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.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Amos
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 09:16 PM

Bruce:

Your argument is articulate but ultimately circular. The question is not the mechanism of DNA but the question of what constitutes a "someone", especially, in this context, a "someone else". You can and have argued that the uniqueness of the product of conception defines it being a 'someone', and since that DNA is unique and different from either parent, obviously a "someone else".

Without the benefit of our modern detailed knowledge of cellular stages, women, and to some degree men, have been living through this problem, about which you and I are merely theorizing, for millions of years. I have no idea what the subtle intimate signals are like, experientially, any more than I know what it is like to have a period every month. I am sure it is a rich and subtle experience from which I am almost completely excluded, alive with subtle signals, sensations, and intuitions.

I do not have any deep confidence that the thread of scientific evidence you have selected to measure with is truly a viable criterion. I, for one, am not willing to impose it on someone with an infinitely greater, more intimate, connection with the question then I can possibly have, and I think trying to nail such a profound question down to biochemical tracery is presumptuous. There is (I believe) a great deal more to the question of "what is a someone" than we have touched on.

It is possible that being outside the problem in the way we are, and knowing as little about the full dimensions of it as we do, we are condemned to being Jesuitical theorists, sitting around the plaza trying to adjudicate rights and wrongs of life in abstract terms while being actually unable to imagine the experience of the bright, vibrant young women passing by, who are actually living and walking in every instant the life we are dissecting intellectually.

So I think I will fold my hand, and go sit in a cave.

Maybe one of them will climb up and see me.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: TheSnail
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 08:18 PM

beardedbruce

"I really can't be bothered to argue with that"

Really means that you have no discussion that results in what you want to have happen.

No, it means that I realise we have so little common ground that no case I put up will have the slightest effect on anything you think. Your bizarre, over the top response reinforces that view.

My previous interventions in this thread had only been to chide both sides of the debate for their failure to understand the other's point of view and tailor their arguments accordingly; rather the original subject of the thread I feel.

It seems even that was futile.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Nickhere
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 08:02 PM

L.H - but isn't jaw-jaw preferable to war-war? ;-))

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Nickhere
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 07:58 PM

I should have said of course 'stop saying that religion is a waste of time because it is based simply on beliefs"

Of course religion is quite rational to the religious.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Nickhere
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 07:31 PM

Amos: "HEll, bruce, if you define your terms right you can make dairy farms look like charnel houses. The assertion that from conception on the individual zygote has full human nature is specious. Folks who choose it as a belilef, in the absence of some better analsyis, are free to live by it"

Ok, let's look at this. I have posited a solid scientific rational argument for defining the new life as human from the moment of conception:

1. when the gametes from both parents fuse, a new life with a unique DNA is formed, even if this life consists of one cell at the beinning. This unqiue DNA did not exist before the gametes of both parents (sperm & egg). This moment is called conception.

2. This new life carries the genes / DNA of a particular species. As I've already said, when a woman is expecting, what is she expecting. If we wait around 9 months, what do we expect to be born? An elephant? An aardvark? A sand eel? Hopefully not, except perhaps in the Twilight Zone!
A chimpanzee shares 98% of our DNA, but look at the difference that 2% makes!! Are chimpanzees human (they deserve compassionate treatment, sure, as do all animals, but they are not human). The 'zygote' as you like to call it, already shares 100% of our DNA. It will not develop / grow up to be a chimpanzee, but a human.

3. From the moment of conception there is a continuum of development until death. At no point in this continuum can the person be considered more or less human. If they become ill or sick, as some have argued, have they transmorgified into elephants? Or sand eels? or chimps?

This is a perfectly rational science-based perspective.

There is also a religious perspective, for the religious minded: that God breathes a new soul into the new life at conception, and from that moment the time of death is at God's disposition, when He calls that person from this life.

Now, the religious perspective has been rejected by several on this thread. Fair enough, us religious lefties can't prove there is a soul, or life after death or even a God (at least by scientific empirical means) so I suppose it's a lot to ask the Doubting Thomases since we don't have the holes for them to put their hands in.

But I have already outlined a solid scientific rational argument more according to the tastes of those so-inclined, and apparently that's not enough either. So here's a case where neither science nor rationality nor religious belief is going to have any influence on the thinking and behaviour of those who choose to believe what they wish, despite all evidence to the contray.

Fine, but at least stop saying religion is a waste of time beause it is not rational. Neither is the pro-choice argument. It is based on beliefs, not on empirical science or reason.

These beliefs in turn form the basis of laws / court rulings by which we must all live (i.e we must respect the law as it stands or be in breach of it). So beliefs are capable of forming society, and not always religious beliefs either!

(Which is not to say the pro-choice argument is not pragmatic: sure, it's far more convenient to just make all these people disappear instead of overhauling our society so such a scenario becomes almost - or hopefully completely - unnecessary)

As for a woman having control over her own body, fair point. I would not advocate anyone not having control over their body (which is one of the reasons I would be opposed to murder, slavery, rape, torture etc.,). 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'?

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***. Denying someone the 'right' to abort then seems as unreasonable as denying someone with constipation a dose of laxatives. Trouble is, it's not a piece of s***, it's another human being we're talking about here.

Whether I like it or not, that's the rationality of the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Nickhere
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 06:59 PM

Amos: "In the same period the population of the planet has expanded by roughly I would estimate, possibly two billion, b-- here is one set of hastily gathered numbers"


Abortion as a means of population control....interesting! Of course, anyone who believes the world is over-populated can made an immediate individual contribution to depopulating it quite simply and quickly......only joking!!

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Amos
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 02:42 PM

John:

Perhaps in the heat of your feelings on this issue you over-interpreted, or perhaps I over-spoke. I would never call you simple-minded. I know you far too well to even think that. What I should have said is that failing to include the important differences between the beginning stages of foetal development, and the beginning stages of post-natal life, is (in my opinion) oversimplifying.

As for the gradient from cell to zygote to foetus, I am not qualified to draw a line.

Little Hawk, your aspersions, in light of what I just finished syaing up thread are unjustified. Your are blathering yourself, too.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 12:34 PM

John, as I said, I'm not arguing FOR or AGAINST abortion. I'm simply telling you why the law is the way it is...because the beleaguered lawmakers are simply attempting as best they can to deal with a situation where people cannot agree, due to their differing beliefs.

I don't feel that I am brilliant enough or godlike enough to be able to offer a definitive answer as to whether abortion is or is not the murder of a living human being. I'm not God and I don't know.

Most of the people on here obviously do feel that they are brilliant and godlike enough to give that definitive answer, and to decide for OTHERS what that answer should be! What awe-inspiring arrogance.

Well, wow. It must be great to be that brilliant. You guys all deserve each other. Argue about it till you all turn blue in the face and keel over...but keep this in mind: it won't change any of your petrified minds one iota.

You'll just have fun feeling righteous while you blather on about it endlessly.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 11:37 AM

"I have said repeatedly that it is my opinion that the extension of civil individuality to a zygote is a misapperception"

and that, my friend, is a false dichotomy. There are WAY more abortions performed on fetuses that are developed than there are on "zygotes". You are the one who has simplified the arguement beyond meaning...

...by making the case that because you cannot distinguish a good point of development between zygote and birth, then such a distinguishing is not possible.

And so you comfort yourself with the notion that abortions are performed on zygotes. And call me simple-minded.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 11:32 AM

"simple-minded."

...and so it goes.

You don't want to address the reality that it is scientifically observable that the life inside the womb is not sub-human (we allow late term abortions, and yet it is a fact that there are millions of extremely prematurely born children living among us)...

...and so you resort to insult.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Amos
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 11:30 AM

I have made no such statement.

I have said repeatedly that it is my opinion that the extension of civil individuality to a zygote is a misapperception, but that that statement is my opinion. You continuously ask me to deal with an alternative opinion that interrupting the cellular process is the same as "killing" a "person" and therefore disposes the "convenience" of the person in whose body the process has begun as more important than the judgement of "murder".

How do you want me to "deal" with it? I think it is misguided biologically, spiritually, ethically, and socially; but I cannot impose a clear line on the point where the change should be said to occur between a cellular process and a prenatal infant, or a human being.

I simply do not have the data necessary to give you a solution to the problem you keep badgering me about. In my opinion, the only person who DOES have that data would be a well-informed pregnant woman, a classification which I fail to qualify for on three counts.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 11:17 AM

Amos,

And slavary was legal until it was decided it was wrong, and laws passed to that effect.

You STILL fail to deal with the point.

I am sure that slave owners in 1859 were happy with the law as it stood, and did NOT want discussion of whether their slaves were "fully " human.

I fail to see how one can object to the war in Iraq on the basis that people are being killed for what our elected leaders feel is the benefit of th US and the world while declaring that the convenience of the mother outweighs the life of the ( to MANY) human fetus.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 11:09 AM

"As for those against abortion, they can fulminate all they like, but if they want to be constructive, support of contraception, health care and welfare would be a start. "


Total agreement, but tha does not address the fact that the POINT that they consider abortion to be murder.

Society has made decisions that it is "correct" to allow killing when society benefits from it: I OBJECT to the idea that society should allow killing to benefit an individual- THAT is a judgement that the benefit of one person outweighs the LIFE of another. Thus, the "choice" of the mother is to be limited to some degree.

Should I work for laws that allow for parents to "choose" to kill their minor children if they misbehave, or become inconvenient? THAT is the equivalent ( to those who feel the fetus is human) to what is being proposed.

After all, the assertion that before puberty a child has full human nature is specious.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Amos
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 11:07 AM

Actually, not exactly -- you argue from the way the law usually works outside the womb, and then seek to extend it to a "citizen in a womb" as though it were the same context.

It is not the same context, and the impulse to make it the same in disregard of all the differneces verges on the simple-minded.

Bruce, I have said over and over that what I am offering, like the views of anyone else, is opinion, and that there seems to be no yardstick outside of that available for anyone.

I believe Roe vs. Wade is a s good a legal stance as we can get on the subject; stare decisis.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 10:36 AM

It is interesting to note that of the few who are arguing from the pro-life side of the arguement -- whether doing so for the sake of the discussion (as, perhaps, Bruce) or because they are actually pro-life (as I)...

...none of us are drawing the pro-life conclusion as if informed by religious conviction (as is so often charged by the pro-choice side).

In each arguement, the pro-life side has been presented from either the perpective of how law USUALLY works (but for some reason, abortion advocates have been able to circumvent the usual legal requirements), or it has been presented from a scientific perspective -- that the beginning of life is not nearly so mysterious as once thought -- given current state-of-the art ultrasound as well as the fact that most people now know of at least a few children within the circle of their acquaintances who were born after only six months gestation (I know three such children).

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 10:23 AM

"Brain function might be a good criterion. How many synapses do you want to decree as the dividing point, based on which we will now impose a law on the land, willy-nilly, governing the lives of the sexually active? "

I cannot specify a number- nor can you. So how can you state that a fetus with ANY number is NOT human, while someone after birth ( with brain damage, say) who has the same IS?


I do not claim to have the answer- I prefer to err on the side of caution, and NOT legalize the killing of those who MIGHT be human without a more serious reason than 'choice'. I object to the abortions in China of females, and of all unauthorized ( ie, more than allowed) children: I do not object to contraception, and allow for times when the possible life of a child has to be weighed against that of the actual life of the mother. Society makes choices all the time that allow for death of individuals for the betterment of the rest of society, but we generally object to the death of an individual for the benefit of another individual.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 10:14 AM

Amos,,

You ignore my point.

YOU state " The assertion that from conception on the individual zygote has full human nature is specious. "

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.

The fact that you disagree with a definition is NOT sufficient reason to IGNORE those who hold it. When you refute it, I will listen: Until then, you have stated that YOUR opinion is the only accepotable "truth" in the matter, and I will NOT accept that.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: PMB
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 10:07 AM

As I understand what Bruce is saying, he's not necessarily defending that position, but pointing out that many people do NOT make a distinction between abortion and murder, just as many fundamentalist Moslems see blasphemy against Mohammed as worse than murder. If you are to have respect mutual with somebody of different beliefs, whatever these are about, there must be some point of contact.

One problem in America (as I see it - I'm British), which I think works in a closed loop with the death penalty, is that the whole debate is not about the point during development when the soul enters the body, but about ideas of guilt and innocence. So you get (to outsiders) crazy statements like "if he's old enough to kill a man, he's old enough to die for it!" In this context the foetus, whether it be full- term or a small ball of cells, is seen as an innocent child, and there's no room for any shades of meaning.

So you get false comparisons between women who have abortions and Nazis (nobody is trying to make the world kinderrein), or Salman Rushdie is called a murderer because people died in the riots against him.

In terms of Moslems, I would like to see them play a much greater role in the life of this country- in return for assurance that they desire to be one of the threads that make up the country, and do not seek hegemony (which they haven't a chance of anyway, but an attempt would be devastating). As for those against abortion, they can fulminate all they like, but if they want to be constructive, support of contraception, health care and welfare would be a start.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Amos
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 09:48 AM

HEll, bruce, if you define your terms right you can make dairy farms look like charnel houses. The assertion that from conception on the individual zygote has full human nature is specious. Folks who choose it as a belilef, in the absence of some better analsyis, are free to live by it.

The real question in my mind is, which legal position brings about the greatest amount of human misery? Having aboirtions causes some misery. Messes up the natural biochemistry and dynamics of motherhood. ABsolutely outlawing abortion causes plenty of misery as well -- those who comply are suddenly shifted into all the cares of parenthood, often without the economic means or skills to do so. Finally, making laws about it one way or another may be the real point of misery, in one sense, because it opens up the whole bag of worms of social law based on half-truth and superstition and opinion. We should refrain from forming laws on these bases.

Most important of all, we should not invade the jurisdiction or presume to arrogate the understanding of the individual whose life is involved in the external world, namely the mother. Badgering women on hypothetical grounds is unwise, for sure.

If we cannot differentiate between potential existence and actual existence as a human being, then we should not pretend to be able to do so. We should not go about forcing people to reproduce, nor prohibiting them from reproducing. This is a core individual right, until such time as a new individual is definitively present. Not just a survivable process.

Brain function might be a good criterion. How many synapses do you want to decree as the dividing point, based on which we will now impose a law on the land, willy-nilly, governing the lives of the sexually active? Choose a power of two.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 09:17 AM

"Think for yourself what REALLY happens in the REAL world. "

You mean like in Germany, from 1939 to 1945?

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


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.

If there is a problem with unwanted pregnancies, society should deal WITH THE PROBLEM, not say that we will just make it legal for one to kill the fetus: Do we allow the execution of homeless, since they are a burden? How about the handicapped? Or those who do not believe the "proper" things?

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 09:09 AM

Snail,

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.


"I really can't be bothered to argue with that"

Really means that you have no discussion that results in what you want to have happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: TheSnail
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 07:13 AM

beardedbruce

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

I really can't be bothered to argue with that. Think for yourself what REALLY happens in the REAL world.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 07:01 AM

Snail,

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


The SOCIETY should provide alernatives to that which it objects to. IF there ARE alternatives, illegal abortions could become as rare as (other) murders- They (murders) happen every day, but are NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: TheSnail
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 06:15 AM

GUEST,PMB

40 million abortions means tens of millions of women you will have forced NOT to have an abortion,

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 06:13 AM

BTW, would you argue that the UN should not have been involved in Bosnia, since so few were affected? I understand Canada was involved there...


Thousands still missing from Balkan wars
By DUSAN STOJANOVIC, Associated Press Writer
Thu Aug 30, 5:57 AM ET



BELGRADE, Serbia - Nearly 18,000 people are still missing from the ethnic wars fought in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the International Committee of the Red Cross said Thursday.

About 13,500 of those missing are from the 1992-95 war in Bosnia, while 2,386 are from the 1991-95 conflict in Croatia and 2,047 from the 1998-99 strife in Kosovo, the ICRC said in a statement on the occasion of the International Day of the Disappeared.

"For years now, ever since the conflict in former Yugoslavia broke out, the ICRC has strived to support the plea of the families of missing persons, hoping to bring about more answers on the fate of their beloved," Paul Henri Arni, the head of the Red Cross in Belgrade, said in the statement.

Those missing "may be victims of mass executions thrown into unmarked graves, they may be captured or abducted, they may be arrested at their homes and then die in custody," the statement said.

The disappearance is itself a tragedy, Arni said, but "the other victims are the families suspended in limbo, suspecting their loved ones are dead, yet unable to mourn."

There, the statement continued, it is "vital that the issue of the missing be seriously addressed and that the families' right to know the fate of their loved ones be upheld."

The bloody breakup of former Yugoslavia — the worst carnage in Europe since World War II — started when the Serb-led Yugoslav army tried to prevent separatists in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo from seceding from the former federation.

Officially, about 200,000 people were killed during the war in Bosnia, although a recent independent study put the figure at less than 100,000. An estimated 20,000 people were killed in Croatia, and about 10,000 in Kosovo.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 06:00 AM

LH,

You state:
"Why don't you put a little personal time and effort into saving the lives of Third World people who are being killed because of the foreign military and economic policies of your government? Your government and your corporations find that convenient to their purposes.

Those are larger matters, I think, than the abortions being performed in America."

Number of abortions - " 40,000,000 abortions over the past 30 years"
is at least 1.3 million PER year ( probably greater, as more have been performed in the later years, I would think)
40,000,000 abortions over the past 30 years
Number of people killed BY BOTH SIDES in the Iraqi conflict over 4 years: Lets use Boberts's half a million plus- call it 800,000 to be "liberal"

That is 200,000 per year-


AND YOU CALL IT A LARGER PROBLEM THAN 1,300,000 PER YEAR?????????

I would suggest YOU have a real problem with mathematics.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 04:32 AM

I never intended this to be a row about abortion- though it has brought out the fact that the USA and UK have different internal tensions. I was actually thinking of a visit to a local Asian supermarket, Moslem run. Outside, there was a group of (to me rather hostile) militant Moslems distributing literature (to other apparent Moslems- I wasn't offered any), inside nothing but courtesy. My reflection was on the difficulty of achieving a rational discussion when one (or more) parties takes an absolutist stance.

I would like to put a few questions to the Islamists: if you can't Islamise Britain, what kind of compromises will you need make to reach a modus vivendi? What kind of concessions would you like in return? If no compromise is possible, and you can't succeed, what will you do? If you could Islamise Britain, would you be happy with a state in which you violated the conscience of many of the population?

And in the absence of Islamists on the Cat, I suppose I'll have to put the questions to those absolutists on the abortion issue. If you succeed in outlawing abortion, how do you propose to deal with the social pressures that will cause? 40 million abortions means tens of millions of women you will have forced NOT to have an abortion, presumably against their beliefs as it's not compulsory.

---

Post is from GUEST,PMB, who needs to remember to fill in the "from" blank.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 07:59 PM

John, why don't you put a little personal time and effort into saving the lives of hundreds of millions of tortured and butchered animals that are being consumed by a dumbass public that thinks it has a god-given right to eat meat every day? (this in spite of the existence of entire societies of strong, healthy people right now on this planet who do not eat any meat...). It's done because it's profitable, it's customary, and it's "convenient" for those accustomed to eating meat. They do not intend to have their blessed convenience interfered with by a bunch of bleeding hearts who are worried about animals being treated inhumanely.

Why don't you put a little personal time and effort into saving the lives of Third World people who are being killed because of the foreign military and economic policies of your government? Your government and your corporations find that convenient to their purposes.

Those are larger matters, I think, than the abortions being performed in America.

You say, it's not pragmatism that makes abortion legal, it's convenience. Yeah, I agree, it IS convenience. Convenience and pragmatism amount to pretty much the same thing in most societies, when it comes right down to it...because the public WANTS its conveniences, brother! And so does the legal system.

Didn't you know that the old motto of America, "give me liberty or give me death" has been updated to read: "give me convenience or give me death"? I mean, hey, that's bloody obvious, isn't it? ;-) Convenience is what sells every stupid damn thing you see advertised on your convenient daily pacifier: the television.

I am arguing, John, neither for nor against abortion. I am simply pointing out WHY the legal situation is the way it is. Pragmatism and convenience.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 07:32 PM

"yet you seem to want to define exactly when the soul takes residence!"

Nope. You are exactly 180 degrees mischaracterizing what I said. I said quite clearly that if we DO NOT know when the "soul takes up residence", it is up to those who wish to kill it to prove that it has not "taken up residence". The burden of proof (as I've said, not five times) as to when "the soul takes up residence" should fall to the ones who wish to do the killing. That is how every other case in our legal system is handled/proscuted. We cannot put anyone else to death without making a case that they deserve death (where that is an option, or imprisonment, if that is the only option).

You and I can afford to take a more reasoned stance to this problem as I strongly suspect WE will never have to make the choice ourselves.

Again, I'm sure that those who owned slaves had good reason to keep the status quo. And the fact that I may not have owned slaves did not disqualify me from doing my political best to see to it that the slaves -- even though I did not own any -- or even though I may not have been one -- were freed.

You are assuming that:

1. the baby deserves no consideration.
2. the woman had no other choice than to get pregnant
3. there is no better means of dealing with it than abortion.

I don't assume any of those three.

I can have compassion for a murderer. I can even say that, if given the same circumstances, there but for the grace of God go I -- I'm just as evil at my core as anyone. But I can't allow as how it's okay for law to be based upon my feelings of compassion...

...Law should be based on the best probability for the protection of the innocent.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: folk1e
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 06:48 PM

John, your argument would be stronger if anybody were being forced to have abortions! The bottom line is that we do not know wether a person has a soul or not, yet you seem to want to define exactly when the soul takes residence!
You and I can afford to take a more reasoned stance to this problem as I strongly suspect WE will never have to make the choice ourselves. I do not know, so I will let those concerned make their own decisions and try not to be too critical of them for doing so!

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 05:21 PM

"It's pragmatism, John."

No, it's convenience.

" It's a compromise...as are most legal situations."

A compromise from what? How is it a compromise? That reminds me of that line from the newest Patrick Warburton sitcom. Warburton's character is talking to David Spade's character and says:

"Marriage is all about compromise. For instance, my wife wanted a cat and I did not want a cat. So we compromised. We got a cat"

Where is the compromise? To paraphrase Wharburton:

"It's all about compromise. For instance, the pro-choice people want the right to kill fetuses, even if they might be babies. I don't think they should kill fetuses because they might be babies (and, in fact, science is proving me right). So we compromised. They get to kill fetuses."

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 05:04 PM

No, John, we have legally concluded that we don't KNOW...or that we can't agree on the matter...

You cannot make a law banning something if you can't agree on how to define it. (or at least you probably shouldn't, anyway...)

The real truth of the matter is that the laws as they exist in this society are always an attempt to deal as pragmatically with the situation as can be managed. This is true of most laws in most societies. Lawmakers pretend that they are dealing with pure morality... (heh!) when actually they are dealing with pragmatism. They are dealing with what they think is most workable and feasible in the society of their time.

Thus all societies make a big thing about how bad "murder" is...because that's what seems acceptable to most people (not surprisingly)...yet they are quite happy to murder any number of foreign people in something called "war". They're proud of their soldier boys who go out and murder for the nation.

