BS: Mutual respect

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Nickhere
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:06 PM

Hmmmm.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: folk1e
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 08:24 PM

If you drive without "due Care" it amounts to the same thing
You could argue the same about Parachuting ........ any activity where there is a statistically higher chance of death will do!
Please note these are not my opinions but a continuation of the arguements already stated!

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Nickhere
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 07:45 PM

folk 1e

"If you do take the Pro-life side you should be consistant enough to apply it to ALL cases ie: Car crashes/ Fights/ Parachute jumps (there is a proveable failure rate of the chutes) ...... or foreign occupation by "your" troops. I Won't even mention arms sales in this threrad!"

???????????????????????????????

car crashes? I thought they were accidental (generally). We were talking about deliberate killing.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: folk1e
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 07:37 PM

The thread has turned down semantic cul-de-sac a while ago!
If the "pro-lifers" think a sperm and egg produce a human at the point of conception, the killing of the cells (human) thus formed is murder.
If the "pro-choicers" viewpoint is that humanity occurs at a later date, an abortion (prior to that date) is not murder.
We have Shroedingers' cat again, with the act being resolved as murder/ not murder when we can decide on the "humanity" of the Cells/ Foetus/ Child.
Until you can argue convincingly one way or the other you cannot decide on the relative guilt or innocence of those involved!
If you do take the Pro-life side you should be consistant enough to apply it to ALL cases ie: Car crashes/ Fights/ Parachute jumps (there is a proveable failure rate of the chutes) ...... or foreign occupation by "your" troops. I Won't even mention arms sales in this threrad!

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: GUEST,Mr. Sincerity
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 10:18 PM

"What IS this place becoming . . . ."

It's becoming what it has been all along.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Peace
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 01:36 PM

It always boils down to a question of race. What IS this place becoming . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 04:59 AM

Bill D

oh, boy, oh boy! A knock-down drag-out Copy & Paste contest!

I'll put 25¢ on bruce!

Thanks for that Bill. I was nearly drawn deeper in. You win your 25c; I'm withdrawing from the race.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 11:44 PM

oh, boy, oh boy! A knock-down drag-out Copy & Paste contest!

I'll put 25¢ on bruce!

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 09:02 PM

"So you don't refute that you called me a Nazi?
"

I believe I HAVE refuted that. Are you sure I was addressing you? What DID YOU SAY in the post previous that I was responding to?


MY COMMENT:So you would advocate legalizing murder so that illegal murders would not occur?

IN RESPONSE TO: "a vote against legal abortion is a vote for illegal abortion."



MY COMMENT:AS I HAVE STATED, The point being ignored is that the pro-life folks are of the opinion that the fetus is a human being. UNLESS you discuss this, you leave the idea that murder is ok, as long as it is someone YOU think is not human- like Jews, Gypsies, handicapped, old folks, fetuses, etc.

IN RESPONSE TO: "Think for yourself what REALLY happens in the REAL world. "

My comment:You mean like in Germany, from 1939 to 1945?

My Comment:Oh, YOU mean the world as YOU want to have it be.


MY COMMENT:IF the fetus is human ( and *** I *** have not stated it is, from conception: Without brain function, I have my doubts as to its humanity) THEN abortion **IS** murder. The fact that illegal murders will ocurr when we make murder illegal is NOT reason to keep it legal.

MY COMMENT:You mean like in Germany, from 1939 to 1945?
.

MY COMMENT:The fact that you advocate a line of reasoning similar to the ones thga the Nazis did is not over the top:

MY COMMENT:1. *** I *** am not infallible: WHY DO YOU THINK YOU ARE???

IN RESPONSE TO: "In fact, since you are so absolutely certain of your own infallibility, I'm not sure why you are debating at all." YOU are the one claiming you KNOW something.

MY COMMENT:2. I am presenting a viewpoint I DO NOT claim to believe: BUT THE POINT THAT I AM TRYING TO MAKE is one that is NOT capable of being ignored IF one desires a resolution to the arguement.

MY COMMENT:Why are you here? It seems like you cannot consider any viewpoint, EVEN FROM THE ABSTRACT, IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE THINK A GIVEN WAY, other than those you have decided are correct: Is that why you claim such infallibility that you cannot engage in rational debate?

