’t make it true or change the facts. Opportunity costs and finite resources, look it up and educate yourself.

                      I’m well aware of what both of those things are. Are you?

                      Like most everything else, yes you did read wrong. Right or wrong don’t really matter, if you don’t show up in the future to claim it. And the math shows, you and your ilk, aren’t going to be there.

                      Are you seeing things? I said illegal. Do you believe that abortion should be illegal? If so, why?

                    • Nate Winchester

                      Nobody cares about what your definition is. The actual definition of pro-life is “opposing the legalization of abortions.” Also make up your mind, you just admitted that some pro-life people had abortions.

                      Why should I care what your definition is? All I admitted was that according to your definition, hypocrites could then exist.

                      I’m well aware of what both of those things are. Are you? Because they sure as hell have nothing to do with disproving my argument. The only way your argument makes a lick of sense is if its impossible for pro-choice women to have an equal or greater number of children than
                      pro-lifers. I know many pro-choice women with several children, and many pro-life women of the same age with none. There goes your argument crashing down around you.

                      No, not impossible, just in the aggregate (duh). After all, individuals of a species can survive with a detrimental mutation or feature for awhile, but we never see them survive enough to reproduce the feature through the species. Likewise, it would be impossible for an aborting woman to have offspring equal to or greater than a non-aborting member if all other factors are equal. The longer women wait to give birth, the less chance they have to conceive and the greater chance there is of complications with the pregnancy. Therefore, any time offspring are delayed via abortion (or birth control, logically), the more odds increase against future offspring.

                      Are you seeing things? I said illegal. Do you believe that abortion should be illegal? If so, why?

                      Well that entirely depends on whether you think preservation of a society is a worthwhile goal now isn’t it? Me? Well it just seems logical that a collection of individuals wishing to preserve their gathering would make illegal the killing of said members (whether adult, aka “murder” or offspring, aka “abortion”). If you don’t see why the society should be preserved… well there’s no need bothering with you then is there? Natural selection will sort yourself out. (like viruses, the infection of your ideas will pass into antiquity)

                    • chezami

                      But the actual practical definition in the US is “opposing some abortions, namely those not inconvenient to the election of Republicans”. If a baby stands in the way of Republican fortunes, the general rule of thumb is, “kill ‘em.” We saw that in the only actual achievement of the Romney campaign concerning life issues: turninng Paul Ryan into a defender of abortion in cases where Romney favored killing babies.

                    • SandyRavage

                      Why should I care what your definition is? All I admitted was that according to your definition, hypocrites could then exist.

                      it’s not *my* definition. It’s the dictionary definition(in addition to the definition of anyone who actually knows what they’re talking about)

                      Likewise, it would be impossible for an aborting woman to have offspring equal to or greater than a non-aborting member if all other factors are equal.

                      And all other factors aren’t even remotely close to equal. Not the least of which is that pro-choice doesn’t equal aborting. In fact that vast majority of pro-choice people do not have abortions.

                      Well it just seems logical that a collection of individuals wishing to preserve their gathering would make illegal the killing of said members

                      Why stop at killing? Why not make birth control illegal too? Why not make rape for procreative purposes legal as well? If a woman doesn’t want kids, why not make her?

                    • Nate Winchester

                      The fool, on the other hand, does not suspect himself; he thinks himself the most prudent of men, hence the enviable tranquility with which the fool settles down, instals himself in his own folly. Like those insects which it is impossible to extract from the orifice they inhabit, there is no way of dislodging the fool from his folly, to take him away for a while from his blind state and to force him to contrast his own dull vision with other keener forms of sight. -Ortega y Gasset

                      Of course the following is not for the fool, but for the honest, intellectually seeking man who is curious and able to grasp obvious truths.

                      it’s not *my* definition. It’s the dictionary definition

                      Hey, if you want to play the post modern game, you have to play to win. After all, if you see no reason to accept arbitrary moral guidelines, then I see no reason to accept arbitrary definition guidelines.