It's pragmatism, John. Don't even fool yourself into thinking it isn't. The society of today has decided that, all factors taken inton consideration, it is probably more pragmatic and feasible to allow a certain number of abortions under certain circumstances than it is to attempt to prevent ALL abortions...which attempt never succeeds ANYWAY. It's a compromise...as are most legal situations.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 04:52 PM

"No one will ever be able to prove to everyone else's satisfaction that a foetus...at various different stages of its development...is or is not a living human being and/or a living soul. It cannot be proven in any way that will satisfy everyone."

The problem is, however, that as true as that statement is, we have legally ("legally" used loosely here, because we've never concluded this through legislation -- only through the courts) concluded that we obviously HAVE proven to everyone's satisfaction that it is not a baby because we have determined it is legal to kill them.

We have determined that it is legal to kill them when they are two-celled, and we have determined that it is legal to kill them when they are in the birth canal, seconds from being born. We have determined that we can kill them if we think they are deformed and we have determined that we can kill them if we think they will have red hair.

We have determined that we can kill them if they are inconvenient.

We have determined that we can kill them and make a profit from selling that service.

There is no legal limitation to when we can kill them, even though, as you claim, we cannot prove that it is not a human being.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 04:46 PM

correction: "the energy it generates"

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 04:27 PM

No one will ever be able to prove to everyone else's satisfaction that a foetus...at various different stages of its development...is or is not a living human being and/or a living soul. It cannot be proven in any way that will satisfy everyone.

It therefore will remain a matter of individual opinion and a matter of individual faith from here till eternity.

Accordingly, this particular argment will never end...

Too bad the enery it generates could not be used to power some useful device, isn't it? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Amos
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 03:54 PM

Well, Mick, forgive me if I seem tobe de-humanizing the actually human. It is a tough subject. As you noticed, I fear dehumanizing the mother's side of the equation. For one thing, she who carries the ova is herself an already-walking miracle.

Bruce, I find your conflation of what I said with the 3rd Reich offensive. The fact that someone wants to define human as one thing, and someone else as something else, without an explicit criterion or standard of measurement, does not mean that either of them is a fascist, a Nazi, a murderer, or an unfeeling brute.

The point you keep yelling about that must be addressed --although you didn't spell it out--is that the point where an individual MUST be considered to be a unique and sacred human life is when it is two cells big.

Personally I find this opinion uncovincing, but I emphasize that it is an opinion.

There is no objective standard for the definition, however. That is one of my reasons for suggesting that individual freedom and personal decision is the right jurisdiction here.

Until there is some such objective criterion, who gets to decide what the yard-stick is? And why, if it is based solely on individual judgement, should it be automatically accepted?

As far as I can tell the one person int he world who will have the best sense of the humanity of a prenatal entity is the woman within whose body the process is occurring. No-one else has a fraction of that connectedness with the situation. Nor a fraction of the responsibililty for the circumstances.

I greatly appreciate this dialogue, in any case, as it allows me to ponder some of the facets of this issue I have not considered with any depth before now.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 12:41 PM

I have read, with great interest, the very carefully parsed and nuanced arguments here. And I agree with very important parts of Bruce's, and Amos', positions. Bruce reduces the argument to a very fundamental position of understanding with regard to the "pro life" (I am not very comfortable with that term, prefer "anti abortion") motivations. Amos, comes at it with a wonderful understanding of the woman's ability to have control over her life and decisions. These two conflicting (but not wholly conflicting) positions are the quandary that left leaning but thinking folks like myself find ourselves in. John Hardly sums it up very similar to how I do. The bottom line for blue collar folks like myself is, "When does life begin, and when is the soul or sense of being present in this new life?". It seems that if we cannot answer this, then we should be very cautious until we can. Amos, my good friend (said with all sincerity), it seems like you seek to dehumanize the whole argument with the scientific term "zygote" and I understand that. But for those of us who are less sophisticated, that is the problem. Whether a miracle of the Greatest One, or a miracle of Nature, the new life is still a miracle. So far, I have laid my misgivings aside, as the field I work in causes me to be exposed, up close and personal, to the women who are lost and most affected. Their options are few, and I feel that taking choices away is like society taking another piece of control of their lives away. They are valiant in their efforts to raise their children, and live with dignity, and I feel we must trust them to make the right choices for themselves and their circumstances. But, and this is a big but, I cannot help but be very fearful at the inherent danger of where this thinking leads. I cannot help but have fear that we are taking a life. I have seen elements of this conversation that seems to lead down the path of making decisions for "decisionally incapacitated" and that frightens me. Mankind has shown time and again that it abuses these types of ideas, especially when we get into the "purity of thought and ideals" area.

Such a hard topic.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 10:36 AM

"Thus my "position" mentioned upthread. But hell, if we were going to be governed by such nancy postures, we would never go to war, would we? Hmmmm?"


*** I *** HAVE NOT argued against war because people were getting killed. YOU HAVE: The point of war is that someone DOES feel that there is a moral reason to go kill people. ALL societies have made this determination- the only difference is the REASONS that they kill those that stand between them and their perceived goals ( World peace, end of global warming, absolute control of others, whatever)

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 10:31 AM

"Well, the simple answer to your heated post is that my position is that those who equate murder with abortion are simply off-base, and confused about the nature of the individual. "


And the SS had German Law behind them, that Jews were NOT fully human beings. Nor were Gypsies ,or those with birth defects.



YOUR statement IS NOT dealing with the point: Unless you declare YOURSELF to be the defining moral authority, you have no MORE standing than those who disagree with you.

THAT is why the point MUST BE ADDRESSED, and not blown off as "simply off-base, and confused about the nature of the individual. "

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Amos
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 10:24 AM

Dear Bruce, old chum:

Well, the simple answer to your heated post is that my position is that those who equate murder with abortion are simply off-base, and confused about the nature of the individual.

I suppose you could argue that anyone who excises a tumour is murdering an incipient organism, but no-one would use the term murder, because it is disproportionate.

One of the reasons behind all the nuttiness hinging on this issue is the conflation of potential with absollute actuality.

Another is the somewhat bizarre notion (to me) that an individual is a body, and then by extension, the notion that even a potential body is the same as an individual.

I think people get desperate about this sort of thing when they lose confidence in their ability to assume a new body, because of an excess of past traumas, or perhaps guilt, on the issue. But, ya know, I am not in the mainstream here, and of all the folks who read this I expect perhaps four will understand it. I expect I have lost hundreds of bodies down the centuries, and while it is never pleasant, it is really not so serious a thing; about on the order of having to replace a totaled car or throw out a well-loved suit. If you endow your car or your clothes with life, something that anyone is capable of doing, it all of a sudden becomes a much larger issue, but that is because of the endowment. I am sure this will place me firmly in the marginal nutball category, but hey, I've been there before.

There's an important distinction, of course -- in the case of zygotes and foetuses, there is a point where an individual does connect up with a body and establishes some clear communication line. When that occurs, obviously, common respect for that individual's game in progress would suggest avoiding termination of the pregnancy if at all possible. Thus my "position" mentioned upthread. But hell, if we were going to be governed by such nancy postures, we would never go to war, would we? Hmmmm?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 10:14 AM

"If stopping the killing of human beings ( as defined by those opposing abortion) is NOT a reason to have laws, please let me know what is?????"

This is a valid point, but it doesn't even have to be "stopping of killing of human beings (as defined by those opposing abortion)".

Your point is just as poignant if one were to point out that the definition doesn't have to be any stricter than to point out that we don't know that a fetus is NOT a human being and thus, the burden of proof should fall to those who want to kill it, to prove that it is NOT a human being.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 10:06 AM

So, you would also object to those legislators writing laws against murder and drunk driving? If stopping the killing of human beings ( as defined by those opposing abortion) is NOT a reason to have laws, please let me know what is?????


You CONTINUE to fail to address the point that those opposed to abortion have decided, for whatever reason, that fetuses are human. AS LONG AS YOU CONTINUE to due so, your points as to "resons for abortion" are just justification for murder: WHEN you address this point, you can THEN deal with the ( IMO) valid reasons to allow it to be a private decision IN SOME CASES.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Amos
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 09:41 AM

BRuce:

Do not, please, add words to my already overfull mouth.

In delineating the population issue, I was simply requiring that the problem be given its whole context. I do not think any simple moralistic answer on either side is the whole answer, but more importantly, I do not think it is a legitimate problem to be raised before any legislature. Especially because there is none among most legislatures who can walk the walk and feel the situation.

I am not in favor of abortion, and I would always try to avoid it as a first approach; but I am even more not in favor of moralistic meddling in other people's lives and decisions. A mother, no matter how inexperienced, is extremely unlikely to get an abortion on moralistic grounds -- as I pointed out above, she usually has to overcome very strong instincts to make such a decision. But people who have never been women, cannot get pregnant, have perhaps never been seduced or raped, and who are almost certainly far from debilitating poverty, feel perfectly qualified to dictate such a decision on moral grounds. I think this is a bad idea, to put it mildly.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 08:04 AM

"In the same period the population of the planet has..."

Just to be clear here -- the 40,000,000 abortions in the past 30 years is the number for the USA only.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 06:28 AM

"If we want to reduce abortion, disseminate the necessary memes, and make viable choices available to those who are trapped in extreme circumstances. "

However, THIS statement I am in agreement with. Those who oppose abortion need to ( and some do) provide valid options, in addition to pushing for laws that suppport their moral viewpoint.

Just as society needs to provide valid alternatives to what WE have decided is "Immoral" (ie, against the laws of our society) in addition to providing punishment for those who violate those laws.

Someone who steals bread to feed their family has NOT been provided those options: Someone who steals to buy nike shoes, or drugs has NO such claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 06:19 AM

Amos,

You seem to be saying that the problem is overpopulation, thus it is ok to kill selected minorities ( fetuses).

Remember that I postulated that the anti-abortion folks consider the fetus as human: To one holding THAT opinion, YOUR opinion that the fetus is NOT human is NOT valid, any more than the opinion of the Nazis about Jews would be considered valid.

If YOUR solution to overpopulation is abortion, than how can you object to someone else deciding that the solution to overpopulation is to invade other countries, and kill off their populations?

Just a different "select" group to be eliminated, or at least decreased.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 04:02 AM

So, to be "fully human" means to be a fit healthy adult or young adult. ??????????????????????


No, to be fully human means to be conscious, or rather capable of consciousness in the near future without special intervention. So a person in a coma or PVS is a borderline case; which of course is recognised both medically and legally. An eally foetus is a equally borderline case. To what extent is a matter open to much reasonable negotiation.

And how much intervention is applicable depends on the medical assessment of the probable outcome. Otherwise we'd put everybody who dies immediately into cryogenic store in the hope that a reversal of their condition will be possible in the future. Costs come into it, and reasonably so, as the living can't be expected to give an open cheque to the possibly- living.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 02:56 AM

"adding to the population at the rate of 1 billion per decade"

Ah, but you see, the rate is actually exponential, not constant - which means that the RATE OF the RATE OF the increase is ITSELF increasing... so it's MUCH worse than you think...

You should Read "Play Little Victims" - a novela by Kenneth Cook.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bert
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 02:10 AM

What a thread!

Respect doesn't have to be mutual, I can respect most of the people who have posted here but that doesn't mean that they have to respect (or even know) me.

I was raised as an atheist but I know that belief in God is very important to most people. I can respect that, even though many religious people can never respect an atheist.

I used to be 'Paulian' in my beliefs and would try to 'convert' people to my way of thinking. I learned tolerance from Moslems when I was in Bahrain, they had the ability to laugh at the mistakes made by us infidels.

When my contract was over they said "but you can't leave - this is your home". What lovely people. That is why I hate Bush so much, for killing these lovely people in Iraq.

I have seen true unconditional love (is that what GOD is?) given by WISYWIG and Hardiman to the people they serve (or should I say love).

Abortion is another subject. Abortion is a tragedy, whether the mother was raped or was exposed to German Measles or was just too young and stupid. Abortion should be allowed to the extent that
makes illegal abortions unnecessary and no further.

I've gone way over my twenty lines here so I'll quit gabbing.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 11:01 PM

At 40,000,000 abortions over the past 30 years, I would say that the conscience and compassion restriction isn't much of a restriction.

How many mothers?

In the same period the population of the planet has expanded by roughly I would estimate, possibly two billion, b-- here is one set of hastily gathered numbers.

~1830---------1 billion (over 100 million years more or less)
~1930---------2 billion (1 billion per century)
~1960---------3 billion (1 billion per .3 century)
~1975---------4 billion   (1 billion per .15 century)
~1987---------5 billion (1 billion per .12 century)

Recent estimates:

07/01/07    6,602,274,812

I would suggest that if we are not actually creating a planet on which to reasonably support more than 7 billion people, which we are not, we should definitely not be adding to the population at the rate of 1 billion per decade, or a bit less. Additionally, if moral enforcement of births under any pregnancy produces extremely unhappy mothers, we are adding to the population with very poor quality family lives, and adulterating the net quality of the human population by enforcing a moral code that has not been completely thought through.

So regardless of the numbers of women who choose to take the step, I fail to see why this makes it a commons issue. They are certainly acting in their own interest, as they understand and feel them, and in doing so they are pre-biased by the strong biological dynamic of survival and reproduction, not to mention estrogen, oxytocin, and other highly motivating chemicals.

Given that I am not experiencing either the pull of such chemicals nor the drive to create young, and am ALSO not suffering the pangs of pregnancy, the economic burden of poverty, or the overwhelm of contemplating giving birth with no visible means of support, I feel I have absolutely NO position from which to dictate any such decision to any such woman.

And I don't understand why gray-faced men in suits and suites in Washington believe they have such a position.

If we want to reduce abortion, disseminate the necessary memes, and make viable choices available to those who are trapped in extreme circumstances. Then your estimation of "too many" might have more merit.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: TheSnail
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 08:28 PM

OK John. I'm sure that with that clear insight into the pro-abortion/choice point of view you'll have no problem persuading them round to see things your way.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 08:10 PM

Yes!

No!

Maybe...


There. Ya got it covered. Let's move on.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 07:55 PM

"Describing them as extremists relieves you of the responsibility of a rational response"

It may be inflamatory use of language -- it was inflamatory enough when PMB referred inaccurately to the pro-life side of the debate as "extreme", to incite me to refute him. But it doesn't relieve anyone of the responsibility of a rational response -- which is what I gave him.

And "extreme" just may be an accurate description of the pro-choice side, as it is easily illustrated that there is no "there" there for them to be more extreme than -- they already have any abortion at any time for any reason--no restrictions. In a country where a majority of people do not believe that any abortion at any time for any reason is a reasonable ruling when science so clearly shows us that it is babies that are being killed, any abortion at any time for any reason is extremist.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: TheSnail
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 07:16 PM

Good, I'm glad we've got that sorted out. we'll just have to put your "There is no compromise in any abortion at any time for any reason." down to a senior moment.

Please note, that I am not taking any part in the pro/anti abortion debate. I am more concerned with the need to fully understand your opponents point of view. Describing them as extremists relieves you of the responsibility of a rational response.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 06:49 PM

Snail,

The two "extremes" of the abortion question:

No abortions for any reason vs. any abortion for any reason--no restrictions

If I allow as how No abortions for any reason is too extreme -- and believe (as I've said at least three times already in this thread) that abortion in the case of rape or incest is permissable, and that abortion to save the life of the mother is advisable, my position is a compromise from one of the extremes.

The pro-choice side does not make a similar compromise. The pro-choice side has made NO compromises. The pro-choice side has stood steadfastly upon any abortion at any time for any reason--no restrictions. They even have done so throughout the partial-birth, late-term abortion debate.

Thus, the pro-choice side of the debate is the one that is "extremist" -- a point I was adressing to PMB's initial assertion that it is the pro-life side that is "extremist".

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Nickhere
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 06:23 PM

Dick Greehaus -

"BB- Certainly the statement "1. The human fetus is, from conception, a human being." must be considered seriously. If one accepts it, than anyone using "morning after" contraception must be considered a murderer"

But contraception by definition is intended to prevent conception from taking place in the first place. In other words, sperm and egg, never the twain shall meet.

The Morning After Pill is designed to prevent the egg from implanting in the womb wall. That egg is not always fertilised. If it is not, then there hasn't been conception in the first place. If conception has taken place, then yes, I suppose (agree) that you are right and the morning after pill is a form of murder. If you intentionally do something that you know could kill someone I suppose it hovers between some kind of intentional murder and manslaughter in a rational moral sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: TheSnail
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 06:10 PM

John Hardly

I was trying to politely take some of the burden for our lack of communication upon myself. I shouldn't have.

John, you made the contradictory statements. Reading them didn't take any skill.

For %^$£"#s sake, just tell me what you really think.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 05:48 PM

Snail,

"Well, your reading ability coupled with my typing ability will, I fear, leave us at a permanent impasse."


I was trying to politely take some of the burden for our lack of communication upon myself. I shouldn't have.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: TheSnail
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 05:41 PM

John Hardly

Well, your reading ability coupled with my typing ability will, I fear, leave us at a permanent impasse.

You could try reading your posts before clicking "Submit". Please tell me, do you compromise or not?

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 05:20 PM

my first sentence was addressed to "Snail"

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 05:18 PM

Well, your reading ability coupled with my typing ability will, I fear, leave us at a permanent impasse.

Amos,

At 40,000,000 abortions over the past 30 years, I would say that the conscience and compassion restriction isn't much of a restriction.

And, again, where else does the law allow that the burden of proof of life falls to the ones who wish to preserve it? We don't even allow incarceration, much less capital punishment, without the burden of proof of guilt falling to the prosecution -- not the defense.

But in abortion -- though we are utterly uncertain when life begins -- certainly not in agreement -- and certainly science is suggesting MUCH earlier that ever before thought...still, the burden of proof falls to those who wish to stop the killing of babies. It defies logic and it defies all other ethical decisions.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Nickhere
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 05:15 PM

Amos:
"What I AM in favor of is defining the boundaries of moral imperatives, no matter how strongly felt. This is a difficult principle to parse, indeed. A man who believes that all abortion is murder can easily see that he must stop at nothing to prevent this from happening, even if it means burning down clinics. From a moral perspective he is to be forgiven, because he is in the grip of an undeniable moral imperative. If he trades off the life of a practicing doctor in doing so, I suppose the rationale is that he has saved hundreds of unborns, and therefore done the greatest good for future humanity"

Amos, you must have missed it when i said earlier back on in the thread that i do not support or condone murder of abortion-performing doctors (or their clients)n because murder cannot be prevented by adding further murder (and from my own private religious perspective would be contrary to the law of God). But if I feel morally bound to oppose abortion, there are many ways I could do this (as I've also already said) by debating the topic, trying to convince other people it's not a good thing to do etc., etc.,

Surely, in our wide and tolerant pluralist society, this can be accepted? It seems to me that it can, as long as it doesn't look set to change anything.

As for defining limits on moral imperatives, first we must decide what is moral. How do we do that? I presume you have some moral imperatives of your own that prompt you to argue and act and vote in certain ways.

At least we have a working definition of what it means to be 'fully human' from one side of the camp:

"you weren't FULLY human when you were on the borderline of life and death- you arguably would never have noticed had the medics decided you were too far gone"

So, to be "fully human" means to be a fit healthy adult or young adult. ??????????????????????

Now you see what I mean when people abandon God's morality and go the road of Grenouille....the most outlandish justifications can be found for everything and anything.

Dick Greenhaus has put it succintly:

"[t]he alternative, is, of course, to arrive at a legal definition of the stage of fetal development that qualifies as a human being. THis can make the legalities of contraception and early abortion workable, but only t the expense of the beliefs of those to whom question 1 is inarguably true"

But what informs our legal framework? If we create a law that says everyone must kill a helot, does this make the killing of helots moral? The law is the law and not necessarily either moral or even rational. If we do not have a solid morality to guide us in the framing of the laws, we are in deep doo-dah. Many of the pro-abortion arguments and technicalities I've come across are similar to those advanced by the Nazis to explain why they killed off as many handicapped, Jews and gypsys as they could, as well as sub-human political dissidents. For they too had their own leaglese definitions of who was fit to live.

They managed to rationalise to their own satisfaction that they were acting in the best interest of humanity, and they totally lacked the much-maligned Christian religion (indeed many of them were dabbling in the occult, especially popular among the SS)

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 04:49 PM

I would also suggest that the pro-choice side does not argue for "any aboirtion, any time, no restrictions", but instead argues for the restrictions of individual conscience and compassion across the dimensions of the individual situation, something law-makers are notoriously incapable of, in general.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 04:44 PM

Well, John, I read in haste, and as usual have come to regret it; but please not my wish for you had a smiley by it, and I still wish it.

While I am not in favor of everyone getting abortions all the time, I am in favor of adult women -- who have the most immediate and intimate understanding of the situation possible, experientially -- listening to their hearts and minds, and not their overbearing politicians. I just don't think this is an issue for the commons.

I am glad you are working between pots. I am working between spreadsheets. Blecch.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: TheSnail
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 04:41 PM

Focusing in -

John Hardly

There is no compromise in any abortion at any time for any reason.

In other words, my conditions for abortion allow for compromise.

Sorry John but I have difficulty reconciling those two statements of yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 04:30 PM

wow. If that's annual, that's nearly 10% of all abortions. If it's since RoeVWade, it's .3% of all abortions.

Snail,

You don't understand my position on abortion? Though I may not have done the best job of describing it -- working between pots as I am -- but I surely do understand my position on abortion.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: SINSULL
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 04:23 PM

Some facts about abortion in the US.

137,000 abortions performed to end rape related pregnancies? That is shocking.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: TheSnail
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 04:05 PM

John Hardly

abortion at any time and for any reason is the extremist position. There is no compromise in any abortion at any time for any reason.

If I am the one who says that abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest, and even encouraged in the case of the life of the mother, and would even be willing to bend if SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE was not pointing more toward viability becoming earlier and earlier (disproving earlier pro-choice assertions that it is not human life until after birth). In other words, my conditions for abortion allow for compromise.

It can get difficult understanding someone's position when they are not sure of it themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 03:36 PM

By definition, how can my position be the extreme one?

If I am the one who says that abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest, and even encouraged in the case of the life of the mother, and would even be willing to bend if SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE was not pointing more toward viability becoming earlier and earlier (disproving earlier pro-choice assertions that it is not human life until after birth). In other words, my conditions for abortion allow for compromise.

On the other hand, the pro-choice side says: "Any abortion at any time for any reason. No restrictions". There is no compromise present in the pro-choice assertion.

By definition (of extreme) I am the moderate. By defintion, the unbending, unyeilding, uncompromising pro-choice side is the extreme. By definition.

And it is a strange lack of compromise by a side that would be loathe -- under any other circumstance -- to not choose to err to the side of certaintly as regards the taking of a human life. To assert that suddenly the burden of proof of life falls to those who wish to defend it is an absurdity that is not to be missed. In any other circumstance (than abortion) there is no way anyone would assert that the burden of proof falls to the defense of life. Our law is certainly not based on that flawed premise.

And Amos,

To answer this...

