A Culture of Intolerance

[Luissa]

Technically, ice is a collections of low energy atoms, shoelaces are fibers and MIDI sequencing is a procedure.





WHAT?

Abortion doesn't prevent anything. It is a procedure done after prevention failed.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

Technically:

Abortion is a noun.
does is a verb (do)
not is a preposition.
The combination of "does" and "not" is a contraction "doesn't."
Prevent is verb
Anything is a general noun.
" . " is a punctuation, called a "period.
"It" is a preposition.
"is" is also a preposition.
"a" is a preposition.
Procedure is a noun.
Done is an adjective.
after is an adverb
prevention is a noun
failed is a transitive verb.

Cool story bro.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[gnarlylove]

At any rate I'm done debating the issue. It's plainly evident I'll get nothing but ad hominem and halfhearted arguments out the liberal crowd on this subject.

When you view the world as You V. Them/Everybody/Liberals what else do you expect? When you engage in "othering" you automatically interpret challenges to your inaccurate beliefs to be challenges against your existence.

What this means is you need to separate your beliefs from who you are. Realize that you are a human being and that your ideas can change, that your ideas do not make who you are.

Once you can stop thinking every challenge is directed at TK then you realize that each challenge is a challenge against beliefs. Beliefs are subject to human error and should be challenged. Error is especially likely when a person believes they are the center of the world, and thus become puzzled when people don't think you are god.

 

[SmedlyButler]

The Partners aren't going to be asking your advice on the finer points of Constitutional law too often. If you have a hard time grasping the intricacies of a particular decision don't worry about it too much. They're probably not going to give a shit if you're a Constitutional Formalist or a Buddhist monk either.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As for why we think a fetus is a human being, we resort to science to explain why...

Advocates of privacy rights correctly understand that a fetus is not legally a person, entitled to Constitutional protections, and the Constitution explains why:

After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generallybeen contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life."

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

The courts have wisely and appropriately left the matter of when life begins to individuals to decide, based on science, religious dogma, and one’s own good conscience, free from interference by the state.

However ‘scientific’ you and others on the right might perceive conservatives to be, science is not the sole factor with regard to resolution of the issue, where any resolution must comport with the Constitution and its case law.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Cool story bro.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

I thought that was how Liberals argue, according to [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION]

Apparently all one needs to do is identify the grammatical elements of each word being used in their opponent's statement, and that opponent is automatically defeated.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

As for why we think a fetus is a human being, we resort to science to explain why...

Advocates of privacy rights correctly understand that a fetus is not legally a person, entitled to Constitutional protections, and the Constitution explains why:

After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generallybeen contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life."

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

The courts have wisely and appropriately left the matter of when life begins to individuals to decide, based on science, religious dogma, and one’s own good conscience, free from interference by the state.

However ‘scientific’ you and others on the right might perceive conservatives to be, science is not the sole factor with regard to resolution of the issue, where any resolution must comport with the Constitution and its case law.

He said, as if there were anything scientific about the political motives and agenda of the political left. . . .

Life indisputably begins at conception. The Court's baby talk notwithstanding, that's a scientific fact of material reality.

The question as to when a living human being becomes a person under the aegis of constitutional law is the issue that is purely philosophical or theological in nature, or the stuff of political theory and governance.

What the Court actually did is contrive out of whole cloth a doctrine of privacy for postnatal human beings against the interests of prenatal human beings in regard to a matter that had always resided within the purview of the several states, not that of the federal government, in spite of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Why?

While it's indisputable that the Constitution ascribes personhood to postnatal human beings only, any doctrine of privacy asserted on the behalf of a person at the expense of the life of another human being entails the act of divorcing constitutional law from its foundational, ontological justification: natural and divine law.

Do that, that is to say, subvert the first principles of legitimate government, and the Constitution can be made to assert virtually anything one pleases.

The sociopolitical construct of our Republic was not predicated on the secular-progressive's ontological justification, such as it is, but on the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism: the construct of universal inalienable rights, wherein the sanctity of human life and the biological family of nature are the first principles of private property, backed by an armed citizenry.

Prufrock's Lair: Abortion on Demand, Homosexual "Marriage": what will they think of next?

Leftists perceive the right of privacy in regard to so-called reproductive rights to be the stuff of freedom. This construct is merely a euphemism denoting the use of abortion on demand as a method of birth control. It's not freedom at all, but the license and perversion of mindless animals that undermine the principle of the sanctity of human life. Such inevitably demand that the government transfer the wealth of others to them in order to ameliorate the consequences of their immorality.

The federal government did not give up any power at all by undermining the authority of the several states and the people thereof to assert the sanctity of human life against the whim of murderous renegades, particularly that of pseudo females. Under the terms of the original social contract, the body politic does have the right to legitimately insist that all of its members safeguard the lives and provide for the wellbeing of their progeny, fulfill their responsibilities toward them, from their conception to the moment they reach their majority, as their progeny ultimately belong to God, not to themselves or the state.

