Infanticide

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Infanticide

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

reasonvemotion wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 10:37 am vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
I've known many people who've had abortions, as has everyone, and not one single one of them expressed any kind of remorse or regret (why would they?) afterwards.
Have you had an abortion?

There are women who find it difficult to handle emotions of grief or guilt after an abortion, however there are some exceptions as you have rightly pointed out. For instance, narcissists have difficulty perceiving others as people, lacking empathy or feeling attachment, so it makes sense these women wouldn't display the same neuronal pathways as those who do.
None of your fucking business. Why aren't you asking NA if he's had one? If I said 'yes' then you would say I lack 'empathy' for unwanted cell clusters. If I said 'no' then you would say I 'couldn't understand the extreme emotional trauma' of losing an unwanted cell cluster. You might as well claim that women 'suffer grief' when they take the morning after pill. Or that people grieve when they have a cancer removed, or every time they have a period. The people who have empathy are those who are pro safe abortion. If you feel you are going to suffer unbearable grief after flushing a clump of cells then don't have a fucking abortion.
It's kristian fuckwits like NA who are the narcissists and sociopaths. He's the one who relishes the idea of women dying horribly at the hands of backstreet abortionists. He's the one saying women should be forced to have unwanted babies they can't provide for. The only reason he's anti choice is because his religion tells him to be. That's not emotion. His religion also tells him to be a misogynistic piece of shit. Not forgetting wokies like sculptor who don't give a rat's turd about anything but 'image'--there's no real empathy or emotion there.
Religion turns people into sociopaths. Not only does NA feel he has the right to poke his kristian snout into women's reproductive organs, he also thinks he can poke his snout into their minds as well.
Even IF 'some' women might feel a bit sad after an abortion (hormones can do that until they get back to normal), what does that have to do with needing one in the first place? The alternatives are going to make them a lot sadder, for a lot longer.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Infanticide

Post by RCSaunders »

Nick_A wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 6:35 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 6:13 pm
Nick_A wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 5:05 pm

This is a very tough question and will understand if you avoid it but how do you decide who lives or dies in wars, executions and abortions? You can say you will let the government decide through its laws and pass the buck. There are other ways if one dares to be open to them.
It's not a tough question for me. I never decide anything for anyone else. No government is, "my government," and I regard all governments as inevitable evils. They will never be eliminated (as anarchists think they can be) or made benevolent (as every other social/political ideal supposes they can be). All war is wrong (and would be impossible without governments) and there is no right way to do the wrong thing. All so called retributive justice (evil for evil) is also wrong. Nothing has ever been made better by intentionally inflicting suffering on anyone, which is nothing more than vengeance or vindictiveness put over as justice.

There is a great deal wrong with societies and the world, but nothing is going to fix it, and everything human beings do attempting to solve what they call social problems only ever makes things worse. My only business in life is to be the best human being i can be, totally harmless to others, seeking no relationship with others that is not totally voluntary and benevolent to all participants.
You are passing the buck.

What buck? Who signed me up to die in anyone else's war. There has never been a war fought for any good reason and no one is born with any unearned obligation to throw their own life away for the sake of some politician's or ideologist's war.
Nick_A wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 5:05 pm Wars are a necessary cyclical consequence and some die yet you prefer to avoid it and let others die. Executions are a part of laws protecting society. You would never be the hangman. You can't have an abortion by convenience so cannot be concerned with the developing life within so just pass the buck.
Wars are not necessary but are inevitable as long as there are governments. If the only way you can protect society is by killing people, the world would be better off without societies. Executions have been going on for a very long time, and there is more crime today than ever in history. When is the execution thing going to work?
Nick_A wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 5:05 pm This has become the norm for society as a whole but is there another way?
Of course there is another way, but I doubt you or most others are interested, because it is difficult, and risky, and means being totally responsible for one's own life and not depending on some society or government to make life easy or what you'd like it to be.