IN RESPONSE TO : "As I said, I don't think we have sufficient common ground to engage in rational debate"

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: TheSnail
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 08:06 PM

beardedbruce

So you don't refute that you called me a Nazi?

All the following statements were explicitly directed at me. Excuse me for feeling that I was under attack. I still don't know why.

So you would advocate legalizing murder so that illegal murders would not occur?

AS I HAVE STATED, The point being ignored is that the pro-life folks are of the opinion that the fetus is a human being. UNLESS you discuss this, you leave the idea that murder is ok, as long as it is someone YOU think is not human- like Jews, Gypsies, handicapped, old folks, fetuses, etc.

You mean like in Germany, from 1939 to 1945?
Oh, YOU mean the world as YOU want to have it be.

The fact that you advocate a line of reasoning similar to the ones thga the Nazis did is not over the top:

1. *** I *** am not infallible: WHY DO YOU THINK YOU ARE???

2. I am presenting a viewpoint I DO NOT claim to believe: BUT THE POINT THAT I AM TRYING TO MAKE is one that is NOT capable of being ignored IF one desires a resolution to the arguement.

Why are you here? It seems like you cannot consider any viewpoint, EVEN FROM THE ABSTRACT, IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE THINK A GIVEN WAY, other than those you have decided are correct: Is that why you claim such infallibility that you cannot engage in rational debate?

What have I said that justifies any of that?

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 02:41 PM

"What, exactly, are you attacking me for? "

I AM NOT attacking YOU- I AM pointing out that to the ANTI_ABORTION people, YOUR statements are in line with those examples. If they are not, please clarify what you DID mean to say.


It is NOT an attack upon a person to point out that the logic that they are using might lead to results that they do not wish.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: TheSnail
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 10:58 AM

beardedbruce

Please tell me WHEN I have called YOU a Nazi.

OK, not directly but cumulatively -

AS I HAVE STATED, The point being ignored is that the pro-life folks are of the opinion that the fetus is a human being. UNLESS you discuss this, you leave the idea that murder is ok, as long as it is someone YOU think is not human- like Jews, Gypsies, handicapped, old folks, fetuses, etc.

Followed by -

You mean like in Germany, from 1939 to 1945?

You have equated my statements (along with things I haven't said) with those of the rulers of Germany from 1939 to 1945 who, you may recall, were the Nazis.

The first sentence in your statements above is a point I have made myself. What, exactly, are you attacking me for?

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 10:34 AM

Snail,

Your post is in line with what I have been trying to say here:

"Having said that, I'm sorry Bill but that won't do. If you saw Group A cheerfully slaughtering Group B on the grounds that they were in some way sub-human (as has happened many times throughout World history), you would (if I have understood your posts correctly) condemn them. You might even be moved to intervene. I feel that you would not be too impressed if Group A said "If you don't like it, don't participate! And do not presume to tell others how they should behave in their own personal lives."
The anti-abortionists sincerely believe that a zygote is a human being. From that point of view they have every right, even a duty, to intervene. You can try to persuade them that they are mistaken but you can't tell them to mind their own business. "


I do NOT see a problem in giving specific examples of " Group A cheerfully slaughtering Group B on the grounds that they were in some way sub-human (as has happened many times throughout World history)". It occurred: to ignore it is just to encourage it happening again.


I REPEAT: I belive that you are mistaken: Please tell me WHEN I have called YOU a Nazi.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: TheSnail
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 10:25 AM

Oh dear, BB. I really did intend to ignore you but would you like to take a look at my post of 22 Aug 07 - 08:19 PM?

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 10:20 AM

Actually, to be precise:

" I do NOT claim that the fetus FROM THE POINT OF CONCEPTION is human"

I DO NOT KNOW when "humanity" is suddenly given to a fetus- But I do know I would not want to make that decision in a case of life or death ( of the fetus OR the mother) without EVIDENCE that I was CORRECT.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 10:12 AM

" A curious way of winning someone over to your point of view."


I have NOT claimed that this is MY point of view.