Until Roe v. Wade, the constitutional imperative that the government protect and promote the political rights of all persons never precluded the right of the several states and the people thereof to protect the lives of prenatal human beings and prevent the federal government from subverting the underlying justification of the social contract and thereby elevate itself above the authority of the Creator, Who is the only legitimate Source and Guarantor of human life and liberty. In Roe v. Wade, the federal government grabbed power and declared itself to be the giver or arbiter of human rights. Hocus pocus. Now you see it, or maybe you still don't.

Don't you know that evil is never satisfied with keeping its license and perversion to itself? There's nothing private about it. The demands of illegitimate rights will always necessarily be asserted by the state against the natural flow of things at the expense of human life and liberty. In history, what statist regime has not foisted the burdens of the supposedly private affairs of those who violate natural and divine law on the prerogatives and the property of others?

*crickets chirping*

 

[gnarlylove]

Here's your culture of intolerance, from Shame Shame Shame

 

[gnarlylove]

The only thing you said Rawlings, was this: "Life indisputably begins at conception." And when you refuse to dispute it, you are begging the question, a fallacy of thought. Because a great many of people in fact dispute this and there are indeed grounds on which to dispute your claim.

You spent 99% of your post on a tangent, a distraction. If you relinquish your tautological grip on reality, then you can participate in rational discussion. Otherwise, leave your fallacious replies for the birds.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yo [MENTION=43268]TemplarKormac[/MENTION] ,

Why have you not answered my question?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The only thing you said Rawlings, was this: "Life indisputably begins at conception." And when you refuse to dispute it, you are begging the question, a fallacy of thought. Because a great many of people in fact dispute this and there are indeed grounds on which to dispute your claim.

You spent 99% of your post on a tangent, a distraction. If you relinquish your tautological grip on reality, then you can participate in rational discussion. Otherwise, leave your fallacious replies for the birds.

Oh?

What could possibly be the grounds to dispute the assertion that life—i.e., for clarification, the life of a new organism—begins at the moment of conception? What the hell are you talking about? The assertion is essentially a tautology, necessarily valid by definition. As for its truth, it's an empirically verifiable assertion of biological science.

In any event, the fallacy of begging the question necessarily entails a premise asserting one thing followed by a conclusion that asserts something more complex, wherein the conclusion presupposes that the premise is necessarily true in the absence of any evidence demonstrating the truth of the same.

Tautologies are simple assertions, the subject and object of which are by definition essentially the same thing or the same idea. If in fact the subject and the object are by definition essentially the same thing or the same idea, the assertion is inherently valid . . . though it may not be true.

Your claim that the my assertion is fallacious simply because others allegedly dispute the contention that a new life begins at the moment of conception is the fallacy of appealing to authority concerning a matter that is subject to scientific falsification.

What's the substance of this falsification allegedly asserted by others?

As for my "tangent," the Republic of the United States most certainly was founded on the sociopolitical theory of natural law, not on the dialectical materialism of Marxism.

I eagerly await more of your irrational bullshit, er, response.

 

[gnarlylove]

You are not perceiving my point.

I know you strongly believe there are no grounds on which to dispute.

That's because you define life as beginning at conception. You don't do it because science tells you life begins post-sex. You believe it because you define it that way, a priori--not because science has lead you this inductive conclusion. Thus there literally is no room for dispute. Hence, you stated that it is in fact not disputable. And given we are not permitted to dispute it, based on your unscientific a priori definition, no wonder you trick yourself into believing you have noncircular justification. But to the trained thinker, you are begging the question big time.

But this unfalsifiable claim is just that, you can never be wrong. Why? Your definitions are not the same definitions that science and other people use. So the definition of life you are using is precisely what we are disputing yet you take it to be some truism. It is not a truism or self-evident by any means.

So either drop your tautological definition of life/moral person etc. or discontinue your fallacious debate. You seem erudite so I give you the benefit of the doubt that you can come to recognize this logical misgiving.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It has become quite obvious to me that in the years after I left school, that there is little tolerance of certain political views that students hold in school. Especially on hot button issues like abortion. As this 17 year old high school student found out, it's not okay to freely express your worldviews in school. If you don't believe government and politics have any influence in the classroom, you're in for a rude awakening. There is a culture of intolerance that is nurtured in the minds of our children that cannot be allowed to continue. The school should be a place where ideas and views are accepted no matter what they are. The First Amendment applies to everyone, not just to those who hold like views.

BRANFORD, Conn. (WTNH)– Life-sized replicas of fetuses are too much for lunchtime at Branford High School. A student leader of the school’s pro-life club says the principal banned her from using the models and she is fighting that.



