11/30/2005

Open Thread

A few deep thoughts to get you rolling:

The aim of life is self-development. To realize one's nature perfectly - that is what each of us is here for. Oscar Wilde

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy? Mahatma Gandhi, "Non-Violence in Peace and War"

What else is love but understanding and rejoicing in the fact that another person lives, acts, and experiences otherwise than we do…?
Friedrich Nietzsche

What's on your mind?

53 Comments:

At 08:35, Blogger RedStateExile said...

My self-development tells me that I'd rather be doing this than work.

There were so many good quotes that spoke to me but I had to limit myself. I tend to get a little longwinded after all.

We're having some good debates on a couple of other threads, but they are getting lost down there (or at least I'm getting tired of hunting for them) so I thought I'd try to move things up here.

 
At 08:58, Blogger lovin' it said...

At your request, I'm carrying the conversation forward. here's the thread:

Dorsano - Your argument against the death penalty sounds well thought out and reasonable, whether or not I agree with it.

Let me ask you one question to help me decide if you are sincere:

Do you believe that abortion is immoral and should be illegal, or do you condone the murder of preborn innocents as a private choice?

If you're really pro-life, then we can talk about the death penalty. But if you're pro-life for murder convicts and pro-abortion for innocent babies, then I'm calling you out as a hypocrite worse then any pharisee.

07:48


RedStateExile said...
Well, Dorsano, he was just laying-in-wait for this one because of course EVERYONE can't wait to get pregnant or knock someone up so they can run out and have an abortion. YIPPEE, abortions are just SOOOO much fun!!!

Love the selective word choice too.

08:31


lovin' it said...
Nice dodge Callie. Care to answer the question?

 
At 09:54, Blogger RedStateExile said...

Let me follow suit and pull up our other discussion as well:

lovin' it said...
If by culture you mean sombraros, belly dancing, and chia tea, then I'm all for multiculturalism. I consider myself a lover of all those things. ;-)

When I think of culture, I tend to mean the more substantial stuff, like civil liberties, limits on governmental power, the rule of law, and the like. On those issues I have no desire to learn from others. I'm proud to say that western civilization has discovered the best ordering of society that's existed in the world since the garden of eden. There's nothing worth importing from others in these areas.

08:54


RedStateExile said...
I have no desire to learn from others.

Really???

It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err.
-Mahatma Gandhi

Learning from others doesn't make you weak, but it can keep you from making their mistakes.

09:47

I think belly dancing is pretty cool too and chai tea is a nice alternative to coffee, but if I shut my eyes and ears to the knowledge that other cultures treat women inhumanely then how will I ever know that is a behavior I never want to see immulated in my own country? How will I know that I never want us to go down those same roads if I never listen to the horror stories of the people from those cultures?

Learning about other people's trials and tribulations doesn't mean we support what happened to them, but hopefully we can learn from it so they never have to face it again here.

 
At 10:03, Blogger RedStateExile said...

I didn't dodge. Certainly, you can read through a little sarcasm to see that I'm not pro-abortion, as you call it.

But this is always a right-wing fall back dodge when arguments are lost. You can't deal with the fact that there aren't defined lines of black and white for all situations and that you haven't been able to control people's bodies and choices, so you change the language.

If you think I'm pro-abortion just because I don't think a woman should give up control of her body to the government, then this argument may have already been over before it ever got started.

 
At 10:14, Blogger lovin' it said...

Callie - It is precisely because I do see what goes on in the non-western world that I am convinced that we have nothing to learn from them. Without exception, non-western cultures are morally inferior in their treatment of women and religious and ethnic minorities. Without exception they are poorer, more politically corrupt, and offer less opportunity for economic advancement to their citizens.



As to the other topic . . .

I stand by what I said. If you are against the death penalty because you are afraid an innocent person might be executed but willing to allow legal abortion you are a hypocrite of the worst kind. You can dance around the semantics all you want. If you don't like the term pro-abortion call it pro-choice. The result is still the same. You are willing to sanction the taking of innocent life because of the effect that life is having on another, in this case usually the mother.

 
At 11:40, Anonymous Tom said...

"If you are against the death penalty because you are afraid an innocent person might be executed but willing to allow legal abortion you are a hypocrite of the worst kind. "

If one believes a fetus is a person, then one is an idiot of the worst kind, willing to allow political nonsense promulgated by anti-American scum of the James Dobson variety to replace reasoned, scientific observation. One may be well-read and capable of interesting conversation, but rational thought? It knows such a person not.

 
At 16:23, Blogger dorsano said...

Do you believe that abortion is immoral and should be illegal, or do you condone the murder of preborn innocents as a private choice?

Answer this question for me and maybe I can answer you.

"When does a fertizlied egg acquire a soul?"

I'm not trying to duck the question - I don't think God's amused by 1,000,000 abortions per year either. As far as I'm concerned, it's symptomatic of systemic problems in the country.

 
At 16:27, Blogger dorsano said...

Dorsano - Your argument against the death penalty sounds well thought out and reasonable, whether or not I agree with it.

To be honest - I never thought deeply about the death penalty. I was never "against" it - especially when a cop is killed, an act of treason is committed, an act of "terrorism" - or the death penalties handed down during the Nuremburg trials.

I always valued the life of an inocent person above most requirements to "punish" - I know that.

Something you said in one of your early comments prompted me to think about it. I'm not sure what.

It must have been time for me to think about it. I'm glad Callie indulged me and allowed me to think out loud on one of her comment threads.

And I appreciate you taking the time to discuss it.

 
At 21:53, Anonymous AS-Colo said...

One other way to look at it is, if I were dying of kidney failure, the state doesn't have the right to compel my brother to donate one.

