Pages

Friday, October 24, 2014

Slippery Slopes: Good for Emotions, Bad for Logic

From xkcd.com
[Today's guest post by Nate Sheets is the fifth of a series. The next post in the series will arrive sometime next week.]

Slippery slope arguments allow a person to ignore the issue being presented, and to speculate about potential consequences that will arise if their opponents win or are correct. The supposed possibilities posed are meant to emotionally move people to take a stand against their opponent. This is a logical fallacy if the person making the slippery slope comment cannot provide evidence for their theory, or if the slippery slope argument ignores the point the other party is making altogether.

There is hardly a controversial issue in which slippery-slope arguments are not used. "If we allow gay marriage," some may say, "Then soon people will be able to get married to animals!" Or, "If we label GMO foods, then soon they will be banned altogether!" 

Some slippery slope assertions may very well end up being true, but that doesn't matter--when arguing for a position, one must use evidence, not scary speculation, to prove one's point. 

Additionally, wondering whether or not a certain position will lead to other extreme or possible conclusions is absolutely valid. We live in a world where one cause being victorious paves the way for other, semi-related causes to have a go at it. But still, if no evidence is presented, then the slippery slope is being used fallaciously. Not to mention saying, "If we ban all abortions thousands of women will die!" does not address the argument of "Killing a fetus is analogous to killing a newborn". This is an example of using a slippery slope to avoid addressing an argument.  

Below are some examples that I thought of that I have seen in the abortion debate. Do you have any examples of your own?

Pro-Choice Examples
Fallacy Why It's A Fallacy
"Allowing for parental notifications will lead to a complete ban on abortion!"  Parental notification laws and abortion bans are two different things, and serve two different purposes. While there may be legitimate issues with parental notification laws, speculating that enacting one will lead to further degradation of pro-choice laws does not address the argument for parental notification laws.

Pro-Life Examples
Fallacy Why It's A Fallacy
"If we teach teenagers about sex, then they will have more sex and abortion will increase." This is speculation, not an argument against sex education. Even if it were true, would that mean that teenagers do not deserve to have knowledge about sexuality?

293 comments:

1 – 200 of 293   Newer›   Newest»
secularprolife.org said...

Or in Ireland - if we allow life of the mother exceptions, then that will lead to abortions for any reason!!!

secularprolife.org said...

The greatest slippery slope argument is that if abortion is allowed, babies will die. There is no proof that babies have died in abortion or that babies will die in the future from abortion. The fact is that before the legalization of abortion, there were fewer babies each year and after the legalization of abortion there has been an increase in babies nearly every year.
So the "babies will die in abortion" argument is a slippery slope fallacy.

secularprolife.org said...

Prolifers - even the most extreme prolifers, those who claim they're for forcing girls and women through pregnancy and childbirth no matter what - frequently claim to be pro a "life of the mother" exemption.


Yet when actually faced with a real life situation where they should support abortion, where the intention of abortion is clearly to save the girl or the pregnant woman's life, prolifers cannot bring themselves to say (for example) "Yes, I agree: the Galway hospital should have performed an abortion on Savita Halappanavar to save her life on Monday 21st October 2012": or "Yes, I agree: St Joseph's Hospital did the right thing when they performed an abortion on a gravely-ill woman in 2010, and thereby saved her life".


These are specific instances of actual women, one who died because she was in a prolife country where performing an abortion means two years penal servitude, and one who lived because, even though she was in a prolife hospital where they didn't ordinarily perform abortions, they were not prolife enough to just let her die when they knew they could save her life by performing an abortion.


If prolifers genuinely supported a "life of the mother" exemption, prolifers should support St Joseph's Hospital and be against the Galway hospital. But in practice, prolifers argue that Savita Halappanavar would have died anyway, that the woman in the St Joseph's hospital probably would have lived anyway (and if not, it didn't matter) - and yes, I think this is because prolifers think that if they ever admit that they support specific examples of abortion, they will find themselves on a slippery slope and come to admit that yes, girls and women are human and deserve better than to be treated like objects for use til broken.

secularprolife.org said...

Actually, Savita died of sepsis, and abortion does not cure sepsis. http://savitatruth.com/


St. Joseph's hospital deliberately and flagrantly violated the ethical directives they were obligated to abide by, and performed an direct abortion instead of an indirect abortion (the former is never permissible under the ethical directives they agreed to abide by, while the latter is).

secularprolife.org said...

[A]bortion does not cure sepsis.
No, but the abortion Savita was denied could have prevented sepsis from developing in the first place. In other words, yes, inducing abortion right away might well have prevented her death.

secularprolife.org said...

Yet when actually faced with a real life situation where they should
support abortion, where the intention of abortion is clearly to save
the girl or the pregnant woman's life, prolifers cannot bring themselves
to say (for example) "Yes, I agree: the Galway hospital should have
performed an abortion on Savita Halappanavar to save her life on Monday
21st October 2012"


A post on this very blog made the argument that Savita Halappanavar should have received whatever treatment she needed, even if that included abortion (either directly or by delivering a child that couldn't survive):

http://blog.secularprolife.org/2012/11/what-does-savita-halappanavars-death.html

I posted something similar at All Our Lives: http://www.allourlives.org/no-excuse-for-failing-to-treat-savita-halappanavar/

secularprolife.org said...

Russell, I don't know if I've seen this framed the way you are saying. Do you mean pro-lifers are saying, "If abortion is allowed, [unborn] babies will die" or "If abortion is allowed [born] babies will die"?

secularprolife.org said...

Hey there: I'm not seeing what this has to do with slippery slopes. Can you connect it for me?

secularprolife.org said...

JoAnna, Chalkdust has already explained why the prolife denial of abortion to Savita killed her.

Your assertion that St Joseph's Hospital "deliberately and flagrantly violated the ethical directives they were obligated to abide by" by saving the woman's life kind of proves the point that prolifers do not support life-saving abortions, doesn't it?

The woman in question was 13 weeks pregnant and suffering from pre-eclampsia, which would shortly kill her if the pregnancy had not been terminated. There was no possibility that a 13-weeks foetus could have survived outside the uterus, and the woman had specifically requested St Joseph's because she was a Catholic and knew that any non-Catholic hospital would already be recommending termination. She wanted to wait until it was literally the point where she would die if she didn't terminate before she had an abortion.

And the prolife response is, universally, that she should have died.

secularprolife.org said...

Prolife refusal to support life-saving abortions for fear that they might be led into supporting abortion for merely humane reasons of preserving a woman's health and wellbeing.

It's is a slippery slope, evidently: prolifers fear that if they ever agree that it's OK for a woman to have an abortion if she'll die if she doesn't, they might be led into supporting abortion for other reasons.

secularprolife.org said...

Upthread, prolifer JoAnna Wahlund is busily disagreeing with your assertion that prolifers think Savita Halappanavar should have had an abortion. Perhaps you could raise this point with her?

secularprolife.org said...

For example, those who hold that gay marriage is by definition an
oxymoron point out that the arguments used to support such can be used
to support any sexual er..."configuration". Polygamy, bestiality, etc.
The stop gaps proposed to block such a trend are argued to be not
thought out all that well (I would agree with this).


That's because the only people who oppose lifting the ban on same-sex marriage are people who have uncritically swallowed the homophobic arguments against it.

secularprolife.org said...

Uh no. There are a variety of philosophies that preclude a same-sex paring that are quite well reasoned. Ironically, those who label all who think same-sex marriage an impossibility as "bigots" are themselves the bigot.

secularprolife.org said...

"Russell, I don't know if I've seen this framed the way you are saying."

Thanks for asking.

{ Do you mean pro-lifers are saying, "If abortion is allowed, [unborn] babies will die"}

Pro lifers are saying that unborn babies will die if abortion is allowed. That is false. The record shows that there has been an increase in the number of babies that have been born, not a decrease. So abortion has led to an increase in babies. Of course there will be the abortion of 1.4 unwanted fetuses and another 10 wanted fetuses will die from miscarriage. But neither unwanted nor wanted fetuses are babies and it appears that wasted fetuses do not relate to number of births. Births increased with an increase in induced abortion.




{or "If abortion is allowed [born] babies will die"?}

The death of born babies occurs when pro lifers choose to let them die and to save fetuses instead. So pro life ideas lead to an increase in the death of born humans.

secularprolife.org said...

Abortion doesn't cure sepsis, but an abortion in this case might have prevented the development of sepsis, and that's why it's considered proper care in cases like Halappanavar's. The site you linked to says as much, in point #3 under "Check the facts":

"Medical guidelines currently in place clearly state that intervention,
including termination of pregnancy, may be proper in exceptional cases
like Dr. Savita's."

secularprolife.org said...

None are well reasoned.

secularprolife.org said...

I agree. I have never seen ANY well-reasoned arguments against SSM. The arguments I've seen revolve around "think of the children" - as if marriage was only about children. If so, why do old couples marry? And also, infertile couples. Female infertility near 10% according to CDC, putting infertile couples near 20% if male and female infertiles married in statistically independent ways, which I doubt, but we're probably looking at 15% couple infertility. So this group is a minority even bigger than gays, yet they're still allowed to marry.

Other arguments - 1 man and 1 woman is traditional. Well, there are many cultures around the world where to this day this is not the dominant pairing. And in the bible, polygamy existed as well as rapists getting to marry their rapee after paying dad the 50 sheckles.



