Home | Download | Discussion | Help | Site Map | New Posts | Sign in

Latest Site News

Theme Catchup2018 - posted on 1st May 2018 at 1:50 PM
Replies: 156 (Who?), Viewed: 47073 times.
Page 3 of 7
Lab Assistant
#51 Old 3rd May 2010 at 8:43 PM


...

Purpose of sex is production of new beings and persons, not pleasure.
But humans are much worse than animals, so here is one form of selfishness and irresponsibility - abortion.

Abandoned account...
Scholar
#52 Old 3rd May 2010 at 8:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan17


...

Purpose of sex is production of new beings and persons, not pleasure.
But humans are much worse than animals, so here is one form of selfishness and irresponsibility - abortion.


Sex can be for pleasure. There is nothing morally wrong with that. What I am saying is that you need to take responsibility for the consequences of sex.
Instructor
#53 Old 3rd May 2010 at 9:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan17
Purpose of sex is production of new beings and persons, not pleasure.


This is just funny. The real purpose of eating food is to survive. So, have you never eaten anything tasty even though you weren't hungry at all? Well there you go, instead of using it for its purpose, you've eaten food out of pleasure and you have obviously done a bad thing.
Lab Assistant
#54 Old 3rd May 2010 at 9:22 PM
Yes, you gain weight. Lol.
Interesting, people are ready to kill what they created, but when you say that they are worse than animals, that's then insulting!

Abandoned account...
Scholar
#55 Old 3rd May 2010 at 10:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iCad
@ Neko: OK, I have to jump in here. First, I assume you're talking about sapience (self-awareness, thinking) and not sentience, which is merely sensual perception. Even early embryos are quite clearly sentient, as they will respond to sensory stimuli. But so far as I know, no one is really sure when a human being becomes sapient. It's generally thought that it's after birth, though, anywhere from a few weeks to a few months afterward. Given the above and since you seem to think it's OK to abort a fetus because it isn't yet sapient, would you consider it acceptable to kill a one-month-old baby, then? And if not, why? What's the difference between a non-sapient say, five-month-old fetus and a not-yet-sapient one-month-old infant? Note: I'm not trying to trap you here. Many people make the argument that abortion is OK because the child is not yet sapient. Yet, most of those same people people don't think it's OK to kill an infant once it's been born, even though our research tells us that full sapience -- at least as we define it -- doesn't happen until after birth. So I'm honestly curious about the thinking involved, is all.

Apologies on my miswording. I really should pay more attention.

Anyhow, no, because once born, it becomes defined as a "person." Or rather, if you want, a criteria required to define someone as a "person." Choose whichever, as it's interpretable. But basically, once they can survive without a host, that is, I would say, a criteria to be a person. That's why I am actually against late-term abortions unless in dire situations, e.g. life-threatening situation to the mother. Because, if I'm correct, those "late-term" fetuses can, or at least are much more likely, to survive without the required host, whereas earlier in the pregnancy, this is not feasible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivan17
Purpose of sex is production of new beings and persons, not pleasure.

The "purpose" of sex is however we individually wish to define it as we are not bound by the same instinctual need for reproduction that most of life is. And you gain weight regardless if it is necessity or not. So what's your point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oaktree
I am talking about it in terms of meta-ethics. I think the problem here is that you and I are talking past each other. I am making a high-level, somewhat abstract moral argument, while you are talking at the level of applied ethics.

Then I must admit I do not quite understand the position you expressed regarding that point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oaktree
You are ignoring the possibility of taking responsibility and raising the child that occurs due to the pregnancy. I'll try to distill down the basic ideas behind my responses in this thread: 1) There are consequences to every action. If the possibilities are known, an individual is responsible for what happens when they choose to do whatever it is that they are contemplating doing. This applies to good and bad outcomes. You are responsible for your actions. I don't know how to express this any more simply. 2) You have no right to infringe on the rights of others. Ideally, you should do things that promote the well-being of yourself and others, but this is not necessary. You are doing wrong, though, if you do something that is harmful to another. You seem to think that being responsible is, in-itself, a punishment. I think that being responsible is the only way to be a moral individual, and I feel that responsibility is not a burden because it makes me a better person.

