Topic: Progressive principles all lies (Read 1825 times)

lol trust me, you wouldn't want to tap my wife 

Let me use your wife and daughter first, and call it equality

Wouldn't an abortion and euthanasia be one and the same from a medical viewpoint in this case?


The mother can leave the child at the Hospital without any legal recourse. The child will be taken care of and orphaned. There are already several legal precedents in cases where an assailant is charged with the murder of an unborn child...[/quote]A mother can also leave the child at a fire station with the same legal protection. I remember learning this as a very young child (probably in elementary school, maybe in ~3rd grade) in a school setting but was really never told this fact again. The fact that I remember learning is that it can be left at a fire station with no questions asked and they would see that the baby is taken care of. I don't remember specifically learning about leaving a baby at a hospital, but I do not doubt the truth to that statement and it makes sense to me. I think our education system should stress this option more.

The above point is not so much a safe place to live, but rather that her body may not be a safe place for a fetus as she is the subject to abuse. It is about prior to her giving birth. 

You kick ass

Strange that fairness and equality get such a hard deal nowadays 

Can only think ignorant people would associate 'liberalism' with being evil

Left is easily manipulated and cajoled with power and attention. The so-called 'progressives' of today are not political idealists or even amateur party players of political scene. They are weak minded, insecure and ultimately infantile bastard children of the moral and cultural ignorance of the 60s that masqueraded as 'progress' and 'liberalism'.

Liberalism has been subverted by racist outsiders and ethnic minorities with racial inclinations that make KKK look rational in comparison. I speak from a personal experience of being born into such an environment, and at distant time in the past in my youth, shamelessly preaching such racial ignorance of so called 'oppressed' minority as 'justice' and 'equality'.

I have also lived for the better part of my life outside of 1st world nations, and have seen and felt the real facts about oppression and racism.

There is no black, brown, yellow or shit or piss around 1st world nations that have any right to bitch and moan about injustices in today's society. They have not the slightest idea what it means to face real oppression. All they are doing is trying manipulate and cajole the guilt and moral standards of 1st world nations to attempt a power grab and manipulate others.

Liberalism has always been prone to walking down the wide open road of seemingly 'righteous' path which is nothing more than shallow self-gratification. As seemingly 'convincing' mouths from middle east or palestine have begun to try and manipulate the guilt and moral standards of others to their own benefit have begun to reach out to 1st world, more and more weak-willed and weak minded children are becoming confused about themselves and their standards.

The fact that arab and 'palestinian' racists who have enslaved and butchered hundreds of millions across the world (ironically some of the poorest locations in the world today) will try to subvert the idealism and naivete of the 1st world 'liberals' should be glaringly obvious.

Muslims and their ilk have always bowed down to one rule: brutality, rape, and violation. They are meek as a prostitute with legs wide open against people who display strength and hatred, yet are spineless enough to think they can take advantage once they 'believe' someone is weaker than they. They also have a kind of racially motivated ego that attempts to take advantage of naive 'rationalism' of liberals today - that is, there is no such thing as rationalism but only reasoning after the fact. You can't reason away racism or racial arrogance any more than you can reason away cancer or adolescent hell raising.

In short, people are too naive and are being manipulated by those who (for now) have stronger motivation to be vocal and arrogant in what they want to believe in, and facts or reasons be damned. Only force and stronger brutality is the real rational answer to these problems.

Harden the fuck up kids.

The people you call "the 1%" legitimately came by their wealth through any combination of hard work, inheritance, luck (or call it "being in the right place at the right time" if you want), and good honest ambition. Essentially, they made the system currently in place work for them. Hell, just talk to any of the people who invested in Bitcoin in 2009 and they'll say that they just bought some of this cool new virtual token thing when it was cheap. Yes, I would be very happy if the mega-rich donated most of their combined fortunes to a cause that will actually make a difference to humanity in the long run, but I'm not going to ask any government or politician to force them to do it when maybe they didn't do anything unethical to come by their fortune.

I didn't say that it's not a deterrent, but that it's a minor one at best. Most people committing murders aren't thinking rationally. There may be times where someone who was conspiring to commit a murder decided against it because of fear of being put to death. But that has to be pretty rare.

