Your donations are appreciated and help keep this site running. Even the smallest amount helps.
Thankyou

 
PROMOTE YOUR SITE
HERE
Only $3 USD/month
TRUTHSPOON.COM
The man they can't recruit!
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2

TOPIC: How "moral insanity" has replaced facts with feelings

How "moral insanity" has replaced facts with feelings 20 Jun 2014 19:00 #1

  • Timesarrow
  • Timesarrow's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 776
  • Likes received: 946
This is one of the best articles I have ever read about the state of moral degeneracy and insanity we're currently in, and wanted to submit it here for discussion (it's nominally about abortion, but delves into many other important issues too). I agree with every word, and even more impressively, the author is only mid-20s:

www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/pro-lifers-just-use-emotional-arguments-to-ignore-reality

Are pro-lifers guilty of ignoring facts and just using “emotional arguments” to make people agree with them? That’s what Michael Payton of Dying with Dignity argued during a debate last October with Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. I was at that debate, and what he said has bugged me ever since.

This argument, coming from a movement that almost always uses film testimonies of sick, dying, and suffering people to manipulate the public into supporting a new, fictitious right - the “right to die”!

Indeed, a very quick scan of today’s morally insane society tells quite a different story. It is not religious people who ignore facts in favour of emotion. On the contrary.

Our society no longer makes moral decisions based on facts or truth, and in many cases will not even admit that such a thing as truth even exists. Consequently, we have now accorded feelings the objectivity that facts and truth once had. We decide what we want to do and how we feel about something, and then simply bend reality to align with our personal choices. Hyper-individualism has combined with moral relativism to create a schizophrenic and suicidal culture that howls about reason and science, but refuses to listen to them.

For example: It doesn’t matter what the word marriage means, it only matters what we currently want it to mean, for now; It doesn’t matter if you have a penis, if you decide to “self-identify” as a woman, then biology is of no consequence, and anyone who suggests otherwise should be bizarrely tarred and feathered as a bigot; It doesn’t matter if science and embryology have long ago confirmed that we know when a human life begins, it is our feelings towards human beings in the womb that dictate whether they live or die. Biological reality is no match for what English professor Mark Bauerlein called “the dumbest generation.”

We’ve gone down the rabbit hole into a giant game of make-believe--a cute game for children, but decidedly terrifying when adults do the same, and the stakes are so high.

It’s not that empathy and compassion are not important in debates regarding the family, abortion, euthanasia, sexuality, and so on. In fact, those of us advocating for truth in these matters have sometimes failed sufficiently to acknowledge the pain, suffering, confusion, and struggles of people, which has often resulted in the truth of our arguments being lost.

The leaders of the Sexual Revolution have successfully exploited the heart-rending ‘hard cases’ to accomplish their ends—pregnancy as the result of rape, death from horribly painful diseases, and the confusion of a teen struggling with his sexual identity, for example.

It is contingent on us to recognize that these circumstances are, indeed, often excruciatingly painful, and that reality should shape how we respond. But at the same time, we cannot change truth in the face of circumstances (a child conceived in rape being suctioned into bloody slurry by an abortionist is a horrifying response to a horrifying crime), even as we are responsible to reach out in genuine love, wanting what is best for the other. As Martin Luther King Jr. once observed, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that.”

There often seems to be no room for reasonable discussion on these issues anymore. The Sexual Revolutionaries are quick and savage in their protection of their new-found “rights,” and demonize anyone who makes any claim that makes them feel bad or questions their actions in any way. Regardless of an increasingly undeniable legacy of rampant pornography addiction, sexually transmitted diseases, broken families, and dismembered pre-born children, they insist that what they advocate for is “progress.” If we point out the obvious—that it is not—we get called misogynists, homophobes, transphobes, prudes, or any number of other often-newly invented terms to describe people who disagree with these newly invented rights.

It’s sad, but enlightening, to consider how bewildered people just a few generations ago would be by our cultural insanity. That people who hold to ideas rooted in the eternal are marginalized as bigots by people clinging to radical new ideas barely decades old is evidence of just how fast the Revolution of Feelings has taken place. I think of P.J. O’Rourke’s witty comment about the Baby Boom generation and their propensity to react based on feelings rather than facts in his newest book examining that generation: “It wasn’t a fact. But facts are faint thing next to feelings. Facts are acknowledged, feelings are felt.”

And so are the consequences of ignoring reality
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Return of Zorro, Seaic

How "moral insanity" has replaced facts with feelings 20 Jun 2014 20:51 #2

  • Seaic
  • Seaic's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 1910
  • Likes received: 2150
Very good article, and one I enjoyed a lot and agree totally with.

Actions have consequences, this is unavoidable and will always be so. But for some reason, modern people think they can try and sidestep and dodge consequences with no harm done. They can't, and deep down they know this. Contraception, abortions, and so on, are reactionary methods to deal with the consequences of actions. Where do liberals get the idea from that they have a right to these things? They're not natural, and other species don't have them... so why do they think they have a "human right" to these things? The author of the article quite rightly identifies that these are not "rights" at all, they are newly invented SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS.

