Which massacres did Jehovah sanction?

by Spectrum 91 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • MuadDib
    MuadDib

    "Why should the state be obligated to offer free abortion?"

    I would argue that it's a medical procedure or service like any other, so if the state is providing medical care to its citizenry then there's no reason for abortion not to be included. I would further argue that the provision of abortion to women is not done on the understanding that abortion is "ethically unproblematic" but rather on the understanding that some women are going to have abortions, for whatever reason, and they should be provided with a safe and secure means of doing so rather than being forced to resort to less healthy methods of dealing with the situation.

    But you might have a point here: why can't private clinics or medical institutions take care of the demand for abortion? Perhaps the state really should be removed from the process altogether, and the issue left entirely in private hands - between women and their own medical consultants.

    I'm glad we were able to find a compromise.

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    Hellrider

    We'll just have to disagree on this I guess.

    Law is made on facts.

    You have yet to prove a early term fetus is anything like a born human in the ways that are seen as defining humanity, and now you tell me you don't even care about the scientific and medical side of the argument. I'd not have wasted my time if I'd known that was the case, as if you aren't going to pay attention to scientific and medical facts, to me the difference between the validity of your opinions and a religious one cannot be measured, nor can we reach a common ground.

    You seem to think because you feel early terms fetus should not be aborted, the law should be changed.

    Yet on the same basis, if people feel alcohol should be banned, it would be banned.

    The facts of alcohol usage have led to the creation of a legal framework for is use, not the emotions or beliefs of individuals or groups.

    Oh, let me correct that; groups have had the law on alcohol changed in the past to suit their emotions or beliefs, but they always get changed back to something more closely resembling what is supported by facts.

    You still going to insist emotions are important in making law? Got any quotes by law makers?

    I'll not ring round law schools to prove the law is normally based on emotion; why should I defend YOUR argument, such as it is? So far, all you've done is give your opinion, whilst I have cited facts that lie behind the law as it is, including documents prepared for Members of Parliament to inform them of facts they might have to know when considering the current law. If you claim law is based on individual's emotions (and exceptions do not prove rules), then it will be easy for you to prove this. But given the fact I've already shown facts are considered to lead (read the document I cited and tell me where it mentions emotions) the debate, I don't think you have much chance.

    You keep on coming back to the word genocide. As with your insistence on emotions being important in drawing up law, maybe this is a linguistic thing, but when I correct you on the usage of Norwegian words, you can correct me on the usage of English ones. You've already admitted the use of genocide is a deliberate emotional ploy, yet jump right back into it.

    You excuse the inconsistencies in your argument; mine is simple, no fully formed brain, no perception of pain, not the same.

    You will cry concern for the unborn, and then would kill one if a woman is raped, and then lecture on greater good, ignoring the fact you now have destroyed your own stance. I can think of situations where a child born to a victim of rape would have a better start in life to one born to a woman who has been forced to give birth. You ignore this, but then as your arguement is emotional and not based on medical or scientific fact, this inconsistency is not surprising.

    You've yet again indulged in circular argumentation, I ask 'what's the difference between forcing a woman to give birth and forcing her to get pregnant and you tell me the word used to describe non-consensual sex; thank you, I know. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? Answer the question. In terms of violation of bodily rights and freewill, what is the difference?

    As for the historical argument, I did bring it up but I was talking about your response;

    it could be argued that she, by that choice, in some cases, have given up the rights over her own body for the next nine months.

    I showed how this statement has noting to support if historically (in other words it is YOU saying because of YOUR opinion women should "in some cases, have given up the rights over her own body for the next nine months"). I however missed one of the clearest examples of the unreasoned and emotional nature of your argument;

    People have always been wrong about everything, because they lived at a time when they didn`t anything about...anything (ha ha).

    The missing word is obviously 'know'.

    You say their beliefs were invalid because they didn't know anything about anything.

    As you don't WANT to involve knowledge (medical, scientific), I have to apply the same logic you applied above to you;

    Your argument is invalid because you don't want to base it on knowledge.

    You are still perfectly free to have your opinion, and not to have an abortion, but then, you'll never have to... which makes your opinion very very easy to hold.

  • Caedes
    Caedes


    Hellrider,

    I read your reply to my initial post before I replied to you, you should consider reading it properly.

    I pointed out initially that you have not made a decision to have an abortion and are not qualified to judge someone who has had to make that decision. Your decision to have an unplanned child is without doubt a difficult one but not the same as the decision to have an abortion.

    It's a shame you failed to come up with any serious criticism of my intial post, the main thrust of your criticism was a playground "yeah but, so are you!" I should point out that my calling someone judgemental over a comment that they have made does not make me judgemental. I was describing the attitude contained in the original post and I stand by what I have said. Neither you nor the original poster have shown that you know enough about the individual circumstances to judge other people. Every person's circumstances are different and although you may feel that you have right to dictate to other people and make moral decisions for them you don't.

