WHAT WOULD KANT SAY ABOUT ABORTION ?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Impenitent
Posts: 4332
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: WHAT WOULD KANT SAY ABOUT ABORTION ?

Post by Impenitent »

how would manny establish the duty of a fetus?

-Imp
Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: WHAT WOULD KANT SAY ABOUT ABORTION ?

Post by Dachshund »

DPMartin wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:31 pm
Dachshund wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:06 pm
DPMartin wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 3:40 pm


abortion isn't a moral struggle, its a legal/political/social struggle. and really, Kant is dead, who cares. he's not a justification for yea or nay on the subject.

the justification is whether or not it becomes law one way or the other via the agreed method of making or rescinding law.
(1): If you don't understand how abortion is a moral issue, you shouldn't be wasting your time on a philosophy forum. Best stick to something more commensurate with your IQ like Batman Comics or such like.

(2): Just because Kant is dead, it doesn't mean that his ethical theory is of no value in helping us think more rationally about human morality in 2019. (Quite the opposite, in fact). It's like saying that because Shakespeare is long dead, we shouldn't bother to use the texts of his dramas and poetry to help us justify/evaluate what is, or is not, exemplary use of the English language.

The law has little to do with morality. "The law" simply means who has the "biggest gun." If I have .22 rifle and you have AK-47, then you're "the Law" (I will comply with what you say I can and can not do).

Regards


Dachshund
nope, the law is the set of morals agreed on, the struggle (in this case) is what that law should be, or shouldn't be, in accordance to the agreed method of establishing law. where have you been, listing to TV and religious rhetoric and believing what they tell you?
Strange, I can think of many things that the average citizen would deem "Immoral" that are not, strictly speaking, illegal. Licensed prostitution is one example. The pathological greed that drives Corporate capitalists to exploit and dehumanise (alienate) their workers is another example of legal, though immoral (bad, wicked), behaviour. Marching in a "Pro -Choice abortion rally also constitutes immoral conduct, despite the fact the law does not prohibit these (political) gatherings.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: WHAT WOULD KANT SAY ABOUT ABORTION ?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Dachshund wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2019 5:17 am
DPMartin wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:31 pm
Dachshund wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:06 pm

(1): If you don't understand how abortion is a moral issue, you shouldn't be wasting your time on a philosophy forum. Best stick to something more commensurate with your IQ like Batman Comics or such like.

(2): Just because Kant is dead, it doesn't mean that his ethical theory is of no value in helping us think more rationally about human morality in 2019. (Quite the opposite, in fact). It's like saying that because Shakespeare is long dead, we shouldn't bother to use the texts of his dramas and poetry to help us justify/evaluate what is, or is not, exemplary use of the English language.

The law has little to do with morality. "The law" simply means who has the "biggest gun." If I have .22 rifle and you have AK-47, then you're "the Law" (I will comply with what you say I can and can not do).

Regards


Dachshund
nope, the law is the set of morals agreed on, the struggle (in this case) is what that law should be, or shouldn't be, in accordance to the agreed method of establishing law. where have you been, listing to TV and religious rhetoric and believing what they tell you?
Strange, I can think of many things that the average citizen would deem "Immoral" that are not, strictly speaking, illegal. Licensed prostitution is one example. The pathological greed that drives Corporate capitalists to exploit and dehumanise (alienate) their workers is another example of legal, though immoral (bad, wicked), behaviour. Marching in a "Pro -Choice abortion rally also constitutes immoral conduct, despite the fact the law does not prohibit these (political) gatherings.
Off to campaign against scythe-wielding surgeons then? Gotta save those arms and legs now, not to mention the heads :shock:
DPMartin
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: WHAT WOULD KANT SAY ABOUT ABORTION ?

Post by DPMartin »

Dachshund wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2019 5:17 am
DPMartin wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:31 pm
Dachshund wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:06 pm

(1): If you don't understand how abortion is a moral issue, you shouldn't be wasting your time on a philosophy forum. Best stick to something more commensurate with your IQ like Batman Comics or such like.

