₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
I thought you are someone I can have a good conversation with but I see you are just too emotional to get your points across without insults. Check it have I used any words like ridiculous to address any of your posts? No but you feel you should use such insults to respond to me. Not going to bother responding to you any further.

So if an idea is ridiculous, I shouldn't call it so? So you are trying to tell me that blaming an innocent fetus for something that isn't its fault and using it as a justifiable reason to kill it is not ridiculous? Or you're trying to tell me that killing a fetus when it doesn't threaten the life of the woman isn't ridiculous? Even wirinet did not go this far for Christ sake.


#Xavier

Maeve7:
It’s interesting to read all your concern about the fetus without considering how a woman will treat an unwanted fetus inside her body. You surely know that her lifestyle, mental health, eating habits and possible substance abuse all have an impact on the fetus and with the development of the nervous system the pain that she can inflict on the fetus and then embryo will be felt more intensely. Will anyone be there to protect this fetus from what a woman can do or not do to ensure that it is provided with everything a fetus/embryo needs and save it from any harm?

And how has the ban on abortion stopped women from having abortions?

I addressed this genuine concern of yours in one of my write-ups. Here it is below;

Talking about my pro-life. I'm against extreme pro-life, but rather I stand for common sense or rational pro-life. That's why I advocate for;

* The respect, care and protection of all human life... fetus inclusive.
* The creation of systems (which I personally refer to as Abortion Mitigating System aka AMS) that ensure the woman isn't forced to be mother against her will while simultaneously ensuring the protection of the life of the unborn babies, the care or welfare of children, the protection of the life of women, and the tackling of the menance of unwanted pregnancies.
* The allowance of temporal pro-choice until the above system is effectively established.

Yes, establishing the mentioned system is going to be physically, mentally, emotionally and financially straining, but hey, a human life is worth those strains. And as a person, I've decided that I'm not just going to be a sit and watch pro-life but an action one. I have plans to establish an organization that would be heavily committed to establishing the above systems via;

* Funding child support and orphanages
* Ensuring good and accessible healthcare for women and children
* Subsidizing birth controls to make them affordable, available and accessible.
* Spreading the message of celibacy and protected sex with the aim of establishing such culture.
* Allowing Abortion in the CRITICAL CASES which are pre-adolescent pregnancies, severe deformity of the fetus, and medically or surgically unremedied life threatening pregnancies. Critical cases majorly deal with the woman's life.

If the above is effectively done;

1.) Women won't be forced to be mothers against their will thanks to well funded orphanages.
2.) The life of the unborn babies will be protected thanks to well funded child support and orphanages.
3.) Children will be taken care of thanks to well funded child support and orphanage, likewise good and accessible healthcare
4.) The life of women will be protected thanks to good and accessible healthcare, and the allowance of abortion in the critical cases (which majorly deals with the woman's life)
5.) Unwanted pregnancies will be tackled (higher chance) thanks to subsidized, accessible, affordable and available birth controls, likewise a pro celibacy and protected sex culture.

It's going to take lots of time and a whole lot of work and resources, but I believe it can and will be possible, and I also believe that with such efforts, governments, individuals, and organizations will jump on board with time. If things are effectively done, I see abortion not being an issue in the future.

That's Xavier's pro-life view, and I'm proud to hold such view. I don't see a reason why anyone with a conscience will have issues with that. So rather than push for abortion, why don't we create such systems... while allowing temporal pro-choice until the systems are effectively in place?

#Xavier

LordReed:
We are having a simple discussion and you are getting heated and insulting. I give people grace to calm the Bleep down cos when I unleash they start crying crocodile tears. If you want to continue discussing with me, you better pocket the insults.

Bro nobody is insulting you, I'm just surprised at your dehumanizing and ridiculous reasons to kill a human life. That's it. Anybody with a conscience will squeeze his or her face at what you just said. That's just it.

Imagine blaming a fetus for something that isn't his or her fault and using it to justify their killing. Imagine calling for the killing of a fetus when it stands as no threat to the woman's life. Is that not something to squeeze one's face at?



#Xavier

LordReed:
The real question is if there was some universally known intrinsic human value why would the Nazis have killed so many Jews. Because there isn't is why. All value is subjective. And to answer your particular question, the Nazis didn't see it as murder, the Allies did, once again showing that it is a legal matter that expresses the subjectivity.

If you even took your time to read my write-ups, I made it clear that despite the existence of the universal intrinsic knowing of the intrinsic value of human life, some people still ignore, deny and suppress it for ideological or personal malevolent ambition reasons. But nevertheless, despite the ignoring or denying of it, the intrinsic knowing exist in every one.

Some people deny the intrinsic knowing to carry out racism, sexism, condescension, genocide, jihad, rape, child sacrifice, killing of twins, human sacrifice, and what have you. This is the reason why the perpetrators of these acts always first of all, dehumanize their victims or craft ridiculous philosophies to justify their conscience.