Seventeen-year-old Samantha is a senior at Branford High School and she is learning a harsh lesson in education policy after trying to set up a pro-life table during lunch at Branford High.



“When we asked our principal at our school if we can have this set up during lunch and have an opportunity for kids to come over and take a look at our display, he said no,” said Samantha Bailey-Loomis.



Samantha is the founder of the students for life club. Their table is complete with blown-up images of fetuses and real- life sized fetus models that look just like the real thing and she says that doesn’t sit well with her principal.



“He tells us that this topic in particular is too controversial to be talked about in public school,” said Bailey-Loomis.

Life-sized fetus causes cafeteria controversy at Connecticut school | WWLP

Do they allow Planned Parenthood to set up a table?
If not you have no point. The girl should leave her crusade for after school. When I was in high school Pro Life people walked up and down across the street with large signs of aborted fetuses. It was horrible. What is it with some Pro Life people?


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

So your objection is that pro-lifers have the audacity to exhibit the graphic results of what murderous, pseudo females do to their unborn babies?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You are not perceiving my point.

I know you strongly believe there are no grounds on which to dispute.

That's because you define life as beginning at conception. You don't do it because science tells you life begins post-sex. You believe it because you define it that way, a priori--not because science has lead you this inductive conclusion. Thus there literally is no room for dispute. Hence, you stated that it is in fact not disputable. And given we are not permitted to dispute it, based on your unscientific a priori definition, no wonder you trick yourself into believing you have noncircular justification. But to the trained thinker, you are begging the question big time.

But this unfalsifiable claim is just that, you can never be wrong. Why? Your definitions are not the same definitions that science and other people use. So the definition of life you are using is precisely what we are disputing yet you take it to be some truism. It is not a truism or self-evident by any means.

So either drop your tautological definition of life/moral person etc. or discontinue your fallacious debate. You seem erudite so I give you the benefit of the doubt that you can come to recognize this logical misgiving.

Well, that was a lot of jargon to say this again: "Your definitions are not the same definitions that science and other people use."

Yeah. I distilled your bullshit down to this in my first response. That's the crux of the matter.

So the imperatives of biological science don't hold that the successful union of sperm and egg in mammalians, for that is the what we're talking about here, is not the beginning of the life cycle of a new mammalian organism?

Is that what you're claiming?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The only thing you said Rawlings, was this: "Life indisputably begins at conception." And when you refuse to dispute it, you are begging the question, a fallacy of thought. Because a great many of people in fact dispute this and there are indeed grounds on which to dispute your claim.

You spent 99% of your post on a tangent, a distraction. If you relinquish your tautological grip on reality, then you can participate in rational discussion. Otherwise, leave your fallacious replies for the birds.

Oh?

What could possibly be the grounds to dispute the assertion that life—i.e., for clarification, the life of a new organism—begins at the moment of conception? What the hell are you talking about? The assertion is essentially a tautology, necessarily valid by definition. As for its truth, it's an empirically verifiable assertion of biological science.

In any event, the fallacy of begging the question necessarily entails a premise asserting one thing followed by a conclusion that asserts something more complex, wherein the conclusion presupposes that the premise is necessarily true in the absence of any evidence demonstrating the truth of the same.

Tautologies are simple assertions, the subject and object of which are by definition essentially the same thing or the same idea. If in fact the subject and the object are by definition essentially the same thing or the same idea, the assertion is inherently valid . . . though it may not be true.

Your claim that the my assertion is fallacious simply because others allegedly dispute the contention that a new life begins at the moment of conception is the fallacy of appealing to authority concerning a matter that is subject to scientific falsification.

What's the substance of this falsification allegedly asserted by others?

As for my "tangent," the Republic of the United States most certainly was founded on the sociopolitical theory of natural law, not on the dialectical materialism of Marxism.

I eagerly await more of your irrational bullshit, er, response.

M.D., filibabble all you want, but gnarlylove owns your argument.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are not perceiving my point.

I know you strongly believe there are no grounds on which to dispute.

That's because you define life as beginning at conception. You don't do it because science tells you life begins post-sex. You believe it because you define it that way, a priori--not because science has lead you this inductive conclusion. Thus there literally is no room for dispute. Hence, you stated that it is in fact not disputable. And given we are not permitted to dispute it, based on your unscientific a priori definition, no wonder you trick yourself into believing you have noncircular justification. But to the trained thinker, you are begging the question big time.

But this unfalsifiable claim is just that, you can never be wrong. Why? Your definitions are not the same definitions that science and other people use. So the definition of life you are using is precisely what we are disputing yet you take it to be some truism. It is not a truism or self-evident by any means.

So either drop your tautological definition of life/moral person etc. or discontinue your fallacious debate. You seem erudite so I give you the benefit of the doubt that you can come to recognize this logical misgiving.