AS I HAVE STATED, numerous time, I do NOT claim that the fetus is human- I DO STATE THAT THOSE WHO CLAIM SO NEED TO HAVE THE POINT ADDRESSED, and not ignored as many here seem to do. In order to come to some agreement, one HAS to understand the reasoning behind BOTH sides. If YOU CANNOT SHOW that the FETUS IS **NOT** human, YOU HAVE NOT ADDRESSED the significant point.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 08:05 AM

300

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 07:03 AM

Snail,

I belive that you are mistaken: Please tell me WHEN I have called YOU a Nazi:

"Well, you started off by calling me a Nazi"

I COMPARED the logic that some here have presented as being the SAME LOGIC as that used by the Nazis, and the the application of that logic CAN lead to the same results as the Nazis- There is a difference between that and saying someone is a Nazi. I have NO IDEA of you political views, nor are they significant in this discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 01:49 PM

I should have said "You may feel smug that **THINK** you have caught someone in careless logic, "


"If one ignores the logical consequences of one's argument, how can one arrive at a logical solution?"

as I indicate, or tried to, I disagree that you have shown that they are, indeed, consequences....and IF they 'might' be, they are irrelevant to this discussion.


(Ok, Nickhere...we do have different basic premises working, but as Mick says, it was an enlightening exchance.)

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: TheSnail
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 01:34 PM

GUEST,beardedbruce

Please give examples: I fail to see any ranting or raving on my part.

Well, you started off by calling me a Nazi and then developed your theme from there. A curious way of winning someone over to your point of view.

Excuse me if I ignore you from now on.

Respectfully yours

The Snail

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 11:03 AM

How can one ever arrive at a logical solution if the perties involved can't agree on the basic premises?

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 08:50 AM

Sorry, that was me without cookie.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Big Mick
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 11:44 PM

Thanks for an articulate presentation of your views, Nick. I wish that all discussions of difficult subjects went this well. Amos, Frank, John Hardly, Bill D, bruce, ....... all have handled this with grace and respect.

Close the door, will you Gertie? And catch the lights, please.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Nickhere
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 05:49 PM

And I'm sure nobody will mind, but at this point I think I'll bow out of the discussion, as I've said all I have to say on the matter and I'd just end up repeating myself (as I suspect I am already starting to do!)

Amos, et al, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one!

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Nickhere
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 05:26 PM

Bill D: "...Now this is pretty heavy and loaded language!"

Fair point! I apologise for the heaviness of it, I'm not a fan of four letter words normally either!

What I was trying to do was drive home the point that the 'clump of cells' in the mother's body is not just like any other clump of cells or organic matter, such as could be treated as we would inanimate orghanic matter. Instead, this clump of cells is the start of a new life.

Once we make this realisation, we find ourselves forced to take a different view of abortion. This is the crux of the argument, really. The pro-choice lobby (ok, they are not monolithic anymore than the pro-life lobby are) simply refuses to acknowledge the humanity of the unborn life - at least I have seen no evidence that they do. Were they to do so, of course it would put them in a quandary.

Referring back to the orginal thread topic, we were talking generally about society and pluralism and whether there is room for all points of view. This expanded to how laws etc., in society should be based on reason and religious beliefs (being beliefs and not rational or empirical) should be excluded from the process of society building and law making.

I have suggested pluralism is a passing phase and one or other majority view dominates from time to time. The issue of abortion shows how polemic issues make it very difficult to reach compromise in society. The pro-choice lobby believe everyone should be left decide for themselves. The pro-life lobby believe this liberty cannot be afforded individuals because to do so would be to deny the liberty and right to life of unborn people. They do not believe that private citizens especially (or anyone) should have the power of life and death over other humans.

The pro-choice lobby seem to reject the empirical scientific analysis (departing from their usual insistence on the same) and thus show their support for one aspect of the society in which they live to be based on belief (as opposed to the empirical rationalism they normally demand).

In the final analysis, the right to life must be the most fundamental of all rights, as the enjoyment of all other rights are meaningless guarantees unless one is alive to enjoy them in the first place!!

Furthermore, advocates of "choice" in this area and who believe themselves to be supporters of human rights in other areas shoudl pause and reflect on how their support for choice of abortion undermines their position. If abortion is presented as a "human right" (as some social organisations would wish it, lately Amnesty International) it becomes much harder to arfgue logically against war, murder, genocide etc., - instead of people having an absolute and immutable right to life, it all comes down to degrees of difference. Then we just have to hope those degrees don't slide too far our way!