And of course, the slippery slope arguments. SSM = marrying your donkey. Well, it could happen. Then again, marriage laws have always been pretty fluid, and the form of marriage has changed over the years, so this argument MAY have some validity, but as long as the pairing is between consenting adults, I don't see the problem.

secularprolife.org said...

"Allowing for parental notifications will lead to a complete ban on abortion!"

SAID NO PRO CHOICE PERSON EVER.

secularprolife.org said...

Is there such thing as a blog post that can not be improved by a xkcd comic? As far as I know, the answer is no.

secularprolife.org said...

Well said. Thank you.

secularprolife.org said...

The only 'reasoned' argument that I have seen is by pro-life philosopher Robert P George, and it's a naturalistic fallacy.


Basically, he argues that yes, infertile couples and old people can still have sex, and still be married, but this is not *wrong*, because penises were made, by nature, to go into vaginas. However, two vaginas were not made to go together, and two dicks weren't made to go together, so you know, it's intrinsically wrong and therefore gay marriage must not be allowed.

secularprolife.org said...

The rebuttal to that is, I'm hung like a magnificent stallion, and I don't fit into *most* vaginas. Therefore, I obviously was not made for most women. Therefore horse-hung men should not be married.

secularprolife.org said...

>The arguments I've seen revolve around "think of the children" - as if marriage was only about children.

From the state's perspective they primarily are. Otherwise the state has very little interest in who is pairing with who. But when children are created as a natural bond between a man and a woman. And children do have a right to a mother and a father.

>And also, infertile couples.

Difference in kind. Infertile couples have "broken" reproduction, not functionally impossible as same-sex pairing. Apples and oranges comparison.

> Well, there are many cultures around the world where to this day this is not the dominant pairing.

What is then? Besides polygamy is usually one man and one woman, then the same man and another woman. The man is married to multiple women. The women have no real relationship to one another.

>but as long as the pairing is between consenting adults, I don't see the problem.

Two problems:

One: Why is consent the gold standard?

Two: I might agree with this until children are involved/demanded. The children are either created using IVF or through adoption. In neither case their consent is addressed.

>But they won't be able to protest them if SSM becomes legal, so SSM violates their religious liberties.

Strawman. What is happening is that religious are getting beaten over the head with so-called anti-discrimination laws where they are forced to participate in SSM actions via providing services or face fines. A lot of people who wouldn't otherwise get involved are now forced to take the anit-SSM marriage side out of self-defense.

secularprolife.org said...

If you are going to misrepresent arguments there is no point in taking.

secularprolife.org said...

No. "Natural Law" is the study of final causes. It is most certainly not about "biology".

secularprolife.org said...

>> And children do have a right to a mother and a father.


OK, then divorce takes away that right. Should divorce then be a crime?



Also, do you believe SS couples cannot parent well? Someone else believed that they can, but that despite parenting skills, a child would be injured because the parents are not of opposite sexes. (I didn't say biological, because I presume you don't find anything wrong with heterosexual adoption). I think that is an arguable point, but from the informal sociological data that I can gather from my daily experiences seeing SS parent families, the children don't seem to be injured in any way.



>> IVF
IVF is not specific to Same-sex couples. Are you opposed to IVF for infertile couples as well?





>> beaten over the head with anti-discrimination laws
OK. The cake bakers in question have been open to baking cakes for celebrations that are also counter to their Christian beliefs, yet they didn't have a problem with those. If they also declined to do a divorce party, I'd be inclined to feel for them a bit more, but they didn't. Which makes me question their real motives.



Also, what if my religion believed that albinos are a cursed people who deserved death, and that's why their colored weird, so out in the wild they stand out and get eaten. Aiding them would prolong their presence on earth, and would anger the gods. Should I also be allowed to refuse entry of albinos into my business establishment?


Also, should public officials also be able to decline to "participate" in SSM, if it goes against their religions?

secularprolife.org said...

A lot of their arguments are about "male female compatibility". Sounds awfully lot like biological destiny to me. I honestly don't see how night porter is misrepresenting arguments. She is explaining her interpretation of what she read. In the end, not being a religious sort, none of the anti-SSM arguments sound convincing, and honestly sound like bitter, desperate tantrums. I, as a hetero father, know quite a few SS couples, some married, some not. Some good people, some not so nice people, but I don't find them that different from me, and I've never felt exposing my child to SS families+children is harmful in any way. I think you're entitled to your opinion and objections, but you are not entitled to encroach on the SS families' rights to a happy and fulfilling life. I've known a more than my share of LGBT folk in my life, and I just think its awesome for them to finally have a shot at being recognized as full members of American society, and I share in their joy of watching prejudiced people thrash around in anger, unable to do anything about it.

secularprolife.org said...

>Sounds awfully lot like biological destiny to me.


Well they aren't. And if night porter (and yourself) aren't willing to explore Natural Law and what it actually is then there is no point in discussing it. Caricatures of Natural Law are all over the place. And those who find value in Natural Law are dismayed that so many jump to this fallacious conclusion. Especially since people don't even bother to find out what what it is they are criticizing.

secularprolife.org said...

>OK, then divorce takes away that right. Should divorce then be a crime?

Yes save for the case when a divorce is necessary to protect spouses from physical harm.

>Also, do you believe SS couples cannot parent well?

It has little to do with "parenting" and everything to do with the right of a child to a father and a mother. The sexes are not "interchangable".

>IVF is not specific to Same-sex couples. Are you opposed to IVF for infertile couples as well?

Yes. Children should not be bought and sold on the market. We do not have a right to create children as we see fit.

>The cake bakers in question have been open to baking cakes for celebrations that are also counter to their Christian beliefs,

Source? It wouldn't matter anyway, since that puts us in the position of getting to decide who is sincere in their beliefs and who is not. That is judgmental in the extreme.

This could easily be rectified by abolishing these laws.

>Should I also be allowed to refuse entry of albinos into my business establishment?

Yes. Your business, your right to refuse service.

>Also, should public officials also be able to decline to "participate" in SSM, if it goes against their religions?



No. They should resign. But the same goes for that AG in California who refused to defend Prop 8 as was her duty. If you can't faithfully

secularprolife.org said...

>The cake bakers in question

>> Source?

I included a link to an article where people called the cake bakers in question for various un-Christian ceremonies, and were given quotes.

http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-20698-the_cake_wars.html


Two cake makers in question, Sweet Cakes and Fleur. To be fair, Fleur was not open to do SOME of the cakes, but not all.


Well, reading the rest of your post, you stated that IVF means buying and selling babies (huh?), and that "sexes of parents not interchangeable". Well, there does not seem to be a lot of sociological data to support this postulate. And you also believe that one should be able to refuse albinos entry into my establishment if my religion looks at them with disfavor. Hey, at least you're honest. Am I to also be wrong in inferring you think Asian Americans could be barred from a store if it was against the proprietors religious views?


As for the public official resigning, I agree with your view, and concede that the AG should have also resigned.

secularprolife.org said...

There are a variety of philosophies that preclude a same-sex paring that are quite well reasoned.

Sure! But they are all homophobic.

Not all the people who have uncritically swallowed those arguments are homophobes, obviously: but all of the arguments are homophobic, no matter how "well-reasoned" they are.

Ironically, it's a pretty good bigot-detector: people who claim that "those who label all who think same-sex marriage an impossibility as "bigots are the real bigots" - are invariably homophobic bigots.

secularprolife.org said...

>Well, reading the rest of your post, you stated that IVF means buying and selling babies (huh?)

IVF is an artificial means by which children are created. Money is exchanged by the parents to the doctor. A child is brought into the world via a purchased means. The child is "produced" as it were. This is a huge ethical minefield, as illustrated by the story of the woman who sued for "wrongful birth" after the semen from a different donor was used.

Let's look at the cake examples:

>Baby Out of Wedlock

The celebration is for the birth of the baby, not how it was conceived.

>Divorce Party

Protestant Christians accept divorce.

>Stem-Cell Success

No mention of embryonic stem cells, which is the objection.

>Non-Kosher Barbecue

No idea why this might be an issue.

>Pagan Solstice Party

The cake is for the party, not the religion.

Really this is just petty and ill informed.

>Well, there does not seem to be a lot of sociological data to support this postulate.

Not true. Time and again stuides, down to how the brain functions of men and women are different come out all the time, confirming what people knew for eons before science decided it knew everything.

>Am I to also be wrong in inferring you think Asian Americans could be barred from a store if it was against the proprietors religious views?



Sure. And my wife is Korean. I'd never go to such a hell-hole but I'm not about to force them to do business with my wife. I wouldn't WANT to do business with someone who was forced to.

secularprolife.org said...

IVF is an artificial means by which children are created. Money is
exchanged by the parents to the doctor. A child is brought into the
world via a purchased means. The child is "produced" as it were.


Scratch a prolifer, find someone who hates women who want to have children. Prolifers only care about force.

secularprolife.org said...

>Scratch a prolifer, find someone who hates women


Bigot.

secularprolife.org said...

Aw, that's sweet. You launch an abusive attack on all women who chose (or had) to have children by IVF. You defend banning same-sex couples from marriage. And when challenged, you instantly resort to the "you're another" game. How old are you dear - six?

secularprolife.org said...

