Monday, October 17, 2011

"The Logic Bomb" blog byAuragasmic Beth


  • To my response, the blogger Auragasmic Beth wrote a new blog entitled, "The Logic Bomb." In this post I respond directly to each point made.    The blue <<>> are the words of Auragasmic Beth, the black are mine.  



    << Recently, on Twitter, an aspiring priest decided to challenge my claim that Personhood supports Prochoice ideologies. Except, he didn’t really challenge my argument – instead, he decided to excessively detail how a fetus is a person (something that I never disputed) and why a fetus should be awarded equal rights (again, something I’ve never disputed.) He failed to address both of my main arguments and instead decided to engage in one of the most long-winded, erroneous, and irrational tirades I have ever had the misfortune of stumbling upon.>>





    Sacerdotus comments:


    The blogger has failed to see that I expounded on the implications made by the points in her post. Her blog is mainly composed of emotivism with a feminist rhetorical tone. While she feels the need to appeal to emotivism, I felt the need to expand on my comments using citations as support. It is not a surprise that her blog portrays the women as victim. This is a typical tactic of the prochoice agenda. 








    << I’ve omitted parts of his response as they’re either non sequitur or entirely irrelevant to my initial entry. His response, in its entirety, can be found here.>>


    Sacerdotus comments:

    The blogger obviously cannot answer my entire blog for the sole reason that it cannot be disputed. How can one dispute science? The denial to respond is self evident. I on the other hand will respond to everything and not avoid one thing. 



    <<The “unborn” are not enslaved. To suggest otherwise is to minimize the excruciating pain and horrific reality of actual victims. The comparison is nothing more than inane rhetoric. In actuality, it is individuals such as @Sacerdotus who continually advocate for the enslavement of women to a condition that is ultimately beyond our control. Furthermore, @Sacerdotus neglects to admit how women were treated during slavery. Women were exploited for both production and reproduction. Their bodies were subjugated to the mass production of materials and to future slaves; these women were treated as nothing more than broodmares – all because of their biologically designated ability to become pregnant and give birth. A chilling similarity that should serve as a cautionary precursor to the self-proclaimed Prolife movement.>>



    Sacerdotus comments:


    Again, we see the feminist rhetorical stance of putting mother against child. The blogger has completely missed the point of what enslavement means in light of my comparison to slavery in America. The blogger calls it "inane rhetoric" instead of directly answering why the unborn are not enslaved. She continues by accusing me, a celibate young man of enslaving women. I live in a community of men. No women enter our property, except for in the main office. To accuse me of enslavement is uncalled for and obviously shows the blogger has no more defense left for her thoughts other than ad hominem. In my original post, I never denied women are exploited. I stated that all are subject to enslavement: men, women, children (born/preborn).
    I wrote: " Not all men are born free either. According to Anti-Slavery International, there are over 20 million people - men and women- who are born into bondage. (http://www.antislavery.org/english/) To imply that only women suffer slavery is erroneous. Women alongside men and children are subject to whatever social condition they are met with at birth. Slavery is not exclusive to the female gender. "

    To claim that women are the only ones who suffer enslavement is unrealistic. The idea only exists in feminist rhetoric, not the real world according to statistic. The blogger continues claiming that women are exploited for both production and reproduction. It is interesting to note that in her previous blog she mentioned "consensual" sex. A woman cannot be exploited without her consent granted she is not a victim of rape. The blogger attempts to portray a world that reminds me of the movie "The Matrix" where people are used by machines, but instead men and women being used, only women are used for "production" and "reproduction." I do not understand why the blogger feels the need to deny the physiology of women. Human beings are sexual beings. We are designed to reproduce genetically speaking. Our ability to build buildings, technology, learn etc, does not separate us from other organisms. We are not immune to the natural world. Women can choose to reproduce or not. No one has said otherwise. What she cannot choice -neither can men or children- is to kill innocent human life at any stage of development. 