Nature has inalienable and unbreakable laws, and to attempt to violate them is an arrogant act that is doomed to failure. People think they have "rights", but these rights they claim are not their rights at all - they really ARE social constructs. It's a sign of this sick society, where those upholding natural human behaviour and defending fundamental truths and trying to notify others of these truths are seen as "dogmatic". It is not dogmatic to say that sex = babies, and if you do not want a baby then do not have sex, for example ; it's common sense, and people throughout history have known this, and every other species on the planet knows and respects this.

Liberals deride these things as "religious dogma" and "bigotry" and "intolerance", but that's just stupid. These things are (or were, before the onset of cultural Marxism) known all over the world, across a huge time period, and encompassing nearly every civilisation and religion that every existed (those that lose sight of these things inevitably destroy themselves). The collapse of the Roman Empire can be attributed to many things, and chief among them is the moral corruption endemic in Latin society at the time - Emperors and the patricians gorging themselves on all sorts of exotic foods and wines from far-flung corners of the Empire, before engaging in orgies and the barbarity of the Arena. This is just one example, and anyone interested in history can doubtless think of more.

It's a childlike attitude. A child wants to stay up all night and play computer games, because it's fun, so why not? A responsible adult knows that doing so will result in tiredness, poor functionality the next day and if done consistently, ill-health. A sexually promiscuous person wants to have sex - it feels nice, why not? A moral person knows that it leads to pregnancies, and pregnancies either lead to abortion or children, and so should only be done in a committed and stable relationship. The same thought process is easily applicable to any number of social issues including but not limited to drinking, gambling, drugs, and so on.

Human happiness doesn't come from being told you can do what you want ; that only gives a temporary and artificial high, and rather like an alcoholic needs more and more alcohol to get drunk, the hedonist needs more and more extremes to satisfy their urges. The chief (engineered) flaw in our Western societies is that individual liberty is placed above communal order and cohesion. This isn't the natural order, humans are designed to want to care for their families and tribesmen ; deviation from this results in depression, anxiety, substance abuse, promiscuity and even suicide attempts, or in other words - anaesthetics, to cope with the pain of being alienated from reality because of a sick political experiment to rebel against nature.

People who champion all these "freedoms" above order will end up with no freedom and no order. Those without a greater purpose are easily-controlled. Cognitive dissonance and disassociation from reality is needed to make all this palatable... hence why liberals often champion living naturally and environmentalism, and yet they also advocate grossly unnatural things like abortion and contraception.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Return of Zorro, Timesarrow

How "moral insanity" has replaced facts with feelings 20 Jun 2014 21:23 #3

  • Timesarrow
  • Timesarrow's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 776
  • Likes received: 946
Fantastic post Seaic, and I agree.

I wonder when liberals will start campaigning for animals to be offered contraceptives so they can enjoy their full rights to consequence-free recreational sex? Actually, they do already neuter cats and dogs, but what happens then? They lose their sex drive! You'd think this would tell the liberals something, as would the fact the genitals are called "reproductive organs" and not "recreational organs"...

Where are our resident liberals, Thoreau et al? I eagerly await their ripostes :)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Seaic

How "moral insanity" has replaced facts with feelings 20 Jun 2014 22:17 #4

  • Seaic
  • Seaic's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 1910
  • Likes received: 2150
The whole premise of that (the liberal) mindset is flawed because humans are not a perfect, infallible species - we are flawed, and will make mistakes and will take advantage whenever we can. If my boss is not at work, I take liberties and slack off. It's inherent in our behaviour. You can either have total freedom, where anything goes (anarchy), or you can have order and sacrifice your right to do whatever you like for the common good. If human individuals have total freedom, then chaos will reign in the same way that chaos will reign if you leave a troop of monkeys in a room full of explosives. Is it the monkeys' rights to blow themselves to high Heaven? Or would you intervene and stop them from doing so?
Last Edit: 20 Jun 2014 22:24 by Seaic.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Timesarrow

How "moral insanity" has replaced facts with feelings 20 Jun 2014 22:26 #5

  • Jagged Hope
  • Jagged Hope's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Member
  • Posts: 426
  • Likes received: 297
Are you guys saying that people should only have sex if they want to have a baby and shouldn't use contraception?

If I had done that, I wouldn't be any good at it..... :chuckle:
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

How "moral insanity" has replaced facts with feelings 20 Jun 2014 22:44 #6

  • Timesarrow
  • Timesarrow's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 776
  • Likes received: 946
Jagged Hope wrote:
Are you guys saying that people should only have sex if they want to have a baby and shouldn't use contraception?

If I had done that, I wouldn't be any good at it..... :chuckle:

Well, JH, basic human biology states that sex is more likely not to lead to conception than the reverse (there is a 15-25% chance of conceiving in any given monthly cycle) and the release of powerful bonding hormones such as oxytocin show sex has other purposes too - to bond a couple together.

