Just requested my money back from the Northcutt theatre in Exeter, Devon (name and shame) who have now decided everyone attending the pantomime in December must provide a vaxx passport or if unvaxxed show proof of a negative Covid test. I have now written to this theatre to say, (1) they are discriminating against the unvaxxed (2) they have no right to access anyone’s confidential medical records and finally (3) I will never step foot in their theatre as long as I live🥰🥰🥰
They don't want the competition. Like Avi Yemeni (Rebel News which is not very Rebel, Melbourne) said to a vegan recently 'that means more meat for me'.
Asking for a refund on a gig ticket for the same reason. Have also contacted them asking since double vaxed doesn’t mean you can’t catch or spread covid why is that deemed “safe” for entry (they said they were implementing this to keep me safe) I said if anything they should be asking everyone for proof of a negative test. They’ve had 2 days to think about it now
I admire your passion, however - did you know these businesses are getting government grants to cover the cost of us asking for refunds due to COVID restrictions? You won't easily find the proof for this - but I've spoken to several business owners who have confirmed this. This is why so many businesses gleefully closed during lockdowns. One pizza shop owner I know got $30,000.00+ a week in government $$$ to stay closed!!!
So if the government is giving money to support the businesses discriminating, then a) the free money tap will turn off eventually and the gaps will show. Or b) the government is also getting monies from somewhere.....🤔 to then pass on to said businesses, in which case it won't end and a parallel society is possibly the only option.
Or c) the government is just printing however much it wants indefinitely,
which quickly breaks the current economic model, heralding UBI and endless hoops for most. A la "the Empire", And off grid, self sufficient, tribes for the "Rebellion". #jedicats
CONVid-19 is the gateway to CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency)... a worldwide government "crypto" currency. I put crypto in "quotes" because it will resemble crypto, but the ownership of the network will be 100% controlled by the central banks. The banksters ALWAYS own the electronic printing presses that print unlimited monies - so paying businesses to close down to promote a narrative is a cinch.
It’s a big mistake in a sense, but sometimes I see it as something akin to euthanasia — it’s bringing the inevitable to a head.
There’s no cleansing the corruption in the current context. Even the corruption cleansers are dirty.
The Republic is done like dinner. There will be an unpleasant interregnum while the two generations of sad, infantilized weaklings age out or all die from years of abusing their immune systems with endless “boosters” for various ailments real and imagined (or, unlikely but not impossible, learn to face reality). But then things start to look up.
Tell them their protocol is giving people a false sense of security.
The UK Health Security Agency has reported a higher rate of infection in the fully vaxxed age 30-69 for the last nine weeks. Until they started boosting the older cohorts, the rate of infection was higher in everyone fully vaxxed age 30 and older.
Nearly four of every five people who died for the last ten weeks were fully vaxxed.
77% of the deaths reported in the latest report (week 48) were fully vaxxed.
Yes, the rate of death is lower in the fully vaxxed, but...
Week 48 report, pages 32, 34
Over 80s deaths per 100,000 within 28 days of +PCR
Fully vaxxed: 51.4
Unvaxxed: 147.8
Over 80s deaths, between week 44 and week 47 2021
1618 Deaths
1378 Fully vaxxed
189 Unvaxxed
85.2% of the deaths in the over 80s were fully vaxxed...even though this population is boosted. 11.7% of the deaths were unvaxxed.
I have never in my 55 years experienced losing friends abruptly for having a pretty mild yet contrary viewpoint on something ("I am not sure these vaccines are safe.") as I have in the past year. Rageful unfriending without the benefit of a single conversation. It would not occur to me to reject someone because they disagreed with me on any given issue. But this is not only allowed, it is celebrated as an act of virtue. Breaking through is the big question.
Count yourself lucky: somehow you had managed to let a bunch of panty-waists into your circle, and the coof/jab orthodoxy resulted in them being exposed.
I have no need for luck, because I make it a point to not have friends who don't understand conditional probability. (To be clear: a friend is someone to whom I will lend my car at 15 minutes' notice).
When I'm introduced to new people in a social setting, I will know within ten minutes whether *Pr(worth knowing)* exceeds my cutoff. It amounts to two short interactions, and generates almost no false positives. Maybe I've foregone hundreds of completely worthwhile friendships; who has time for more than a dozen friends?
People I've known for 30 years are 'in on it', so we don't impose knuckleheads on each other.
I've lost precisely zero friends since the coof began; precisely zero friends object to my refusal to join the Pfizer Quarterly Subscription (2 jabbed friends initially objected to my claim that the subscription would be quarterly: they recanted once it became more obvious, but are still friends).
It's a matter of discipline: having junk friends is like eating junk food... hyper-palatable in the short term, but absolutely dysfunctional longer-term.
I hear you. I lost a "friend" over politics. She unfriended me but did not have the guts to do so to my face, instead, she told another friend "I am blocking this person." Could not even use my name. Fast forward six months after the election, comes up to me at church, wants to be nicey-nicey again, and I told her NO. She got all bent out of shape and started telling me what a horrible person I was because I didn't agree with her that a certain person was evil and I said, "then why are you wasting time talking to me? Listen to what you are saying! " She got really, really angry then and said, "Have a good life! You'll end up alone and it will be your own fault." Well maybe so, but "friends" like that I don't need.
It is sometimes difficult having a reasoned discussion with people who are not exposed to data that contradicts The Narrative (on whatever topic) until you raise it. Most lack time or desire for independent study, so defer to self-hallowed "experts." Asking mild questions as the data becomes glaringly inconsistent with The Narrative can have an effect over time. The minimal/fading efficacy of the over-hyped COVID injectable therapeutics is one example--the end results are so plainly not what was promised. The fundamental problem is as el gato malo points out--suppressing speech and limiting debate does not force consensus but instead leads to suspicion, resentment, and anger. Free speech is a self-correcting societal safety valve. Closing the valve just delays and worsens the inevitable release.
well stated. How do we even have a discussion when another will just pound down any information or factual analysis? Instead they latch on to what they want to believe because along with their intellectual self, they have lost all rational humility
you are not alone. -- family, and yes, the rage. I need a thicker skin. My brother and sister in law are monsters. They even threaten hard "knock you on your f--- ing ass"
I do not use language anywhere close to that, so it was heart bruising for me
The answer is probably due to what is called as "Rat in a cage" phenomenon, described here starting from the 8th minute of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-vZR35yzlQ
The whole video is worth watching in its entirety, I must add.
Every day I wake up now and realise that I'm not the normal people any more. And yet I am. I feel I am. I know I am. And yet I can feel the recoil. From my husband. My family. My friends. Not that I trumpet it. I'm barely allowed to. I get violent, embarrassed responses to the most sane observations and expressions of dissent. I try to swallow it. And yet I cannot suppress it. It will out. It has to out.
Me: This is irrational.
Shush! It's necessary!!!
Me: But it doesn't work.
Shush! It's safe and effective!!!
Me: But it's not a sterilising vaccine.
Shush! It stops death and hospitalisation!!!
Me: So why can't I opt out if it's just for me then?
Shush! It's not for you! It's for others!!!
Me: But I've had it. I'm immune.
Shush! You are not. You can get it again.
Me: But you can't stop a respiratory virus.
Shush! Just do it!!! It will end as soon as we're all done.
Me: You're delaying the inevitable. You have to face exposure one way or the other.
Shush! The boosters will keep it at bay forever!!!
These kinds of conversations can seem pointless at the time. But if you can present these narrative-contradicting common-sense opinions, and back them up with evidence, in a calm, grown-up, non-threatening way, you cannot lose the high ground. And they will know that, even as the miasma descends. A little peephole of doubt will be opened for them. The choice will be theirs.
That's been my goal. Calm, dispassionate, pointing out the logical inconsistencies and the discrepancy between reality as we see it and reality as we're told it is.
Agree and do the same. Often I will leave one statement hanging in the air, “There is no long-term safety data”. There is usually no argument there and I sincerely hope, at least, they ponder that statement. I know it’s so obvious, but it’s undeniable. 100% of the folks I’ve had the opportunity to have a calm exchange with did not know that the definition of V was changed in MW dictionary a couple of months ago and that actual intelligent (although often causing adverse consequences) Vs undergo at least a decade of trials in animals and humans before being circulated in any (Western) population. As you say, shy boy, perhaps a little peephole of doubt or critical thought will open for them.