"I hope you are never knocked up and abandoned. :D""

...another, purely logical way, I can't believe that you would assert to a nineteenth century me:

" Abolish slavery?! I hope you are never caught with 200 acres of cotton ready to be harvested, and there you are abandoned by your labor force. :D"

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: TheSnail
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 03:26 PM

dick greenhaus

it doesn't work if you're trying to find a course of action.

Neither does sticking inflexibly to your position and dismissing your opponents as extremists.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 03:17 PM

I'd disagree with dick there - if you are trying to find a course of action that is actually going to have a good chance of succeeding, understanding your opponent's point of view is very important indeed.

As witness, for example, any number of conflicts around the world today, where it is patently obvious that the people in charge do not understand that importance.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 03:11 PM

TheSnail-
"I will say the same as I was trying to say to BillD; even if you can never agree with it, try and understand your opponents point of view rather than just dismissing them out of hand."
That approach is fine for a debate or bull-session--it doesn't work if you're trying to find a course of action.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 03:08 PM

So far as abortion goes there is a distinction between an absolutist position and a pragmatic one, and that is a distinction that transcends the division between people who'd describe themselves as pro-life and as pro choice.

What I mean is, it is possible to see the issue as one about fundamental non-negotiable human rights - a right to choose for one side, and a right to life for the other. On the other hand it can be seen in terms of the political decisions made in a particular society, based on the beliefs of the people in that society, decisions which can change.

It seems to me that the only practical way for a democratic society to resolve these matters is to adopt the latter view. The absolute view is a matter for the private realm - no matter how the law may change, the right to choose or the right to life, as a moral imperative on individuals, or on members of a religious or ethical community is not affected. But the legal position in a democratic society has to be based on the settled will of that society.

And in real terms that is the actual situation. That even applies where the process of determining that settled will is carried out through constitutional interpretations, rather than through legislation - constitutions are, after all, subject to alteration.

My point is that it is wiser and healthier to see these disagreements in this way when it comes to matter of law, as being pragmatic, and distinguish this from the argument about morality, where the absolutist positions are more relevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: TheSnail
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 02:38 PM

John Hardly

It is the pro-choice side that has proven itself time and time again to be the extremist point of view.

From where you are standing, yes. From their point of view, your position is the extreme one. That's the nature of extremes.

I will say the same as I was trying to say to BillD; even if you can never agree with it, try and understand your opponents point of view rather than just dismissing them out of hand.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 02:14 PM

Absolutely right, McGrath! One respects people. One holds beliefs.

It does not necessarily follow that people must hold the same beliefs in order to have respect for one another...in fact, it should not follow, in my opinion. Respect ought to be given in response to character and behaviour, not to beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 02:00 PM

I think that talking about respecting beliefs is using the wrong verb. Respect is reserved for people. I don't respect beliefs, including my own - I hold a belief or I don't hold it, I agree with it or I don't agree with it.

There are plenty of beliefs I abhor and would do my best to oppose. That doesn't have to mean feeling hostile towards people who hold those beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 01:56 PM

Does anyone mind if I don't take sides in this particular squabble? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 01:48 PM

"John:

I hope you are never knocked up and abandoned. :D"

What does that have to do with anything I've said? Does that change the fact that it is more extreme to be in favor of any abortion at any time for any reason than it is to make allowances for some abortions?

A statement was made by PMB as though it is the pro-life side that is extreme. That is quite demonstrably wrong. It is the pro-choice side that has proven itself time and time again to be the extremist point of view.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 01:41 PM

John:

I hope you are never knocked up and abandoned. :D



A

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 01:33 PM

PMB, I also have trouble with this statement from you:

it's ironic that the religious conservatives who most vehemently oppose abortion are the same ones that deny treatment to children (and adults) after they are born

Now, if you could change that to some of the religious conservatives," I could agree with you completely. I think that in this discussion and in most of the discussions of life, it's important that we avoid absolutes and generalizations.
Most people are not as stupid or as heartless or as unreasonable or as horrible as we generalize them to be.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 12:47 PM

pdq

I agree with you. IMO, there should not be abortions except in rare cases where the child is so deformed as to not have brain function. HOWEVER, I do not insist that others agree with me: If those who want abortion on demand want to kill off their children, who am I to stop them: The overall result will be to remove them from the human gene pool.

There is a real problem with society providing pressure to have abortions in place of taking responsibility. BUT unless one is willing to adopt those who are unwanted by their parents, ( and I have encountered some who are willing, and have acted accordingly) can one demand that someone else bear a child that they cannot take care of, yet are required by society to provide for?

Again, I DO NOT have the answers- but I note BOTH sides seem to avoid looking at the questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 12:08 PM

abortion at any time and for any reason is the extremist position. There is no compromise in any abortion at any time for any reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 12:03 PM

This is where we started out. It is very hard to maintain respect and tolerance when people take absolutist, inflexible, extreme positions. Where these affect themselves only, we can afford the combination of awe, mild horror and slightly patronising tolerance that is often accorded to people like ultra- Orthodox Jews or the Amish. When their beliefs affect others, it depends on how far they are prepared to go in pursuit of what they believe.

Perhaps a similar case is that of the British animal rights activists. They raise many good points about our treatment of animals, but many of them see all animal experimentation as a crime, which they have used to justify intimidation, damage to property, desecration and attempted murder.

If the only possible compromise is total capitulation, yes, it pays to know how they think, and yes, respect them like you respect a dangerous animal... but to tolerate?

If respect is to be mutual, there must be some possibility of shared ground.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: pdq
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 11:51 AM

It is my opinion that 34 million abortions in the US since Roe v.Wade is too many.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 11:44 AM

So, should it be a matter of CHOICE, in the special case of a fetus, but not when the child is say, two years old?


I DO NOT have all the answers: I have an opinion, but I understand where those I may disagree with are coming from.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 11:41 AM

"The point I was trying to make is that premature births have the potential to develop into full human beings, and with the medical help available these days, many of them will. But the choice to intervene to bring them to term out of the womb is a complex one- it will take into account the desires of the parents, the opinions of the medics as to the probable outcome, and the costs of the treatment (to the state in the UK, to the insurance or the parents in the US)."

BTW, I agree entirely with you on this one- BUT if one feels that the fetus is a human being, is this not someone deciding to withhold required medical care ( to bring them to term)? Don't we arrest parents who withhold required medical care from their children?

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: TheSnail
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 11:22 AM

beardedbruce

I DO think we need to be aware of what those who disagree with us think, and why they think that.

Thanks BB. That's what I was trying to say to BillD the other day.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 11:04 AM

PMB,

My point is NOT whether I was a full human at that time, but that those against abortion feel that the fetus IS human, and that they have a moral obligation to stop it from being killed. As long as they do feel that way, the idea that , since no-one is forcing them to have an abortion they should NOT object to others having them is the same argument as "If I want to kill a bunch of ( whoever- Hutu, Jews, Hindus, Moslems, Left-handed people, handicapped, fetuses), why should you try to stop me as long as I don't make you kill them?"

I do NOT agree that it is always wrong (vis brain-death) to allow humans to die: I DO think we need to be aware of what those who disagree with us think, and why they think that.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 10:40 AM

"In this context, it's ironic that the religious conservatives who most vehemently oppose abortion are the same ones that deny treatment to children (and adults) after they are born."

Huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 10:17 AM

Bruce (I was that Guest), without any disrespect you weren't FULLY human when you were on the borderline of life and death- you arguably would never have noticed had the medics decided you were too far gone. But your experience made it worthwhile to intervene to try to preserve you. The medics might not have tried so hard with a 107 year old- statistically that person would have little life left anyway, and you don't invest a lot when the payback is small.

I have a friend who is brain damaged following a stroke. Or rather, I do not have a friend- he may as well be dead for any good that his continued existence does to himself, his family, or his friends. He has no enjoyment of life and, as far as we can tell, is in constant pain. He used to be a clever, articulate, witty human being, but I don't think he's fully human now.

The point I was trying to make is that premature births have the potential to develop into full human beings, and with the medical help available these days, many of them will. But the choice to intervene to bring them to term out of the womb is a complex one- it will take into account the desires of the parents, the opinions of the medics as to the probable outcome, and the costs of the treatment (to the state in the UK, to the insurance or the parents in the US).

In this context, it's ironic that the religious conservatives who most vehemently oppose abortion are the same ones that deny treatment to children (and adults) after they are born.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 10:05 AM

The discussion of the continuum is based on an illogic that describing one criteria regarding a zygotic process should not be valid because the same criteron can be found true in -- for example -- a geriatric person with Parkinson's. This is a meretricious argument.

But I am not trying to get people here to accept my view of how the conception to birth cycle operates or how it should be viewed.

What I AM in favor of is defining the boundaries of moral imperatives, no matter how strongly felt. This is a difficult principle to parse, indeed. A man who believes that all abortion is murder can easily see that he must stop at nothing to prevent this from happening, even if it means burning down clinics. From a moral perspective he is to be forgiven, because he is in the grip of an undeniable moral imperative. If he trades off the life of a practicing doctor in doing so, I suppose the rationale is that he has saved hundreds of unborns, and therefore done the greatest good for future humanity.

This moral imperative business is pretty tricky -- it is the core justification for Bush's signatures on marching orders that have brought about the death of almost 4,000 Americans (more than perished on 9-11), and ruined the minds and lives of many thousands of others, and millions of Iraqis. He had a little chat with the Almighty before signing those orders.

And the impulse to impose these moral imperatives either through interference with outhers' lives, or through indirect interference by lawmaking, is one of the screwiest aspects of our culture. What is in theory is the process of winnowing out the greatest good for the nation becomes a battle of interference engines and their supporters.

My personal opinion is that the way to generate moral boundaries on abortion or any other issue is not to appeal to the machinery of law, but to focus on the art of disseminating your ideas, and let the market of thought buy it or not. THis puts you on your mettle and makes the seller of the meme responsible for cleaving to comprehensibility. It is very clear that law making does nothave this burden.

Using the law to do it for you is just laziness. Of course, there are an awful lot of lazy guys out there! :D


A



However,

Subject: M&E T and Banjo Tuners
From: wysiwyg
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 09:38 AM

Excellent thread, maybe one of the best. Should be set as an example as to how contentious subjects can be debated by rational folks.

It may be a model of reasoned debate, but IMO it misses the mark for respect.

I think that for some people, "respect" means a value judgment based on conditions one has imposed that require some behavior or other from the other person before respect is "granted."

For me, respect is not a "value judgment" but a "value."

I mean that my belief and my long practice is that a human being is worthy of respect because of their humanity. I do not require anything of others in order to respect them-- I require of myself that I respect them, no matter what their outer seeming or actions may be, because it is my long, worldly experience (not merely my more recent religious belief) that beneath the seeming is a human being not so different from every other human being.

That's not an easy thing to require of oneself.

I fail, often, to fully meet the standard. HOWEVER-- it is in holding the standard AS the standard that I am continually in need of examining my own beliefs and behaviors, and amending them where needed.

That doesn't mean that I lie down and play dead when someone seems not to be worth my respect, and let them run all over me. I require that I respect myself, as well.

Reconciling those two directions of respect can be quite a balancing act. I totter often. But when I calm down, I return over and over to that compass direction where I can honestly say that I respect another completely, and respect myself, at the same time.

Because I see so much conditionality in most of the "respect" demonstrated in this thread (while the easier route of debate was taken), I have found it unpleasant. But I respect the people in it, and I admire their effort to wrestle with the issues. There's nothing easy about any of the issues.


Hardi and I had an interesting continuation, the other day, of a long discussion we both hold dear... a subject we reflect about often as we learn and grow and hope to understgand things better. That is, a conversation about "moral and ethical theology." In moral theology (MT), it is considered an absolute to do or not to certain things. In ethical theology (ET), it is essential to consider the particulars of a situation in order to determine the "best" (most ethical) course.

These two aspects of theology must be looked at separately, but they actually exist simultaneously-- thus "Moral AND Ethical Theology." They can be diametrically opposed and yet simultaneously applicable. I'll call it "M&E T" just to save myself typing it over and over again. (I wish all Anglicans would use shorthand sometimes for the large concepts we thinking beings try to encompass!)

When we returned to that discussion, the occasion for my thought was a comment of Hardi's: as we drove down our usual route home and passed the area businesses, he casually wondered what was worse-- for our dear friend to have bought a cheap, lousy tuner from WalMart or from the thrift shop that poses as a music store in our area, that sells really bad musical equipment and instruments in an effort to "give music to the poor." Our friend had indeed bought a crap tuner-- limited income, the good store is an hour away, plus he's stuck close to home nowadays with a sick wife at home.

So we sympathized.... and wished we'd known he needed the new one because we could have made the trip for him and helped with the purchase price.

But suddenly I had the perfect metaphor for M&E T.

MT would say it's a sin to buy anything from WalMart. MT would also say it's a sin to buy anything at [insert thrift shop name].

But ET would say that our friend needed the tuner and did the best he could, given all the circumstances. Do the circumstances make it any less awful that he has a crap tuner, or does it make it any better if he went to WalMart? Or the thrift shop? No-- any musican would tell you that either way-- it's just WRONG to get that piece of crap. Any musician would also undertsnad that a guy's gotta do what a guy's gotta do. The friend is old, and deaf enough to really NEED that digital tuner, because he just loves, loves, LOVES to play; he gives joy to a lot of people with his music and the jokes he tells while he holds that banjo.

So I think most of you would agree that you could respect the friend, but not the tuner. :~) There you have it-- whatever your religious belief or nonbelief, you're capable of M&E T, and probably doing it unconsciously, often. Others of you, I'm sure, are wondering why a banjo player would want a tuner to begin with. :~)

Such is M&E T. You can respect the person, but not the action. It's a rewarding balancing act of the mind to attempt it under all circumstances. Because the moment you apply conditions to the effort, you've subtracted a large part of the respect. IMO.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 09:31 AM

Guest:

You state "I personally believe that when it is capable of independent survival with ordinary care (i.e. given feeding but not specialist medical intervention) it is a full human being*."

By your standard, I was NOT a full human being when my heart was stopped- I certainly required "specialist medical intervention" to continue living. In addition, is a "premie" not fully human? My nephew ( now adult) would argue that he is.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 09:01 AM

Excellent thread, maybe one of the best. Should be set as an example as to how contentious subjects can be debated by rational folks. Nickhere, I am duly impressed with your reasoning.

Amos, I understood your response, but I note that you didn't address the continuum aspects of Nickhere's argument, which is why, I presume, he referred you back to his posts.

Now, I am off to find a big enough piece of walnut to make a beautifully engraved wall plaque with the following inlaid in veneer:

It does NOT imply any such thing...it only shows that I did not write a long enough compound/complex sentence to include & exclude every possible contingency that you could possibly imagine by applying brute force to the edges of my linguistic endeavors. Bill D. 27 Aug 07 - 10:55 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 08:58 AM

Those opposed to abortion have the opinions that
1. The human fetus is, from conception, a human being.

No, it's not. It is a cell that is developing towards being a human being. I personally believe that when it is capable of independent survival with ordinary care (i.e. given feeding but not specialist medical intervention) it is a full human being*. Many of the medical inteventions developed have led to the survival of early foeti, but often with costs in terms of subsequent impaired development. Remember that many societies have exposed neonates in "borderline" cases of doubtful survival ability. Consider that this may not be wicked evildoers abusing tiny children, but a sensible way of testing if an infant will be capable of a decent quality of life.

... a good definition of genuine pluralism -- an adult respect for the strong convictions of others.

Nobody has convictions much stronger than those who are prepared to kill themselves, and you, to get their point across. They may deserve respect, but only the outright foolish would tolerate them. Silence is not demanded of opponents, but to refrain from damaging physical action or coercion is.

*This has a corollary that people's right to medical or other care grows as they gain presence in the world. It makes sense to throw resources at an experienced adult that you wouldn't give to a new baby or a moribund person, and this is more or less what is done, when the playing field is level.

---

from PMB, who forgot to put a name in the box.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 08:43 AM

"A spermatoza has only half the gametes."

I have tried time and again to make the same point -- that the notion of an unfertilized egg is fundamentally different from a fertilized egg -- to no avail here on the mudcat.

The pro-abortion arguement that tries to claim no distinction is jaw-droppingly illogical. But as if the illogic were not enough -- it is ironically coming from the same people who vehemently dismiss the notion of a virgin birth. So, at least there is comedy to be enjoyed.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 08:40 AM

BB- Certainly the statement "1. The human fetus is, from conception, a human being." must be considered seriously. If one accepts it, than anyone using "morning after" contraception must be considered a murderer.
The alternative, is, of course, to arrive at a legal definition of the stage of fetal development that qualifies as a human being. THis can make the legalities of contraception and early abortion workable, but only t the expense of the beliefs of those to whom question 1 is inarguably true.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 08:17 AM

BillD,

I fail to understand how you do NOT imply that: Can you please state what condition of the fetus it IS that you believe removes it's full humanity?

The points addressed by Nickhere MUST be addressed directly: Those opposed to abortion have the opinions that
1. The human fetus is, from conception, a human being.
2. The deliberate killing of a human being, without the due process of the law, is murder.

I may not agree with point 1, but it MUST be addressed and not ignored. When DOES a fetus become a human being? When it is delivered? When it first shows brain activity? All definitions open up the prospect of that definition being applied to cases that one may NOT agree are correct, even if one is in favor of "choice".

Is a miscarriage manslaughter? Is the failure to take proper pre-natal care deliberate injury to the child?


As a slight aside, here is something ( on the thread topic) from the Washington Post:

"This is a strange, distorted view of pluralism, which once meant civility, respect and common enterprise among people with strongly held and differing convictions. In the liberal view, pluralism means a public square purged of intolerance -- defined as the belief in exclusive truth-claims and absolute right and wrong. And this view of pluralism can easily become oppressive, as the "intolerant" are expected to be silent."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/28/AR2007082801441.html

from the same article:

The most passionate defenders of my beliefs," says Jindal, "have come from people who don't share my beliefs." In one account in the Times-Picayune, the senior pastor of the First Baptist Church of New Orleans, David E. Crosby, gave this reaction to Jindal's writings: "Anybody who reads this whole article and ends up angry just needs to grow up." That is a good definition of genuine pluralism -- an adult respect for the strong convictions of others.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Nickhere
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 07:24 PM

Amos, I can only refer you back to my previous posts.

As for 'not being capable of sustaining life on its own' and similar arguments, does that mean very ill elderly, severly mentally handicapped and babies are all sub-human or less than human? Come on, lads, in all fairness..... where do you draw the line? A spermatoza has only half the gametes. Come on, this is elementary biology, for all the talk of scince and rationality...

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: folk1e
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 10:03 PM

This thread is getting long now ....... but looking back to the beginning....... I think that it is more important to control actions rather than thaughts!
If no negative action is taken does it realy matter what the person thinks? More to the point His/ her children will not be subjected to the actions and will gain some level of independant thaught.

My second point is that whilst I believe that I am correct in all things, I am by no means certain of this fact! I will allow other opposing viewpoints the space to air their arguements and, where valid I will modify my own thaughts to accomodate them. I would hope that others are equally able to gain from my own pearls of wisdom, or ignore them at their own expense. Of course "actions" include verbal response as well.

On the subject of Abortion ...... a newborn babe is not capable of sustaining its own life ....... and a single spermazoa is capable of creating a new life (in the right circumstances).
Fundamentalism is fundamentaly wrong!   .... nuff said

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Amos
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 09:33 PM

Nick:

I don't see a sound scientific basis for considering the individual to begin at conception. I do not accept that the individual himself IS a body, or anymore harmed by a first trimester abortion than he is by his father practicing Onanism the week before conception. The volved wisdom after Wade vs Roe was that abortion was contraindicated after the second trimester of pregnancy.   That's a scientific or medical basis. There is a world of difference between a possible organism and an actual one. The problem is by pushing that definition back further and further, you have decided on whatever basic grounds to elevate the interest of a life process within a host over the interest -- and self-determination -- of the host organism who is without question an operational, legal human being.

I think you should leave Roe vs Wade well enough alone, unless or until there is a clear scientific understanding available -- not just a religio-moral instinct -- on which to base a wiser proposal.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 09:00 PM

"please cite the law which made abortion legal"

Here we get into an interesting legal area - if the Law of the Land 'permits all things that that are not specifically denied' - as is often the case, then no law is needed to 'make anything legal' - you can only 'make certain specific things illegal'.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: pdq
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 08:41 PM

"Thomas Paine...would say that government is by the living for the living and the living cannot be bound by the dead. Laws can and do change."

Nice quote, but there is one slight problem. If you would, please cite the law which made abortion legal. I cannot recall one.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 08:37 PM

"argument(s) for the humanity of the unborn"

I personally have some philosophical difficulty for totally accepting the status of 'humanity' for an individual that is unable to 'survive on its own'. In past cultures, with high infant death rates, this was often at an age of several years - now the concept of 'premmie babies' has permanently entered our culture - at least until the 'Great Catastrophe' when Medical Science goes backwards technically...

Totally accepting that 'humanity' can arbitarily be granted to any other 'state of existence' than that above can lead to some serious nightmares - some of which have been explored by fiction writers.

Totally denying the 'status of humanity' though - as I discussed above, also seems fraught with danger - some possible paths have been explored by writers, as well as graphically illustrated by past episodes of History.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 08:35 PM

Nickhere-
You nailed it!

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Nickhere
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 08:25 PM

Hi Bill!


"The point being, no one tells someone opposed to abortion that they must have one..(and if there are cases of this, I'm am opposed to it!)...so no one should make a general law that those who view abortion as sad, but sometimes the best course, cannot ever utilize it"

I think everyone is intent on shaping the kind of society we feel to be the best. This applies to all - atheist and religious alike. And whether we like it or not, the majority voice generally manges to decide what kind of society we'll have. Paradigms shift too, or pendulum back and forth. I think that's what Jean Francois Revel was on about. So today we have one kind of paradigm, tomorrow, who knows?

Thomas Paine has already dealt with the idea of 'stare decisis' in his "Rights of Man". He would say that government is by the living for the living and the living cannot be bound by the dead. Laws can and do change. Sometimes we like those changes, sometimes we don't. When we don't, we try and change them to our liking. This is what happened before Roe v. Wade and may yet happen again. The issue of abortion is a good example of how sections of society 'fight' over meaning and form, being such a controversial and polemic issue. Other things matter less to both camps and are fought over less vigorously and are less noticeable, but they are there all the same. back at the time of WW1, the world was full of jingoism, and Ministers could still call themselves Ministers for War. There has been a subtle but definite change in the 'commonsense' since then and now the same Ministers find it necessary to call themselves Ministers for Defence, though their role has hardly changed. This is just another example of how society is not something static but almost a living organism as it were that constantly struggles to define itself among its conflicting elements.



"Now...the 'others' wish to make the issue a matter of just getting more conservative judges on the courts and thus making a subjective, religiously based, moral position the law of the land"

I think I have presented a solid scientific argument for the humanity of the unborn child from conception. Some people will use the term 'zygote' or whatever as a way of distancing themselves from the humanity of the new life, but the reality is is that the life is part of a continuum beginning at conception and ending at death. Similarly child, teenager and adult all mark different stages in a person's development but at no point would we say a child is less human than a teenager or an adult.