(2): Just because Kant is dead, it doesn't mean that his ethical theory is of no value in helping us think more rationally about human morality in 2019. (Quite the opposite, in fact). It's like saying that because Shakespeare is long dead, we shouldn't bother to use the texts of his dramas and poetry to help us justify/evaluate what is, or is not, exemplary use of the English language.

The law has little to do with morality. "The law" simply means who has the "biggest gun." If I have .22 rifle and you have AK-47, then you're "the Law" (I will comply with what you say I can and can not do).

Regards


Dachshund
nope, the law is the set of morals agreed on, the struggle (in this case) is what that law should be, or shouldn't be, in accordance to the agreed method of establishing law. where have you been, listing to TV and religious rhetoric and believing what they tell you?
Strange, I can think of many things that the average citizen would deem "Immoral" that are not, strictly speaking, illegal. Licensed prostitution is one example. The pathological greed that drives Corporate capitalists to exploit and dehumanise (alienate) their workers is another example of legal, though immoral (bad, wicked), behaviour. Marching in a "Pro -Choice abortion rally also constitutes immoral conduct, despite the fact the law does not prohibit these (political) gatherings.
just because individuals don't like a thing that someone else is doing, doesn't make it immoral. an individual constitutes nothing, a group in agreement that has the power and takes the action to enforce the agreement constitutes something that would be morals also known as law in the context of a government and its nation.

if the rich agreed not to be greedy about things then its wrong, but to be wrong in your own personal view means nothing in the world and to the rest of the world and to the rich man who is on his yacht partying while you remain miserable because your focused on what he is doing rather than realize you should mind your own business, in the rich man's view. the rich man in this case came into no such agreement to live according to your views of what he ought to do with what is his.
DPMartin
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: WHAT WOULD KANT SAY ABOUT ABORTION ?

Post by DPMartin »

DPMartin wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2019 4:25 pm
Dachshund wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2019 5:17 am
DPMartin wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:31 pm

nope, the law is the set of morals agreed on, the struggle (in this case) is what that law should be, or shouldn't be, in accordance to the agreed method of establishing law. where have you been, listing to TV and religious rhetoric and believing what they tell you?
Strange, I can think of many things that the average citizen would deem "Immoral" that are not, strictly speaking, illegal. Licensed prostitution is one example. The pathological greed that drives Corporate capitalists to exploit and dehumanise (alienate) their workers is another example of legal, though immoral (bad, wicked), behaviour. Marching in a "Pro -Choice abortion rally also constitutes immoral conduct, despite the fact the law does not prohibit these (political) gatherings.
just because individuals don't like a thing that someone else is doing, doesn't make it immoral. an individual constitutes nothing, a group in agreement that has the power and takes the action to enforce the agreement constitutes something that would be morals also known as law in the context of a government and its nation.

if the rich agreed not to be greedy about things then its wrong, but to be wrong in your own personal view means nothing in the world and to the rest of the world and to the rich man who is on his yacht partying while you remain miserable because your focused on what he is doing rather than realize you should mind your own business, in the rich man's view. the rich man in this case came into no such agreement to live according to your views of what he ought to do with what is his. therefore he is in no way obligated to meet anything seen as right in your eyes when it comes to what he ought to do with what is his.
Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: WHAT WOULD KANT SAY ABOUT ABORTION ?

Post by Dachshund »

DPMartin wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:31 pm
Dachshund wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:06 pm
DPMartin wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 3:40 pm


abortion isn't a moral struggle, its a legal/political/social struggle. and really, Kant is dead, who cares. he's not a justification for yea or nay on the subject.

the justification is whether or not it becomes law one way or the other via the agreed method of making or rescinding law.
(1): If you don't understand how abortion is a moral issue, you shouldn't be wasting your time on a philosophy forum. Best stick to something more commensurate with your IQ like Batman Comics or such like.

(2): Just because Kant is dead, it doesn't mean that his ethical theory is of no value in helping us think more rationally about human morality in 2019. (Quite the opposite, in fact). It's like saying that because Shakespeare is long dead, we shouldn't bother to use the texts of his dramas and poetry to help us justify/evaluate what is, or is not, exemplary use of the English language.

Regards


Dachshund




nope, the law is the set of morals agreed on, the struggle (in this case) is what that law should be, or shouldn't be, in accordance to the agreed method of establishing law. where have you been, listing to TV and religious rhetoric and believing what they tell you?