It's so tough over the past two years. You are not alone! I have found solace and great discussion in forums of like-minded persons such as this one. Not all of us agree on all issues, but it feels safe to express our feelings. I agree with our host that we need to do more, though.
Fortunately, my 20-something son and a very dear friend are on the same page, all coming to the same conclusions after doing our own research.
My husband not so much - he works for one of the COVID agent companies and took the jab to avoid possibly being fired and losing his retirement. I understand why he did so, but I do not agree. I sometimes wonder if our marriage will survive this debacle. He won't even discuss the issues and their consequences with me. Not rowing in the same direction comes to mind...
One of my sisters, my dad, and I are not vaccinated out of our 6-person family. My family members don't persecute me for not getting the jab, but they won't discuss the overriding issues of what is going on, outside of my mom. I do not think my mom would go for the boosters. I am not sure about my two siblings - they seem eager to do whatever is suggested. Worried about all of them, of course.
I feel so grateful that no one in my immediate family; 2 brothers, a sister in law, 2 nieces & hubbies, a cousin, my mom (when she was alive and she didn’t die from or
with, SARS COV 2) have got the Jab…some cousins yes, but they are the the ‘liberal’ types from No CA, the rest of us are in So CA down near the border, where people are still free and believe in 2A!
"this is how performative “support for victims” and “anti-whateverism” have become the bastions of bullies and bigots. it’s just the most socially acceptable manner in which to engage in the nasty behaviors they were going to engage in anyway. it’s an attractor for jerks."
When you make your cause all about "disrupt and dismantle" and use negative thinking as the strategy to bring about the utopia, don't be surprised if you gather about you a destructive, excessively negatively oriented mob.
The thing is, a lot of those bullies and jerks were hiding behind various artifice. We could of spent our entire lives buying into their bs programs, presentations and games. Now we know exactly who they are, where they are and what they are doing. It's a gift, I tell you. A gift for real grown ups. We can see them, but they can't see us. Use it wisely and with as much compassion as you can stand.
It is a gift. Both to be able to hone in on who I really am and to lose people who I had not noticed I was so flimsily connected to, and how that connection was burdensome. Eye opening, all of it. It may be uncomfortable some of the time, but it's definitely not bad.
So true. If there's one silver lining to this whole shi*tshow, it's definitely getting to know people for who they really truly are, and what they really truly believe. That's what my like-minded friends & family have observed repeatedly - the truth has been exposed more clearly than ever (at least in my lifetime). How we use this knowledge remains to be seen...
“in many places, calling abortion murder will get you instantly attacked.
in others, failing to do so will get you similarly set upon.
these two groups have lost the ability to even speak about an issue that is, once more, or great currency and import.”
I don’t think the solution here is middle ground. It’s to answer the question: is abortion murder? If it isn’t, there’s nothing wrong with abortion in any way and no one should oppose it for any reason.
But if it is murder, it’s always wrong and even tolerating it as something worthy of debate is a crime against humanity.
The solution is objective reality rather than subjective middle-ground-finding.
We wouldn’t tolerate a middle ground on human slavery; if people wanted to enslave africans in the US we’d respond, probably with violence.
how would you, without resorting to religious texts, prove that a zygote is a child?
how would you prove that 100 cells with no brain and no brain function are a human and have rights and if they do, why doesn't a cancer or a gangrenous arm?
you seem to be seeking to rig this game by placing it on a playing filed where you have presumed your conclusion.
The use of “zygote” is simply a description of a stage of human development, just as embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, teenager, adult, etc. are. I could prove that a zygote is a child by using this definition of child: “the offspring of human parents.” The law of biogenesis tells us that any living organism must originate from another of its own kind. The zygote fits all the scientific criteria for being a living organism, and if the zygote is in a human womb, clearly has human parents, thus the offspring of human parents.
To answer your other question, I would first need to know whether you believe a brain and/or discernible brain function is necessary for a human to have rights?
"[B]rain or brain function" is going to run you into some problems if that is your chosen arbitrary criterion for the start of life. By that definition, you might have to admit that these are life and deserve rights, but that a future baby as yet lacking brain function does not.
Don't worry though, I'm sure the scientists used rigorous, objective tests to determine that "these mini brains lack emotion, thoughts, and consciousness." They just put their consciousness meter nearby and it registered zero.
Not when you are a desperate, naive, barely 15 year old girl and the only real support you can find is from people who profit from and/or make a living from eliminating your 'problem' for you. More people involved in *that* decision for (quite personal reasons) than "a woman and Her Maker." Heavy sigh...
Middle ground may lie with defining exactly when an individual life begins. Conception? When fetus is viable? Per a Biblical passage (per Ann Landers, I lost the exact reference long ago) when God breathed life into the lungs (of a ~ 6 month fetus)?
For reference, if abortions had been legal in the 50s, I would not be here. I only am because my mother had convinced a dr to give a hysterectomy, but a meddling aunt found out & prevented it.
I wonder sometimes if, had it not been for the buttinsky, some awful karma could have been wiped clean in a moment, setting me free forever of that violent nutcase. 🤷
So if a zygote is removed from the uterus, it will develop into a separate, individual human?.
The potential to become an individual human & the ability to do so are not the same.
The science is clear -- a fetus cannot survive outside the uterus as a separate human -- even with massive intervention -- before a certain amount of potential is realized.
The science of embryology seems to disagree. Every embryology textbook I’ve found (including the four most commonly used) unambiguously state that from the moment of conception, a distinct, living, whole human exists. It also seems clear that the unborn human cannot survive in an environment that it is not intended to be in. So your argument that a fetus cannot survive outside the womb=not yet human would be akin to me stating that “you cannot survive if I abruptly removed you to Mars, thus you must not be human.”
Of course an entity cannot survive in an environment it is not meant to be in until it is prepared for that environment. The definition of “human” has never included “ability to survive outside the uterus.” Nor has the lack of certain potential or ability made someone outside the womb less human.
it's the potential to be a human. if a single cell is a human, then if the mother miscarries because she went on a roller coaters and loses this single cell, it's manslaughter, right?
Nope. If you want a "scientific" answer, it has to be "never". Living gametes, living zygote, living fetus, living child. Life began long ago, and hasn't stopped. The concept of "an individual" is a social rather than biological one.
That's only possible if people don't believe in their heart of hearts that one or the other reality is true. The discussion is nothing like COVID, where we have undeniable facts one way or the other. Discussing abortion is like discussing whether God exists; you may be able to reach a compromise, but you cannot change belief systems about the point at which life begins or whose life is more important/takes precedence.
So true - well put! There is no answer regarding abortion since it is belief systems driving each side's arguments with (almost?) infinite arguments possible, with some predicated on the particular woman's situation. Knowing two women who have been through this situation, I appreciate other posters' comments about not judging and that it is between God and that person. Mandating by law what should be is a whole other can of worms.
i find this framing unpersuasive because it's missing the key salient:
deliberately killing a person is murder. that is the definition in law.
the question is "when do an egg and a sperm become a person?"
it is avoiding THAT question and arguing that it can be objectively known from subjective dogmatism (such as religious canon) that causes the problem.
such a stance is inherently self refuting in any form of government save theocracy. if you have freedom of religion, then you have a right to accept or reject such claims. you cannot ever prove in any objective fashion that this canon is literally and demonstrably true.
so what you need is a definition of when cells become a person. at that points, they have the rights of a person.
this handles the slavery issue as well once one dispenses with special pleading.
The question is not "Is abortion the murder of a human person?" The question is "Is it right to end Life?" We are life givers of earth, why? We can't figure it out, but that doesn't overshadow the fact that we are the life givers. At conception, the new bunch of cells has its own DNA code, this is Life, the continuation of life which we have been given stewardship of. Is it right to destroy this Life?
My question is, if abortion is illegal, do we live in a society where the many adopted child(ren) are looked after and cared for properly? If the woman, who decides to keep the child and bares the responsibility of looking after the child, be cared for and looked after? No matter where one stands in the discussion perhaps its useful to look at how we treat children and mothers who then (mostly) carry the burden and are responsible for taking care of the child/children in our society and communities, are we supoorting them? You could blame them for getting pregnant in the first place but then there are some awful circumstances, age and accidents and there seems to be not as many responsible family oriented men around? All not cut and dry, I have no answers per se just more questions and it reflects more of a break down of family units and community. Maybe we need to create more unifying communities for children and mothers to thrive. Maybe that's the answer to many of the worlds problems. Who knows!