                      (in addition to the definition of anyone who actually knows what they’re talking about)

                      Well that would certainly exclude you as a lot of your posts on here demonstrate a concentration of hogwash to your claims.

                      And all other factors aren’t even remotely close to equal. Not the least of which is that pro-choice doesn’t equal aborting. In fact that vast majority of pro-choice people do not have abortions.

                      1) Assertion with no evidence. 2) Obviously the vast majority of any group can’t be having abortions, otherwise you’d then not have any of the group. Duh, grasp basic demographics.

                      Why stop at killing? Why not make birth control illegal too?

                      Catholics want to, it’s up to you on whether you think the propagation of a society is worth that or not. Maybe make abortion/birth control illegal until after the 2nd+ child. Up to you, really, natural selection doesn’t care.

                      Why not make rape for procreative purposes legal as well?

                      1) Grossly inefficient. Pregnancy seems to only result from rape 3-5% of the time.

                      2) Because producing additional societal members is only 1 half of the procedure, moron. After creating new members, the “DNA” of the society (language, culture, rituals, art, history, etc etc – everything that makes a society a society)must then be passed on. Unfortunately, that can’t be passed after 5 minutes of fun effort (or 1 minute in your case), but only after several years of instruction (the ‘nurture’ of the nature/nurture debate). As Jonah Goldberg likes to say, “Every year all societies are invaded by millions of barbarians. And it’s up their parents to civilize them.”

                      If a woman doesn’t want kids, why not make her?

                      Same as above (and should be obvious to anyone with some intelligence). Producing offspring is just step 1, raising them is step 2. Without either, no civilization. Thus, why your ilk is of no concern.

                    • SandyRavage

                      Hey, if you want to play the post modern game, you have to play to win. After all, if you see no reason to accept arbitrary moral guidelines, then I see no reason to accept arbitrary definition guidelines.

                      Then you don’t care about whether people understand you or not? Yet you’re still (presumably) speaking English to me here, why? Why not just make up your own language?

                      Obviously the vast majority of any group can’t be having abortions

                      Well finally you figured it out. Being pro-choice doesn’t mean you’re going to be bred out of existence.

                      Catholics want to, it’s up to you on whether you think the propagation of a society is worth that or not. Maybe make abortion/birth control illegal until after the 2nd+ child. Up to you, really, natural selection doesn’t care.

                      Natural selection doesn’t care if you have two abortions followed by two children or two children followed by two abortions

                      Grossly inefficient. Pregnancy seems to only result from rape 3-5% of the time.

                      Source on this? And what does it matter whether it’s grossly inefficient or not? That’s still more children being born.

                      Because producing additional societal members is only 1 half of the procedure

                      So? Why not then make it illegal not to raise the children well as well?

                    • Nate Winchester

                      Then you don’t care about whether people understand you or not? Yet you’re still (presumably) speaking English to me here, why? Why not just make up your own language?

                      Blah blah, same reason you’re still here arguing with others when you’ve made up your own morality. That and because trolling you amuses me.

                      Well finally you figured it out. Being pro-choice doesn’t mean you’re going to be bred out of existence.

                      Ah, so in other words you can be “pro-choice” in words, but have to be “pro-life” in deed. Kind of like how a society could be all “pro-murder” (that is, don’t want to make it illegal) but is only going to survive if – you know – most members don’t kill each other?

                      Natural selection doesn’t care if you have two abortions followed by two children or two children followed by two abortions

                      It does if fertility is finite and a limited window, especially as having the two abortions during the peak time would reduce the likelihood of having children later (biology 101). Not to mention that higher quality offspring are more likely to be born earlier rather than later in a woman’s life.

                      Source on this?

                      Two at least: http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/a-new-row-over-pregnancy-caused-by-rape
                      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8765248

                      See? Amazing what you can learn when you apply facts and science. ;)

                      And what does it matter whether it’s grossly inefficient or not? That’s still more children being born.

                      So? Why not then make it illegal not to raise the children well as well?