    <<Unless you’re born female, in which case if you should become pregnant – regardless of whether or not you consent to the pregnancy as you were born with a uterus and therefore consent to the condition – you have no right to liberty or the pursuit of happiness. >>



    Sacerdotus comments:

    Biologically speaking, a woman during ovulation naturally "consents" to pregnancy. As I have shown in my previous posts, ovulation not only helps with homeostasis, but it prepares a women for fertilization. Now, just because this happens does not mean a women HAS to get pregnant of course. This is where prochoice advocates including the blogger fails to separate fact from fiction. When dealing with pregnancy, we are not dealing with a terminal disease or the like. We are dealing with a natural occurrence that brings about the continuation of a species that reproduces sexually. - (http://www.americanpregnancy.org/gettingpregnant/understandingovulation.html) Once again, we cannot separate ourselves from the nature world. The rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are inalienable. I am not a lawyer, but do have a certificate in paralegal studies. From what I remember, there is possible loophole in the 14th amendment regarding the born vs unborn and who has rights. The amendment reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States." Notice the word "naturalized." According to the definition, Naturalized means " to become established as if native"- (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/naturalize). If women are pregnant and are citizens of a particular nation, it is logical to conclude that their preborn offspring are "naturalized." The reason for this is because the unborn child/children reside within the same nation as the mother. The womb is not another dimension or state of existence within the physical universe. What separates the unborn from the world is the natural habitat of the womb. It is no different than the walls of our home separating us from the rest of the neighborhood. The home IS part of the neighborhood as well as its contents. Similarly, the child is within the womb in a particular sovereign state and therefore naturalized. 




    <<Unless, of course, you’re born female.>>

    Sacerdotus comments:


    This comment was made to answer my original post: I wrote:

    "It is unfair, and immoral to make these rights valid exclusively to those who are in the stages of development that follow birth. Just like it is unfair and immoral to make these rights exclusive to males, or white people only."

    Females are not the be all end all in humanity. Neither are men. Both are equal. The born are not more valuable than the preborn- vice versa. All are of the same substance: human. The only difference is the stage of development his/she is in. The blogger with her comment seems to feel that women deserve more rights than males and everyone else. Again, this is feminist rhetoric. 



    <<Here’s where the fun begins:



    “The analogies provided give the idea that a burglar breaking and entering must be entertained by the victim because it is “her fault” that her property was not secure. The blog continues claiming this idea is absurd. However, it is partially absurd. Yes it is absurd that a victim must entertain a burglar. However, it is the victim’s fault for not using common sense by protecting her property.”



    The analogies employed in my entry were initially utilized in Judith Jarvis Thomson’s: A Defense of Abortion (http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm):



    “If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and a burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, “Ah, now he can stay, she’s given him a right to the use of her house–for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle.”



    What Thomson has so eloquently illustrated with this specific example is that while a woman is fully capable of acknowledging a risk associated with a particular behaviour, her acknowledgement does NOT suggest that she consents to any resulting consequence. EXAMPLE: A driver is aware that driving a car can be potentially dangerous and acknowledges the risks associated with driving a vehicle. Should he hit another car and require medical assistance to preserve his health, he would not be denied such aid.>>




    Sacerdotus comments:


    The blogger attempts to take a serious topic and make it into a comical one. She further attempts to aid the analogy by creating one of her own using a driver. What she and Thomson fail to realize is that physiology is not about crime or road accidents. The connections cannot be made. When it pertains to abortion, we are dealing with lives: the mother and child. We cannot leave life up to hypothetical situations. 



    <<The victim (in the majority of circumstances) did protect her property. According to recent studies, over 50% of women who become pregnant utilized some method of birth control in the month they conceived. Besides, just because you own property doesn’t imply that you consent to someone ELSE using it; even if you fail to properly secure it.