I don't want to step on BigBadTech's podium, but a provoking thread is a provoking thread.
You could take your counter-argument and apply it equally to murder: "if murder is illegal, do we live in a society where the many aggrieved gang members and their rivals are looked after and cared for properly?"
"My question is, if abortion is illegal, do we live in a society where..."
Whatever follows is irrelevant. If abortion is murder, it's wrong, regardless of any other circumstance. If abortion is not murder, it's not wrong, regardless of any other circumstance.
I agree there are other important things, and bringing back robust marriage laws (and abolishing no-fault divorce) would be a good start. But the morality of abortion doesn't depend on those things.
"I agree there are other important things, and bringing back robust marriage laws (and abolishing no-fault divorce)" Omigosh, now you think robust marriage laws would keep people from copulating and making babies? Abolish no-fault divorce you say? Just this week a man sat outside a local airport waiting for his wife 'to kill her' because he either was insane with rage or crazy ... doesn't matter the reason, he brought a gun and sat outside, knowing her flight arrival time, to kill her.
I wasn't debating if it was murder or not, all life is sacred. People are born, people die, people kill each other and are murdered. I never stated my beliefs around the issue. The human species gives and takes life all the time. I was going beyond and thinking of who is going to take care of the 6 million children. I don't know if we want to raise more gansters and murders? I like asking questions.
The right questions are: "WHY is killing an innocent person murder while killing an animal is not? WHAT (if anything) is it that distinguishes humans from other animals in this regard? WHEN does that distinction—if it exists—become manifest?"
Your questions embody the circular argumentation that both sides use.
A 5300 word article examining the objective conditions necessary for personhood and rights and how these relate to the controversial issue of abortion. The philosophical and moral underpinnings relevant to abortion are discussed and linked with the scientific and medical research regarding the nature of embryos, fetuses, and infants. Also examined are what boundaries or limits are or are not permissible to impose on expectant mothers in regard to the voluntary termination of their pregnancies.
Now with new chart detailing some of the traits anti-abortion/pro-life supporters offer to justify their position and comparing those characteristics to living things, in general.
"WHY is killing an innocent person murder while killing an animal is not?"
If you think human beings are morally equivalent to animals, I wouldn't be worrying about abortion. You've lost even bigger battles than whether or not we should be able to murder children.
===
"A 5300 word article examining the objective conditions necessary for personhood and rights and how these relate to the controversial issue of abortion."
You can use ten million words. I don't care. It's not a complicated issue.
It's wrong to take an innocent human life. An unborn child is an innocent human life. Therefore abortion is wrong.
What kind of monster wants to start getting nitpicky about who among the human race deservers human rights?
===
"Now with new chart detailing some of the traits anti-abortion/pro-life supporters offer to justify their position and comparing those characteristics to living things, in general."
Human beings have intrinsic moral value. Animals don't.
It's not morally wrong to shoot a squirrel or crush an ant. It's morally wrong to murder a toddler. Do you honestly disagree?
do you not see that ALL of this is just argumentation by dogmatism nested in matryoshka dolls?
bellowing over and over that you know the objective truth that a teaspoon of cells is a person without any way to actually prove it in any meaningful fashion is just demanding the erection of what functionally amounts to theocracy.
it violates the golden rule unless one also disputes freedom of religion and to do so is, of course, theocracy and dogmatism.
I believe animal have intrinsic moral value and that they are sentient and have Souls. I believe it is wrong to shoot a squirrel and I do not kill insects. God made them all, He makes no mistakes, every being has a place. This is my moral code. Every spider is named Charlotte, every pig Wilbur. The animal kingdom fascinates me and I prefer my company to animals than humans. So, we all see things differently. I respect your stance and you do not have to respect mine, most do not because of how I feel about animals. That is ok with me, I am long past the point of letting others make me feel less than for who I am. Having said that, it does my heart and head good to see that we can have different views on very passionate topics and accept one another as is. I do not wish to judge anyone, I have enough of my own sins to worry about.
Yes, but people do not agree on this. People on each side of the issue feel the questions you pose have already been answered and the conclusions clearly support their view. That is why noone is talking. People who do not think that abortion is murder are not going to be convinced by someone who is calling them a criminal.
People didn't agree on slavery either. Or on the holocaust. Was slavery okay? The supreme court said it was. Was the eugenicist holocaust? The powers at the time believed it was.
The "right" thing to do wasn't to stand around and let those horror shows happen because "people do not agree".
I can say that I appreciate the passion in your position and appreciate the points you are raising. Human life is precious and we need to cherish and protect it. However, I think there is more gray area on this issue than you are appreciating. In your mind there is not, but for many people there is.
I think this gets to a core part of this problem. People who are absolutely convinced that even early first trimester abortions are murder and equivalent with mass genocide will rarely find a constructive dialogue with people who define things differently. If your goal is to simply argue your point as forcefully as possible no one can stop you. But I dont think that is going to help heal our society on this divisive issue. It will tend to further the divide in my experience.
I will briefly tell of some experiences I have had in this regard. I grew up in a very conservative christian household and was raised to understand that life begins at conception. I lived with that understanding until the age of approximately 26 when in medical school I was assigned for 3 months to an inner city obstetrics/gyn practice that routinely performed abortions.
As a medical student I often was the main person taking a thorough history of the situations of patients that came in for these services. This was a difficult experience for me as I had great moral distress given the worldview I came from and also limited ability to discuss my feelings on the subject. I simply devoted myself to understanding the patients and where they were coming from. I spent many hours with these people, often in some of the worst situations of their lives.
Out of all the abortions that I observed and/or participated in there was not one that was positive. Every situation was bad in some way. The surprise to me was how many of the procedures were truly medically necessary to save the life of the patient. This is one of the main takeaways from this experience and has changed how I talk with people about this issue. This issue is framed as black/white, right/wrong. But it is so much more than that.
People do not understand how many different things can go wrong with pregnancy. From uterine infection, ectopic implantation, hemorrhagic complications and autoimmune processes there are many processes that will result in the death of the patient along with the pregnancy if the process is not stopped. I have worked with numerous women who themselves are strongly pro life, even trying to conceive at the time, but due to circumstances had to have an abortion to save their life. Given the horrible culture we have surrounding this issue these people are often left doubly traumatized both from having to go through the abortion and then from the demonization and shame they feel from supposedly “loving” people.
I could write pages of stories like this. I really want to find a way to help people tone down the rhetoric on murder and start to approach this with more humility. Stop preaching and start listening. This is a complex issue. It needs to be handled with care and respect.
The best common ground I have found is that almost everyone can agree that we should do all we can to minimize the number of abortions that have to be performed. Most people, upon detailed discussion, also agree that these services need to be available to people who desperately need them.
This is why discussion is so good. People presenting different points of view from various different experiences. I appreciate yours, sharing your experiences and perspectives. You should write about it. Lives are messy and complicated.
Thank you for your insight and sharing your experience. This is such a delicate topic. I do not believe anyone will sway BBT in any way but that is perfectly fine. We need to listen to one another with patience and humility, no matter our own opinion.
the just cause to which i was referring was more on the order of "self defense" or "defense of another."
killing someone commiting a rape is not murder. it is a defense of rights.
the premeditated hunting down of someone and taking their life when it would not stop such an act is murder. it is not protecting rights as a function of the act.
whether a state has a right to execute a criminal is a function of the social contract under which that state exists.
i think you're missing the meat of the issue though which is that however we define "murder" in our social contract, pretty much any rights based society is going to state that a person has a right not to be murdered.
you give up your freedom to kill in exchange for the agreement of others not to kill you. this is the essence of social contract negative rights.
just what happens if you violate this contract depends on the contract.
for abortion, the interesting question thus becomes not "is deliberately terminating a pregnancy murder?" but "when"?
and that issue hinges on when a sperm and an egg become a "person" with rights as a member of the society.
one can make a number of interesting arguments there.
"Is killing someone who is in the process of committing [a crime] murder?"
Murder has a definition. It's a very simple definition: it's the intentional killing of a person without justification.
That's why manslaughter isn't murder and self-defense isn't murder. It's why death by natural causes isn't murder.