However, the point is liberals believe they have a fundamental right to sex with no consequences. That it is a harmless hobby, just like playing tennis. The point is they need to understand that the reason we have a sex drive at all is to reproduce, and that in any instance of sexual intercourse - no matter how contracepted - there is always a possibility of pregnancy. If you are not prepared to entertain that possibility, don't have sex. Abstaining is perfectly possibly, you won't die - conversely, there is a very high chance that someone else will die, via abortion, when people engage in sex with the expectation it will be consequence free.

Seaic makes a good point when he asks why humans should be the only species on the planet who expect to have the right to engage in sex with no consequences whenever they feel like it? Every other being on the planet instinctively knows that sex means babies, but somehow we, supposedly the most advanced species on earth, has forgotten.
Last Edit: 20 Jun 2014 22:48 by Timesarrow.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Seaic

How "moral insanity" has replaced facts with feelings 20 Jun 2014 23:46 #7

  • Frog
  • Frog's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Boarder 
  • Government is simply a conspiracy against a nation!
  • Posts: 2072
  • Likes received: 1701
There is a major flaw in the argument presented in the OP.

Abortion isn't a new phenomenon that suddenly emerged in that last few decades. That is a total fallacy!

The truth in that statement can only be applied to the process and technique of abortion and the decreased risks to the mother. That's all that has changed over the last few decades.

Women have been aborting for millennia for various reasons and by various means that were dangerous to their personal well being.

Animals also use infanticide and abortive processes probably for similar reasons. Birds for example may abandon their nests for example for mammals the process is not quite as simple leading to incidents of infanticide. Infanticide among humans spans all cultures and for various reasons such as famines, sexual competitions or sex preference i.e. infanticide against infant girls.

More relevant facts can be found here Infanticide.

Abortion among women would have been and is conducted for the same basic reasons as infanticide, it's just the point in the life cycle that's significantly different. In the past women would deliberately fall in an attempt to initiate an abortion, or they would resort to dangerous insertion practices etc. Modern abortion reduces risk and is more accessible than it was in our history but the act is age old.

Economics are as much a driver of abortion as promiscuity or recreational sex between long term partners. In the past women would have been more cautious when engaging in recreational sex due to the risk of unwanted pregnancy. That doesn't mean our ancestors had higher morals or that they didn't engage in sex and debauchery because we all know they did along with rape etc.

Marriage in the modern accepted sense is a Church and State sanctioned arrangement, unless you're under the impression that humans didn't pair up in their history preceding the advent of Church and State sanctioned marriage? :conf:

The premise of the OP may fit your own personal views on the subject within the framework of modern perceptions, but it's a very poor reflection on the actual truth of the issue imho.

"Whenever you're in conflict with someone, there is one factor that can make the difference between damaging your relationship and deepening it. That factor is attitude." William James
Last Edit: 20 Jun 2014 23:52 by Frog.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: sketti, Jagged Hope

How "moral insanity" has replaced facts with feelings 20 Jun 2014 23:53 #8

  • Jagged Hope
  • Jagged Hope's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Member
  • Posts: 426
  • Likes received: 297
Timesarrow wrote:

Well, JH, basic human biology states that sex is more likely not to lead to conception than the reverse (there is a 15-25% chance of conceiving in any given monthly cycle) and the release of powerful bonding hormones such as oxytocin show sex has other purposes too - to bond a couple together.

However, the point is liberals believe they have a fundamental right to sex with no consequences. .

I do understand the point you are making.

However, there is a difference between random and reckless sex with multiple strangers and no consequences, and recreational sex with a committed couple using contraception. The possibility of pregnancy may be an assumed risk, but contraception is still used to lower the odds.

Are you against all contraception at any time in any circumstances?
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: sketti

How "moral insanity" has replaced facts with feelings 20 Jun 2014 23:58 #9

  • Timesarrow
  • Timesarrow's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 776
  • Likes received: 946
Frog wrote:
There is a major flaw in the argument presented in the OP.

Abortion isn't a new phenomenon that suddenly emerged in that last few decades. That is a total fallacy!

The truth in that statement can only be applied to the process and technique of abortion and the decreased risks to the mother. That's all that has changed over the last few decades.

Women have been aborting probably for millennia for various reasons and by various means that were dangerous to their personal well being.

Animals also use infanticide and abortive processes probably for similar reasons. Birds for example may abandon their nests for example for mammals the process is not quite as simple leading to incidents of infanticide. Infanticide among human spans all cultures and for various reasons such as famines, sexual competitions or sex preference i.e. infanticide against infant girls.

More relevant facts can be found here Infanticide.

Abortion among women would have and is conducted for the same basic reasons as infanticide it's just the point in the life cycle that's significantly different. In the past women would deliberately fall in an attempt to initiate an abortion or they would resort to dangerous insertion practices etc. Modern abortion reduces risk and is more accessible than it was in our history but the act is age old.

