Tuesday, March 10, 2009
The Ultimate fascist Lie
Science over Ideology? Obama has declared his ideology. It is the continued depreciation of human value by declaring morality to be an anti-science ideology. There is no step he could have taken publicly that would more closely identify him with the ideology of the Third Reich. By pretending that embryonic stem cells are the answer to all disease, and ignoring the advances of non-embryonic stem cells, Obama has chosen the ideology over the morality.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
My God....
Is this what us liberals sounded like for the past eight years?
If so, I do apologize.
As usual, if you have substance, let's discuss it. Otherwise....
Obama makes his stance perfectly clear. Go ahead and make yours.
Reductio ad Hitlerum is a real logical fallacy, just so you know, but I digress...
Why is it OK to kill species X to improve human life, but not species Y?
Clearly, human life has more intrinsic value than, say, chicken life.
Even without religion, I can see the absurdity of PETA's attempts to equate the Holocaust with eating animals.
But I haven't seen anything to convince me that a human fetus has more (or even equal) value than an adult human with a life, goals, dreams, family, social network, and most importantly, the ability to suffer. A fetus that hasn't developed a brain yet has no ability to be aware of anything.
Not that this means they should be slaughtered indiscriminately, but if it comes to the suffering of a speck of blood vs the suffering of an adult human, I'd go with the adult every time without question.
And it was recently pointed out to me that human life never begins; it's all a continuum. From an adult human, to sperm and egg cells, to joined sperm and egg cells, to fetus, to baby, etc is a constant continuum. There is no "life begins."
Obama's ultimate plan.
Martin, doesn't the idea that life is a continuum speak to the idea that interrupting that continuum at any point is an ethical error?
By placing value on a conscious human life but not on an unconscious human life, one assumes an authority over all human life. Variable values are personal opinion, not immutable truths.
This of course is a natural outcome of the idea of "ethics" in the first place: I may develop my own authority to tell you what you may or may not do. That authority only has value through personal power: force. Only if I force you are you obliged to accept my personal ethic.
This enforcement is now being endorsed by requiring religious hospitals and all physicians to perform abortions, and pharmacists to issue harmful drugs. Once the Hippocratic oath is breeched, only opinion and agenda are in control.
Religion once devolved into that sort of authority. In modern times it is not religion but humanism via the enlightenment that endorses it.
The fact that the Left continues in that direction despite the horrific, recent history, shows a contempt for human self-value. The desire for equal outcomes supercedes any call for liberty. Justice is no longer based on human integrity and freedoms in the Constitution, it is based on equality of outcome for all individuals.
As for Obama's Ultimate Plan:
Interestingly Obama once commented that he favored abortion so that his daughters would never be "punished with a baby".
Obviously if babies are punishment, they should not be allowed to occur, right? This is the thought process behind performing 4 or 5 abortions on one single black woman, but never advocating personal restraint: that would violate her rights. Black babies are killed at a rate far above the rates for other races. Abortion was, and still is, a Racist pursuit and a Relativist ideology. When Whites stopped keeping blacks in subjection, Black leaders and the Left took over the job.
Reductio ad Hitlerium is only a fallacy if, like all fallacies, it turns out to be non-coherent, self-contradicting, or supported by false premises. Invoking such an accusation of fallacy without pointing to alleged errors is also a fallacy.
"Obviously if babies are punishment..."
I'm not 100% pro-choice, so I won't argue with you here.
My only concern is that it seems strange to me to protect non-sentient fetuses while allowing fully sentient adults to suffer. Not that I want to try to value one life over another, but if the scale came down to a fetus on one side, and a suffering adult on the other, I'd go with the adult everytime. If you disagree, then you seem like PETA to me.
Why is it not OK to use fetal stem-cells to help people but it IS ok for the federal government to slaughter tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians? Where is the outrage for that?
Did the Federal Government go over to Iraq to purposely slaughter tens of thousands of Iraqi non-combatant citizens? Your inference is incorrect it seems to me.
Am I outraged at the consequences of war, or am I outraged at the fact of war?
You are apparently outraged at both. Your motives are pure; your logic can't support the following issues, though.
War is sometimes inevitable. But sometimes it is not. However, I do not control that. If I presume that war is ALWAYS avoidable, then I can be outraged inside of rationality. But if I presume that war is not avoidable in some cases, then I cannot.
If a single war is known in advance to be avoidable, then outrage is rational; but at my position in the food chain, I cannot know that, even in retrospect.
So outrage at war is called for only when the facts are incontrovertable and known...in advance. Post hoc outrage is useless, but rational.
Now, for fetal death due to abortion or embryonic stem cell exploitation. Are either of these inevitable? No. They are voluntary. They are avoidable. The only reason to kill a fetus is for selfish gain.
Why would the voluntary, avoidable, killing of millions of fetuses, to cure disease in ex-fetuses, or for birth control, not be more outrageous than liberating a nation from a butcherous dictator, even for the wrong reason?
Outrage is a self-righteous condemnation of someone else; it presumes a moral authority over others, and the presumed moral authority has allowed an eruption into fierce self-righteous anger.
This is what the Left hates in the religious, yet it clings to it in its own self-derived ethics (witness Obama's science over ideology speech: self-righteousness personified).
Self-righteous outrage cannot itself be considered all that rational, when it occurs in a relativist.
Post a Comment