But if a person accepts neither scientific nor religious argument for the humanity of the unborn, I really don't know where to go next. Except to suggest that such a person is now acting out from the basis of their own subjective belief and supporting the current position of the law from that belief.

Is there anyone out there who thinks the general prohibition on homicide should be a matter left to personal individual choice?

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 11:43 AM

why, thank you L.H...I will bask in that compliment until you read my response to YOU in the Sheehan thread...*grin*

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 11:35 AM

Bill D - "No, Bruce...it doe NOT imply any such thing...it only shows that I did not write a long enough compound/complex sentence to include & exclude every possible contingency that you could possibly imagine by applying brute force to the edges of my linguistic endeavors."


Awright!!!!!! That should be written in gold. (I am applauding you vigorously, here, Bill...if I could I would shake your hand and break out the champagne and offer you a glass.)

That precise response would apply well to oh, probably at least 50% of the objections raised against other people's statements by argumentative types on this forum.

The average arguer looks not for any agreement, not for a reasonable resolution, not for any common ground, but for a chink, any chink, real or imagined, in his opponent's armor...whereby he can slide a knife through the aperture and do deadly harm to his opponent's entire thesis! Thus the utter banality and the unhelpful nature of most arguments here and elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Amos
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 11:02 AM

Applying brute force to the edges of your linguistic endeavors??!?!!!

I never knew such endeavours even had edges. Especially not the sort that could be exposed to brute force (or any other kind of force, except p'raps rhetorical or editorial).

Anyway, BB's counterpoint is fallacious, given the original distinction you were trying to make. But he's an engineer scientist type, and has to double check all outputs against requirements and specifications. We should be glad he is keeping it up, so to speak.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 10:55 AM

No, Bruce...it doe NOT imply any such thing...it only shows that I did not write a long enough compound/complex sentence to include & exclude every possible contingency that you could possibly imagine by applying brute force to the edges of my linguistic endeavors.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 06:41 AM

BillD,

I actually agree with most of your position. HOWEVER, you have stated ".."....I can only shake my head at the stretching of definitions that lets anyone even suggest that the status of a fetus is comparable to that of a group of living humans who can talk, argue and be objectively shown to have as much 'humanity' as their oppressors"


This seems to imply that if a group DOES NOT talk, argue, and be objectively shown to have as much 'humanity' you would agree that they are not fully human. Please clarify- THAT I will NOT agree with.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Aug 07 - 01:59 PM

What we all find difficult to take from other people is aggression...either expressed actively and obviously...or expressed more subtly. Lack of respect is a form of aggression. Intolerance is a form of aggression. Sarcasm and contempt are forms of aggression. Ridicule is a form of aggression. Condescension is a form of aggression. Saying "I pity you" is a form of aggression.

It's not surprising we find it difficult to deal with any of those forms of aggression. Animals react the same way to aggression, and they're usually good at picking it up even if it's pretty subtle.

I believe that's what Janie is referring to in her post when she says, "What will push my buttons is when a person, by the manipulative and gamey manner in which they post, demonstrate they have not taken responsibility for examining and owning, as fully as possible, the basis for their beliefs, and who espouse beiefs that are clearly as much of a defense mechanism as a conclusion arrived at after a diciplined self-examination of one's own values."

Exactly. It's people's defense mechanisms that trigger alarms in us. Most of us (if not all of us) have a few such defense mechanisms that kick in automatically when certain touchy subjects (like religion or politics) come up. By reacting defensively we immediately signal that we are ready for a fight, and we ourselves launch the first attack on the level of the subtle nervous system. That bothers other people (unless they happen to agree with us), and they tend to become defensive also, and they counterattack in a similar fashion...or in the fashion that fits their style. If they do agree with us, then they cheer us on, and they help gang up on the people who disagree with us and them. After that it all basically gets nastier, uglier, more petty, and more long-winded....

That's what I see happening over and over again on all the contentious threads on this forum. I don't know anyone here who has failed to fall into this trap, including myself (needless to say, I hope!).

Chongo falls into this trap almost constantly, but he simply doesn't give a damn. ;-) He is almost never tortured by the kind of self-doubts and self-criticism that make me question my own failings in this regard.

The thing that totally pisses me off is the people who are technically smart enough to engage in such honest self-observation and self-criticism....but it never even occurs to them. Not once.   They only notice negative behaviour when other people are doing it.

I can excuse that in a chimp. I have difficulty excusing it in a human being.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 25 Aug 07 - 01:34 PM

Bill-
I guess what I object to is the apparent interchangeability of "respect" and "understand". I can certainly understand (at least intellectually) most people's beliefs and opinions, but I'm damned if I feel compelled to respect them.
    It's not feasible, I'm afraid, to deal rationally with positions that one feels are irrational. This, of course, doen's mean that politeness isn't a good idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 10:44 PM

Well, Dick...it is largely a matter of careful use of language.
I do not exactly 'respect' their opinions: at least the extreme ones, and whether I have any respect for the person depends on what I perceive as the intent behind the position...but I usually am aware of the history of their positions and I try keep some perspective as to how they got to such a position and how much pressure some people are under to not even try to think any other way.
What I am aware of is that calling them names and heaping direct ridicule on their position and thought process is a sure way to harden resistance and close the defenses even tighter....and often in these discussions, I am not even talking directly to those with the most egregious mistakes in their logic and most dangerous approach to implementation of their ideas....but rather, I am typing for the benefit of others who may be reading this without comment, and who may absorb some reason from comparing ideas....and doing this helps ME sort out exactly what **I** think....

I suppose I could just say "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar..."...but I'm hooked on tedious blather...*grin*

Anyway...the complexities in sorting out 'respecting' from 'agreeing' from 'understanding' from 'noting'..etc...are myriad. I have actually had a couple of members who do not usually agree with me say.."well, Bill, at least your posts make me think..."...and I guess that's a pretty good achievement in a forum like this!

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Janie
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 10:17 PM

I'm referencing back to PMB's original post, which was not about specific beliefs, but about respecting the beliefs of others.

Been reflecting on this personally, thinking about what pushes my buttons in posts from people who do not share my own beliefs. As a general statement, I think it is not beliefs different from my own that push my buttons. What will push my buttons is when a person, by the manipulative and gamey manner in which they post, demonstrate they have not taken responsibility for examining and owning, as fully as possible, the basis for their beliefs, and who espouse beiefs that are clearly as much of a defense mechanism as a conclusion arrived at after a diciplined self-examination of one's own values.

Having said that, when people whose values are close to my own demonstrate the same lack of self-examination, I notice it, but don't find myself feeling angry or intolerant.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 07:43 PM

Bill-
"And, to answer the claim that practitioners of genocide could ALSO claim that they were acting in good faith because they "considered members of group B to be sub-human.."....I can only shake my head at the stretching of definitions that lets anyone even suggest that the status of a fetus is comparable to that of a group of living humans who can talk, argue and be objectively shown to have as much 'humanity' as their oppressors."

I happen to agree whole-heartedly with you--but I fail to see how you're willing to respect their opinions. Or them, for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Amos
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 07:32 PM

When Greenpeace rams and sinks a whaling vessel, or PETA bombs a laboratory, or a zealot shoots and kills a doctor who does abortions, they are entering the ranks of the criminal. This has nothing to do with their moral postures, but with their violation of the commons. It is because religious judgments, rather than actual data, are so often involved in such extreme choices, that it was rightfully banned from the real of common law by the Bill of Rights.

You are under no obligation to perform, receive, condone, pay for, provide or refer others to an abortion. They, by rights, should be under no obligation to answer to you or anyone else, should they decide to have one.

This means, of course that I am not recognizing your assertion that the moment of conception is equal to the moment of human individual identity and protection under the law.

I suggest that if the energy spent on the abortion issue by those whose desire it is to meddle in other people's lives on moral grounds were instead spent on protecting the lives of already extant individual human beings, by eliminating war, executions, and other forms of murder, the results would be far more beneficial to the cause of viable civilization.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 05:17 PM

It's been a couple of days, but I do owe The Snail a reply.(yesterday was just too broken up to allow me to sit and compose properly...and there were other posts which referred to both MY posts and his.

The issue seems to be my contention that, in the case of abortion...since no absolute authority & proof of "God's Will" can be established, the law should allow individual preferences to be the deciding factor.

The Snail said:
"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 really DO see what you are getting at, but I am going to pick on the phrasing. Indeed *I* have no standing to officially tell them "to mind their own business", although *I* can try to persuade them otherwise. But, since you are correct that they DO see themselves as obligated to "intervene", there needs to be some mechanism to decide whether they can or not, and what should be done when they attempt this.
There are many, many issues in which groups with moral absolutes feel obligated to press their point, even when their point is not supported in law. One obvious example is PETA.
There are various things to consider in deciding HOW the efforts of special interest groups like this should be treated...especially when they are angling to get their position embedded in the law of the land. Right now, the 'basic' law on abortion, Roe V. Wade, does say that the wishes of the immediate parties concerned are paramount.....(in other words, the 'implicit' answer is that others SHOULD "mind their own business")

Now...the 'others' wish to make the issue a matter of just getting more conservative judges on the courts and thus making a subjective, religiously based, moral position the law of the land.

Is this accurate so far?

To me, this should not BE an issue that can swing back & forth every few decades, depending on who can muster the most emotionally charged votes and political clout....which is why I referred to the notion of stare decisis. It makes no sense to allow anyone...even a minority, to have their personal beliefs controlled by the inner workings of a basically religious doctrine. I am advocating a law...even a Constitutional amendment...that removes certain issues from being batted back & forth like a shuttlecock...and makes 'personal' issues like sexual orientation--(not all 'behavior'...just orientation) and like the control of the destiny of a fetus, immune from oversight by other parties whose ultimate justification is the varied interpretation of unproven claims about the presumed wishes of some ambiguous Supreme Being. (wow...you have to begin talking like a lawyer in order to MAKE some points)


And, to answer the claim that practitioners of genocide could ALSO claim that they were acting in good faith because they "considered members of group B to be sub-human.."....I can only shake my head at the stretching of definitions that lets anyone even suggest that the status of a fetus is comparable to that of a group of living humans who can talk, argue and be objectively shown to have as much 'humanity' as their oppressors.

I could go off on tangents showing how Aristotle, Kant and others have argued that 'some' moral principles can be defended by logic alone...but that is really too complex to get into here, except to say that we DO use some of those philosophic principles everyday to do things like tell the kids, "don't hit Johnny...how would you like it if he did that to you?"....The point being, no one tells someone opposed to abortion that they must have one..(and if there are cases of this, I'm am opposed to it!)...so no one should make a general law that those who view abortion as sad, but sometimes the best course, cannot ever utilize it.


I HOPE I answered the relevant points of what was asked of me.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Nickhere
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 02:57 PM

Fair point LH. I think " Most of them agreed on known facts, such as are presented in math, science, etc...while they disagreed on much more subjective matters, matters which cannot be substantiated by fact" pretty much sums it up.

I suppose thinking of the thread topic - beliefs and society and whether beliefs (i.e non-empirically verifiable beliefs) should play any role in that society. I think we can agree beliefs (whether religious or not) do play a big part in shaping society, an unavoidable condition, which is stating the obvious.

I have tried to argue that Christianity has a lot to offer society. Science can tell us new life begins at conception, but we need something else in order to decide what to do about thsi fact once we know it. Of course invariably we get back to the same point of either a) you can't sceintifically prove God exists so religion is suspect or b) religion is worthless since it has been misused in the past by the bad-intentioned and is only about dominating and manipulating people.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 12:54 PM

Most of the people I've known in my life were pretty rational about most things, regardless of whether they were "religious" or not. Most of them had little trouble recognizing facts, understanding physical reality or engaging in rational thought. Most of them agreed on known facts, such as are presented in math, science, etc...while they disagreed on much more subjective matters, matters which cannot be substantiated by fact.

Further to that, most of them were irrational about a certain few things...again, regardless of whether they were "religious" or not. ;-)

Therefore, I think all this ballyhoo about rationality (as if it could be determined by whether or not a person is religious) is a waste of bandwith.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 06:13 AM

Good post, Nickhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Amos
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 10:21 PM

I think you are seriously underselling rationality.

I have seen no principle here that is imposed from without by Christian or other codes, that could not be better found for oneself by seeking right thought and integrity. So I feel these ingredients, being observable in degrees in every human, make for a far more elegant and less complex answer.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 10:03 PM

No...I'm in favor of birth control over pregnancy... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Nickhere
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 10:02 PM

Plus it would be possible for a group to survive by mutual assistiance but without any altruism being involved, and perhaps with everyone's 'hands on their holsters'. Christianity demands something deeper than that (and of course is not the only religion to do so)

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Nickhere
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 09:58 PM

Yes, but even in a group it would be possible for human rationality to decide "f*** everyone else, I'm taking what I want because I need it now, even if I have to kill for it" especially if their own survival conflicted with the needs of the group. This has happened at times. Christian morality though will not allow this (even though it can be ignored if one wishes) since it answers to something (or someone) higher than our own egos.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Amos
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 09:54 PM

I can only say that while I am touched by our descriptions, I think you are doing yourself a disservice in your impression of "human only" logic. Compassion is a survival trait, in case this has not been pointed out; individuals survive in a network, and the quality of that network is defined by the degree of understanding in it.   It was very good of Jesus to point this out, but any individual can discover it for himself using human-only means.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Nickhere
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 09:46 PM

Sorry, in that last post I said LH was in favour of birth-control over abortion. Of course, that should have been Joe Offer. Apologies to all concerned for any misundersatnding! It took over an hour to write that last post and sometimes details get mixed up....excuses excuses...

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Nickhere
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 09:32 PM

I'd just like to add a few comments there (allowing for the limitations of the internet as a communication media as mentioned above already!)

Mentioning the argument some people make for abortion, i.e in the case where the child might or will be born handicapped: It's seems logical enough, the parents will be spared the difficulty of raising such a child and the child itself won't have to live their lives as a half-human (sorry if anyone is offended by that last phrase, but that is what is implied by abortion for the handicapped).

The problems with this are:

As I mentioned already, every new human life from conception has to be taken as unique. By aborting a handicapped person we 1) tell them they are not fit to live 2) deny their humanity 3) make a decision about their right to live on their behalf without consulting them. Where then is the mutual respect and toleration? A handicapped person may or may not want to terminate their lives. Even when they are alive it would be probably be difficult in some cases to ascertain whether the handicapped person actually wants to live or die (e.g in cases of mental handicap), and of course it's currently impossible for us to know their opinion when they are developing in the womb. So who are we to make a decision like this over their lives? Would we like it if someone made the same unilateral decision on our behalf? Who are we to say such-and-such a person shouldn't even have their short span of life?

The Catholic Church (for one) has held that everyone, being a unique human life created by God, has the right to life (not that this stopped them from burning people at the stake, but disregard of the principle does not invalidate the principle) and only God can and should make the decision about when a person leaves this world (which is one reason why killing is wrong according to Christians). Kiling someone before God 'calls' them may mean they do not get the chance to fulfill the plan God had in store for them, and for which their killer will be held to account by God, whatever their reasons for killing were at the time. But I'm talking theology here now and I suppose some of you may have switched off already. But don't worry, I'll be back to 'rational thought' right after these commercials.... ;-))

The other similar argument is that a fetus is not solely-viable (i.e cannot live unsupported) and therefore cannot be regarded as fully human. It doesn't take too long to see where that argument logically leads. Many other humans cannot live unsupported either: how long do you think a 3-month old baby, a severly retarded adult or a very sick elderly person will live if left entirely to their own devices? None of those are fit to live either I suppose, and fit, healthy adults should decided on their lives and deaths for them.

Some have commented on how societies long ago often left out the weak and elderly, or the 'runts', to die. How does this support an argument in favour of abortion? Just because societies in the past were less civilised or hadn't the resources to look after their infirm doesn't give us the right to do likewise. It's a bit like the schoolboy who caught misbehaving says "but Sir, everyone was doing it!" I thought we were supposed to have climbed out of that primordeal slime, and certainly we don't lack resources, so it can only be that we are less civilised than we'd like to think. In my opinion the best hallamark of civilisation a society can have is in how it treats its most vulnerable memebers, and the unborn are surely the most vulnerable of all. Even the poor and discriminated against have a voice.

Then as 3refs said, what about the father's wishes (though if he were the rapist, I feel he has waived the right to call himself a father in the full meaning of the word)? There are two to make a baby, and what if the father desperately wants the child and offers to raise him alone?

I'd agree with LH that birth control is far preferable to abortion. But I also agree with Pdq that sex education doesn't always have the desired result. I suppose a lot depends on how it's done. Simply explaining the mechanics (as they did in my day) is the wrong way I think because sex cannot be divorced from feelings, emotions and responsibilites however much some people might try. And despite pills and condoms some unwanted pregnancies can - and do - occur. I think the best way is to educate children and teenagers to have respect for themselves and to love themselves (in the true sense of the word, and not in the egotistical sense) so that they value what they have, their bodies etc.,
Teenage girls should be aware (that like it or not) teenage boys can be very adept at emotional blackmail to get what they want, and teenage girls don't seem to have enough maturity all the time to say no and wait until they feel more comfortable about it (sorry, teenage lads, disagree with me if you want.... I wouldn't like to tar everyone with the same brushg but I've seen it often enough).

As for rape I know that's a very difficult one. The poor mother has had enough trauma already and then there's the horrible feeling that the child if born will just serve to remind her of her rape.

The first thing I'd say about that is that (in my country anyway) rapists get off WAY too lightly. Six years, eight years, ten years... it's not enough. A rapist has destroyed someone's life and it takes them ages to rebuild it. A 10-year sentence doesn't reflect that, especially as most sentences have years lopped off anyway for 'good behaviour' etc., Personally I think it's something else that should get lopped off, as a start, and I'm quite serious about that. It'd be the most effective way of preventing one kind of recidivism! Then the prison terms should be way upped and far less parole. Rape has to be made as unattractive to would-be rapists as possible.

But with all that, no-one ever seems to advocate the death penalty for the rapist (nor do I). Yet the unfortunate child, who is obviously quite innocent, is the only one who gets this sentence, when they aborted.

So I'd like to share a story with you - I've known at least two women (plus many more at more of a remove) who had babies in very difficult circumstances, both of them close friends of mine. Neither of them wanted their kids at the beginning, both had been deserted by their partners, both of them found the whole business overwhelming. There were lots of tears and wild pendulum swings of "I'll be the best mother in the world" to "I don't want this baby, I'll never bond with it" Turns out most of this is normal pregnancy stuff anyway, just all seems a lot harder and darker when you're also alone.

But of course they weren't really alone. First of all, once their respective families got over the shock, they rallied round. One family had money, the other didn't. But money wasn't what made the difference. It was emotional and moral support. Friends followed suite (real friends anyway). People helped out in whatever way they could. In the case of the first girl, I went with her to the ante-natal classes. It felt a bit weird at first but she wouldn't have gone alone. The classes (and it was a struggle to get her to go) helped her get things in perspective and the birth etc., all began to seem less daunting when broken down in small manageable steps. We were even given a tour of the delivery suite. I went in for the birth (an a amazing experience)

I helped her bring up her child for the first 18 months until she got on her feet and could manage. There was a lot to learn, but it was an experience well worth it. It was amazing how quickly she bonded with baby. One day I couldn't help remarking to her when she was complaining about being alone "you know, what you have there is something many people long for. Treat your child right and you'll have a friend for life and need never be alone" And in my opinion she - depsite all her misgivings - made a great mother.

Ok, so not everyone can take off the time to do this. I was lucky that I was unemployed at the time and it was no great sacrifice to do the stuff. I was amply rewarded by having had the pleasure of knowing that little person for that time and the delight of watching them grow, explore, develop. I am also aware that some people will still feel they would rather have an abortion despite whatever help might be offered, for whatever reason.

But I think abortion lets a lazy society off the hook. It lets irresponsible egotistical men off the hook. It lets an individuality-obsessed society off the hook. It sweeps unwanted people under the carpet. Funding single mothers and their kids through my tax money is one taxation I have no problem with. Obviously i'd prefer it for their sakes' and that of their childrens' that things worked out with their partners and the kids had both parents to raise them. But if it can't be helped, I think tax money spent on single parent allowance is money well spent. It has taken me some time to come round to this view, especially as rumours of some women 'getting pregnant to get the social welfare' does the rounds from time to time (though, for those who believe such stories, it seems a lot of work for not much money). But I am now firmly convinced it is far better to live in a society where single mothers and their children get the help from the State they need, at least.

This is where once again I find myself at the rationality of Christianity, that teaches us we are not isolated islands, but that we have a duty to our neighbour ("and who is my neighbour?" asked the young man, so Jesus told him the story of the good samaritan). Logical human-only rationality could be used to convince myself I had a good case in simply looking after my own interest, in investing my resources only in myself (and I have done this from time to time also, more often than I'd like) - I again refer to the example of Grenouille from 'Perfume' who was not simply "obsessed' (as someone said back up this thread), but had his own peculiar rationality with which to justify that obsession. Christian rationality will not allow me this. And in the end of the day, this is far better for our society.

Ok, that's enough out of me for the moment, sorry for going on so long!!

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 05:32 PM

I suspect that kids from 12-15 are going to VERY interested in sex, whether they get informed answers in a class, or misinformation and dares from their peers. I'd rather SOMEONE had told them how & why to understand and control that aspect of life...but too many parents are not interested or not capable.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 03:18 PM

I think it's common sense, PDQ. When children reach the age when they can procreate, they sure as heck ought to understand that particular function of their bodies. If their parents and teachers haven't given them balanced sex education appropriate to their age level, they're going to pick up all sorts of misconceptions from their friends and learn the rest by experimentation.

There's all kinds of hooey from the naysayers about how our schools are teaching our kids to be homosexuals and encouraging promiscuity, but I think that's a lot of bull. Most teachers I know are good, reasonable people with good values, and I can't believe they're undermining the values of our nation and preaching promiscuity.

My kids learned about promiscuity all on their own....unfortunately. I'm glad they're 30 and out of that phase.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: pdq
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 11:49 AM

Joe Offer says: "Sex education can be a big help"

I think that is wishful thinking. Any proof of this contention?

Children in the 12-15 year old range often beome more curious about sex during sex education classes. They sometimes use what they learn as a "how-to" guide.

I believe children who are subjected to sex education courses in junior high school are more likely to begin experimenting than those who have not had these classes.

---

PDQ - I think you misunderstand how to close italics and other HTML tags. You used </> - you have to use </i> to close italics, </b> to close bold, </u> to close underline, and so forth.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Amos
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 11:16 AM

Part of this complex issue, as mentioned below, is that especially in the past, an unwed mother was viewed as a disgrace, an embarassment, to be hidden and scorned and otherwise looked down on. The reason for all this being that she went with the lively demands of her own body or heart (and/or her seducer's) instead of remaining rigorously observant of the morals of her Victorian or Puritan society.

Hell hath no fury like an arbitrary moral code scorned, you know.