    Abortion is something that can only be decided on a case by case basis by the people involved, not by somebody who is only interested in pre-judging other peoples life choices and circumstances. It is a huge leap to assume that the majority of people who make a choice to have an abortion do so for trivial reasons and that what you think is a trivial reason is trivial for somebody else. I will take a wild guess and say that you would not like somebody to judge your life in any way and making important life decisions for you, would you?

    I assume by the way you have solid evidence that abortions are done primarily for trivial reasons or is that just what you are assuming because you have already decided that it is murder?

    What makes it all the more ridiculous is, you take the frankly outrageous position that it's ok if the parents are junkies? So who else would you like to pre-judge? And who will decide? You? Or were you thinking that the responsibility ought to be given to someone else? Do I have to point out the obvious conclusion of where your thinking seems to be going?

    Any system that allows abortion has to leave the decision up to the individual and the healthcare professionals involved. Anything else would be inherently unfair and potentially dangerous, I cannot imagine the kind of backstreet arrangements that would flourish again if abortion were made illegal.

    Perhaps if you reply you could respond to the points I've raised this time.

    Apologies to all for the inadvertant thread hi-jacking.

  • Hellrider
    Hellrider

    Caedes:

    I read your reply to my initial post before I replied to you, you should consider reading it properly.

    I have read it, properly.

    It's a shame you failed to come up with any serious criticism of my intial post, the main thrust of your criticism was a playground "yeah but, so are you!"

    I pointed out that your three-sentence post was a judgemental embarassment. Then I went on to (to prove a point) make all sorts of judgmental characterisations of you, based on your three-sentence post, just like you did on that one-sentence post by Forscher. I am truly sorry if you fail to see the comparison, and I apologise if the point of the analogy was missed by you.

    I should point out that my calling someone judgemental over a comment that they have made does not make me judgemental.

    Calling someone judgmental over a comment that they have doesn`t automatically make you judgemental, no, but when his (very short) comment, and your response, is this:

    Forscher wrote:


    And really, considering the wholesale slaughter of innocents going on in the name of "a woman's right to choose", I have to ask myself just how we can dare claim the moral right to judge him?

    Never been in that situation have you? That kind of judgemental attitude is about as far as you can get from a loving christian one.

    All together now "eeeevery speeeerm is sacred...."

    Yes, then, in my opinion, you are judgmental! Probably one of the most judgmental persons I have ever encountered! You could of course apologize to Forscher, and admit that you were wrong and jumped to conclusions, but then you made it perfectly clear (in the post I am now responding to) that you stand by every word in your original post. So yes,in my opinion you are a judgmental person.

    I assume by the way you have solid evidence that abortions are done primarily for trivial reasons or is that just what you are assuming because you have already decided that it is murder?

    Of course I don`t have solid evidence for that. Further, I never made the claim that "trivial reasons" are the main reason why people have abortions. But some people do, because I have seen it happen. I know of a woman who had an abortion for the reason I outlined in the post you are responding too. And that, I find sickening.

    What makes it all the more ridiculous is, you take the frankly outrageous position that it's ok if the parents are junkies? So who else would you like to pre-judge? And who will decide? You? Or were you thinking that the responsibility ought to be given to someone else? Do I have to point out the obvious conclusion of where your thinking seems to be going?

    Lol, yes, please do. I would be very interested in seeing you point out the "obvious conclusion" of where this seems to be going. That someone (the state? Old men in grey suits?) elevate themselves to judges over others? Please, spare me. You completely missed the point of the episode I mentioned. Did I ever say that "abortion is ok if the parents are junkies"? No, I didn`t. I was making a point (and I can understand why you are reacting to it, because my pro-abortion argument wasn`t very pc, was it?) that essentially is in agreement (but an extreme example/situation) with an allready existing pro-abortion argument that pro-abortionists often use (and ironically, an argument that isn`t considered politically uncorrect when worded by liberals) - the argument that young, inexperienced people are not mature enough to have children. I have heard pro-abortionists claim that "pregnant teenagers should definitely have abortions, as they would be unable to provide for, and raise, a small child anyway". And the situation I outlined in my previous post, is one of the (typical) situations that are the result of teen pregnancies (of course, not just teen pregnancies). If you think that I am just "speculating" and that this is a very "judgemental" view on my part, I can assure you that I have seen this close-hand. I teached 8-12th grade for a few years, and one year I was the primary teacher (don`t know the english word for this) for my class, and have, therefore, more than enough (and more than I care to remember) experiences with child services. Now, if making the statement that "some people should never have children", or "for some people it would have been better if they had never been born", based on the fact that I have heard domestic violence in the presence of a 5-year old child, because I have seen the filth, the empty glance of a junkies eyes, full of heroine, with a child in his hands, a child allready so nervous at the age of five that his knees are shaking and his eyes are flickering all over the place, then please, by all means, call me judgemental.