Economics are as much a driver of abortion as promiscuity or recreational sex between long term partners. In the past women would have been more cautious when engaging in recreational sex due to the risk of unwanted pregnancy. That doesn't mean our ancestors had higher morals or that they didn't engage in sex and debauchery because we all know they did along with rape etc.

Marriage in the modern accepted sense is a Church and State sanctioned arrangement, unless you're under the impression that humans didn't pair up in their history preceding the advent of Church and State sanctioned marriage. :conf:

The premise of the OP may fit your own personal views on the subject within the framework of modern perceptions, but it's a very poor reflection on the actual truth of the issue imho.

Oh, here we go again, the liberal fallacy that no-one ever had any morals or self-restraint, the only difference between then and now is that people are more open about it, etc etc, blah blah.

This is simply, WRONG. In 1960, the average number of lifetime sexual partners for both sexes was less than 2. It was the norm, not the exception, to be a virgin on your wedding night and to remain faithful to your spouse until you died.

Some women in desperate situations may have tried to abort or gone to some illegal abortionist but it was hardly common and nowhere NEAR the numbers we have today, not a fraction. Because abortion was (as it is in reality) very dangerous, women would only do it in absolute dire straits. I would not throw a woman in jail for trying to perform an abortion on herself, as obviously she's either in a desperate situation and/or very mentally disturbed - she needs help - but nor would I sanitise and legalise (and finance!) abortion, thereby totally skewing and denying the true gravity and horror of it.

In regards to animals, again it is very much the exception that they abandon or kill their young, in the very large majority of cases, animals are nurturing parents until their offspring are independent. And I thought we were supposed to be above animals, anyway?

The facts are, the mass degeneracy we have now as regards sex, promiscuity, abortion and so on are unprecedented, there are no comparable examples in history. Liberals can believe what they want, those are the facts.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Seaic

How "moral insanity" has replaced facts with feelings 21 Jun 2014 00:02 #10

  • Timesarrow
  • Timesarrow's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 776
  • Likes received: 946
Jagged Hope wrote:
Timesarrow wrote:

Well, JH, basic human biology states that sex is more likely not to lead to conception than the reverse (there is a 15-25% chance of conceiving in any given monthly cycle) and the release of powerful bonding hormones such as oxytocin show sex has other purposes too - to bond a couple together.

However, the point is liberals believe they have a fundamental right to sex with no consequences. .

I do understand the point you are making.

However, there is a difference between random and reckless sex with multiple strangers and no consequences, and recreational sex with a committed couple using contraception. The possibility of pregnancy may be an assumed risk, but contraception is still used to lower the odds.

Are you against all contraception at any time in any circumstances?

I agree with you JH, absolutely. In a committed relationship where the risks have been fully explored and understood, then of course couples should be free to try and protect against unwanted pregnancies.

The problem is, it's a slippery slope.

When the pill was first introduced, for instance, conservative thinkers immediately warned it would destroy marriage and monogamy and lead to an epidemic of promiscuity, divorce and abortion. Liberals laughed at them, and said it would only be used by married couples to limit the size of their families, allowing them to better provide for the children they did have - and what could be wrong with that?

This is the problem with liberalism, it is predicated on utopian thinking, rather than what human beings are actually like.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Seaic

How "moral insanity" has replaced facts with feelings 21 Jun 2014 00:11 #11

  • Jagged Hope
  • Jagged Hope's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Member
  • Posts: 426
  • Likes received: 297
My sex life began somewhere around the release time of "Come on Eileen" ( :P ), so I hate to be criticizing the 'youth of today'.

However, I have to say that I am shocked at how young teenage girls dress (or don't dress) and how evenings out in British towns seem to end in the public lying drunk everywhere or carted off to the local hospital.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

How "moral insanity" has replaced facts with feelings 21 Jun 2014 00:18 #12

  • Timesarrow
  • Timesarrow's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 776
  • Likes received: 946
Jagged Hope wrote:
My sex life began somewhere around the release time of "Come on Eileen" ( :P ), so I hate to be criticizing the 'youth of today'.

However, I have to say that I am shocked at how young teenage girls dress (or don't dress) and how evenings out in British towns seem to end in the public lying drunk everywhere or carted off to the local hospital.

I love that song :D (though I was still at primary school when it was released!)

You're right about the teenage girls of today, but you have to look at the much bigger picture of how that phenomenon has developed, and ask yourself why, if recreational, consequence-free sex is so "natural" and "liberated", most young women have to anaesthetise themselves into near unconsciousness with alcohol to be able to do it?
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Seaic

How "moral insanity" has replaced facts with feelings 21 Jun 2014 01:14 #13

  • Frog
  • Frog's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Boarder 
  • Government is simply a conspiracy against a nation!
  • Posts: 2072
  • Likes received: 1701
Timesarrow wrote:
Frog wrote:
There is a major flaw in the argument presented in the OP.