Because that is an option. If they want to take responsibility, fine, but by illegalizing abortion, you are forcing them to take responsibility. Because it pretty much is either A. get an abortion, or B. give birth. There is really no other options, so by taking one away, you are forcing them to go with another. And besides, if they -really- didn't want the kid, the mother could try to either have it done illegally, or try to induce a miscarriage.

Anyhow, I get your first position. I just find it, how to put it...in regards to this argument, I find it arrogant. Because even the best measures are not sure-fire. They already are taking responsibility by using contraception. It is not their fault the contraception failed, and therefore they should not be forced to take undue responsibility of a child, when they used contraception specifically to avoid that. And by taking away the option of abortion, that is exactly what you are doing. You are forcing them to deal with it, under your standards, not theirs. And as you already know, I find that by taking away that option, you are already infringing on the rights of the mother. We already know this point (fetal rights vs. mother's rights) is something that will progress no further, so I decided not to get into it.

And no, it's not being responsible that is the punishment. It's forcing other people to take responsibility, as per your standards, not theirs. They take contraception to avoid pregnancy. That is all they need to be responsible for. If it fails, it is not their fault nor responsibility to carry the child. That is your standard. That is the punishment.

Quote:
I'm not stretching what you're saying. I'm providing perfectly valid counterpoints to what you are saying. I am giving you some of the reasons why I think abortion is wrong. If it ticks you off, don't debate with me.

No, you are going on about how I think life is worthless, how I think they don't live good, happy lives. I don't (think that). I have never expressed that they don't. I have only expressed it in the terms of a possibility. You are stretching what I was saying by applying the description that I meant the whole.

Quote:
As I argued before, awareness of wrong does not make it less wrong. Just because the fetus is unaware of the fact that it has potential, does not mean that it is okay to destroy that potential.

Clearly this is coming down to core differences in ideas; I don't think we will agree on this point.

All I can say is that I disagree. Why has already been expressed. To be frank, I'd be surprised if we agree on anything in this debate. But, I don't argue to make people agree, so, whatever. Although if we continue to bring it up, it'll just go on as a back-and-forth without any real addition.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Undead Molten Llama
#56 Old 3rd May 2010 at 10:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nekowolf
Anyhow, no, because once born, it becomes defined as a "person." Or rather, if you want, a criteria required to define someone as a "person." Choose whichever, as it's interpretable. But basically, once they can survive without a host, that is, I would say, a criteria to be a person. That's why I am actually against late-term abortions unless in dire situations, e.g. life-threatening situation to the mother. Because, if I'm correct, those "late-term" fetuses can, or at least are much more likely, to survive without the required host, whereas earlier in the pregnancy, this is not feasible.


OK, thanks for the clarification. Then let me ask you this: What makes a person a person? If it isn't sapience, which it's thought doesn't happen until a while after birth, then, really, what is the difference between aborting a barely-past-embryonic-state fetus, and aborting one that's a few days away from being born? Is it then "it's a person only when it can survive on its own?" But then, there are many full-term babies who have medical issues and can't survive on their own. There are babies who've been gestating for as little as 5.5 months, are born, and survive. (With drastic medical intervention, of course, but they survive.)

Again, I'm not trying to trap you. I'm just trying to understand the thinking involved here. This is the very thinking that I did when I was in the "drawing lines" stage of figuring out where I stood on abortion, and for me, it became an utter minefield. So when I couldn't satisfactorily answer the questions that I put to myself, I decided to stop drawing the damn lines, to err on the side of caution if I'm erring at all, and consider a zygote a "person." Of course, other people will swing the other way, and will decide that killing even postpartum babies is not morally wrong because those babies, so they believe, are not sapient. So, I'm just wondering what your thinking is, mostly because it's interesting to me to see how other people solve this particular dilemma.

I'm mostly found on (and mostly upload to) Tumblr these days because, alas, there are only 24 hours in a day.
Muh Simblr! | An index of my downloads on Tumblr.
Instructor
#57 Old 3rd May 2010 at 10:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan17


...

Purpose of sex is production of new beings and persons, not pleasure.
But humans are much worse than animals, so here is one form of selfishness and irresponsibility - abortion.