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 02:53 PM

"And all I'm saying is that it, therefore, cannot be rational to believe completely and exclusively that there cannot be a god."

I think that beliefs can be wrong. Beliefs not predicated on evidence of an empirical nature generally are. I believe that it is totally rational to believe that there cannot be a god if we follow the inductive process of science. I believe that gravity can't be repealed and I believe that the "big bang" probably caused the universe. I believe this because a reputable amount of scientists have been active in proving this.

The insistence of those who are believers that those who are not are irrational is in itself a logical fallacy. There is no scientific proof that a teleological, comosological or ontological god exists. That in itself should give pause to those who claim otherwise.

Now anyone can believe anything they like. Can they prove it? Scientists can by replicating experiments that consistently come to the same conclusion. I believe that scientists would do well to challenge and investigate any religious premise made and that if they were to do this, society could be improved, wars could possibly end and rational thinking might prevail to keep us from being at each other's throats.

As to the issue of abortion, no feeling or compassionate person thinks it's a great thing to do and some of us think that at times it is necessary. It has been shown to save the life of mothers, keep unwanted children from sociopathic growth, control an out-of-control population and create a psychological relief for people too young to assume the responsibility of parenthood. It is not a preferred thing to do, however, and is painful to observe. I have had that experience of observation.

To the subject of respect, I take my cue from Professor Richard Dawkins who in his lectures to believers and non-believers alike always shows courteous respect to them as people while unequivocally rejecting those ideas that he feels are flawed. I can't respect all ideas but I can respect the people who present them without being rancorous or vindictive or attacking anyone.

So whether you believe in a god, think abortion is evil, follow a dictum of a church or whatever, I may not respect your conclusions but I do respect you as a human being.
Even when a person's actions are to be found reprehensible, I think it's fine to criticize that behavior bearing in mind that we are all essentially highly evolved compared to the protozoa from which life emanated and that in itself deserves respect.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Amos
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 02:46 PM

Personally, I think CLinton was right.

He was pointing to the fact that the makers of laws are never going to be able to override the individual conscience and will.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 02:14 PM

With all due respect to those who have batted that 'evil' debate over the net several times...'evil' is by its nature a loaded word. It indicates something other than just your disapproval.
   If you DO call something evil, you should at least refer to the guiding premise by which you call anything evil. it may be that some 'mean' a religious reference, while others simply mean "something so bad and unpleasant and... _ _ _ _...that it needs a strong word".

----------------------------------------------------------------------

now - beardedbruce: you are expecting WAY too much from folks in this debate/discussion when you insist on having them defend 'possible' abstract implications of some of their assertions or positions. Over & over you insist that 'saying this either implies or does not exclude that, even when it is clear that the poster in no way intended to defend or imply any such thing....Yes, it is possible to construct Venn diagrams showing embedded connections, and suggesting that for a learned paper, one might need to address possible misunderstandings...maybe in footnotes...but not here! Not unless you can document genuine **ERRORS** and bad faith...not just theoretical lapses.

You may feel smug that you have caught someone in careless logic, but all you really accomplish is distraction.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Big Mick
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 01:03 PM

Well said, John.

Sure, some folks are in a pure pissing contest, but overall this has been an example of how respectful debate between folks with opposing viewpoints should be conducted.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 12:11 PM

PS. I don't see this thread as a pissing contest. I think that most of the time when someone says that a thread is nothing but a "pissing" contest, it is merely because they feel as though their pov is threatened, and they would rather think incivility of others than consider their alternative point of view.

SLOW DOWN AND CONSIDER that maybe I have slowed down and considered and still find it a logical question to ask. If one says that something is "evil" but chooses not to do anything about it, it seems quite logical to ask the basis upon which they consider it "evil".

But it's easier to come into the thread, declare it a pissing match, take the side you are most comfortable with, and patronize the other side with "SLOW DOWN AND CONSIDER" ...as though mine was an inherently UNthoughtful and UNconsidered opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: wysiwyg
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 11:48 AM

John, my good friend. You're stringing together parts of what people have said in order to bat the ball back over the net, and with a slam. Slow down.... my friend.... slow down. I suspect you may have a button that's been pushed.

