Source: Presented without comment
February 18, 2016 at 17:43
February 18, 2016 at 17:56
Thanks…I thought it was a great point!
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 18, 2016 at 20:06
Ahhh yes, good one Wally.
February 18, 2016 at 20:11
It was very simple and profound, and the question is really unanswerable.
February 18, 2016 at 20:47
YES!!! Brilliant! Putting it on FB
February 18, 2016 at 21:04
Hey find me on Face book. I am me LOL. The only one I think
February 18, 2016 at 21:15
Shall do! Also, what’s Mrs. Wally’s name on FB?
February 18, 2016 at 21:18
She is Heather. I was thinking about starting to call her Mrs Wally though, just to see how it goes.
February 19, 2016 at 17:22
We can only hope —
February 19, 2016 at 03:19
LikeLiked by 2 people
February 19, 2016 at 06:55
I speak without judgment on this subject I assure you, only with a heart of utmost compassion knowing the deception that leads to the action being spoken of. Just a thought that came to mind – In a world where people are demanding their rights more loudly and even violently than ever, is the heart of the matter a question of life or that the rights of one life (the mother’s) trump those of another life (the baby’s)? Though some do, many do not dispute the fact that it is a life, only that the mother – rather than God – has ultimate authority over it. When we deceptively believe that we have given life, it logically follows that we then believe we have the right to control it and even take it away…
February 19, 2016 at 07:22
Well said Cindy. Yes we do need to show compassion but yet not bend on the basic premise. What makes us think we have the right to decide who is more valuable?
February 19, 2016 at 08:45
Exactly. I think the names of each “side” say it all. Note how one side labels themselves as “Pro Choice,” not “Anti Life.” Very telling I think. Their moniker betrays the truth that their dispute is not about life but about choice. Right to life doesn’t seem to be the problem; right to choice does, however. They believe choice and not life is the greater right leading to the greater good. The other side labels themselves as “Pro Life.” This moniker reveals that the heart of the matter for them is a question of life, not choice. Life is sacred, end of story. For one who is “Pro Life,” they do not deny choice but, rather, they believe that the time for the exercising of it is prior to the possibility of life, not after. Once there is life, the possibility for choice is now gone, which I believe is eminently consistent with Scripture.
February 19, 2016 at 16:39
A very interesting take on this highly emotive issue.
Do you consider the likes of a cow or pig worthy of life, Wally?
February 19, 2016 at 16:53
That does not address the post but nice try
February 19, 2016 at 16:59
It all refers to life, does it not?
If a single cell in a womb is considered life does not a cow or pig have the right to be considered life as well?
Are you afraid or unwilling to answer?
February 19, 2016 at 17:03
Question for you. Yes or no
Is a pig or cow equal in worth to you?
February 19, 2016 at 17:04
As a life form, yes.
February 19, 2016 at 17:05
So you have no more value than a cow?
February 19, 2016 at 17:06
It is a mammal as am I and has a right to life. Certainly as a sentient creature is has the right not to be eaten, surely?
February 19, 2016 at 17:07
Answer the question. Is the life of a cow as valuable as yours?
February 19, 2016 at 17:09
I just did. And from a cow’s perspective its life is as important as mine.
Do you eat cow, Wally?
February 19, 2016 at 17:10
Its a yes or no question. Is a cow more valuable than you?
February 19, 2016 at 17:12
It is not a yes or no question as perspective is everything.
But of you can define value then I will be able to provide you with a better answer.
A yes or no question is like this:
Do you eat meat, Wally?
February 19, 2016 at 17:15
Inherent worth. Not perspective. Do you have more inherent worth than a cow?
No, of course not. My inherent worth is seen through the eyes of those I interact with.
So, do you eat meat, Wally? Why are you refusing t answer this question?
February 19, 2016 at 18:41
Really? A human has no more inherent worth than a cow? Perspective is everything. Got it. Life of any sort only has the value assigned to it by others. Got it.