Well, "parental notification laws" do lead to a number of hugely unpleasant consequences for teenagers who need an abortion and who know their parents won't support them. Sometimes, those hugely unpleasant consequences include teenagers being forced through pregnancy and childbirth against their will, to bear a child they already knew they could not support. Obviously, this is a bad social consequence.

But yes, parental notification laws are directly aimed at creating state interference in the relationship between parent and child, and have nothing to do with adults who need abortions.

secularprolife.org said...

No you mis-characterize my position and throw all pro-lifers under the bus. This is bigotry.


Much like the kind of peace-protesters who are some of the most violent people I've ever met I've found those who champion "choice" and "freedom" to be the most close-minded people to come across. Sad.

secularprolife.org said...

No you mis-characterize my position

In what way? Are you a supporter of lifting the ban on same-sex marriage?

I've found those who champion "choice" and "freedom" to be the most close-minded people to come across.

No, dearie, you haven't. You've found those who champion "choice" and "freedom" to be the least susceptible to your homophobic, misogynistic, pro-force ideology - and therefore, you call them "close-minded".

secularprolife.org said...

>You've found those who champion "choice" and "freedom" to be the least susceptible to your homophobic, misogynistic, pro-force ideology - and therefore, you call them "close-minded".


What exactly do you expect to happen here? What exactly do you expect my reaction to be?


Imagine if person A posted something and someone came in and shouted "You moron! You're a hateful, lying, manipulative, idiot!!11!!"


How would a normal person react?


1.Oh my, your invective and insults have completely changed my outlook.


2.**** you.


The only thing I've gathered on here is that you want to vent your spleen. This is the last time I'm responding since you seem incapable of following a point.

secularprolife.org said...

>> barbecue
lobster and pulled-pork sandwiches
Shellfish, sea crustaceans and pork are unclean, or something in the bible, no?


>> divorce
Well, I was under the impression that Sweet Cakes store owners are Catholic. Its against THEIR religion isn't it?



>> stem cell
as far as I know, stem cells used in research currently are all embryonic. I'm not up on all of it, but iPS cells and stuff which they get by inducing pluripotency in adult cells is still very new, and I doubt that the cake people are up on the difference.


>> baby out of wedlock
Isn't premarital sex a big no-no for Christians nonetheless?




It seems like you're making excuses and trying hard to justify your position. Sorry, it is kind of fun to watch : )


Well, you're in an interracial relationship, that MUST prove you're not racist. A lot of people are racist towards a particular race too, you know. So I don't think how that factoid proves anything, but...


Its good that we know where you stand.

secularprolife.org said...

And he also says its OK to refuse service to an albino or a race you, oh I'm sorry, your religion doesn't care for. Hey, at least he's a straight shooter. I salute his candor.

secularprolife.org said...

>lobster and pulled-pork sandwichesShellfish, sea crustaceans and pork are unclean, or something in the bible, no?


For Jews, sure. Not sure what that has to do with anything.


>Well, I was under the impression that Sweet Cakes store owners are Catholic. Its against THEIR religion isn't it?


Who knows? There is Catholic and then there are "Catholics", those who hold to some teachings and discard others. Besides the article doesn't say.


>as far as I know, stem cells used in research currently are all embryonic


Well no the banner of stem cells has a number of meanings in popular parlance. There is a variety of adult stem cell research out there.


>and I doubt that the cake people are up on the difference.


That's your assumption. Besides, the blurb in the story doesn't distinguish. so the cake makers have no basis for making the distinction.


>Isn't premarital sex a big no-no for Christians nonetheless?


Sure. But we don't punish the child for the sins of the parents. The cake is for the celebration of the child's birthday. There is nothing wrong about celebrating that.


>It seems like you're making excuses and trying hard


And I'm getting the impression that you have no idea that nuance exists in religious life.


>Well, you're in an interracial relationship, that MUST prove you're not racist.


It was a personal detail to highlight the fact that you chose "Asian-America" as the class of racism for . My best man is Asian-American (ish, it's an interesting story).


My point was that despite the racism of the hypothetical store owners and my distaste for such racism I would not force them to do business with others.

secularprolife.org said...

>> stem cells
a lot of research on adult stem cells, but iPS is big. Those are induced, so I don't know why you'd want to clone them when you can just make some more. Cloning to me seems to imply natural stem cells, and the big hub-bub in mainstream society is embryonic stem cells.



>> I chose Asian-American because I am an Asian-American, and African-American is used way too often in these hypotheticals.


I appreciate your candor in this discussion. So if you felt that its OK to bar anyone you or your religion doesn't like, and you said you'd not patronize a store that was racist, would you also not patronize a store that won't cater to a SSM?

secularprolife.org said...

Well, IVF is used by many infertile couples who genuinely wish to conceive. Your dismissal of IVF as buying and selling children would seem that you're attacking ALL couples who choose to conceive in this way.

secularprolife.org said...

> lot of research on adult stem

cells, but iPS is big

Sure, but without more details the story gives

>So if you felt that its OK to bar anyone you or your religion doesn't like

I don't think it is OK. I said I don't support forcing those who own businesses to do business with those they don't want to.

> would you also not patronize a store that won't cater to a SSM?

I wouldn't patronize a store who wouldn't cater to those with SSA. But it would depend on what the reason was regarding the same-sex marriage.Despite EdinburghEye's hateful spite there is a difference between distinguishing the act and the person.

secularprolife.org said...

That it is wrong doesn't mean I don't sympathize with infertile couples. But I would encourage them to adopt.

secularprolife.org said...

OK, I'm getting a bit more about why you hold your views, and I can respect it. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know what the ultimate ramifications of these views are. I just would rather not live in a world where I need to care about the intricacies of John the Butcher's religious views are and whether or not I might be accommodated in a commercial transaction, and I also think that allowing people to act on what LOOKS like animus (whether it is religiously motivated or not) could potentially send a message that it is OK to exclude certain individuals. If only John the Butcher does it, it may not be a big deal, but if Mike the Mechanic also notices this, and also decides to bar albinos from his business, then what? Or what if someone VERY influential in town decides to bar albinos? Could not people who want to be on this person's good side also choose to bar albinos? This is the dynamic of playground bullying, and I think it is potentially very dangerous. That is why I do not support business owners to arbitrarily appeal to religious freedom and bar certain groups of people.

secularprolife.org said...

>I just would rather not live in a world where I need to care about the intricacies of John the Butcher's religious views are and whether or not I might be accommodated in a commercial transaction

This treats John like a vending machine and not a person. Reducing people to what they can do for "ME" does not respect others. It dehumanizes them.

>and I also think that allowing people to act on what LOOKS like animus (whether it is religiously motivated or not)

But this puts us in the position of judging others. I'm uncomfortable with punishing someone simply because I think it MIGHT be motivated by something less than principled.

>ut if Mike the Mechanic also notices this, and also decides to bar albinos from his business, then what?

Find another mechanic?

>Or what if someone VERY influential in town decides to bar albinos? Could not people who want to be on this person's good side also choose to bar albinos?



Abuse of a principle does not disprove the principle. Any principle can be used in an improper manner. But the solution is not reject the principle but to clean up the abuse. All of your positions are motivated by fear and distrust. Most citizens (including religious) simply want to live their lives peacefully in the public and private square.

secularprolife.org said...

I agree there is a difference between abuse of a principle and the principle itself. However, in the real world where people don't behave rationally, and kids or employees will sometimes choose to gang up on another kid or employee, such fears are not unfounded.



And in commerce, you ARE a vending machine. It is a purely financial transaction. Why would I need to know what the beliefs or the "lifestyles" of whom I'm doing business with? As long as you're not going to rob me, as long as money exchanges hands, that should be fine. In a sense dehumanize the vendor and dehumanize the buyer. That way no one gets hurt.

secularprolife.org said...

>And in commerce, you ARE a vending machine. It is a purely financial transaction.

No that isn't true. A person's moral views and obligations don't end at the footstep of the shop. This is why warning labels exist.

>Why would I need to know what the beliefs or the "lifestyles" of whom I'm doing business with?

If they aren't flaunting it in your face I'd agree. But by doing business with another party you are enabling that party and providing material cooperation.

>As long as you're not going to rob me, as long as money exchanges hands, that should be fine.

So if a gun shop owner gets a customer who clearly states he's gonna shoot up a school that's cool right?

> In a sense dehumanize the vendor and dehumanize the buyer. That way no one gets hurt.



Quite the opposite. Dehumanizing people by nature is harmful, because we treat them as something they are not.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm sorry, but when I do business with someone I really just want to do business and then be on my way. I am the customer, after all. And while I have no desire to be rude, I don't need to hear about their religious beliefs and I don't particularly care to share mine. In my opinion that's getting way too personal.

secularprolife.org said...

So if a gun shop owner gets a customer who clearly states he's gonna shoot up a school that's cool right?


The best thing to do in that situation would be to make some excuse to go in the back and then call the police.

secularprolife.org said...

Of course it is, since catholics love to use the argument that women MUST give birth, because natural law dictates that women were made to have babies, cuz 'god'

secularprolife.org said...

>>So if a gun shop owner gets a customer who clearly states he's gonna shoot up a school that's cool right?


Huh? Not doing business with someone who's going to do something illegal with your goods is not remotely the same as someone not doing business with you because you happen to be an albino, an Asian American or LGBT.

secularprolife.org said...