IMO the cessation of any life is sad. Life is good. Life continuing is good. Any life. Plant life. Bug life. Cellular life. Life, as a value.

Do we "kill" some life to make our own lives "better"? Sure we do. Someone I care about has Stage 4 cancer, and I'd like to kill every cancer cell in her.

But-- it's still sad, to do it. FOR ME it's sad. Why is that? It's because human beans tend to value life, to one degree or another....

I can regret even what I find necessary. So can others.

I can find one thing a greater good than another. So can others.

I can find two things "evil" and still choose one. So can others.


What I would urge you to SLOW DOWN AND CONSIDER (reflect, take time, take weeks or years maybe), is that finding something evil need not equate to taking action to stop it, or judging someone else's differing sense of what is good or bad, right or wrong-- one can feel one way about an issue and still not feel antagonistic towards others of other opinions.

Love,

~Susan

PS, all: this thread has become a mere pissing contest. OK, so you can piss farther or longer than your neighbor. SO WHAT, it's just a floor full of piss in the end! :~)

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 11:28 AM

Said another way...

If it is safe and legal, why should it be rare? Why should it be any rarer than necessary? Why shouldn't it be exactly the same woman's choice as to how many abortions she wishes to put herself through? If it is legal and safe, why would you pass judgement on women for whom it is still the preferred method of birth control?

If, as Amos suggests, it works for population control, then why rare? Why not as many abortions as it takes to get the population under control?

Why rare? Why is it evil?

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 11:23 AM

That's not what I'm asking. I am asking "why is it evil?".

It goes back to that Clinton speech where the President said that he thought that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare". It was wonderfully diplomatic. It seemed like such an understanding thing to say. But it is utter nonsense. It passes exactly the same moral judgement as those who say that abortion should not happen.

Except that it is having one's cake and eating it too.

So it's okay to say, "you are a moral reprobate but we want to make it safe and legal for you to continue in the activity that proves you a moral reprobate". But it is "judgemental" to say that you don't want an evil activity to also be legal.

It defies logic.

And as to the lesser of two evils...

...inconvenience isn't, last I checked, an "evil". It's a, you know, inconvenience.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: wysiwyg
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 10:31 AM

Joe,

Your post sounds so reasonable, so diplomatic, so moderate. But you abstracted the point that matters most in order to seem moderate (an, by contrast, make me appear immoderate -- not your intention, I know)....

Why is abortion always evil?

John, see my last post on M&E T. A lesser evil must sometimes be chosen, but that doesn't make it "good."

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: TheSnail
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 10:28 AM

beardedbruce

I suppose ranting and raving at me for things that bear no resemblance to anything I've actually said saves you from responding to freda underhill's post.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 09:32 AM

"I think that abortion is always evil - it's never a good thing."

Joe,

Your post sounds so reasonable, so diplomatic, so moderate. But you abstracted the point that matters most in order to seem moderate (an, by contrast, make me appear immoderate -- not your intention, I know)....

Why is abortion always evil?

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 09:20 AM

" In fact, since you are so absolutely certain of your own infallibility, I'm not sure why you are debating at all"


1. *** I *** am not infallible: WHY DO YOU THINK YOU ARE???

2. I am presenting a viewpoint I DO NOT claim to believe: BUT THE POINT THAT I AM TRYING TO MAKE is one that is NOT capable of being ignored IF one desires a resolution to the arguement.

Why are you here? It seems like you cannot consider any viewpoint, EVEN FROM THE ABSTRACT, IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE THINK A GIVEN WAY, other than those you have decided are correct: Is that why you claim such infallibility that you cannot engage in rational debate?

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 09:15 AM

I said: ( To AMOS)

"YOU have NOT given any reason other than your own opinion: The Nazis may well have said "The assertion that Jews, Gypsies, and the handicapped are fully human is specious.", yet I fail to agree that that made them correct ( though it was LEGAL, by their own laws) in acting on it."

Should he care to present ANY reasons, I will certainly listen- unlike you seem to be saying you would.

