Infanticide

[Nick_A]

So what have we learned? We've learned that by definition secularism has no objective values so the value of life is determined by the moods of the day. There can be no objective difference in value between a nine month old fetus and a week old baby.

I have not seen any here in favour of late term abortions. Whom have you seen here who favours them?

Often people speak in terms of nervous system formation - the capacity to feel pain like a born infant would. Foetuses that are not yet viable.

Meanwhile you would give a just-fertilised human egg the same rights and status as those of the adult mother - in an already overpopulated world. I don't understand you. If you are pro life, why do you support Trump, who is sabre-rattling with nuclear power? Whose lives are worth saving and who do we let go?

The issue isn't if any here believe in later term abortion but the unfortunate fact that secularism by definition cannot accept the objective value of life. That being the case there is no objective reason not to kill at will. Infanticide is just a normal reasonable desire to destroy that which lacks objective value.

[Dalek Prime]

So what have we learned? We've learned that by definition secularism has no objective values so the value of life is determined by the moods of the day. There can be no objective difference in value between a nine month old fetus and a week old baby.

I have not seen any here in favour of late term abortions. Whom have you seen here who favours them?

Often people speak in terms of nervous system formation - the capacity to feel pain like a born infant would. Foetuses that are not yet viable.

Meanwhile you would give a just-fertilised human egg the same rights and status as those of the adult mother - in an already overpopulated world. I don't understand you. If you are pro life, why do you support Trump, who is sabre-rattling with nuclear power? Whose lives are worth saving and who do we let go?

The issue isn't if any here believe in later term abortion but the unfortunate fact that secularism by definition cannot accept the objective value of life. That being the case there is no objective reason not to kill at will. Infanticide is just a normal reasonable desire to destroy that which lacks objective value.

Nick, what is the objective value of life? Please give this value, and where it OBJECTIVELY comes from? What gives life value save the living?

[Greta]

So what have we learned? We've learned that by definition secularism has no objective values so the value of life is determined by the moods of the day. There can be no objective difference in value between a nine month old fetus and a week old baby.

I have not seen any here in favour of late term abortions. Whom have you seen here who favours them?

Often people speak in terms of nervous system formation - the capacity to feel pain like a born infant would. Foetuses that are not yet viable.

Meanwhile you would give a just-fertilised human egg the same rights and status as those of the adult mother - in an already overpopulated world. I don't understand you. If you are pro life, why do you support Trump, who is sabre-rattling with nuclear power? Whose lives are worth saving and who do we let go?

The issue isn't if any here believe in later term abortion but the unfortunate fact that secularism by definition cannot accept the objective value of life. That being the case there is no objective reason not to kill at will. Infanticide is just a normal reasonable desire to destroy that which lacks objective value.

"Infanticide". God, you talk some shit, Nick. It's an embarrassment.

Where is your objective valuing of life when you next chew on a steak? The animal that died for your taste buds was far more sentient and sensate than a foetus. It would seem that you are more one to destroy "that which has objective value" than any vegetarian.

[Dontaskme]

In your determined ignorance, which you posit as a virtue, you spew out regular empty sour grapes reality-negating posts and pretend that you are being "deep" rather than admitting that you are covering for your fear of failure in this life, unresponsive to all but the echoes in your own mind. In that way you can hide from the fear of death.

You assume that I am like you, those are not my ideas and what you've said is not how I feel, nor it is why I choose to live in a nondual state.

I am not at all like you in that regard. My ideas are just ideas, maybe right or wrong to some extent.

I actually don't believe that you would be able to name any of my ideas.

What do you think my ideas are? Can you point out even one in my few thousand posts? My impression is that you have not paid attention to anything I've written and your view of me is basically that of a typical fearer of failure in this life, unresponsive to all but the echoes in your own mind. In that way you can hide from the fear of death which is very wrong.

.

[Dontaskme]

....

sorry wrong thread.

.

[Dontaskme]

I have not seen any here in favour of late term abortions. Whom have you seen here who favours them?

Often people speak in terms of nervous system formation - the capacity to feel pain like a born infant would. Foetuses that are not yet viable.

Meanwhile you would give a just-fertilised human egg the same rights and status as those of the adult mother - in an already overpopulated world. I don't understand you. If you are pro life, why do you support Trump, who is sabre-rattling with nuclear power? Whose lives are worth saving and who do we let go?

The issue isn't if any here believe in later term abortion but the unfortunate fact that secularism by definition cannot accept the objective value of life. That being the case there is no objective reason not to kill at will. Infanticide is just a normal reasonable desire to destroy that which lacks objective value.