Ah, but animals DO abort. Look up something called the Bruce Effect.
Scholar
#58 Old 3rd May 2010 at 10:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iCad
OK, thanks for the clarification. Then let me ask you this: What makes a person a person? If it isn't sapience, which it's thought doesn't happen until a while after birth, then, really, what is the difference between aborting a barely-past-embryonic-state fetus, and aborting one that's a few days away from being born? Is it then "it's a person only when it can survive on its own?" But then, there are many full-term babies who have medical issues and can't survive on their own. There are babies who've been gestating for as little as 5.5 months, are born, and survive. (With drastic medical intervention, of course, but they survive.)

No no no, sapience is an aspect of what constitutes a "person" but is not a sole factor. And also, that's why I specifically said "host." It's not necessarily "if it can survive on it's own" as that is, if anything, rather misleading. It's, if it can survive without a host, while separated from the mother. If it has to survive on machines, fine, because that's not requiring a host, as a host has to be organic, that's more like, uh, assisted living.

I don't like describing it in this way, because it creates a false idea of difference. But to be a "person" you need to be able to either survive on your own or with assistance, and, uh...I don't want to necessarily say sapience, but, yeah. I guess to put it in really vague terms, there has to be something there in the head. I don't want to say it like that though cause then you could get into, oh what about the mentally handicapped, what about those in a coma, they're still people, it's not like there's person and non-person. But it creates a false perspective to say "oh, you need sapience," because there are situations that severely hinder that. They're not any less of a person, that stuff doesn't just go away after it's developed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fragglerocks
Ah, but animals DO abort. Look up something called the Bruce Effect.

And cannibalize their young. Hence "killing what they created." And yes, Ivan, I do mean the parents eating their own offspring.

(oops, double-post)

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Scholar
DELETED POST
3rd May 2010 at 10:54 PM
This message has been deleted by Nekowolf.
Site Helper
#59 Old 3rd May 2010 at 10:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iCad
Then let me ask you this: What makes a person a person? If it isn't sapience, which it's thought doesn't happen until a while after birth, then, really, what is the difference between aborting a barely-past-embryonic-state fetus, and aborting one that's a few days away from being born? Is it then "it's a person only when it can survive on its own?" But then, there are many full-term babies who have medical issues and can't survive on their own. There are babies who've been gestating for as little as 5.5 months, are born, and survive. (With drastic medical intervention, of course, but they survive.)


For me, the determinant would be when most babies could survive outside the womb. Of course, that is being pushed back all the time with medical advances, but I think I said before that I believe there will be a point where it can't be pushed back any further. The earliest surviving preemie was born at something like 21 weeks? Medical technology may push that back a few more weeks, but after that... I think it's unlikely.
Instructor
Original Poster
#60 Old 3rd May 2010 at 11:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fakepeeps7
For me, the determinant would be when most babies could survive outside the womb. Of course, that is being pushed back all the time with medical advances, but I think I said before that I believe there will be a point where it can't be pushed back any further. The earliest surviving preemie was born at something like 21 weeks? Medical technology may push that back a few more weeks, but after that... I think it's unlikely.


I'm very against trying to push that limit back. Doctors are always much more interested in whether they can, not whether they should. Nature has REASONS for miscarrying babies--it is wrong to mess with that, I think. (I'm against fertility treatments for the same reason--as much as my heart bleeds for women who want to and can't conceive. Nature has REASONS for not permitting conception)
Instructor
#61 Old 4th May 2010 at 1:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by grumpy_otter
I'm very against trying to push that limit back. Doctors are always much more interested in whether they can, not whether they should. Nature has REASONS for miscarrying babies--it is wrong to mess with that, I think. (I'm against fertility treatments for the same reason--as much as my heart bleeds for women who want to and can't conceive. Nature has REASONS for not permitting conception)


As much as I like your points, and usually tend to agree with what you say, its unfair to say that nature has reasons for not permitting conception. I DO understand what you are saying, I really do, but you can't really profess to know what nature's reasons are. And what about those cases where only one partner is not fertile, but the other one is? Are you saying that we should leave the one we love for a more fertile partner?