                      So, you’re asking why not make a law that men can rape women, as long as they then stay with the woman for 18+ years to raise any resulting offspring?

                      Sure! Why not! Although in that case people will probably then put in effort to make sure they can stand one another if they’re going to be stuck with each other for so long. Then you’d have to have some way to codify that the male and female were together such that the law and society recognized that they were putting effort into raising offspring…

                      Oh wait, that’s dating/courting and marriage! Congrats! By logic (such as yours is) you’ve finally reached where Christianity started. Next time, save us all the trouble and just try thinking the first time.

                    • SandyRavage

                      Blah blah, same reason you’re still here arguing with others when you’ve made up your own morality. That and because trolling you amuses me.

                      What reason is that?

                      Ah, so in other words you can be “pro-choice” in words, but have to be “pro-life” in deed. Kind of like how a society could be all “pro-murder” (that is, don’t want to make it illegal) but is only going to survive if – you know – most members don’t kill each other?

                      Not at all. Being pro-choice is just supporting the legality of abortion. You could have 10 or 20 children and still remain pro-choice.

                      It does if fertility is finite and a limited window

                      That would only be the case if a woman spent her entire fertility pregnant or trying to get pregnant.

                      Oh wait, that’s dating/courting and marriage! Congrats! By logic (such as yours is) you’ve finally reached where Christianity started. Next time, save us all the trouble and just try thinking the first time.

                      Actually that’s incorrect. It’s where Judaism started. In ancient times a man who raped a woman was often forced to marry her. Now I just wanted to know if that was something you agreed to.

                    • Nate Winchester

                      I’ll give you the final chance to make a fool of yourself as I’ve grown bored and have other stuff to do.

                      Not at all. Being pro-choice is just supporting the legality of abortion. You could have 10 or 20 children and still remain pro-choice.

                      Oi, you are stupid. The point is that the legality of it doesn’t matter if nobody does it. No really, try using logic here (it might hurt briefly, being a novel experience for you, but that will pass): if nobody has an abortion, how would legality make a difference? Thus, “pro-life” in practice (or deed) regardless of law.

                      That would only be the case if a woman spent her entire fertility pregnant or trying to get pregnant.

                      Now you’re just babbling like a madman aren’t you? If a woman never pregnant during that window (or aborts any children she has), then she’ll not produce any offspring. Natural selection: QED.

                      Actually that’s incorrect. It’s where Judaism started. In ancient times a man who raped a woman was often forced to marry her. Now I just wanted to know if that was something you agreed to.

                      It would probably cut down on rapes, forcing men to deal with lifelong consequences.

                      But as usual you’re an idiot who spouts off what he knows not. Please, educate yourself. You might learn something.

                    • SandyRavage

                      Oi, you are stupid. The point is that the legality of it doesn’t matter if nobody does it.

                      That’s not the point at all. You were operating under the assumption that being pro-choice meant always choosing abortion over childbirth. That assumption is incorrect. And without that assumption, your argument that pro-choicers will be outbred by pro-lifers has no substance.

                      Now you’re just babbling like a madman aren’t you? If a woman never pregnant during that window (or aborts any children she has), then she’ll not produce any offspring. Natural selection: QED.

                      If she gets pregnant 5 times, aborts 2 times and carries 3 pregnancies to term, she will have exactly as many children as a woman who gets pregnant 3 times and carries 3 pregnancies to term.

                      It would probably cut down on rapes, forcing men to deal with lifelong consequences.

                      So are you in favor of it or not?

                    • SandyRavage

                      And stay down

  • Brian Sullivan

    Molech must be pleased.

  • Rebecca Fuentes

    But remember, to be really classy an sophisticated, you need to support abortion–apparently in any circumstances, with no safety standards. Kill the babies and give no thought to what happens to the mothers.

    • SandyRavage

      I support safety standards that actually ensure that abortions remains as safe as a tonsillectomy. And since women who undergo abortions are actually less likely to develop physical or mental problems later on as women who give birth, it’s hypocritical to claim that we don’t care what happens afterwards

      • Rebecca Fuentes

        “women who undergo abortions are actually less likely to develop physical or mental problems later on as women who give birth,”

        Proof please.