Dear DP,



I thought I would respond to your misunderstanding in a little more detail because the question of law in the abortion debate is important.



To begin with, there are two Natural Law theories and they are about two different things: (A) A Natural Law Theory of Morality (i.e; what's right and wrong), and (2) A Natural Law Theory of Positive Law (i.e; what's legal and illegal). For the sake of convenience and in order to prevent the possibility of any subsequent confusion, I am going to call (A) "NATURAL LAW" and (B) POSITIVE LAW in what follows.


POSITIVE LAW



Positive law is man-made law. These are laws that can be written down on paper. A legal positivists believes that legitimate law is NOTHING MORE than commands from a sovereign to the people who MUST obey him/her backed by credible threats and sanctions. The LEGITIMACY of the law is viewed as completely independent of its MORAL content and must always be obeyed . It draws its validity from the power of the sovereign who is the only ruler that subjects are in the habit of obeying. Take Germany, for example, after Hitler was elected Chancellor in 1933. After winning office, he very soon established himself as the all-powerful "Fuhrer" whose word was very literally law. Hitler issued a range of laws that discriminated against Jews living in Germany in the mid - 1930 and these laws were perfectly legitimate in Germany and they are an example of positive law(s) Hitler personally implemented many other harsh laws in Germany besides those that targeted Jewish members of the country.



The point I wish to make is that Positive law is, in essence, not concerned with MORALITY. In fact, there is a "Separation Thesis" that goes something like this...


"Having a LEGAL right to do X doesn't entail having a MORAL right to do it, and vice versa; having a LEGAL justification to do something doesn't entail having a MORAL justification to do it, and vice versa; having a LEGAL obligation to do something doesn't entail having a MORAL obligation to do something, and vice versa."


For example Tony Blair and George "Dubbya" Bush were very careful to make sure that the United Nations agreed they had the Legal right and Legal justification to launch an offensive military strike against Iraq (in what became known as the "Gulf War"), however, many American and British citizens believe that the "Gulf" was - for a number of reasons - immoral and ought never have taken place.


NATURAL LAW


OK, Natural Law is difficult to summarise in a post on a philosophy forum, but I'll give it my best shot.


(1) Even things that are not man-made, things in the natural world (like rose bushes, fish, beetles, etc) have purposes or functions, and what is "good" for ANY thing is the realisation of its purpose or function. It is good for a rose bush to be healthy and in glorious full bloom, it is good for a fish like a shark to be a efficient and formidable predator in the ocean.


(2) For us human beings, the good is the living of a FLOURISHING life. FLOURISHING consists in striving toward the (self)- fulfillment of our distinctive individual nature. It means vitally, defiantly and exuberantly "stretching out", despite the risks and limitations placed before one, to try and realise an ever higher standard/s of achievement. Flourishing is not a static or tensionless state, it is a continual, voluntary, striving and struggling towards those goals or ends that one personally finds are worthwhile, purposeful (and therefore meaningful/valuable). Flourishing demands a robust, and often steely, determination to overcome the limitations and impediment that separate one from the achievement of their goals or ends; and when those goals or ends are grasped there will automatically appear higher goals/ends in accordance with your particular purpose/s in life and typically a new set of limitations and impediments between you and these goal/s that are even more challenging than the previous set. To overcome them will demand a more fierce determination, a more strenuous and uncompromising struggle/striving, more concentrated effort and more personal courage and risk. The more one strives to overcome the limitations and frustrations that exist between oneself and progressively higher and more worthwhile goals, the more one flourishes/grows as a person, and the more meaningful (value-laden) and purposeful one's life becomes. Nietzsche called flourishing, "The Will to Power", and claimed it was that vital principle which grounded the affirmation of life.Unfortunately Nazi intellectuals twisted and perverted the meaning of the of Nietzsche's term "The Will to Power" by equating it with destructive militaristic force and violence, and this is still how most people interpret Nietzsche's "Will to Power", which is a shame because it means I can't really use the concept to help better explain myself in this post.