IVF treatments and whether or not they are deserved is very rocky ground, and I do admire your courage for bringing it up.
Scholar
#62 Old 4th May 2010 at 2:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by grumpy_otter
Nature has REASONS

No it doesn't. Nature isn't reasoning, nor reasonable. It just is. And just because something is, that doesn't mean it ought to be .
Site Helper
#63 Old 4th May 2010 at 2:13 AM
I don't think grumpy_otter means "reasons" as in the reasoning sort of reasons. Say, for example, something goes wrong in the development process and the baby doesn't grow some necessary organ. In that case, the mother might miscarry because the child won't live. It has nothing to do with reasoning. It has to do with viability. Nature takes care of itself... even if it can't logically think through the scenario like we can.
Field Researcher
#64 Old 4th May 2010 at 2:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doddibot
No it doesn't. Nature isn't reasoning, nor reasonable. It just is. And just because something is, that doesn't mean it ought to be .


I don't think Otter ment it as nature consciously determining the fertility of someone, but rather that there was probably a natural reason why the person is infertile, such as a genetic problem or something.
Scholar
#65 Old 4th May 2010 at 8:24 AM
I think from the context, otter means nature operates with a purpose, and to go against that purpose would be wrong. I see no way the statement could be linked to being against IVF otherwise.

If it just means things naturally happen for a reason, which just means effects have causes, then of course I agree. But there's no way to logically go from that to talking about whether it's right or wrong to interfere with nature.
Lab Assistant
#66 Old 4th May 2010 at 8:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nekowolf
And yes, Ivan, I do mean the parents eating their own offspring.


Okay, so we just need to put our offsprings in oven, serve with potato, sauce, salad, wine and voilą! We are like animals, or maybe worse? We love to enjoy in food.



I have heard that humans flesh taste like pork, but I prefer chicken.


Abandoned account...
Scholar
#67 Old 4th May 2010 at 8:28 AM Last edited by kattenijin : 4th May 2010 at 8:43 AM.
I'm pro-choice mainly because I'm (usually) in favor of anything that leaves more options open. Do I like that it is used mainly as a form of birth control rather than a last resort due to physical/mental trauma; no, not really. It gives me hope that in the last 20 years, the abortion rate has declined by almost 1/3; mostly due to better education and availability of contraceptives.

I also look at the flip side of the coin. I always hear "Put the child up for adoption." as the answer if the mother truely dosen't want the child. There are already almost 3 million children in the US waiting for adoption. The adoption rate fluctuates between just over 1% to just over 2%. This means most children put up for adoption will never be adopted. Forcing all unwanted pregnancies to come to term will only increase the number of children waiting for adoption.

For those of you advocating an anti-abortion stance, how many children have you adopted? How many do you plan to adopt? If you aren't planning to adopt personally, why not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivan17
Purpose of sex is production of new beings and persons, not pleasure.


There are other species that engage in sex "just for fun", so it is perfectly natural to have sex for reasons other than procreation. Just because your church says otherwise dosen't make it so. (And we all know how perfectly clergy follow their vows. /sarcasm)

Ivan, I have a proposition for you. Since medical technology will let you have children without ever having sex, I challenge you to remain celibate (one who abstains from sexual intercourse) for your entire life, and only have in-vitro fertilization when you and your spouse decide to have children.

Sarcasm is a body's natural defense against stupid.
Lab Assistant
#68 Old 4th May 2010 at 9:02 AM

I am against vitro fertilization...
Anyway, since there's too much advantages in abortion... We will eat our children.

Abandoned account...
Top Secret Researcher
#69 Old 4th May 2010 at 11:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neerie
I don't think Otter ment it as nature consciously determining the fertility of someone, but rather that there was probably a natural reason why the person is infertile, such as a genetic problem or something.


Yes I agree that in many cases this is probably true. For example my aunt adopted two children because she couldn't give birth to her own, but then she died when the eldest was eight. So in this case "nature" may not have allowed her to have children because there was no way she was going to live long enough to be able to raise them. Because of her want for children her poor children ended up each losing two mothers.
Instructor
#70 Old 4th May 2010 at 12:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by simbalena
Yes I agree that in many cases this is probably true. For example my aunt adopted two children because she couldn't give birth to her own, but then she died when the eldest was eight. So in this case "nature" may not have allowed her to have children because there was no way she was going to live long enough to be able to raise them. Because of her want for children her poor children ended up each losing two mothers.