But here's the thing, irrespective of personal opinions, what is actually or inherently true or right is actually or inherently true or right. Some people may deny or reject the universal intrinsic knowing of the intrinsic value of human life for ideological or malevolent reasons, but reality is reality, it always has a way of bringing us back to the truth. It always has a way get us out from our slumber or blindness. That's the beautiful thing about reality.

I once didn't use to believe in the universal intrinsic knowing of the intrinsic value of human life until reality did its job at bring me into the reality of it.

Point out where I said the fetus isn't a human life and hence has not the right to live except some superior power say so.

The fetus does not have the right to use the resources and body of another human without permission. Nobody has that right.

Nope in my view I subjectively value some humans over others, just like you value your mother's life over mine. And when it comes to choosing you will choose according to your subjective value.

Also point out where I used the words superior and inferior.

Like I already said the fetus has no right to use the woman's body without consent. It's her life the fetus has to depend on, it literally has to live off of her blood. Do you think somebody should have the right to just come take your blood without your consent?

If you can find a way to preserve a fetus that is between 0-5 months old outside of the woman's body that would be great. Till then the owner of the body should have the right to agree or disagree with growing something inside her.

The fetus has no right to use another person's body because it was the one that put itself there right? Because it was the one that collaborated with nature to put itself there. It's like saying a child shouldn't be taken care of by his or her father, despite the child not having a say in the natural process of conception and reproduction, since he or she has no right over his or her father's money. You see how ridiculous and weird your logic is.

So a human life should be killed simply because it obeyed a natural law which it had no hand in creating? Wow... just wow 😂😂😂👏👏👏. And this one will open his mouth to condemn Nazis, racists, sexists, jihadist, twin killers in ancient Calabar, genocide proponents etc after crafting the most ridiculous reason I've ever heard to justify killing a human life. Well done sir... 🙌🙌🙌

Is capital punishment murder? Is killing of enemy combatants in battle murder? Is killing in self defense murder? In killing someone accidentally murder? The answer to all these questions is NO because murder has a narrow definition that does not encompass all forms of killing.

The examples you are citing fall under two categories;

1.) Killing to save life
2.) Killing to punish a crime.

So how does killing a fetus fall under the above. What crime did the fetus commit that warrant it being killed? If the fetus is not a threat to the woman's life, why kill it?

As for situations where the woman's life is being threatened, that's a justifiable reason for abortion, and it falls into the above categories. The life of the woman is at risk here and must be put into consideration... except the woman says otherwise. This is the critical case exemptions I talked about. Here's the catch, the critical cases only occur in few scenarios.

What conclusion did I make?

Making assumptions of the critical case without knowing what I meant by it or them



#Xavier

wirinet:
The video below is from Kano, a highly Conservative state, where abortion obviously is illegal. The streets are littered with young boys and girls begging for food

https://youtube.com/shorts/_nEG-66dJZY?si=jklOe5ivbFHgX6pT

To me this is far more dehumanising than abortion.

Still does not negate the dehumanizing of the fetus, which you admit with your definition of a human life, as being a living human.

The government and the society does not have the right to decide what people do with their lives and bodies, that I heavily champion. But the government has the right to preserve human life. And a fetus is a human life.

If a fetus is a human life, my morality, altruism, and values of human rights and equality makes be pro-life. It makes me unable to discriminate against a powerless, innocent, voiceless human life simply because it's in the womb. Equality and human rights applies to all human life irrespective of gender, race, intelligence, viability, socio-economic status, and stage of development.

All human life, including a fetus, deserve to be loved and cared for. I can never dehumanize a fetus simply because it can not speak or fight for itself, if I do so, how does that make me different from the Nazis, racists, sexists, slave owners, jihadist, the twin killers in ancient Calabar etc?

Talking about my pro-life. I'm against extreme pro-life, but rather I stand for common sense or rational pro-life. That's why I advocate for;

* The respect, care and protection of all human life... fetus inclusive.
* The creation of systems (which I personally refer to as Abortion Mitigating System aka AMS) that ensure the woman isn't forced to be mother against her will while simultaneously ensuring the protection of the life of the unborn babies, the care or welfare of children, the protection of the life of women, and the tackling of the menance of unwanted pregnancies.
* The allowance of temporal pro-choice until the above system is effectively established.

Yes, establishing the mentioned system is going to be physically, mentally, emotionally and financially straining, but hey, a human life is worth those strains. And as a person, I've decided that I'm not just going to be a sit and watch pro-life but an action one. I have plans to establish an organization that would be heavily committed to establishing the above systems via;

* Funding child support and orphanages
* Ensuring good and accessible healthcare for women and children
* Subsidizing birth controls to make them affordable, available and accessible.
* Spreading the message of celibacy and protected sex with the aim of establishing such culture.
* Allowing Abortion in the CRITICAL CASES which are pre-adolescent pregnancies, severe deformity of the fetus, and medically or surgically unremedied life threatening pregnancies. Critical cases majorly deal with the woman's life.