Well, that was a lot of jargon to say this again: "Your definitions are not the same definitions that science and other people use."

Yeah. I distilled your bullshit down to this in my first response. That's the crux of the matter.

So the imperatives of biological science don't hold that the successful union of sperm and egg in mammalians, for that is the what we're talking about here, is not the beginning of the life cycle of a new mammalian organism?

Is that what you're claiming?

M.D., your statement is not true: science and people argue that human life starts much later than conception.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Fine, let me put it more succinctly. If that student had a display promoting abortion, and I told that student she couldn't show it in my school--would you not be howling at the top of your lungs that I violated her constitutional rights?

Or does this simply apply to views you find undesirable?

When your first line of bullshit is exposed then always go for the hypothtical. They are fact free and you can make up the actions and reactions of all those involved.

Waaaaay easier than debating someone...or god forbid...stating facts

 

[JakeStarkey]

TK, if you wanted an abortion thread don't begin in a way that is going to get your OP shot down before you get to your premise.



Study the principles of composition.

Nobody shot down my premise Jake. I can tell you that much. I was the one citing case law, citing established legal precedent and thinking on the subject of free speech, not on abortion. It was people such as yourself who chose to make this thread about abortion, not me.



I know composition, it's a matter of reading comprehension on your part.

Yes they did. A few times actually.
And you did try to make it on beliefs. You assumed me and others don't think she has the right to have a booth based on our beliefs.
Yes you cited case laws and precedent but they didn't prove your point, because you have no understanding of what free speech protects. You also cited Tinker, which has no bearing on this topic. If you actually understood legal precedents you would realize this.
She wanted to use school resources to present her side to the abortion debate, the Principal wouldn't allow it, which he has every right to do. .

I comprehend very well, TK. You substituted "abortion" for your premise. "Free Speech", if I grant your premises, does not protect automatic discussion about abortion in public school. The school principal had no legal responsibility to grant school resources to the requester.

Here, this will help you: How To Write an Essays | Help's you in Writing

 

[gnarlylove]

So the imperatives of biological science don't hold that the successful union of sperm and egg in mammalians, for that is the what we're talking about here, is not the beginning of the life cycle of a new mammalian organism?

Is that what you're claiming?

I know you are not asking a genuine question. You still think your definition is the only conceivable definition. You are offering a loaded question, which is another fallacy closely linked to your tautological dribble.

You can surely understand that something that has the potential to become X is not therefore equivalent to X. This is another fallacy. In other words, just because something has potential to be a full moral person does not mean it is a full moral person.

If you think we are not respecting the sanctity of life, I think it's important to consider not just the potential person but to also the would-be mother. Ya know, consider the factors of the living, not just some tautological and ideological tripe. The needs of this full moral person and her family is vital to understanding whether abortion, within certain stages, is respecting the sanctity of the actually living. We cannot decide this a priori like you are so damned certain that you are pounding fists on the pulpit.

 

[Luissa]

It has become quite obvious to me that in the years after I left school, that there is little tolerance of certain political views that students hold in school. Especially on hot button issues like abortion. As this 17 year old high school student found out, it's not okay to freely express your worldviews in school. If you don't believe government and politics have any influence in the classroom, you're in for a rude awakening. There is a culture of intolerance that is nurtured in the minds of our children that cannot be allowed to continue. The school should be a place where ideas and views are accepted no matter what they are. The First Amendment applies to everyone, not just to those who hold like views.















Life-sized fetus causes cafeteria controversy at Connecticut school | WWLP

Do they allow Planned Parenthood to set up a table?

If not you have no point. The girl should leave her crusade for after school. When I was in high school Pro Life people walked up and down across the street with large signs of aborted fetuses. It was horrible. What is it with some Pro Life people?





Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

So your objection is that pro-lifers have the audacity to exhibit the graphic results of what murderous, pseudo females do to their unborn babies?

I don't think the school should allow either side to use their school for their debate.
And I do object to Pro Lifers holding giant posters with pictures of aborted fetuses on them outside schools. Protest outside of Planned Parenthood all you want, but don't do it outside of schools with minor children.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[Luissa]

Fine, let me put it more succinctly. If that student had a display promoting abortion, and I told that student she couldn't show it in my school--would you not be howling at the top of your lungs that I violated her constitutional rights?

Or does this simply apply to views you find undesirable?

We should ask, if you would think she has the right to?
Or if you would cry intolerance over exercising the right to have an abortion? You cite Supreme Court rulings, yet how do you feel about Roe v Wade?
I seem to remember you being Pro Life. So in reality you are the intolerant one. You are only tolerant of your views.
I am for this girl having free speech, I am for her principal exercising his right to not allow her to use school resources, and I am Pro Choice. While you only support her rights.
TK per usual, you are the only one who is intolerant. Shocker


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.