If you want to argue that murder is just a matter of semantics, then you can justify every holocaust and genocide in history. But I suppose that's exactly what one would need to do to justify abortion, because it's in that tradition.
good points SH. abortion is sad for everyone. I do not believe any woman wants to find herself in that situation. And all of us grieve for babies, that is natural. Now, too bad we can't abort fauci, gates and all their merry men and women. that would be cause for celebration and merriment...and justified IMHO.
perhaps you should sit down with a woman who has had to make this decision.....at least see the situation from the other side. does not mean you have to agree or change your position but when we sit with someone, we see the humanity in them and the struggle.
Ah, that troublesome word "objective." I'm not saying it doesn't have a definition, but that is one critical point that Nietzsche (and perhaps other thinkers) would bring up: Philosophers (and by extension, most everyone) fail to define their terms adequately, or more interestingly, fail to challenge their own (often unconscious) ground assumptions about their philosophies, or even reality in general. Nothing should be exempt from inquiry. There may indeed be an "objective" or an "absolute," but many wiser minds that I would say you won't find it in anything resembling human values, morality, ethics or law. In other words, whether something is morally right or wrong, good or evil, is purely a human judgment. Look as you will in the natural world, and you won't find pure evil or good, any more than the Greek's ideals of (say) pure beauty can have any existence of their own , except as a mental construct. To use your example of the very loaded word "murder," consider that in the physical world, only homicide objectively exists. A killing is a killing, irrespective of any motives or other circumstances. That is why we have laws, judges and juries to decide if a particular homicide is was excusable, justifiable, or some degree of guilt. Even in this latter case, there is a whole spectrum of severity, from accidental negligent homicide, to reckless homicides, crimes of passion, premeditated, and probably many more categories only an expert attorney knows. Please pardon my verbose comment; I merely want to point out that what seems to be a simple moral question "Is murder objectively wrong?" is in fact a very complex set of concepts. Even so, if we drop "objectively," I suspect you would get most people to agree with the statement, simply because "murder" typically means "unjustified killing." But now we must consider when the act would or would not be justified. None of this is to say that a workable system of values is unattainable. Of course not. Civilization would collapse if that were the case. I'm just trying to show that it's not quite as cut-and-dried, black-and-white as we often wish it were.
Perhaps a good way to "get back to truth" is by rushing the absurdity. How it started: "Golly, I think that we don't have a lot of data on viral mutations from the protein expression cocktails we have been instructed to inject, certainly nobody has been able to show that the variants AREN'T coming from them." How it is going: "I think that it is high time that we start rounding up the unvaxxed like Austria and Australia, because man, our patience is wearing thin with these sub-humans."
That's right. It goes beyond mere words. Just as some concepts are "un-sayable", some thoughts are now "un-thinkable". Even though they should be obvious.
One such thought is: Omicron is man-made.
I wrote an article that proves that the "Omicron" variant is likely to be man-made. None of the natural origin explanations holds water. Omicron is a descendant of virus NOT in circulation for 1.5 years.
This incisive post reminds me of Orwell’s great essay “Politics and the English Language”, which everyone ought to read:
“…it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.”
"Americans have trouble facing the truth. So they invent a kind of a soft language to protect themselves from it.”.-George Carlin
That’s exactly right. We need more comedians like Carlin willing to buck political orthodoxy and defy the language police.
It’s a noble tradition going back to Aristophanes, Rabelais, Moliere, Voltaire, etc… of ridiculing the ridiculous. That’s a central purpose of comedy.
But since most “comedians” now are obediently complying with (and even enforcing) a truly ridiculous political orthodoxy, they aren’t funny, except perhaps unintentionally.
Yours truly not only never had scintilla of fear using any words and ideas I saw and continue to see fit, but to decoct all of the above in simplest terms: be true to yourself and never comply.
Yes, but I will note you are writing under a pseudonym and probably for this very reason. I do think everyone should learn a second language, ideally in a non-Western culture just to free your mind a bit. I'm learning Turkish right now...primarily because I got hooked on Turkish historical television dramas and figured I might as well learn the language while I'm watching 500 episodes of Ertugrul.
In the process, I'm learning a lot about Turkish culture and the amount of pro-Turk/pro-Muslim pride and propaganda in their shows is a stark contrast to the divisive, self-hating media we get here in the US. Based on their unabashed cultural pride alone, I'd put them down as winning the planet in the long run since we're in self-destruct mode.
I used to watch Korean historical dramas on a local PBS station that has since gone defunct. They were amazing but long and intense. I always watched late at night when I was falling asleep. I'd close my eyes and think "I'll just listen" only to realize sadly that I didn't speak Korean and couldn't read the subtitles with my eyes closed. :)
Excellent news. Retaking the language will take many many years of hard and potentially offensive work, but I'm here for it. This is the real battleground, right here.
As an aside to this, I realized today that a willingness to violate politically correct norms is one of the factors I assess to determine someone's credibility. Another helpful indicator is if someone is speaking out in a way that will likely result in harm to their personal or professional life.
Since it can be extremely difficult to determine what vested interests an internet stranger may have, these markers of a willingness to bear social disapproval (and possibly other harms) often means that someone is motivated to speak by something greater than their desire for approval or direct personal profit.
The clever thing to do now is to simply virtue signal. Throw stones, too, when the crowd stones someone. Obviously, that is not the ethical path. Defying the crowd is a potential sign of deeper moral convictions. Any sign that someone is going with the crowd makes their honesty deeply suspect.
I find this important as it is now potentially a matter of daily survival to assess conflicting claims about things like virology and epidemiology in an era when affiliation with officialdom, academia, and corporations serve as an enormous red flag of untrustworthiness.
Just requested my money back from the Northcutt theatre in Exeter, Devon (name and shame) who have now decided everyone attending the pantomime in December must provide a vaxx passport or if unvaxxed show proof of a negative Covid test. I have now written to this theatre to say, (1) they are discriminating against the unvaxxed (2) they have no right to access anyone’s confidential medical records and finally (3) I will never step foot in their theatre as long as I live🥰🥰🥰
Good for you! I just withdrew from a professional group because they told us only the unvaxxed have to wear masks at their gatherings. Horrible.
They don't want the competition. Like Avi Yemeni (Rebel News which is not very Rebel, Melbourne) said to a vegan recently 'that means more meat for me'.
What do you think Paula?
The only way to go. The more ridiculous it gets, the more I up my sarcasm game.
"Sorry, I am not 'waxxed', I prefer the 70's kinda look :)
hilarious
Asking for a refund on a gig ticket for the same reason. Have also contacted them asking since double vaxed doesn’t mean you can’t catch or spread covid why is that deemed “safe” for entry (they said they were implementing this to keep me safe) I said if anything they should be asking everyone for proof of a negative test. They’ve had 2 days to think about it now
They will find something to copy paste.
I admire your passion, however - did you know these businesses are getting government grants to cover the cost of us asking for refunds due to COVID restrictions? You won't easily find the proof for this - but I've spoken to several business owners who have confirmed this. This is why so many businesses gleefully closed during lockdowns. One pizza shop owner I know got $30,000.00+ a week in government $$$ to stay closed!!!
So if the government is giving money to support the businesses discriminating, then a) the free money tap will turn off eventually and the gaps will show. Or b) the government is also getting monies from somewhere.....🤔 to then pass on to said businesses, in which case it won't end and a parallel society is possibly the only option.
Or c) the government is just printing however much it wants indefinitely,
which quickly breaks the current economic model, heralding UBI and endless hoops for most. A la "the Empire", And off grid, self sufficient, tribes for the "Rebellion". #jedicats
CONVid-19 is the gateway to CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency)... a worldwide government "crypto" currency. I put crypto in "quotes" because it will resemble crypto, but the ownership of the network will be 100% controlled by the central banks. The banksters ALWAYS own the electronic printing presses that print unlimited monies - so paying businesses to close down to promote a narrative is a cinch.
And on the International stage, I believe the global program is being facilitated by Special Drawing Rights.
C.
It’s a big mistake in a sense, but sometimes I see it as something akin to euthanasia — it’s bringing the inevitable to a head.
There’s no cleansing the corruption in the current context. Even the corruption cleansers are dirty.
The Republic is done like dinner. There will be an unpleasant interregnum while the two generations of sad, infantilized weaklings age out or all die from years of abusing their immune systems with endless “boosters” for various ailments real and imagined (or, unlikely but not impossible, learn to face reality). But then things start to look up.
Turds, all of them. - and that is why they comply to the covidian lords
Tell them their protocol is giving people a false sense of security.