If this social disapprobation were NOT in play, there would be far fewer abortions.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 11:12 AM

quick reply to Joe...I'll 'try' to sort thru some of the rest later.

Joe...of course I agree that abortion is a sad, troublesome and unpleasant procedure. Even when done 'early' and for the BEST of reasons, it is not a happy thing. I truly wish to see as few abortions occurring as possible.

You & I know all the debates about the metaphysical issues in abortion, and those are literally not solvable. Some people just 'believe' that once an egg is fertilized, 'life' is present, and the embryo has a 'soul'...etc....and others believe that until a baby can survive outside the womb, it is not a 'human' yet...etc...etc.

Even folks who don't believe in ANY 'soul' can be tormented by terminating a pregnancy, no matter what the reason....so sure, I am all for education, birth control, as much abstinence as folks can deal with and VERY careful counseling for anyone considering an abortion. I just don't consider it a religious 'sin'.....and there are several paragraphs of explanation as to what I'd consider a 'moral' transgression.

...and some of my feelings are from sad personal experience

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 11:02 AM

I am firmly in the camp that makes allowances for abortion in the case of rape, and would recommend it in the case of saving the life of the mother. But both of those "exceptions" are informed BY my Christian theology -- NOT in spite of it.

But having said that, it has just GOT to be the most statistically illogical diversionary rhetorical tactic in the history of mankind to always bring up those two exceptions in the face of over a million abortions performed every year. Of the number of the MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of abortions that have occurred over the past twenty years, the number performed for either the life of the mother, or in the case of rape or incest, has got to be statistically insignificant.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: 3refs
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 09:23 AM

"I know exactly what you mean, Bill. I believe you don't have the time. I know I don't. ;-) This internet communication...compared to actually talking to someone in 3-D...is frankly, for the birds. (in a manner of speaking)".
I can't write it like I want to say it. Never could. Don't possess the necessary skills. like Max Baer's description of Jethro Bodine's literary expertise, "He could lift a ton, but he couldn't spell it". I can't punctuate properly and if it wasn't for spell check, I'd be in big big trouble!
So, I'm going to try and give ya'll my slant on these very touchy subjects and try my hardest not to piss off too many!
Very little has been said about spirituality. I had to read many posts before the word was even mentioned. I know enough about the 6 major religions of the world to conclude that they have more in common than not(who is mentioned in the Koran at least 25 times?)! I think it would be safe to say that all religious followers believe in something beyond our earthly existence. Many who are not followers of any particular discipline still believe in heaven and hell. Many believe in "something", and there are those who feel that we just simply die and return to the earth as fertilizer. We can't forget about the fringe few who believe in, well, the unbelievable! I choose to take what I consider the best values from all disciplines and use them. I hope this approach allows me to treat most peoples with dignity and respect. I step on a lot of toes though! Some deserve neither respect nor to be treated in a dignified manner. I believe in all possibilities! Anything can happen! If a person is accepted as being on this planet. There is no doubt as to his place in history and these are some of his words, and I accept them as being good words, doesn't mean that I believe in everything he says! The same goes for those that there is no physical proof of their existence. Only their words and some of them may be good words! Should one be castigated because of ones belief ? It depends on that belief. The mutilation of women because of cultural acceptance is unacceptable to me under any circumstance. Would I cut off a thief's hand? Not likely, but I'd execute a murderer. I wouldn't if the evidence was only circumstantial though.
I don't believe that all abortions are an abomination! I think abortion as a means of birth control is, kind of! If we don't perform the procedure the mother will die, absolutely! The child will be born with a developmental disability or deformity , maybe it's best! I don't think you can say that all abortions, regardless of your personal convictions, are sinful or against the laws of humanity. I think each must be treated on its own merit. I would much rather have a child put to rest as humanly and as dignified as possible, as opposed to partial birth abortions! It's people who invoke laws that allow such a procedure that are abominations!

And what about the Dad? What rights does he have? If it's legal and the mother chooses to "terminate the pregnancy " the father has no say! If she chooses to keep the child, he has no say! He just gets to open the wallet or go to jail. I'm not talking about "deadbeat dads" who run out on their children. They should be hunted down and dealt with accordingly! I'm talking more along the lines of the "one nighter" and it's in this regard that I think the playing field is a little unfair. And yes, yer right, I don't think that men are just as responsible as women!

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: TheSnail
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 07:08 AM

Little Hawk

We're so busy thinking about the particular points that we ourselves most want to make...that we usually fail to clearly grasp and appreciate the points others want to make...and we don't comprehend the motives and concerns that drive them, because we are occupied in comprehending our own motives and drives, and that takes up most of our energy and thought.

I think that covers what I was trying to say to Bill. To effectively oppose someone's argument, you have to fully understand it. Otherwise, you end up attacking it for the wrong reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 06:28 AM

I agree Joe, that it would be desirable to minimise the number of abortions. There is of course a lot of discussion to be had about what 'minimise' means in this context, but that kind of grey area was really what I was trying to start the 'mutual respect' discussion for in the first place.

IO think that those opposed to abortion would be better trying to reduce the reasons why people want abortions- and the Catholic Church in particular does itself few favours in this respect by opposing contraception too. Why do people have abortions:

Poverty - they believe that they can't support more children, or the upbringing of their existing children would be compromised.

Ignorance- they don't know how to avoid becoming pregnant which is often connected with-

Stigma (this was probably the main reason up to the 70s at least)- they will be socially disadvantaged in their community if they have the child.

Health: they (and their doctors) believe that they could be seriously damaged by continuing pregnancy.

Abuse: they have conceived unwillingly, and believe that to carry the foetus to term would emphasise the power of the abuser over them.

Change of circumstances: a rational decision to have a child has been overthrown by, say, loss of a partner whose support was integral to that decision.

Career: their future prospects of earnings or fulfilment would be destroyed or severely limited by the responsibility for a child.

Human wickedness: the devil has tempted them to commit the sin of murder.

Add your own reasons here....

I'm not saying that all these considerations are of equivalent weight or worth, but if you REALLY want to reduce abortions, rather than merely have the pleasure of denouncing those stupid, unfortunate, ambitious, ill or wicked women who have them, the best strategy would be to take measures that would limit the force of these reasons. Unfortunately, too many take fundamentalist lines on not just this issue, but many others. They want their cake and eat it- although pverty causes abortions, they resist welfare programs. They oppose contaceptive advice. They oppose active career support that would allow children to be supported by single working mothers. Et cetera.

Talking of mutual respect, my cousin is a Catholic priest. When my mother was dying, she asked him (she was a lifelong Catholic) what was the current Church belief about euthanasia. His reply was to the effect that they were agin it, but that any priest worth his communion wine would tactfully look the other way. We were both grateful that the palliative care given ensured that it never came to the point.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 04:50 AM

Well, there may be some drawbacks in Internet discussion, but it does give a chance to mull things over and explore them.

I guess I have to say there IS a difference for me on the subject of abortion, because I know many reasonable, decent people who do not agree with me that abortion is wrong. But I still think it's wrong, that it's taking a life - and I feel compelled to do what I can to prevent that. If it's something as serious as taking a life, I don't think I can just sit back and watch it happen. On the other hand, as far as I can determine, most women who have abortions, do so in good faith, believing that what they have decided to do is the right thing. Therefore, I think I need to find a different approach, something different from the hard-line approach that attempts to force women not to have abortions. The Catholic Church doesn't agree with me (yet), but I think preventing unwanted pregnancies by birth control is the most effective way to prevent abortion. Sex education can be a big help. Prenatal care and assistance in adoption can help, too - but birth control, responsible family planning, is the big one.

I know a lot of Catholic lay people who can't agree with me on this. If I talk like this in certain circles, I can get myself hit on the head with picket signs and called all sorts of names and reported to the bishop and such. Interestingly, I know a lot of Catholic priests and nuns who would agree with me. I think there are two reasons for that:

1. Priests and nuns have usually had a higher level of training in moral theology and ethics than lay Catholics, and they understand the "grey areas" of moral decisions.
2. Secondly, most priests and nuns have had direct contact with women who have had to make a decision to have or not have an abortion, so they may have a more realistic view of the complexity of the decision.

So, with eight years of seminary education and a lifetime of church work behind me, that's where I am on the issue - I think abortion is wrong and I want to see the number of abortions reduced as much as possible, but I understand and sympathize with the decisions of women who have chosen to have abortions. I think there's a middle ground, and I think that's what we as a society need to seek out.

-Joe-

Oh, and Bill, would you or would you not concede that while abortion may be necessary in some situations, it is never really a wonderful thing - and it would be worthwhile to reduce the number of abortions?

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 11:19 PM

I know exactly what you mean, Bill. I believe you don't have the time. I know I don't. ;-) This internet communication...compared to actually talking to someone in 3-D...is frankly, for the birds. (in a manner of speaking)

I'd much rather get together over a coffee in the local greasy spoon or donut shop, believe me.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 11:15 PM

I SAID I didn't have time to respond properly at the moment.

sheesh! I usually spend 2 hours and 6 paragraphs on this sort of debate. I'll try again in the morning if I can wade thru the morass of instant critiques which ignored the thrust of my comment.

(and Little Hawk...I really DO hope we can sit down and shoot the breeze over a beer ..or even tea...sometime. This having to compose my remarks in fear that they will live forever is a bit of a strain)_

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 09:59 PM

Bill, I suspect that the basic problem here (the failure we have to communicate effectively with one another) is due to one simple habit that all we humans engage in.

We're so busy thinking about the particular points that we ourselves most want to make...that we usually fail to clearly grasp and appreciate the points others want to make...and we don't comprehend the motives and concerns that drive them, because we are occupied in comprehending our own motives and drives, and that takes up most of our energy and thought.

And I don't think I have the time to solve that conundrum. ;-) So I give up too. But not because I'm upset or anything. I just honestly don't have enough time to give it all proper attention right now, so I'd by wasting your time and mine trying to figure it out. And it probably wouldn't change anything anyway, would it? No, for sure it wouldn't.

Anyway, there are lots of other people here who seem to want to talk about it, so you'll never run out of dialogue on the matter. ;-)

We mutually surrender, Bill. It just ain't worth the bother.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 09:37 PM

"Thanks all the same John but I could manage without your support"

Not meant as support. If you'll notice the times of our postings, we merely cross-posted. I wanted to find out Bill's response, so I asked him again.

But you're welcome all the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 09:30 PM

Actually, it has just come to mind that in cultures even earlier than ours, children (because of the high infant mortality) were not offically named, or considered 'living' until som eyears of age - that too has changed.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 09:28 PM

One viewpoint was that until the fertilised egg could 'survive on its own' it should not be 'called human'. Once that was a simple thing, now with medical intervention advances, the once 'clear line' has become blurred.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: TheSnail
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 09:19 PM

John Hardly

Bill, you cherry-picked Snail's excellent inquiry.

Thanks all the same John but I could manage without your support.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 09:14 PM

Bill, you cherry-picked Snail's excellent inquiry.

You said...

"right...I see that position. I didn't claim that my simply stating a reasonable compromise would convince 'true believers' to agree with me...what I said was that the LAW should reflect it, so those who had no particular religious beliefs would not be subject to the whims of 'believers'"

Even if they are...

"...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."

?

And you didn't offer a "compromise". You offered a "position".   And that position is getting further afield so that is is you who are starting to sound like the "true believer" that you criticize the religious for being. Because it is the two on this thread who are inquiring/posting from the religious point of view are also the ones, relative to the question of abortion, who are bringing objective scientific discovery INTO the issue -- NOT eschewing it as you claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: TheSnail
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 09:11 PM

BillD

right...I see that position. I didn't claim that my simply stating a reasonable compromise would convince 'true believers' to agree with me...what I said was that the LAW should reflect it, so those who had no particular religious beliefs would not be subject to the whims of 'believers'.

Sorry Bill but you're still not getting it. I hate to see positions I agree with being undermined by flawed arguments. It's 2AM here. I'll try and express myself better in the morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 08:59 PM

"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."

right...I see that position. I didn't claim that my simply stating a reasonable compromise would convince 'true believers' to agree with me...what I said was that the LAW should reflect it, so those who had no particular religious beliefs would not be subject to the whims of 'believers'.

and speaking of that....I will have to defer detailed answers to Joe's and other points right now to go watch "God's Warriors" on CNN....the 2nd of 3 nights by Christianne Amanpour about the conflicts and issues affecting the Middle East and the world in general.

GO WATCH IT!

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Nickhere
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 08:42 PM

I should have more accurately said in the second last post, last line "...that the 'fetus' is not a new human life..."

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Nickhere
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 08:39 PM

Yes, Alba, I'm pretty sure that's the one. It was a long time ago, and unfortuantely i have only lately developed the habit of making a note of author's names of books I liked... I usually just wanted to plough straight into the contents.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Nickhere
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 08:36 PM

I would like to add another point (ever so slightly off thread, but anyway... ;-) )

No, once again we have no scientific proof of the soul's existence, but we can pinpoint the moment whne new human life begins scientifically. As anyone who has studied basic biology knows each parent carries half the number of gametes needed to create the new life. The woman carries half the gametes in the egg, the man the other half in the sperm. Thus neither the egg nor the sperm are individual lives in their own right as they are merely copies of the parent DNA. But when they fuse - the moment of conception - they have the full complement of gametes that create a new, unique life. It is neither the mother nor the father, but something more than the sum of the parts. The DNA that is needed to design the whole new person, the fingerprints etc., is all present. And what starts off as a single cell with its unique DNA rapidly develops into a unique human being with unique fingerprints, iris patterns etc.,

Thus we can say that a new human life is created at the moment of conception and that any deliberate termination of that life from that point on, constitues murder.

And that argument is not based on 'beliefs' or 'faith' but on 'cold' scientific facts.

The Catholic Church for one has long maintained that new human life began in the womb from conception and that every human being is a unique creation.

Not so long ago it would have been possible for anyone to poo-poo this idea and ask 'how do we KNOW that for SURE?' They could have argued that perhaps life didn't begin until we could feel the baby kick and therefore could be sure there was life in the womb or any of a dozen other arbitary milestones.

They could also have argued that perhaps in this world there might be two identical people, so that it is not certain that everyone is unique, as the Catholic church had maintained. We cannot know for sure because we'd have to compare everyone, plus science had no way of measuring things like iris differences etc.,

So it is interesting to see that science has finally caught up with old Church wisdom and we can now provide - after many centuries - scientific proof that new life does indeed begin at conception and that everyone is a unique individual, even identicfal twins. Makes you wonder what other wisdom science might have to catch up with.

As John has said, if people wish to press ahead with (intentional) abortion anyway, reasoning that a 'fetus' is not human, they are not doing so on a scientific basis.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Alba
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 08:32 PM

I think the Book that Nickhere may be thinking of is The Totalitarian Temptation by Jean Francois Revel.
Just a thought.
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: TheSnail
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 08:19 PM

BillD

So...given this situation, the ***ONLY*** possible answer to questions like abortion and harvesting stem cells is...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.

Just to make my position clear, I describe myself as a scientific rationalist, as far as religion is concerned, I quite like Ignosticism.

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Nickhere
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 08:17 PM

Bill D: "So...given this situation, the ***ONLY*** possible answer to questions like abortion and harvesting stem cells is...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"

Ok, but how does one not participate when one is forced to? For instance if the taxes I pay go towards such programs, then I am being obliged to participate by others who believe such programs are morally Ok, or who do not have any moral viewpoint on the matter but approach it with 'cold logic' ("I need this body part for a better world -in my terms - and therefore I will take it").

The people who advocate such programs, and moreover, who insist tax money should be spent on them, are indeed obliging others to live in a kind of society not to their liking. When the same people poo-poo the objections of those opposed to these programs, they in turn are 'presuming to tell others how to behave' and what values to have.

Perhaps such people could show their mutual respect by ending tax support for these programs and insisting they be a matter for private funding by individuals who agree with them. I would still disagree with the programs, but at least I would feel my own participation was no longer obligatory through my taxes.

At the end of the day the kind of society we live in is the result of the negotiation of all our beliefs and wants. Sometimes we work it out like gentlemen through votes and democracy (though politics is often a very dirty business and far from democratic) and at other times people have clubbed or shot it out. We don't want murder in our midst, so we make rules to try and stop it. We don't want open robbery, rape etc., and likewise make rules to stop them. We feel our society would be less civilised and moral if murder, rape and robbery were freely allowed and unpunished.
Some people want abortion, others feel this is murder (except when it is the unintentional byproduct of medical procedures etc., to save the mother's life and health) and would prefer to see it banned from our society. They feel our society would be more civilised etc., without it.

So what do you do if a lobby group wants to lift the ban on homicide? Do you just say "yeah, it's a free world, each to his own'? and don't presume to tell others what to do? Afterall, if the ban is lifted that means you'll be free to kill whomever you like too, so it could work in your favour too (seen in the most rational logical way).

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 07:56 PM

And if I don't like ethnic cleansing, even though it's for the greater good of the race, what should I do about that, Bill? Is simple non-participation an appropriate response?

When you discuss abortion in abstract terms, it's easy to get absolute and say it's either right or wrong. I don't think the decision is that clear-cut - and in your heart of hearts, I think you'd agree. I think you might agree that abortion is not a wonderful thing, and certainly not a cause for celebration. I think you might even agree that it would be good if we could reduce the number of abortions - if we could find another way to reduce the number of unwanted children and unwanted pregnancies. Abortion may be necessary at times - but it's not really a good thing, ever.

I suppose the same goes for capital punishment or warfare, although some people do seem to find the killing of a "bad guy" to be a cause for celebration. Maybe execution or killing in warfare are necessary at times - but whether that killing is good or not is another question. From my point of view, I would say that killing is never good, even when necessary - and I think you'd agree.

This thread is getting long, so I'm not quite clear who first said:

"Christians believe that morality and values are something that need to be referred to a higher authority, named God, who alone has the objectivity and nature to give direction."

I think that's overly simplistic, and it posits that religious moral/ethical systems are based solely on authority and followed solely because of a need to obey authority. I think that most ethical systems are quite rational, based upon shared values may sometimes be universal for humankind. Most ethical systems, be they religious or non-religious, make sense (for the most part). Almost all humans share a value for life, truth, individual accomplishment and possession (i.e., not stealing), and family - and I'd venture a guess that most ethical systems are rational projections of those shared values, not based upon obedience to arbitrary authority.

Religious moral/ethical systems are expressed in a religious context - but most are very similar to non-religious moral codes.

In her book The Great Transformation, Karen Armstrong says most religious moral codes are based on some form of the Golden Rule (Do unto others....). I think that most non-religious moral codes also include this value. This value is very strongly held by most non-religious people that I love and respect - including a number of people who have posted to this thread.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: pdq
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 07:39 PM

Nickhere said "There is a Fench wtiter whose name is Jean Vien (I think, or something like that). He wrote a book called "The Temptations of Totalitarianism" in which he argued that pluralism in any society is a transient phase..."

Sounds like something I would like to read. Does anyone know the correct spelling of the authors name or whether that is the correct title. Thanks in advance.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 07:26 PM

"Christians believe that morality and values are something that need to be referred to a higher authority, named God, who alone has the objectivity and nature to give direction."

Well, that's a nice idea, but even when this is attempted, this is not what happens. What is done is that some 'presumed' earthly representative of "God" makes a subjective judgment based on his particular religion's...and sect within that religion...notion of they 'think' God might want.....and the result is as we see - dozens of versions of 'truth' and 'right' and 'morality' all over the theological map!
It would be so easy if the were a God who parted the heavens and wrote the 'answers' in fiery letter across the sky...but...

So...given this situation, the ***ONLY*** possible answer to questions like abortion and harvesting stem cells is...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.

There IS no absolute demonstrable 'truth' about what constitutes a soul, or when it enters a body...or whather there is any such thing at all....it is a matter of personal belief....and the courts and laws need to reflect this.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Alba
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 07:21 PM

Slight drift.
Note to Nickhere.

Perfume: The Story of a Murderer by Patrick Süskind.
This Book ranks high on my list of great reads. May I say you present a very interesting view on Jean-Baptiste Grenouille!
Best Wishes
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 07:17 PM

"For one thing, "harvesting human beings" is a ridiculously loaded and skewed phrase."

I'm not sure that it is (ridiculously loaded and skewed). But even if it was, the reality of what he's saying is so. There is nothing about science that informs our sense of ethics about harvesting humans.

What's more, we are so pre-conditioned by self-interest that even when the data provided by science does inform us that we are acting contrarily to accepted ethics, we will still choose comfort and self-interest over ethical behavior.

For example, science informs us of the "viability" issue regarding the unborn, yet the law is yet to be changed to reflect the advances of science that tell us that we are, indeed, killing babies, not "fetuses".

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Amos
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 07:03 PM

For one thing, "harvesting human beings" is a ridiculously loaded and skewed phrase.

For another, being able to project probabilities stemming from changes is what trying to make life better is all about. The idea that one should throw that responsibility onto the lap of an imagined Bigger Viewpoint, to me, seems pathetically irresponsible -- why not just take on a bigger viewpoint oneself?

As for your fictional protagonist, he was not operating on reason. He was operating on a blind obsession, just as those do, for example, who believe sexual gratification is the whole sum of human motivation, or who think only money measures success. Human action changes things along a wide spectrum of areas and getting hopped up over one, to the exclusion of others, is a wee bit bent.   Anyone will favor some areas over others, which is one of the magical flavorings of life, but extremism is yewgly whether it is religious or --for example-- eugenic in its rationalization.

As for absolute moral rightness and/or wrongness, there is no such critter available to use as a standard. Postulating one when there isn't is of course just childish. There is one thing that CAN guide us, if we learn to use it well, which is the human capacity for reason and compassion.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Nickhere
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 06:46 PM

Ok Amos, but I wasn't so much thinking of faith healing v. 'western medicine'. I was thinking more of what happens, for example, when tax dollars are used to fund embryonic stem cell research or fund abortions on the NHS. These actions conflict with the consciences of many Christians, which of course are intrinsically linked to their beliefs (and vice versa).

So to go back to the original thread topic, our beliefs will inspire or actions (naturally enough). Christians (for example, but Muslims and I believe, Jews have a similar outlook on the above topics... if any Muslims or Jews out there care to comment, feel welcome) tend to resent having to fund these activities which go against their consciences and if it were possible, would withold their tax dollars from those areas. Since it's not possible, they can only "render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's". But they feel duty bound to use their voice and vote to change those policies which conflict with their consciences and beliefs.

Science can tell us that embryonic stem cells can be used to make any kind of cell, and that these can be used in very promising medical treatments. It can even tell us how this happens, the bio-mechanics. It can explain all this very well indeed. It can even show it happening with electron microscope photos. But what science cannot do, is tell us whether it is right or wrong to harvest human beings in this manner. Indeed, science doesn't even attempt to comment on such things, though individual scientists might do.

Since we are talking about building society, science can provide insight into how the world ticks, but not about values and morals. Rational thinking has its limitations too, since the ultimate authority to which we subject it is our own. We in turn lack the outside objectivity to know if our conclusions are not influenced in turn by the very organism (us) that brings them to life. It reminds me of chaos theory - the idea that even efforts to collect data in turn change the outcome of that data. We are so inside the system (the data, our minds) that there is an ultimate limit to our objectivity.