So, the MORAL good for human beings lies in the living of a flourishing life, or, to put it in Nietzsche's terms, in the "affirmation of life" through "The Will to Power." Flourishing consists in the fulfilling of our particular, distinctive nature, i.e; what we "by nature" do best. If we don't know exactly what the things are we do best, we can get some idea what they might be by taking note of those things for which we have a cleat talent and, say, those things that inspire us - those things/activities we find that we "lose ourselves" in, or that fill us with a wonderful joy, etc. Flourishing also involves the development of and exercise of our capacity for rationality, abstract knowledge, deliberative choice, imagination, friendship, social cooperation based on a sense of justice, etc. The moral virtues (courage, temperance, justice) are character traits that help fulfill our true nature. That is if you are an alcoholic or chronic heroin user or a carnal hedonist like a glutton or a person who is addicted to sex with prostitutes, you are not living a good life.


(3) * Natural law is a set of TRUTHS about MORALITY (what is right/good and wrong/bad) and JUSTICE; they are rules that we MUST follow in order to lead a good or flourishing life. These rules are ETERNAL and IMMUTABLE; they were determined and ordained by God. If you don't believe in the Biblical God, then substitute "a transcendent, supernatural almighty, omniscient, immanent, entity who created the universe from scratch, including the planet Earth and its human beings whom the entity happens to be personally interested in).


* We can know the principles of Natural Law by means of unaided human reason.


* The Natural Law theory of morality rejects ethical subjectivism and affirms ethical objectivism (i.e; some moral opinions are more valid, reasonable or likely to be true than other).


* Immoral acts violate Natural Law. Hence immoral behaviour is "unnatural" (in the sense of "contrary to our function" NOT "nowhere to be found in nature"), whereas virtuous behaviour is "natural". For example,lying is unnatural because the function of speech is to communicate to others what is in our minds. When we use words to mislead others, we are using them contrary to their proper function.


Finally, let sum up by looking at your recent argument, namely:


"...the law ( I presume you mean Positive/man-made Law) is the set of morals agreed up, the struggle (in this case; i.e; abortion law in the US) is what the law should be, or shouldn't be, in accordance to the agreed method of establishing law."


The first point is that you have claimed Positive law is based on purely on moral principles. That's often not the case. As I mentioned above LEGAL rights/justifications/obligations to X,Y and Z, DO NOT ENTAIL MORAL rights/justifications/obligations to X,Y and Z." Plenty of laws have been enacted in the past that where wholly immoral and unjust.


As to how Positive/man-made Law is established, valid laws are simply rules that come from certain people (human being) ( Sovereigns, Kings and Queens, Presidents, City Council Committees, etc). that the society enforces.


As to the struggle in the case we are discussing, in 1973, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of "Roe vs Wade that abortion be made legal across the United States.


Abortion is the medical (generally surgical) destruction of a human foetus, it is legal to destroy a healthy foetus at any time between conception and generally speaking, the 23 or 24 week of pregnancy, after this the foetus is deemed to be viable, that is capable of surviving outside of the mother's womb, and therefore cannot be aborted The problem is that there is no precise time at which all foetuses can be deemed viable. This has, to cut a long story short, led to abortions being performed on foetuses considerably older than than 24 weeks.


The current abortion law in the US effectively deems a non-viable foetus a non - person, that is, nothing more than a lump of cells and tissue, like a cancerous growth or a fibroma or a polpy; just a clump of organic matter that is not a living human being. And this is the argument put forward by many Pro-Choice activists. Expert mainstream bioscientists, however, totally disagree. They argue that even from the earliest stages of pregnancy, the embryo can be -accordingly to strict scientific criteria - clearly classified as a LIVING HUMAN BEING and NOT some undifferentiated conglomeration of cells and tissue.


They way I see it "the struggle in this case" in this case is one between the Roe vs Wade Abortion ruling and the relevant principle of Natural Law. Remember, Natural Law can (1) be discerned by unaided human reason and (2) consists in the correct MORAL principles (3) affirms ethical objectivism. The relevant principle of moral law in this debate is the following:


"IT IS NEVER PERMISSIBLE TO KILL AN INNOCENT HUMAN BEING."


