AZMike

You don't have to apologize to me. So you'd be okay with banning the abortion of a female once she has a brain? Does her brain have to be fully developed for her to qualify as a human, and if so, when do you think that is? The brain continues to develop long after birth, by the way. And if you think she doesn't have a soul yet, at what point do you think God implants that into the developing fetus? If you happen to be wrong about that guess, do you think He might be a little angry at you supporting killing a female human with a soul? If you're not completely certain when th

So, you feel just the younger females shouldn't have control over their own bodies or their lives? Mom gets to choose if she lives or dies, without her having a say-so in the matter? But it's all okay if a girl can't yet answer intelligently? How about if she's just 6 months old? Or 1 year?

Does the daughter (or son) get a say in that choice?

We could probably get Class B T-shirts to make us up some. I'm sure they would be popular.

Hedgehog is correct.

Not sure which campus you're on and you probably don't want to discuss that on an Internet forum, but yes, I spend time on campuses, and yes, things are getting crazy on some of them. Thankfully. most kids are too level-headed to buy into the Social Justice Warrior nonsense, but I don't think the campus zeitgeist I describe is unusual. You want examples? I'm not really interested in learning more about "vaginoplasties," Packsaddle. You understand that creating a vagina replica fashioned out of male flesh is not really a vagina, right? Whether female impersonators can reshape their bodies t

A realist would say the glass is both half-full and half-empty.

Growing old makes you a stranger in your own country. When I saw the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey" as a kid when it was first released, that was my blueprint for what I thought the future would be like - clean and shiny (at least the parts we saw - who knows, on earth it may have been more like "A Clockwork Orange"), manned space travel to the planets, and everything printed in Helvetica, the font of the future. Instead, the year 2001 had a pretty-much dead manned space exploration program, tons of social problems I never would have dreamed of back in the 1960s, my mom died after a lo

I know. We live in crazy times. If I declared I was an antimacassar, or that I was still 5 years old, I would hope someone would call the men in the white coats and they would try to talk me out of my delusion.

If a 9 year old girl is trapped in a boy's body like you say, you'd think she could tear her way out or something. If that isn't the case and it's just a mental deiusion, like believing one is a chair or a platypus or something, then she deserves psychological treatment.

That clip is a hoot.

That sounds like the way to go.

This thread can't die until we somehow bring homosexuality and atheism into it. This is the Issues and Politics board, after all.

Can imperatives contain conditional statements? Why do you think they Kant? Sorry. Kant's notion of a categorical imperative doesn't use the term "conditional" in the same sense that I think you are using it. To Kant, it is an imperative because it is a command, and one which specifically commands us to use our wills in a particular fashion, not simply to perform some specific action. He uses the term categorical without reference to any ends we might wish to accomplish - i.e., "Give money to the poor and you will go to heaven." or "Give money to the poor and people will think better

The existence of a supposed or defined absolute that does not contain a conditional statement does not limit the existence of absolutes that do contain conditional statements. Just as the existence of a platypus does not deny the possibility of a duck. That is true even under a deontological viewpoint, which can seem to be congruent with a Christian viewpoint, but often isn't. The hazard of Kant's deontological viewpoint is that by ascribing to a categorical imperative, one often acquires a checkbox mentality - "I have done right by this action, so I am a good person." One risks becoming d

No. Absolutes can include conditional statements. By what authority do you think they cannot?

I believed in moral absolutes even when I was an atheist. I just couldn't argue for them as well.

It is a moral absolute that you treat parents who are not moral monsters well.

I would say that it is a "fact" that specific moral absolutes exist, and that those absolutes order what we "should" do.

If they are moral imperatives, they are also "facts" if the field of inquiry is morality.

a) It is a fact that one should do x, y, and z. b) Give us an example, and we will reason it out. Abraham was confronted with one such.

It's a two-sided street. Once parents act like that, they abdicate the parental role and need no longer be honored.

These things that I listed as moral facts are all affirmative duties, not negative: - Human life is precious and should be preserved. - One should honor and respect the Creator and holy things. - One should help and give to others who are in need. - One should honor one's parents and give them respect and obedience.

If we had to use two words to describe God's shaping of man's morality, it would be "Baby Steps." I suspect He realized that His creations don't do well if the change that is demanded is too drastically different. God allowed israel, "Out of the hardness of its people's hearts" to have slaves, to have kings, to practice polygamy, etc. - just like all the neighbors they wanted to emulate did. But He forbade many of the things they wanted to emulate (like Canaanite infanticide) and placed restrictions on other practices to moderate them beyond anything their neighbors observed, and gradually

I would say no, the moral code (of which social varieties are just adumbrations) was established by God and placed in us.