Abortion isn't a new phenomenon that suddenly emerged in that last few decades. That is a total fallacy!

The truth in that statement can only be applied to the process and technique of abortion and the decreased risks to the mother. That's all that has changed over the last few decades.

Women have been aborting probably for millennia for various reasons and by various means that were dangerous to their personal well being.

Animals also use infanticide and abortive processes probably for similar reasons. Birds for example may abandon their nests for example for mammals the process is not quite as simple leading to incidents of infanticide. Infanticide among human spans all cultures and for various reasons such as famines, sexual competitions or sex preference i.e. infanticide against infant girls.

More relevant facts can be found here Infanticide.

Abortion among women would have and is conducted for the same basic reasons as infanticide it's just the point in the life cycle that's significantly different. In the past women would deliberately fall in an attempt to initiate an abortion or they would resort to dangerous insertion practices etc. Modern abortion reduces risk and is more accessible than it was in our history but the act is age old.

Economics are as much a driver of abortion as promiscuity or recreational sex between long term partners. In the past women would have been more cautious when engaging in recreational sex due to the risk of unwanted pregnancy. That doesn't mean our ancestors had higher morals or that they didn't engage in sex and debauchery because we all know they did along with rape etc.

Marriage in the modern accepted sense is a Church and State sanctioned arrangement, unless you're under the impression that humans didn't pair up in their history preceding the advent of Church and State sanctioned marriage. :conf:

The premise of the OP may fit your own personal views on the subject within the framework of modern perceptions, but it's a very poor reflection on the actual truth of the issue imho.

Oh, here we go again, the liberal fallacy that no-one ever had any morals or self-restraint, the only difference between then and now is that people are more open about it, etc etc, blah blah.


Humm you throw the word liberal around like other people use the Nazi slight. It's an adhominem just the same. ;)

So what you're saying is that humans have always engaged in recreational sex but in the modern age they are more open about it. I think most people would agree with that statement.

This is simply, WRONG. In 1960, the average number of lifetime sexual partners for both sexes was less than 2. It was the norm, not the exception, to be a virgin on your wedding night and to remain faithful to your spouse until you died.

No it's not simply WRONG! You just made an opening statement that says people engaged in recreational sex but were not open to discussing their activities. I agree entirely with that premise! So forgive me when I'm sceptical that your claim that the average person sexual experiences was limited to one in the 1960. The fact of the matter is due to social conditions people didn't freely offer that information and if they did they would lie about their actual experiences to play it down. Do you happen to know the average promiscuity rates for the years between 1939-1945? I'm not claiming that promiscuity isn't at higher levels now due to a number of factors. I'm claiming that you are not presenting an accurate portrait of the actual history in peoples daily lives.

I assume you're aware that DNA testing has proven that a significant number of children do not share their fathers DNA? If we had data for those statistics going back through the years I suspect that we would see similar levels of children with DNA that doesn't match their fathers.

Some women in desperate situations may have tried to abort or gone to some illegal abortionist but it was hardly common and nowhere NEAR the numbers we have today, not a fraction. Because abortion was (as it is in reality) very dangerous, women would only do it in absolute dire straits. I would not throw a woman in jail for trying to perform an abortion on herself, as obviously she's either in a desperate situation and/or very mentally disturbed - she needs help - but nor would I sanitise and legalise (and finance!) abortion, thereby totally skewing and denying the true gravity and horror of it.

I guess you would have to define what you consider desperate situations? There is no may about it - they did that's a fact We have no idea how common it was as it was unrecorded. I agree it would have been less common due to the inherent risks back then and because promiscuity would also have been less prevalent than today. You are trying to base your arguments on a moral foundation at the expense of nature. It is a fact that humans have engaged in abortion and infanticide for millennia. Arguing the numbers involved is irrelevant if you are arguing against the act.

Please quantify desperate?

Are you arguing solely against the natural act of abortion or the numbers of abortions conducted?

Why is seeking an act of the mentally ill in your opinion? It seems like a perfectly rational thing for a woman to consider if she knows she can't support a child adequately for whatever reason. It would be an instinctive thing based on our primal instincts, much as a woman facing a period of famine in the past would have considered abortion or infanticide. It's the same thing in reality but in a modern context.

Life is full of horrors it's just modern life in the West shields us from many of the harsh realities of life. That doesn't mean that the horrors don't exist.

What would you say is the worst of these two scenarios...

A: A young married woman gets pregnant by her husband but tragically he dies on the day she discovers the news. She has no family or friends or prospects of finding a partner and she has no means of making a suitable living. So she opts to abort her child on that basis.

B: The woman above decides to keep the child and they both live in abject poverty for the whole of their lives. They both suffer periods of extreme bad health due to poor nutrition etc. and are exposed to violence and abuse because of the areas they are forced to live in.

Which of those scenarios is the least detrimental? A or B

Are you pro quality of life?

