Infanticide

[henry quirk]

Shame on you, guy: encouragin' deficients like veg, while fun, isn't nice.

[Nick_A]

Those like atto and vege lack any understanding regarding what respect for life means. Their own negativity prevents it. Fortunately not everyone is burdened with such blinding negativity.

That's gold coming from you after suggesting letting a child starve to death. Keep kissing Gods arse, one day he might fart so you know he is there for all your arse kissing.

Your negativity is so dominant that you can't even understand the question in the OP. Stick with politics and avoid philosophy. It is better suited for negativity.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Shame on you, guy: encouragin' deficients like veg, while fun, isn't nice.

'deficient' in what? What am I 'deficient' in that you have an abundance of? (And try to answer with a straight face...)

[henry quirk]

His own what...in regard to infanticide.

His own = belongs to himself...in regard to that moral baseline you were askin' about.

what is he when it comes to defending or renouncing slavery(?)

If ownness is the moral baseline, then the slaver who renounces slavery is right and the slaver who defends slavery is wrong.

What on earth does that even mean in a world where there are those who justify slavery as rational -- even morally sanctioned by God -- for any number of historical, cultural and personal reasons.

There is no rational, reasonable, or moral (or historical, cultural, or personal) defense of slavery. You can -- as devil's advocate -- attempt such a defense on the most rational, reasonable, or moral foundation you like. Stripped bare, those defenses will be as sound as fire freezes.

But, back to my challenge (which simply wrecks anyone's rational, reasonable, or moral defense of slavery): find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.

You won't find him. He doesn't exist. Again: each man knows, in the bones, he is his own (he belongs to himself). if, indeed, you're lookin' for a moral baseline, a universally applicable philosophical argument...to determine definitively which behaviors are inherently/necessarily moral and which are inherently/necessarily immoral, I've given you one. It applies to every one and -- as a universally applicable philosophical argument -- is immune to your dasein.

where do you derive your own rendition of "natural rights"?

In the context of this discussion I derive exclusively from that intuition that each and every man has about himself, that being: he belongs to himself and so it is wrong to treat him as property. Again: not even the slaver, as he appraises man-flesh and affixes a price to it, sees himself as anything other than his own.

some don't argue that "in the absence of God all things are permitted" for nothing

They can argue the moon is made of cheese: it don't make it so. The slaver doesn't crave slavery, the murderer doesn't crave to be butchered, the thief will be outraged at bein' robbed, the rapist doesn't pine for violation. That they do these things to others doesn't negate ownness. They, slaving, murdering, stealing, raping, as simultaneously they decline to be slaved, murdered, robbed, and raped, reveal themselves as wrong. Their dasein is empty.

If they excuse themselves from bein' slave, corpse, target, and jizz jar (as each will, becuz -- again -- each knows he is his own and therefore knows it's wrong that he should be treated as property or meat or commodity) then they have no defense -- rational, reasonable, or moral -- for what they do.

If someone kills their newborn baby and rationalizes it, there either is a philosophical argument to refute that or there isn't.

There is: ownness. Keep readin'...

lets hear your argument

It's not mine. I'm one of them crazy, deistic, natural rights lovin', free will believin', moral realists, remember? No, I'm gonna lay out a purely materialistic argument without any appeal to God, spirit, natural rights, or any other of my notions.

One I suspect that you are convinced all rational and virtuous human beings are categorically and imperatively obligated to accept in turn.

Not at all, cuz it ain't my argument. No, I simply think that the abortion-minded, if they are sensible, honest, and consistent, can't turn away from the following...

The materialist, the physicalist, sez man is simply matter arranged in a particular way. That is: all those things we associate with person and personhood are solely the result of material interactions and composition.

Fact: by week 12, what a pregnant woman carries has all the same materials and the same material complexity and material interplay as you or I.

If we walkin', talkin', lumps of material are persons becuz of composition and complexity alone, then so is that enwombed 12 week old. And, if each of us walkin', talkin' lumps of material know we belong to ourselves and that it's wrong we should be treated as property or meat or commodity, then none of us has a rational, reasonable, or moral defense for abortion after week 12 (for treatin' the 12 week old as property, meat, or commodity to be discarded). If the slaver, the murderer, the thief, the rapist have no legs to stand on (becuz they will not submit to bein' slaved, killed, robbed, or raped) then the abortion-minded have no legs to stand on if they do not submit to disposal when they are inconvenient to another (which, of course, they never will becuz, as I say, each knows he belongs to himself and knows it's wrong for him to be treated as property, meat, or commodity).