Modern science argues, as I say, that the embryos and foetuses carried by pregnant women are living human beings. The leaders of the Pro-Choice movement who disagree , are not expert scientists, rather, they are a motley crew of leftist political activists, many of whom are fanatical feminists. Given feminism is a failed movement, and this is because most leaders of the feminist movement were/are utter morons, I am inclined to trust the conclusion of the scientists, as opposed to the likes of Gloria Steinem and Andrea Dworkin (!! :shock: :shock: ).


The last point is that the relevant Natural Law in this case: "IT IS NEVER PERMISSIBLE TO KILL AN INNOCENT HUMAN BEING" was not enacted by the Justices presiding in Roe vs Wade in 1973, it was determined and ordained by a much higher authority - GOD


And guess what "DP"? I' can assure you that GOD TRUMPS "Roe vs Wade" - BIG TIME!


Regards


Dachshund
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: WHAT WOULD KANT SAY ABOUT ABORTION ?

Post by uwot »

Dachshund wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2019 6:15 pmModern science argues, as I say, that the embryos and foetuses carried by pregnant women are living human beings.
I'm curious. At what point do you think an embryo becomes a living human being? The moment a sperm penetrates an ovum? When the sperm and nucleus fuse? When the fertilised cell divides? Do you think there is a point when a foetus acquires, or is given a soul?
Dachshund wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2019 6:15 pmThe leaders of the Pro-Choice movement who disagree , are not expert scientists...
So what do "expert scientists" say about when a foetus becomes a human?
Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: WHAT WOULD KANT SAY ABOUT ABORTION ?

Post by Dachshund »

uwot wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2019 6:46 pm
Dachshund wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2019 6:15 pmModern science argues, as I say, that the embryos and foetuses carried by pregnant women are living human beings.
I'm curious. At what point do you think an embryo becomes a living human being? The moment a sperm penetrates an ovum? When the sperm and nucleus fuse? When the fertilised cell divides? Do you think there is a point when a foetus acquires, or is given a soul?
Dachshund wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2019 6:15 pmThe leaders of the Pro-Choice movement who disagree , are not expert scientists...
So what do "expert scientists" say about when a foetus becomes a human?
OK, there's a mountain of mainstream,scientific literature dealing with this issues going back well over 10 years, and the consensus of expert opinion among professional bioscientists today is basically as follows...

In human sexual reproduction, conception occurs when a sperm cell unites with an oocyte, the two then cease to be and their constituents successfully enter into the make - up of a new and distinct organism, which is call a zygote In its original one - celled stage. This new organism begins to grow by the normal process of differentiated cell division into an embryo, dividing into two cells, then four, eight and so on, although some divisions are asynchronous. Its cells constitute a living human organism, for they form a stable body and act together in a coordinated manner, which contributes to regular, predictable and determinate development toward the mature stage of a human being.

That is, from the two - cell stage onward, the human embryo has within it all of the internal information needed - including chiefly its genetic and epigenetic constitution - and the active disposition to develop itself to the mature stage of a human organism. As long as the embryo is reasonably healthy and is not denied or deprived of a suitable environment and adequate nutrition, it will actively develop itself along the species - specific trajectory of development. This means the embryo has the same nature - in other words, it is the same kind of entity - from fertilization onward
, there is only a difference in the degree of maturation, not in kind, between any of the stages from embryo to foetus to infant, and so on.

Scientific evidence shows that already at the two - cell stage, and even more at the four - cell stage and thereafter, there is a difference in the internal structure of the embryonic cells; although they have the same DNA, each has a distinct pattern of gene expression. What exists in the early stages of development is absolutely not a mere bundle of homogenous cells.


This is just a quick and dirty introduction to the relevant bioscience. The point they( the bioscients specialising in this field) would make is that when an abortionist destroys, say, a one - week - old embryo he is indeed destroying a human life; and this is a demonstrable scientific fact.

Regards


Dachshund
Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: WHAT WOULD KANT SAY ABOUT ABORTION ?

Post by Dachshund »

I tried to respond to your query, but I think my response was deleted by a moderator, Gary ??

Regards

John

I'll try again anon, as its time for me to "hit the hay", I'm afraid !
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: WHAT WOULD KANT SAY ABOUT ABORTION ?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Dachshund wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:34 pm

one - week - old embryo he is indeed destroying a human life; and this is a demonstrable scientific fact.