    What you’re suggesting is that if someone doesn’t wish to have their home burglarized that they shouldn’t own a home (Abstinence) or that they shouldn’t require a place to live (Rape).>>




    Sacerdotus comments:


    It is well known that birth control is not 100% effective, "There is no "best" method of birth control. Each method has its pros and cons." - (http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/birth-control-methods.cfm) Moreover, as I have stated before, birth control depends on the responsibility of the adults involved. If a couple is not ready to have children, then the logical conclusion is: do not have them. 

    The blogger states: " just because you own property doesn’t imply that you consent to someone ELSE using it; even if you fail to properly secure it;" the blogger once again ignores the biological fact that the womb is designed for the child. Ovulation and ejaculation are all part of reproduction. It has nothing to do with "using another's property." This idea is only applicable to rape when of course a man uses a woman's body without consent. Nevertheless, it is the man who violated the woman, not the child. In closing, the blogger states that I suggested that no one should own a home. In reality, I made no such suggestion. I did say that it is common sense for one to protect his/her own property. I wrote: "The analogies provided give the idea that a burglar breaking and entering must be entertained by the victim because it is "her fault" that her property was not secure. The blog continues claiming this idea is absurd. However, it is partially absurd. Yes it is absurd that a victim must entertain a burglar. However, it is the victim's fault for not using common sense by protecting her property. In cases of burglary, the authorities always advise that property security measures be taken in order to prevent theft... It is pure gumption that in an unsafe world, we must live safely and secure our property" Notice there is no mention of not owning a home at all as the blogger suggests. Abstinence is another topic. It is irrelevant to our discussion. 




    <<No one is suggesting that pregnancy is unnatural. What you continuously neglect to acknowledge is that women are autonomous human beings – meaning that regardless of their ability or biological design to become pregnant, they must consent to the condition. It is absolutely irrational and morally abhorrent to argue that because a woman possesses a particular biological ability that she must be subservient to it. A uterus is incapable of providing consent to a condition that often places a woman in dire physical, psychological and financial circumstances.>>



    Sacerdotus comments:


    The analogy of the burglar is an attempt to describe the so called feminist theory of "bodily autonomy." To say otherwise is not owning up to your words. I have never stated that women are not autonomous human beings and do not consent to pregnancy. What I did say is that biologically speaking, a woman is designed for this function. There is no denying this. Describing the function of an organ system does not equate to actually permitting that function. There is nothing irrational or morally abhorrent about a female accepting motherhood. Motherhood does not degrade the autonomy of a woman. It is a natural aspect of the female gender. It seems that feminist rhetoric wants to force tokophobia upon women by attempting to disconnect motherhood from femininity. The blogger claims that a pregnancy "places a woman in dire physical, psychological and financial circumstances." Now this may be true if the biological function of sex is used carelessly. Discomfort from a pregnancy is natural. Moreover, couples must use common sense when starting a family. The real issue here is not autonomy, but making responsible decisions and accepting responsibility for them. As Freud puts it, "Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility." - Sigmund Freud 



    <<Firstly, the term consensual sex is not an “attempt to mask the reality behind sex and pregnancy.” It is exercised to differentiate between an accordant act and rape. Secondly, it’s a phrase often used by police to determine if a crime has been committed. Are you seriously insinuating that police officers and authoritative forces are feminists?>>



    Sacerdotus comments:

    Once again the blogger claims I am directing my comments towards law officials. My comments were directed towards the radical feminist agenda. I wrote:
    “Feminist rhetoric uses terms such as “consensual sex” and “unwanted pregnancy” in an attempt to mask the reality behind sex and pregnancy. It is an attempt to separate sexual from reproduction.”
    Notice I started with "Feminist rhetoric." I did not speak generally. Had I done so it would of read as such: "Consensual sex is an attempt to..." However, I did no such thing. The intended subject of my comment was explicitly mentioned - Feminist rhetoric. I do not dispute the distinction law officials use to describe sex acts whether willful or not. My comments were a critique of how the feminist rhetoric uses the term. 