[Age]

So I've proven my point. Living in Plato's cave we don't experience objective consciousness or objective conscience and instead have become limited to subjective interpretation of both.

But, depending on how 'you' define so-called 'plato's cave', what you CLAIM here could be VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY argued AGAINST.

Consciousness is now defined by the contents of consciousness and objective conscience and is now expressed as indoctrinated morality.

If this is how 'you' DEFINE 'things' here, then so be it. It is NOT how 'I' nor 'we' DEFINE these 'things' here.

Yet some are aware of their limitations and seek those who have already escaped cave limitations.

What EXACTLY are the 'limitations' you IMAGINE or ENVISION here?

Simone Weil wrote in a personal letter: "but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides."

How one GETS TO and ARRIVES at this KINGDOM does NOT REALLY MATTER.

Also, have you EVER considered WHY 'you' have NEVER REACHED this KINGDOM "yourself"?

If no, then maybe CONSIDER the Fact that you are SOLELY INFATUATED WITH and BY just one solitary human being, who is named and labeled "simone weil", and then you MIGHT REALIZE WHY 'you' are STILL STUCK 'down there', WHERE "simone weil" WAS and REMAINS.

If you WANT to FOLLOW one who NEVER ACTUALLY 'made it', then so be it. But if 'you', "yourself", do NOT GET OUT of "simone weil's" LIMITING CAVE, then you will REMAIN STUCK in the SAME CAVE "yourself".

'you' 'try' and put "simone weil" on some pedestal, while FORGETTING that "simone weil" is just ANOTHER 'one' of 'you', human beings. And, EXACTLY like EVERY 'one' of 'you', human beings, "simone weil" just had DIFFERENT 'thoughts'.

Does conscious humanity exist in which human consciousness and objective conscience abides rather than subjective self justifying interpretations? Such people would have respect for life. But as we are it only exists in us as a potential. Can't blame Simone for being attracted to truth including what respect for life means. But most are content to justify the absurd in a world of absurdities

Have 'you' EVER CONSIDERED that 'you', "nick_a", ALSO have been ATTEMPTING to "justify" the ABSURD.

Also, and by the way, the ONLY "absurdities" 'in the world' are the ones that 'you', adult human beings, MAKE UP and CREATE. Absolutely EVERY 'thing else' is ABLE to be REASONED and Truly LOGICAL.

My advantage over you is verifying that I am the wretched man described by Paul in Romans 7 and learning why it is so. It is the foundation for understanding the meaning and purpose of organic life on earth and the potential for conscious human being. You cannot verify what is meant by respect for life without basic understanding of the human condition.

What are you on about now?

What the 'human condition' IS, EXACTLY, is ALREADY OBVIOUS.

You prefer to argue over details without any verified wholeness.

If absolutely ANY one would like to CHALLENGE me over ANY 'thing', and even EVERY 'thing', and/or as a WHOLE, then PLEASE feel FREE to do so.

I would LOVE the CHALLENGE.

By the way, have you ever considered that, JUST MAYBE, I " prefer to argue over the 'details' " BECAUSE I have ACTUALLY ALREADY found the PROOF of 'the details', and have ALREADY VERIFIED 'those details', WITH the 'WHOLE', and have ALREADY VERIFIED the WHOLE, WITH 'the details', and thus NOW KNOW BOTH 'the details' and the 'WHOLE' inside AND out?

If ANY one builds up ENOUGH COURAGE to QUESTION or CHALLENGE me over 'this', then thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' can be and WILL BE REVEALED.

But what are 'you' going to USE to VERIFY this CLAIM here, 'the details', and/or the 'WHOLE' on, EXACTLY?

It is your way but I see it as a lost cause though agreed with by the majority participating in the struggle over opinions.

What are you on about, AGAIN, this time?

[Age]

Why all the fuss. Abortion is commonplace and considered acceptable. But a seven day old baby is still as helpless as a fetus. Why can't they be killed or abandoned to starve. Isn't it more convenient for the mother and society as a whole?

