TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

I posted something like this on another thread, and I don’t want it to get buried. L*****ts claim they are morally superior to conservatives, but their claims are all based on circular reasoning: they claim their ideology is more moral than conservatives because they say so, just ask them.

But I believe I’ve stumbled on a way to expose their immorality by using science and biology which isn’t {or at least shouldn’t be as} susceptible to ideological talking points.

So, let’s move beyond the realm of our ideological biases and test the morality of l*****t ideology based on science, where it isn’t a battle of “your source against mine”:

How many biological sex combinations of XY and XX c********es are found in human beings? Two, or more? Answer: The sperm cell determines the sex of an individual in this case. If a sperm cell containing an X c********e fertilizes an egg, the resulting zygote will be XX, or female. If the sperm cell contains a Y c********e, then the resulting zygote will be XY, or male.” https://www.thoughtco.com/how-c********es-determine-sex-373288#sex-c********es-x-o

Since it is c********e pairs that determine a human’s sex, can a person change their biological DNA, from an XX to an XY, for example, by choice?

How is it not an oppression of free speech to coerce, under force of law, someone to not refer to another person according to the sex determined by that other person’s c********es, if that other person doesn’t “choose” to be known by the sex that is determined by their own c********e pair?

This set of questions proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that l*****ts, who are making it illegal to refer to a person as a she or he if they don’t want to be, are on an agenda to dictate their ideology in a manner contrary to biological science. It is clearly immoral, particularly in the USA, to impose one’s moral convictions upon others, yet that is exactly what l*****ts are accomplishing across our country.

Next set of questions.

Scientifically speaking, does “life” begin at conception, yes or no? And what type of data provides the determining factor of when “life” begins: ideological factors or biological factors?

If a human baby in the womb is, biologically speaking, not a “human life”, first, what kind of “life” is it, and secondly, what is it doing with its own unique human DNA, its own beating heart and blood supply, and its own nervous system and mental activity? Does any other mere “blob of tissue” have its own specie-specific DNA, its own beating heart and blood supply, and its own individual nervous system and brain activity, yet is not factually biologically determined to “be” a “life”, but rather a mere inanimate blob of tissue?

And what, morally speaking, in any other realm or area of study or observation, would it be acceptable for a person to redefine a “living human being” as nothing but a blob of tissue, based only on ideology, and that contrary to scientific fact?

When does “political ideology” alone legitimately provide the determining factor of what is or isn’t a “ living human being”? And what is it called when a “political ideology” predetermines a biological condition, contrary to the biological or scientific facts, and then politically imposes such upon a populace? Would that be the actions of a free people, or of a tyrannical form of government?

Are there any examples, during any time in man’s history, where “political ideology” was legitimately used in a moral way, as opposed to an immoral way, to deny living humans from being classified as “legitimate” human beings?

When “political ideology” alone was used in the past to define the legitimacy or not of a human being, (ie based on nationality, ethnicity, race or tribe, or any other factor), was that considered “scientific and humane” or “barbaric and inhumane” by today’s standards?

If, in the past, using “political ideology” alone to de-legitimize living human beings equated to nothing but bigotry, or worse, as a justification for genocide, or attempted genocide, what gives l*****ts the idea they can judge living human beings, who just happen to be “unborn”, as somehow “illegitimate” based solely on their “ideology” and not be considered just as evil?

Conclusion: science and biology provide concrete evidence that l*****ts are more interested in imposing their amoral ideology than they are in accepting facts and t***h. Where this is obvious when observable elements of biology can be brought to testify; just because l*****ts can hide their motives easier behind political concepts, doesn’t mean they aren’t applying the same amoral attitudes in arriving at their positions.

Sources for Reference:

https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/
“The Charlotte Lozier Institute is committed to bringing the power of science, medicine, and research to bear in life-related policy making, media, and debates to promote a culture and polity of life.”

https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/life-issues/when-human-life-begins
“American College of Pediatricians – March 2017
“ABSTRACT: The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.”

bahmer

Amen and Amen an excellent post thanks for posting that now to see the liberals refute what you have written I bet that all we will hear are crickets.

Unintended Consequences

So now you have proved that life begins at conception. I have other questions about the morality of the situation. If you force a woman to have a child, are you willing to help this woman raise that child until they are 18. Second question: there was a man involved in this creation of a child. Perhaps we ought to see that he has a vasectomy so that he doesn't cause another unwanted pregnancy. Next question: is it always wrong to k**l someone. If so what do we say about sending people off to war with the specific job of k*****g people. Next question if you had to make a choice between saving a live person or saving some fertilized eggs which would you choose. Choices are not always as easy as one may think.

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Would you mind repeating that a little louder, please? Here, let me help:

“...now you have proved that life begins at conception.” - Unintended Consequences

Ahh, that’s better. Thank you for admitting that.



