Of course we have a multitude of examples when humans have not valued others. We don’t have to look back through past cultures to find it. Our own nation’s history had slavery. Our own lifetime has seen genocides. Our parents saw the holocaust.
And now we’re in the midst of one that dwarfs all the rest.
Past genocides don’t justify the current one.
You keep saying that others are injecting things into this exchange. (I won’t call it a discussion.)
I am completely rejecting the “point” that you are trying to inject.
But how can that be, if value isnt relative and if the fact of being human is the basis for how we value life?
All of your responses indicate you do not understand what I am saying. What do you think my point is? Repeat it for me so we can clear things up.
You recognize those past genocides as wrong. I do. We all do.
There’s only one you won’t recognize because your relativism justifies it in your mind.
No. All of your filtered interpretations indicate it.
You know my response to that.
Well thats the point isnt it? Individuals in some cases place different degrees of value on human life, and these values are derived from attributes that extend beyond a fact of being human. In fact, slavery was fought against due to our concepts of freedom and liberty. Neither of which are wholly bound to “human genetics”.
Repeat it. Otherwise, it is clear to me you are not understanding.
And as a society we should prevent those who devalue certain lives from killing them.
And thats your opinion and thats what you value. The discussion is about how we derive these values. So, again, you are missing the point.
So we are back to the statists’ argument where it’s the government that controls a woman’s body.
You know I consider your “understanding” of this issue to be warped, so I expect your “understanding” of my position to be likewise. I don’t pretend I can change that.
So keep demanding that. I suggest you hold your breath.
All I’m asking is for you to tell me what you think my overall point is, so that we can try to clear up any misunderstanding. Since you refuse to do so, my only conclusion is that you arent understanding it. Its actually a very agreeable point.
Your half of this exchange is trying to justify why your devaluation of certain human lives is justified.
Mine is pointing out the shamefulness that people can devalue those lives. Abortion rights advocates have no shame on that front.
Are you holding your breath?
No. I’m discussing where our values come from and how they are derived. Not what they should be. Where do your values come from?
Why not just have a discussion? I’m trying to be civil.
It has nothing to do with genocides.
That’s the spin you’re putting on it.
Question…is a person who crosses into our country illegally moral or immoral? Why or why not?
So “innocent” is the operative word here?
Exactly.
Well that’s what you’re doing and what I’m doing.
I will admit to the ulterior motive of challenging people’s assumptions …including my own.