If everyone were like me, there would be no crime and no war, but most people would hate being like me, and I have no interest in convincing anyone else to be anything other than what they choose to be.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Nick_A »

RC
Wars are not necessary but are inevitable as long as there are governments. If the only way you can protect society is by killing people, the world would be better off without societies. Executions have been going on for a very long time, and there is more crime today than ever in history. When is the execution thing going to work?
You do not respect those who seek to preserve life as in wars for example. Like it or not some people are capable of and honor those willing to defend the weaker.

Simone Weil was once a young pacifist but finally learned by experience. She wrote:
“If Mr. Gandhi can protect his sister from rape through non-violent means, then I will be a pacifist.” Simone Weil
She's got a point
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Infanticide

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Wars preserve life? This cretin is fucking insane.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Infanticide

Post by RCSaunders »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 12:03 am Wars preserve life? This cretin is fucking insane.
Yeah, but, he has the right feelings, dontcha know. So long as you're dripping with empathy and compassion, it doesn't matter that you are totally worthless to yourself or anyone else and think killing people and destroying property is something noble.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Nick_A »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 12:03 am Wars preserve life? This cretin is fucking insane.
Quite true. Wars consist of attack and defense. The efforts of those defending the weaker save lives. Otherwise the weaker are destroyed

As an advocate of abortion You do not understand those defending the weaker. You lust for and support the kill. Abortion depends on the belief that might makes right as it does in abortion. Might makes right determine who lives and dies with wars, executions, and abortions. Yet some are capable of feeling deeper then might makes right and have the conscious religious feeling of respect for life. But they seem to be in a slowly lessening minority..
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Infanticide

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Nick_A wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 2:58 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 12:03 am Wars preserve life? This cretin is fucking insane.
Quite true. Wars consist of attack and defense. The efforts of those defending the weaker save lives. Otherwise the weaker are destroyed

As an advocate of abortion You do not understand those defending the weaker. You lust for and support the kill. Abortion depends on the belief that might makes right as it does in abortion. Might makes right determine who lives and dies with wars, executions, and abortions. Yet some are capable of feeling deeper then might makes right and have the conscious religious feeling of respect for life. But they seem to be in a slowly lessening minority..
You are insane. Nothing more to be said regarding you and your excrement.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Walker »

Nick_A wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 10:33 pm RC
Wars are not necessary but are inevitable as long as there are governments. If the only way you can protect society is by killing people, the world would be better off without societies. Executions have been going on for a very long time, and there is more crime today than ever in history. When is the execution thing going to work?
You do not respect those who seek to preserve life as in wars for example. Like it or not some people are capable of and honor those willing to defend the weaker.

Simone Weil was once a young pacifist but finally learned by experience. She wrote:
“If Mr. Gandhi can protect his sister from rape through non-violent means, then I will be a pacifist.” Simone Weil
She's got a point
As far as it goes. Simone needs to go deeper.

A pacifist appeases. Gandhi did not appease. In fact, Gandhi was an immoveable object, which made him an irresistible force.

There’s no reason to think he would be otherwise, regarding his sister’s welfare.

My guess is, he probably would have more foresight than to put her into such circumstances that could ripen into rape.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Nick_A »

Walker wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 8:08 am
Nick_A wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 10:33 pm RC
Wars are not necessary but are inevitable as long as there are governments. If the only way you can protect society is by killing people, the world would be better off without societies. Executions have been going on for a very long time, and there is more crime today than ever in history. When is the execution thing going to work?
You do not respect those who seek to preserve life as in wars for example. Like it or not some people are capable of and honor those willing to defend the weaker.

Simone Weil was once a young pacifist but finally learned by experience. She wrote:
“If Mr. Gandhi can protect his sister from rape through non-violent means, then I will be a pacifist.” Simone Weil
She's got a point
As far as it goes. Simone needs to go deeper.

A pacifist appeases. Gandhi did not appease. In fact, Gandhi was an immoveable object, which made him an irresistible force.

There’s no reason to think he would be otherwise, regarding his sister’s welfare.

