Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 14,610
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Aw, you're making me blush...taking something that isn't and then forcing it to be, is the most reprehensibly vile, evil, immoral, disgusting thing that any human being is physically or existentially capable of doing.I don't mean to snip too much, but I feel this is ultimately the driving force of Learner's position. When I read it, it actually sounds quite depressing, amoral, and vacuous. The person has a right to "exist". While certainly no harm is meant in the statement, it does seem to imply an utter disregard for people in general. After all, what does it mean to "exist"? It just means to be alive. In a single statement, it appears to show just hollow the 'pro-life' movement is.He has the right to exist anyway.
Here we have the word exist, given the context impression of an object of 'little or no significant value', like presenting with a mindset view that "large rocks, and umbrellas exist". The expression "what does it mean to exist?", followed by, "It just means to be alive", seems to imply the contrary to his post quoted above, in which it suggests instead, that it is Mr. Higgins who's actually disregarding people in general. So I guess I'd wonder, what does Mr. Higgins think it means 'to be alive'?
Btw, pro-lifers, who would be a broad range of individuals, around the world who are not necessarily part of the particular movement organization described by posters.
Where the entire goal is simply existence. It helps explain why the situation regarding women that are pregnant and post-pregnancy don't have much or really any (?) support from the pro-life movement. Because it is merely about "existing". Once the baby exists, they don't give a damn.
The line "The entire goal is simply existence" sounds so,so devaluatingly wrong. Existence i.e.,context to be alive, should obviously be regarded for both the mother and the child; emphasizing that it's their well being combined that is to be the main goal. AND of course, if it should come to politics, and political descisions where a state decides to make abortion illegal. The state should in turn with the same clout, and duty make the provisons and funds to support those mothers and child.
"Once a baby exists, they don't give a damn" is not a good thing, I can agree with Mr. Higgins, if it is the case. I may not accept wholly his statistics, at the moment, perhaps it's better on a case by case basis, rather than take in what could be broad generization, if there is some community support somewhere that does actually happen. But... here and also the quote below. We see what looks like an expression, a thinking loud, an undelining hint of the inconvenience of giving birth, although be it, under the circumstances mentioned, where there's been a lack of support.
Actually, that isn't true. If that baby grows up and is gay, they'll care enough to keep it from getting married. They'll march against their rights. They'll bark out against LGBT, like they did against blacks in America. Sure, they have the "right to exist", but that is their only right!
the foundational premise of your entire position is predicated on an abomination.
Seriously though, my entire job is doing this. Gnostically.
I take things that only exist in my head and I write them down such that afterwards, a thing that isn't becomes a thing that is.
Usually these are just trivial software bits for a machine that looks for magnetically potentiated changes in resistance, but occasionally I swing a whole universe with things capable of suffering, pain, madness, joy, and death into existence.
As I keep saying, one of the arguments I've been working on for discussing faith, and it's had some pretty deep impacts so far, is the discussion on "it's not us that needs forgiving, it's God, if ever a thing exists".