Christian Evangelism isn't a Political Party

[Yttrium]

In my opinion, there are only two worldviews that are consistent with all the evidence given to one: solipsism, or theism.

To a consistent solipsist, I can offer no rational argument to help them. Only prayers.

Who are you calling a solipsist??

Oh. Wait. Yeah, that's me. Thanks for the prayers.

[shunyadragon]

No, Christian Evangelism is definitely not a political party, but nonetheless the 'Tea Party' is the current political arm as the Evangelical Christian Party.

[Tassman]

About the racist charge, don't liberals also advocate for poor whites? Haven't politics in places like West Virginia leaned typically Democrat?

The question that needs to be resolved is why there such gross economic inequity in the first place. This results in a ghetto mentality, gang warfare and social irresponsibility as per the poor woman with the 15 kids referred to above. To demand she takes responsibility for her condition without alleviating her hopeless social status is to blame the victim. And it's especially offensive that its done smugly by us from the comfort of our manicured middle class suburbs.

[Tassman]

It makes no sense to say you "expanded the concept" when universalism is the exact opposite of tribalism. It is more accurate to say that you abandoned the concept and replaced it with hatred of in-groups and love of out-groups (IE: serial treason). It would be pure suicide for anyone to seriously adopt your worldview. It only produces good fruit when, as gerbil says, it's weaponized against someone else and you yourself do not practice it.

The tribal values of taking care of your own and viewing the outsider as fair-game for slaughter or slavery only holds true when we believe outsiders to be different and inferior from us. But tribal values began to change the moment we allied with other tribes against a common enemy, thus beginning the process leading to nation states, empires and ultimately the concept of universal human rights. And, yes, we must always be on guard against those who do not share our values...mostly ideologues of some sort, religious or political.

[robrecht]

The tribal values of taking care of your own and viewing the outsider as fair-game for slaughter or slavery only holds true when we believe outsiders to be different and inferior from us. But tribal values began to change the moment we allied with other tribes against a common enemy, thus beginning the process leading to nation states, empires and ultimately the concept of universal human rights. And, yes, we must always be on guard against those who do not share our values...mostly ideologues of some sort, religious or political.

Such as the value we place on human life as it is developing in the womb. Some of us place more value on this life than others, of course, for example, when there are conflicting values at stake. There need not be so many conflicting cases when family planning is pracilticed. Do you agree that the number of abortions should be minimized because of the valuele you (and society at large should) place on developing human life in the womb?

[Tassman]

Such as the value we place on human life as it is developing in the womb. Some of us place more value on this life than others, of course, for example, when there are conflicting values at stake. There need not be so many conflicting cases when family planning is pracilticed. Do you agree that the number of abortions should be minimized because of the valuele you (and society at large should) place on developing human life in the womb?

Oh yes, certainly I agree that the number of abortions should be minimised, because the embryo/fetus is a potential person. But potential is not actuality and the option should be open for the woman to choose if her circumstances warrant it.

[Starlight]

Oh yes, certainly I agree that the number of abortions should be minimised, because the embryo/fetus is a potential person.

If nothing else, abortion is an inefficient use of resources - just using a condom or pill in the first place is vastly more efficient. So good sex education that leads people to know how to utilize pregnancy preventing measures will naturally lead to less of the less-efficient abortions being used.

[robrecht]

Oh yes, certainly I agree that the number of abortions should be minimised, because the embryo/fetus is a potential person. But potential is not actuality and the option should be open for the woman to choose if her circumstances warrant it.

A potential person because it is an actual human life, yes? Not yet able to live on its own or to be given to others for them to protect and care for him or her. You agree that the foetus is indeed human, yes?

[Tassman]

A potential person because it is an actual human life, yes? Not yet able to live on its own or to be given to others for them to protect and care for him or her. You agree that the foetus is indeed human, yes?

Of course it’s human, but the issue is whether or not a non-viable, insensate embryo/fetus warrants the full protections and rights of a person. The majority in the US think not as reflected in the Roe v Wade ruling of the Supreme Court.

[robrecht]

Of course it’s human, but the issue is whether or not a non-viable, insensate embryo/fetus warrants the full protections and rights of a person. The majority in the US think not as reflected in the Roe v Wade ruling of the Supreme Court.

That is indeed the legal issue, as defined from a legal perspective, but there are also a number of moral perspectives to be considered. Believe it or not, one perspective that I've recently been exposed to is that of Vegans, who will not even eat unfertilized eggs of free-range hens, because of the possibility of parthenogenesis. They do not even want to tolerate the small chance of killing/eating an embryo of a higher life form. So, apart from the purely legal framing of the question, do you ascribe to a moral perspective that informs your opinion on this issue?