If the above is effectively done;

1.) Women won't be forced to be mothers against their will thanks to well funded orphanages.
2.) The life of the unborn babies will be protected thanks to well funded child support and orphanages.
3.) Children will be taken care of thanks to well funded child support and orphanage, likewise good and accessible healthcare
4.) The life of women will be protected thanks to good and accessible healthcare, and the allowance of abortion in the critical cases (which majorly deals with the woman's life)
5.) Unwanted pregnancies will be tackled (higher chance) thanks to subsidized, accessible, affordable and available birth controls, likewise a pro celibacy and protected sex culture.

It's going to take lots of time and a whole lot of work and resources, but I believe it can and will be possible, and I also believe that with such efforts, governments, individuals, and organizations will jump on board with time. If things are effectively done, I see abortion not being an issue in the future.

That's Xavier's pro-life view, and I'm proud to hold such view. I don't see a reason why anyone with a conscience will have issues with that. So rather than push for abortion, why don't we create such systems... while allowing temporal pro-choice until the systems are effectively in place?



#Xavier

wirinet:
A sperm is living, a day old zygote is living, a 6 weeks old fetus is living, in fact every cell, bacteria and plant is living.

A zygote a few hours old has complete set of 46 chromosomes.

But the sperm, bacteria, plant cells are not living human organisms. The question is not if the fetus is living, but if it's a human life... or in this case, a living human life.

Yes a 6 weeks old fetus can be considered human, bit it is not yet a person. A person must be capable of independent existence.
An unwanted fetus growing inside a woman is an parasite according to the woman. She has no emotional attachment to it. She wishes to remove it from her body as soon as possible.
So you see it's a matter of perspectives, the main issue is that it's the woman that suffers the pain and consequences of having an unwanted object in her body. You on the other hand suffer no consequences, only personal moral or religious wellbeing/satisfaction.

The argument is not whether it has attained sentience, but if it's a living human organism. If it is, then who gives any one the right to kill a human life? If it is, and if human life irrespective of race, gender, intelligence, viability, socio-economic status, or stage of development, have intrinsic value (thanks to the universal intrinsic knowing of the value of human life), then who gives anyone the right to kill a human life with intrinsic value?

Also, according to your definition of personhood, new born babies and people on life support, aren't persons since they aren't viable enough to live independently. So in other words, we can take the life out of them. I'm so loving this view 😂😏😌

Calling a human life an unwanted object is the equivalence of Nazis and slave owners referring to Jews and blacks as Vermin and animals. Dehumanizing a human life is always the first step to committing crime against it or them. Talk about neo Nazism 😏

Once again no one says it's not living, only not regarded as a person capable of independent existence.

Now let me ask you: would you support the creation of human embryo incubator that would allow fertilisation and incubation of a fertilised human egg from conception to fully developed babies without the need of a woman?

As far as the child will be well taken care of by parents or government child care systems, then why not? So what does that have to do with the fact that a human life... in this context, living human life is being killed.



#Xavier

bemeruca:
A woman does not want a fetus in her body but she puts it there. even as Wirinet dehumanizes the human that dies in every abortion. I think there is enough time to decide when abortion should be done but if you go by the liberal lens of these guys, one can say if you are a liberal, you cannot object to a woman aborting her kid before it is born.

You didn't factor in rape here... or failed contraceptives... 🤨

one can even say forcing a man to pay child support or alimony is not liberal since it will be against his liberty

My money, my choice. Keep the government out of my money. Only I have the right to do whatever the hell I want to do with my money, the government can not detect for me. Let me choose to take care of my child or not... 😂😂😂



#Xavier

wirinet:
A living organism with complete set of human (homo sapiens) DNA.

So is a fetus with brain activity and heartbeat (which begins at 6 weeks) not considered living?

But I see you avoided a perspective to this, According to science, a pre six weeks fetus is considered a human life... at its earliest stage because of its possession of human genetic and the capacity to, with time, evolve into sentience and state of living. Which now begs the question, if it's a human life or human entity, who gave any one the right to kill and stop its development?

But let's focus on your definition, so is a fetus which posseses heartbeat and brain activity (which begins from six weeks), not considered living?


#Xavier

IMAliyu2:
New brainlet conspiracy theory just dropped.

MFs would rather invent a new conspiracy theory, that acknowledge, climate change, and that these are facts climate researchers have been predicting for years. That warmer ocean waters would result in larger costal storms and hurricanes.