        • SandyRavage

          http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion/mental-health.pdf

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271

          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1363/4223010/pdf

          and before you run off to your pro-life page of choice which claims that the results of this study have been “debunked” take a look to see if your source is actually current, peer-reviewed, and has had its results replicated.

          • Rebecca Fuentes

            Your first link is looking at 1st trimester abortions, which isn’t relevant to the bill in TX. Within the introduction it admits that the results are less certain in later term abortions. The second references the Guttmacher Institute, which has a vested interest in showing that abortion is better than birth. It also doesn’t show any breakdown of what caused the deaths, which I consider extremely important. With the US, we have the ability to lower the maternal mortality rate, but there are women who are left without proper prenatal care–this needs corrected–women are given erroneous information about proper nutrition before and during pregnancy–this needs corrected–and we need a system that doesn’t jump into medical interventions as soon as a birth is a little slow.

            BTW, how would the bill in TX NOT help make abortions take place in a safer environment? I don’t want any of my nieces down there to have an abortion, but it would be much worse for her to have one and then be left either permanently sterile or die from it because the medical and safety standards for the clinic were low.

            • SandyRavage

              *which isn’t relevant to the bill in TX.*

              *That’s a dodge. You didn’t mention the Texas Bill initially, just abortions in general. More importantly 90 percent of abortions occur in the 1st trimester, so if you want to talk about abortion, you can’t discount this study.

              .The second references the Guttmacher Institute, which has a vested interest in showing that abortion is better than birth.*

              Motive Fallacy

              *BTW, how would the bill in TX NOT help make abortions take place in a safer environment?*

              You’re shifting the burden of proof.

              • Ian Bibby

                “Motive Fallacy”

                You just took a high school logic course, didn’t you?

                • SandyRavage

                  Why do you say that? did she make the motive fallacy or not?

                  • Ian Bibby

                    “Why do you say that?”

                    Your remarkable ability to find “fallacies” in every blade of grass and upturned rock. Most people grow out of that by a few months after their formal logic course.

                    “did she make the motive fallacy or not?”

                    No, she didn’t. If she’d said that it was logically impossible for Guttmacher to be correct because of their position, that would be a fallacy. Disregarding a source as lacking credibility based on conflicts of interest is not.

                    • SandyRavage

                      *Most people grow out of that by a few months after their formal logic course.*

                      I’d imagine they’d grow out of making so many basic fallacies first.

                      *No, she didn’t. If she’d said that it was logically impossible for Guttmacher to be correct because of their position, that would be a fallacy. Disregarding a source as lacking credibility based on conflicts of interest is not.*

                      That’s incorrect, actually, an appeal to motive is anything that disregards a source due to an ostensible conflict of interest. I don’t know where you got your idea to the contrary. Maybe you should take a high school logic course.

                    • Ian Bibby

                      An appeal to motive isn’t necessarily an appeal to motive fallacy, you logically incompetent nincompoop.

                    • SandyRavage

                      It actually is. Where did you get the idea that it wasn’t?

                    • Ian Bibby

                      Because it doesn’t necessarily involve claiming that something logically follows when it doesn’t logically follow – sort of like citing an authority isn’t necessarily an argument from authority fallacy.

                      It’s pretty clear at this point that you’ve got a nice little list of “logical fallacies” that you like to trot out as gotchas, but that you don’t actually grok what a fallacy is.

                      And it’s also pretty clear that you do this because your disregard for truth and reason, reliance on equivocation, general demagoguery, and the arbitrary nature of your position would render you incapable of defending yourself in a good-faith reasoned argument. Your only option is to try and blow up any effort at reasoned debate every couple of sentences with lame gotchas and bluster.