Christians believe that morality and values are something that need to be referred to a higher authority, named God, who alone has the objectivity and nature to give direction. You can fool yourself, but you can't fool God, as it were.

There's a story called 'Perfume' which for me epitomises the fallible nature of human rationality. The protaganist is what we might call 'psychotic'. But to him his values are quite rational. He values smells, and realises these are the most important thing. He kills a number of people in order to preserve from them the only thing of value (to him) - their scent. For him, killing was not wrong, but if he had destroyed their scent in so doing that for him would have been a disaster of the first magnitude. And in a world of moral relativism, who's to say he's 'wrong'? Just because a few thousand or more other people say he's wrong, perhaps he's right. It's all relative, isn't it? He had pefectly rational reasons for acting as he did.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: GUEST,the unemployed psychic
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 10:50 AM

I believe that religion is not about beliefs. Rather it is an out growth of tribalism with roots in money, power and greed for its own best cause, which is often itself. PRomising to relieve fear itself or even the fear of mortality is the 'lynch'pin to drag in new members and keep old members in tow.

When I am asked to support or join an organization of intolerence that preaches a gospel of hate, I have zero respect for the group and a measire of compassion for the individual caught in its grasp.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: GUEST,Keinstein
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 04:21 AM

Nickhere said, Many academics feel uncomfortable with qualitative experience because it can't be subjected to empirical sciences. There's simply very few ways to number crunch or pie-chart qualitative experience in the way you can with 'facts and figures'.

This is fairly central. If it is qualitative, how do you communicate that quality, which is an internal feeling in your own brain, to someone else, who may have a completely different feeling from the same stimulus? The old schoolboy problem asks how you know that the colour you see as blue doesn't look to someone else as what looks like, say, orange to you? But all can agree that the colour is the same, whatever it looks like subjectively, if it appears at a particular position on a rainbow created from a white light using a prism.

The problem with subjective qualities is that unless you can confirm them with someone else, you can't be sure that they are real. Unless you have something by which you measure the quality, you can't be sure you are comparing the same thing- then if you have a measure, it is no longer qualititive!

It is this business of distinguishing the real from the non- real that is central to the debate. Humans are dab hands at fooling themselves, wishful thinking is instinctive, and it takes real discipline to avoid it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 08:57 PM

I think I'll have to surrender, LH...you do NOT accurately represent my position in your re-write of it.

I do ***NOT*** agree that your analysis/interpretation is at all 'implied' by what I say.

What IS this about? ..."...You cannot define the intrinsic value of organized religion in a blanket sense ."

I have done no such thing!...and I can't see where & what you are even responding to when you suggest it.

I am discussing primarily ways of thinking and 'fairness' in applying rules when different people have different ideas..YOU seem to be trying to shoehorn my ideas into some pre-constructed box of your own design.....I am at a loss to see how you turn my words to something I was not even talking about at the moment.

*shrug*....can't even disagree properly unless we can communicate...

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Janie
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 08:54 PM

Self awareness. Discernment of the contents of the consciousness.

For every human being, we operate in the world as if our beliefs are objective reality, fact, or truth. And we need to. Otherwise, we don't function. But can we, at the same time, observe and distinquish within ourselves that which is a belief and that which is a fact? Beliefs may be functional or dysfunctional. Any one belief we may hold may be functional in one set of circumstances, and dysfunctional in another.

Beliefs and assumptions are closely related. We can not operate in the world without utilizing both. But unless we recognize and distinquish between our beliefs, assumptions, and that little bit that can truly be called objective, we can not or will not examine our beliefs and assumptions, and will therefore not attempt to adapt them when objective reality impinges on them, nor will we periodically exam them to determine their functionality. And examinining functionality is not a simple task. Functional for who? Me as an individual? My family? My community? My country? My society? The world?

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 08:07 PM

The power of sauerkraut to bring on religious visions and/or mystical experiences has been highly exaggerated in the western press... ;-) (to say nothing of hallucinogenic spores)

Bill, I think what you have been saying for years amounts basically adds up, in effect, to something like this: "Because religion often is conducted in an authoritarian and dogmatic manner...because its adherents often accept unproven and highly questionable notions and dogmas...because some religious people are fanatical about those dogmas....it is my contention that religion is, by definition....(ahem)...not a good or true thing. Therefore, I am against it."

At least if that's not what you're saying, that certainly seems to be strongly implied in what you're saying.

And I can't agree with that sort of an attitude when it is applied to "religion" in a blanket sense...across the board.

After all, I could say exactly the same critical things about any number of other matters besides religion...were I to focus only on the negatives, which is what I think you do when it comes to religion.

Religion, like all other major human concerns, and be and is ALL things. It is both good and bad, both wise and ignorant, both enlightened and unenlightened, both useful and useless, both a blessing and a curse, both encouraging and discouraging of independent thought....DEPENDING on who is engaged in it, how they are engaged in it, and exactly what they are doing with it.

You cannot define the intrinsic value of organized religion in a blanket sense any more than you can with organized science, organized politics, organized law, organized law enforcement, organized education or organized anything else.

If you're against religion simply because it IS religion, then you've missed the boat and you are espousing a form of (unintentional) bigotry and revealing a form of personal prejudice which I think would have to derive from your own background in some way.

You have to assess each situation on its own merits. You cannot rightly pass blanket judgement upon "religion" in a general sense just because you are not "religious".

As one who used to do just that....I was terribly judgemental in a negative way against all religion at one time, on principle....I am quite sensitive about this. I notice it right away when someone is doing it. Nobody likes to see someone else repeating his own past errors.

That's why I take issue with it now.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Amos
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 08:06 PM

The whole point, Nick, is that secular decisions should not be made on religious grounds.

Medical procedures should not be "voted out" because, for example, Christian Scientists want to do faith healing instead. Eating fish on Friday should not be mandated because it is (or once was) a Catholic more. Obviously there are boundary layers between these things but the general guideline should be, IMHO, seeking the greatest good for the greatest number according to their enlightened self-interests, based on real factors and real consequences.

We should not, for example, start a war based on the notion that it is "holy" to do so.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Nickhere
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 07:56 PM

It has been argued here that 'religious' people (for want of a better word) shouldn't be allowed to influence public policy with their beliefs (through voting or lobbying or whatever). But what happens when secularists vote or lobby for changes that affect 'religious' people? For example when federal tax dollars are used to pay for and support research or programs that conflict with the belief and wishes of the 'religious'? Is there any way the 'religious' might be able to stop paying these taxes so they don't have to support things they don't agree with and that are foisted on them"

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 07:45 PM

but if they're only 'slightly' kooky, they may sneak thru, I gather...Utah is a fascinating place.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 07:37 PM

and, yet again, Amos, if you're going to talk about more fringe elements, then the discussion about how they fit into influencing politics is just as a I said before -- as marginalized as their beliefs. The kookier they are, the less likely they are able to form a coalition large enough to influence policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 07:17 PM

"...of course if you have personal experience of the metaphysical it stops being a presumption....."

nope...it might a dream... or last night's Sauerkraut. Various 'religious' experiences were reported a couple centuries ago that were later shown to probably due to hallucinogenic spores in the air. (I can't find the specific reference right now.)

What is sure is that people 'usually' do not invent these experiences...they HAD an experience, and it is part of their memory and must be dealt with. What is NOT clear is status of the the origin or cause or explanation attributed to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Amos
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 07:16 PM

Religion is not, especially in the USA or the western world, an authoritarian model in the manner in which you are suggesting...

Which explains why there are tee-shirts that say "I survived Catholic school", and why some children cower at the thought of confession, and why people every day are sent off to atone for "transgressions" by reciting mantras to iconic figures of Divinity called "Our Father" and "Blessed Mary, magic Virgin...".

Especially Catholicism, but also many Protestant sects in the Western world, have scores of such mechanisms of superiority built into them. Have you not read the horror that grips some people when they even contemplate leaving their religious groupings, be it Muslim, Catholic, Mormon, or some of the fringier bands following one or another embodiment of divinity?

I agree that free, mature Westerners are often outside the reach of these pressures, but they are sometimes corralled by a more insidious form of the same sort of thing in peer pressure and a kind of melded "belief expectation" that permeates discussions and social approvals in all walks of life. The entire struggle to achieve honestly self-elected beliefs in spiritual matters is far more painful and riddled with traps than it ever needs to be.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Nickhere
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 07:05 PM

That's a good point Bill and well made.

But of course if you have personal experience of the metaphysical it stops being a presumption.....

Don't get me wrong here (I may have given the wrong impression). I like the scientific method for what it does. I am interested in many branches of science from astronomy to chemistry. But not everything can be weighed in a test tube or measured.

The 'problem' as I see it, is that most branches of learning have come to be dominated by the scientific empirical method to an extent which is to their own detriment.

Many academics feel uncomfortable with qualitative experience because it can't be subjected to empirical sciences. There's simply very few ways to number crunch or pie-chart qualitative experience in the way you can with 'facts and figures'. Academia (even outside the main sciences) tends to demand theorists back up their theories with hard data. Fine. But some things can't be gauged so easily in this way.

I have seen the result as academics produce often laughable psuedo-anthropological explanations for motivations since the obvious answer CAN'T be right, after all, it's 'just someone's opinion or feeling'!!

Charts, facts, figures, demographics.... after all, it couldn't be simply because....!

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 06:32 PM

"People who claim to be non-religious are usually engaged in a personal struggle with certain specific historically known forms of organized religion..."

Durn...there it is again, Little Hawk. You have said essentially this for years now, and I keep trying to explain that you are becoming the Poster Boy for equivocation.

I KNOW what you are getting at, but you distort (perhaps 'water down' is a better phrase) the idea of 'religious' by attempting to subsume all 'personal' viewpoints under the term.

No matter what you insist on calling it, what some people do in their thinking and analysis is fundamentally different from others. There are those who arrive at their beliefs from authority, superstition, guesswork, popular culture, peer pressure and flat-out imagination......and there **ARE** others who pursue a rigorous form of analysis of issues by asking what the basic premises are for a position, what can be demonstrated, what is testable, what is truly logical and what can be eliminated by certain tests.

This is 'roughly' what the scientific method is....and although those who try to USE the scientific method can, and do, make mistakes, the concept is that mistakes will be gradually overcome and we will gradually get closer to reality & truth, with no requirement that we actually achieve 'absolute' truth and knowlege.

....and for those who state that "science is not designed to deal with the metaphysical realms", and thus we can't disprove such claims--- they are presuming that there are in fact these metaphysical realms and that ANYTHING substantial can be said about them. ....well, they are partially correct- one thing that can be said about them is that they ARE unproven and based on hearsay and conjecture. This very fact makes them subject to different treatment and rules. God and ghosts and devils and fairies are thus in the same basic category....all of them 'might' be true, real and important...and all of them might not be!
   And it is important that we not write laws that assume the fairies in our gardens must be taken into account in zoning laws....or that God must be given His share of tax revenues!....but if an individual wants to build a haven for fairies in his garden, or devote a portion of his income to his church, he should be free to do so....as long as his neighbor, the scientist, is not affected.

...so....that's the best I can do. I am relatively sure various folks will come along and RE-insert slippery locutions and concepts with unproven assumptions buried in them, but at least I tried...

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Nickhere
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 06:22 PM

Ok Amos, I think I see where you're coming from now. Your main impression of religion is the one I mentioned above in relation to Dawkins.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 06:20 PM

"...inherent sense of ethics and justice is far better than subscribing to a code of actions based on an authoritarian model."

Another false dichotomy -- the assumption in your statement is a false "either/or". Religion is not, especially in the USA or the western world, an authoritarian model in the manner in which you are suggesting...

That is, people in the western world are not religious because they are forced to view the world that way. Quite the opposite. Most people choose their religious affiliation as they find a belief system that most closely describes the world either as they see it, or in a manner they think is the most rational explanation of the world.

So you have the cart before the horse. Religion informs the world view, but it is most often chosen as a system of belief because of its capacity to explain the world.

In that manner, if you still maintain that religion is authoritarian -- it is so because people have chosen to believe it -- they've found reason therein.   They don't choose to believe it because it is authoritarian.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 06:11 PM

Right, Amos. So what you are opposed to, essentially, is authoritarianism. Mindless authoritarianism in particular.

I think we can all agree on being opposed to that, can't we? ;-)

I hope so, anyway...

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Amos
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 05:56 PM

I would suggest that being moral -- meaning seeking ethical decisions -- out of an inherent sense of ethics and justice is far better than subscribing to a code of actions based on an authoritarian model. And while authoritarianism is not inherently an important part of Christ's own lectures, it is very much a part of the organized doctrine of almost every major 'Christian' sect, not to mention certain aspects of other orthodoxies including the Judaic. It is well and good to say that these authoritarian strictures are not inherently in harmony with the spiritual connections that originally inspired a religion, but there is no getting around the fact that for many people the authoritarian doctrine is used as a convenient and mindless substitute. This is unfortunate, and frustrating, to anyone who has found "genuine" spiritual content or comfort within the teachings of one or another group.

Children are often taught, for example, that God is watching their every thought and act, and that is why they should do things which will placate "him"; they are taught that angels protect them if they are good, that bad conduct will yield Divine punishment, and often that this includes using your peepee in unapproved ways. Or not wearing cloth on your hair. Or putting the wrong hydro-carbon in your orifice at the wrong time. These are pretty silly things to base a moral code on, and using an imaginary Power Figure to enforce them is downright counter-productive to the state of human civilization.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Crazyhorse
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 05:54 PM

why do we have an inherent sense of justice and ethics

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Nickhere
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 05:47 PM

I read an interview with Dawkins in Focus magazine. Despite his claim to have had a Sunday-school education (or perhaps because of it! ;-) ) he does not seem to have a fundamental grasp of what religion might mean to people. he seems to have picked it up as the kind of fairytale we tell kids to make them behave : "be good now, or the bogey man will get you"

Maybe that was his experience of religion, and unsurprisingly he wasn't impressed. But then if I had done one experiment that I didn't really understand a in science lab with a bad teacher, I might conclude that science was a lot of stuffy eggheads in white coats scribbling incomprehensible numbers on the board to amuse themselves and their cronies while the rest of the world lived 'real' lives. I might wonder "this science isn't all it's cracked up to be at all, I think I'll ignore it and leave it for those who want to believe in it" without ever wondering where all the technology around me comes from "well, why SHOULDN'T it be there?"

Dawkins basically said that he thought a morality based on people doing the 'right' thing out of fear of an imaginary policeman was a pretty poor sort of morality.

This showed to me he had no real understanding of what a deeply spiritual experience and developing relationship with the Divine can be. Sincere Christians (as far as I know) don't do 'the right thing' simply because they are afraid God will find out (in fact there's no question about that, as He already knows) rather they have developed a relationship with Him where they try and avoid those things that psuh Him away, just as you would try not to fart in front of your girlfriend (sorry about the example, but it's the clearest way I can think of explaining it as this hour!)

Dawkins went on to say "i'd like to think that I, and others like me, are moral for a BETTER [my emphasis] reason"

But typically he failed to explain what this better reason might be. So we are left with the impression that whatever Dawkins had in mind had to be better than the motives he acsribed to the religious - and indeed it probably is, only that Dawkins ascribed the wrong motives. I think it's called "a fallacy"?

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Nickhere
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 05:35 PM

Amos "In matters of civic discourse and policy, one's religious impressions should have no weight or play. Understanding this is, in my humble opinion, a key civic responsibility"

But you know that's impossible! We are all informed by our beliefs whether we are religous or atheist, and of course in any debate or act of law making, it is impossible for us to go against our own selves (unless of course we are bribed or threatened). We would be denying our own selves.


"**That's why we have laws against murder, thievery, rape, etc. People's religious convictions drove them to vote for such laws**

I doubt it. The concern that informs such laws is an inherent sense of justice and ethics. Occasionally these sensibilities find their way into religious codes, but that is not their origin."

The first obvious question here is 'why do we have an inherent sense of justice and ethics?'

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 05:35 PM

Amos,

Re-read:

That's why we have laws against murder, thievery, rape, etc. People's religious convictions drove them to vote for such laws. When enough other people are similarly driven by EITHER thier religious convictions, or some other, maybe pragmatic concern, laws get passed.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 05:33 PM

Everyone has religious convictions...only about what is the question. No one finds his own religious convictions unreasonable. People who claim to be non-religious are usually engaged in a personal struggle with certain specific historically known forms of organized religion that they have encountered or heard about, and they tend to be rather religious in their anti-religious zeal, I find. ;-) Their clear desire is to convert the unbelievers (or just ridicule them, which is always fun if you can't convert them), and it is founded upon their certainty that theirs is the "better way"...or perhaps, the only way.

Anyone who thinks his way is the universally "best" way for people to be...or the only way...is wrong, in my opinion. There is no best way. There is no only way. There are numerous ways, and all of them suit certain people to a "T".

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Nickhere
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 05:25 PM

Jeri: "Science is physical world and religion is metaphysical, and religious, or spiritual, beliefs are how people explain the physical world when science doesn't have reasonable answers"

No, as you ahve pointed out in the same sentence, beliefs (at least for Christians, I can't answer for every religion) are NOT about explaining the physical world (you ahve already admitted teh same when you point out that religion is metaphysical).

E.g (Christian) religion is about our relationship with God, His purpose for us etc., Science doesn't have answers in this realm in the first place, never mind reasonable answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Nickhere
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 05:19 PM

Guest PMB: "when I kicked off this discussion was to talk about, not the details of different people's beliefs, but the problems brought about by non- reciprocated tolerance- the feeling that some groups are exploiting this without attempting to do their part in return"

There is a Fench wtiter whose name is Jean Vien (I think, or something like that). He wrote a book called "The Temptations of Totalitarianism" in which he argued that pluralism in any society is a transient phase and will always be so. It is preceeded by one kind of totalitarianism or another and followed by the same. This happens because at any point in history where you have different cultures etc., living alongside one another, sooner or later these clash over differences in meaning, way of life etc.,

Thes clashes are not always over religion, though Europe was plagued by religious wars since the First Crusades in particular. Bu then so was ancient Rome, when pagan Romans persecuted Christians as a dangerous undergorund sect until that religion "took over" (for want of a better word).

Fear is another factor, one group fears the other (or is egged on to fear them) and the result is violent clashes as the fearful group attempt to dominate the other group as a way of controlling their own fears.

In short, Jean was saying enjoy pluralist society because history shows it won't last. One group will always assert itself and dominate over others around it eventually, and the cycle will start all over again.

" Religion is one way of framing thought, and has offered and delivered much over the years (as well as the opposite). But it can not replace rationality"

As John Hardly has pointed out religion is not necessarily irrational depending on a) which religion you are talking about and b) your world / paradigm view.

I think you may be confusing 'rational' with 'empirical' since faith-based beliefs do not yield the kind of hard data demanded by empirical science. It is quiet rational to pray and fast and do all the other stuff if you believe you will be answerable to God after you die. It is irrational not to do so.

The empirical sciences are good at what they do - explaining the physical world. They are not good at dealing with the metaphysical since that is outside science's terms of reference. Even attempts to record data on ghosts / the afterlife etc., though of interest, shows science's paucity in this field. Scientists do not find any evidence of ghosts with all their instruments and formulae. Their training and bias as scientists then leads them to conclude, ergo, there are no such thing as ghosts or the afterlife.

But it is outside their scope of imagination to suggest to themselves they may be using the wrong tools, the wrong methodology, even the wrong conceptual approach. Biologists are particularly susceptible to this for some reason, and I have had biologists expound to me various theories to explain human behaviour and needs that bordered on what the biologists themselves would have described as faith-based ideas.

Remember how early 'scientists' - alchemists (who laid the foundation for science with their experiments etc.,) chased after something in the wrong way: trying to turn base metal into gold. They used all the wrong tools, approach concepts etc., A sceptic of the time would have described it as faith and superstition. But dream became reality when Lord Rutherford performed the first sucessful transmutation into gold in 1919. Just a couple of atoms, not going to make anyone rich, but a transmutation all the same. Science may achieve similar feats regarding the afterlife etc., one day with an approach currently outside our imagination to grasp. Then again they may not, and such knowledge may remian forever elusive. This cannot be taken as proof of the non-existence of these thinsg however, or we would be making the same mistake as the sceptics of alchemists back in the 16, 17 and 1800s.

Religion / spirituality addresses a different part of human experience, one either outside or overlapping with the physical and seemingly beyond teh description of the sciences that deal with the physical. Scientists (and I suppose I'm thinking of those like Richard Dawkins here) need to come to terms with that. Some already have and accept science for what it can do and also accept its current limits.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Amos
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 05:16 PM

That's why we have laws against murder, thievery, rape, etc. People's religious convictions drove them to vote for such laws.

I doubt it. The concern that informs such laws is an inherent sense of justice and ethics. Occasionally these sensibilities find their way into religious codes, but that is not their origin. Nor does the presence of certain mandates in a religious code make themethical or just; note that the U.S. outgrew not suffering witches to live, for the most part, and no longer puts people to death for sodomy or adultery, in spite of the clear mandates on these points in the Old Testament of the King James edition. Individual sensibility is the origin point.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 03:47 PM

(and the reason for the multiple posts is that my posts keep getting partially dropped upon hitting the "submit message" button.)

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 03:46 PM

In other words, in the context of this discussion, "stare decicis" is a non sequitur.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 03:45 PM

...besides, nobody said anything about laws changing back and forth with any rapidity. If I were to read your stare decicis dodge back into the context of this thread and my comments, one would have to conclude that you mean that stare decicis keeps laws from changing period

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 03:36 PM

stare decicis

Soounds like a nice, scholarly answer. But it's a mere exception that underscores the point I'm making -- that the more idiosyncratic a religious practice, the less likely it is to become law. And it doesn't refute the point I'm making -- that you based your original postition on the notion of a straw man, monolithic "religion" --not a reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 03:26 PM

"And they can "inflict" those laws on others if they can form a coalition of like-minded people. It has ALWAYS been this way -- and always will be this way."

not necessarily ...there IS a point of law called "stare decicis designed just to keep the law from swinging back & forth as one group or another gets a majority.

"Stare decisis (Latin: [ˈstaːre deːˈkiːsiːs], Anglicisation: [ˈsteɹɪ diˈsaɪsɪs], "to stand by things decided") is a Latin legal term, used in common law systems to express the notion that prior court decisions must be recognized as precedents, according to case law. More fully, the legal term is "stare decisis et non quieta movere" meaning "stand by decisions and do not move that which is quiet" (the phrase "quieta non movere" is itself a famous maxim akin to "let sleeping dogs lie")."

It was an issue in Roe V. Wade recently as Bush appointed 2 more conservative justices who might be tempted to overturn it.


"So, you come down on the side of abolishing the Electoral College, or what?"...I do indeed! it creates more problems than it solves. It was designed for a much smaller, different society. But the Electoral College is designed to elect candidates, not to determine moral issues.....the point being, that no matter WHAT candidate is elected, there are issues he should not be able to mess with!