The UK Health Security Agency has reported a higher rate of infection in the fully vaxxed age 30-69 for the last nine weeks. Until they started boosting the older cohorts, the rate of infection was higher in everyone fully vaxxed age 30 and older.
Nearly four of every five people who died for the last ten weeks were fully vaxxed.
77% of the deaths reported in the latest report (week 48) were fully vaxxed.
Yes, the rate of death is lower in the fully vaxxed, but...
Week 48 report, pages 32, 34
Over 80s deaths per 100,000 within 28 days of +PCR
Fully vaxxed: 51.4
Unvaxxed: 147.8
Over 80s deaths, between week 44 and week 47 2021
1618 Deaths
1378 Fully vaxxed
189 Unvaxxed
85.2% of the deaths in the over 80s were fully vaxxed...even though this population is boosted. 11.7% of the deaths were unvaxxed.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-surveillance-reports
Thank you💖💖
Excellent. Thanks for clarifying. Will need that to show the compliers.
well done. hubbs and I have also been actively boycotting the servants to the covidian lords
Way to go MAD!
If they stopped with their silly edicts then might you not forgive them?
To reward them for seeing the error of their ways?
Yep have named and shamed my tennis club for the same. At the bottom here;
https://www.richardoseager.com/p/new-zealand-moves-further-into-fascism
I have never in my 55 years experienced losing friends abruptly for having a pretty mild yet contrary viewpoint on something ("I am not sure these vaccines are safe.") as I have in the past year. Rageful unfriending without the benefit of a single conversation. It would not occur to me to reject someone because they disagreed with me on any given issue. But this is not only allowed, it is celebrated as an act of virtue. Breaking through is the big question.
Count yourself lucky: somehow you had managed to let a bunch of panty-waists into your circle, and the coof/jab orthodoxy resulted in them being exposed.
I have no need for luck, because I make it a point to not have friends who don't understand conditional probability. (To be clear: a friend is someone to whom I will lend my car at 15 minutes' notice).
When I'm introduced to new people in a social setting, I will know within ten minutes whether *Pr(worth knowing)* exceeds my cutoff. It amounts to two short interactions, and generates almost no false positives. Maybe I've foregone hundreds of completely worthwhile friendships; who has time for more than a dozen friends?
People I've known for 30 years are 'in on it', so we don't impose knuckleheads on each other.
I've lost precisely zero friends since the coof began; precisely zero friends object to my refusal to join the Pfizer Quarterly Subscription (2 jabbed friends initially objected to my claim that the subscription would be quarterly: they recanted once it became more obvious, but are still friends).
It's a matter of discipline: having junk friends is like eating junk food... hyper-palatable in the short term, but absolutely dysfunctional longer-term.
You sound like a lot of fun, Kratoklastes.
The Bad Cat might like your junk food analogy.
It is Bad Cat's analogies that make his posts such poignant fun.
Very well said 🙌🏼
I hear you. I lost a "friend" over politics. She unfriended me but did not have the guts to do so to my face, instead, she told another friend "I am blocking this person." Could not even use my name. Fast forward six months after the election, comes up to me at church, wants to be nicey-nicey again, and I told her NO. She got all bent out of shape and started telling me what a horrible person I was because I didn't agree with her that a certain person was evil and I said, "then why are you wasting time talking to me? Listen to what you are saying! " She got really, really angry then and said, "Have a good life! You'll end up alone and it will be your own fault." Well maybe so, but "friends" like that I don't need.
It is sometimes difficult having a reasoned discussion with people who are not exposed to data that contradicts The Narrative (on whatever topic) until you raise it. Most lack time or desire for independent study, so defer to self-hallowed "experts." Asking mild questions as the data becomes glaringly inconsistent with The Narrative can have an effect over time. The minimal/fading efficacy of the over-hyped COVID injectable therapeutics is one example--the end results are so plainly not what was promised. The fundamental problem is as el gato malo points out--suppressing speech and limiting debate does not force consensus but instead leads to suspicion, resentment, and anger. Free speech is a self-correcting societal safety valve. Closing the valve just delays and worsens the inevitable release.
well stated. How do we even have a discussion when another will just pound down any information or factual analysis? Instead they latch on to what they want to believe because along with their intellectual self, they have lost all rational humility
Ah, yes. The charitable analysis. Only gets one so far...
you are not alone. -- family, and yes, the rage. I need a thicker skin. My brother and sister in law are monsters. They even threaten hard "knock you on your f--- ing ass"
I do not use language anywhere close to that, so it was heart bruising for me
The answer is probably due to what is called as "Rat in a cage" phenomenon, described here starting from the 8th minute of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-vZR35yzlQ
The whole video is worth watching in its entirety, I must add.
It's not about "breaking through". It's about knowing who is who going forward.
I meant breaking through to people in general about how they are being misled.
Every day I wake up now and realise that I'm not the normal people any more. And yet I am. I feel I am. I know I am. And yet I can feel the recoil. From my husband. My family. My friends. Not that I trumpet it. I'm barely allowed to. I get violent, embarrassed responses to the most sane observations and expressions of dissent. I try to swallow it. And yet I cannot suppress it. It will out. It has to out.
Me: This is irrational.
Shush! It's necessary!!!
Me: But it doesn't work.
Shush! It's safe and effective!!!
Me: But it's not a sterilising vaccine.
Shush! It stops death and hospitalisation!!!
Me: So why can't I opt out if it's just for me then?
Shush! It's not for you! It's for others!!!
Me: But I've had it. I'm immune.
Shush! You are not. You can get it again.
Me: But you can't stop a respiratory virus.
Shush! Just do it!!! It will end as soon as we're all done.
Me: You're delaying the inevitable. You have to face exposure one way or the other.
Shush! The boosters will keep it at bay forever!!!
Me: But they're untested.
Shush! They're approved!!!
Me: But unvaxxed doesn't mean sick.
Shush! They're dangerous, mean, hateful, selfish people.
Me: But vaxxed doesn't mean immune.
Shush! Just, um, shush!!!
Me: But I really can SEE what's going on! I know!
Shush! That's what every Conspiracy Theorist said. Ever!!!
And so they inch away from me. And I from them. An invisible miasma of fear and disbelief settles around us.
I am normal! (abnormal)
Sane! (unhinged)
True! (false)
True!True!True!
These kinds of conversations can seem pointless at the time. But if you can present these narrative-contradicting common-sense opinions, and back them up with evidence, in a calm, grown-up, non-threatening way, you cannot lose the high ground. And they will know that, even as the miasma descends. A little peephole of doubt will be opened for them. The choice will be theirs.
That's been my goal. Calm, dispassionate, pointing out the logical inconsistencies and the discrepancy between reality as we see it and reality as we're told it is.
Agree and do the same. Often I will leave one statement hanging in the air, “There is no long-term safety data”. There is usually no argument there and I sincerely hope, at least, they ponder that statement. I know it’s so obvious, but it’s undeniable. 100% of the folks I’ve had the opportunity to have a calm exchange with did not know that the definition of V was changed in MW dictionary a couple of months ago and that actual intelligent (although often causing adverse consequences) Vs undergo at least a decade of trials in animals and humans before being circulated in any (Western) population. As you say, shy boy, perhaps a little peephole of doubt or critical thought will open for them.
Let's think of some catchy analogies to give as earworms
for the rotten apples to dwell on.
"The vaccines are a Pandora's box."
"It's like kissing a frog hoping for a prince but getting a cane toad."
"It's like being groomed by Ghislaine to be seduced by Epstein."
"It's like being groomed by Epstein to be raped by Bill Gates."
Ann -
It's so tough over the past two years. You are not alone! I have found solace and great discussion in forums of like-minded persons such as this one. Not all of us agree on all issues, but it feels safe to express our feelings. I agree with our host that we need to do more, though.
Fortunately, my 20-something son and a very dear friend are on the same page, all coming to the same conclusions after doing our own research.
My husband not so much - he works for one of the COVID agent companies and took the jab to avoid possibly being fired and losing his retirement. I understand why he did so, but I do not agree. I sometimes wonder if our marriage will survive this debacle. He won't even discuss the issues and their consequences with me. Not rowing in the same direction comes to mind...