My guess is, he probably would have more foresight than to put her into such circumstances that could ripen into rape.
How does an immoveable object defend one from rape? Defense requires action. I don't see why you would object.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Walker »

The question is, how can you sweep aside and ignore the very real example of Gandhi, in favour of asserting the imaginings of a woman who could never ever be in the position of a man, like immovable object Gandhi, defending his sister from rape.

I've already mentioned that foresight is one method which answers your question.
Men who have faced down death know.

Here’s a dramatization of another method. Not his sister, but aggressive conditions …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQaYTYZc-3A
"I think Christ grasped that, and I have seen it work."
- from the link


*

If you start putting conditions on the rape scenario, then you must also consider upon the outcome, as an element of the imagined situation, the presence of one who has conquered fear. Predictions of outcome simply can’t sweep that element into the black-hole of ignorance, as Simone did, and expect to have an accurate understanding of the way things are.

On the scale of nations, underdog Ukraine is a fine example. They will not submit, but they need some help to come popping up out of the pavement, to aid their just cause.

This is what elevates Gandhi. He wasn't just some fearless slob defending his sister. He took the principle of individual courage to the scale of nations, that usually fight with weapons. Of course, Gandhi was also a master politician, and goodness kept him on the path that led to the inevitable outcome ... however you interpret that path on the scale of nations comprised of all kinds.


I really don't see how you could object to that. :roll:
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Walker »

POTUS Brandon's sister argues Democrats are the 'pro-life' party on abortion in new memoir
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bidens ... new-memoir


"Like many women, I harbored complicated feelings on the topic," Owens writes in the memoir. "I'm pro-choice, but I remain convinced that Democrats chose the wrong term for our side of the issue."

"We should have been pro-life, for we are the ones advocating for a better life, a life in which a mother gets to determine her future and that of her child," she writes. "Sometimes, I even accidentally say I'm pro-life, because that's what it feels like the pro-choice position should have been called."

- The First Sister.

*

Commentary: In other words, the “First Sister,” says that The Party of pro-abortion, is pro-life. The Party already has its minions saying that death is choice. They could just as easily be saying that death is life, or war is peace, or up is down, or deprivation is prosperity, or any number of things. Just have an authority figure say it, repeat it often in various contexts, and demonize those who disagree. It's a proven formula.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Nick_A »

Walker wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 2:55 pm The question is, how can you sweep aside and ignore the very real example of Gandhi, in favour of asserting the imaginings of a woman who could never ever be in the position of a man, like immovable object Gandhi, defending his sister from rape.

I've already mentioned that foresight is one method which answers your question.
Men who have faced down death know.

Here’s a dramatization of another method. Not his sister, but aggressive conditions …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQaYTYZc-3A
"I think Christ grasped that, and I have seen it work."
- from the link


*

If you start putting conditions on the rape scenario, then you must also consider upon the outcome, as an element of the imagined situation, the presence of one who has conquered fear. Predictions of outcome simply can’t sweep that element into the black-hole of ignorance, as Simone did, and expect to have an accurate understanding of the way things are.

On the scale of nations, underdog Ukraine is a fine example. They will not submit, but they need some help to come popping up out of the pavement, to aid their just cause.

This is what elevates Gandhi. He wasn't just some fearless slob defending his sister. He took the principle of individual courage to the scale of nations, that usually fight with weapons. Of course, Gandhi was also a master politician, and goodness kept him on the path that led to the inevitable outcome ... however you interpret that path on the scale of nations comprised of all kinds.


I really don't see how you could object to that. :roll:
Don't underestimate Simone. Albert Camus didn't call her the greatest mind of our times for nothing.

A society with the aim of freedom needs protection for those obeying the laws and the defenseless. A society cannot survive by good intentions. The human condition makes it impossible. Like it or not, the fallen human condition makes the absurdity possible that our species is capable of both the greatest compassion and atrocities including rape.
Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace. Simone Weil
Simone describe the only means by which the scale of nations can transcend the fallen human condition. But our species residing in the darkness of Plato's Cave denies the help of grace so nothing changes and defense remains a necessity.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Walker »

Nick wrote:Albert Camus
Wasn't he cockeyed? Maybe that was Sarte.