    <<In actuality, reproduction is one of the many functions of sex. Many species of animals – human beings included – engage in heterosexual and homosexual copulation for a multitude of reasons ranging from establishing stronger emotional bonds, reaping the numerous health benefits and even protection.
    “In many animal societies, sex is the glue (no pun intended) that keeps intricate social structures intact, protecting them from predators, disease, and one another. “>>



    Sacerdotus comments:


    Everyone is aware that animals other than human beings function by using instincts. However, does that mean we should imitate them? Human beings have an advanced brain. We are self aware, can reason, make decisions based on right and wrong. Animals in nature do not share these qualities. The blogger is once again going off topic. The link provided deals with an attempt to apply anthropomorphic qualities upon other animals in the animal kingdom. It is a link to an exhibit that took place a few years ago. Instinctual acts do not disqualify the function of sexual reproduction in all species that rely on it for its own continuation. It is again an attempt at separating the sexual from the reproduction.

  • <<While I disagree with Professor Seller, I find it bewildering that someone could propose that another human being should be responsible for a condition that can occur regardless of their consent to it occurring. This is the very epitome of victim blaming. A woman, born with a uterus and the potential to become pregnant, is at the very mercy of her own biology should someone decide to exploit it. Women have a constitutionally protected right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness; a feat hardly attainable if she doesn’t have the right to govern her body.
    And yes, there is such a thing as an “unwanted pregnancy.” Ask any incest victim if she consented to the possibility of becoming pregnant with her sister/daughter.>>


    Sacerdotus comments:


    As stated in my previous post, women do not have to be victims. There are so many ways to defend oneself from any attack. A true feminist would empower women to be strong and defend themselves instead of portraying women as the "weaker" sex. 
    A pregnancy resulting from incest is extremely rare. It would not be wise to apply this minority occurrence towards the majority of all cases of pregnancy. Furthermore, the issue of incest is hard to discuss because of some cultural ties. 


    <<A woman is endowed with the ability to become pregnant if certain requirements are met – but that doesn’t insinuate that she consents to the consequences. Of course a conception stemming from rape is intrusive as her uterus is incapable of providing consent on her behalf as she is an autonomous being.
    Example: The front door to your house is designed to allow access. Now, just because your door functions as an entrance point to your home doesn’t mean that just anyone has the right gain admittance to your property at any given moment, regardless of whether or not you locked your door and especially not if someone takes advantage of a faulty lock or kicks the door down.
    Even if someone decides to barge into your house and leave an unconscious individual on your couch you aren’t obligated to allow that person refuge because of the fact your door is designed to open. The unconscious person is trespassing on your property, despite being an innocent bystander, they have no right to reside in your house because your door was unlocked or because someone decided to exploit a faulty lock, or broke down the door.
    Now most certainly, if the unconscious person is a result of a prank, then the person who left him there should be punished – but that doesn’t negate the fact that you have a right to remove the unconscious individual as he is still trespassing on your property despite the fact that he has not expressed an intent to do so. Even if that person’s very life depended upon inhabiting your house, you would not be morally obligated to allow him shelter because your door is designed to open.>> 




    Sacerdotus comments:

    If a woman becomes pregnant, how is she not consenting to the consequences? I am assuming most women on earth know about the consequences of pregnancy. I say most because there are women/girls who are mentally disabled and are not totally aware of many things and need help to live a normal life. Pregnancy is a serious thing. It involves the reproduction or procreation of a new human being. It is the vehicle nature uses to continue a particular species which reproduces sexually. To become pregnant and then panic at the consequences is absurd. Human responsibility much be present at all moments. 