One of my sisters, my dad, and I are not vaccinated out of our 6-person family. My family members don't persecute me for not getting the jab, but they won't discuss the overriding issues of what is going on, outside of my mom. I do not think my mom would go for the boosters. I am not sure about my two siblings - they seem eager to do whatever is suggested. Worried about all of them, of course.
I feel so grateful that no one in my immediate family; 2 brothers, a sister in law, 2 nieces & hubbies, a cousin, my mom (when she was alive and she didn’t die from or
with, SARS COV 2) have got the Jab…some cousins yes, but they are the the ‘liberal’ types from No CA, the rest of us are in So CA down near the border, where people are still free and believe in 2A!
Comedians who do actual comedy would help tremendously.
We need Ricky Gervais on our side. He could single-handedly turn the tide.
Tim Dillon is great.
Dave Chappelle is one! He went through some nasty stuff recently with Netflix. Some comedians spoke up for him. Some hope there.
"this is how performative “support for victims” and “anti-whateverism” have become the bastions of bullies and bigots. it’s just the most socially acceptable manner in which to engage in the nasty behaviors they were going to engage in anyway. it’s an attractor for jerks."
When you make your cause all about "disrupt and dismantle" and use negative thinking as the strategy to bring about the utopia, don't be surprised if you gather about you a destructive, excessively negatively oriented mob.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
The thing is, a lot of those bullies and jerks were hiding behind various artifice. We could of spent our entire lives buying into their bs programs, presentations and games. Now we know exactly who they are, where they are and what they are doing. It's a gift, I tell you. A gift for real grown ups. We can see them, but they can't see us. Use it wisely and with as much compassion as you can stand.
It is a gift. Both to be able to hone in on who I really am and to lose people who I had not noticed I was so flimsily connected to, and how that connection was burdensome. Eye opening, all of it. It may be uncomfortable some of the time, but it's definitely not bad.
The ones who have defriended us probably think like that about us.
So true. If there's one silver lining to this whole shi*tshow, it's definitely getting to know people for who they really truly are, and what they really truly believe. That's what my like-minded friends & family have observed repeatedly - the truth has been exposed more clearly than ever (at least in my lifetime). How we use this knowledge remains to be seen...
Lawyers looking forward to their boosters. Keeping their noses clean hoping to make Judge.
“in many places, calling abortion murder will get you instantly attacked.
in others, failing to do so will get you similarly set upon.
these two groups have lost the ability to even speak about an issue that is, once more, or great currency and import.”
I don’t think the solution here is middle ground. It’s to answer the question: is abortion murder? If it isn’t, there’s nothing wrong with abortion in any way and no one should oppose it for any reason.
But if it is murder, it’s always wrong and even tolerating it as something worthy of debate is a crime against humanity.
The solution is objective reality rather than subjective middle-ground-finding.
We wouldn’t tolerate a middle ground on human slavery; if people wanted to enslave africans in the US we’d respond, probably with violence.
Abortion is a tough issue. I believe it is between a woman and Her Maker. Very personal. Heavy sigh...
It's a much easier issue when you pretend the child doesn't exist.
its a coping issue......
My point is that the issue is not up to a woman at all. The value of a child's life is not a function of his mother's thoughts or opinions.
this seems like argumentation by dogmatism.
how would you, without resorting to religious texts, prove that a zygote is a child?
how would you prove that 100 cells with no brain and no brain function are a human and have rights and if they do, why doesn't a cancer or a gangrenous arm?
you seem to be seeking to rig this game by placing it on a playing filed where you have presumed your conclusion.
The use of “zygote” is simply a description of a stage of human development, just as embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, teenager, adult, etc. are. I could prove that a zygote is a child by using this definition of child: “the offspring of human parents.” The law of biogenesis tells us that any living organism must originate from another of its own kind. The zygote fits all the scientific criteria for being a living organism, and if the zygote is in a human womb, clearly has human parents, thus the offspring of human parents.
To answer your other question, I would first need to know whether you believe a brain and/or discernible brain function is necessary for a human to have rights?
"[B]rain or brain function" is going to run you into some problems if that is your chosen arbitrary criterion for the start of life. By that definition, you might have to admit that these are life and deserve rights, but that a future baby as yet lacking brain function does not.
https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/lab-made-mini-brains-develop-eye-like-structures-sensitive-to-light-4110560.html
Don't worry though, I'm sure the scientists used rigorous, objective tests to determine that "these mini brains lack emotion, thoughts, and consciousness." They just put their consciousness meter nearby and it registered zero.
But you can bet that if it were men that got pregnant, it would be his choice. And that's all nice and philosophical but not realistic.
The presence of a child, as opposed to a zygote, an embryo, an early fetus or a viable fetus is not up to your opinion or your thoughts.
Not when you are a desperate, naive, barely 15 year old girl and the only real support you can find is from people who profit from and/or make a living from eliminating your 'problem' for you. More people involved in *that* decision for (quite personal reasons) than "a woman and Her Maker." Heavy sigh...
Middle ground may lie with defining exactly when an individual life begins. Conception? When fetus is viable? Per a Biblical passage (per Ann Landers, I lost the exact reference long ago) when God breathed life into the lungs (of a ~ 6 month fetus)?
For reference, if abortions had been legal in the 50s, I would not be here. I only am because my mother had convinced a dr to give a hysterectomy, but a meddling aunt found out & prevented it.
I wonder sometimes if, had it not been for the buttinsky, some awful karma could have been wiped clean in a moment, setting me free forever of that violent nutcase. 🤷
Modern science is crystal clear. It's conception.
fallacy. presuming your conclusion.
So if a zygote is removed from the uterus, it will develop into a separate, individual human?.
The potential to become an individual human & the ability to do so are not the same.
The science is clear -- a fetus cannot survive outside the uterus as a separate human -- even with massive intervention -- before a certain amount of potential is realized.
The science of embryology seems to disagree. Every embryology textbook I’ve found (including the four most commonly used) unambiguously state that from the moment of conception, a distinct, living, whole human exists. It also seems clear that the unborn human cannot survive in an environment that it is not intended to be in. So your argument that a fetus cannot survive outside the womb=not yet human would be akin to me stating that “you cannot survive if I abruptly removed you to Mars, thus you must not be human.”
Of course an entity cannot survive in an environment it is not meant to be in until it is prepared for that environment. The definition of “human” has never included “ability to survive outside the uterus.” Nor has the lack of certain potential or ability made someone outside the womb less human.
nonsense.
it's the potential to be a human. if a single cell is a human, then if the mother miscarries because she went on a roller coaters and loses this single cell, it's manslaughter, right?
“it's the potential to be a human.”
How do you define “a human?”
Nope. If you want a "scientific" answer, it has to be "never". Living gametes, living zygote, living fetus, living child. Life began long ago, and hasn't stopped. The concept of "an individual" is a social rather than biological one.
I would not be here either Mary!
While I agree, the point is, here we are talking about it without chucking verbal spears at each other.
I’m talking about the concept of neutrality. When it comes to the murder of sixty million unborn children, my words are weapons.
exactly.
That's only possible if people don't believe in their heart of hearts that one or the other reality is true. The discussion is nothing like COVID, where we have undeniable facts one way or the other. Discussing abortion is like discussing whether God exists; you may be able to reach a compromise, but you cannot change belief systems about the point at which life begins or whose life is more important/takes precedence.
So true - well put! There is no answer regarding abortion since it is belief systems driving each side's arguments with (almost?) infinite arguments possible, with some predicated on the particular woman's situation. Knowing two women who have been through this situation, I appreciate other posters' comments about not judging and that it is between God and that person. Mandating by law what should be is a whole other can of worms.
Abortion is one of those topics where people add complexity to avoid responsibility.
i find this framing unpersuasive because it's missing the key salient:
deliberately killing a person is murder. that is the definition in law.
the question is "when do an egg and a sperm become a person?"
it is avoiding THAT question and arguing that it can be objectively known from subjective dogmatism (such as religious canon) that causes the problem.
such a stance is inherently self refuting in any form of government save theocracy. if you have freedom of religion, then you have a right to accept or reject such claims. you cannot ever prove in any objective fashion that this canon is literally and demonstrably true.
so what you need is a definition of when cells become a person. at that points, they have the rights of a person.
this handles the slavery issue as well once one dispenses with special pleading.
The question is not "Is abortion the murder of a human person?" The question is "Is it right to end Life?" We are life givers of earth, why? We can't figure it out, but that doesn't overshadow the fact that we are the life givers. At conception, the new bunch of cells has its own DNA code, this is Life, the continuation of life which we have been given stewardship of. Is it right to destroy this Life?
so then it's evil to, say, kill and eat a cow?