There are certain situations where you can refuse to do business--if the customer is disruptive or abusive, or doing something illegal. When I was in college I worked at Pizza Hut and had to tell a woman who was belligerent and drunk that we would not be serving her any more beer. She didn't take kindly to that and luckily the police were on hand to deal with the matter. But that's different than arbitrarily refusing to serve someone because of their sexual preference, race or appearance.

secularprolife.org said...

I address any misconception this point caused in my reply above.

secularprolife.org said...

>Huh? Not doing business with someone who's going to do something illegal with your goods is not remotely the same

It fit your criteria though:

Purple Slurpy: As long as you're not going to rob me, as long as money exchanges hands, that should be fine.



My point is that knowing what the customer is going to do with your product can (and often should) influence your decision to do business with them. Knowing what your client is going to do with material you provide them makes you culpable in the act, both morally and in some cases legally.

secularprolife.org said...

*sigh* Whatever. Apparently you have no interest in what people actually believe. Any handy strawman will do....

secularprolife.org said...

The problem is for something as intimate as a wedding it IS personal. You might think that you are simply doing business and that's that. But that is your belief. Others hold that in all walks of life (business, family) we are culpable for our actions, and that includes what we provide through business.

secularprolife.org said...

Only if they are intending to do something illegal.

secularprolife.org said...

Indeed. The question is does that difference equate to punishing people for having bad thoughts and refusing service. I say no.

secularprolife.org said...

>Only if they are intending to do something illegal.


Morality encompasses far more that is in little law books.

secularprolife.org said...

Here here! Morality is found in a little religious book condoning slavery and buying the girl you raped for 50 sheckles from her dad.

secularprolife.org said...

*sigh* So much for rational discussion.

secularprolife.org said...

Is that not what the bible says?

secularprolife.org said...

13 year olds self abort with a pencil in my state.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/02/951697/-13-year-old-self-aborts-using-pencil

secularprolife.org said...

Wrong. The state takes absolutely zero interest in whether a couple who wish to marry can have children together.

secularprolife.org said...

 I said I don't support forcing those who own businesses to do business with those they don't want to.

...rolling back the US to the era when it was totally legal to turn black people away from lunch counters.

Scratch a prolifer, find a racist bigot.

secularprolife.org said...

Hi Nate,


Good blog post. I don't think you will get much discussion about formal logic from the pro-abortion people who frequent this site. I think they are here merely to try to derail discussions.

secularprolife.org said...

A compelling argument.

secularprolife.org said...

But calling people "bigots" is supposed to shut down discussion of a topic! Unfortunately, that leads to little explanation of the kinds of philosophies you are talking about.


I am not familiar with those. For my own edification, I would appreciate it if you would offer an example or two of those philosophies when you have a chance. Thanks!

secularprolife.org said...

Further evidence that the pro-abortion people are just here to disrupt discussion and are not participating here in good faith.

secularprolife.org said...

You're referring to Natural Law as the term is used and discussed in philosophy. What's so hard to understand about that?

secularprolife.org said...

Glad to see you're opposed to IVF.

secularprolife.org said...

They routinely demand "tolerance" as long as it is *there* very limited definition of tolerance du jour.

secularprolife.org said...

Denying service to the homosexual couple would be based on their intended use of your product and service. That is different from refusing to serve someone simply because they are homosexual. In the former situation, you are protecting your religious and moral rights. In the latter, you would be denying the person service because of an (allegedly inborn and immutable) attribute of that person.

secularprolife.org said...

It's annoying, but sadly, not surprising.

secularprolife.org said...

Incapable of following a point and here for the sole purpose of disruption.

secularprolife.org said...

Which sounds like an argument against the use of toilet paper to me.

secularprolife.org said...

There is no 'Unborn Baby' any more than there is an 'Unborn Senior Citizen'.

secularprolife.org said...

So much for EE's "tolerance." What a scam!

secularprolife.org said...

Indeed, and far more than what is in various religions.

secularprolife.org said...

Correlation does not equal causation.

secularprolife.org said...

You have rights, too.

secularprolife.org said...

IVF seems really bad and immoral.

http://www.wired.com/2014/10/egg-freezing-risks/

secularprolife.org said...

http://www.wired.com/2014/10/egg-freezing-risks/

secularprolife.org said...

Actually, from what I've read, parental consent laws are likely to increase teenage abortions. Apparently, parents typically favor abortion over their teen carrying pregnancy 4 to 1; the most significant repercussions pregnant teens feel at home is parents pushing them to abort; and 30% of teens who abort cite parental influence in their decision to abort. Not sure if its a great slippery slope argument then...for the pro life side, anyway. (I'd copy the URL but my phone is causing problems. These are stats as interpreted by Third Way).

secularprolife.org said...

Colin, you entered this discussion posing the argument that "those who hold that gay marriage is by definition an
oxymoron point out that the arguments used to support such can be used
to support any sexual er..."configuration". Polygamy, bestiality, etc.
The stop gaps proposed to block such a trend are argued to be not
thought out all that well (I would agree with this).
"

I raised an eyebrow and noted, politely enough, that all of the arguments against lifting the ban on same-sex marriage are homophobic. I didn't call you a homophobe, but you reacted by calling me a bigot. How did you expect me to react to that, Colin?



You went on to argue in another comment that everyone who uses IVF is "buying children".


I expect, to do you justice, that you had no notion there would be anyone reading your nasty comment who either had or was close to someone who had used IVF. Because I expect that when you usually come out with offensive abuse of women who use IVF, you have an exclusively prolife audience who know that if any among them have used IVF, they need to keep quiet about it for fear of further abuse.



Now, it seems to me, Colin, that if you're going to dish out abuse - whether at gay couples, or at people who defend the principle of equality and human rights for all, or at women who use IVF to get pregnant - you should expect to get it back. Fair?


Instead, you appear to feel that while you get join a discussion online posting offensive abuse, any response to your abuse that isn't polite and respectful is horrifyingly unexpected.


So I ask you as you asked me: What exactly do you expect to happen here? What exactly do you expect my reaction to be?


When you abuse, Colin, expect an angry response. When you're offensive, expect people to be angry with you for offending them.

secularprolife.org said...

Adoption should be encouraged in general, we have too many people on this planet and don't need more. But that doesn't make IVF inherently wrong, and infertile couples don't need your cheap sympathy. You have a problem with IVF because you think that baby has been bought. Well, I then you should have problems with medical intervention that saves your life, extends it or cures a disease, as you're not getting that treatment for free, and you would have died without it. So anyone receiving medical treatment has in essence bought their life and health. Ergo its immoral.

secularprolife.org said...

If you cannot see the logic in EdinburghEye's post, please tell me precisely where she becomes 'illogical.'
In fact you are not very well educated and you do not read well for content.
But your disability does not prevent from wanting to be in charge of the sexual life of women you will never know.
You are a rapist with an argument. And a poor one at that.

secularprolife.org said...

... and they are so mean to me. Whaaaaaa...

secularprolife.org said...

Colin, I would like to learn more about the philosophies to which you are referring, as well as the Natural Law points you wish to make. I want to learn more and will be respectful--and probably sympathetic--to the points you make. Thanks.

secularprolife.org said...

Can I ask how you define homophobic?

secularprolife.org said...

Purple, you wrote: **Your dismissal of IVF as buying and selling children would seem that you're attacking ALL couples who choose to conceive in this way.**


Purple, you're actually handing them the argument by tacitly agreeing to their point that the 'buying and selling of children as (gasp) commodities is inherently and automatically evil.

secularprolife.org said...

So, I'm still waiting for all the pro-lifers who want the law to treat precious widdle zefs as 'real people for sure', but claim this won't involve police investigation of tampons - unless there is reason to be 'suspicious' because only 'suspicious deaths are investigated', to show me links to exactly which born human people, upon dying, it would be legal to simply throw their body into the trash, and not report it to the police or have a death certificate with 'cause of death' filled out.

secularprolife.org said...

Also, a fellow poster suggested to me that if unborn humans are ever granted personhood rights, they could potentially be charged with involuntary manslaughter should they kill the pregnant person.

secularprolife.org said...

Adoption is nothing if not a big business, treating children as commodities.

http://www.reuters.com/investigates/adoption/#article/part1

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/profit-not-care-the-ugly-side-of-overseas-adoptions-2293198.html

secularprolife.org said...

Lots of very valid points. I am not totally certain exactly where I stand on the SSM issue yet. What has become somewhat clear to me, however, is that though marriage may start out from romance and love, its purpose (at least as a social good) is not to make people happy and give companionship. As a social good, I think marriage exists as a structure in which to raise children in the stability of their biological parents. Insofar as infertility is concerned, that does not invalidate the marriage of infertile couples; infertile couples have broken reproductive systems but not impossible ones. Regarding adoption, in a perfect world adopted children would not be adopted but would live with healthy biological parents (I have found this one at times hard, as I have a child that we adopted and want to think she's best off with us). A heterosexual couple best reflects the biological parents from which an adopted child comes.

The elderly seeking marriage, well, that so far is a good sway for marriage as purposed for companionship.

I do not have anything against IVF for infertile couples but I do for same sex couples, becauseit inherently deprives of a child of being with one biological parent. Some couples include the other birth parent in their family unit to compensate for this, but ultimately I do think such children are created with a "disability" they needn't have. I do believe same sex couples can be wonderful parents, but in my opinion it is better to adopt children rather than create them without giving them both biological parents. But that's not necessarily related to SSM.