    Your example is similar to that of the burglar. Of course an outsider does not have the right to enter one's home, however, a family member does. Does not a child living in his parent's home not have the right to enter and dwell? What parent would kick a child to the street by saying, "this is my house?" Rest assured child services will remind that parent of her responsibility in a severe manner. 
    The idea of a person barging into a house with an unconscious individual can be understood in different ways. In the case of a disaster or other emergency, emergency officials can commandeer one's property. Fire officials often barge into someone's home in order to rescue someone or to provide an unconscious victim a place of security until paramedics arrive. This act of commandeering is not meant to take away one's autonomy, but is meant to save lives. Now whether a preborn child is conscious or not is not fully known. In my previous post I showed how consciousness is not a requirement for anyone to be considered a person or human being. Infants are not fully conscious. We all develop our self awareness as we grow old. In any case, your analogy cannot be applied to pregnancy because the "unconscious" individual appears from within, not from without. No child is implanted into a woman. A woman becomes pregnant from within herself with her own genetic material. 


    <<Are you honestly suggesting that a woman who is raped should be held accountable because she didn’t adequately defend herself against her attacker?

    >>


    Sacerdotus comments:

    Not at all. I wrote: "...police tell us to secure our homes, so too do they advice women to use self defense in order to thwart attacks." Here I am merely stating that women do not have to be victims of rape. Police remind women constantly about preventive measures. They say not to walk in the street with earphones on and to be aware of their surroundings. Some even offer free self defense classes on how to thwart an attacker. Similar classes are offered to gay men who are victims of gay hate crimes. There is no need to become a victim. Police state this and I have repeated their stance. 


    <<A man who has been raped has had his right to bodily autonomy violated. When the rape halts, he regains his autonomy. When a woman is raped and a pregnancy results, an abortion is a means of regaining her autonomy. So yes, abortion allows a woman to recover the right to govern her own body.>>

    Sacerdotus comments:


    Yes he did have his autonomy violated, but how does he regain it? I have seem some prochoice advocates suggest that an abortion restores a woman's autonomy. The problem with this idea that abortion helps a women regain her autonomy is that an abortion kills another life. Another victim is added to the crime. Moreover, 50% of the genes (egg) is of the woman. It is like if someone touches me that I do not like and I cut off the skin that the person touched. Am I really helping my situation? Recent studies show that abortion does cause mental illness in women. - (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20100587-10391704.html) So abortion adds to the trauma and crime of rape by killing an innocent child, and by decreasing the mental health of the woman according to theses new studies.


    <<The “conception” (what happened to person?) has no right to utilize the woman’s body without her consent as her uterus is incapable of providing that for her as she is an autonomous being. Please refer to the door analogy if you require further clarification.
    As for the rapist, a z/e/f doesn’t prove rape – if anything, it proves sex. Besides, would it be better if the rapist moves on knowing that he can force any woman he wants to endure 9 months of tribulations, physical and psychological horror and possibly death? Considering how the majority of rapists relish the chance to exhibit their power over their victims, one can only imagine the glee a rapist would express at the thought of his victim being tormented through life-threatening operations and the dreadful agony of childbirth.>>




    Sacerdotus comments:

    I used the word "conception" to make the distinction between particular stages of gestation. Had I used the word "person," the statement would be ambiguous because it could refer to a zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn etc. Since the comment pertained to fertilization, I used the word "conception." Again, this idea that a "conception" does not have the right to use a woman's body is feminist rhetoric. I have already showed in 2 posts how biology and embryology contradicts this erroneous conclusion. This is from my other post:

    ***3... Some claim the fetus somehow attacks the woman. However, biology teaches otherwise. A woman's body is designed to reproduce. She has ovaries, fallopian tubes, a uterus, and vagina. The ovaries regulate hormones and also produce eggs with the genes of the women. These eggs are released at different intervals and wait for fertilization in the Fallopian tube. - (http://www.americanpregnancy.org/gettingpregnant/understandingovulation.html) (http://www.thefertilityrealm.com/what-is-ovulation.html)
    Once fertilized, the egg travels to the uterus as a zygote. It implants and starts to gestate. -(http://www.webmd.com/baby/slideshow-conception)
    This fertilization, or conception is the beginning of a new human person - “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being.” - (Moore K. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology.)
    Moreover, a female's pelvis is different than that of a male. It is wider and symmetrically set up to hold and deliver a baby. - (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=9034 ) The vagina/cervix itself dilates during birth in order to allow a baby's head/body to pass through. - (http://www.americanpregnancy.org/labornbirth/signsoflabor.html) That being said, a woman's body is biologically and naturally designed to house and help develop a zygote, embryo, and fetus. To say the fetus is an aggressor is not science. It is hateful feminist rhetoric based on fallacies. ****