    Now please, "point out the obvious conclusion of where my thinking seems to be going?".

    I pointed out initially that you have not made a decision to have an abortion and are not qualified to judge someone who has had to make that decision. Your decision to have an unplanned child is without doubt a difficult one but not the same as the decision to have an abortion.

    I am not qualified, because I haven`t had an abortion? So, what you`re saying is that only someone who actually has had an abortion are qualified to make a judgement on this issue? Well, if I had made the decision, back then, that the woman I had gotten pregnant, should have the abortion, had I been qualified then? Probably not, because I am not a woman. That`s what this all boils down to, isn`t it? Well, at least I have been as close to this situation (a woman who has been in the situation of being pregnant, and have had an abortion) that you have determined is the necessary premiss for anyone to have a right to speak their mind on this issue at all. I have been in the situation where I singlehandedly had to decide the fate of a fetus. It wasn`t in my body, that`s true, because that is biologically impossible. But I did have an emtional attachment to the living creature inside the stomach of the woman I had gotten pregnant. And if she had decided to have an abortion, regardless of my opinion, I would have felt a tremendous loss (once I had gotten to the point that I had decided that we should have this child). So, because this is biologically impossible for me, does this mean I should just shut up, then? This is what both you and Abaddon are saying in your last posts. So, why do we even bother to discuss this then? Why don`t you just tell me to shut up!?!?

    So, if I haven`t ever stolen anything, does that mean I am not qualified to make a moral and ethical judgement on stealing? If I have never murdered or raped anyone (yes, "running assumption" here, that abortion is murder...), does this mean I am not qualified to make a moral and ethical judgement on murder and rape? Really, if only people who have actually been in a situation where they have done something unethical (or something we are not yet sure of whether it is unethical or not) should be allowed to speak their mind on the issue in question, then we should all keep our mouths shut on a whole number of subjects. But, by all means, if me being a man, in your view, disqualifies me from having an opinion on this (because this is basically what you are saying), then please, tell me to shut up!

    Really, do you think that men are disqualified in this discussion, just because they are men? That`s got to be one of the most sexist things I have ever heard! You are aware that half of what is you, came from a man, aren`t you? We`re all in this together, whether you like it or not.

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    Hellrider

    We`re all in this together, whether you like it or not.

    Squeeze a grapefruit through the eye of your cock and I'll believe that. Bearing children is a uniquely female experience. Men insisting they have a right to force women to bear children is just a continuation of millenia of misogyny.

    Your examples are poor. You could steal, and be stolen from. You can murder and be murdered. You can rape and be raped.

    But you will never, ever, ever be pregnant. Thus your opinion can never be as informed and as sincere as a woman's, as you could have the most ill-thought out opinion on abortion in the history of the world and never ever have to suffer the consequences. It's an very easy opinion for you to have.

    I hope you make sure you inform all women you have sex with that you expect them to bear your seed if they get pregnant, even by accident. Do you? Considering your standard on this subject, you should; hell, I think most girls like to know that the guy they are about to sleep with would force them to have a baby before they sleep with the guy. The fact that the law considers your attitude wrong is not the point, neither is it the point that you legally have no say; you should let them know your personal standards.

    It might cramp your style a little, LOL.

    Do you tell women you sleep with? I am serious; if not, then all this is just a stance, not something you carry through as you should in real life. Which is fine; an observation, not a criticism.

  • Caedes
    Caedes

    Hellrider

    To start off, you have still failed to show where I have judged Forscher. I have asked him a perfectly legitimate question, and I stated that it is not very christian to judge other people and call them murderers. There is nothing judgmental in anything I wrote in my initial post just a healthy dose of sarcasm. If you can show me how I have judged Forscher then please do so. If I am the most judgemental person you have ever encountered then you must lead a very sheltered life.

    As for your initial reply being an "analogy" please don’t make me laugh, if you wish to back down from the position you stated in that reply then please do so. Don’t try to make out that you were trying to prove a point since that makes you look ridiculous, especially since you have so far failed to make any point whatsoever (regarding my posts)

    I assume by the way you have solid evidence that abortions are done primarily for trivial reasons or is that just what you are assuming because you have already decided that it is murder?
    Of course I don`t have solid evidence for that

    So you are pre-judging people when you have no evidence to base it on, since you have stated in other posts that sometimes abortion is ok I think your opinions are looking more illogical and tenuous than ever. Having anecdotal evidence (no matter how personal, my own experiences included btw) is not enough to base the law on. As Abaddon has so rightly pointed out you have to base law on facts and evidence. Any barrister who based their arguments on emotive argument would be quickly out of a job, an emotive argument can only be used to back up a point of law not the other way round.