When you deny the obvious, you have to fill in the blank to maintain balance of the system... and what better way to do this than conspiracies 😂😂😂😂😂

Honestly, both the Left and Right are guilty of conspiracies, but the Right are Ph.D holders. The Left are still dealing with Bachelor's Degree 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣


#Xavier

raumdeuter:
I am conservative and I am pro-abortion.

As I always tell people, conservatism and liberalism are broad spectrums containing various school of thoughts. Yes, at the core values, they all agree, but in some cases, there will be disagreement or variants, just like we see in every other worldviews e.g theism, Christianity etc

Calling someone "not conservative" or "not liberal" because of their pro-choice or pro-life views respectively, is like a theist calling a deist "not theist"; or a Protestant calling a Catholic, "not Christian"; or a polytheistic Hindu calling a Monotheistic Hindu (like Vivek Ramaswamy), "not Hindu"; or a pro intelligent design Christian calling a theistic evolution Christian, "not Christian; or a pro-life Christian calling a pro-choice Christian, "not Christian". It's funny and ridiculous as hell 😂😂😂

This is the reason why most pro-choice conservatives and pro-life liberals do not express their views, and lots of them that do, claim independents (in other to avoid opposition) before doing so. Only few like me... and you... are bold enough to speak and stand their ground in the face of opposition.

Surprisingly, I'm yet to see a conservative attack you on this thread for being pro-choice unlike a certain member of this thread who was unfortunate enough to open his mouth in favor of pro-life 😂. But as I said, since my liberalism does not align with the dominant liberalism on this thread, I have humbly claim independent on this thread... for peace to reign 😂



#Xavier

raumdeuter:
I am not pro choice or pro abortion because you said so?

Have you stopped to think about the insane things you say consistently

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

wirinet:
Sorry I have not read your version of liberalism, been quite busy and just browse nairaland from time to time. Your definition of liberalism being "based on the fundamental value of intrinsic human value, on which other values such as human rights, equality and liberty" is quite vague and confusing. What exactly is intrinsic human value, and is it set in stone for all ages and cultures or is fluid between societies and times?

Read my write-ups on this thread that precede this, starting from my first response to LordReed. I explained what intrinsic human value is, and why I hold such view. I'm not going to be repeating myself.

Now my confusion as to the brand of your liberalism is how you can be hugely pro liberty with one's body and at the same time anti liberty when a woman doesn't want a fetus in her body, because you place the rights of the fetus over that of the woman. A fetus is not a person, it is the process of making a person. A fetus particularly in the early stages is just a bunch of cell developing into a person. Getting sperm and egg together nowadays is not big deal, it could be done outside the woman's body. If we need to populate the earth with 8 more billion people, it could be easily achieved by harvesting eggs and sperms and building human incubators. Sex need not be involved.
It is moral ethics that prevents scientists from developing human cloning and human fetal incubators.

What makes an organism a human life? Let's start from there.



#Xavier

IjeBos:
My guy, you're taking this too far.
You can't be a liberal and have this much consternation about whether you will vote Trump or Harris.
As a liberal that should have been an easy choice without all the discussion of running mates.
Liberalism would have forced you to Harris based even on the liberal tenets you espoused.

I'm not a liberal based on your version of liberalism, that I agree. And I made it known, if such is the dominant definition here, I'm independent in this thread, so I don't see the need for your back and forth.

But one thing is certain, Xavier has come across liberals that share his version of liberalism. If anyone here choose not to believe it, that's their head ache, not mine.

As for my choice of candidate, I made my choice, and I gave my reasons. If that doesn't sit well with you, that's your problem, not mine. I'm in no business of pleasing anybody here... so just die the matter.



#Xavier

wirinet:
You can't be liberal and at the same time be anti-abortion. Liberalism to means freedom of beliefs, actions and my body, as long as it does not infringement on the rights of other persons or injurious to the long term wellbeing of society.

Therein lies the problem. I don't share this version of liberalism. I've made known, in details, my version of liberalism which is based on the fundamental value of intrinsic human value, on which other values such as human rights, equality and liberty are based on. And because of my version of liberalism, I'm pro-life. And because of my version of liberalism, I'm hugely pro liberty, especially with one's body, but when a human life is being threatened or hurt, then I oppose. Which begs the question, is a fetus a human life?

I've come across people that share my version of liberalism, and I've come across those that share yours.

But, as I've earlier said, if your definition of liberalism is the dominant definition of liberalism in this thread, then I can't associate with it, I prefer to be seen as an independent in this thread.

This discussion has already been done, and I don't want to go into that rollercoaster, but I just feel I should let you know... if it matters.



#Xavier

budaatum:
Belief is subjective in all contexts, because it is done by individual subjects.

Personal opinion is also subjective because it is the opinion of personal individual subjects.

Value, as in, what is held to be of value, and the value things have, is subjective, because value is determined by individual subjects, a la one persons gold is another person's dross.