If all that is true then your moral arguments about meat eating are absurd. After all….my perspective is different. And because it is mine it is correct. Just as you say yours is. Anything goes. Contingency rules.
As far as your question? Why do you ask a question you know the answer to?
February 20, 2016 at 08:54
No, Wally, as usual you have failed to grasp the core of the argument.
Let me lay it out for you.
I value my life more than a cow. Of course do. If I didn’t then I would consider my life pointless and likely be suicidal.
But this a subjective value/”worth”
Someone else might consider the cow has more value than me and a lion couldn’t care less as long as he gets to eat.
As for my question regarding meat:
If you have no empathy for other sentient animals why do you not eat dogs and cats?
Many Chinese do, so what’s your problem?
As to the value of human life, well let’s have a look from another perspective.
You have the opportunity of saving Adolf Hitler and Joseph Mengele
or the last breeding pair of Northern Right Whales?
( and they are one of the most critically endangered mammals on the planet already, just by the way)
You choose –
Tell me your answer and explain why.
February 20, 2016 at 09:13
Well, does my answer matter? I mean if it’s only a matter of perspective, then it’ all right?
I might say Hiltler, you might say the whales. Or, you might say Hitler and I might save the whales. It’s all perspective.
Which is why your moral arguments about the harm of Christianity are baseless and absurd. If it’s all perspective, then moral arguments all around are without basis.
Contingency, perspective and empathy rule.
Actually, Ark, under your scenario your life is, in fact worthless. Mine too.
February 20, 2016 at 10:29
“Actually, Ark, under your scenario your life is, in fact worthless. Mine too.”
To the Universe, Wally, that’s true.
There are a handful of people, Wally, who care about you, beyond that, no one does, and nowhere in that handful is your imaginary god. That may sound depressing, but it needn’t be – I may get heavier or thinner, but I’m never going to get any taller or shorter – sometimes we just have to accept the hand that Life deals us, adjust to the fact that that’s the way things are, then move on to make the best of it. Beating it to death is never going to change a thing.
February 20, 2016 at 10:44
“Beating it to death is never going to change a thing.”
Well said indeed. Truly your beating yourself to death against the windowpane of God’s Word will never change it.
The universe? Who or what is the universe?
Arch, I have inherent, intrinsic value. So do you. We have it because we are. What to know where it started?
“the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”
That is it in a nutshell. That is why we have worth. Not because others decide we do, or culture decides that we do, or empathy, or perspective, or necessity, or contingency. We have worth because the Creator of the universe formed us personally with His own hands, breathed His own life and image into us.
He didn’t breath life into the nostrils of a cow.
February 20, 2016 at 11:05
“Arch, I have inherent, intrinsic value. So do you.”
To a handful, as I said, that is true.
I wish I had the time (and you, the tolerance), I would post my vast collection of creation myths, so you could see just how much like those, yours is.
February 20, 2016 at 11:38
Nice try arch. How about I come to your blog and just repetitively hurl Scriptures?
No atheist blogger would allow that, so why should I?
Oh wait, I can’t .
February 20, 2016 at 12:17
Do you mean, “pull a Colorstorm“? Yes, I would. Then I would inquire about the source of that particular scripture. If there is evidence that it did not come from a reputable source, I would present that evidence to you and whoever else might be reading. I’m a very reasonable person.
February 20, 2016 at 12:47
Yeah, you would be just fine and dandy with that. I suppose I could post Gospel music videos randomly also?
Get real Arch
February 20, 2016 at 12:50
Sure – just because they’re there, no one has to listen to them, that’s an act of free will. You have to understand, Wally, I believe in free speech, I don’t just give lip service to it.
February 20, 2016 at 13:12
If you (impersonal ‘you,’ not YOU specifically) have more valid evidence to support your conclusions than I do to support mine, what kind of person would I be if I tried to hide that information, to bury it so no one would see it –?