                    • SandyRavage

                      *Because it doesn’t necessarily involve claiming that something logically follows when it doesn’t logically follow – sort of like citing an authority isn’t necessarily an argument from authority fallacy.*

                      You should probably take a high school course on logic. An appeal to authority isn’t necessarily fallacious because appealing to authority can sometimes justify a claim. On the other hand, appealing to motive can never discredit a claim. If, as it seems you’re trying to argue, you can appeal to motive without making it a part of your argument, then you’re still making a fallacy of irrelevance. Either way, it’s a fallacy. And despite your cheerleading, the above person agrees with me that she was making a fallacy. If you disagree and think she wasn’t, why not take it up with her?

                      *And it’s also pretty clear that you do this because your disregard for truth and reason, reliance on equivocation, general demagoguery, and the arbitrary nature of your position would render you incapable of defending yourself in a good-faith reasoned argument. Your only option is to try and blow up any effort at reasoned debate every couple of sentences with lame gotchas and bluster.*

                      More ad hominem. this just makes you look bad. Just type it out and delete it. Your writing will be stronger as a result. One of Schopenhauer’s rules of argumentation is that an opponent who resorts to ad hominem has clearly lost control of his temper and is in a weak position. I’m only telling you this because it wouldn’t be sporting not to.

                    • Ian Bibby

                      Sorry, asserting it doesn’t make it true. Giving less weight to a source that you find unlikely to be trustworthy is often simply rational.Saying “X has motive to lie, therefore what X says is false” is a logical fallacy. Saying “I have reason to believe that X is untrustworthy, therefore I don’t find X’s vouching for their position to be a good reason to believe it” is not.

                      Or do you make a habit of consulting stopped clocks for the time, on the offchance that it might be one of the two times a day that they’re right?

                    • SandyRavage

                      It seems to be me that you’re the one asserting it to be true without reason. Show me a page in your high school logic book where it says that the motive fallacy isn’t a fallacy. I’ll wait.

              • Rebecca Fuentes

                Since the original post was about the events and bill in TX, I thought that was an obvious part of the discussion, however I likely did make a fallacy–I have no background in debate or logic and am poor at it. I consider the Guttmacher to be a questionable source because of their motives and connection to PP. I do think there is more to the story than simply mortality out of 100,000 and would like more thorough information. The past three or four decades have seen a rise in pregnancy complications, but the reasons behind this include more births by older moms, more women with chronic health problems able to have children due to advances in medicine (both fertility treatments and medication to control chronic diseases), more treatments for problems in the womb which would have definitely led to stillbirth or miscarriage in the past, a better ability to recognize problem early and take action to prevent miscarriage, etc, as described by Dr. Sears. There is the possibility of an epigenetic root to some problems too, where women giving birth now received poor nutrition in the womb and after, resulting in poor development of their womb, eggs, pelvis, and connective tissue. Dr. Cate Shanahan writes about in in her book, Deep Genetics. I would like to see a break down of what women died of in each category, because I think the details say a lot.
                Thank you for the links, though–usually nothing is posted, just assertions. What I’ve seen, over the past few months, are articles about how the baby’s stem cells cross the placenta and actually boost the mother’s health. A full-term pregnancy offers the longest opportunity for this to happen, benefiting the mother the most. I’ve read articles about how interrupting the hormonal cycle of pregnancy increases the danger of breast cancer, including the most invasive, fast growing type. I’ve also read the reports of increased levels of depression and suicide among post-abortive women, even those whose abortion was long past. In that light, it is interesting to read the other side of things. It still does not make sense to me, in an evolutionary way, that pregnancy would intrinsically be bad for women, while artificially ending pregnancy would be better. Pregnancy is risky, yes, but eating also carries risks. So does sex (hah, you might get pregnant!)

              • Joseph

                Motive fallacy… interesting. If that was a motive fallacy then so was your argument to avoid any pro-life documentation that contradicts your sources. Regardless, you’re obviously not interested in truly debating the issue, rather throwing out the relative terminology in an effort to prove you are and provide cover for your assertions. I’ve no idea why anyone is engaging you at this point. As someone else stated, this is “sophistry” on display.