I guess ultimately, I believe happiness is a byproduct of a healthy marriage rather than its purpose, and where I think marriage is the best biological relationship for rearing children, I am not sure SSM fits the definition.

I do not think this is homophobic reasoning. The viscious treatment of people for their sexual orientation is abhorrent and unacceptable. But I do not see determining marriage as one man and one woman as hateful when I don't see gay relationships as unequal or bad, just as different.

secularprolife.org said...

Hi aa


Just a few more points


7) The arguments against SSM are getting worse and worse.



http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/08/27/listen_to_judge_richard_posner_destroy_arguments_against_gay_marriage.html


There just isn't a good one, yet they try and try. What could possibly drive such strident effort? Considering the things anti-SSM leaders say and do, and their grassroots, I can't help but think its animus.

secularprolife.org said...

I couldn't listen to the radio sections, but the comments I read did not address my points. A person may answer or speak poorly but that doesn't necessarily make his conclusions incorrect. The speaker on your site clearly has not thought effectively about the issue and has poor reasoning skills. Again, not significant in determining a true conclusion.

I guess the biggest question is, what is the overall purpose of marriage, and why should the state be interested in it? It is defining this purpose more effectively that will determine my own opinion.

secularprolife.org said...

Hi aa

Thank you for the careful reply.

So you do see the idea of marriage as companionship as at least valid for elderly couples. As for infertile ones, true, many couples do not know there is infertility until after marriage. However, many do, and are OK with it going into it. Whether its broken or aged reproductive system, the fact remains many couples DO enter into a marriage purely for companionship and a stable life, and they know it going into the marriage that is all its for. Just from that criteria, shouldn't LGBT also be accorded that? Also, many anti-SSM leaders are actively opposed to same-sex Civil Unions. Its not a "marriage" but confers many of the privileges. Why would they be against that if not for animus?



IVF for gay couples. It might be inherently removing one of the biological parents, but I don't know if that's all that bad. Do you think that makes them immoral for doing so? If so, then parents who put a child up for adoption are also immoral by the same token. Also, not all gay couples go the IVF route to make children. They will do it the old fashioned way with lesbians and gay men. Is that unacceptable?


I agree that not all arguments against SSM are driven purely by animus. In the same way that pro-life and pro-choice also both span a wide array of opinions. However, like the MAINSTREAM pro-life movement, which I find IS quite misogynistic, genuinely homophobic, and very religiously dogmatic, I am of the opinion the MAINSTREAM anti-SSM movement IS homophobic and a large driver of the movement is animus. Why else would so many of the leaders spread misinformation and try to demonize gay people, irrespective of the marriage issue? Why do some of its leaders mock campaigns like "It gets better", of out gay and straight adults offering encouragement and hope to gay youth who may be bullied or physically assaulted? Why do so many of them try to trivialize ACTUAL bullying in schoolyards against LGBT kids?



Hawaii held a session for which the public could voice their opinions on SB1, the bill legalizing SSM. Listen to youtube videos of anti-SSM folks. Some are calm, but some you could feel the hate against LGBT, and not just them marrying.

secularprolife.org said...

I think the one that's really telling is "you have no idea who's being harmed?" This seems to be a common theme in all these court cases recently. Anti-SSM cannot come up with a good reason ever. This is why now the focus is on religious liberty. The ones who are being harmed are the objectors to SSM who are not allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples. That just says that criticism against SSM have now failed.

secularprolife.org said...

And finally, this has always stuck in my mind. If there is some policy X
which hurts some group of people G, and there is historical and
on-going persecution of that group G, there are going to obviously be
people who will support policy X out of pure animus, right? Doesn't it
at the very least make you somewhat of an a-hole to support policy X, by
trying really hard to find justifications other than animus, some of
them rather trivial and not terribly consequential? I mean how could
someone say "gay people make good parents. but it infringes on the
rights of the children to have a mom and a dad", especially when said
children of gay parents are NOT the ones claiming their rights are being
violated? Doesn't that just seem like inventing a reason to justify
being anti-SSM?

secularprolife.org said...

You could look it up in any modern dictionary, you know: I just did to be able to cite you an exact quote: "Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people."

secularprolife.org said...

I definitely agree with you in parts. I don't think this is about religious liberty. I think discrimination is rampant. I'm frustrated that you call me an a-hole bent on animus when you do not know me. I have discussed this with friends and family members who are gay and who would disagree with your insult. I can understand much of the reasoning for the SSM movement, and my friends also understand my questions. You, it seems, do not. What is the purpose of marriage? Without an insult, please?

secularprolife.org said...

If you google new York times and David blankenthorn's article "how my view on gay marriage changed", it is a good descriptor of the particular views I am friendships by. On the one hand, I do see marriage as a social good primarily about it's unique ability to offer children both biological parents. Society's prevailing view of marriage is one of " love and romance" which is one reason I think so many marriages end in divorce. I think a lot of anti SSM people are driven not by this view of marriage but by hatred or distaste for gay relationships, and this motivation I find not only wrong but sad and disgusting. I can understand the anger driven at the anti SSM side far more than anger driven at pro SSM. But that still does not get at the flaws with our understanding of marriage.

In light of that, BTW, I am in favor of far more intensive means of keeping marriages together, with the exception of physical and emotional safety. I do think divorce is harmful to children, society, and the individual.

secularprolife.org said...

OK, Annie is anotheranonymous?

I'm not calling you an a-hole. It seems that you are agreeing w/ Mr. Blankenthorn that anti-gay animus does have a prominent role in the anti-SSM movement, and you agree that at least gay couples can parent well enough. My contention is given all this, if you know being anti-SSM is unfair and can hurt the LGBT community, but are still trying very hard to find justifications for not allowing them to marry by asking rather cerebral and theoretical or abstract questions, doesn't that make you at least a bit of an a-hole? If you know that gay people also desire stability in life, a companion, hospital visitation rights etc., all practical benefits of marriage, yet you are going to nit pick and be philosophical, it makes it seem you are trying VERY VERY hard to find ways of excluding them. I didn't state you're an a-hole, I'm asking if you realize what you are doing putting their relationships to undue scrutiny, doesn't that make you seem petty, picky and at least slightly an a-hole?

secularprolife.org said...

Hi Annie

I'm not calling you an a-hole bent on animus. Please read a bit more carefully. I'm saying if its not animus, yet you are trying so hard to find justification to deny SSM, doesn't that possibly qualify you to be slightly an a-hole when all previous justifications have been shown to be weak?

What is purpose of marriage? In modern USA, I think it is an institution set up so that adults tend to form stable families. It is not purely procreative, but their is a strong procreative element. However, 10~15% of hetero couples are infertile, and elderly can marry. So I think currently marriage is an institution that allows 2 people to share their economic resources in order that they are more likely to prosper and be productive in society. With this idea, I don't see any reason to exclude LGBT. In fact, they sometimes adopt and sometimes have their own biological children. Even if adoption to LGBT is made illegal, they still are not infertile, and will likely continue making children. Recognizing these people in marriages also has the added benefits of putting those children in stable families.

secularprolife.org said...

I am also in favor of less divorces, but I think having children in a family where husband and wife are constantly arguing and bickering, even if no physical violence, also harms them. Divorce has ill-effects, but being in a loveless or cold home also has ill-effects. It seems like you need to stop people from marrying the wrong people.



Also, raising children in a world where there is arbitrary animus towards any group of people I think is harmful. We need to get past imaginary barriers between us. I'm afraid religion does a great job of building and maintaining such barriers.

secularprolife.org said...

Thank you, points taken and I appreciate your thoughts. Sorry about the name change; I found aa as cumbersome because my automatic spell checker kept changing it.

I do not necessarily view the basis for anti SSM as not picking. I once was ambivalent toward it (quite in favor, actually) unt reading about the purpose of marriage and considering what might be the best interest of the state. In no way am I against civil unions to same sex couples. It frustrates me that anti SSM often is. Yet then, I guess, why civil unions and not all the way to marriage? Since I don't know anything really about civil unions, I'd have to read up.

I don't know if I'd say same sex couples who use ivf are immoral, but that it is not in the best interests of the child. Not the same as placing a child for adoption because, as I lean pro life, I think adoption is one solution to an already living person and may be better for the child than being raised by parent(s)/either ill prepared or not desiring of the child. I do think all people who are emotionally stable (larger criterion, obviously) should be encourage to adopt.

secularprolife.org said...

Oh, I so agree here. Seems marriage licenses should have some test or training, like driver's licences! I did know of one very interesting situation with a friend of mine who wanted to marry a particular person. They went through quite rigorous marriage counseling (and individual) counseling with a pastor who, at the end, told them she was not comfortable marrying them; he felt that, as they were, they were too immature yet and their issues far too great. They married under a JP shortly thereafter and ended up with a very messy divorce. Fortunately before kids. I did quite respect the pastor for his decision not to participate in their marriage.

secularprolife.org said...

That's why I asked. As I contemplate this issue, I have neither dislike of nor prejudice against homosexual people. I have questions about the purpose of marriage. An entirely different thing than antihomophibia. My friends and family who are gay respect that.

secularprolife.org said...

Having trouble with my keyboard. Sorry for typos. Can't figure out edit on this phone.

secularprolife.org said...