In regards to animals, again it is very much the exception that they abandon or kill their young, in the very large majority of cases, animals are nurturing parents until their offspring are independent. And I thought we were supposed to be above animals, anyway?

So we are back to the morals and numbers verses acts of nature then? Surely the act is the act, and the rest is humans applying irrational often religious moral principles to something that is a natural occurrence.

Is there any evidence that demonstrates that we are above animals? We can think what we like it doesn't make it true does it?

The facts are, the mass degeneracy we have now as regards sex, promiscuity, abortion and so on are unprecedented, there are no comparable examples in history. Liberals can believe what they want, those are the facts.

I'm not denying the fact that recreational sex is more prevalent or the fact that modern medical practices are a factor. You cant apply modern advances to periods of time that didn't have those options as a measure of anything, because had those people had access to the same technology they would have behaved accordingly.

My point is that why do people think that they can take a moral position against something that is a function of the natural world? Your morals are a matter for your own conscience no one else's. If people don't agree with abortion they don't have to practice it themselves, they have a choice. What you want to do is remove choices available to other people who don't subscribe to the same beliefs as you. Some people may consider that immoral in itself.

"Whenever you're in conflict with someone, there is one factor that can make the difference between damaging your relationship and deepening it. That factor is attitude." William James
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: sketti

How "moral insanity" has replaced facts with feelings 21 Jun 2014 01:34 #14

  • Timesarrow
  • Timesarrow's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 776
  • Likes received: 946
Frog, if you believe it's better for a child to be dead than to endure a life of suffering, why don't we go out and kill all children right now who are living in poverty or being abused? Your argument is entirely predicated on the fallacious liberal logic that women only abort out of thoughtful, selfless consideration for the child, whereas this is actually nonsense. Most abortions are "social abortions", e.g. it would be inconvenient or embarassing to have a child now, it would get in the way of career or other goals.

The heart-rending Dickensian nightmare of starving urchins you paint doesn't exist in modern Britain - if it did, why would young girls have babies to get benefits and council houses which they absolutely do do? And anyway, no-one ever knows what's round the corner - you could have a baby when both you and your partner have great jobs, then you could both get made redundant - are you going to kill the baby?!

There are huge amounts of resources for young families and babies - yes, they might not be able to afford flat-screen TVs and all the latest gadgets, but the child is not going to be allowed to starve. There are no cases of children in modern Britain dying of starvation (bar intentional starvation imposed by abusive parents).

Basic human biology has long since known human life begins at conception. So if you agree with abortion, you agree with murder - terminating the life of a living, unique, unrepeatable human being. And not just murder of a unique human being, but of the most vulnerable and innocent groups of humans in society. Wantonly commiting violent murder on vulnerable, innocent people is recognised as terrorism and grotesque oppression in any other circumstances - so why not this one?

You say bringing up a child can be hard, very hard - but then you also say later in your post that life generally is hard, very hard. So how does the fact a woman or couple might struggle to bring up a child justify murder? Plus - have you forgotten about adoption?

I wonder how old you are Frog, and whether you've talked to people in their late 50s and older, as they would tell you the distorted image you have of the past is very, very wrong.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Seaic

How "moral insanity" has replaced facts with feelings 21 Jun 2014 01:46 #15

  • Timesarrow
  • Timesarrow's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 776
  • Likes received: 946
Another problem about arguing with liberals (sorry if you don't like the term, but are you saying you're not one?!) is their ridiculous hypocritical stance on evidence. When I present a case, they screech - evidence, evidence! So I give them some evidence, and they say - oh well, that's not reliable, they wouldn't have kept accurate data back then.

LE SIGH.

Hint, liberals: Evidence is not evidence only when it agrees with you.

Average number of sexual partners in the 1960s - 1.67

www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7450868/Young-women-have-three-times-as-many-sexual-partners-as-grandmothers-did.html
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Seaic

How "moral insanity" has replaced facts with feelings 21 Jun 2014 02:06 #16

  • Frog
  • Frog's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Boarder 
  • Government is simply a conspiracy against a nation!
  • Posts: 2072
  • Likes received: 1701
Timesarrow wrote:
Frog, if you believe it's better for a child to be dead than to endure a life of suffering, why don't we go out and kill all children right now who are living in poverty or being abused?

Because that's nothing to do with what was said and asked!

Your argument is entirely predicated on the fallacious liberal logic that women only abort out of thoughtful, selfless consideration for the child, whereas this is actually nonsense. Most abortions are "social abortions", e.g. it would be inconvenient or embarassing to have a child now, it would get in the way of career or other goals.


OK so this is a moral argument then.

Not having a career for example is the same as facing a long famine in a modern context! Abortions to avoid embarrassing or compromising positions is as old as the hills.
The heart-rending Dickensian nightmare of starving urchins you paint doesn't exist in modern Britain - if it did, why would young girls have babies to get benefits and council houses which they absolutely do do? And anyway, no-one ever knows what's round the corner - you could have a baby when both you and your partner have great jobs, then you could both get made redundant - are you going to kill the baby?!