[Tassman]

That is indeed the legal issue, as defined from a legal perspective, but there are also a number of moral perspectives to be considered. Believe it or not, one perspective that I've recently been exposed to is that of Vegans, who will not even eat unfertilized eggs of free-range hens, because of the possibility of parthenogenesis. They do not even want to tolerate the small chance of killing/eating an embryo of a higher life form. So, apart from the purely legal framing of the question, do you ascribe to a moral perspective that informs your opinion on this issue?

In my view all persons are entitled to protection and equal rights as set forth by The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But I do not consider that a non-viable, insensate embryo/fetus warrants the full protections and rights of a person...despite what the Vegans have to say on the subject.

[Starlight]

Believe it or not, one perspective that I've recently been exposed to is that of Vegans, who will not even eat unfertilized eggs of free-range hens, because of the possibility of parthenogenesis.

That isn't a usual reason for vegans to not eat eggs.

[robrecht]

That isn't a usual reason for vegans to not eat eggs.

Is it typically for health reasons or something else?

[Starlight]

Is it typically for health reasons or something else?

Animal welfare reasons are the most common:

Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.

But some people are vegans for dietary or environmental reasons.

I'm a vegetarian for all of animal rights, environmental, dietary, and climate change reasons. Certainly various arguments could be made why those reasons should make be want to be a vegan (i.e. remove free range eggs, milk, and milk products from my diet) rather than merely vegetarian, and that is something that has been on my mind.

But seriously, the theoretical possibility of pathenogenic chicken eggs has never been a reason I have ever heard anyone give for not eating eggs, it sounds insane to me. The animal rights concerns lie not with the possibility of killing a fetus, but with the fact that virtually all the male chicks get killed because egg farmers don't want roosters, and also with the fact that you are using the lives of the adult animals as tools for your use and then stealing their eggs which they might have feelings about. Similar issues apply with cows and milk, though unfortunately cows need to have a calf once per year to keep producing milk, so cow farmers end up killing off a lot more male offspring than the chicken farmers do, and the adult cows show more psychological distress about their offspring being taken away from them.

As far as fetuses are concerned, I would say that most vegans tend to be pro-choice, as veganism seems particular common only among liberals. Peter Singer, the guy who kicked off the animal rights movement in the 70s and who has been a vegan since then and who is my favorite moral philosopher, shares my extreme pro-choice view and argues that even post-birth abortions could be morally permissible under certain circumstances.

[robrecht]

Animal welfare reasons are the most common:

Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.

But some people are vegans for dietary or environmental reasons.

I'm a vegetarian for all of animal rights, environmental, dietary, and climate change reasons. Certainly various arguments could be made why those reasons should make be want to be a vegan (i.e. remove free range eggs, milk, and milk products from my diet) rather than merely vegetarian, and that is something that has been on my mind.

But seriously, the theoretical possibility of pathenogenic chicken eggs has never been a reason I have ever heard anyone give for not eating eggs, it sounds insane to me. The animal rights concerns lie not with the possibility of killing a fetus, but with the fact that virtually all the male chicks get killed because egg farmers don't want roosters, and also with the fact that you are using the lives of the adult animals as tools for your use and then stealing their eggs which they might have feelings about. Similar issues apply with cows and milk, though unfortunately cows need to have a calf once per year to keep producing milk, so cow farmers end up killing off a lot more male offspring than the chicken farmers do, and the adult cows show more psychological distress about their offspring being taken away from them.

As far as fetuses are concerned, I would say that most vegans tend to be pro-choice, as veganism seems particular common only among liberals. Peter Singer, the guy who kicked off the animal rights movement in the 70s and who has been a vegan since then and who is my favorite moral philosopher, shares my extreme pro-choice view and argues that even post-birth abortions could be morally permissible under certain circumstances.

This Vegan says it's because of the slaughter of the male baby chicks, even with egg production by free-range chickens, while this person gives the parthenogenesis reasoning: Why we should not eat unfertilized, free range eggs I've seen this reasoning elsewhere as well.

I live in a rural area with many family farms and backyard chicken koops. A few of our friends give us eggs. No harm to the environment or global warming. The chickens are oftentimes treated like pets and are well cared for. There's also a dairy farm across the street. My kids love the cows, but the farmer doesn't give us any milk.