Surely that's just one anecdotal case. There doesn't seem to be a connection between infertility and the likelihood that you're going to die or be incapable of raising kids.
Scholar
#71 Old 4th May 2010 at 12:55 PM
@Ivan

No surprise there. Anyhow, you say humans are worse, yet we do things that animals do; we are no worse then animals as we are animals. You name anything, and I can probably find an animal that does it.

So, abortion = worse than animals = bullshit, to sum it up.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Undead Molten Llama
#72 Old 4th May 2010 at 7:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kattenijin
I also look at the flip side of the coin. I always hear "Put the child up for adoption." as the answer if the mother truely dosen't want the child. There are already almost 3 million children in the US waiting for adoption. The adoption rate fluctuates between just over 1% to just over 2%. This means most children put up for adoption will never be adopted. Forcing all unwanted pregnancies to come to term will only increase the number of children waiting for adoption.


Ahhhh, but most of those waiting children are not infants. It's sad, but people want babies, not older children who often come with issues. Those issues are very difficult to deal with, and not everyone has the fortitude to do so, much as they might wish they had. So, many of the children waiting for adoption are fosters, not children voluntarily put up for adoption at birth.

In addition, in the case of trying to adopt foster children, there are usually many roadblocks in the way, some put up by the state government, some put up by the extended families of the foster child in question, some put up by the birth parent(s). The process is long, exhausting, expensive, and tied up in miles upon miles of red tape. This is why many people looking to adopt go overseas to do so, to avoid the BS. I mean, those children need homes, too, but my opinion is that we should take care of our own first. But our government makes it difficult/expensive/incredible time-consuming to do so. Idiots.

So while many people, I'm sure some of them pro-life, want to adopt even "difficult" children, the system doesn't make it easy at all. In the case of fosters, if there's any thought whatsoever in the caseworker's mind that the birth parent(s) will "reform" or if an extended family member ever shows any interest whatsoever in taking in the foster child(ren), the state will usually not allow the foster family to adopt the child(ren). This is indeed the problem encountered by my (very pro-life) gay-couple friends who are foster parents. The issue with the daughter they were able to eventually adopt wasn't that they were gay, but that the girl's grandmother raised objections to the girl being adopted by anyone, gay or not.

Now, on the other hand, I have direct experience with the private adoption of a just-born infant. When I found out that I was pregnant and after I decided not to abort, I made the rounds of lawyers who handled private adoptions, made it known to them that I was carrying a child whom I wanted to have adopted at birth. I was subsequently FLOODED with "applications," and I got to choose which family would raise my child. THAT system does work, and it is quite fast because it's all done privately...although it is also expensive and, in my opinion, it shouldn't be. I realize that lawyers need to make a living but... *sigh* Anyway, when I do any pro-life "work" at all, it is limited to working with an interfaith agency (meaning, we ain't all Christians. There's a pretty even mix of Christians and New Agey Buddhist-y kind of people, at the moment, which makes for...interesting conversations. ) that connects pregnant girls/women who don't want to/can't keep their child but who don't want to abort with families around the country who want to adopt. The system works quite well, when given a chance. It's just that many women seem to think it's abortion or have the baby. Or, I guess many women don't want to go through the whole pregnancy thing. I can understand that, too. But for those who ARE willing to go through with the pregnancy...well, there we are.

Quote:
For those of you advocating an anti-abortion stance, how many children have you adopted? How many do you plan to adopt? If you aren't planning to adopt personally, why not?


I have not adopted any. My profession, which requires chunks of time spent on the road, and my single marital status are not conducive to having young children around the house. Were that not the case, if I ever "retire" from music, I might be very willing to adopt, if I have the means to do so.