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 02:40 PM

An edit cut out a sentence above. Should have read:

The more idiosyncratic the religious "law" the less likely to form a such a voting coalition. So you aren't likely to see laws passed that reflect cultish beliefs.

It's always been thus. For instance, nobody seems offended when Martin Luther King is driven by his religious convictions to seek equality for man.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 02:38 PM

"John, John, John!!! You put words in other's mouths...and you KNOW that the majority are religious, and therefore will always have a 'vote'. The point is that they shold not be able to impose laws or practices designed to favor religious institutions at the expense of non-religious folks!"

This is exactly the same logic fallacy you employed earlier. You can fight "religion" on the grounds of its rationality as long as you can lump "the religious" together. But the religious are not monolithic. "The religious" do not vote toether. Jim Wallis does not vote as Mark Hatfield does not vote as Joe Lieberman does not vote as William F. Buckley.

And OF COURSE they can act for the passage of laws that reflect their religious convictions. And they can "inflict" those laws on others if they can form a coalition of like-minded people. It has ALWAYS been this way -- and always will be this way. That's why we have laws against murder, thievery, rape, etc. People's religious convictions drove them to vote for such laws. When enough other people are similarly driven by EITHER thier religious convictions, or some other, maybe pragmatic concern, laws get passed.

The more idiosyncratic the religious "law" the less likely to form a such a voting coalition. It's always been thus. For instance, nobody seems offended when Martin Luther King is driven by his religious convictions to seek equality for man.

I often give the example: IF there were only 27 Christians in the country, they should have the right & freedom to have a church and worship and live their personal lives in accordance with those beliefs....and the same should apply to NON Christians living as a minority in a society. They should NOT be required to be subjected to open prayers in public meetings, have their taxes taken to support religious causes...etc., etc....

This is the logic fallacy of false dichotomy. There is no society cleanly divided. The reality is that all mixed, pluralistic societies must hash things out in the middle ground.

"There are just some issues that should not BE subject to 'majority vote'..., as you would see immediately if you WERE in the minority. "

So, you come down on the side of abolishing the Electoral College, or what?

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Amos
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 02:16 PM

The religious should not have a vote on issues of others' religious or irreligious thoughts, including policies which impose those thoughts on others.

This is why the Ten Commandments should not be displayed in government foyers (unless, of course, the comparable excerpts fromt he Torah, the Qu'ran, the teachings of Zarathustra, Buddha, Lao-Tze, and a few others are similarly displayed, which would not be a terrible thing. You'd have too include a little well-worded atheism up there, too, just to be fair.

In matters of civic discourse and policy, one's religious impressions should have no weight or play. Understanding this is, in my humble opinion, a key civic responsibility.

The area where this comes into conflict most frequently is in the adjudication of the governing by public code of morals. The simple way out of that is to leave all governments out of purely moralistic issues where harm to other citizens is not involved.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Crazyhorse
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 02:13 PM

He's not saying that, but why should there be bishops in the house of lords, why should we subsidise faith schools, why should the bbc have religious programming, what's it go to do with them when the shops or pubs open, why should deseased cows be spared 'cause some religion thinks they are special.

Yes you can vote, securlarism is the best friend of religion as a whole because in ALL cases where one religion gets real power they abuse it

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 02:12 PM

John, John, John!!! You put words in other's mouths...and you KNOW that the majority are religious, and therefore will always have a 'vote'. The point is that they shold not be able to impose laws or practices designed to favor religious institutions at the expense of non-religious folks!

I often give the example: IF there were only 27 Christians in the country, they should have the right & freedom to have a church and worship and live their personal lives in accordance with those beliefs....and the same should apply to NON Christians living as a minority in a society. They should NOT be required to be subjected to open prayers in public meetings, have their taxes taken to support religious causes...etc., etc....

There are just some issues that should not BE subject to 'majority vote'..., as you would see immediately if you WERE in the minority.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 01:51 PM

"He says the interference in public life by {...} the religious should not be tolerated."

We're a democracy. Until such time as he is the holder of all truth, he's going to have to put up with others who don't see things his way.

So the religious should not have a vote?

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 01:40 PM

Crazyhorse has shown me that Dawkins has a better grasp on reality than some seem to give him credit for.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: TheSnail
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 01:18 PM

Dave Polshaw

Surely they should all be constantly question to update their knowledge rather than dealing in absolutes?

Passing over the grammar, yes Dave, they do. That's how science works.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Crazyhorse
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 01:15 PM

No he doesn't say religion should not be tolerated. He says the interference in public life by religion and the religious should not be tolerated.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 01:11 PM

If Mr. Dawkins could push a magic button and eliminate all 'tolerance' for religion in law & culture, I'd be willing to bet he'd soon wish to UN-push it. Until he has a magic button to provide universal education that gets 'everyone' thinking like himself, he is NOT going to like the reaction of those who practice religion and depend on it to answer questions that they can't cope with any other way.

   I see Dawkins' point, but perhaps the real goal is merely to assure that the practice of religion does not infringe on the rights of those who choose not to practice it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 12:28 PM

I haven't read Dawkins so I shouldn't realy comment.

There are times when I can't help myself though...

IF and that is a genuine big if, he is saying that religion is no longer to be tolerated that he is guilty of an intolerance equal any religious zealot. Whether he is more justified in his views or not does not matter. Any form of intolerance for anothers views should be viewed with a certain amount of trepidation.

The bigotry of some scientists (and I have already said I have NOT read Dawkins so I do not include him) in saying thay are right, to the exclusion of all others, defies logic to me I'm afraid. Surely they should all be constantly question to update their knowledge rather than dealing in absolutes?

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Amos
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 12:19 PM

Being 'absolutely sure' that you had an OOB event is a different claim than being sure you had a naked lap-dance



I dunno, Bill. In some instances...relative to the viewpoint of the observer... the similarities may outweigh the differences. :D

just because far fewer folks claim to have had a direct experience with God, doesn't make the claim more or less credible than NDEs or OOBs...maybe God is just capricious and has a wicked sense of humor!


There goes peer review, I guess. The old "consensus of agreement" principle was pretty leaky anyway, but I am not sure what we're going to replace it with...As for capricious Deities, I think we all have a little capricious Deity in us...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 12:18 PM

Dawkin's "The God Delusion" goes way beyond your benign description, Amos. He is saying that religion is no longer to be tolerated.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 12:08 PM

gee, Amos, you bit anyway
..."While the majority of humans on earth have experience with the spiritual at least in some degree,..."

The whole point is that, embedded in that sentence is a serious equivocation on the word "experience". An 'experience' with " NDEs, OOBEs, moments of telepathic or remote viewing, snatches of reincarnation memories, deja vues, and so on. " is in a quite different category than one with a side of beef, a VW Golf, a naked lap dancer or being whacked with a copy of Husserl's Phenomenology.! (grin)

Being 'absolutely sure' that you had an OOB event is a different claim than being sure you had a naked lap-dance or had a side of beef dropped on you.....and...just because far fewer folks claim to have had a direct experience with God, doesn't make the claim more or less credible than NDEs or OOBs...maybe God is just capricious and has a wicked sense of humor!
I, personally, have never had any of those, so I can admit just for the sake of the discussion, the 'possibility' of both types, while seriously doubting both.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Amos
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 11:28 AM

Dawkins has disciples? Has anyone told him? I am sure he would shudder at the thought.

Dawkins has written extensively and often beautifully about the wonders of the universe accessible to an inquiring mind without any religious framework being included. This is a legitimate argument, I believe. Within his boundaries of discourse he does a good job. He does -- I think -- have a flaw in his reasoning in that he may fail to recognize the difference between the phenomenology of space, energy and time, and what phenomenology may operate outside those bounds. Understandable, since he is an heir toa long legacy of "natural" -- meaning material -- science. But he is an excellent spokesperson for that camp.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 11:21 AM

Jeri, repeat posts are the right way to fix your mistakes. We admin helpers see and delete the old version.

So, why when I repeated the 'l' in toLLerance did you not see and delete the old version? Eh? Eh?

Bloody favouritism, that's what I calls it.

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 10:36 AM

Not meaning to be martyrish. Just acknowledging the growing number of disciples of Dawkins here who have crossed over the line and wish to exterminate religion from the human race.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 09:57 AM

"I don't mind people telling me flat-out they think I'm wrong. I can respect differences. When they start telling me what I should believe, the lose some of that respect. "

I can agree with this. A pity so many here ( of both political sides) have the need to tell others WHAT TO THINK, rather than support their views with facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Jeri
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 09:37 AM

John, stop with the martyr stuff already. I'd like to smack you upside the head* sometimes, but 'destroy' you!?

Dave Polshaw, repeat posts are the right way to fix your mistakes. We admin helpers see and delete the old version.

For the record, I don't think science is an alternate belief system to religion. Science is physical world and religion is metaphysical, and religious, or spiritual, beliefs are how people explain the physical world when science doesn't have reasonable answers.

I may respect someone else's beliefs or I may think they're a load of crap. If someone's belief was that "God created some men superior to others to be their masters," I'd think that was a load of crap, and move way past lack of respect into disrespect.

If someone told me they believed God had spoken to them personally and told them to give up smoking and drinking and go work for the poor, I still don't think I'd respect their beliefs, because they just don't seem logical. The results are good, but the reasons don't make sense to me, and I'll remain neutral regarding respect. They don't make sense to me because I'm not wearing their brain. Fundamentally, every single person's beliefs are different, even those of one particular group.

We don't have to respect beliefs. I think some make more sense than others, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. People are different and the creative, intuitive pare to people makes them different. Beliefs are things, the product of experience, teaching and contemplation. Beliefs don't care if you respect them.

So what I try to do is try to understand the heart of the person who holds the beliefs, and if the person seems good, I can respect the person.

I took an astronomy class from a brilliant teacher who had a friend ('B') that believed she (and her husband) had been abducted by aliens. Her husband had since died, and 'B' would invite my teacher to go up in the hills and watch for space ships. My teacher, who believed that life probably existed on other worlds far away, but did not visit Earth, went with her. She said said something like, "I'm sure she never was abducted and there are not aliens, but I'm also sure SHE believes there are." What she was saying was that 'B' had a true heart although her beliefs were illogical. She respect the person, if not the beliefs.

I don't mind people telling me flat-out they think I'm wrong. I can respect differences. When they start telling me what I should believe, the lose some of that respect. It seems weak to me to want everyone to believe the same as you. I don't believe that any of us CHOOSE what we believe, and none of us can change beliefs because someone else thinks it's a good idea.

Respect ideas and beliefs or don't, but give people you don't know some basic level of respect to start with.


*I've never actually smacked anybody upside the head. I just think about it.

P.S Mozilla Firefox (I have v. 2.0.0.6) comes with a spellchekkur... not that I ever need it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 08:45 AM

Respect, Man:-)

No offence intended or taken, John. I suffer from the same affliction with alarming regularity! I did find it funny and it cheered my otherwise dull afternoon up no end.

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 08:10 AM

"Maybe your toleration could extend to the poor person who inadvertantly inserts a sprurious letter, during a senior moment, without taking any steps to point it out.

It may make it easier for other people to tolerate repeat posts?"


I had a weak moment of smartassitis this morning, Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 08:02 AM

Good for you, John.

Maybe your toleration could extend to the poor person who inadvertantly inserts a sprurious letter, during a senior moment, without taking any steps to point it out.

It may make it easier for other people to tolerate repeat posts?

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 07:54 AM

"Can you respect those who preach hate and war?"

Hate and war? No.

Preach war? No.

Understand the inevitability and sometimes necessity for war? Yes.

Understand that a phrase like "those who preach hate and war" prejudices that answer by asking the question in a way that gets, not to the truth, but to an answer that is given the only way a person who wishes to be thought "reasonable" (without the ability or time to give a long, drawn out explanation) could answer it? Yes.


"Can you tollerate[sic] those who would destroy you for your beliefs?"

I do it every time I log onto the mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 07:36 AM

I'm not a particularly religious person nowadays, although I was brought up originaly in the Russian Orthodox Church and subsequently Roman Catholic. Mt beliefs are my own and I would not wish to explain them, let alone push them, onto anyone else. I do not believe respect needs to be earned. We should respect all things and all people but, whereas it need not be gained, it can be easily lost! Those people who abuse my trust and respect will often get a second chance but not many more.

As to respecting people who respect you. Well, that is the easy bit! Anyone here read the book of Job? A very unusual little story even for the old testament. As well as having God and the Devil discussing, as equals, the trials of humans we also see the 'human' side of both these dieties when they make a bet with the unfortunate Job being the focus of their games. That aside it makes a very good point. It is easy to believe (or respect or tollerate) when all is going well. What about when things go wrong though? Can you respect those who preach hate and war? Can you tollerate those who would destroy you for your beliefs?

I don't think I can. I would like to think I could at least keep quiet about it but should I? If I can see it is blatantly wrong should I stand up and say so? What if it is ME that is wrong? Then again what if it isn't...

I'd rather live my own life if you don't mind...

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Folk Form # 1
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 06:52 AM

Instead of mutual respect, we should say toleration. Why should I have respect for someone whose opinions I find so objectionable - John Tyndale (UK fascist leader), Margeret Thatcher, George Galloway, Yusef Islam, etc. - that I feel obliged to speak out against them. For me to "respect" them would be hypocritical. However, I am obliged to tolerate them as they are to tolerate me. The word respect is overused nowadays and is beginning to lose it's meaning - in fact, it has already done so. Take a bow, Non-Respect Party!

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 04:17 AM

While the majority of humans on earth have experience with the spiritual at least in some degree

That's not at all surprising- everyone has a "spirit". But don't make the assumption that the spirit is something independent of the physical body. I'm quite happy to talk about souls, even demons and possession- but to me the evidence is that they are, like the "mind" processes that occur solely within a physical structure, the brain.

Also, be careful of a shift of the meaning of words in mid- sentence. "Spiritual" can have a technical meaning in theology- relating the animating, perhaps immortal aspect of a living human- but it also has the everyday meaning of relating to those aspects of human culture that are not directly related to everyday living.

expanding that experience to an actual experience of divinity is not something many claim

Again, beware of conflation of meanings. By "divinity" do you mean relating to a non- human intelligence of higher-thatn-human powers, or (merely?) a feeling of transcendescent insight?

But I mustn't have explained myself very well. What I was driving at when I kicked off this discussion was to talk about, not the details of different people's beliefs, but the problems brought about by non- reciprocated tolerance- the feeling that some groups are exploiting this without attempting to do their part in return.

Back in the 70s, we in the anti-racist movement mounted all- night vigils to prevent attacks by racist groups on Asian- owned businesses. Now the sons and daughters of those same Asians are telling us that our society is worthless and is to be rejected completely.

Similarly, there is a growing anti- rational, anti- science movement in which people who have the leisure and health because of the advances of science and technology of the last 250 years, reject the very idea of evidence- based investigation and advocate (from the comfort of their homes, thanks to armies of public utilities workers, and via the electric internet) a return to the kind of life that kept so many millions in misery for so long.

So what I'm trying to say is that I want a proper debate, which you can't have with someone who has decided that they know all the answers already. There are many problems with our society; Asians are entitled to reject and despise those who would attack them, environmentalists are right that the blind exploitation of science and technology has caused many new problems (nuclear weapons and waste, environmental degradation, uprooting of whole societies, and resistant bacteria just to name a few). But an abdication of rational thought is no way to overcome these. Religion is one way of framing thought, and has offered and delivered much over the years (as well as the opposite). But it can not replace rationality, it can only supplement it- and mutual respect is needed as much between disagreeing religions, as between the religious and non- religious.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Amos
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 09:52 PM

Bill:

Obviously you are not a master Baiter. The answer should be obvious. While the majority of humans on earth have experience with the spiritual at least in some degree, no matter how muffled, expanding that experience to an actual experience of divinity is not something many claim, and very few have tried to describe, and most of them have not succeeded in my opinion.

But in terms of individual experiences, of personal spiritual nature, it probably outnumbers (in # of individuals) those who have not had any such.

The literature is full of bits and pieces of individual transcendent experiences -- NDEs, OOBEs, moments of telepathic or remote viewing, snatches of reincarnation memories, deja vues, and so on. Obviously there is a huge spectrum of quality of information and degrees of certainty involved, but I think you get the point. I believe that more people believe in their own spiritual nature, living lifetimes one after another, than believe in a single-body model. And even the latter have some sense of themselves as a "soul" in many cases, confused though it may be,.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 09:42 PM

Actually, I'm not going to worry about whether or not there is a god, God, or anything else. I'm going to try to live along the lines of "treat others as you want to be treated," as someone once expressed it, and if that isn't good enough, well, I tried.

I suppose that I'll know for sure whether or not there is a Supreme Being and an afterlife soon enough, really.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 09:32 PM

"...(b) such experiences will not be accessible to linguistic representation because we have precious little vocabulary to even begin thinking about the nature of things outside of space-time."

Gee...that sounds good when you explain it like that, Amos...I wonder why it didn't sound quite so good when I said similar things about 'spirit' and 'essence' and other non-material things...*grin* (naawww...I'm not gonna go on a search for details right now...just baiting you.)

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Amos
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 08:39 PM

I am inclined to believe (a) that all godhood is speculation, among humans, except possibly in very rare cases of transcendent experiences. And that (b) such experiences will not be accessible to linguistic representation because we have precious little vocabulary to even begin thinking about the nature of things outside of space-time. And so far, every metaphor, symbol, icon, or imaginary construction I have seen or head intended to represent divinity has just fallen flat on its face. As my friend William Jefferson used to say, "It kind of depends on what the definition of "is" is."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 08:19 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 can agree with that, but it is what I would call a 'trivial' point, since most of the problems are with those who insist that there MUST be one...and that they 'know' what god wants. All I know is that most religious claims don't meet my standards for something that affects everything I do.


(Dick...yeah, up to a point, I can...because.....since *I* think, I have some idea how those folks got that way, and how hard it is to break the habit of not thinking after one is an adult.
This not to say I am comfortable with those folks, but I keep my interaction with them to "Please don't expect me to believe like you, and please don't bother me with exhortaions to change")

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 08:18 PM

differences {....} are.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 08:16 PM

Here's how I'd say it a little more clearly...

Bill's assertion is flawed (in my opinion) in at least three ways:

1. He sets the foundation with the implication that religion gets in the way of rational thought -- and he does so by lumping all religion together in his statement, as though the differences between religions themselves is inconsequential in determining the rationality of their thought.

This way, "religion" is now something that is no more rational -- no stronger -- that its weakest link -- its least capable apologist.

2. Then he graciously and patronizingly allows as how, against all probability, somehow some religious people are still capable of rational thought.

3. But he further qualifies point number two: It is based on a judgement on his part -- that the religious, in order to be able to think rationally, must not actually believe what they believe.

I say that not all religions are equally reasonable or rational. And I say that the extent to which a particular religion is reasonable or rational will naturally dictate the extent to which they might influence a liberally educated, pluralistic, democratic society.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 07:59 PM

Bill-
Have you figured out how to respect the beliefs of folks that, in your opinion, are simply not thinking? I haven't.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: SINSULL
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 07:12 PM

Of course, that would depend on the your definition of "god". An all-seeing, all- knowing being? A natural order?
Is the god oF the Christians the same as the god of the Jews and Moslems and...whatever but interpreted differently? Can god be interpreted?

We will have to agree to disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 06:40 PM

"And it is not rational thinking to believe completely and exclusively in what cannot be proved."

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

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 06:33 PM

"Barry Goldwater said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue" at the 1964 Republican Convention .

That phrase worked against him, but many use similar logic in other areas, including religion.

"If Since I am right, then I need to do anything I can to be sure others hear the **truth**."....(I did the strikethru of 'if' after thinking about the sentence)
....this is not something I made up to make fun of 'True Believers'...it is essentially something I heard in various forms during my childhood in Kansas. There was a little place a few blocks from me which published those little 'tracts'....small, folded booklets with drawings that promised "eternal HellFire" if you didn't join _ _ _ _ church and/or accept Jesus.(space left for the church to stamp its own address)...at that time I was still a Methodist, but those booklets left a bad taste in my mouth. I was quite aware that there WERE other opinions, and I couldn't see why people had to be threatened into Heaven.

In Wichita, they ran the "B.C." comic strip (widely known for Johnny Hart's Christian orientation) in the Eagle newspaper, until he published one in which one character asks B.C. "do you believe in God?".."Yes" was the reply..."Why?"..."Because there might be one!", replied B.C.....BOOM! The shit hit the fan! Very soon, the strip was cancelled in the paper due to protests from the conservative Christians, and remained so for about 2 years, until they were convinced that it was all just a misunderstanding, and that Hart DID love Jesus.

Very little 'mutual respect' went on around there, but by that time, I was a Unitarian, where there was as much as I could hope for in any church-like institution. We had a Rabbi speak, we had long discussions...the minister was a former Baptist preacher who said he simply could not stand up and demand 'obedience' any longer....and by this time, I was also in college, beginning my formal education in 'how to think', in a Philosophy dept. which took a pretty dim view of 'orthodox' anything. We even had a Religion dept. which had a nice guy who was very 'ecumenical'.

So, here I am 40 years later, the product of both a reasonably 'liberal' education and my own experiences, trying to make sense of a world which seems not to wish to get along and 'respect' others......and I just.....keep.....typing.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 06:03 PM

I was taught by the School Sister of Notre Dame (SSND), the Christian Brothers (FSC), and the Franciscans (OFM). While we memorized answers from the New Baltimore Cathecism in grade school, beyond the ninth grade (high school freshman) we were actively encouraged to ask, think, and draw conclusions which we then had to defend against other students and the teacher.

Try defending your conclusion that the Bible is not divinely inspired, or the existence of a supreme creator, or the concept of a 'one true church' using ONLY logic and without reference to religious teachings. (E.g., you can't say, "The bible is divinely inspired because it says it is.")

As my wife once said, "Overall, the Roman Catholic Church made a big mistake in the US. They taught us to think."

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: SINSULL
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 05:59 PM

Simply put: it is not possible to prove a negative. But it should be possible to prove a positive. No religion offers absolute proof of the existence of a god. Faith in what cannot be proved is critical. And it is not rational thinking to believe completely and exclusively in what cannot be proved.

As to no form of religion reflecting truth or being reasonable - that is very different from declaring a religion or belief system the only true one.

At least this is how I interpret BillD's statement. But he can speak for himself.

I not only do not accept the teachings of any religion as absolutely true, I see no proof that we (humans) have any more worth on this earth than ants or worms or any other living thing. We have come and will go as do all life forms. Reality to me; a frightening concept to some; but it is what it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Nickhere
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 05:55 PM

Bill D - I am no seminarian, and not any expert on theology, but as far as I know theology as taught in the seminary requires a good deal of critical thinking. It's not just a list of what to believe but also a study of how the various 'Church fathers' as they are known, came to those conclusions and where we can go from there. (Joe might correct me on that, if I'm off target).

There seems to be an assumption that being a Christian means not having to think, to having all your thinking done for you through a list of rules and rituals. All I can say is that hasn't been my experience and it has thrown me into crisis many a time because it demanded that I re-evaluate my whole world view, often seeming to fly in the face of commonsense. But the pieces do fall together bit by bit and a larger picture emerges.