The hardships of modern times are relative not comparative! Maybe you should go to one of the food banks or talk to a family that has £5 per day to live on?

The reason they get benefits is because that is the States policy and it's part of the social engineering process. Your position on aborting would contribute to that situation by the way so are you bigging that policy up or knocking it down?

A change in circumstance is a totally different situation to the question posed to you. In the past there would be a very real chance of infanticide if things were beyond hope.

There are huge amounts of resources for young families and babies - yes, they might not be able to afford flat-screen TVs and all the latest gadgets, but the child is not going to be allowed to starve. There are no cases of children in modern Britain dying of starvation (bar intentional starvation imposed by abusive parents).


Take a look at child poverty rates in Britain today and then compare them to other countries. You don't have to die from starvation to suffer the effects of malnutrition or unhealthy diets etc.

Basic human biology has long since known human life begins at conception. So if you agree with abortion, you agree with murder - terminating the life of a living, unique, unrepeatable human being. And not just murder of a unique human being, but of the most vulnerable and innocent groups of humans in society. Wantonly commiting violent murder on vulnerable, innocent people is recognised as terrorism and grotesque oppression in any other circumstances - so why not this one?

So we are back to fallacies nice appeal to emotion.

If abortion and infanticide something that existed throughout human history and throughout the natural world?

You say bringing up a child can be hard, very hard - but then you also say later in your post that life generally is hard, very hard. So how does the fact a woman or couple might struggle to bring up a child justify murder? Plus - have you forgotten about adoption?

No I said people in the west are artificially sheltered from the harsh realities of life in a natural world. It's a false environment that we accept as the norm and then falsely apply unrealistic morals and principles based upon that, often related to religious beliefs. Constructs of the human mind!

I wonder how old you are Frog, and whether you've talked to people in their late 50s and older, as they would tell you the distorted image you have of the past is very, very wrong.


My age has nothing to do with my arguments and I'm fully aware of our social history extending back before the 50's it's hardly occult information and is readily accessible.

I'm wrong in your opinion.

Would you care to go through my previous post and deal with all the points raised, preferably without resorting to fallacious arguments?

Can you explain how your morals, principles and beliefs trump other peoples who disagree with you?

"Whenever you're in conflict with someone, there is one factor that can make the difference between damaging your relationship and deepening it. That factor is attitude." William James
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

How "moral insanity" has replaced facts with feelings 21 Jun 2014 02:20 #17

  • Timesarrow
  • Timesarrow's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 776
  • Likes received: 946
Well, Frog, I believe in moral universalism and not moral relativity (which is the same as immorality, or amorality), so that's why I think "my" morals are the correct ones - I don't believe morals are a matter of debate; things are either right or wrong and that's it. Killing people is wrong, and that includes abortion, murder, suicide, euthanasia and the death penalty. What right do we have to take life? That is up to God, nature or whatever you believe in. It is arrogant and unnatural for humans to presume to intervene. We have no right.

Please give me a single example of a child who has starved to death in modern Britain (not including abuse by parents). Search all you like, you won't find one. And yes, malnutrition IS a problem, for virtually every person in the West, as our dietary guidelines are stupid and wrong - plenty of middle-class children are malnourished and nutrient deficient too. It's not exclusively a problem of poverty.

But again - is it better to be malnourished or dead? All your arguments come down to the same thing - "well, a child might not have a perfect life, so it's better to kill it". Guess what Frog, there are no guarantees - rich, upper-class parents can still have sick children who suffer terribly. Money can't buy health or happiness. We all play the odds, every day of our lives, especially when we have children - there are never any guarantees.

If you think infanticide is likely when parents are struggling, you're out of your mind and clearly don't have kids - the bond from parents to children is so strong, parents would literally die for their children, they don't see children as just some inconvenient extra mouth to feed like some errant neighbour's pet. I have never heard in my life of parents murdering their baby because they couldn't feed it - they would literally sell themselves on the street before they would do that. Should they have to? No. But by suggesting infanticide is in any way common for struggling parents just demonstrates your extraordinarily warped understanding of children and parenthood.

The only reason abortions happen is because there's no visual evidence of the baby. Once parents SEE their baby, all the feelings kick in and then they could no more imagine killing it than they could sprouting wings and flying to the moon. And that is as it should be.

Also, if you believe abortion is so normal and natural, care to comment on the hundreds of thousands of women undergoing severe post-abortion trauma which they never manage to recover from for the rest of their lives?

"A new metastudy performed by researchers at the University of Siena seems to show a clear link between abortion and subsequent mental illnesses like depression, substance abuse, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), leading the study’s authors to call for additional research dedicated to the issue.

Dr. Carlo V. Bellini and Guiseppe Buonocore analyzed 30 studies of post-abortive women published between 1995 and 2011 to find out whether the data supported a link between abortion and mental illness, especially depression, anxiety disorders, PTSD and substance abuse.