My question is, if abortion is illegal, do we live in a society where the many adopted child(ren) are looked after and cared for properly? If the woman, who decides to keep the child and bares the responsibility of looking after the child, be cared for and looked after? No matter where one stands in the discussion perhaps its useful to look at how we treat children and mothers who then (mostly) carry the burden and are responsible for taking care of the child/children in our society and communities, are we supoorting them? You could blame them for getting pregnant in the first place but then there are some awful circumstances, age and accidents and there seems to be not as many responsible family oriented men around? All not cut and dry, I have no answers per se just more questions and it reflects more of a break down of family units and community. Maybe we need to create more unifying communities for children and mothers to thrive. Maybe that's the answer to many of the worlds problems. Who knows!
I don't want to step on BigBadTech's podium, but a provoking thread is a provoking thread.
You could take your counter-argument and apply it equally to murder: "if murder is illegal, do we live in a society where the many aggrieved gang members and their rivals are looked after and cared for properly?"
"My question is, if abortion is illegal, do we live in a society where..."
Whatever follows is irrelevant. If abortion is murder, it's wrong, regardless of any other circumstance. If abortion is not murder, it's not wrong, regardless of any other circumstance.
I agree there are other important things, and bringing back robust marriage laws (and abolishing no-fault divorce) would be a good start. But the morality of abortion doesn't depend on those things.
"I agree there are other important things, and bringing back robust marriage laws (and abolishing no-fault divorce)" Omigosh, now you think robust marriage laws would keep people from copulating and making babies? Abolish no-fault divorce you say? Just this week a man sat outside a local airport waiting for his wife 'to kill her' because he either was insane with rage or crazy ... doesn't matter the reason, he brought a gun and sat outside, knowing her flight arrival time, to kill her.
I wasn't debating if it was murder or not, all life is sacred. People are born, people die, people kill each other and are murdered. I never stated my beliefs around the issue. The human species gives and takes life all the time. I was going beyond and thinking of who is going to take care of the 6 million children. I don't know if we want to raise more gansters and murders? I like asking questions.
The right questions are: "WHY is killing an innocent person murder while killing an animal is not? WHAT (if anything) is it that distinguishes humans from other animals in this regard? WHEN does that distinction—if it exists—become manifest?"
Your questions embody the circular argumentation that both sides use.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00I0FBPRE
A 5300 word article examining the objective conditions necessary for personhood and rights and how these relate to the controversial issue of abortion. The philosophical and moral underpinnings relevant to abortion are discussed and linked with the scientific and medical research regarding the nature of embryos, fetuses, and infants. Also examined are what boundaries or limits are or are not permissible to impose on expectant mothers in regard to the voluntary termination of their pregnancies.
Now with new chart detailing some of the traits anti-abortion/pro-life supporters offer to justify their position and comparing those characteristics to living things, in general.
"WHY is killing an innocent person murder while killing an animal is not?"
If you think human beings are morally equivalent to animals, I wouldn't be worrying about abortion. You've lost even bigger battles than whether or not we should be able to murder children.
===
"A 5300 word article examining the objective conditions necessary for personhood and rights and how these relate to the controversial issue of abortion."
You can use ten million words. I don't care. It's not a complicated issue.
It's wrong to take an innocent human life. An unborn child is an innocent human life. Therefore abortion is wrong.
What kind of monster wants to start getting nitpicky about who among the human race deservers human rights?
===
"Now with new chart detailing some of the traits anti-abortion/pro-life supporters offer to justify their position and comparing those characteristics to living things, in general."
Human beings have intrinsic moral value. Animals don't.
It's not morally wrong to shoot a squirrel or crush an ant. It's morally wrong to murder a toddler. Do you honestly disagree?
do you not see that ALL of this is just argumentation by dogmatism nested in matryoshka dolls?
bellowing over and over that you know the objective truth that a teaspoon of cells is a person without any way to actually prove it in any meaningful fashion is just demanding the erection of what functionally amounts to theocracy.
it violates the golden rule unless one also disputes freedom of religion and to do so is, of course, theocracy and dogmatism.
you're mistaking "i believe X" for "X is true."
Circular Argument/Begging the Question Fallacy.
https://twitter.com/maddrus/status/1466457683578478595?s=20
I believe animal have intrinsic moral value and that they are sentient and have Souls. I believe it is wrong to shoot a squirrel and I do not kill insects. God made them all, He makes no mistakes, every being has a place. This is my moral code. Every spider is named Charlotte, every pig Wilbur. The animal kingdom fascinates me and I prefer my company to animals than humans. So, we all see things differently. I respect your stance and you do not have to respect mine, most do not because of how I feel about animals. That is ok with me, I am long past the point of letting others make me feel less than for who I am. Having said that, it does my heart and head good to see that we can have different views on very passionate topics and accept one another as is. I do not wish to judge anyone, I have enough of my own sins to worry about.
Yes, but people do not agree on this. People on each side of the issue feel the questions you pose have already been answered and the conclusions clearly support their view. That is why noone is talking. People who do not think that abortion is murder are not going to be convinced by someone who is calling them a criminal.
People didn't agree on slavery either. Or on the holocaust. Was slavery okay? The supreme court said it was. Was the eugenicist holocaust? The powers at the time believed it was.
The "right" thing to do wasn't to stand around and let those horror shows happen because "people do not agree".
I can say that I appreciate the passion in your position and appreciate the points you are raising. Human life is precious and we need to cherish and protect it. However, I think there is more gray area on this issue than you are appreciating. In your mind there is not, but for many people there is.
I think this gets to a core part of this problem. People who are absolutely convinced that even early first trimester abortions are murder and equivalent with mass genocide will rarely find a constructive dialogue with people who define things differently. If your goal is to simply argue your point as forcefully as possible no one can stop you. But I dont think that is going to help heal our society on this divisive issue. It will tend to further the divide in my experience.
I will briefly tell of some experiences I have had in this regard. I grew up in a very conservative christian household and was raised to understand that life begins at conception. I lived with that understanding until the age of approximately 26 when in medical school I was assigned for 3 months to an inner city obstetrics/gyn practice that routinely performed abortions.
As a medical student I often was the main person taking a thorough history of the situations of patients that came in for these services. This was a difficult experience for me as I had great moral distress given the worldview I came from and also limited ability to discuss my feelings on the subject. I simply devoted myself to understanding the patients and where they were coming from. I spent many hours with these people, often in some of the worst situations of their lives.
Out of all the abortions that I observed and/or participated in there was not one that was positive. Every situation was bad in some way. The surprise to me was how many of the procedures were truly medically necessary to save the life of the patient. This is one of the main takeaways from this experience and has changed how I talk with people about this issue. This issue is framed as black/white, right/wrong. But it is so much more than that.
People do not understand how many different things can go wrong with pregnancy. From uterine infection, ectopic implantation, hemorrhagic complications and autoimmune processes there are many processes that will result in the death of the patient along with the pregnancy if the process is not stopped. I have worked with numerous women who themselves are strongly pro life, even trying to conceive at the time, but due to circumstances had to have an abortion to save their life. Given the horrible culture we have surrounding this issue these people are often left doubly traumatized both from having to go through the abortion and then from the demonization and shame they feel from supposedly “loving” people.
I could write pages of stories like this. I really want to find a way to help people tone down the rhetoric on murder and start to approach this with more humility. Stop preaching and start listening. This is a complex issue. It needs to be handled with care and respect.
The best common ground I have found is that almost everyone can agree that we should do all we can to minimize the number of abortions that have to be performed. Most people, upon detailed discussion, also agree that these services need to be available to people who desperately need them.
This is why discussion is so good. People presenting different points of view from various different experiences. I appreciate yours, sharing your experiences and perspectives. You should write about it. Lives are messy and complicated.
Thank you for your insight and sharing your experience. This is such a delicate topic. I do not believe anyone will sway BBT in any way but that is perfectly fine. We need to listen to one another with patience and humility, no matter our own opinion.
Very good point BBT.
this seems like just legalism and semantics.
we have (and should have) many crimes defined as the violation of the rights of another without just cause.