    The case of rape once again is extremely rare. DNA found from a rape victim is extremely helpful in finding a suspect. Aborting offspring resulting from rape does not help anyone. Take this care for example :http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/abortion-records-help-convict-child-rapist-%E2%80%93-sentencing-wednesday/


    The blogger states: "...one can only imagine the glee a rapist would express at the thought of his victim being tormented through life-threatening operations and the dreadful agony of childbirth.." However, how will the convict know what happened to the woman and child? There is no way unless the victim actually visits the criminal in prison. That being said, there is no way this sick individual would have any glee whatsoever. 


    <<Actually, the answer to ending rape is eradicating the culture that subsequently blames a victim for her assault. You know, the same way you blame a woman for becoming pregnant because she possesses a uterus. More importantly, it’s quite noteworthy that your “answer to rape” blames everyone but the perpetrator of the crime. >>


    Sacerdotus comments:

    I am not aware of any culture that blames a victim for an assault, so I cannot comment on that. I have not once blamed anyone, nor made any attempts to exonerate any perpetrator of rape. I do not understand your need to make false accusations. However, as I stated before, the answer to rape is "self defense, education, and better policing." Self defense is important in today's world. The economy is bad, people are desperate and resort to crime in order to survive. Those who are mentally ill are not exempt from this reality. Self defense empowers citizens to better prepare themselves and avoid becoming a victim to any crime: sexual or non sexual. We cannot walk the streets or live in our homes with the illusion that nothing will happen. Education helps as well. When young men and women are taught how to respect each other, this impacts how they will live as adults. If young men are taught to see women as ladies and not sex objects, they will not give in to sexual desires and attack. Similarly, if young women are taught to respect themselves and not give in to popular culture's idea that a woman has to be "sexy for her man," then this will prevent her from becoming a victim since those with sexual psychopathic tendencies first notice the attractiveness aspect in choosing a victim. Am I saying women should not look good? Not at all. What I am saying is that young women should be taught that being sexy does not define who she is. 




    <<I think we’ve covered this. Avoid being raped during certain times of the month and if you’re assaulted during a fertile period, plead with your attacker to use a condom.>>


    Sacerdotus comments:


    Not at all, you took my comment out of context. I wrote:
    "“The post continues claiming that “woman cannot be held at the mercy of her biological design.” That is a falsehood. Women at different intervals before menopause have their menstrual cycle. This menstrual cycle or “menstruation” maintains homeostasis with the goal of fertilization.”"
    The comment was made to answer your idea that a woman "cannot be held at the mercy of her biological design." My reply was in light of this comment, not regarding rape. 


    <<Yeah, this isn’t true at all. A woman’s menstrual cycle can be “shut off”, interrupted, rescheduled, and late for numerous different reasons. This board boasts several women under 40 who have all experienced permanent disruptions. http://www.womens-health.com/boards/menstrual-cycle/369-help-i-stopped-having-my-period-im-only-25-a.html In fact, a woman can decide to stop her period entirely if she wishes to take a particular type of birth control.>>



    Sacerdotus comments:

    Again, my comment states "“In light of biology, we cannot conclude that a “woman is not at the mercy of her biological design.” This menstrual cycle cannot be shut off until menopause”" Notice I wrote, "in light of biology.." I was speaking from a biological standpoint. In a situation where a women does not use outside influences such as chemicals or the like, she cannot turn off her menstrual cycle. A woman cannot shut off her cycle with just a thought. It is beyond her physical ability. That was what my comment was meant to express. Yes with chemicals or removing ovaries one can stop a menstrual cycle, but those are extra-natural means, not naturally induced.