On the other hand, advocating adoption doesn't immediately obligate one to do it, does it? I can assure you that many pro-life people HAVE adopted, but many people, pro-life or otherwise, cannot afford to do it, much as they might want to. As I said, my opinion is that the process ought to be streamlined and "cheapified," especially if we are going to put legal limits on abortion. But then, I don't want the government sticking its nose into private/independent adoption, either, for it would only make things worse, so it's a double-edged kind of sword.

I'm mostly found on (and mostly upload to) Tumblr these days because, alas, there are only 24 hours in a day.
Muh Simblr! | An index of my downloads on Tumblr.
Lab Assistant
#73 Old 4th May 2010 at 7:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nekowolf
@Ivan

No surprise there. Anyhow, you say humans are worse, yet we do things that animals do; we are no worse then animals as we are animals. You name anything, and I can probably find an animal that does it.

So, abortion = worse than animals = bullshit, to sum it up.


So, answer to this!
Why are we then pretending that we are special, if we are animals? You know; e.g. Oh God, I can't eat meat, I can't eat animals, I am vegetarian!, or OMG, I am so special and pleople don't like me because I am gay! I want my rights!, or I would never eat my children!?
Why are we killing other animals and deciding about other's lives (abortion).
Why then this forum and debates, if we are just animals and everything we do is natural?

Abandoned account...
Scholar
#74 Old 4th May 2010 at 8:14 PM
1. If I had to guess, because we are the dominant species, as well as capable of philosophical thinking. Therefore, we perceive ourselves as "special," in spite of the fact that we are organic; require nutrition, water, and sleep to survive; are vulnerable to disease; live and die. Just like every other intelligent life-form in the world.

2. I fail to see your point, if the intention is a counterargument. As, other animals do those very same things.

3. I never said nor believe everything we do is natural; such a concept is laughable. But, we, as humans, are natural. What we create may not be, but what we are, is.

So I ask again, what the hell is your point.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Scholar
#75 Old 5th May 2010 at 12:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nekowolf
Because that is an option. If they want to take responsibility, fine, but by illegalizing abortion, you are forcing them to take responsibility. Because it pretty much is either A. get an abortion, or B. give birth. There is really no other options, so by taking one away, you are forcing them to go with another. And besides, if they -really- didn't want the kid, the mother could try to either have it done illegally, or try to induce a miscarriage.

Anyhow, I get your first position. I just find it, how to put it...in regards to this argument, I find it arrogant. Because even the best measures are not sure-fire. They already are taking responsibility by using contraception. It is not their fault the contraception failed, and therefore they should not be forced to take undue responsibility of a child, when they used contraception specifically to avoid that. And by taking away the option of abortion, that is exactly what you are doing. You are forcing them to deal with it, under your standards, not theirs. And as you already know, I find that by taking away that option, you are already infringing on the rights of the mother. We already know this point (fetal rights vs. mother's rights) is something that will progress no further, so I decided not to get into it.

And no, it's not being responsible that is the punishment. It's forcing other people to take responsibility, as per your standards, not theirs. They take contraception to avoid pregnancy. That is all they need to be responsible for. If it fails, it is not their fault nor responsibility to carry the child. That is your standard. That is the punishment.


What I am trying to say is that I think these moral stances I am expressing are universal, objective morality. It is possible that I am wrong about parts of it, or even all of it, but I have used logic to come to these conclusions, so I think that there is a good chance that they are right. When I say that abortion should be illegal (with a few exceptions), it isn't me forcing my moral stance on others; it is me saying that others should follow universal moral standards. When you talk about it being my moral stance as if the moral stance of someone in favor of abortion is equally right, you are arguing for moral relativity. I believe between the earlier posts of this thread and some of the posts in the "decline of modern civilization" thread I have made a good argument for objective morality.

You can think it arrogant all you like, but there are some opinions about the nature of reality (including morals) that are right and some that are wrong. Though tolerance is much exalted in other matters, tolerance to other moral stances, to the point of saying that everyone can simply do whatever they feel like, is not acceptable. If there is objective morality, those people who don't believe so are acting on falsehood. You could just as easily say that Darwin is arrogant because his theory of evolution defies the idea that God created man as man is now, but right is right. Darwin was right, so arrogance has nothing to do with it.
Page 3 of 7
Back to top