    I asked the question as to whether you believe people primarily have abortions for trivial reasons. If you don’t take that position then you are perhaps starting to understand that you have to assume that most people have to make that decision for themselves and that you or I cannot judge them for it. Perhaps some people do have abortions for the wrong reasons, I don’t know, but you cannot judge one person by the actions of another.

    Pro-abortion? I have never met anybody who is pro-abortion or made the argument that you made so your I fail to see that any point is being made at all. You are trying to argue against a point that has been made by nobody but yourself. The whole point of the pro-choice argument (a very important distinction in the name that you have failed to grasp) is that you or I cannot choose for someone else, so nobody in the pro-choice camp is by default pro-abortion (whatever that actually means) no matter how much it would suit you to say that they are.

    The conclusion you are inevitably heading towards is that you seem to think that you personally should have the choice to make life or death decisions for other people. You feel so morally superior to other people that you think only someone who thinks like you do should make the decision to kill or not kill a foetus. Of course if anybody else makes that decision (without you knowing why they made that decision) you automatically lable them a murderer. That is an extremely hypocritical position to take.

    I have said that you are not entitled to judge someone (and lable them a murderer) who has decided to have an abortion unless you have made that decision yourself. You are entitled to have an opinion and I will happily fight to the death to protect your right to state your views and have the opinion you have, just not to judge people when you are not qualified to do so.

    All your other arguments on the issue of your entitlement to an opinion are irrelevant since they are not based on a position that I take, they are based on your assumptions. I look forward to hearing in your reply that you were merely making a "point" and "using an analogy"

    As to the position of men regarding the issue of abortion, again you have assumed that you know what my opinion is when I have offered no opinion on the subject. Personally I think that a man should take responsibility for his actions and be party to the decision but I would agree with Abaddons position that it isn’t for a man to dictate that decision to a woman but to provide support once a decision has been mutually reached.

    Yes we are all in this together Hellrider, I am just thankful that I don’t live in a country where extremists dictate the law on abortion. I live in one where people (going through a traumatic, life changing decision) are treated with dignity and respect, not condescended and insulted as you would like them to be.

    Perhaps in your world the terms pc and liberal are an insult, personally I wear them with pride.

  • Hellrider
    Hellrider

    Abaddon: I was under the impression that the discussion was over:

    Hellrider

    We'll just have to disagree on this I guess.

    But I now get the impression that it`s not. That`s ok, at least your last post had some humour in it, unlike your previous, which was a bit aggressive. So I`ll answer your latest first, with humour, then later on I`ll respond to your previous, also with some aggression.

    Squeeze a grapefruit through the eye of your cock and I'll believe that

    Loool ! Ok, I get that. I am very, very happy that I`ll never have to squeeze a greapfruit thru the eye of my cock.

    Bearing children is a uniquely female experience. Men insisting they have a right to force women to bear children is just a continuation of millenia of misogyny. Your examples are poor. You could steal, and be stolen from. You can murder and be murdered. You can rape and be raped. But you will never, ever, ever be pregnant. Thus your opinion can never be as informed and as sincere as a woman's, as you could have the most ill-thought out opinion on abortion ;in the history of the world and never ever have to suffer the consequences. It's an very easy opinion for you to have.

    Ok. But listen: I have, although it is biologically impossible for me to experience the pain of childbirth and pregnancy, been right there by the woman I live withs, side, on both of these. I was there for 40 hours while she was in labor pains, held her hand every time they stuck needles in her, helped her go to the bathroom, and then I was present when, after 40 hours of no sleep, it ended with a cesarian anyway. My son was not placed properly, he was the right way with head down, but the head had not been "fastened properly" (sorry for the english, I don`t know the correct word for this), the doctors later concluded. It was a childbirth from hell. I am soooo happy I`ll never have to go thru something like that (as in, being the one in the physical pain), just the 40 hours with no sleep, was bad enough, in my book. But I have a couple of problems with your above statement anyway:

    First of all: Excluding me from having the right to have an opinion on this, based purely on biological grounds, based purely on the reason that I am a man, is kind of cheap, no? And also, not just a little bit sexist? There are a number of things I can think of which are "just for men" (although I can`t think of one which would have the kind of physical pain I witnessed during the birth of my son), but I wouldn`t ever say to a woman that "oh be quiet you stuuuupid woman, this is a man-thing, you`d never understand!". Because that would be sexist.