By what stretch of the imagination is my wanting to make it illegal to k**l unborn living human beings to be equated to me “forcing a woman to have a child”?

Let’s turn your question around and see if it makes any sense. If I support laws, by v****g for them, or by supporting politicians that support them, that send convicted murderers away for life, am I therefore obligated to personally support their children until they are 18? By being a party to making that law, and they get caught and go to jail, and their children to be without parents, would you say I “forced the criminals to be separated from their parents”? Or would you recommend we just k**l the living, discarded, unwanted children of the incarcerated parents? Because that is what a******nists demand be acceptably done about living unborn human babies, and it isn’t “hypothetical”.

Can’t you understand that actions have consequences, and illegal ones have bad consequences, and when someone else commits an evil act it isn’t society’ responsibility for the consequences of said act? Can you imagine if we used that thinking across the board with the victims of all crimes? If we make robbing banks illegal, and send people to jail for it, am I responsible for the livelihood of the thief’s children because that money was meant to support them?

You haven’t really thought this whole thing through much, have you?



You mean, make it illegal for him to ever have children again? How has that addressed the act of the murdering of an unborn child, which may or may not have been against his will? Do we cut the fingers off people who hold up banks with guns? How does your suggestion address or justify the l*****t ideology that I should pay, against my conscience, to have “unwanted” babies murdered for their “crime” of being inconvenient?



Yes, it is always wrong to k**l someone. In fact, I started a thread about it. Capital punishment is never justified, especially by someone who claims to be a “Christian.” But there are many, many people who claim to be “Christian,” who also figure out all kinds of ways not to obey Christ as their King. Jesus warned us about them over and over. They are just blatant hypocrites who have listened to the lies of the devil and make the commandments of God of none effect by their traditions.




“...some fertilized eggs”?, oh, you mean you were being either facetious or sarcastic when you said I had proven that life began at conception? So, you are back to where your ideology, not biology or science, determines who is a legitimate human and who is not.

Reality is, there is almost never a situation where aborting a child would save the life of a mother.

“It is an extremely rare case when a******n is required to save the mother’s life. Of course, when two lives are threatened and only one can be saved, doctors must always save that life. However, a******n for the mother’s life and a******n for the mother’s health are usually not the same issue.
“Since every a******n k**ls an innocent human being, it is morally abhorrent to use the rare cases when a******n is necessary to save the life of the mother as justification for the millions of on demand “convenience” a******ns.
“While he was United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a freeborn child’s life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother. He said the use of this argument to justify a******n in general was a “smoke screen.”
“Due to significant medical advances, the danger of pregnancy to the mother has declined considerably since 1967. Yet even at that time Dr. Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood acknowledged:
“Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, a******n would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.”
“Just for the record, go ahead and re-read that quote again and pay close attention to the source.
“To repeat, the person making the quote is Dr Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood.
“So, yes, Faye Wattleton, the President of Planned Parenthood, says that a******n k**ls, and now, just for the record again, we have Dr. Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood acknowledging that it is an extremely rare case that a******n is necessary to save the mother’s life (and he even goes so far as to say that a******n would be unlikely to prolong the mother’s life even in these every extreme cases).”
https://www.a******nfacts.com/facts/8

So what you are saying is, the l*****ts are justified in making it legal to k**l, snuff out the life of, an innocent, living, unborn human being, up to birth, and on demand, regardless of any health issues or lack thereof, and furthermore that all Americans are duty bound to pay for those murders, of living unborn human beings, through their taxes, on the off chance that a mother’s life might be saved.

Yes, actions have consequences and allowing l*****ts to have any political clout is guaranteed to undermine our religious liberties and freedom of religious practice in America, let alone justify and actualize the widespread infanticide of untold millions for the sake of convenience.

Thank you for proving the point of my thread... and have a nice day.

PeterS

Of the three women below only one is genetically a woman. My question is, why does it matter which one it is?

The child below is treated by conservatives with less respect and empathy than we would give a cat or a dog. Yet according to conservatives, that child was human the moment its mother's egg was fertilized with a fathers sperm.

Conservatives stand by the right of a baker to refuse service to a homosexual couple because of unrepentant sin but will v**e for Donald Trump even though he admitted to never asking forgiveness for the multiple times he committed adultery on his three wives proving that the 'unrepentant sin' argument simply a fallacy to allow Christians to discriminate.

Liberals are morally superior to conservatives for the simple reason conservatives don't have any morals...