Regards


Dachshund
I think that's pretty much the idea don't you? Hmm. a few posts back you were claiming that abortion couldn't possibly be 'an issue' for me because you don't think I would be attractive enough to ever get pregnant. Is unwanted pregnancy a recurring occurrence in your life then? You must have a lot of children.

A nightworker are you? That would explain a lot.
Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: WHAT WOULD KANT SAY ABOUT ABORTION ?

Post by Dachshund »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:00 pm


Dachshund

You must have a lot of children.

No white ones that I know of actually, Veggie :shock: :shock:

Regards


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

Re: WHAT WOULD KANT SAY ABOUT ABORTION ?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Dachshund wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:12 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:00 pm


Dachshund

You must have a lot of children.

No white ones that I know of actually, Veggie :shock: :shock:

Regards


Dachshund - WOOF, WOOF !!
With all those black children I'm surprised at your white supremacist politics. Still, right-wingers are not exactly known for their high intelligence and logical train of thought.
Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: WHAT WOULD KANT SAY ABOUT ABORTION ?

Post by Dachshund »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:16 pm


With all those black children I'm surprised at your white supremacist politics. Still, right-wingers are not exactly known for their high intelligence and logical train of thought.
Thomas Jefferson was a white supremacist (although that term didn't exist in 1776 when he wrote the American Declaration of Independence) and he shagged more of his tasty, young, black female slaves than you could "poke a stick at" (pardon the puns). Jefferson was also an extremely well-read and intelligent man, he went on to become President of the US. So am I, (intelligent, I mean) let me tell you, young Veggie, I make a very tidy profit by putting my own piccaninnies to work on my cotton plantation outside Goondiwindi, what's illogical or stupid about that ? :shock: :shock:

Regards


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

Re: WHAT WOULD KANT SAY ABOUT ABORTION ?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Dachshund wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:34 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:16 pm


With all those black children I'm surprised at your white supremacist politics. Still, right-wingers are not exactly known for their high intelligence and logical train of thought.
Thomas Jefferson was a white supremacist (although that term didn't exist in 1776 when he wrote the American Declaration of Independence) and he shagged more of his tasty, young, black female slaves than you could "poke a stick at" (pardon the puns). Jefferson was also an extremely well-read and intelligent man, he went on to become President of the US. So am I, (intelligent, I mean) let me tell you, young Veggie, I make a very tidy profit by putting my own piccaninnies to work on my cotton plantation outside Goondiwindi, what's illogical or stupid about that ? :shock: :shock:

Regards


Dachshund WOOF, WOOF !!
The old 'Founding Fathers' non sequitur. It's the equivalent of 'Godwin's law'. :roll:
Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: WHAT WOULD KANT SAY ABOUT ABORTION ?

Post by Dachshund »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:45 pm
The old 'Founding Fathers' non sequitur. It's the equivalent of 'Godwin's law'. :roll:

What exactly do you mean by "The old Founding Fathers non sequitur ?
I don't understand the point you are trying to make ???


If you are using the term non sequitur to refer to a logical fallacy respecting what I wrote about Thomas Jefferson, I'd be interested to hear where you think it (the fallacy) lies? Thomas Jefferson WAS a white supremacist, we can state this for a fact by referring to the historical record which clearly verifies that (1) Jefferson owned a large number (600 at one point ! ) of Negro slaves, (2) that he had a reputation for being a cruel Master who frequently mistreated his slaves in a variety of different ways (3) that Jefferson regularly used the female negros he owned as sex slaves to gratify his own carnal desires and in consequence fathered many half-breed children, none of whom he showed the slightest interest in after they were born. In addition to his flagrantly racist behaviours, Jefferson was a notorious liar and hypocrite. He famously wrote in the preamble to the (US) "Declaration of Independence" : "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." THIS from a very wealthy white Anglo - Saxon Protestant who owned 100s of black slaves at the same time he ratified the DOI in 1776. You must be fucking joking, Thomas!

Regards

Dachshund - HAIL TO THE CHIEF (TRUMP) !!!
Post Reply