That’s a Colorstorm move, I’m a better person than that.
February 20, 2016 at 13:27
You are a peach Arch.
Really thought? You come in my house and bad mouth my friends? Very bad form. Not to mention your fixation with ColorStorm seems rather odd to me.
February 20, 2016 at 14:07
My fixation is with the truth – when CS misrepresents it to further his agenda, I call him on it. The best way to get rid of me, is to consistently be honest, but I’m not sure he’s capable of that.
February 20, 2016 at 14:09
Hey Arch, here is a news flash. Disagreeing with you is not misrepresenting the truth.
February 20, 2016 at 14:15
Clearly you misunderstood – I don’t disagree with him until AFTER he misrepresents the truth.
February 20, 2016 at 10:34
No, Wally. Not without worth, but not necessarily worth more than any other mammal.
Why don’t you eat dog?
Now a question for you. Do you eat meat?
February 19, 2016 at 17:19
Again, Wally, to whom? To Ark or to the cow?
February 19, 2016 at 17:20
And how do you define ‘inherent’?
February 19, 2016 at 18:43
Its all good arch. All resolved. There is no inherent worth in any life only individual perspective. Just ask ark.
February 19, 2016 at 19:54
I can’t accept that one way or the other, as I don’t know your definition of ‘inherent’.
February 19, 2016 at 20:03
Well might I suggest a dictionary?
This simple. Either we have inherent value or we only have value as assigned by the perspectives of others.
So….is a cow of more worth than you?
February 19, 2016 at 20:10
I have a dictionary, several in fact. It tells me what the word, ‘inherent’ means to the author of the dictionary, it does not tell me what inherent means to you.
“So….is a cow of more worth than you?”
February 19, 2016 at 20:17
Ok great…to whom. Good start. In your scenario, who determines the worth of any being whether it be human, animal, or plant? Who is the final arbiter?
February 19, 2016 at 20:38
If you were to ask me, not wanting to die, I would say that I had the greater value. If you were to ask my worst enemy, you would likely get that the cow does. If you were to ask a man for whom the cow was his sole possession that provided milk for his starving family, he would possibly decide in favor of the cow as well.
‘For whom’ makes a great deal of difference.
February 19, 2016 at 20:50
If you were to take the time, Wally, to learn cow language, then ask the cow, I suspect she would say a human every time.
February 19, 2016 at 21:13
Here’s a cow now, let’s ask what it would prefer —
February 19, 2016 at 20:53
So…who decides? Case by case? That’s a serious question. Is it case by case?
February 19, 2016 at 21:07
I would have to say it depends entirely on who you ask, but knowing the kind of answer you’re looking for, I wouldn’t start in India.
February 19, 2016 at 21:11
So, it’s case by case, depending on who you ask. So, depending on the situation, some people may be less deserving of life than others. Just depends on perspective, right?
Why wouldn’t a cow (or any other living thing) have equal value? Based on your beliefs, Wally, God made them all.
February 19, 2016 at 20:24
Nan, you understand my beliefs better than that. Seriously, I know you do. It’s hard to have a real conversation when you wrench a thought so far out of context as to be unrecognizable. You certainly know that, based on my beliefs, that mankind has more value than the animals. God also made rocks…I think even you and I could agree that unless it is a diamond, there is not much worth there. You know my beliefs. God formed man from the dirt, breathed life into his nostrils, and man became a living soul.
You understand that, and have misstated my beliefs very substantially.
February 19, 2016 at 20:44
We”re talking living beings, not inanimate objects. And no, I’m not “wrenching a thought.” YOU are puttng more value on “man” than other living creatures only because of a book that you believe has all the answers. In truth, every living creature on this planet has a purpose and value. In fact, without these creatures, humankind would cease to exist.
February 19, 2016 at 20:52
I agree every living being has a purpose and value. Not sure when I said they did not. So…are you more valuable than a cow, Nan?