Unintended Consequences

I don't suppose it is ever occurs to you that there are millions of people in this country who have not been brought up with the high-minded ideals that you have been brought up with, as Christians to follow the law of God. I don't suppose it occurs to you that there are people who don't have the means of raising a child. I do not condone those who decide to have an a******n just because it's inconvenient I'm talking about people for whom it is almost impossible to raise a child. Pro-life people are interested mainly in having a child born; after that they piss and moan about welfare, food stamps and any other program that helps poor people manage their lives. When we have a comprehensive program including early childhood programs, decent programming on TV.instead of the immoral crap we see every night ,in other words, utopia, then I might become pro life.

Rose42

Wrong. They stand by the baker because he refused to support the sin of the homosexual lifestyle. Thats a lot different than v****g for a president. If Christians were to not v**e because someone is a sinner then they’d never v**e because wveryone is.

Today’s liberals are as morally bankrupt as other groups.

Unintended Consequences

Interesting fact: homosexual was not in the Bible until 1946. Older versions use the terms abuse of young boys instead. So who decided homosexuality was a sin?https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019/3/8/what-about-romans-124-27?fbclid=IwAR1ygCnxzuzCrg1o68D4gICembG75F_QWwbNa_agv-0adCH5S8GR76Hq0Ss

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

So who determines what is female, their genetics, yes or no?

And you know it is a lie to say “it doesn’t matter”. If it doesn’t matter, why are l*****ts demanding laws be put on the books to enforce people to call people by g****rs that do not match their c********es?

I don’t care what people call themselves either. I care about being forced to “humor” them in their self-deceptions, which are psychologically destructive, not only for themselves, but for any children they influence. Let alone the fact that l*****ts like yourself are using this ridiculous idea to deny me and many others of our God-given right to free speech, simply for wanting to call girls "girls" or "her" and boys "boys" or "him" and expect them to use the facilities that are allocated to their biological sexes. When you l*****ts make that illegal, you better bet it "matters." The issue is, l*****ts don't have the morals to allow other's their viewpoint. So if making it actually "matter" bothers you, you should stop defending the left.



And, of course, this is just a blatant lie, you l*****ts just refuse to hear the evidence, and jump at any opportunity to make conservatives appear amoral.



If you can’t understand the difference between being forced to participate in an act, and v****g for a President who may or may not be actually guilty of a crime, and was certainly not found guilty in anything other than the court of l*****t opinion, then there isn’t any point in trying to explain it to you. That was the whole reason behind trying to use some biological, concrete examples that would be plain to see.




Which brings us full circle back to the original intent of the post, to show that your morals are based on nothing more than circular reasoning, which is, because you say so. This is one of the ways l*****t bigotry manifests itself. You have not demonstrated that you even understood the concepts I put before you, let alone have you shown you can present a valid, coherent counter position. Things are what they are because you say they are and anyone who disagrees, by the fact they disagree with you, is amoral, according to your personal standards.

You can call me amoral all you want, but all you have is your opinion. I've provided actual evidence. Which just goes to show that science, evidence, facts and t***h are all just little annoyances that get in the way of your l*****t ideologies, to be manipulated at will as you see fit.

Rose42

Homosexuality has always been in the bible though numerous opinion pieces say otherwise. The opinion piece you cite isn’t factual unless you mean the word homosexual wasn’t in a t***slation until then.

The word may not be there but it doesn’t matter - the description of the behavior is.

King James Version (1500s)

Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] a*********n.

Unintended Consequences

Excerpts from “The West Wing”
BARTLET: I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an “a*********n!”
JACOBS: I don’t say homosexuality is an a*********n, Mr. President. The Bible does.
BARTLET: Yes it does. Leviticus!
JACOBS: 18:22.
BARTLET: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I wanted to sell my youngest daughter into s***ery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown Sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?
(Bartlet only waits a second for a response, then plunges on.)
BARTLET: While thinking about that, can I ask another? My chief of staff, Leo McGary, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to k**l him myself? Or is it okay to call the police?
(Bartlet barely pauses to take a breath.)
BARTLET: Here’s one that’s really important, because we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?
(The camera pushes in on the president.)
One last thing. While you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building when the president stands, nobody sits.
(Jacobs sees that, in fact, the president is standing and she is the only one in the room sitting. After a moment, she rises, holding her tiny plate of appetizers. After the president exits, Sam Seaborn sternly approaches a thoroughly belittled Jacobs.)
SAM: I’m just … going to take that crab puff.

Rose42

A tv show? Seriously? There are multiple places in the bible where it mentions sexual perversions as a*********ns.

If you want to learn more about the biblical perspective on s***ery you can start here -

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-s***ery.html

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Not one attempt at objectivity was made by a l*****t in this thread. Obviously, l*****ts have no concept of the meaning of "objective", wouldn't you agree?

Lonewolf

So your answer is elect a 3time Serial adulterer /con artist accused of 22 sexual assaults that has lied to the American people over 5000 times.
Sorry you can't claim any moral ground.

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

And what court case was that conviction determined at, again?