I might get tossed from the Gulch, but I've got two questions
I know I’m potentially setting myself up to get blown out of the Gulch, but I’ve got two questions I have to get off my chest. If this post costs me my Gulch membership, so be it. These questions are not—I repeat, NOT—directed at any one person. But I am putting them out because I want to hear what others think. I simply have no answer to either of them.
And with these two questions, I grab both third rails: Abortion, and the T part of the letter group.
My first question: If you are a practitioner of any modern Christian religion, it’s likely that your faith believes that life begins at conception. In this position, how in the Hell can you vote for a Democrat? Yes, this is a huge generality, and I know there are exceptions, but as a group, Democrats pretty much support abortion, in some cases damn near up until the time of birth. How can you possibly vote for a candidate who will do his/her best to enact laws not only allowing abortion, but actually encouraging it, and thereby violating one of the basics of your faith?
My second question: If you’re female, how in the hell can you vote for candidates who want to, quite literally, take away the things you’ve worked so hard to obtain? Again, yes, it’s a generality, but as a whole, Democrats are doing everything they can to erase all of the benefits you’ve rightfully finally obtained with Title IX by allowing biological males to compete against—and more often than not, defeat—biological females. How many scholarships, Olympic opportunities, etc., and the resulting downstream opportunities, have been lost because of this Democrat-driven trans-mania we are being forced to endure? How can you vote for someone who, for all practical purposes, won’t even acknowledge your existence?
I’m sorry, but I honestly do not understand how a Christian person or a woman could possibly vote Democrat, since so damn many of their policies run counter to your beliefs, your tenets, even your biology.
Fire away, Gulchers.
And with these two questions, I grab both third rails: Abortion, and the T part of the letter group.
My first question: If you are a practitioner of any modern Christian religion, it’s likely that your faith believes that life begins at conception. In this position, how in the Hell can you vote for a Democrat? Yes, this is a huge generality, and I know there are exceptions, but as a group, Democrats pretty much support abortion, in some cases damn near up until the time of birth. How can you possibly vote for a candidate who will do his/her best to enact laws not only allowing abortion, but actually encouraging it, and thereby violating one of the basics of your faith?
My second question: If you’re female, how in the hell can you vote for candidates who want to, quite literally, take away the things you’ve worked so hard to obtain? Again, yes, it’s a generality, but as a whole, Democrats are doing everything they can to erase all of the benefits you’ve rightfully finally obtained with Title IX by allowing biological males to compete against—and more often than not, defeat—biological females. How many scholarships, Olympic opportunities, etc., and the resulting downstream opportunities, have been lost because of this Democrat-driven trans-mania we are being forced to endure? How can you vote for someone who, for all practical purposes, won’t even acknowledge your existence?
I’m sorry, but I honestly do not understand how a Christian person or a woman could possibly vote Democrat, since so damn many of their policies run counter to your beliefs, your tenets, even your biology.
Fire away, Gulchers.
I would argue that those are logically derived and not arbitrarily made up. It doesn't make sense for me to participate in a social contract with you if you are not doing the same with me.
"The only moral act of killing is that of attaining food."
No, it is not moral, but if you don't have a social contract with the other entity then killing it might be ok. Although, I would avoid it whenever possible due to the liability.
It is more of a tree, rather than a line.
Continuation of the specie is actually of no interest to the individual, because they are going to be dead anyway. They would not have any benefit from having offspring, or not. Evolution tricks individuals into wanting offspring via manipulating feelings. Logically, it doesn't make much sense. Once you are dead, you are dead and nothing matters.
Murder, killing, assault, battery are the generalities. The other unique to our species is that of suicide. There are penalties expressed for all in legal and lawful terms. Yet, the latter is rather redundant; penalize one for ending their existence is rather oxymoronic, and stands out and away from the others.
So; your property/body is the only entity that may initiate force on itself without recrimination. To coerce another to perform acts of damage would not be sane. Not saying suicide, even by extant, is sane in the first place. The only moral act of killing is that of attaining food. Almost all living things kill other organisms for survival, a metaphysical maxim. There are species, other than humans, that seem to kill for sport or amusement .... if that's possible. Humans are the only species that indiscriminately take life based upon whim of the moment. So, we have two classes of humans; the brute and the being. Brutes, unfortunately, are natural. Beings are developed through systematic increases of awareness through experience and the expression of language. The convenience of the brute does not make a moral argument.
Often folks vote "feelings and talking points" rather than "thoughts". They will confer with their "tribe" and then vote in lock-step.
A slow awakening is happening because of the efforts of the THINKING CLASS. Alternative media is leading the way.
Humans are not the center of the universe. It is arrogant to think that they are. If we are going to work things out logically then we need to drop such ridiculous notions. Logic doesn't care if you are human.
i pity you that view of Life
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oXqQ...
Every time I hear both sides argue about it, I get very frustrated. Neither side is looking at it correctly.
I have arrived at a logical resolution to the abortion question that is final and simple to understand. It is based on two concepts:
1. One's body is their property
2. One is under no obligation to save another life.
If a woman's body is her property and she is under no obligation to save her child's life then she must be allowed to remove anything growing in her body (including the fetus). However, all attempts must be made by the doctor to preserve the life of the fetus. Unfortunately, unless the fetus is nearly fully developed, it cannot survive outside of the womb. Maybe the doctor can transplant it into a willing participant, if that is medically possible. However, under no circumstances should the woman be forced to carry the fetus to term if she is not willing to do so because that would be a violation of her property rights. The woman is not a slave of the fetus or anybody else, she doesn't have to keep the fetus alive inside of her if she doesn't want to.
Additionally, the fetus is life, but so is a chicken and a cow. I'm not seeing anybody complaining about them getting aborted way past their birth. The fact that the fetus has a human genome doesn't matter. Humans are not necessarily special in any way. The ONLY difference between a human and an animal that gives humans special status is that they can communicate and agree to give each other rights. Well, a fetus isn't developed yet to the point that it is able to understand or agree to any sort of social contract. Even if you allow the fetus to grow to adulthood, who knows, it might grow up to be a serial killer. So, unless there is an agreement between the doctor and the fetus that the fetus will grow up and be cooperative member of society, the doctor is actually under no obligation to preserve the fetus. However, just in case the fetus will be a good member of society, I would at least try to preserve its life. Unfortunately, currently there are no attempts made to do that, as far as I understand. In fact, sometimes they kill the fetus before they take it out. I would not support doing such things.
I'm no female, but I have a daughter. I think this whole tranny sports thing is a farce. It's anti-women. The left is anti-women.
I don't get all your hand wringing over "tossed from the Gulch", etc. We're grownups here. Your questions seem legit.
https://newideal.aynrand.org/ayn-rand...
If the gov would rescind the illogical changes and stay out of it, that would be fine. I have not seen any sign that they are going to do that.
A: They didn't believe reality. They accepted brainwashing propaganda.
(No, they didn't deserve that treatment either.)
so we are left with two that protect each other
Load more comments...