February 19, 2016 at 21:06
Those who care about me probably think so. But who really decides? Since all of us are dependent upon all other living creatures, it seems rather arrogant for humans to consider themselves as having more “value.”
From another perspective, do you feel some HUMANS have more value than others? Many people think so.
February 19, 2016 at 21:09
Do I feel some humans have more value than others? Absolutely not.
And your question is perfect Nan. Who decides? Each of us, depending on the situation? Who or what is the final arbiter of the worth of any creature? Do I get to decide your value based on my perspective? Or do you get to decide mine based on yours?
Even though I don’t believe any human has more worth than any other human, under a perspective driven process, exactly what would be wrong with that.
And really Nan? When we support the killing of unborn children, we have actually just made a decision that some humans are less worthy than others.
February 19, 2016 at 21:15
“Do I feel some humans have more value than others? Absolutely not.”
Are you saying, Wally, that you are opposed to capital punishment and all war?
February 19, 2016 at 21:19
Um..no didn’t say that.
And don’t go there. Do you actually have any clue how a person in a war might actually feel about others who die in it?
February 19, 2016 at 21:32
Yes, the wish to hell that everyone on both sides were back home with their families.
Sounds like you’re saying that some human lives are more valuable than others.
February 19, 2016 at 21:37
Says the guy on a pro life post defending tooth and nail the “right” to exterminate and entire class of humans?
ARch, I never said what you just said. You desperately want to to say it, but sadly I won’t cooperate.
Like it or not, I believe every single human being had an inherent worth given by God. Equal inherent worth I might add.
That is how i feel. Period. Now, unless you are inside my head, it’s quite arrogant of you to tell me that I don’t feel exactly the way I say I do.
So, I reckon this is peace out for me.
February 19, 2016 at 21:18
BUT Wally, by the token, when we do not provide food and water to starving children in Africa yet make sure our own children are well fed, are we not determining that some humans have less value?
February 19, 2016 at 21:24
Yeah ok Nan. Let’s take this to a completely absurd level. I said, that I do not feel some humans are worth more than others. You asked what I feel. That is what I feel. I stand by that. Your feelings on starving children don’t change my feelings. Guess what? I think starving kids sucks. It breaks my heart. I feel for them. But, really? Under your scenario, those kids are starving because mine are not, therefore I think those kids are less worthy than mine?
That is patently absurd. And presumptuous, and quite condescending. You base your entire argument on your premise that Christians are awful. Put away your broad brush, Nan. I stated what I feel, and I own that, not you.
February 19, 2016 at 21:43
Hmmm. Getting a little testy there. Methinks you are reading much more into my comments than what is intended.
I will stop now as it would appear any further discussion on this subject would be fruitless. Ahhh. I see you have determined the same. Ciao!
February 19, 2016 at 21:45
February 19, 2016 at 21:34
But Nan…and Arch. Let’s look closely here. I commend you both for a deflection well done. This was a post about the killing of unborn children. The clearest case of one group of people deciding that an entire other group is of less worth. Yet, you have neatly flipped it around so that I am the one assigning less value to a group of humans than another.
This has reached the absolute pinnacle of absurdity and I can bear it no more.
Peace to you both.
February 19, 2016 at 21:49
As Ark would say, T’ra —
February 19, 2016 at 17:48
I assume the essence of this conversation is related to whether a woman has the right to abort what some consider “a life” within her womb.
From a women’s viewpoint, there simply is no argument. SHE is the ONLY one who has the “god-given” right to decide on this issue. If the woman is a believer, then she will undoubtedly go with her Christian conscience. But if she is not, she should NOT be forced to abide by someone else’s beliefs.
February 19, 2016 at 18:47
Thanks as always for coming by.
Here are my thoughts. Over on the other blog a question was asked. Rather than my wasting any more of my time I would love to see it answered.
Im not interested in a debate about when life begins. It begins at conception.
I would love to see that question answered though
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 2,271 other followers
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.