Society makes subjective laws regarding the security of a baby as opposed to a fetus. But objectively they are the same. So isn't it time our species became more mature and realize the convenience of the mother is the primary consideration so if she wants to kill a baby and the man responsible for creating it all agree that it is better just to kill a seven day old baby; why not as sophisticated human beings just give the mother what she needs?

Infanticide was acceptable in Sparta and Rome, so they say.

Infanticide Common in Roman Empire
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna42911813

“Infanticide, the killing of unwanted babies, was common throughout the Roman Empire and other parts of the ancient world, according to a new study.

“The study, which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Archaeological Science, explains that ‘until recently, “infanticide”) was a practice that was widely tolerated in human societies around the world. Prior to modern methods of contraception, it was one of the few ways of limiting family size that was both safe for the mother and effective.’”

Very true Walker. It seems there are more methods for killing babies then there are to abort them.

Infanticide has been practiced all over the world throughout the whole of human history. Newborns who have not yet learned to talk have been intentionally killed because they were thought to be:

terminally ill;
experiencing unbearable pain or suffering;
born with unacceptable anomalies;
of the wrong gender, race, class, maternity, or paternity;
political threats;
economic threats;
fitting sacrifices in religious rituals; and
embarrassing, frustrating, or inconvenient.
The single most common reason for the practice of infanticide in the past and present has been the desire to be rid of female newborns. The histories of infanticide and gender bias are interwoven. Not to study them together is to overlook their interdependence.

Human newborns, particularly females, have been intentionally killed in many ways. They have been incinerated, decapitated, and suffocated. They have also been sundered, stabbed, stoned, shot, hung, drowned, struck, shaken, stomped, crushed, raped, poisoned, buried, starved, fed to animals, and exposed to the elements. They have been denied air, food, water, warmth, and protection from diseases. Their blood vessels have been injected with toxic substances and bubbles of air. It is impossible to understand the history of infanticide without taking into account its diverse and often cruel methods.

Babies will have to own guns for self protection. Now for the few students who have not lost their mind to twitter and partial truths, they may ask if all this is true, who or what determines what respect for life actually means? We like to pass the buck to the mother. It may be good for twitter but an intelligent young person still asks what respect for life means and who determines who lives or dies and how is it objectively determined?

One can ask the questions; "What does 'respect for life' mean?" "Who determines who lives or dies?" And, "How is it objectively determined?"

But just asking those questions does NOT make one 'intelligent'.

Also, now that you have posed these questions here "nick_a", are you at least able to she some light on what the actual answers are to these questions?

If yes, then will you?

If no, then WHY NOT?

The answers, by the way, are VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASILY 'reached'.

[Age]

Why all the fuss. Abortion is commonplace and considered acceptable. But a seven day old baby is still as helpless as a fetus. Why can't they be killed or abandoned to starve. Isn't it more convenient for the mother and society as a whole?

Society makes subjective laws regarding the security of a baby as opposed to a fetus. But objectively they are the same. So isn't it time our species became more mature and realize the convenience of the mother is the primary consideration so if she wants to kill a baby and the man responsible for creating it all agree that it is better just to kill a seven day old baby; why not as sophisticated human beings just give the mother what she needs?

Infanticide was acceptable in Sparta and Rome, so they say.

Infanticide Common in Roman Empire
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna42911813

“Infanticide, the killing of unwanted babies, was common throughout the Roman Empire and other parts of the ancient world, according to a new study.

“The study, which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Archaeological Science, explains that ‘until recently, “infanticide”) was a practice that was widely tolerated in human societies around the world. Prior to modern methods of contraception, it was one of the few ways of limiting family size that was both safe for the mother and effective.’”

Kristian perverts like NA prefer actual babies to be murdered rather than allow a woman to safely end an unwanted pregnancy in the first 8 weeks, when most abortions are performed. There is absolutely no rational or logical reason for anyone to object to a woman ending her pregnancy safely which is why kristian perverts only have lies to try to disguise their transparent kristian misogyny (which is why so-called 'pro-lifers' are always religious nuts). He doesn't give a tinker's toss about babies. Of course, it's the safety of the procedure that bothers kristian perverts. Women have always aborted unwanted foetuses, using herbal poisons administered by village healers, jumping from heights, poking objects up themselves, and of course the notorious backstreet abortionist. Desperation makes people do whatever it takes. Kristian perverts are fine with all of that because the perception of 'punishment' for 'sin' along with extreme suffering warms the cockles of their hearts.

Let us not forget that a lot of woman turned to abortion solely because of the judgment and ridicule that they would receive, and would have to endure, from those 'society's' that had turned to so-called "religions". For, how dare a woman fall pregnant before 'wedlock'.

[Age]

Those like atto and vege lack any understanding regarding what respect for life means. Their own negativity prevents it. Fortunately not everyone is burdened with such blinding negativity.

In case you did not answer previously "nick_a", 'What does 'respect for life' mean, to you?"

[Age]

His own what...in regard to infanticide.

His own = belongs to himself...in regard to that moral baseline you were askin' about.

What about a 'child', who do they "belong to"?

what is he when it comes to defending or renouncing slavery(?)

If ownness is the moral baseline, then the slaver who renounces slavery is right and the slaver who defends slavery is wrong.

But considering that 'ownness' is CERTAINLY NOT the so-called 'moral baseline', then rest here does NOT 'follow'.

What on earth does that even mean in a world where there are those who justify slavery as rational -- even morally sanctioned by God -- for any number of historical, cultural and personal reasons.

There is no rational, reasonable, or moral (or historical, cultural, or personal) defense of slavery.

Yet here 'you' are, "henry quirk", REVEALING just how much of a 'slave', and a 'slaver', 'you' REALLY ARE.

You can -- as devil's advocate -- attempt such a defense on the most rational, reasonable, or moral foundation you like. Stripped bare, those defenses will be as sound as fire freezes.

But, back to my challenge (which simply wrecks anyone's rational, reasonable, or moral defense of slavery): find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.

BUT because 'you' ONLY speak of 'men', then there is NOTHING REALLY to CHALLENGE here.

However, if WE were to speak of human beings, then WE REALLY would have a DISCUSSION.

Anyway, the Fact that 'you' are, an UNKNOWING to you, 'slave', and ACTUALLY ENCOURAGE other "men" to be SLAVES, somewhat REVEALS the INNER CRAVING 'you' have to just continue on being a 'follower', and NOT be a Truly Self-disciplined and Self-governing 'individual' NOR 'leader' AT ALL.

You won't find him.

BUT, I SEE "him" VERY CLEARLY in 'you', "henry quirk". The CONTROLLER of 'some', and, the FOLLOWER of 'some'. 'you' are BOTH the 'slaver' AND the 'slave'. And, because 'you' are such a weak little 'SLAVE', to 'some', 'you' take this FEAR and INFERIORITY out on "others", through CONTROL and ORDERS of and over 'them'.

He doesn't exist.

To 'you', and this is because 'you' do NOT LOOK HARD ENOUGH NOR DEEP ENOUGH.

Again: each man knows, in the bones, he is his own (he belongs to himself).

There are a LOT of OTHER 'things' that ARE INSTINCTIVELY KNOWN, and which will GUIDE ALL of 'you', human beings, to what is ACTUALLY True, Right, AND Wrong in LIFE. Which WILL lead to Peace and Harmony for EVERY one as One.

But first things first. 'you' NEED to START LOOKING AT "yourselves" Honestly.

if, indeed, you're lookin' for a moral baseline, a universally applicable philosophical argument...to determine definitively which behaviors are inherently/necessarily moral and which are inherently/necessarily immoral, I've given you one.

LOL you make US LAUGH "henry quirk". Let us NOT FORGET that it is 'YOU' who ALSO STATES and BELIEVES that 'you' ALONE can TAKE AWAY ANY 'ones' 'ownness' just because 'you' BELIEVE 'you' have a 'Right' to, like for example if ANOTHER human being just 'touches YOUR 'toothpick', for example. Which completely and utterly CONTRADICTS and REFUTES YOUR OWN made up and so-called "ownness" and "moral baseline".

It applies to every one and -- as a universally applicable philosophical argument -- is immune to your dasein.

where do you derive your own rendition of "natural rights"?

In the context of this discussion I derive exclusively from that intuition that each and every man has about himself, that being: he belongs to himself and so it is wrong to treat him as property.

If one only wants to LOOK AT 'some' human beings, and make JUDGMENT CALLS, then they will only have a VERY NARROW VIEW, and VERY SMALL PERSPECTIVE of 'things'.

Again: not even the slaver, as he appraises man-flesh and affixes a price to it, sees himself as anything other than his own.

Why 'some' BELIEVE that they are OWNED by God, correct?

And, it might actually be 'these ones' who are what is known as the 'worst slavers'.

some don't argue that "in the absence of God all things are permitted" for nothing

They can argue the moon is made of cheese: it don't make it so.

And, you can argue that "a man is his own", but that OBVIOUSLY does NOT make it so, when there are ones like "henry quirk" who BELIEVE they can SHOOT DEAD ANY man just because they are standing in a home at 3am and/or touching "henry quirk's" toothpick.

The "man is his own" STORY, very quickly ENDS in those situations.

The slaver doesn't crave slavery, the murderer doesn't crave to be butchered, the thief will be outraged at bein' robbed, the rapist doesn't pine for violation. That they do these things to others doesn't negate ownness. They, slaving, murdering, stealing, raping, as simultaneously they decline to be slaved, murdered, robbed, and raped, reveal themselves as wrong. Their dasein is empty.

Thinking that 'you' can speak FOR EVERY one, does NOT make it so.

If they excuse themselves from bein' slave, corpse, target, and jizz jar (as each will, becuz -- again -- each knows he is his own and therefore knows it's wrong that he should be treated as property or meat or commodity) then they have no defense -- rational, reasonable, or moral -- for what they do.

Yet here 'you' are STEALING, while at the same time Truly HATE being STOLEN from.

If someone kills their newborn baby and rationalizes it, there either is a philosophical argument to refute that or there isn't.

There is: ownness. Keep readin'...

Just out of CURIOSITY "henry quirk" how does a SELF-OWN newborn baby LOOK AFTER and TAKE CARE of 'itself'?

But, then again, you ONLY TALK ABOUT and REFER to OWNNESS from the sense of 'you', adult male human beings, correct?

lets hear your argument

It's not mine. I'm one of them crazy, deistic, natural rights lovin', free will believin', moral realists, remember? No, I'm gonna lay out a purely materialistic argument without any appeal to God, spirit, natural rights, or any other of my notions.

One I suspect that you are convinced all rational and virtuous human beings are categorically and imperatively obligated to accept in turn.

Not at all, cuz it ain't my argument. No, I simply think that the abortion-minded, if they are sensible, honest, and consistent, can't turn away from the following...

The materialist, the physicalist, sez man is simply matter arranged in a particular way. That is: all those things we associate with person and personhood are solely the result of material interactions and composition.

ANY human being who has been LABELED WITH or GIVEN A NAME that ends is 'ist', OBVIOUSLY, can NOT and thus does NOT SEE the WHOLE True Picture of 'things'.

And, WHO, EXACTLY, associate 'person' and 'personhood' that way? WHY do 'you' do THAT?

Fact: by week 12, what a pregnant woman carries has all the same materials and the same material complexity and material interplay as you or I.

There is a question, (you may of heard of it), it goes like this, 'Who am 'I'?'

So, when 'you' say a human body by week 12 is the same materially as 'you' and 'I', who, and/or what, is the 'you' and the 'I', EXACTLY?

If we walkin', talkin', lumps of material are persons becuz of composition and complexity alone, then so is that enwombed 12 week old.

Well considering the Fact that 'we' is NOT 'that', then rest fails.

And, if each of us walkin', talkin' lumps of material know we belong to ourselves and that it's wrong we should be treated as property or meat or commodity, then none of us has a rational, reasonable, or moral defense for abortion after week 12 (for treatin' the 12 week old as property, meat, or commodity to be discarded).

But NONE of 'you' KNOW 'that'. So, the rest FALLS TO BITS, ALSO.

If the slaver, the murderer, the thief, the rapist have no legs to stand on (becuz they will not submit to bein' slaved, killed, robbed, or raped) then the abortion-minded have no legs to stand on if they do not submit to disposal when they are inconvenient to another (which, of course, they never will becuz, as I say, each knows he belongs to himself and knows it's wrong for him to be treated as property, meat, or commodity).

Considering the Fact that these 'things' do NOT even REALLY EXIST, then rest of what you say just FAILS, FALLS, and CRUMBLES, AS WELL.

[Nick_A]

Those like atto and vege lack any understanding regarding what respect for life means. Their own negativity prevents it. Fortunately not everyone is burdened with such blinding negativity.

In case you did not answer previously "nick_a", 'What does 'respect for life' mean, to you?"

The whole point is that humanity as a whole has become incapable of experiencing respect for life; who knows what it is? Abortions, infanticide and wars prove that Man does not now or feel what respect for life is. Yet you want to argue about what you don't know or even how to begin the path to understanding.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukrai ... 8d090e38e3

MARIUPOL, Ukraine (AP) — The bodies of the children all lie here, dumped into this narrow trench hastily dug into the frozen earth of Mariupol to the constant drumbeat of shelling.

There’s 18-month-old Kirill, whose shrapnel wound to the head proved too much for his little toddler’s body. There’s 16-year-old Iliya, whose legs were blown up in an explosion during a soccer game at a school field. There’s the girl no older than 6 who wore the pajamas with cartoon unicorns, among the first of Mariupol’s children to die from a Russian shell.

They are stacked together with dozens of others in this mass grave on the outskirts of the city. A man covered in a bright blue tarp, weighed down by stones at the crumbling curb. A woman wrapped in a red and gold bedsheet, her legs neatly bound at the ankles with a scrap of white fabric. Workers toss the bodies in as fast as they can, because the less time they spend in the open, the better their own chances of survival.

“The only thing (I want) is for this to be finished,” raged worker Volodymyr Bykovskyi, pulling crinkling black body bags from a truck. “Damn them all, those people who started this!”

A seeker of truth can verify that humanity as a whole lacks respect for life. We don't know what it is and what objective purpose life in our universe serves. Yet many prefer to argue over what they don't know or understand and define it by attempts at self justification or how the universe serves them

[Nick_A]

Henry

There is no rational, reasonable, or moral (or historical, cultural, or personal) defense of slavery.

Actually slavery is a very deep Christian conception. i agree that the ultimate goal of the human psych is the freedom "to be" as opposed to slavery. But a person can verify that they are not free. So they have to choose between being a slave to sin or a slave to the callings of higher consciousness. St Paul explains in Romans 7

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[d] a slave to the law of sin.

A person has to get out of their own way long enough to choose freedom and the ability "to be" rather then be caught in the slavery of the middle

[iambiguous]

His own what...in regard to infanticide.

His own = belongs to himself...in regard to that moral baseline you were askin' about.

what is he when it comes to defending or renouncing slavery(?)

If ownness is the moral baseline, then the slaver who renounces slavery is right and the slaver who defends slavery is wrong.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by ownness here in regard to infanticide or slavery. It's like some technical, intellectual, philosophical, spiritual idea that you've thought up in your head. It makes sense to you and that's all that matters.

What on earth does that even mean in a world where there are those who justify slavery as rational -- even morally sanctioned by God -- for any number of historical, cultural and personal reasons.

There is no rational, reasonable, or moral (or historical, cultural, or personal) defense of slavery. You can -- as devil's advocate -- attempt such a defense on the most rational, reasonable, or moral foundation you like. Stripped bare, those defenses will be as sound as fire freezes.

Right, because you say so. Because this is what you aver to be so and that in and of itself makes it true.

You just know certain things about human interactions -- intuitively, viscerally, instinctively, innately -- and that need be as far as it goes. If others don't think and feel exactly like you do about infanticide or slavery or abortion or human sexuality or religion or gun ownership or gender roles...they are simply wrong.

I think I'll just end it here. My own "gut feeling" tells me that we would just be wasting each other's time going further. This is the sort of thinking I encounter over and again at ILP. I just didn't think I would find it here.

You know, whatever that means.

[henry quirk]

I think I'll just end it here.

Cut & run: yeah, I thought you might.

[henry quirk]

Actually slavery is a very deep Christian conception.

That may be, Nick, but I'm not Christian, and the slavery I'm talkin' about ain't spiritual: it's fleshy.

[henry quirk]

Whatever, lady.