    Second: If this is the case, that I am excluded from having an opinion of this issue just because I am a man, then why didn`t you just say so in the first place? Why did we have to go thru all of this, why would I have to focus on, and respond to your arguments (it did take at least some intelectual effort on my part...) - if anything I could come up with, in the end would be abruptly swept aside on biological grounds anyway? That`s kind of...dishonest, don`t you think? At least, from a male perspective, I think so (but then again, a male perspective doesn`t count for more than a fart in a snor blizzard anyway, right?)

    Thirdly: Nothing of what I have written is anything that a female pro-lifer could not have written. Everything that came out of my mouth in this issue, is something a female pro-lifer could also have said. Or? Could you point to anything that I have written that is not something a femal pro-lifer could have written? And we both agree that even though one may not like the message, shooting the messanger is kind of silly, no?

    I hope you make sure you inform all women you have sex with that you expect them to bear your seed if they get pregnant, even by accident

    Oh, I live with a woman and I don`t cheat. And if I should ever cheat, or if me and her ever break up, I`ll make sure to use a condom, or maybe I`ll even go get my "tubes tied". Even though I am happy with the result of the mistake I did back then, I won`t take any chances with this ever again. I have learned my lesson. And yes, if I ever have sex with another woman again, I`ll be sure to inform her first that I am against abortion, and that that is the reason why my pockets are full of condoms. But, by this statement you did touch on another reason why I am against abortion (although this is philosophical rambling, and I don`t really expect anyone to understand it): Abortion is failure! We go thru life, and engage in all sorts of reckless behaviour. I know I did. Tons of alcohol, pot, occasionally fistfights, now and then, sex. It was just luck that I didn`t impregnate anyone before the age of 29. But I hope that even if I had, I would have had the maturity to tell the girl that "look, I want the kid, and I`ll support you financially and emotionally", and that I would have the maturity to follow up on that promise. The point is: When a woman, or a couple, decides to have an abortion, that is failure in the realm of human ethical behaviour (that is, if a fetus has any ethical, human value at all, and just the fact that even pro-abortionists like yourself agrees that after a certain week of pregnancy, yes, the fetus has ethical and human value, even though you try to hide this fact behind medical considerations, this would indicate that in fact the fetus does have ethical and human value). It is like having ones cake and eating it too. It is Winnie the Pooh going "yes please, both". We go thru life, some of us recklessly, and occasionally, there will be serious consequenses to our actions. And instead of taking the responsibility for these consequenses, and learning from them, pro-abortionists are more or less saying that one can just "eraze" the mistake, like using an erazer-pen, and pretend it didn`t ever happen. But the fact is, it did happen. To pretend it never happened, to avoid the consequenses of ones actions, to avoid learning from the consequenses of ones actions, is to never grow up. It is to never become a mature, thinking, acting, individual. It is failure.

    You don`t have to respond to that last part, it was my very personal view on this, I don`t expect it to make any sense to anyone else. I`ll respond to your previous post later on.

  • Caedes
    Caedes

    Hellrider,

    To pretend it never happened, to avoid the consequenses of ones actions

    Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion? If not then you are assuming that you understand other peoples emotions and decisions when you have no evidence to base it on. Having an abortion is as much taking responsibility as not, in some circumstances.

  • Hellrider
    Hellrider

    Abaddon:

    Hellrider
    We'll just have to disagree on this I guess.




    I agree. We`re getting nowhere.

    Law is made on facts. You still going to insist emotions are important in making law? Got any quotes by law makers?