"stealing" "gross bodily harm" etc.
murder is a defined legal term that sits within a rights structure.
the just cause to which i was referring was more on the order of "self defense" or "defense of another."
killing someone commiting a rape is not murder. it is a defense of rights.
the premeditated hunting down of someone and taking their life when it would not stop such an act is murder. it is not protecting rights as a function of the act.
whether a state has a right to execute a criminal is a function of the social contract under which that state exists.
i think you're missing the meat of the issue though which is that however we define "murder" in our social contract, pretty much any rights based society is going to state that a person has a right not to be murdered.
you give up your freedom to kill in exchange for the agreement of others not to kill you. this is the essence of social contract negative rights.
just what happens if you violate this contract depends on the contract.
for abortion, the interesting question thus becomes not "is deliberately terminating a pregnancy murder?" but "when"?
and that issue hinges on when a sperm and an egg become a "person" with rights as a member of the society.
one can make a number of interesting arguments there.
it seems like you're jumping frames of reference.
can you point to any society without a conception of murder?
i was speaking in the context of being within a social contract.
that, by it's nature, IS legalism, which was my initial point.
"Is killing someone who is in the process of committing [a crime] murder?"
Murder has a definition. It's a very simple definition: it's the intentional killing of a person without justification.
That's why manslaughter isn't murder and self-defense isn't murder. It's why death by natural causes isn't murder.
If you want to argue that murder is just a matter of semantics, then you can justify every holocaust and genocide in history. But I suppose that's exactly what one would need to do to justify abortion, because it's in that tradition.
good points SH. abortion is sad for everyone. I do not believe any woman wants to find herself in that situation. And all of us grieve for babies, that is natural. Now, too bad we can't abort fauci, gates and all their merry men and women. that would be cause for celebration and merriment...and justified IMHO.
Why is abortion sad for anyone? If it's not a human child being murdered, it's literally not different than routine surgery.
deep down, in one's Soul, I will not believe there is not sadness for those faced with this....
Why? If it's not taking a child's life, it's no different than having a wart removed.
perhaps you should sit down with a woman who has had to make this decision.....at least see the situation from the other side. does not mean you have to agree or change your position but when we sit with someone, we see the humanity in them and the struggle.
You don't believe murder is objectively wrong? Is child abuse objectively wrong?
Ah, that troublesome word "objective." I'm not saying it doesn't have a definition, but that is one critical point that Nietzsche (and perhaps other thinkers) would bring up: Philosophers (and by extension, most everyone) fail to define their terms adequately, or more interestingly, fail to challenge their own (often unconscious) ground assumptions about their philosophies, or even reality in general. Nothing should be exempt from inquiry. There may indeed be an "objective" or an "absolute," but many wiser minds that I would say you won't find it in anything resembling human values, morality, ethics or law. In other words, whether something is morally right or wrong, good or evil, is purely a human judgment. Look as you will in the natural world, and you won't find pure evil or good, any more than the Greek's ideals of (say) pure beauty can have any existence of their own , except as a mental construct. To use your example of the very loaded word "murder," consider that in the physical world, only homicide objectively exists. A killing is a killing, irrespective of any motives or other circumstances. That is why we have laws, judges and juries to decide if a particular homicide is was excusable, justifiable, or some degree of guilt. Even in this latter case, there is a whole spectrum of severity, from accidental negligent homicide, to reckless homicides, crimes of passion, premeditated, and probably many more categories only an expert attorney knows. Please pardon my verbose comment; I merely want to point out that what seems to be a simple moral question "Is murder objectively wrong?" is in fact a very complex set of concepts. Even so, if we drop "objectively," I suspect you would get most people to agree with the statement, simply because "murder" typically means "unjustified killing." But now we must consider when the act would or would not be justified. None of this is to say that a workable system of values is unattainable. Of course not. Civilization would collapse if that were the case. I'm just trying to show that it's not quite as cut-and-dried, black-and-white as we often wish it were.
Excellent summation...your words convey a wise and compassionate thought process. The world needs more people like you. P.S. Not verbose at all.
So wait a minute....gato CAN capitalize? Does this mean he does have opposable thumbs?
"i want X. i fear Z. i am insecure about N. i AM me"
I am so confused and insulted. ;-)
It's a cat, always prepare to be confused and insulted.
The shift key is difficult for cats, but not impossible.
It's not a matter of difficulty. It's a matter of caring enough to do it.
It is high time we learn how to communicate again. There is middle ground to most subjects I think. We only have to agree to disagree on some points
Perhaps a good way to "get back to truth" is by rushing the absurdity. How it started: "Golly, I think that we don't have a lot of data on viral mutations from the protein expression cocktails we have been instructed to inject, certainly nobody has been able to show that the variants AREN'T coming from them." How it is going: "I think that it is high time that we start rounding up the unvaxxed like Austria and Australia, because man, our patience is wearing thin with these sub-humans."
I am VERY excited about the third rail diner.
That's right. It goes beyond mere words. Just as some concepts are "un-sayable", some thoughts are now "un-thinkable". Even though they should be obvious.
One such thought is: Omicron is man-made.
I wrote an article that proves that the "Omicron" variant is likely to be man-made. None of the natural origin explanations holds water. Omicron is a descendant of virus NOT in circulation for 1.5 years.
https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/urgent-omicron-variant-likely-to
The NPR article that I cited, gave three explanations (all wrong) except for the most obvious one (that the virus is man-made).
Yup. First thing I thought when I read Trevor Bedford's tweet stream.
This incisive post reminds me of Orwell’s great essay “Politics and the English Language”, which everyone ought to read:
“…it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.”
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/
This reminds me of George Carlin on soft language
"Americans have trouble facing the truth. So they invent a kind of a soft language to protect themselves from it.”.-George Carlin
That’s exactly right. We need more comedians like Carlin willing to buck political orthodoxy and defy the language police.
It’s a noble tradition going back to Aristophanes, Rabelais, Moliere, Voltaire, etc… of ridiculing the ridiculous. That’s a central purpose of comedy.
But since most “comedians” now are obediently complying with (and even enforcing) a truly ridiculous political orthodoxy, they aren’t funny, except perhaps unintentionally.
Bad Cat is funny.
Yours truly not only never had scintilla of fear using any words and ideas I saw and continue to see fit, but to decoct all of the above in simplest terms: be true to yourself and never comply.
Yes, but I will note you are writing under a pseudonym and probably for this very reason. I do think everyone should learn a second language, ideally in a non-Western culture just to free your mind a bit. I'm learning Turkish right now...primarily because I got hooked on Turkish historical television dramas and figured I might as well learn the language while I'm watching 500 episodes of Ertugrul.
In the process, I'm learning a lot about Turkish culture and the amount of pro-Turk/pro-Muslim pride and propaganda in their shows is a stark contrast to the divisive, self-hating media we get here in the US. Based on their unabashed cultural pride alone, I'd put them down as winning the planet in the long run since we're in self-destruct mode.
“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”, why stumble? Offering someone your name is a gift, not a duty.
>> Based on their unabashed cultural pride alone, I'd put them down as winning the planet in the long run since we're in self-destruct mode.
Japan has entered the room.
I used to watch Korean historical dramas on a local PBS station that has since gone defunct. They were amazing but long and intense. I always watched late at night when I was falling asleep. I'd close my eyes and think "I'll just listen" only to realize sadly that I didn't speak Korean and couldn't read the subtitles with my eyes closed. :)
Excellent news. Retaking the language will take many many years of hard and potentially offensive work, but I'm here for it. This is the real battleground, right here.
As an aside to this, I realized today that a willingness to violate politically correct norms is one of the factors I assess to determine someone's credibility. Another helpful indicator is if someone is speaking out in a way that will likely result in harm to their personal or professional life.
Since it can be extremely difficult to determine what vested interests an internet stranger may have, these markers of a willingness to bear social disapproval (and possibly other harms) often means that someone is motivated to speak by something greater than their desire for approval or direct personal profit.
The clever thing to do now is to simply virtue signal. Throw stones, too, when the crowd stones someone. Obviously, that is not the ethical path. Defying the crowd is a potential sign of deeper moral convictions. Any sign that someone is going with the crowd makes their honesty deeply suspect.
I find this important as it is now potentially a matter of daily survival to assess conflicting claims about things like virology and epidemiology in an era when affiliation with officialdom, academia, and corporations serve as an enormous red flag of untrustworthiness.
Well zuf, sounds like you approve of me. Too bad your name is too hard for me to pronounce.