I said TO YOU:

"AS I HAVE STATED, The point being ignored is that the pro-life folks are of the opinion that the fetus is a human being. UNLESS you discuss this, you leave the idea that murder is ok, as long as it is someone YOU think is not human- like Jews, Gypsies, handicapped, old folks, fetuses, etc."

This is a straightforward interpretation of the facts that

1. the Pro-life folks consider the fetus to be human
2. YOUR comment that "Or then again they might not. In the real world, outside the idealist religious/political positions, a vote against legal abortion is a vote for illegal abortion."

The fact that making something against the law makes it illegal is NOT a valid reason for NOT having a law that the society considers desireable. Your statement, to the people who think the fetus is human, is that 'In the real world, outside the idealist religious/political positions, a vote against legal killings is a vote for illegal killings'. UNTIL you realize that YOU are not capable of HAVING a realistic, real world discussion of the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: TheSnail
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 09:12 AM

beardedbruce

I have looked at it: The fact that you advocate a line of reasoning similar to the ones thga the Nazis did is not over the top

As I said, I don't think we have sufficient common ground to engage in rational debate. In fact, since you are so absolutely certain of your own infallibility, I'm not sure why you are debating at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 09:06 AM

I have looked at it: The fact that you advocate a line of reasoning similar to the ones thga the Nazis did is not over the top: Because the Nazis did something, it cannot be referred to in any conversation? They did invent the Volkswagon, and the first true "superhighways", as well: must we ban those to protect your sensibilities?

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 09:03 AM

"I think that abortion is always evil - it's never a good thing. But I've known women who have chosen abortion because it seemed to them that they had no other choice. "


ABSOLUTELY agreed, 100%.

I know of people who have chosen to commit murder because it seemed to them that they had no choice- Yet it is societies responsibility to

1. discourage such conduct, by laws and punishments.
2. Attempt to correct the circumstances that made those people feel that way.
3. Attempt to take into account, in 1., the reasons and motives of those committing the murder.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: TheSnail
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 09:00 AM

beardedbruce

Hardly, Snail.

Would you care to look back at your grossly offensive response to my earlier post where you responded to my appeal to look at the reality of legal v illegal abortion by comparing my views to those of the Nazis in WW II?

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 08:57 AM

Amos,

I was not presenting the DNA arguement.


I fail to see the moral difference between deciding that, since the point at which the fetus becomes human is undetermined it is "correct" to allow it to be killed ( without knowing if it is human at that point or not), and the time honored position that "others" of a different religion or group, not being "human, like US" can be killed for reasons of convenience. In BOTH cases, the person allowing the killing has made the determination that the subject individual is not human ( by whatever standards) and thus does NOT have the protection against murder that socety has provided.

I don't KNOW that Snail is a human being: Does this give me the right to say it is allowable for someone to kill Snail? THAT seems ( correct me if I misunderstand your logic) what Amos has stated.

I recognize that (IMO) the fetus has reduced rights ( since society has NOT made miscarrage the equivalent of manslaughter) BUT it bothers me that the principles that those allowing for abortion BY CHOICE have brought forward would allow ( if applied ) for the killing of ANY group that it is decided "are not human beings".

How much difference is there between Vick killing those dogs that did not perform well in fights and the killing of those fetuses that are not "convenient"? In one case, the society is up in arms, and mets out punishment: In the other, those protesting the killings are told that, since THEY were not forced to kill, it is ok to let the
killings continue.




Snail,

"Your bizarre, over the top response reinforces that view."


Please let me know what you consider a "bizarre, over the top response ". I fail to see any example in my post: YOUR comment as to what ** I ** would do might qualify, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 08:37 AM

Hardly, Snail.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: TheSnail
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 06:10 AM

freda underhill

What about the women who in the days before legalised abortion solved the problem with coat hangers, suicide or backyard abortions where they bled to death or that made them sterile for life?

beardedbruce would liken them to the war criminals who attempted to exterminate the Jews.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 05:52 AM

Well, John, I suppose you're right that few, if any, pro-choice people would support any sort of legislation that would stop abortions at any point. That's the essence of "pro-choice" - that they believe the pregnant woman is the best person to make the choice, not the legislature.