"Infanticide". God, you talk some shit, Nick. It's an embarrassment.

Where is your objective valuing of life when you next chew on a steak? The animal that died for your taste buds was far more sentient and sensate than a foetus. It would seem that you are more one to destroy "that which has objective value" than any vegetarian.

If there is no objective valuing of life, then why don't we just start roasting human babies on a spit and try that unique delicacy for a change?

Or, if we get tired of chewing on steak, perhaps we could try eating next door neighbours 10 times champion pedigree persian cat?

.

[Arising_uk]

There are no more countries supporting eternal values. ...

So the one billion Hindu's you quoted in support of two of your eternal values are now not support for you?

The last attempt to recognize eternal values was made by the founding of America. ...

Which conveniently excluded the slaves and the natives eh!

The Great Beast killed it and replaced it with a struggle between subjective values

And yet at your founding they enshrined secularism?

[Nick_A]

D P

Nick, what is the objective value of life? Please give this value, and where it OBJECTIVELY comes from? What gives life value save the living?

I’ll have to begin with a premise you may not agree with. The premise is that life is a necessity which permeates the universe as either a conscious action or a mechanical reaction. A dead universe couldn’t exist. Life is necessary to make the universe possible. The objective value of the regenerative life process lies in the fact that it is a necessity.

Animal man on earth is limited to expressing subjective animal love. We love one thing and hate another. An evolved conscious human being is capable of the love of life itself and the support of the totality of regenerative life processes which maintain existence. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t swat a fly but rather that we don’t appreciate them as a part of the regenerative cycles of life as a whole. We are limited to arguing if this or that warrants killing. We express our subjective life’s values while unaware that the interacting regenerative cycles of life are an objective necessity.

The OBJECTIVE love of life is a conscious human potential that is becoming increasingly lost to the growing justification of our subjective values due to technological advances. If humanity were capable of the conscious awareness which would make the love of life possible, then abortions and infanticide as expressions of convenience would be extremely rare. But we are not so everything remains the same and we defend our own subjective realities while remaining oblivious to the value of the universal cycles of regeneration as a universal necessity which requires our conscious support

[Arising_uk]

So what have we learned? We've learned that by definition secularism has no objective values so the value of life is determined by the moods of the day. ...

We've also learnt that once again Nick_A is not going to say how his 'objective values' attain objectivity, that is, by virtue of what is this objectivity based upon?

[Impenitent]

So what have we learned? We've learned that by definition secularism has no objective values so the value of life is determined by the moods of the day. ...

We've also learnt that once again Nick_A is not going to say how his 'objective values' attain objectivity, that is, by virtue of what is this objectivity based upon?

everyone else's objections?

-Imp

[Nick_A]

So what have we learned? We've learned that by definition secularism has no objective values so the value of life is determined by the moods of the day. ...

We've also learnt that once again Nick_A is not going to say how his 'objective values' attain objectivity, that is, by virtue of what is this objectivity based upon?

If you had read the above post, then it would be clear.

[Nick_A]

So what have we learned? We've learned that by definition secularism has no objective values so the value of life is determined by the moods of the day. ...

We've also learnt that once again Nick_A is not going to say how his 'objective values' attain objectivity, that is, by virtue of what is this objectivity based upon?

everyone else's objections?

-Imp

For those prefer to complain rather than read and reason, what else can be expected? Joseph Campbell suggests to "follow your bliss." Since there are no objective values, if your bliss requires you to shoot da bastard, just kill and be done with it. Your bliss is all that really matters.

[Greta]

The issue isn't if any here believe in later term abortion but the unfortunate fact that secularism by definition cannot accept the objective value of life. That being the case there is no objective reason not to kill at will. Infanticide is just a normal reasonable desire to destroy that which lacks objective value.

"Infanticide". God, you talk some shit, Nick. It's an embarrassment.

Where is your objective valuing of life when you next chew on a steak? The animal that died for your taste buds was far more sentient and sensate than a foetus. It would seem that you are more one to destroy "that which has objective value" than any vegetarian.

If there is no objective valuing of life, then why don't we just start roasting human babies on a spit and try that unique delicacy for a change?

Because human babies can feel pain like any other mammal. Embryos cannot.

[Arising_uk]

If you had read the above post, then it would be clear.

Oh! That. I think you'll find the universe is necessary to make living things possible not the other way around. I also think 'Life' is a reification.

[Nick_A]

If you had read the above post, then it would be clear.

Oh! That. I think you'll find the universe is necessary to make living things possible not the other way around. I also think 'Life' is a reification.

You have it backwards. The universe isn't here to serve you; you exist to serve universal purposes.