Also, I don't think such questions are theoretical or abstract. The question of the purpose of marriage should be one intensely thought out by every couple. Ma y people marry because of romantic and unrealistic notions about the marriage relationship and in considering its purpose, I began considering how our culture, includingincluding SSM perceived or practiced marriage.the And since the christian evangelical marriage and divorce statistics mirror the culture, I don't really think mainstream evangelicalism should be so loud in its dissent.

secularprolife.org said...

Permit me to run through this for you, as I have heard it several times before.


"The purpose of marriage is to create a relationship in which the children of the marriage will be protected and cared for."


I put this in quote-marks not because it's a direct quote but because it is roughly what I have heard from many other people who claim they oppose same-sex marriage only because same-sex couples "can't have children" and marriage is about children.



But there are multiple problems with claiming this opposition to lifting the ban on same-sex marriage "isn't homophobic".


One: It is inconsistently applied. It would seem to be an argument that that only interfertile couples should be permitted marriage: that is, that no man with a vasectomy, no woman past the menopause or with a tubal ligation, should be permitted marriage. If this is not a homophobic argument, those who advocate it should be advocating for a ban on marriage for any mixed-sex couple who "can't have children". But, they don't: hence, homophobia.



Two: If the purpose of marriage is to provide a suitable and safe environment for children, then why is it that the people who advocate for marriage for this purpose are advocating that the children of same-sex couples shouldn't be permitted this environment? (Same-sex couples do have children - by adoption/fostering, by fertility treatments, by previous relationships, just as mixed-sex couples do.) What is the purpose of denying this "suitable and safe environment" to the children of same-sex couples, if not homophobia?


Three: If the argument is simply that you believe that the biological mother/genetic father are the best possible parents for their child and therefore the only couple entitled to the benefits of marriage, this runs into two logical problems:


3a: If married parents are a good thing for children, why is it you seek to deny this to children who are being parented in a way you regard as inferior (adoption, fostering, stepparent, fertility treatment)? Shouldn't all children be entitled to married parents, not just those you regard as having been produced/parented in the best possible way?


3b: If you intend to argue that children just need a woman to be their mother and a man to be their father regardless of biological ties, this is not borne out by any research or data, academic or empirical. And again, see 3a.


All of these arguments about the "purpose of marriage" all tend back to the same line of thinking: the belief that same-sex couples, and their children, are somehow inferior and not entitled to the same benefits and obligations of marriage as mixed-sex couples are. And that is a homophobic argument.


And if you routinely make homophobic arguments, you don't have any gay friends; you have acquaintances who are polite to you, but who know you're no friend.

secularprolife.org said...

I guess ultimately, I believe happiness is a byproduct of a healthy
marriage rather than its purpose, and where I think marriage is the best
biological relationship for rearing children, I am not sure SSM fits
the definition.


Then I guess you could ask yourself:

Supposing that you and your wife had no biological children - your adopted child was your only child.

Logically, assuming your argument is not homophobic, that means you and your female partner wouldn't need to be married to rear her, as she isn't your biological child and so can't - you seem to be claiming - benefit from having married parents.

Is this what you think? That mixed-sex adoptive parents who can't have children biologically theirs, should be banned from marrying just like you think same-sex adoptive parents should be?

secularprolife.org said...

People still kill newborns. Doesn't make infanticide right.

secularprolife.org said...

Great point.

I'm still posting at LAN. The antis there are delusional. There's a bunch attacking lady black. They keep talking smack about being so "moral and righteous" and its total crap. I don't know where I've whitnesses so much hostility and meanness other than at LAN.

secularprolife.org said...

P.s. Did you get banned from LAN?

secularprolife.org said...

When did Plum say killing newborns is okay?

secularprolife.org said...

Ages ago, Fiona Jennifer and I were all banned by Calvin. We did not break the TOS.

secularprolife.org said...

Calvin is very insecure. And the other posters are just fucking dumb. It's sad that they don't realize how stupid they sound.

secularprolife.org said...

You skeeve me.

secularprolife.org said...

Thank you. Such a creepy drunk. Ewwwwww.

secularprolife.org said...

I am banned too. Calvin will never have the balls to come here and play with us again. We beat his butt.

secularprolife.org said...

Marriage is a contractual container for treasure and progeny supported by the state. Homosexuals have treasure and progeny just like all other citizens and should be able to marry because marriage is a civil right.

secularprolife.org said...

Marriage is a contractual container for treasure and progeny supported by the state. Homosexuals have treasure and progeny just like all other citizens and should be able to marry because marriage is a civil right.

Edit

Reply

secularprolife.org said...

Those who oppose abortion/contraception make infanticide inevitable.

secularprolife.org said...

If you support killing an unborn child, you might as well support killing a newborn, as the main result is the same - a human being is denied a chance at a full and productive life. The excuses used by some women for abortion are the same they would use to kill a newborn (e.g. 'cannot afford a child'). What if the baby was born alive at 23 weeks in the abortionist office? She didn't receive a service she paid for and she still cannot afford the baby (even more so since it will require medical care). Can she kill because she 'cannot afford a child'? So you feel sorry for the woman and want it to be her 'choice'?

secularprolife.org said...

Your post is full of so many scientific inaccuracies and drama queen BS that I hardly know where to start in my response.

So I will reproduce part of a blog article I wrote that speaks to some of this vomitage you are producing.

My Mother had an abortion because of financial hardship when it was illegal. She and my Dad decided three of us was all they could handle. We were 14, 12 and 10. My Mom could have died. I know a past President of NJ NOW whose Mother died of illegal abortion when she was 9 years old.

Mom was 37, working full time and doing IBEW work. Dad was intermittently crippled with a congenital form of arthritis. Another pregnancy would have been a serious social, financial and physical disruption for her and for our family. Most women who get an abortion already have children.

It is despicable to compel folks to give birth to children they cannot afford and/or do not want BY LAW. It is Nazi stuff.

If you are one of the "prolife" activists, I have questions for you.

My body and its contents belongs to (pick one):

1. You.
2. the State.
3. Me and my family.

My children belong with and to:

1. You.
2. the State.
3. Me and my family.

I look forward to your answers. I will tell you something right now. You Republican ghouls will not turn me and my daughters into baby farmed corpses like poor Mrs. Munoz. We vote.

ILLEGAL ABORTION and CHILDBIRTH (sepsis and hemorrhage) are the leading causes of maternal death worldwide. Fertility is serious business for women. Abortion/contraception is a human right.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah, that is the difference between a religious marriage and a civil marriage. I don't think JPs have the time or authority to judge couples like that. A pastor probably has known the couple for a while, but a JP does not have that knowledge. It is bureaucratic business, and they are not couple's counselors.

secularprolife.org said...

>> I do not necessarily view the basis for anti SSM as not picking.
>> purpose of marriage

Hi aa. Maybe "nit picking" is not the right word. What I wanted to say is that when people think about "what is marriage", I think they are approaching this issue in a way that is too rigid. Obviously, "marriage" has meant different things to different people and cultures. Some cultures practice polygamy, and sometimes 1 woman + many men, even today. Aristocrats in Europe married to form familial alliances, even exchanging vows across the sea. Today, a young woman or man can marry a rich person on their deathbeds. In Asian countries, marriage is also often about taking care of elderly parents.

To try to think of marriage from such an abstract starting point kind of misses the reality that marriage IS practiced by people for all sorts of reasons, and the government in the US doesn't really care about the exact reason people get married. In the sciences, concepts in physics, like "energy", "force", "momentum" have EXACT definitions because they are elementary concepts. In economics, concepts like "labor", "money" etc. I would venture to guess, are not so well defined, because they are concepts that have arisen in society, and are not elementary concepts in the way say "energy" in physics is. They are more "working concepts", and as such not so rigidly defined.

In the same way, I think "marriage" is a working concept, and cannot be so rigidly or precisely defined. Trying to define "marriage" to me always inevitably leads to a definition that is very narrow, and reflects the prejudices of the person doing the defining. Marriage is not some fundamental property of nature, and trying to characterize it as such always ends up in a definition that suits the person who is defining it.

secularprolife.org said...

The purpose of marriage should be thought out by every couple, but inevitably the answer is going to be varied. Marriage is not a precisely defined thing like "mass", "energy", "angular momentum" are. It is a societal construct, and various cultures have different expectations for a marriage, and in the modern western world, each couple has their own reasons to get married. The government recognizes this, and doesn't require a married couple to have children, or that even the couple be capable of having children (ie. young man marrying rich old widow). It doesn't make sense to try to think of marriage in terms of a rigid definition. Such definitions inevitably are too restricted, and do not reflect the actual marriages happening in society.

secularprolife.org said...

Also, when you say "heterosexual marriage raising own children is the best environment", that sounds like common sense, probably born out by stories of divorced couples or out-of-wedlock children. However, that can't readily be extended uncritically to gay couples who have children, or other types of families. "Common sense" is actually not very useful in confronted with new situations. Louis Pasteur defied common sense and was thought to be insane to inject dead pathogens into healthy subjects - and thereby invented the principle of vaccination that has gone on to erradicate diseases that killed millions. Human society is an ongoing experiment. New things, telephones, TV, internet are constantly popping up that had completely unexpected consequences. We adapt and refine laws and societal understanding. Same thing for SSM. It is new, but that doesn't mean it is bad.

secularprolife.org said...