    Seriously.... Yes, references coming in a minute, but just consider this:
    -If law is completely devoid of ethics and morality, how can anything be considered wrong, and why should anything then be punishable? The fact is, that when a person commits a crime, society demands punishment! Not just protection of society, not just rehabilitation. Of course, you can argue that the law should be devoid of societys thirst for revenge (as many has done), which truly is an emotive motif, but as it is, this is simply not the case. In the U.S., they even have the death penalty. If the law was just about rehabilitation and protection of society (as in, keeping a harmful individual away from society, for the benefit of society as a whole) – then the death peanlty should not exist, because it is unnecessary and an unecessesarily cruel form of punishment. The death penalty is all about revenge (an emotional motive). Prison sentence is both about protection of society, rehabilitation (although it can be argued whether or not most correctional facilities are that concerned with rehabilitation) and, yes, revenge! Now, perhaps it shouldn`t be this way. (That would, of course, present us with some peculiar problems: If a pedophile rapes little children, and rehabilitation has been tried on this pedophile, without effect, then the logical solution would be, not to incarsarate him for his crimes, but move him into a community existing only of adults, lets, for arguments say, and enclosed town where only adults live. Now, would you agree that this would be the appropriate way to deal with someone that has raped children? Or...would you want...punishment!?). The fact is, ethics and emotions are an inseperable part of law. In fact, most universities and law schools have, as a part of their legal department, a sub-department called “department og law and ethichs”...
    Also, I am very surprised that you don`t see that your stand in this issue, is ethically motivated, and I certainly agree, to a certain degree, with the ethical motivation for your stand on this issue. You are pro-abortion, partly because it is ethically wrong to force another human being to carry a fetus full-term. You would equate this with something like ...kidnapping? If the state forced women (by removing the right to free abortion, as in the sense: Taking away the rights of doctors to perform this procedure, and prosecuting the doctors that still would do it) to carry a fetus until its birth, this would be as if the state “kidnapped” or “took control over” the womans body, correct? This is the base of your argument, right, or at least part of it? Well, guess what: This is an emotional, ethically based motif, and if you cannot see this, then I am just shocked, appaled and ...basically, I am at a loss for words. You are for abortion because it is wrong (ethically and emotionally) to force a woman to carry a fetus full-term. It would be unethical for the state to take this right away from a woman. This is your argument. And guess what: The state agrees. And hence, they have allowed abortion by law. Consequently, the law has a deep, ethical and emotinal foundation.
    Now, I found no quotes references as to establish for you (from the mouths of a lawyer or something like that) whether this is the case or not, simply because everybody knows it is, but I did find some litterature in which it is discussed to what degree we should allow emotions and ethical considerations be a fundamental part of our law. In an essay entitled "morals and the Criminal Law, " Lord Devlin wrote:


    "Society means a community of ideas; without shared ideas on politics morals and ethics, no society can exist. Each one of us has ideas about what is good and what is evil; they cannot be kept private from the society in which we live. If men and women try to create a society in which there is no fundamental agreement about good and evil they will fail; if, having based it on common agreement, the agreement goes, the society will disintegrate.

    "For society is not something that is kept together physically; it is held by the invisible bonds of common thought. If the bonds were too far relaxed. the members would drift apart. A common morality is part of the bondage. The bondage is part of the price of society; and mankind, which needs society, must pay its price " (The Philosophy of a Law, ed. R.M. Dworkin, Oxford Press, 1977).

    Professor Robin Bradly Kar, of Loyola Law School (Los Angeles), in a short essay called
    The Deep Structure of Law and Morality”, writes: Morality and law share a deep and pervasive structure, an analogue of what Noam Chomsky calls the deep structure of language. This structure arises not to resolve linguistic problems of generativity, but rather from the fact that morality and law engage psychological adaptations with the same natural function: to allow us to resolve social contract problems flexibly.
    Richard Posner is very critical to how much emotions should be reflected in Law. In “The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory”,he says: ”:
    I)t is particularly clear that legal issues should not be analyzed with the aid of moral philosophy, but should instead be approached pragmatically.” ...which, of course, I disagree with fundamentally,because not only is it not desirable, but an impossibility.

    I'll not ring round law schools to prove the law is normally based on emotion; why should I defend YOUR argument, such as it is?




    Well, I don`t really care what you do or what you don`t, but if you were interested in finding out the truth on an issue,especially an issue on which you have some weird, unclear ideas, you would make an effort. You could at least Google “Law and Ethics”.

    You excuse the inconsistencies in your argument; mine is simple, no fully formed brain, no perception of pain, not the same.



    Oh, we`re going there now, are we. When someone, during a debate, starts yelling “I won the debate, I won the debate”, it`s usually a clear indication that they certainly didn`t. What`s more important though, is that it makes me just want to shake my head and switch off my computer.



    As you don't WANT to involve knowledge (medical, scientific), I have to apply the same logic you applied above to you; Your argument is invalid because you don't want to base it on knowledge.