(just kidding) :lol:
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Walker »

The killing that infanticide is ...

... conjures a great SF, Fantasy plot, namely: A society uses mass media, normalized by the approval of a family-generational political party, to normalize the sexualization of children, and also the sexualization of teens, with only adult pleasure, need, and desire as the purpose.

When Romeo and Juliet inevitability manifest from these conditions, and in a holistic, non-intellectual experience discover the magic of biology, oh dear what to do?

Well, in the story, society has conditioned folks for a fix, never once questioning or changing the conditions that brought about the cause for all of this.

And the fix is … slaughter the miracle, because there are no miracles. There are only clumps of cells, and from this arises a glorious future, a wonderful life, one might even say a wonderfully miraculous life * ...

Oh wait ... it's being done.


* Because of double-think, don't you know.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Nick_A »

Walker wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 4:28 pm The killing that infanticide is ...

... conjures a great SF, Fantasy plot, namely: A society uses mass media, normalized by the approval of a family-generational political party, to normalize the sexualization of children, and also the sexualization of teens, with only adult pleasure, need, and desire as the purpose.

When Romeo and Juliet inevitability manifest from these conditions, and in a holistic, non-intellectual experience discover the magic of biology, oh dear what to do?

Well, in the story, society has conditioned folks for a fix, never once questioning or changing the conditions that brought about the cause for all of this.

And the fix is … slaughter the miracle, because there are no miracles. There are only clumps of cells, and from this arises a glorious future, a wonderful life, one might even say a wonderfully miraculous life * ...

Oh wait ... it's being done.


* Because of double-think, don't you know.
Infanticide is defined as the crime of killing a child within a year of birth. But is it a crime or just people actualzing personal pleasure? There is a bill being argued in Coloado dealing with tis question

https://www.christianpost.com/news/pro- ... icide.html
“A public entity shall not … deprive, through prosecution, punishment, or other means, an individual of the individual’s right to act or refrain from acting during the individual’s own pregnancy based on the potential, actual, or perceived impact on the pregnancy, the pregnancy’s outcomes, or on the pregnant individual’s health,” the law continued.

The group Colorado for Life denounced the law as radically extreme and condemned it for stripping the rights of unborn babies.

“Against the will of Coloradans across the state who contacted their elected officials, Polis and the radical abortion extremists in our state legislature have ignored us yet again,” said Colorado for Life in a statement on its Facebook page after the bill was signed.

“Polis signed HB 1279 into law this afternoon. This means that … preborn have no legal rights under Colorado law. … Babies will lose their lives simply because of a disability, or for being the ‘wrong’ gender or race. … More babies will lose their lives who could otherwise survive outside of the womb.”
So if a baby lives a week after birth it can be killed for being the wrong gender.

I remember when I used to work with bands years ago. What we wanted were super kunts. Of course they were worth money. They sell clothes and entertainment. Society then promotes them as the young ideal.

Then my research into life's meaning together with the influence of my gggrandfathers paintings depicting the interactions of universal forces in water indicated to me the depth of reality I was closed to but now began to see.

Now I began to see why women were divided into the super kunts men can enjoy sexually but leaves a man empty for the natural male female relationship. I saw that such women are very rare. They have modesty not the result of fear and seeking to please but from direct experience. This quality is the result of a woman having experienced respect for life as an evolved inner quality, an awareness of a quality of life they feel the quality of. For the spiritual man they are blessing but for the majority of secular men, they get in the way of a good time.

For the majority of super kunts, abortion and infanticide must be defended by the state because the fetus or the baby interferes with the woman's ability to enjoy herself. For this other small minority they don't put themselves in these positions. They are attracted to something deeper. Something about the energy of modesty arising from an inner respect for life makes them desirable for spiritual men and they will be defended.
Post Reply