If you don't support mandatory blood, tissue and organ donation, you support denying dying children a chance at a full and productive life.

Is a 5 yo with leukemia less valuable than an embryo?

secularprolife.org said...

I need no argument for abortion beyond I AM and I WILL.

secularprolife.org said...

Please read this: http://www.l4l.org/library/fetalrts.html

secularprolife.org said...

HAHAHAHA. You were banned for threats and other assholish behavior. Repeating lies over and over doesn't make them true.

secularprolife.org said...

oh yeah, you're making a great case for why your banning was entirely justified. Please, keep it up.

secularprolife.org said...

Pot, meet kettle!

secularprolife.org said...

There is a whole conversation about that between Calvin Freakburger here - a place where he cannot censor me - and I kicked his tinkerbelle butt. It was a thing of beauty. And I LOVED IT.
You can find it I assure you, because obviously you care. Ho hum.

secularprolife.org said...

No she got banned because Calvin is an overbearing misogynistic control freak that wants to punish women with forced gestation for having sex. He's a lying judgmental hypocrite.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm correct.

secularprolife.org said...

Wow you're so clever.

secularprolife.org said...

Calvin is definitely insecure.

secularprolife.org said...

Women aren't required to report their miscarriages to a physician, and physicians do not fill out death certificates for them. And there's no way to enforce any such regulations.

secularprolife.org said...

I just ignore that. LIke PJ telling me I'm not a nurse. The state of PA disagrees, so who cares what she thinks.

secularprolife.org said...

That's so sad. How desperate must she have felt to resort to that?

secularprolife.org said...

See, the thing is, no pro-choice person said the killing of newborns should be permissible. EVER. (Please note, this is not a condemnation of perinatal hospice or withholding of medical care from a hopelessly preterm and/or ill newborn. These are end of life issues no different than end of life issues at any age.) An unwanted newborn can be handed off to others. See adoption and safe haven laws, and bear in mind the rationale for safe haven laws. They keep unwanted infants out of dumpsters. One cannot hand off an unwanted pregnancy to another. The woman is limited to only two options. Lose the pregnancy or continue it. So let's not compare pregnancy to caring for a newborn. They are nothing alike.

secularprolife.org said...

You might want to check with out, http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/10/27/lawsuit-gay-inmates-placed-solitary-confinement-subject-discrimination/. A lot of regulars are upset with the new mod.

secularprolife.org said...

I've been there. I agree with all the comments, and I agree I don't want the posts of anti-choicers deleted either. Too often I wonder what they said. Unless they violate TOS they should stay.

secularprolife.org said...

Um, NO. Marriage in the USA is limited to TWO consenting adult persons, outside the bounds of consanguinity. That means 1) two parties, 2) both human, 3) both of age, and 4) not close relatives. Personally, I have no animus toward "big love" but the burden is upon the proponents to figure out how that works out legally, with respect to legal next-of-kin with all attendant rights and responsibilities, tax law, divorce and estate laws. Our legal system is equipped only to deal with a marriage between two people, not multiples. And since family law is gender neutral, there's no reason to restrict marriage according to gender. Beasts, children, automobiles and other property specifically lack capacity to consent to any contract, including marriage. That's not even remotely on the radar, and no, the same arguments cannot justify expanding marriage to beasts, kids or property. That's where the whole "consent" thing trips up those notions.

secularprolife.org said...

No, they are not themselves the bigot. I have yet to hear an objection to marriage equality that doesn't boil down to 1) procreation, 2) because "god" says so, or 3) discomfort about what strangers do with their genitals. None of those are "well-reasoned." If you've heard a new argument, I'd love to hear it.

secularprolife.org said...

There is no such thing as "Natural Law." Nature is brutal and lawless. Humans possess the intelligence to bend nature to our advantage.

secularprolife.org said...

Maybe I can help you out here. The "purpose of marriage" is whatever the two people in the marital relationship deem it to be, regardless of whether or not it meets with your approval. Legally speaking, it's a contract to bind two consenting adult humans as next-of-kin, thereby forming a new family unit with all the attendant rights and responsibilities. Anything else is mere window dressing, as varied as the individual couples themselves.

secularprolife.org said...

My son and his wife are both infertile, and paired together, they are their own special brand of infertile. The likelihood that they will ever have biological children is slim to none. None of that matters. All by themselves, they are a family because they are married. If they never adopt, and stick to parenting rescue dogs and cats, and my daughter-in-law's beloved tortoises, they will still be a family. They will still be next-of-kin to one another, and that's true with or without children. As an empty-nester, I now revel in my child-free (by choice) marriage that was entered into strictly for companionship, by mutual agreement. I find your comments offensive. Offensive to myself, to adoptive parents, to adoptees, to GLBT couples, and to their natural and adopted children. The nature of children makes child-centered marriage unwise. That is, they grow up and leave home and form their own families. You better have some purpose in your life other than children, and you had better be making your relationship with your spouse the priority all along, or you won't HAVE any marriage after the children leave. As they inevitably will..

secularprolife.org said...

My husband and I married knowing there would be no children born of this marriage. So it's true that some know in advance, and agree in advance to a child-free marriage. And there isn't anything wrong with that. Others become aware of fertility problems in one or both only when they attempt to have children and can't. And that's OK too. The husband and wife are an individual family with or without children. Marriage has never been about children.

secularprolife.org said...

Let's just start with the premise that children do NOT have any "right" to be raised in a marriage between their biological parents. They have a right to be loved and nurtured by someone.

secularprolife.org said...

You seek to define the relationships of strangers to fit inside some box of your own construction, and to define "what is best" for the children of strangers. STOP DOING THAT! I can't be any more plain than that. You are entitled to define the purpose of *your* marriage, and you are entitled to define "what is best" for *your* children. That's it. Children don't know bigotry. They only know love, and it makes little difference who provides it. A single straight or gay parent, or married straight or gay parents. Personally, I believe being married makes the job of raising kids easier, whether straight or gay. But you can't hustle people into marriage. They have to want to be married, or it won't work.

secularprolife.org said...

Which is another reason why no pro-lifer ever actually wants a zef or embryo ever actually treated in the same way a 'real person' would be, regardless of their babble to the contrary. The very fact that no 'real person' after birth has a right to your body in and of itself is proof that they do not want the zef treated like a 'real person'. They want it treated like some sort of special angel, with all the 'rights' born human beings have, plus several special priveleges that NO born human being has, and NONE of the responsibilities that a born human being has. And they completely refuse to discuss why any human being, anywhere, should have 'rights' when cattle should not, because doing so would blow their equivocation game (in which they attempt to squeak the zef through as a 'human') wide open.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, and regarding the equivocation game, as you have rightly pointed out, every argument of theirs rests on the assumption that every zygote WILL develop into a baby someday.


And no, but 'a zygote will be a baby in 9 months' won't cut it. Is a zygote a baby right this minute, regardless of whether or not it develops? Is a petri dish full of zygotes a crowd of people?


The fact that they have to talk about what it WILL develop into is just proof that they don't even think that embryos are people.

secularprolife.org said...

This is a whole lot of preaching with no facts, and no relation to how the world actually works. "Depriving" my son of his biological father is the biggest favor I ever did for him, and I did it early enough to spare him a lot of the pain he would have had to endure. Some people do not deserve children, period. Just because they can manage to breed doesn't make them suitable.

secularprolife.org said...

A child *doesn't* have any right to a mother and a father. That is something you pulled out of your behind. A child has a right to love and nurture. And making divorce a crime? Don't even THINK about it.

secularprolife.org said...

That's your opinion only. Think IVF is "immoral?" Don't partake of it.

secularprolife.org said...

And you were banned because you were correct.

secularprolife.org said...

I am beside myself with rage over it. I am going to do something about it. I am just not sure what to do yet.

secularprolife.org said...

There are stories like that everywhere, and that's sad. It would have been much better if those kids were never born.

secularprolife.org said...

Exactly!!

And I have heard stories of women living in the slums in the USA, who keep having babies, then leaving those children to be molested by the current bf.

There is more to being pro life than simply giving birth - it is protecting and nurturing that life after birth. Anti abortionists say that pro choice = pro death, yet most of the pro choice women that I know have children, and have worked hard to give those kids a good life, yet they are told by antis that they are heartless baby killers who live to torture children.

Seriously. Where is the nuance?

secularprolife.org said...

It pains me to imagine what they went through. They died in the summer, in a sweltering, dark apartment that was muffled with duct tape on the doors. They died amid trash, diapers and feces, with the older sister appearing to comfort her brother in their final moments. It would've been much much better to have never been born.

secularprolife.org said...

And ROFLMAO @ "Why is consent the gold standard?

secularprolife.org said...

""Difference in kind. Infertile couples have "brokDifference in kind. Infertile couples have "broken" reproduction, not functionally impossible as same-sex pairing. Apples and oranges comparisen" reproduction, not functionally impossible as same-sex pairing. Apples and oranges comparison""


Which is Robert P George's "biology = destiny" argument, and it is wholly fallacious.

secularprolife.org said...

The wrongful birth suit concerning the negligence of the sperm bank has absolutely NOTHING to do with IVF, and it's a solid breach of contract suit against the sperm bank's negligence in not providing the couple with the donor they selected.

secularprolife.org said...