Bingo.

And that's because we are all individual subjective subjects, each with separate brains in our heads, and with different educations and dictionaries, and understandings and contexts and etc and etc and etc and......


When beliefs are true or right, they stop being beliefs and become knowledge.

I wanted to go with a follow up question, does that mean nothing is actually or inherently true or right? But then I saw the bolded. At least, you admit that truly there are things that are actually or inherently true or right, irrespective of individual opinions. You call them knowledge, I call them diverse names; concepts, beliefs, values, knowledge that are inherently or actually true or right. That's all I've been saying all this while.

Personal opinions are personal opinions. Reality is reality. How do we know what's actually or inherently true or right? Evidence, reasoning, and universal intrinsic knowing. And that's the summary of all I've been saying. That's why I made it clear that objectivity and subjectivity both exist... in the context that some things are actually or inherently true or right irrespective of personal or individual opinions or perspectives.



#Xavier

Maeve7:
Give me this your lady friend‘s number. I‘d like to thank her.

Don't worry, thank her here, I will make sure she gets the message 😂😂😂😏😏😏


#Xavier

Obrigardo:
Hey y'all.

This is your daily reminder that the rapist felon and traitor trump is losing in a record landslide against a black indian American woman.

So let it be... amen 🙏😎😁


#Xavier

Yesterday, I had an interaction with a lady regarding the upcoming election, and in the course of the interaction, she said Xavier if you aren't appealed to Trump and Kamala, but you nevertheless prefer their running mates, Vance and Walz, rather than stay neutral during the election, why don't you support these candidates because of their running mates?

Her statement caused moments of reflection in me which made me come in agreement with her. Yes, I'm not a fan of Trump and Kamala for certain reasons, but their running mates appeal to me for numbers of reasons such as competence, intelligence, character (not perfect), patriotism and passion. So why can't I support a candidate, and by extension, support his or her running mate.

Vance and Walz are good guys... men of intelligence, passion, patriotism, and character (not perfect), but I pick Walz over Vance because of;

* Liberal bias
* The competence, intelligence, passion, character and patriotism of Walz.
* The personality of their principals. Trump has a nasty and an "alpha and omega" character, with him, I don't see J.D Vance having the opportunity to exude his capacity as a Vice President. I see a Mike Pence 2.0. But with Kamala, who is sane and reasonable, I see Walz being given that opportunity to exude his capacity.

So due to this, I've decided to lend my support to the Harris-Walz candidacy. The support for Kamala is the support for Walz, and having Walz at the White House working in partnership with President Kamala Harris, gives me good reasons to believe that America will be in good hands.

Yes, I will not agree with all their views and policies, but hey, there is more to America than whatever views or policies Xavier agrees with or not.



#Xavier

LordReed:
But I said you shouldn't respond as you'll have the opportunity to do so when I respond to your other post.

Okay 😊. Will be waiting 😎


#Xavier

budaatum:
Xavier5, you see the above from my Lord up there?

It's what you've said too below.



"Belief" is subjective, and that's the reason all we subjects don't all believe the same things.

Belief is subjective in the context of personal opinion? Or in the context that certain values or beliefs are inherent true and right? Which one.

Secondly, we can't all believe the same things, that's true. But the argument is not if we must or should belief the same thing, but if some beliefs are inherently true or right.


#Xavier

LordReed:
Ok good. Thanks for clarifying.

I don't think anything has intrinsic value

Alright, but tell that to the universal intrinsic knowing of the intrinsic value of human life. As I earlier said, people may choose to deny it for personal or ideological reasons, but reality will always be reality. And this is the reality, everybody knows deep down that human life has intrinsic value. And the beautiful thing is, reality always present situations where humans will have no choice but to acknowledge. We can choose to deny it, but reality always has a way of giving us the middle finger.

In addition, your non acknowledgement of the intrinsic human value is the reason why we don't share the same definition of liberalism. And as I said, if that's the dominant definition of liberalism here, then I can't associate with such. I prefer to be an independent in this thread.

All value is subjective which is the reason value cannot be the bedrock for equity.

All value is subjective in what context? In the context of personal opinion? Or in the context that some values are inherently true and right?

The principle of equity is baseline enough by itself because we are all humans with the same basic needs.

If there's no intrinsic human value, why does it matter if we are all humans? What's so unique in being human? What's the difference between humans and animals? Why do we hurt animals all in the name of surviving? And why does me hurting another fellow human to survive or achieve my personal desires wrong?



#Xavier

LordReed:
I promise it's very relevant. Please answer.

Base on the fact that you're a stranger to me, and I have a very close relationship with my mother, against my wish of not wanting to choose anyone, I will choose my mother. She's functionally valuable to me than you in this context. But of course, if an opportunity arises for escape or situational neutralization, then definitely, I'm going that route with us all.