They found that in 13 studies, abortion was found to be a greater risk factor than childbirth for developing at least one of those disorders, while only one study found childbirth to be more likely to lead to later mental problems. "

"A similar metastudy conducted in 2011 by Priscilla K. Coleman, Professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University, examined 22 studies on post-abortive women and found that women who underwent an abortion experienced an 81% increased risk of mental health problems.

The study also found that almost 10% of all women’s mental health problems are directly linked to abortion.


According to Coleman’s study, abortion was associated with a 34% increased risk for anxiety disorders; 37% greater risk of depression; 110% greater risk of alcohol abuse and 220% greater risk of marijuana use/abuse. Abortion was also linked with a 155% greater risk of attempting to commit suicide.

www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-meta-analysis-of-post-abortive-women-and-mental-illness-bolsters-case-f
Last Edit: 21 Jun 2014 02:26 by Timesarrow.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Seaic

How "moral insanity" has replaced facts with feelings 21 Jun 2014 02:28 #18

  • Frog
  • Frog's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Boarder 
  • Government is simply a conspiracy against a nation!
  • Posts: 2072
  • Likes received: 1701
Timesarrow wrote:
Another problem about arguing with liberals (sorry if you don't like the term, but are you saying you're not one?!)

I couldn't careless what ad hominem's you use as that isn't a foundation for an argument quite the reverse in fact. What I say I am or am not is of no significance...if you have a burning desire to label everything and tuck things away into compartmentalised boxes knock yourself out. It doesn't paper over the flaws in your argument.

is their ridiculous hypocritical stance on evidence. When I present a case, they screech - evidence, evidence! So I give them some evidence, and they say - oh well, that's not reliable, they wouldn't have kept accurate data back then.

LE SIGH.

Hint, liberals: Evidence is not evidence only when it agrees with you.

Average number of sexual partners in the 1960s - 1.67

www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7450868/Young-women-have-three-times-as-many-sexual-partners-as-grandmothers-did.html

If you cast your mind back an hour or so you may remember that it was you that stated that people of the 1960's were less open to discussing their sexual activity! I didn't introduce that statement of fact I simply agreed with it!

Now you are presenting a news paper article as evidence of the real number of sexual partners the average person had in the 60's. OK let me ask you why you think that that number is accurate, given the fact you already stated that people of that time were reluctant to give that information?

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of statistics and studies knows that people lie depending on the circumstances and social conditions. It's an inescapable unknown variable.

What we do know is that sexual promiscuity was viewed in a negative light at that time which means it's safe to assume that people would reduce the numbers of sexual encounters that they had. Maybe you think otherwise?

Sexual activity and social practices vary depending on a number of factors. For example 1939-1945 could be considered a promiscuous age and the 1980's probably the least promiscuous decade in modern times due to the AIDS outcry. The fact of the matter is that human civilisation is in a constant state of flux.

"Whenever you're in conflict with someone, there is one factor that can make the difference between damaging your relationship and deepening it. That factor is attitude." William James
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: sketti

How "moral insanity" has replaced facts with feelings 21 Jun 2014 02:34 #19

  • Timesarrow
  • Timesarrow's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 776
  • Likes received: 946
Frog, do you know the meaning of "ad hominem" - !? Evidently not. It is not merely "a label". Every time I state facts about people you don't like, you label them "ad hominems" - they're not if they're true! E.g. you ARE a liberal (most people these days are). Am I a conservative? Yes. It's a statement of fact based on your beliefs, and your beliefs are.... Liberal!

That article is quoting a study, Frog, as you'd know if you'd read it, and you've just proved my POINT about liberals discounting evidence they don't like. As none of us can get a time machine and go back to the 1960s and spy on everyone's bedrooms, how do you suppose we get an idea of what happened other than from studies and reports?

Now, you find me some studies and reports that support your ridiculous views that everyone was shagging around like Russell Brand in the 60s.

And I was mocking the liberal view "oh, it always happened, it was just hidden", not agreeing with it - !!
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Seaic

How "moral insanity" has replaced facts with feelings 21 Jun 2014 02:41 #20

  • sketti
  • sketti's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Member
  • Posts: 1246
  • Likes received: 298
Things just got interesting around here...
Trolling myself in the mirror at night...
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2
Moderators: novum, rodin, Flare
Powered by Kunena Forum

Annual Server Target

Whether its 50 cents or five dollars, your donations are appreciated and help keep this community site running so we can all continue to enjoy using it. Secure transactions via paypal.
This target is to meet our server cost for one year, June 2019 - May 2020, in USD.
$ 340 - Target
( £ 279 GBP )
donation thermometer
donation thermometer
$ 309 - Raised
( £ 254 GBP )
donation thermometer
91%
Most Recent Donation $20 USD
25th April 2020

No one is obliged to donate, please only donate what you can afford. Even the smallest amount helps. Being an active member is a positive contribution. Thank You.