What I find fascinating about this statement (other than it is the typical Stanley Strawman response) is that you are unable to appreciate the rights of the unborn child first and foremost. Frankly it is something your typical marxist would say, but thank goodness you are above that sort of nonsense.
I'm not sure if you are aware of it or not, but contraception is to prevent conception, thus making an unborn child not be conceived in the first place. In other words, the spermatazoa does not fertilize the egg by various methods.
Or, are you saying that "unborn children" exist before conception? This is the only way my question to you might be considered a straw argument.
What about sex for enjoyment, and not for conception? Should this be criminalized in your morality? What about Onanism? Should we put masturbators to death like God did with Onan? Or should we wait for God to do it?
Look, I know you hold strong feminist beliefs and that's your right, but, again, I do not subscribe to this view for the same reason I am not fond of the whole MGTOW movement that attempts to counter it.
I do not believe in militant (F)eminism, but rather I believe that all humans, male and female, should be able to do what they want with their lives, i.e. Freedom, sans harming others. I do hold on to much of my former libertarian values, now rather reformed (from the Mont Pelerin Society hidden agenda that is).
As for your assertion I am targeting Jerry, that's not my intent. I am challenging him to express in concrete terms his morality, because I am looking for areas of disagreement within our moral frameworks.
Why is this an issue for you to go to this level of granularity? Jerry left doing weekly podcasts with Joe Atwill so that we could get back to writing about what matters to us, but not you. But as soon as he did so, you spring back up.
I don't mind discussing such, but you have to know by experience, and from what I've explicitly told others, that I retaliate in kind and then some. In contrast, I just had a long and fun exchange with Christian Michael Wagner, and his curious brand of fundamentalism. He takes his literalism much more literally than most fundies do. He does agree that we should have Biblical polygamy, and unfortunately I failed to ask whether he might agree with polyandry. But, maybe he'll come back up for air, that is if he hasn't decided we're too much for redemption.
In any case, I have to thank you (and similarly my arguments with Joe) for our latest series, as it motivated me to make another advance (Why Maryland?) in my repeating historical 'script' hypothesis.
I am not a part of any organized religion but I am tolerant, even sympathetic to people of faith. In fact I share many core beliefs with Christians but one I do not is his divinity or the spiritual blackmail imposed on non believers -- This part of the faith is toxic and leads people to rebel into other false choices such as New Age and Satanism.
Good for you, seriously. I have been trying to convince Joe Atwill that Satanism is a fundamental and integral part of the Abrahamic religious control paradigm. It seems so obvious to me, but he isn't having any of it. Similarly, you can't have Christianity as we knew it (until recently that is) if Judas wasn't responsible for Jesus's death. Jesus (in the narrative) knows this because he tells Judas to "go about his business". It's all part of the theological package, all or nothing.
Are you saying you are against prostitution? Good for you Mr. Stanley, that certainly is a commendable stance which I agree with.
I am against all people being coerced into anything they don't want to do. But there are some people that make an interesting argument that modern marriage can be a form of prostitution, perhaps even worse than typical forms of prostitution. Supposedly Love determines the difference for people who object to this characterization, but the romantic Love aspect is only less than one millennium old, as marriages (permanent business contracts) were supposed to be determined by the parents, i.e. arranged. And Love might develop later, if one was lucky. So what do I know? In any case, in the Traditional (Christian or pagan) arrangement, marital sex was mostly for family line procreation and for enjoyment one used a prostitute or maid, etc..
If a man couldn't obtain a mate to settle down with, he would go into the equivalent of the French Foreign Legion. And remember that in the original Bible that Murder was Bad and Killing was Good.
I found this site while browsing Jan Irvin' site a long time ago.
Perhaps you are aware that Joe Atwill and Jan Irvin had a falling out. I had not been to Irvin's site, but kept hearing about the vaunted Trivium and Quadrivium logic tools. I listened to the Quadrivium video for about 15 minutes and heard Irvin and Gene Odening discuss why Aryan white men were superior, because they conquered and control land from all the barbarians. This sounded much like the subtext of the Old Testament to me. This is almost exactly what Nicholas DeVere (as in the family of the Earls of Oxford) says about his Norman clan, the Arya, that they were real PTB of the Bible. But you, atwill, Irvin et a
l insist that some other group is responsible in doing the exact same thing. CuriousDoesn't sound very libertarian to me. And yes, I am a Stanley, albeit adopted.