But functional human value isn't what I'm talking about here, but rather intrinsic human value. Functional human value is based on the contribution of a person to the society or to the life of an individual.

Intrinsic human value is the belief that human life inherently posseses value irrespective of race, gender, intelligence, viability, socio-economic status, and stage of development, because it is a human life.

I think it's very vital we take note of the difference between functional human value and intrinsic human value. I think you're conflicting the two.

So what connection does the question have with the discussion at hand?



#Xavier

Konkoja:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-bible-oklahom-ryan-walters-b2624140.html

Trump has succeeded in corrupting most sectors in America. 55 thousand Bibles to be ordered with specifications that mirror Trump Bibles.

Absolutely corrupt charlatans and they profess to be Christians.

Who is now turning America into a third world country?

Trump Bibles keh, the ones he wrote or the ones he translated 😂😂😂😂😂


#Xavier

Earlier today, I had an interaction with someone, and in the course of the interaction, she asked a deep question regarding my support in the upcoming election, one that, after moments of reflection, made me make the decision of choosing not to be neutral, but rather lend my support to a presidential candidate.

To those who might be interested in knowing, not that it matters, I will be revealing my preferred presidential candidate tomorrow, and why I chose to support the candidate.

Truth is, my choice would make some people angry and triggered, and others, probably, happy.



#Xavier

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN 😁😎😏😊

I was puzzled when some people claimed Xavier was not a liberal. At that, what came to my mind was, how? Honestly, I thought they were wrong, but the reality on ground has made it clear they were right. Right, not because, based on liberal values, Xavier isn't a liberal, but rather based, on the definition of liberalism in this thread, Xavier isn't a liberal. And I admit, they are over the top right.

Xavier's version of liberalism is one which is;

* Based on the fundamental or core value of intrinsic human value, which by definition, is the idea that human life inherently has value irrespective of gender, race, socio-economic status, intelligence, viability or stage of development, because it is a human life. A belief that is attested by the universal intrinsic knowing of the intrinsic value of human life.
* And on the above value, the values of human rights, equality and personal liberty are founded.
* In addition to the above values, we have the values of truth, reasoning, open mindedness, progressiveness, morality, altruism, democracy, and consent of the govern etc.

Based on the above values, I can say that I, Xavier is a liberal, a proud one at that, and will be so till the day I die. And no devil in hell can change that.

The above definition of liberalism is one which makes me pro-life. One which makes me see all humans as equal. One which makes me pro human rights. One which makes me pro personal liberty, especially as concerns one's body, as far as an innocent, powerless and voiceless human life is not being hurt. One which makes me focus on candidacy quality rather than party. One which makes me pro woke but anti radical woke. One which makes me pro morality and altruism. One which makes me to be truth and reasoning centric etc.

As for my pro-life, thanks to the above definition of liberalism, I'm anti what I term, extreme or ridiculous pro-life, but rather, I support an objective or rational pro-life... a pro-life view that;

* Acknowledges the complexity of abortion due to it involving human life, health, bodily liberty, the menance of unwanted pregnancies, financial issues, and emotional and mental issues.
* That calls for the government and society to establish systems... systems that ensure that the woman isn't forced to become a mother against her will, while simultaneously ensuring that the life of the babies are preserved, and the menance of unwanted pregnancy is being tackled.
* That allows for temporal pro-choice until the above system is effectively established.
* That acknowledges allowing abortion in the critical cases, which are, one, pre-adolescent pregnancies; two, medical or surgically unremedied life threatening pregnancies; and three, severe deformity of the fetus. All in other to ensure the protection of the female or mother, and to avoid subjecting the baby when born to enormous physical, mental and emotional pain.

But base on the definition of liberalism on this thread, and which is held by lots of liberals out there, a liberalism that;

* Negates or ignore the fundamental value of intrinsic human value.
* That promotes the idea of doing whatever the hell one wants to do, especially with one's body, irrespective of if a human life gets hurts or not, as far as it suits one's interest.
* That promotes blindly supporting the Democratic party even if they're wrong.
* That promotes blindly supporting and propagating all the narratives of the "powers that be" of the left even if they're wrong or false.

Base on such definition of liberalism, I'm not a liberal. I see myself as an independent. I can't associate with such belief.

So officially, I make it known that base on the definition of liberalism in this thread, Xavier is not a liberal, but an independent. I take back all my liberal claims, and if there's anyone who felt triggered, offended, insulted, or disgusted by it, I honestly say, I'm sorry. Let's shake hands, hug and proclaim, "To your tents ohhhh Israel." So from now henceforth, let me be seen as an independent.