Sorry Jethro, but "whites only" hospitals and lunch counters went out of fashion a long time ago. Are you Catholic, Italian, Irish, Japanese, Chinese or Jewish? It was once acceptable to ban any of those groups from service, from employment, from housing, or from holding public office as well. We're supposed to be better than that.

secularprolife.org said...

Okay this is wierd but I was banned and LAN and now can post there again. I just responded to PJ4. I'm confused.

secularprolife.org said...

John is not a machine. But he is vending. I don't particularly care what his religious beliefs are. I just want to buy a roast for dinner. He wants to sell roasts. The particulars of who the customer is, what color they are, or what religious beliefs (or lack thereof) they possess is none of John's business. They have cash. All cash is green, genderless and irreligious. That's the only thing that matters in commercial transactions.

secularprolife.org said...

Horse hockey. There is no difference between a wedding cake and any other cake. Just bake the damn cake. You are only a vendor, not an invited guest or the officiant. There is NOTHING "intimate" about a cake.

secularprolife.org said...

NO. Here's how a commercial transaction works. A merchant offers a product/service (offer). A customer wants the product/service (acceptance). The two agree on the price of a product/service and what the terms of sale will be (meeting of the minds). The customer gives consideration of value (usually cash) in return for the product/service (consideration). The merchant delivers the product/service (performance). That's ALL that's involved. Both parties have an absolute right to refuse to enter any contract for ILLEGAL purposes, so that takes care of your gun vendor argument.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah. You don't HAVE a "point." If you are selling cakes, it's pretty safe to assume what people are going to do with the cake is eat it. And if they're buying it for some other purpose, that's none of your business. You've been paid.

secularprolife.org said...

Nobody put you in charge of morality.

secularprolife.org said...

That is none of your business. Reproductive choices are between spouses, and you have no place at the table.

secularprolife.org said...

How has she mischaracterized your argument? You haven't offered any "reasoned arguments" that aren't fallacies. Pointing that out to you isn't an act of bullying.

secularprolife.org said...

If you're citing "natural law" like "paws come with claws, that's nature's law" as a rationale not to amputate the terminal end of your cat's phalanges, I can partially agree with that. If you're citing "natural law" in respect to marriage, which is not found in nature at all, then I must disagree. Humans invented marriage as a basis for society, and there is room there for ALL of society, or there is room for none. Anything else is nothing more noble than common bigotry.

secularprolife.org said...

And that is one of the silliest pieces of writing I have ever seen. Do you know what menstrual extraction is?

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah, you're not a nurse but she's an 'embryologist.'

secularprolife.org said...

LOL. Sure she is.

secularprolife.org said...

You know, it's entirely possible, probable even, that many straight couples who request a christian vendor's services have indulged in premarital sex or are currently cohabiting outside of marriage. Or one or both parties are divorced and remarrying. Or plan on having an 'open' marriage.

Traditionally speaking, all of these things are big no-no's, most especially the premarital sex. Shouldn't someone who refuses to cater for gay couples on the principle that it's immoral and sinful also refuse to do so for others who are currently behaving 'immorally' and doing nothing to hide it? If I were choosing to serve people based on my christian beliefs, there are many more things I'd like to know about their sin status than if they're same-sex. To be philosophically consistent, I'd have to.

secularprolife.org said...

That dude on the left looks like Heisenberg.

secularprolife.org said...

Ty.

secularprolife.org said...

Actually, there are a lot of pro-choice people who have supported infanticide. Michael Tooley, for one. Pretty easy to find a number of abortion doctors (in a very simple and quick google search) who don't have a problem with infanticide. It may be that MOST pro-choice people don't support infanticide, but it is certainly an untrue generalization that not one said it is permissible EVER.

secularprolife.org said...

I think we agree on a number of points. Being married does make raising kids easier, I think. No one should be hustled into marriage or forced to stay in marriage (though I think there should be more required of the couple before divorce can proceed).

The problem comes when we all define our own "what is best for my children." A lot of abusive parents feel love for their children. And sometimes aside from episodes of abuse, may show great love to their children. May even see their "disciplinary tactics" as showing love.

The state does play a role in defining what is best for the children "of strangers." The state has determined levels of neglect and physical, emotional, and sexual abuse as NOT best for anyone's children. If we all lived entirely our own way by our own definition in EVERY area of our life, and no one could ever speak critically into our decisions or evaluate those decisions as harmful (to ourselves or others) we would have chaos.

I do think that the decision to legalize SSM is one that should not in ANY way be taken lightly. Primarily because, as far as I can tell, there is very little accurate and thorough research on the impact of children born into SSM relationships (or whose previously heterosexual parent(s) entered into a same-sex relationship). Part of the reason I have not yet determined where I stand on the issue is because I don't think enough research has been done to adequately demonstrate that children of same-sex relationships are as advantaged (can't think of a better word) as children of heterosexual parents.

A few things I do know:

Our (adopted) daughter deserves to know her biological roots and to have relationships (that are healthy and have good boundaries) with her birth parents. Children who are created in SSM relationships should have the right to know BOTH biological parents insofar as it is possible.

My friend whose children were created by herself through a sperm donor have gone through varying stages of angst and frustration knowing they have not had the ability to meet the man who biologically fathered them.

My role as a woman and my husband's role as a man in the lives of our children are unique because of our sex. I do believe that children thrive under the different kinds of attention from their fathers and mothers. Single parent situations (whether by choice, divorce, or death) are disadvantaged in this way, as are children in SSM famiilies. THIS IS NOT TO SAY that such a disadvantage is life or emotionally-threatening. But it is to say that such a disadvantage exists.

If, as Purple Slurpee said, my child(ren) grew up to desire a same sex relationship, I would be supportive and loving in their choices. if they chose to adopt a child, I would love that child as my own grandchild. If they created one biologically, I would also love that child. But in both cases, I would be concerned with the absence of a parent of the opposite sex in their lives. This does not mean I view SS relationships as inferior. It means I recognize the unique abilities of fathers and mothers in the lives of their children.

secularprolife.org said...

100% wrong there there are PC's who do believe that it is ok to humanely euthanize non person humans as they just don't have the same moral value as persons.

& if it isn't a person they see no reason why they should be obligated to pass them on.

secularprolife.org said...

This is a very good point. I think (I'd have to read everything over again) that it's the one point that has continued to lead me to think SSM should be legalized.

However, there is still something that troubles me. Our daughter has tremendously benefited from her father-daughter relationship with my husband, and her mother-daughter relationship with me. As she had primarily neglectful and ambivalent relationships with the women in her life prior to our adoption of her, and an absence of men in her life prior to her (now) dad, both my husband and I play significant roles in her growth and development of healthy relationships with both sexes.



In that way, I do believe (emotionally and relationally healthy) heterosexual couples are better for a child (adopted or otherwise) than an emotionally and relationally healthy SS couple. Just as I believe it is far better for children to have same-sex parents than no parents at all.

secularprolife.org said...

Can I ask where you determine what is an isn't a right? Because calling it "not" a right seems also something that you "pulled out of your behind."

secularprolife.org said...

Huge generalization. It makes you seem unreasonable. I know a very few prolifers who hate women (many of them ARE women) and are concerned with the force inflicted on the fetus.

I'd agree with Colin on this one. Yours was a bigotted statement.

secularprolife.org said...

You do a great job of erasing the woman, and seem not to give a crap about the force inflicted on her through forced gestation and birth.

secularprolife.org said...

I agree. But she had the choice to abort and did not, so it seems a moot point. What would have been better would have been if someone had intervened way before this had happened. It seems that the system was unable to reach either the woman or her children.

secularprolife.org said...

You know what upsets me the most. My Sister poisoned herself to abort. I helped her. I remember what desperate teens we were. This girl is younger than we were and just as or more desperate 45 years after the passage of Roe v Wade.

secularprolife.org said...

It seems sad to me that you think someone can't have friends with whom they disagree (vehemently). Such discussions allow people to think more critically and assess their points of view. Yes, I do have gay friends, one of whom is quite close to me. And she would not say that my arguments are homophobic, even as she disagrees. In fact, we have quite thoroughly enjoyed such heated discussions. I'm sorry if you cannot have frank and honest discussions with people respectfully and compassionately to the point that they do not destroy your friendship.

secularprolife.org said...

Your sisters life, just like this 13 yo girl, doesn't matter compared to the life of an embryo. Remember, lifers really love women, but they are concerned about the "force" that is inflicted on an innocent embryo.

secularprolife.org said...

The thing is, 'rights' exist for specific reasons. They don't simply descend on a golden light from heaven, for no reason, or because of sad feelies. There is no good reason for something to have 'rights' simply because it has human DNA, unless you can show that human DNA, and ONLY human DNA (not the human person that will eventually develop from the DNA) somehow behaves in some fashion differently than other DNA that justifies giving rights to human DNA.


Nor are rights retroactive to points in the past prior to the existence of the reason for granting them. Rights that exist because of a brain are not retroactive in the past to clumps of cells simply because they will 'have a brain in 9 short months'. Claiming that is like claiming that because I have rights over my furniture, originating from my having paid for it, I can then go into a furniture store and set the furniture there on fire 'because I'm going to buy it in 9 short months'. Sorry, rights over furniture originating because I have paid for it are not retroactive to points in the past before I have paid for it.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 293   Newer› Newest»