    When I said “I couldn`t care less if fetuses have the neurological tissue of a potty plant until week 35, because this is not the point”, I said that to prove the point I have been stressing all along: That this issue is a highly ethical issue! Yes, medical considerations are of course part of this issue, but that doesn`t mean that this issue is, was and always will first and foremost an ethical issue. But ok, let me respond to your medical arguments, and the validity of these arguments: You claim that at 16 weeks, a fetus only has “a few grams of neural tissue”. How many grams? I forget if you mentioned that, but...3? 4? Anyway, I tried to clarify this by mentioning that the fetus, at this stage, weighs about 100 gram. Well, I weigh 100 kilos. My brain weighs..what? 3kgs? 4 kgs? .See...
    You claim that all the basic development of the featus (development of neural tissue, brains etc) is basically finnished at 20 weeks into the pregnancy, and that after week 20, the primary activity of the fetus is to grow. Still, you insist that it is ethically responsible to perform abortions up until week 16 (or week 20 ??), but not in the weeks 20-40. And....???? Why? If nothing neurolgically important happens after week 20 (just growth), then there is no logical reason why abortions shouldn`t happen between week 20 and 40, if there is no difference of significance in the neurological status of the fetus in week 19, and in week 38. Does something “magical” happen between week 16 and 20, is that what you are saying? The point here is: What is it about fetuses that disqualify them from being counted as humans, or living creatures with human value? You tried with the “potential”-argument, but I showed you that that argument works much better for me than for you. The fetus has a tremedous potential for life, intelligence and (in the future) a productive life. You claim that the neurological development is just about done in week 20. Still, you persist in claiming that fetuses are virtually “braindead”, and that abortion therefore should be allowed up until week 16! (or was it 20?) – but not after this (even though there is very little neurological difference between a fetus in week 20 and a fetus in week 38!!). Your claim that they are braindead, is probably an argument to hide the fact that we simply don`t know whether or not the fetus feels any discomfort when it is hacked up and pulled out, in week 16. (Did I make you feel at unease with that statement? Angry? If so, try to forget your anger with me for a second, and try to analyze the feeling instead. Why do you think you felt at unease, or got angry? Think.). What is it about fetuses that disqualifies them from having human value? -
    Is it because they can`t breathe or eat on their own? Well, in that case, everyone who are connected to a life-support machine (but are not braindead) have no human value. -
    Is it because they can`t take care of themselves? In that case, people on life-support machines, children under the age of...7? – and old people in beds at nursing homes have no human value.

    You've yet again indulged in circular argumentation, I ask 'what's the difference between forcing a woman to give birth and forcing her to get pregnant and you tell me the word used to describe non-consensual sex; thank you, I know. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? Answer the question. In terms of violation of bodily rights and freewill, what is the difference?




    I`ll give you this: I agree with your stand on this issue, to a certain degree. Yes, I can easily see that it is ethically questionable to force a woman to go pregnagnt for nine months and to have a baby that she doesn`t want to have. Not only can I see this, but I am constantly evaluating this as one (of, in my view) many ethical considerations. You are under the impression that there is only one ethical consideration on this issue, the womans rights. I am perfectly aware that there are more than one wthical consideration on this. However, the point here is that different ethical principles collide! This what it`s all about! And this is what is both extremely difficult, but also very fascinating about ethics. You are touching this subject with your:

    You will cry concern for the unborn, and then would kill one if a woman is raped, and then lecture on greater good, ignoring the fact you now have destroyed your own stance.



    I could remind you that I was the first to point out the difficulty in this, when I have argued that abortions sometimes are necessary, such as in situations of rape, incest and illness in the fetus (or woman). And the point I made, a point which you of course have ignored, was that: “Just because we may be forced to violate ethical boundaries, this doesn`t mean that we should remove the ethical boundaries alltogether”. This can easily be exemplified. We, as humans, have this view that murder is unethical. However, we violate this principle all the time (much to often), but we always do this knowing that we are crossing an ethical boundary, but we justify by means of other ethical considerations. Let`s say there is war. Nazi-Germany has invaded my country (and yours...). You are part of the resistance movement. You are hiding out in the woods with 20 jewish children and some of their mothers, and you all have to be quiet, because you are waiting for a boat to come pick you up , and german patrols are looking for you. If they find you, all the resistance fighters will be shot, and all the jewish children sent to the death camps .There is a mother with an infant among you, she also has two older children. All the children are quiet, but the infant simply wont stop crying, the mother has done everything, even tried to gag the child with a rag, but it doesn`t work. She hears a german voice in the distant, yelling out a military command, and so, in desperation, she strangles the infant. Horrible. She crossed a very definnite ethical boundary, but she did it to serve a greater purpose, an equally (??) ethical purpose: To save the lives of a 20 children and several adults. This doesn`t mean that infanticide should be allowed indiscriminately, does it? And yes, I know, my “running assumption”, that fetuses are humans, is present in this analogy, but on the other hand, the “running assumption” that fetuses are not humans, or shouldn`t be considered as something with human value, is present in everything you write, without it being proven, neither medically, scientifically and especially not ethically, that they are not. The point is: We, as humans, are forced to trespass ethical and moral boundaries on a daily basis. This doesn`t automatically mean that these ethical and moral boundaries should be moved or removed. If we did, there would be anarchy.

    "You will cry concern for the unborn, and then would kill one if a woman is raped, and then lecture on greater good, ignoring the fact you now have destroyed your own stance".

    Personally, I can`t believe I have even dignified that statement with a response.