However, I have met many "pro-choice" people who do not believe that abortion is a good thing, and who would like to see fewer abortions. They just don't want to see the choice for or against abortion to be compelled by law. And generally, they see that there are some times when the situation for the pregnant woman is so serious that abortion is the best choice to take.

Many "pro-choice" people do not view the choice of abortion lightly. Some do, but I think the majority are a lot more compassionate than you might think.

As a Catholic (and just because I am who I am), I think that abortion is always evil - it's never a good thing. But I've known women who have chosen abortion because it seemed to them that they had no other choice. I think it's right for churches and for government agencies to encourage women to explore choices other than abortion - but I don't think it's good or effective to have laws that make abortion a crime.

-Joe Offer, pro-life, pro-choice Catholic-

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 04:41 AM

"Those who advocate 'choice' are not a monolithic group."

Name one pro-choice group or individual who fought (or has fought) for limitations on late-term abortions.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 04:17 AM

"It IS different to condemn and kill masses of people for political reasons than to make a decision not to allow a zygote to develop...."

and again...

you retreat back to the absurd position that abortion is the abortion of a zygote (or allowing it not to develop). That is simly not the case in most abortions. In fact, I would be willing to bet that there has never been the abortion of a zygote. Most of the time a woman doesn't know she is pregnant with a zygote...

...and yet you retreat to that point rather than address how extreme the pro-choice POV is from a scientific, objective analysis.

And again, the pro-life arguement has been put forth on this thread without religious underpinnings (until the last few posts by nickhere). It is the pro-choice side that resorts back to "belief".

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: freda underhill
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 03:29 AM

Why has this issue been politicised so much? Yes, there is concern about unborn children.

What about the women who in the days before legalised abortion solved the problem with coat hangers, suicide or backyard abortions where they bled to death or that made them sterile for life?

That is why this matter should be a personal choice, not the choice of church or state.

freda (mother of three)

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 12:07 AM

Nickhere- You write very reasoned and thoughtful analyses of the situation...up to a certain point. Then your admitted biases slip in..

"Problem is, in the case of abortion, control is being extended over SOMEONE ELSE'S BODY. What about that person's own right to have 'control over their body'?" ...Here there is the implicit assumption that there is a 'someONE else', which is the point under contention! Certainly there is noONE capable of offering an opinion. If there is no way to logically or medically or religiously to resolve the issue, what way is there other than to allow the parents...specifically the mother...to decide in each case....with such as they may choose guidance from both doctors and 'spiritual' advisors?

"The 'pro-choice' lobby seem to regard the unborn child as a clump of tissue, a by-product of bodily functions...basically like a piece of s***."
...Now this is pretty heavy and loaded language! Those who advocate 'choice' are not a monolithic group. There are many reasons that a person can advocate 'choice' over having no choice....and only a fringe group takes an extreme view such as you describe. "...a piece of s***"???
Come on! I KNOW people who have worked in the pro-choice ranks, and none of them have taken such an unfeeling, hateful attitude. They were caring, concerned folks, trying to find a path thru an unfortunate situation!

I have seen, over & over, the point made that IF someone feels that "life begins at conception because God breathes a 'soul' into the embryo then", they MUST feel obligated to oppose abortion.

*Sigh*...yes, but in many areas of life there are differing opinions about 'moral obligation' and how and when is it ok to express it or demand it. I have tried to make the point that SOME of these situations require allowing involved parties to make their own decisions.....
Now, I have had replies to the effect that "So...you would say that Nazis who 'believed' that Jews and others were sub-human, really had no moral constraints about killing them?" POOH! I have many paragraphs of detailed Philosophical explanation about 'exactly' why that is a flawed argument, but it shouldn't be necessary to type them out. It IS different to condemn and kill masses of people for political reasons than to make a decision not to allow a zygote to develop....
Yes....I KNOW it is difficult to draw a line precisely as to where 'terminating a foetus' ends and 'killing a baby' begins...I know because I had to help make that decision once...and it was painful beyond belief!!! Look up 'triploid cells'...

I'm sorry, but you cannot write a rule in these matters that covers anyone but YOU...and you can't guarantee YOU will ultimately be happy with it.