The ironic thing is, whenever, I get into a public socio-political space, I always make it known that I'm a liberal or independent depending on the dominant definition of liberalism in that space. But for some unexplainable reason, I failed to apply such principle here, and in return, I had a huge chunk of my butt being bitten off to pay for it 😂😂😂. But anyways, I've learnt my lesson 😁

So officially in this thread, Xavier is an independent 😊😎🙃



#Xavier

LordReed:
Before we go on, answer this scenario. Your mother, yourself and myself were captured by hoodlums. They hold guns to all three of our heads and ask you to choose between them killing your mother or them killing me. Who would you choose? Please just a straight forward answer, no meandering.

Me trying to understand what this have to do with the discussion at hand? 🤨🤔🙄

If we want to discuss on abortion, and my reasons for my pro life view, then let's discuss. But if we are playing a game of asking irrelevant questions, them suit yourself 🚶🚶🚶.



#Xavier

budaatum:
This is the American Politics thread, Xavier, and most don't appreciate it being derailed.

Start a thread.

@bolded
As usual, no response, but I agree with you, let's let sleeping dogs sleep 😎

As for the thread, I already gave the response to LordReed earlier. But as i said above, let's let sleeping dogs sleep.



#Xavier

LordReed:
Your definition of Liberalism already shows a fundamental disconnect from the ideology. I'm trying not to No True Scotsman you but I think you need to reexamine your idea of what Liberalism means.

Liberalism is based on equity and freedom, the idea that all men should have the same access and the same freedoms a society provides. Take a mighty note, equity and value are not the same. Let me illustrate: when you go to a toll booth, the toll for all cars is the same. That is equity. When you go to a car dealer, not all cars have the same price, in fact cars of the same model may have different prices. That is value.

Liberalism does not argue that all men have same value rather it says all men should have access. That toll booth in my example, operating under a liberal system would mean give access to a 2024 Lexus the same way you give access to 1970 Volkswagen Beetle. Your worth should not determine your access under a liberal operation.



So no, human value is not the basis for Liberalism. Or else Elon Musk should have more rights than you.

Equity and freedom are the basis for Liberalism, it is from these 2 bedrock that all liberal ideas are built upon. Elon Musk despite how rich he is should not have more access to the toll booth than I do. His vote should not count more than mine.



I will discard all this because I don't think it is essential to the discussion based on the foregoing.

Thank God you talked about liberty and equality, which are fundamental liberal values. But the question is, what are the value of equality and liberty based on? If human life does not intrinsically has value irrespective of race, gender, intelligence, viability or stage of development, then what's the significance of the whole idea of liberty and equality?

[b]And talking again about human value, you didn't read my post, otherwise you wouldn't have brought up Elon Musk. Because I clearly explained what I meant by human value, which is the belief that all human life have value irrespective of race, gender, intelligence, socio-economic status, viability and stage of development, but because they're humans. And I went further to explain why, which is where the statement of universal intrinsic knowing of the value of a human life came in, which ironically you dismissed as being insignificant to the discuss, which to me is funny as hell 😁.

Murder is a legal term meaning unsanctioned killing. In the cases where abortion is legal then the killing is not unsanctioned therefore it is not murder.

So when Jews were being slaughtered because Nazi Germany sanctioned it, it wasn't murder or genocide right? Funny how we redefine words to suit our narratives.

I guess your real grouse is with killing but then you acknowledge that in what you call critical cases you have no problem with the killing.

You see why I said you should ask questions, rather than making conclusions. Do you know what the critical cases are, and why I made them exemptions?

This is where liberalism rears it's beautiful head. On what basis are you limiting one person's freedom to do the same thing you sanction for a different person? Basically then unless you have good reason to say no then every woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy that has not reached a certain stage in the development of a fetus. Then after that stage we begin to examine on a case by case basis whether termination is an acceptable procedure.

To me these are not the issues for a liberal. The issue is should any woman have the same access and freedom as any other woman to terminate what is growing inside her own body. Should a woman have bodily autonomy to determine if she wants something to grow within her own body or not. I think you should answer these questions for the discussion to continue.

On what basis are you saying a fetus isn't a human life and hence has not the right to live except some superior power say so? So in your view, certain lives are superior to others, and these superior lives has the right to eliminate the inferior life if it helps their cause?

And I come back to the core of the issue, if all human life has value irrespective of gender, race, intelligence, viability, socio-economic status, or stage of development, but because they are human life, and if a fetus is a human life, doesn't that fetus has the right to live? Which now brings us to the question, is a fetus a human life? What makes an organism human? And does the fetus meet that requirements? These are the questions we should be asking.

If truly the fetus is a human life, then what should we do? Jump on the boat of abortion or pro choice? Or the government and society should create systems that ensure, one, the woman doesn't have to be a mother if she doesn't want to; two, the menance of unwanted pregnancy is being tackled, and three, the babies life is being preserved? Why do we think we can't create such system where all three issues are being addressed?

And guess what, the latter is the part I take, I strongly believe we should create such systems, rather than just jump on the boat of abortion or pro choice. What systems, am I talking about? Very simple, ask me and i will explain.

Look, I'm enormously pro right to one's body, but when a human life is being hurt, then I strongly believe that we have to take a step backward, and evaluate things.

And so you know, the critical cases I mentioned are based on life... life of the woman, and not bodily liberty. But as I said, ask questions on what I mean by critical cases, and not make assumptions.

Anybody who truly considers the question will know it's not simple which is why a liberal should be more open minded to consider very strongly the ramifications of limiting freedoms wily nily.

And my response to these is, I question the liberalism that negate or sideline human value all in the name of bodily liberty. So much for human rights and equality 🙄

As I've said, and will continue to say, if truly the fetus is a human life, what should we do, jump on the boat of pro abortion or pro choice? Or the government and society should create systems, systems that ensures;

* The woman doesn't have to be a mother if she doesn't want to.
* The menance of unwanted pregnancy is being tackled.
* The babies life is being preserved.

Why do we think we can't create such systems? What systems am I talking about? As I initially said, ask questions, and I will explain.

As for the complexities of abortion, I'm open to discussing on them, if you ask.


#Xavier

They claim Xavier is throwing words, but fail to explain how Xavier is throwing words 😁. They claim Xavier is wrong, but fail to show how Xavier is wrong.

Now, a very simple question that I always ask, what exactly is liberalism? And how, base on liberal values, is Xavier not a liberal?

These questions has been asked time and again, and yet, none of the "Xavier isn't a liberal" crew can give an answer, but yet, in their opinion, Xavier isn't a liberal. If any of these folks can concretely explain how base on liberal values, Xavier isn't a liberal, then I will accept that truly I'm not a liberal, otherwise, all those claims are just BS, and Xavier doesn't bother himself about BS.


#Xavier

budaatum:
I never said you were "objectively wrong", Xavier5, so your question is strawmanning and not worth answering.

What I specifically said was your "universal objectivity is making me cringe". And the truth is the entire post made me cringe, and having discussed with you so far, I cringe even more.

So if I'm not objectively wrong, why did my statement make you cringe?

And secondly, didn't I make it clear that I'm not pro absolute objectivity?

And talking about "cringe", discussion with me made you cringed because you couldn't answer the questions I asked you... or what? What exactly in all the discussion made you cringe?

If you can not see the object I wrote in words, and instead input your subjective understanding and then claim I said what I never said, I find it difficult to accept you can conceive of an objectivity that is universal. And that's apart from us not getting to the point where I ask what you mean by "universal objectivity", which I would for starts as soon as you or my Lord create a thread for the discussion of your post.

No one is an "Absolute Subjectivist", whatever that means. No matter how subjective one wants to be and make up crap in one's head and believe it, as I call it, the objective reality will quickly awaken you from your subjective slumber, just as the objective reality of what I said has awakened you from the subjective slumber you claimed I said. Basically, alternative subjective made up facts are not objective facts.

Exactly the same thing I said in my post, but I guess you didn't actually read through it, but skimmed, otherwise you would have noticed I stated that.

Now regarding what I said of human value, what's the objective reality? Because that's the core of the whole issue.

And no one is an absolute objectivist neither as the mere fact that we are subjects precludes us being that objective, as you've already shown.[/b]

Subjectivity and objectivity are subjects that interest me due to their complexity, as you must have seen from my thread on the subject, so I'm curious when I find minds I think might sharpen mine. I can live with the disappointment though

@ bolded
That means you haven't met those who think otherwise then, trust those folks exist. But reality is always reality, and regarding this topic, objective and subjective truths and morality exist. That's reality.




#Xavier

budaatum:
Really, Xavier5, "But let's say I'm wrong, I made it up, I'm sorry"?

No, lets not say you are wrong. Admit you are wrong if you were wrong! That's the objective thing to do, considering you repeated that lie and others more than once!

And be aware that buda does not entertain the dishonest and the intellectually lazy.

Okay, I'm wrong, and I'm sorry if truly you're not an Absolute Subjectivist 😊

Now back to the question I asked, what is it I said that makes you think I'm objectively wrong? This is like the fourth time I'm asking this questions... if I'm not mistaken 🤨


#Xavier

budaatum:
When did I claim everything is subjective such that you can input on me that I changed my mind?

I already responded to you with the answer. But since you skipped it or chose to ignore it, here's it below, especially the bolded.

Somethings are subjective, but you cringed at my "objectivity" statements. Is that not you subscribing to the idea that everything is subjective?

But let's say I'm wrong, I made it up, I'm sorry.

Now back to my question, what is it about what I said that you think is objectively wrong?

So now, can you answer my question in color? or we should just end this back and forth. This is getting boring



#Xavier