    Caedes:

    To start off, you have still failed to show where I have judged Forscher. I have asked him a perfectly legitimate question, and I stated that it is not very christian to judge other people and call them murderers. There is nothing judgmental in anything I wrote in my initial post just a healthy dose of sarcasm. If you can show me how I have judged Forscher then please do so.




    You have allready done that, with your “healthy dose of sarcasm”. I have allready responded to this queston in my previous post. If my point wasn`t seen by you, then that`s your problem. Let the readers of the thread be the judge on whether you showed prejudice and judgmental behaviour towards Forscher or not. I say you did, and I showed how by merely quoting your post. Ask the other participants here whether or not you did.

    So you are pre-judging people when you have no evidence to base it on, since you have stated in other posts that sometimes abortion is ok I think your opinions are looking more illogical and tenuous than ever.



    See my reply to Abaddon on this issue. Only a ...intelectually challenged person...would fail to see that even though we, as humans, sometimes have to weigh ethical principles towards eachother, and then, as a result, choosing to lay more wight on the one than the other, this does not excuse our behaviour, nor does it establish a presedence for ridding ourselves of the ethical principle that in some situations are outweighed by other principles. The fact that both you and Abaddon continue to harp on this, even though I have offered an explanation that is considered as legitimate among all philosophers and others that write and do research on ethical questions, is just ...beyond me.

    Perhaps some people do have abortions for the wrong reasons, I don’t know, but you cannot judge one person by the actions of another.



    Which is exactly why the abortion-board should be back.


    Pro-abortion? I have never met anybody who is pro-abortion or made the argument that you made so your I fail to see that any point is being made at all. You are trying to argue against a point that has been made by nobody but yourself. The whole point of the pro-choice argument (a very important distinction in the name that you have failed to grasp) is that you or I cannot choose for someone else, so nobody in the pro-choice camp is by default pro-abortion (whatever that actually means) no matter how much it would suit you to say that they are.




    Terms such as “pro-choice” and “pro-life” are just ridicolous words invented to hide what we are really talking about here, and not just that, but hide them from ourselves! The whole term “pro-choice” rests on the belief and the running assumption that there actually is such a thing as a “choice” in this matter, and that there actually is a choice can only be the case if it can be established as fact that fetuses do not have human value, that fetuses do not have ethical and legal rights. In the same manner, the term “pro-life” is equally misguiding, because it is a word designed to hide the fact that “pro-life” is not only “pro-life” in regards to the fetus, it is also “anti-life” in regards of the reluctantly pregnant woman. By laying weight on the ethical and legal rights of the fetus, equally, the ethical and legal rights of the woman is removed (if she want`s to have an abortion, that is). Personally, I hate to use fanciful words and expressions when it is clear as day that these terms and expressions are designed with an agenda. Much better to just call a spade a spade.


    The conclusion you are inevitably heading towards is that you seem to think that you personally should have the choice to make life or death decisions for other people. You feel so morally superior to other people that you think only someone who thinks like you do should make the decision to kill or not kill a foetus. Of course if anybody else makes that decision (without you knowing why they made that decision) you automatically lable them a murderer. That is an extremely hypocritical position to take.


    No, not really. The conclusion I am heading towards, is the conclusion that if it is established (once again) as an ethical and legal principle that fetuses have ethical and legal rights, then the pregnant person would (once again) have to make her case in front of a board of doctors, and of course no priests (that was way back then), the priests would (or should) be substituted with experts on ethics and experts on ethics and law. If the woman has some imprtant ethical reasons for why she shouldn`t carry the fetus full term, then the board should allow her to have an abortion (of course, this is all based on the hypothesis that the courts once agains should decide that fetuses have ethical and legal rights).


    All your other arguments on the issue of your entitlement to an opinion are irrelevant since they are not based on a position that I take, they are based on your assumptions.

    ??? Say what? So none of my arguments are relevant, because they are based on a position you do not take? Well, the exact same thing could be said the other way!
    Both you and Abaddon are discussing this with the running presumption that fetuses do not have the right to be considered as creatures with human value (ironically, based on a completely unlogical and backwards medical reasoning, you still claim that they do...after a certain number of weeks), that fetuses do not have ethical and legal rights! In fact, that there even exists such a thing as a “choice” in matters of whether to carry a fetus full term or not, relies on these running assumptions of your! While, in fact, that there is such a thing as a choice, could only be established as a matter of fact IF, and only IF, it could be establlshed as fact that fetuses do not have human value, that fetuses do not have ethical and legal rights.
    And I am just shocked beyond belief that you are intelectually unable to realize this.

  • Hellrider
    Hellrider

    Oh, and by the way:

    Perhaps in your world the terms pc and liberal are an insult, personally I wear them with pride.

    Good for you.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit