can't survive on its own

**Atlas** · 05-31-2012, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by jet57

You have such a poor grasp of historical reality that all you can offer is partisan opinion as you have with this post. Historical facts are the only thing that is relevant to this discussion because it not only refutes everything you've said, but credibly validates everything I've said. And I'll say it again: trying to link Adolph Hitler to the modern political left is not only horribly inaccurate but just a propoganda game designed to rewrite history and make a villian out FDR et al.

As far as I'm concerend I'm done with this conversation with you. You make it up as you go along and trying to have an intelligent discussion with you is a waste of time: you have to be right so you cherry pick any little thing to pick on to try and build some sort of inconsistency that you can try an exploit -it's ridiculous.

Nazi Nationalism is not only different fundamentally from Conservative Nationalism, but it is also inherently based on Socialist principles.
Socialism can be rightly seen as based on a single axiom found throughout socialist philosophy. This axiom is; the good of the group outweighs the rights of the individual. Karl Marx said, “If we have chosen the position in life in which we can most of all work for mankind, no burdens can bow us down, because they are sacrifices for the benefit of all; then we shall experience no petty, limited, selfish joy, but our happiness will belong to millions, our deeds will live on quietly but perpetually at work, and over our ashes will be shed the hot tears of noble people.” Socialism is simply the formalization of tribalism. In every case it has become prevalent, it has centered on charismatic chieftains that preach about the greater good. Socialism is the dominance of the individual for the good of the group.

“The day of individual happiness has passed.” By this Hitler means that in the new era, the new world he hoped to create, happiness would be nationalized. In his Germany, the German people would be as one organism. Hitler’s version of nationalism sought to preserve and expand on the ideals of Germany’s past namely: obedience, duty, and strength. Thus Nazi Nationalism is unique because of the nature of Germany. This brand of nationalism was intensely communal, it sought to create a unified German person, a body of people whose goals were the same, and strove for them together. To achieve this he cultivated a sense of public ownership of everything, even if this ownership was de facto, instead of de jure. Property was only lent to individuals, so that they could develop for the German Collective. Groups of all kind were developed to unify and homogenize.

Nationalism is different for every nation because the character of every nation is different. The American right glorifies the nation that saved millions in Soviet Russia from starvation, liberated Europe from oppresive tyranny, and created the first society based on the ideals of classical liberals like John Locke. Conservatives are trying to preserve a culture whose spread and acceptance has brought relative peace and prosperity to huge swaths of earth. Where ever it has been quashed and betrayed misery and poverty have taken hold. In essence, “Conservatism represents the founding principles.” – Mark Levin. These principles of life and liberty are the basis of the American right. This vision of nationalism is fundamentally different from Nazi Nationalism.

**humanrights4us** · 07-25-2012, 02:31 PM

Hello All

I am a new member here, I actually joined to ask some questions to the pro gay rights advocates however I cannot resist a good debate so here I am.

I actually read the article in the medical ethics journal I believe the title was "After Birth Abortion - Why Should The Baby Live?"

The first thing that struck me about the article was the heading "after birth abortion" now this is clearly an oxymoron as abortion can only take place while the fetus is in utero. The title should have read "Infancide - Why should the baby live?" though the debate on the subject of infantcide is not new and people have expressed their negative discernment to this subject many times, however pro infantcide advocates repeadily attempt to dress up their arguments in different ways.

Sadly in America I believe that this is actually being considered and there is information available to suggest President Obhama voted in favour of this. There are also references in the bible in favour of infantcide.

Going back to the medical ethics publication published earlier this year which I am assuming the telegraph based their article on, the argument there was that a new born was a non person for various reasons.

As already pointed out in this thread there is a substantial difference between a child in utero and an infant whos ambilical cord has been cut. The main difference being the fetus in utero is dependent on the host, if the host dies unless a medical operation is carried out the fetus will also perish. A fetus in utero is reliant on the host for survival, where as once born if the mother was to die the baby would still survive providing someone fed the baby a substitute to the mothers milk and took over the mothers role.

Also the article calls a newborn baby a non person, this is an important part of their argument as they suggest a non person can not be harmed. It is complete nonsense to suggest that a baby is non person as they do indeed have expectations, they may not have aspirations just now such as in long term life goals however they do have basic expectations for example they expect to be fed and soothed on demand.

Also the article suggesting that an infant having the staus of a non person cannot suffer harm has dangerous implications as how can we protect an infant from harm or abuse when it is being proposed that they are non persons and cannot suffer harm.

Luckily if you look at the comments that were made following the article it has been heavily discredited which in my opinion is great as I will never advocate the murder of any human life, if anything the arguments put foward in the journal were an argument against abortion.

As an after thought I would also like to raise the possibility of forced infantcide, if you look at the adoption arguments that also began as the right to adopt and what we see today are the majority of adoptions take place against the wishes of the natrual parents, I can invision this becoming the case if infantcide was to become a legal right.

**Easyrider** · 07-26-2012, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by humanrights4us

There are also references in the bible in favour of infantcide.

Actually, those are in context of divine justice, or someone else committing infanticide apart from God's decree. God is the one who creates life (Psalm 139:13). He even ordained a prophet of God in the womb (Jeremiah 1:5). Cheers...

**Apostle** · 09-05-2012, 03:14 AM

God has an interesting sense of justice.

**pappillion001** · 09-06-2012, 02:18 AM

Originally Posted by humanrights4us

Hello All

I am a new member here, I actually joined to ask some questions to the pro gay rights advocates however I cannot resist a good debate so here I am.

I actually read the article in the medical ethics journal I believe the title was "After Birth Abortion - Why Should The Baby Live?"

The first thing that struck me about the article was the heading "after birth abortion" now this is clearly an oxymoron as abortion can only take place while the fetus is in utero. The title should have read "Infancide - Why should the baby live?" though the debate on the subject of infantcide is not new and people have expressed their negative discernment to this subject many times, however pro infantcide advocates repeadily attempt to dress up their arguments in different ways.

Sadly in America I believe that this is actually being considered and there is information available to suggest President Obhama voted in favour of this. There are also references in the bible in favour of infantcide.

Going back to the medical ethics publication published earlier this year which I am assuming the telegraph based their article on, the argument there was that a new born was a non person for various reasons.

As already pointed out in this thread there is a substantial difference between a child in utero and an infant whos ambilical cord has been cut. The main difference being the fetus in utero is dependent on the host, if the host dies unless a medical operation is carried out the fetus will also perish. A fetus in utero is reliant on the host for survival, where as once born if the mother was to die the baby would still survive providing someone fed the baby a substitute to the mothers milk and took over the mothers role.

Also the article calls a newborn baby a non person, this is an important part of their argument as they suggest a non person can not be harmed. It is complete nonsense to suggest that a baby is non person as they do indeed have expectations, they may not have aspirations just now such as in long term life goals however they do have basic expectations for example they expect to be fed and soothed on demand.

Also the article suggesting that an infant having the staus of a non person cannot suffer harm has dangerous implications as how can we protect an infant from harm or abuse when it is being proposed that they are non persons and cannot suffer harm.

Luckily if you look at the comments that were made following the article it has been heavily discredited which in my opinion is great as I will never advocate the murder of any human life, if anything the arguments put foward in the journal were an argument against abortion.

As an after thought I would also like to raise the possibility of forced infantcide, if you look at the adoption arguments that also began as the right to adopt and what we see today are the majority of adoptions take place against the wishes of the natrual parents, I can invision this becoming the case if infantcide was to become a legal right.

If this is the article I am thinking of the idea is if a child is born with severe problems that would have allowed for abortion during pregnancy but were not identified then, should the parents be allowed to terminate it at birth once the problems are discovered. It wasn't suggesting that healthy babies be killed and they were talking about a 3 day window to run tests.

**FrozenSun7** · 09-27-2012, 09:49 AM

How many people today would survive without electricity, running water, supermarkets or other places to buy food, hospital's, and other things from society supporting them. Especially in urban environments. How many people could find clean water? Where would you get food? Almost all of us are dependant on others to survive. Does that mean most people can be justifiably murdered?

**FrozenSun7** · 09-27-2012, 09:58 AM

It is illegal to harm or even move or disturb a bald eagle nest or egg. If you were to eat a bald eagle egg you would be fined or jailed. If you get pregnant and want to commit murder to avoid the consequences it is perfectly legal. Why in this country is a bald eagle egg more valuble than a human fetus? What is the difference between the two?

**Accipiter** · 09-27-2012, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by FrozenSun7

It is illegal to harm or even move or disturb a bald eagle nest or egg. If you were to eat a bald eagle egg you would be fined or jailed. If you get pregnant and want to commit murder to avoid the consequences it is perfectly legal. Why in this country is a bald eagle egg more valuble than a human fetus? What is the difference between the two?

Humans are not threatened with extinction.

The way you think is the problem, not the answer.

**gansao** · 09-27-2012, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by FrozenSun7

It is illegal to harm or even move or disturb a bald eagle nest or egg. If you were to eat a bald eagle egg you would be fined or jailed. If you get pregnant and want to commit murder to avoid the consequences it is perfectly legal. Why in this country is a bald eagle egg more valuble than a human fetus? What is the difference between the two?

Originally Posted by Accipiter

Humans are not threatened with extinction.

The way you think is the problem, not the answer.

There you go. You're running out of bald eagles but there plenty of humans to round....so that means a bald eagle's egg is valuable whereas a human fetus is worth nothing...Oh and its all your fault because YOUR priorities are all wrong.

Lefties are sad little creatures arent they?

**Accipiter** · 09-27-2012, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by gansao

There you go. You're running out of bald eagles but there plenty of humans to round....so that means a bald eagle's egg is valuable whereas a human fetus is worth nothing...Oh and its all your fault because YOUR priorities are all wrong.

Lefties are sad little creatures arent they?

I can't debate with you, it makes me feel like I am beating up a girl.

**Freedom** · 09-27-2012, 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by Accipiter

I can't debate with you, it makes me feel like I am beating up a girl.

Just remember, he does this for the humor; just think of him like an obnoxious bot.

**gansao** · 09-28-2012, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Accipiter

I can't debate with you,.

That explains it...

Originally Posted by Accipiter

it makes me feel like I am beating up a girl .

I doubt that you could beat anyone up other than a girl.

**Accipiter** · 09-28-2012, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by gansao

That explains it...

I doubt that you could beat anyone up other than a girl.

See what I mean?

**Freedom** · 09-28-2012, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Accipiter

See what I mean?

No
_______

**gansao** · 09-28-2012, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by Accipiter

See what I mean?

Anyone that thinks a bird's egg can possibly be more valuable than a viable human fetus has got to be wrong in the head.

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Rate This Thread

Display

can't survive on its own

Irony

Posting Permissions