I have no issue with abortion prior to the point where a fetus becomes self-aware. The point of self-awareness is the point where the fetus learns the ability to move its own extremities in response to a stimulus. As far as determining self-awareness before the ability to move itself I suppose you could theoretically use EEG once that technology is refined and sensitive enough to detect brain waves through so much protective tissue...


That is no longer a question of abortion but rather a question of euthanasia. I'm not against euthanasia in cases where consent is given of sound mind in cases where death is highly likely (in this case by parental consent.) Nobody should have to suffer the torture of waiting for certain death, writhing in agonizing pain, slowly suffering; it's also a major financial burden on the healthy family members left behind. If a sane and competent mind can look at a scenario and conclude that they would never wish themselves or loved ones to suffer to the extent of such a scenario then it is no longer a question about the morality of abortion, rather the morality of euthanasia.


The mother can leave the child at the Hospital without any legal recourse. The child will be taken care of and orphaned. There are already several legal precedents in cases where an assailant is charged with the murder of an unborn child...


In no way, shape, or form am I suggesting that they don't spend their money. It's theirs to spend at will... I don't believe the 1% we know of are the real 1%. I'm sure some are, but I believe that the fortunes of many of the 1% are obfuscated and distributed in a way that makes them appear less wealthy. The people who took risks and had great ideas are long dead in many of these family dynasties...

I mean they only care about money, in many cases forsaking family, friends, and anything else which might burden them to show some compassion. The top 2% - 10% are those who in many cases started their own companies, did the leg work, put in the time, and had great ideas. The true top 1% is unfathomably wealthy and likely had no engagement in the acquisition of that wealth...

I'm not suggesting they donate to charity, most do that as a tax write off. I'm suggesting they become more engaged individually with helping others who they run across... Take a more personal engagement in the future of society.

I'm mostly directing my attitude towards the old money and family dynasties...

I was including the ability of a fetus being able to survive outside the womb but on some kind of life support. I am honestly not well versed on science on this level, but I would think that a fetus would be able to survive on it's own prior to being self aware.

If you argue that it is wrong to kill a fetus via abortion because it is human because it is self aware, would you say that it is okay to get an abortion prior to the baby fetus self aware? Is there any scientific evidence to support at what point, or around what point a fetus becomes self aware (I really do not know the answer to this question)?

Let me ask you another question: would you feel that it would be okay to get an abortion if the baby may, or may not survive for long once born and regardless of survival would suffer greatly? One possible scenario would be that a drug addict of some kind is trying to get sober, gets pregnant, but doesn't think she can stay sober for her entire pregnancy. If she cannot stay sober it would cause the fetus great pain and suffering in the event it survives and would damage the baby's organs greatly.

Another scenario would be that the mother is not sure she can provide a safe "home" for the fetus during her pregnancy. If she is the subject of abuse and/or was (and could potentially be again) the subject of physical abuse then when the abuser hits her the fetus could be hurt and have similar issues as above. She is forced to stay with the abuser because of some kind of dependency on him (either for shelter, money or similar - and no other resources are available including a women's shelter), or she has a restraining order against him but is not 100% sure that he will actually stay away.
There are a lot of 1%'ers that contribute a lot to society. Some of the largest foundations are funded solely by the "1%"

I am not 100% sure what you mean by they have lost sight of what it means to be human or be part of society. If you are referring to them spending a lot of money, then why should they not be able to spend money that is rightfully theirs? If you mean it is a certain way that they act then I would need an (or some) examples.

A lot of the 1% is comprised by people who took great risks in starting their own company with little to nothing to start with and made money because they had great ideas.

On the surface most reasonable people would agree with you. However, I think most people fail to look around to see what is actually changing in society based on the perpetuation of this new religion. Being born one gay or straight is a vastly different moral position to take than "trying to change sexuality has dire consequences" or even "lets stop having govt policies that discriminate against gays" and as such this over the top position is having almost an immediate impact on our entire society.

Moving the myth into doctrine has created an immediate social experiment that we are watching unfold before our eyes. Sex education now is built on this myth. How you raise your child and protect and nurture them now takes their predetermined sexuality into account at a very young age. Simple research on these topics tells you that I am not being a fear monger, it has already happened.

We are embracing this false doctrine as a society and we will watch the experiment unfold before our eyes. BTW, I also realize at this point in time that this doctrine is so completely entrenched into USA society that it has passed the event horizon. Openly resisting it will only keep me on the fringes of public life or worse.

What is unquestionably true is that this premise of your sexuality being set at birth is a lie and it is a religious tenet of the highest order, make what you will of the consequences, i am now merely a spectator.

Women that die in child birth is an increasingly rare event. What is that chance you die??? about 17 in 100,000. So you are saying that a woman should be able to terminate the life of a child because of this percentage? I disagree

As for being alive or not alive, no date of abortion that you pick in a pregnancy will ever make you feel better about actually doing it. Once you kill that fetus, its chances of having a life are now zero and it is because of the simple decision to abort that says its life was not that important to begin with.

Women that abort their babies often live the rest of their live with internal psychological pain and crushing guilt as they constantly wonder what might have been. Not all of them do, especially the ones with multiple abortions, they have been numbed to the problem altogether. However, I have witnessed first hand the psychological damage of aborting a baby as I have seen what it did to my sister. She has never had a child and never will... and she has never lived down that trip to the clinic that she made to preserve her chance at a college degree.

I have a few disagreements with this statement, but first; lethal force is justified by determining intent, ability, and opportunity. If the mother faces a life-threatening pregnancy then these fundamentals still apply to her situation and all of the conditions warranting the use of lethal force apply. If the child will likely kill her then she has the right to choose to preserve her life at any stage of the pregnancy if the situation becomes imminent or progresses to unsafe levels. It's not fair or easy sometimes when choices like that must be made, but they are justified and have nothing to do with the morality of abortion... Those conditions for the lawful (moral) use of lethal force apply across the board. You have a natural right to preserve your life...

1. Lots of things are alive, but it's not illegal to kill. People kill all the time, mostly bugs. Human life is different because the value of a human life is in the potential for what that human might be capable of. The human mind is what sets us apart and gives human life this additional value to other humans. When an unborn child becomes self-aware, that is when they become a human being. Honestly, the literal root of the phrase "human being" is "human existence" which further means "one's mental awareness of one's existence within a human body."

2. It has nothing to do with how long it can survive outside of the womb. Somewhere and someday there will be a person with a collapsed lung being sustained by life support. During that time they are still human; even though they can't survive without assistance. Just because they can't survive without life support doesn't mean they aren't alive. They are still alive and aware of their existence, and that is what makes the difference between abortion being right and wrong.


You must be referring to the 10% club and not the 1% club. Many wealthy people worked hard and got lucky to become wealthy. Those people are not the 1%...

I don't know if they are evil or just completely indifferent and bored. I think the 1% have lost sight of what it means to be human or a part of any society.

The death penalty is very much a deterrent. IMO it should be used a little bit less then it is now. It should only be used for the most heinous crimes and when there is little to no chance that they could be rehabilitated via prison.    
I would disagree with you on this one. A mother is risking a lot when she is pregnant. Every time a women is pregnant there is a possibility that she could die as a result of the pregnancy (the chances are lower for some), why should she be forced to take this risk? This also opens the debate as to what is and is not considered to be "alive" IMO something is considered to be alive when it can survive on it's own outside of the womb (even with help from "medicine/medical technology" while others could argue that individual sperm cells are "alive"
This is simply not true. AFAIK most/a good number of people turned gay after being straight for part of their life. The opposite is true as well that some people turn straight after being gay. How can you be born a certain way and then change like that?
Banning and/or restricting the use of most guns is a very bad idea.
Most of the 1% got to be as rich as they are because they are very smart and hardworking and had a little bit of good luck/timing. There is no reason to think someone is evil simply for being successful.

Science doesn't disagree with him... It actually disagrees with you. You confuse "life" with "human life" because we know that even an embryo is "living." However, setting a technicality aside; if you think for a moment that a 3 month old unborn baby isn't a human being then I hope you have the opportunity to feel one moving around with your own senses so you might change your mind...

There's a fundamental behind science in that it depends on challenging what science is currently "saying" in order to attune itself with truth and reality. I can tell you that before the first tri-master is finished that embryo becomes aware of itself. Once you're aware of yourself, you have the right to life; that's a moral judgement, not a scientific fact...

Aborting a child who has become self-aware is a crime against morality just as severe as if somebody were to willingly and intentionally take your life or mine.

A woman can certainly choose what to do with her own body. However, that child is not a part of her body past a certain point. Her body is containing another separate body with which her body has no control over, she's in a position of guardianship. The child is a passenger, not a cancerous growth. If you were a passenger in a car and the owner pushed you out into traffic at 80 mph then you might know how it feels to be "aborted" after reaching self-awareness.

The "pro choice" arguments in favor of abortion after the first month of development are weak and outright immoral.

Your position is that abortion is immoral, that its murder - you are free to hold your fundamentalist views, science disagrees with you.

Mine is that the only immoral part of the pregnancy termination process is for women having to put up with mostly fundamentalist men and their moral dilemmas about a woman's body.

My wife is 3 months and 3 weeks pregnant with our second child. Our unborn child has been amazingly receptive for the last month; When I push lightly on her belly with my finger it feels like the baby will use both hands and feet to grab and push on my finger. When I tap on her belly with my fingertips the baby just starts moving around a lot. Our first child was never this active so early in the pregnancy... It's amazing.

To know that my child was aware and capable of intelligently reacting to a physical stimulus after 2 months and some change is enough to make me adamantly against abortion beyond the first 4-6 weeks. I'm ok with a woman terminating an embryo, but 3 months is obviously too late to abort... Once the nervous system is developed they can feel pain and discomfort and apparently if they are clever enough, they can learn to use their hands and feet as well.

At 3 months my unborn child is alive and well-aware within the womb... It's still too soon to determine the gender from ultrasound images but it's obvious that this child already has some mental capacity for awareness of the surroundings...

If some scientist were to tell me that my child is not alive yet I would think them a fool.

You do realize that you are talking nonsense. Scientists have never published anything peer reviewed or otherwise that says a first trimester fetus is not a "life form." Star Trek is not real.

And further scientific research has nothing to do with the moral argument of when it is okay to kill a fetus. They only try and answer specific questions like viability and pain. It is up to we regular folks to decide what to do with that information.

Scientists have published numerous studies on 1) the viability of a fetus and 2) the point a fetus feels pain. The viability of a fetus is considered to be quite beyond the first trimester if you were wondering.

It is probable that you like most progressives don't actually read any scientific studies. And like i said previously scientific research is critical to making good decisions, it is a fallacy that because I am not progressive that i must dismiss peer reviewed science. Again another straw man.

Feel free to use ACTUAL scientific research to support your argument that abortion is moral. That the death penalty is not a deterrent. Oh here is a quote from a study for you "to achieve deterrence, states must generally execute many people. If a state is unwilling to establish such a large execution program, it should consider abandoning capital punishment."  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=781504.

Or please find anything REAL against any of my positions. If you can be converted with simple peer reviewed studies that support my viewpoints, I will continue to help you out with links like the ones i provided you. However, i doubt that science and reasoning is really what aligns your moral viewpoint.

I accept the peer reviewed science that an embryo ( first trimester ) is not a life form. If the results concluded it was in fact a life form, I would be supporting your view.


My points so far have been to draw a connection between fundamentalist views and the use of pseudo-science to justify those positions. Nazis depended on both non-peer reviewed pseudo-science, and, religious extremist ideas to justify their extermination of the Jews, gypsies and homosexuals.

Bringing this up does not help your argument at all but rather it reinforces mine.


Anyone that has to write off the process of peer reviewed scientific research dogmatically dismissing any evidence that conflicts with their own pseudo-science based beliefs....is a 'fundy'.

I think you forget about Germany. Most of those atrocities were done in the name of "science".  And that regime is not alone in history of atrocities done for the good of man rather than God.

Again rather than actually do any thinking you again create a straw man argument that I write off "peer reviewed" science, and suggest I am a weak minded fundamentalist.

Classic point of view and strategy of debate of the brainwashed and mind-controlled left.