                • SandyRavage

                  My only motive is to avoid any incorrect information. The pro-life research I’ve found is either very out-of-date, inconclusive, or has been completely debunked. And the fact that you’re saying that engaging with me is pointless, while still engaging me shows that you’ve lost control of your temper. The cognitive dissonance shows how tenuous your position is.

                  • Joseph

                    You misunderstood. I wasn’t intending on actually arguing with you about it. That would be as futile as clapping with one hand (as the thread shows). I was merely trying to help you out by illustrating your glaring contradiction. It went like this, in case you’ve forgotten: “Don’t quote from any sources that contradict my sources because yours are biased and mine are not. Yours state the dangers of abortion while mine state the virtues of it, therefore yours must be flawed and mine are clearly factual.”

                    Just offering a helping hand to an internet combox trained student of logic. Go on with your bad self.

                    • SandyRavage

                      You’re actually arguing with me here. And anyway, the problem with your sources isn’t that they’re wrong because the state the dangers of abortion. They’re wrong because of flaws in their methodology that have been explicitly articulated by the rest of the medical community.

          • Luke S

            The APA study you cite states: 
            “None of the literature reviewed adequately addressed the prevalence of mental health problems among women in the United States who have had an abortion. In general, however, the prevalence of mental health problems observed among women in the United States who had a single, legal, first-trimester abortion for nontherapeutic reasons was consistent with normative rates of comparable mental health problems in the general population of women in the United States.
            Nonetheless, it is clear that some women do experience sadness, grief, and feelings of loss following termination of a pregnancy, and some experience clinically significant disorders, including depression and anxiety. However, the TFMHA reviewed no evidence sufficient to support the claim that an observed association between abortion history and mental health was caused by the abortion per se, as opposed to other factors.”
            This is not saying that women who undergo abortion are less likely to develop mental health problems, as you suggest in your first post. It is saying that there is not really enough evidence to make a call, but that on the little they have, there’s probably no difference. Again, this is not what you say in the first comment.

            The Raymond Grimes study you cite has serious flaws, as summarised here: 
            http://www.wecareexperts.org/sites/default/files/articles/Raymond%20&%20Grimes%20%282012%29_Critique.pdf

            The third article seems to be paywalled, so I can’t comment on that.

            As for alternative studies, here’s a peer-reviewed, replicate-able (as much as you can get in social-science anyway, as it’s not physics), 2011 article in the British Journal of Psychiatry: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/199/3/180.abstract

            And another one on mortality: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22936199

            There’s more where that came from, but a game of journal article tennis will not conclude anything because even if negative psychological or physical impacts can be proven on either side, one could claim that better mental health services and improved health care would solve these problems, nullifying the debate altogether. The underlying discussion on abortion is ultimately a philosophical one (evidenced not the least by the fact that all studies carry a priori moral baggage). But I see you’re already engaged in that below :P.

            • SandyRavage

              this isn’t a matter of tennis when everything you throw back to me has been already debunked:

              http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2012/03/05/

              You cited the same person for both of your links even despite the refutation and dismissal of her own work by the medical community.

              And better mental health care doesn’t do affect the argument in any appreciable way. It’s a non sequitur.

  • Ben

    Well that escalated quickly…

    • Dillon T. McCameron

      I mean…you can’t even figure out where it starts or ends…it’s insane.

      • Ben

        Yep. Mind numbing sophistry.

    • Rachel K

      I spy with my little eye someone with FAR too much time on their hands.

  • Liam

    I hope next time they tone it down and just chant ‘Heil Hitler.’

  • Liam

    Why does it say 54 comments and 188 comments at different spots on the same page?

    • Liam

      Didn’t refresh. Never mind.

  • Fred

    In all the talk about abortion you keep forgetting, women are people and they have rights. For those who don’t think people should have bodily autonomy,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily_integrity

    I’ll need a piece of your liver, and an extraction of your bone marrow, and whole blood. Right now. My associates will be by in a few months to gather more bone marrow and whole blood. We will repeat this process as needed.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X