    <<Ironically, the first part of your statement proves my sentiment. You previously declared that an “unwanted pregnancy” was merely an “unwanted responsibility” yet you continue on to explain that, ultimately, a woman doesn’t have absolute control over her body. While women are fully capable of administering more facets of our health than ever before, you’ve successfully demonstrated how illogical it is to anticipate accountability of a consequence that requires no intelligible consent.>>


    Sacerdotus comments:


    Not at all, once again you misread and took out of context. I wrote: "“In order for the conclusion that – “[a] woman cannot be held at the mercy of her biological design” be valid if indeed a woman has total absolute control of her body. This of course is not possible in the natural world. We all are subject to nature. While we may be able to move our bodies, give them nutrition and so on, nature always supersedes our so called “bodily autonomy.” Bodily autonomy as prochoice see its, only exists in the imagination of the prochoice advocate and radical feminist.”"

    This was in reference to your "woman at the mercy" idea. Pregnancy and a woman's ability to fully control her entire body are not synonymous. My comment explicitly states how we are all "subject to nature." Your connection is irrelevant to my comment. Despite women and men "fully administering more facets of ... health," they still get sick and die. Again, "we are all subject to nature." We do not fully control our bodies, the weather or this universe. 



    <<As for the naturalistic fallacy, human beings are creatures of great intuition and intelligence – we deny nature with every fibre of our being yet you have the audacity to sit on your computer and suggest to a woman that should she become pregnant that she would be obligated to carry to term because it’s….natural?
    Excuse the fits of laughter.>>





    Sacerdotus comments:


    There is no naturalistic fallacy. The term "naturalistic fallacy" is often misapplied to any argument in an attempt to discredit it. It is a misnomer on the part of G. E. Moore and those who use his ideas. A naturalistic fallacy is an attempt to state that if a particular thing has certain traits, then it is good. It is like saying that drinking is a good because it feels good. Now, using biology to answer prochoice rhetoric is not a naturalistic fallacy merely because biology deals with nature. That is a "strawman fallacy." You are attempting to attack my logic by misinterpreting it. If we are to throw fallacies around carelessly, then a paper with citations would be an "appeal to authority." The suggestion that I am using a computer is ridiculous. If we had the opportunity to meet face to face, I would do the same there. In my lifestyle now, I am in the position to speak to thousands of people without a computer. 


    <<While life certainly isn’t a delusion, it can be argued that one must be delusional to believe that the right to life is anything but circumstantial or situational. No human being has a right to exist at the cost of another individual’s health or well-being – to suggest otherwise would be to effectively prohibit the personhood, humanity and dignity of an entire group of people.
    While I agree that we must be resolute in our ambitions to eradicate the world of injustice, pain, intolerance and cruelty, we must also ensure to never subjugate people based on race, gender or creed. Recognizing someone’s right to life as situational, due to scientific limitation, isn’t rhetoric or ignorant as their right to life is acknowledged. Condemning a person to perpetual oppression based on their biological criteria undermines any efforts to preserve the dignity of life; as a life of servitude is not life but merely an existence. When people are treated as property because of their desirable abilities, we see events occur in the world such as forced prostitution, human trafficking, and rape.
    Before Prolife can logically attempt to articulate the ostensible crimes committed against the unborn, they need to first comprehend the offenses they willingly perpetrate against women, and justly, cease to perform them. Respectively, there is nothing more rhetorical or ignorant than to propose an ideology that essentially dehumanizes a group of people at the expense of another who require the aforementioned faction for sustenance.
    It doesn’t get much clearer than that.>>




    Sacerdotus comments:


    Feminist rhetoric would never outshine science. I assume that by "no human being" you are referring to the unborn. If that is the case, biology and embryology contradicts your feminist rhetorical view. Moreover, if we are to believe in evolution, we would have to accept the fact that changes throughout time within organisms prepared them to survive and continue its respective species. One of the outcomes of these changes is sexual reproduction and how our bodies are built to carry this function out. However, if your statement is solely referring to adults, then yes, no one has the right to exist at the cost of another unless the court gives or orders that responsibility to an individual or couple. One must ask the question: what is the reasoning behind eggs and ovaries? Why have eggs? Any intelligent person would answer "reproduction." Nature has already answered the question on whether or not the unborn has the right to live in the womb. The answer is yes. To say otherwise is ridiculous and delusional since a delusion is "a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary." - (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delusion


    Someone's right to life is not subject to any situation. Hitler and other mass murderers have tried to take on this false power by attempting to eradicate races because the situation for their existence had no validity. Similarly, genocide and eugenics have sought to eradicate entire groups because the situation did not warrant their existence. No mortal can have this power. When a mortal or group of mortals attempts to take on this power, we see the aforementioned. We must all accept our humanity and realize that we cannot control everything. 
    There is nothing oppressive about pregnancy or bearing children. Many refer to a child as a "bundle of joy." This tokophobia must be replaced with the realization and acceptance of our natural biological condition. Prostitution, human trafficking and rape are not synonymous with nature or biology, so they are irrelevant. We cannot equate these to pregnancy. 
    Prolife comprehends well the offenses against women. Prolife loves both. What prolife is all about is life. Prolife wants both mother and child to live, not just the child, not just the woman. 

    about a month ago 

Labels

Catholic Church (447) God (306) Atheism (232) Jesus Christ (212) Jesus (208) Bible (171) Pope Francis (164) Atheist (141) LGBT (128) Science (111) Liturgy of the Word (104) Christianity (83) Rosa Rubicondior (75) Pope Benedict XVI (73) Abortion (71) Gay (64) President Obama (55) Prayer (54) Vatican (39) Christian (36) Physics (35) New York City (33) Philosophy (33) Blessed Virgin Mary (32) Christmas (31) Psychology (31) Women (29) Politics (28) Biology (26) Liturgy (26) Baseball (24) Religious Freedom (23) Pope John Paul II (21) Space (21) Holy Eucharist (19) NYPD (19) Pro Abortion (19) priests (19) Evil (18) Supreme Court (18) Child Abuse (17) Pro Choice (17) Evangelization (16) First Amendment (16) Protestant (16) Police (15) Donald Trump (14) Death (13) Health (13) Christ (12) Priesthood (12) Astrophysics (11) Blog (11) Marriage (11) Pedophilia (11) Racism (11) Poverty (10) Theology (9) Vatican II (9) Divine Mercy (8) Human Rights (8) Illegal Immigrants (8) Muslims (8) Personhood (8) September 11 (8) Autism (7) Condoms (7) David Viviano (7) Easter Sunday (7) Ellif_dwulfe (7) Evidence (7) Gender Theory (7) Gospel (7) academia (7) Apologetics (6) Barack Obama (6) Big Bang Theory (6) Humanism (6) Jewish (6) Morality (6) Pentecostals (6) Traditionalists (6) Babies (5) Cognitive Psychology (5) Cyber Bullying (5) NY Yankees (5) Spiritual Life (5) The Walking Dead (5) Angels (4) CUNY (4) Donations (4) Ephebophilia (4) Eucharist (4) Gender Dysphoria Disorder (4) Holy Trinity (4) Podcast (4) Pope Pius XII (4) Evangelicals (3) Hispanics (3) Pluto (3) Pope John XXIII (3) Sacraments (3) Baby Jesus (2) Dan Arel (2) Death penalty (2) Encyclical (2) Founding Fathers (2) Freeatheism (2) Hell (2) Massimo Pigliucci (2) Oxfam (2) Penn Jillette (2) Pew Research Center (2) Plenary Indulgence (2) Catholic Bloggers (1) Cursillo (1) Dan Savage (1) Divine Providence (1) Eastern Orthodox (1) Fear The Walking Dead (1) Pentecostales (1) Pope Paul VI (1)