I agree with LH though that often school etc., doesn't really teach critical thinking. But this is a malady across all human institutions, which often aim to reproduce their own ethos simply by rote and drill. If it were otherwise, the cops who ahng around with water cannon, dogs and video cameras at every peace march / anti-war protest might shake their heads and ask themselves "Hey, wait A minute, what are we doing here? These guys are on OUR side and the side of our children!!" and put down their batons. It has happened before in history when events pushed people to question the conventional 'wisdom'.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: SINSULL
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 05:47 PM

As strict as my Catholic education was, I can remember moments when I was challenged to think through the obvious and consider another conclusion.

In a discussion about Jews and their failure to follow the "true" faith, I remember one nun pointing out that Jesus was a Jew and remained one until his death. His last act before his arrest was the celebration of Passover. Then she asked what that meant. I remember being dumbfounded. And I remember some children being angry - it wasn't in their power to think outside the box.

But at another time I remember being screamed at because I had asked why the missions were so poor when the Pope and the Cathedrals had gold and silver and money available. Sister Blister did not encourage questioning the wisdom of priests and the Pope. $5 to adopt a little black baby did not make any sense to me. And when the half starved missionaries showed up for two weeks respite it made less sense. They were poor and ill fed and had that strange desperate look in their eyes. They even had to borrow the Church vestments because they had none of their own.

Looking back I see that in high school I was encouraged by some nuns to read and think. They truly cherished the bright ones who showed promise - a little like being Miss Jean Brodie's favorite. I believe they knew what they were doing although I also think they firmly believed I would never lose my faith. My high school was run by the Jesuits which explains a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 05:44 PM

Being a rational thinker is only very tenuously connected -- if at all -- to whether you are religious or non religious.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 05:42 PM

"....but I do claim that it is NOT possible to be a rational thinker and maintain that your form of religion is the only correct and 'reasonable' one. Splitting hairs? maybe...but hairs sometimes need splitting

Same can be said...

....but I do claim that it is NOT possible to be a rational thinker and maintain that no form of religion can be correct enough to reflect truth or be 'reasonable'. Splitting hairs? maybe...but hairs sometimes need splitting.

Being dogmatically non-religious and being dogmatically religious are equally irrational.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 05:23 PM

Everyone is already indoctrinated, Bill...just in what set of beliefs is the question? We are all as children indoctrinated by the collection of cultural assumptions that is all around us. Such indoctrination is, in fact, inescapable, regardless of whether you belong to an organized religion or not.

Some cultures, of course, are more reasonable than others. ;-) But then it depends on what you think is "reasonable", doesn't it?

I do recall being taught how to think...to some extent. It might have comprised 1 or 2% of what I was taught in school. The other 98% of it was being taught what to think. And I was well aware of that at the time.

For a person of even moderate intelligence knowing how to think comes pretty naturally. You observe what is around you, and you deduce based on your observations. You form conclusions through reasoning, based on what you see, hear, and experience. But if the discipline of learning how to think is encouraged by good teachers, it can become stronger. That was certainly true in ancient Greece among those who attended philosophical schools. I think it is less true now, and that's mainly because the primary motives in this society are commercial ones, not philosophical ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 05:04 PM

Joe...I would assume that seminary would assume you WERE already 'indoctrinated', or you wouldn't be there. Am I incorrect?
   I can't imagine that they would teach critical thinking in such a way that it might interfere with Catholic theology....are seminaries that different? I am aware that you are pretty liberal, as Catholics go, but how did seminary contribute to this?

I know many institutions that 'teach' "how to think" within the parameters of the credo, that is, how to creatively expound and defend and explain the institution itself. Some of this is indistinguishable from 'rhetoric' or its cousins. I am concerned, as you know, mostly with the most neutral form possible...although it does sometimes lead to non-neutral positions.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 04:31 PM

Yeah, it's true that many institutions, particularly religious ones, teach children what to think. I think that just as many teach people how to think - even Islam has sponsored great universities that have been homes for critical and creative thinkers.
In my eight years in a Catholic seminary, the focus of my education was on critical thinking, not on indoctrination.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 04:07 PM

Schools, governments, societies, religions, parents...most of them teach a child what to think, then reward him or her for doing so and penalize them for demonstrating divergent thoughts.

Thus is free thought discouraged by most entrenched power systems as they do what they primarily are in business to do...perpetuate themselves and extend their power. They do not teach HOW to think, they teach WHAT to think.

They don't tell the child "don't think rationally", they tell the child "This is what you should be thinking, because it is rational, and it's right, and it's proven, and we all know it, and here's the rationality behind it. Just stay within our definitions of what is rational and what is not as you go through life, and you may be sure you are on safe ground."

Accordingly everyone, and I do mean EVERYONE, is convinced that his own thinking is eminently rational...while it probably seems quite plain to him that the thinking of those who think differently from him is not. ;-)

In such an environment mutual respect is not easily achieved.

I agree with you, Bill, that "it is NOT possible to be a (truly) rational thinker and maintain that your form of religion is the only correct and 'reasonable' one." You might say the same about your form of goverment, philosophy, social customs, etc...

They are all options, they are all possibilities, and not one of them is the ONLY correct and reasonable one.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 04:06 PM

I shoulda known that there'd be an article on it in Wikipedia!

read this...if you trust its outline..*grin*)

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 03:56 PM

I think Rapaire is referring to the entire thesis of Hoffer's "The True Believer" rather than a single quote....
perhaps he will correct me, but it's not something that one chops sound bytes out of.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 03:44 PM

"I am amused at BillD's suggestion of teaching young people to think. My experience with organized religion is that that is exactly what some religions are trying to avoid."

*grin*...well, yes...but what is the alternative...telling them it is OK to not think rationally? I never said it would be easy.
With care, it IS possible to teach the basic principles of thinking without any specific references to any organized religion, so that other positions are at least understood...and it is even possible to BE a rational thinker and still be a member of a religion....but I do claim that it is NOT possible to be a rational thinker and maintain that your form of religion is the only correct and 'reasonable' one. Splitting hairs? maybe...but hairs sometimes need splitting.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 03:42 PM

Hi, Rapaire -
What's the full quote from Hoffer?
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 03:40 PM

The media reports the "news" -- those who yell loudest. This has been true since AT LEAST the middle 1960s.

As a result groups and people have learned to exploit the media, to turn it and twist it so that it reports what they want it to report. And you don't have to be a billionaire to do this.

Abortion, gun control, immigration, airport security, gay marriage, and a host of other things have prompted "dialogues" in which one side simply castigates the other without listening to each other. A dialogue in the media has become two monologists talking to an audience.

And the audience all too often is made up of people who believe as the speaker does, and who associate only with other such people, and so they believe that because all of their friends think so EVERYONE must think so.

Eric Hoffer was right then and he's right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: wysiwyg
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 03:39 PM

Respect -- showing it, building it-- can also involve keeping commitments, remembering what's important to the other, and backing off when asked without going too far away. Absent that, relationship of any sort is not respectful, nor sustainable.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 03:21 PM

Hi, PMB -
I think the people you're talking about are mostly those who are best labeled "hard-liners" or "extremists."

You use the Catholic Church and abortion as an example. Yes, the "official" position is that all abortion is morally wrong - but you add some emotion-charged words that put a stronger "spin" on it. The "official" church also offers programs to reconcile, heal, and welcome back women who have have had abortions. Also, a longstanding teaching that is often misunderstood states that if a person firmly believes that what he or she has done is not wrong, there is no guilt even though an action is objectively wrong. Yes, the Catholic Church takes a strong stand against abortion - but it also tries not to exclude women who have had abortions. What you hear from the outside are the shrill voices of the extremists. What you would hear in a private counseling session would be quite different.

I think you'd find the same in groups that practice some sort of "ritual mutilation," for lack of a better word. What we hear of are the extreme examples - most people in these groups, while they may have practices and beliefs that outsiders consider barbaric, are quite compassionate in the way they live out those beliefs and practices. Same goes for arranged marriages and rules about chastity. All groups have extremists who enforce beliefs in a barbaric way - but I find that the majority of people in almost every situation, have a strong preference for being loving and compassionate.

Don't judge groups by the shrill, extremist voices that claim to represent the group - look deeper, into the hearts of the normal people who form the compassionate "silent majority" of most communities in our world.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 03:07 PM

"Respectful to me means allowing people to embrace their beliefs. There is no proviso that they must recognize that they may be wrong. Insisting that someone allow doubt into their firm beliefs is hardly respectful"

Well said!

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: SINSULL
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 02:51 PM

"and that those with different outlooks must be prepared to consider "in the bowels of Christ" that they may be mistaken."

How is this respectful? Or am I missing something?

Respectful to me means allowing people to embrace their beliefs. There is no proviso that they must recognize that they may be wrong. Insisting that someone allow doubt into their firm beliefs is hardly respectful.

I am amused at BillD's suggestion of teaching young people to think. My experience with organized religion is that that is exactly what some religions are trying to avoid. Faith in what can not be proved is basic to religious beliefs. I am not trying to provoke a debate or ridicule anyone's religion. This has been my experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Wesley S
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 02:37 PM

And that folks - is a true friend.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 02:34 PM

Wesley,

I just want you to know that if I ever saw you bleeding by the side of the road, I would surely come over to you and ask if your guitar was okay.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Crazyhorse
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 02:34 PM

Sorry to be a pooper but I don't believe it necessary to respect the beliefs of other people. Respect the people by all means but that doesn't require you to respect what they believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Wesley S
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 02:15 PM

I think that for our purposes it's not really important what someone believes but what actions they take.If I'm bleeding by the side of the road I don't really care what the motivations are of the person who comes to my aid. If they heard a sermon about the Good Samaritian - fine. If they didn't - that's fine too.

Actions speak louder than thoughts?

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 01:56 PM

*smile*...Jerry, you are smarter than I am in avoiding most of it.....but I appreciate your words more than you know!

(I have met both Susan and Jerry RT, and they DO have genuine respect & tolerance for views other than their own....which makes it much easier to respect theirs!)

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Amos
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 01:54 PM

The keystone is continued communication. When beliefs are of such a nature that they shut out the exchange of ideas, the social contract gets completely thrown haywire; the beliefs that call for non-communication tend to, therefore, be anti-social beliefs to greater or lesser degree.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 01:52 PM

"[Hm, that was hard to put into words]"

oh, my....One of the biggest problems with sharing and debating ideas IS the difficulty of saying what we mean with clarity, and NOT 'coloring' it with language that raises red flags.

Those who have one simplistic and hard-nosed viewpoint canusually say what they 'think' they mean succinctly, but usually these folks have little idea of the premises and implications of their positions. (even that little sentence took some careful wording, and I'm sure I could have said it better..[remember the old college saying..."I don't have time to write a short paper!"?])
   I am struggling with writing **anything** on this subject, because I have hours of complex, interlocking thoughts about it and related subjects, and keeping to one point is almost painful.

Susan & I are aware that we have different opinions about some basic premises in life...but we both value how a person lives more than the details of their theology, or lack thereof. Obviously, not everyone feels this way, and sadly, many feel that 'details of theology' IS the surpreme issue in life, and respect or despise others largely on that basis.

I do submit that IF "... you wanted to express yourself in my direction on a belief of yours, knowing that it differed from mine--", it would need to be done carefully, because there truly are some thorny places to negotiate. I have some pretty rigid opinions about basic premises, and how these relate to reality that I cannot demand Susan (and others) accept, just as Susan has some basic opinions about religion and its relationship to life & reality the she knows *I* can't accept.
   What we do have is a formula (not explicit, but understood), for avoiding the harder parts of the debate, while exploring the aspects that ALL people need in order to live together. ...(which means in this complex WORLD, as well as next door).

Told ya' it was hard to express!...You oughta see all the stuff I left out!

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 01:38 PM

Right-o, Jerry.

Personally, I try to identify with the tax collector instead of the Pharisee in the temple. And I've stopped looking for Justice -- instead I'll settle for a little Mercy (and try to do the same for others when I can).

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: wysiwyg
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 01:36 PM

I could say that respect is earned, but that's not even true.

For it to be mutual, both parties have to give it freely, and BUILD it. It takes time and it takes restraint and it takes a good amount of maturity, patience, detachment, self-respect and self-confidence.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 01:27 PM

I could say that respect is earned, but that's not even true. You can't always earn respect. Respect me, Damn it!!!!!! I too have a great respect, but precious little agreement in matters of belief) for Bill D. In Bill's case, he earned it. I've long since bowed out of "religious" discussions, because they are rarely discussions. It's mostly a lot of people talking, and no one listening. The best that I can do in my life is to stop trying to remove a splinter from my neighbor's eye when I have a two by four in mine.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Nickhere
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 01:05 PM

Hi Guest!

My tuppence for what it's worth -

"Educate your child according to your beliefs? Not if that means indoctrinating the child that non- believers are hateful"

I think everyone will educate their children according to their own beliefs - not only is it natural, it is inevitable. I don't think it's possible for anyone to tell children, "what I sincerely believe is this...but you must believe that..." Children - at least - would spot the contradiction immediately!!

If you educate your children not to think non-believers are hateful, it is precisely becuase you believe that too. Then you don't see it as 'indoctrination' as it is simply what you believe and what makes sense to you. As Oscar Wilde might put it - "indoctrination is people teaching other people beliefs we do not hold ourselves" ;-))

"So I respect those beliefs, as long as those others don't try to stop me acting in accordance with my own"

It depends on what you mean by 'trying to stop you acting in accordance with my own'. Of course we all have free will and Jesus (for example) never put a gun to anyone's head. It would have defeated His whole purpose of course if he had. But 'trying to stop you' could mean many things. If I saw you doing something that conflicted with my beliefs, or I thought was harmful to society, yourself or me (and that insight was inspired by my beliefs) I might try and reason with you, to stop you through the power of the word and my viewpoint. If you persisted, I could only let you go ahead, couldn't I? Then there are legislative means of 'stopping people'. If I believe something to be evil, I have to vote according to my conscience for politicians who will not legislate to allow that kind of action and to make my opinion publicly known through the press etc., when debate on the topic is aired.

At the end of the day, I don't think pluralism should simply mean 'a free for all' where everyone does exactly what they like, as this is simply sociopathic as opposed to society building. Meaning and limits to freedom need to negotiated for any society to exist. This should be so obvious as to hardly need stating. For example we can't have a society where some people believe it's ok to murder because it's in accordance with their beliefs and refuse to accept any constraint on their behaviour. That obviously represents the extreme end of the spectrum, nor does it mean we should murder these people in turn.

"Some in the Catholic Church (it's the official line; many who style themselves Catholic do not follow it) believe that all abortion is a crime and an obscenity, regardless of the circumstances. Many others agree with me that to force a raped woman to carry the foetus to term is itself a crime and an obscenity"

This is a tricky one and a good example of what I'm talking about above. You believe abortion is OK in some cases, I believe it's wrong in most cases, so where do we go from there? Obviously it makes no sense if I were to try and stop people from committing abortion by bombing them etc., (as I understand has happened in the US at abortion clinics etc.,) as this simply perpetrates the very murder I am trying to stop. What I can do is take part in the debate on abortion to try and show other people why I believe it's generally wrong. I don not believe - as I often hear - that in this kind of instance our religious beliefs ought to eb something for private behind closed doors. If this were so I would no longer be 'acting in accordance with my beliefs'.

[I should add at this point that there is a difference between judging a person and their actions. God has told us not to judge people and we will not be judged, but He does not expect us not to discriminate between what's good and evil either nor to keep our opinions to ourselves when the need arises. Unless we walk in someone's footsteps we can't know what drove a person to abortion or suicide or murder and so should be careful of condemning them. But we can know that abortion, suicide and murder as acts in themselves are wrong, and say so].

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: John Hardly
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 12:52 PM

I like Bill's post RE: gradual change. But I like it best with the western notion of democracy as arbitrator.

I accept that we will always have extremes in belief. I believe that as long as those extremes don't infringe upon another's rights, then it's best to leave hands off of them.

And I think that democracy is the best tool we've come up with so far to make sure that the extremes don't drive the machine.

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: wysiwyg
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 12:31 PM

...we learned how to balance having differences with expressing differences...

I think (am I wrong Bill?) that if you wanted to express yourself in my direction on a belief of yours, knowing that it differed from mine-- well, I like to think I'd listen to you, because you're a friend. I might even learn something, in gaining new info or in contrasting your idea with mine and thereby learning more about mine. Or both.

But mostly we talk about other stuff.

[Hm, that was hard to put into words]

[more brightly-- easily] And I VALUE that Bill's ideas spring from/stand upon/involve ideas, beliefs, and processes that differ from mine, because I KNOW people can tend to miss stuff due to wearing blinders. I THINK Bill must realize that that may be true of himself as well... but if I say something that has years of "ministry" experience behind it, Bill uses his own tools to look at what I said, not mine. He may KNOW where it came from, but I don't bother to preface my thought with all that. And that's exactly what I would expect him to do....

In other words, we don't try to use our "beliefs" to prove any particular point. I think we must expect the points to stand on their own and to stand up regradless of the lens one may put on to get a closer look.

Sh*t, Bill, we've become [shudders]....examples.

[raucous laughter]

What can I say-- I just like 'im as he is.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 12:12 PM

well...cross posted with Susan. And we have very different responses, I see.....
but Susan is right...we DO have that mutual respect, mostly BECAUSE we don't have "conditions upon on another"...except that neither of us is trying to 'convert' the other. What we DO have is some comprehension of what the other's viewpoint and outlook is; and somewhere we learned how to balance having differences with expressing differences.

   I did it in a very formal way, thru college and Philosophy classes, and applying rules of thinking & logic until it became very natural to evaluate other viewpoints in a reasonably fair way....and I suspect that this is how it MUST be done for a great many, as the tendency in local & family and religions groups is to retreat behind defenses and claims that "WE" are right.

......it ain't easy....

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 12:01 PM

It (the concept of mutualrespect) is not something we just wave in front of people and expect them to say "Oh, sure...now I get it!"
   There are far too many who will say, "but look what 'they' did to my ancestors in 1437!", or "..but God TOLD us this is our land and that we SHOULD drive out all the heretics."

Sadly, the ONLY way out of this morass is gradual, and I mean VERY gradual, education of the young in the very foundations of how to **THINK**, coupled with reduction of the stresses of overpopulation and struggle for food, water and resources which drive people to invent and exaggerate excuses for conflict with those who look, talk, worship and think differently.

So...you say, "gee, Bill....that all sounds so vague and unapproachable!" Yep..it sure does. I suppose we could just yell at them, like Lucy Van Pelt in the Peanuts comic strip, and scream, "Change your minds! Change your minds, I say!"....or we could threaten to bomb them back to the stone age if they didn't behave...but, wait...many of them live right next door - maybe armed conflict is not a good idea.

So, again I say...we have a twofold problem, those in other countries who hate us, and those who live right among us who are certain that THEY have the answer, and want THEIR answer embodied in law and education....so the answer, hard as it is, MUST begin right here in our own schools, political & economicinstitutions and media which currently take the path of least resistance and refuse to face reality.

Not very encouraging, am I? Sorry.....

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: wysiwyg
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 11:47 AM

I want to have respect for other beliefs, but I also want that respect to be mutual

Do you mean "respect" as a behavior, an inner feeling, a value, or what? When you think of your own attitude about it, are you thinking mostly of your feelings about others' beliefs or about how you expect yourself to behave toward the person holding bekliefs different from your own?

My first reaction to your post was: It's hard to "respect" in an effective way if you put conditions on the respect you "offer."

If a condition of your respect is that I (using myself as an example) must be prepared to question my "beliefs" if they vary from yours, how do you feel about my requiring you to do the same? Kinda icky, I bet. Me too. That's cross-proselytizing, actually, although usually that's a pejorative reserved for being aimed at Christians.


A healthy respect-- I think of my friendship with Bill D here at Mudcat (hi Bill). We are at wide variance, yet I cannot think of a closer friendship in this environment. It's as close as the friendships I treasure with people who believe as I do, and closer than many of those-- and who knows why! I don't feel like we have conditions upon one another.... I dunno if Bill does. We associate, or we don't. We tend to associate, sometimes actually seeking one another out! :~)

And consider this-- IMO people can't really know what others believe, on the detail level, since so many people (despite what they say) tend to have that nasty habit of thinking, learning, and changing. :~) Even the people you seem to think are so rigid.... many of whom I have known to be beset by a huge habit of doubt and/or curiosity, and learning.


I think that actually, different beliefs are less a barrier between people than are reactivity and defensiveness.
There's actually quite a large amount of territory between talk and action. Who cares if we disagree when we talk to one another?

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 11:45 AM

Trouble is... we're all human and humans aren't programmed for that sort of equal exchange.

We can only hope to learn from others and try harder to give what we hope we would receive.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 11:26 AM

Sure...everyone wants respect to be mutual.

So, how do we go about it? We do for others as we would like them to do for us....we do not inflict upon others what we would not want them to inflict upon us.

We take the first positive step. And the next. And the next after that. We do not cast our negative judgement upon others.

Matter of fact, all that is covered quite succinctly in the New Testament...and also in a great many other faiths than Christianity...but people conveniently put it all aside when their feelings get engaged and they focus on some other passage instead. One that seemingly gives them the right to judge, condemn, attack, and coerce. ;-) And so it goes.

That's why new spiritual teachers have to keep coming forward, century after century, millennium after millennium and why they always will.

Subject: BS: Mutual respect
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 11:18 AM

I've got my own set of beliefs about most things, and I believe that I have very good reasons for having them. Other people have different beliefs, and I believe that they are wrong, but that they have their own reasons for those beliefs, which are good enough for them. So I respect those beliefs, as long as those others don't try to stop me acting in accordance with my own.

And this is where it starts to get complicated. Some of my beliefs clash in serious ways with those of other people. We have many discussions, often fairly rancorous, about the the various expressions of these... Vin Garbutt and abortion was one recently.

The problem is that certain beliefs seem to leave no middle ground. Some in the Catholic Church (it's the official line; many who style themselves Catholic do not follow it) believe that all abortion is a crime and an obscenity, regardless of the circumstances. Many others agree with me that to force a raped woman to carry the foetus to term is itself a crime and an obscenity.

There are many other friction points like this; for example, the position of so- called "apostates" in Islamic communities, social customs like forced marriage, the status of science education where this clashes with revealed religion; and so on.

Generally, the beliefs which I find it hard to respect involve people coercing someone to do something against their will, and it's easy to mount the moral high horse here. But hang on... there are many cases in which I am the one who wants to make someone do something they don't like, or stop them doing something they want to do. Radical genital mutilation? I'm against that- even when it seems to be undertaken voluntarily. Educate your child according to your beliefs? Not if that means indoctrinating the child that non- believers are hateful.

So what I am waffling about, is that I want to have respect for other beliefs, but I also want that respect to be mutual, and that those with different outlooks must be prepared to consider "in the bowels of Christ" that they may be mistaken.

We need to achieve this, if pluralistic societies are to survive. The question is, how do we go about it in the face of so much intransigence and hate?