Should fetuses not only have equal rights to other people, but superior rights? No one argues that any entity other than a fetus has the right to be linked to another person for their essential life support. Note here I said "right".

I am not going to pay tribute to the anti-abortionist idea (commonly insinuated) that women want to have abortions as a general rule.

Abortion is only "murder" if denial of life bodily support between adults is murder, which it isn't.

 
At 06:13, Blogger lovin' it said...

tom - If the fetus is not a human being, what kind of creature is it? Your diatribe is long on hyperbole, but short on answers. The burden of proof that the unborn offspring of two human beings is somehow not a human being sounds ridiculous on its face. At the very least, the burden of proof for such a claim lies on you to make it, not on me to disprove it.

as-colo - Your argument is morally weak and legally indefensible.

If a parent abandons an infant to die of exposure or starvation, that is murder, both in the eyes of God and the state. They have an affirmative right to care for the child precisely because a baby cannot care for itself.

At the other end of the spectrum, if your father has a stroke and you just let him lie there and die instead of making every possible effort to get him medical care, you will be guilty of negligent homicide.

Why does this responsibility suddenly disappear because the victim is unborn? It doesn't.

dorsano - I prefer not to engage in philosophical speculation. Human life is sacred. Unless someone can demonstrate that the life in the womb is something other then human life, then it should have the protection of law.

By all means be concerned that the innocent might accidentally be executed. But this is a case of knowing millions of innocents are being murdered. Just by matter of numbers, this is a more important issue.

 
At 07:08, Blogger RedStateExile said...

Instead of focusing on women murdering children and trying to find a way to further victimize them and hurt them in our society, why not consider the root issues that lead to excessive pregnancies, especially teenage pregnancies, and conception from rape and incest?

It's easy, lovin' it, for you to sit there and look at the issues in black and white, but consider the ramifications of pointing the finger of murder at women, who are just as innocent.

A teenage girl who became pregnant because she was raped repeatedly by her father doesn't deserve the death penalty or even incarceration because you want to point the finger of murder at her, especially when there are laws out there on the books trying to force her to tell the same person who raped her that she doesn't want to have their baby.

Can't you see the consequences of only thinking in black and white?

What if the baby is born? Then what? Born into a world of abuse where his/her father is also his/her grandfather!! OMG!

How about seeing some solutions from your side? Instead of telling a young woman like this, abortion is murder. What else can she do? Adoption? Okay, how is that going to work in a home of abuse? There are all kinds of issues involved that you may have never thought about that need to be dealt with, but these are those gray areas you don't like.

BTW-I'm adopted so I have a little different insight on this. My life (or not) could have turned out quite differently. Fortunately, for me, it was easy to adopt out white girls in Alabama. Not everyone is that lucky, but that's a whole different gray area in this discussion.

 
At 08:16, Blogger lovin' it said...

Callie - Less then 5% of abortions are a result of conception from rape or incest. Even president Bush believes there should be exceptions in those cases. Whether or not that's right is a harder question, but we'll leave it aside for now. Let's talk about the other 95%.

Adoption is always a good option. Americans are adopting kids from China and Mongolia by the tens of thousands because there simply are not enough babies available. Many millions more go without the children they want because they cannot afford expensive private adoptions. If those children were available, there would be homes for them.

But even that is really not the main issue. If a single teenaged girl abandons her baby and it dies, that is murder. We don't excuse it because she was single and didn't have everything she needed to be an ideal mother.

Abortion is no different. A man who pressures a girl to have an abortion because he doesn't want to raise a baby is morally just as culpable. But that doesn't let anyone else off the hook either.

It's not like before Roe v Wade there was a crisis of women abandoning children they couldn't care for. That problem is greater today then it was before that decision. Ditto the overall illigitamacy rate, which is three times higher now then before abortion was legal. Clearly something other then access to abortion is the cause of these problems.

 
At 08:35, Blogger RedStateExile said...

I don't care if it's .00001% of the abortions were a result of rape or incest. That's an issue to be dealt with and not ignored.

As for adoption, I don't think you really know what you are talking about. Why are you even talking about Americans adopting Chinese and Mongolian children? Those aren't the ones we should be concerned about adopting.

I knew this high and mighty single Christian woman once that paid $10K each for two Chinese babies once. She could have gone through the state and adopted kids for free. In some states, they even PAY you to foster and adopt kids.

So, what's stopping these pro-life folks from jumping on the adoption bandwagon? Try answering that question for me.

 
At 09:37, Blogger lovin' it said...

Callie - You should care. Right now the law makes no distinction between a woman who is pregnant because she was raped and one who is pregnant because she was promiscuous. If she wants an abortion, she gets one with no questions asked.

If a law was passed that banned abortions but made exceptions for the life of the mother and pregnancies that resulted from rape or incest would you support that? I suspect the answer is no, which means that rape and incest is just an excuse for supporting abortion rights.

And there are kids available for adoption. What there is a shortage of is babies. Maybe people should be more willing to adopt older kids, but that is a separate issue from whether or not aborted babies could be placed in homes where they are wanted. They could be.

But that is really besides the point. We don't kill kids in foster care just because no one has adopted them yet. Why not? Because it is murder. Killing the unborn just because you don't know if he or she will be adopted is just as morally indefensible as killing a 10 year old.

p.s. Christians adopt kids and take in foster children at rates much greater then the general population. I'd say we are on the bandwagon.

 
At 09:37, Anonymous AS-Colo said...

"as-colo - Your argument is morally weak and legally indefensible."

Actually, it's legally VERY defensible. No state require a person to risk his life or violate her bodily integrity to save another's, except perhaps in professional, not personal, situations where a person has sworn an oath to do so.

It might be counter-intuitive to an anti-abortionists sensibilities, but mothers are also not required by the state to save the lives of their living children if to do so she would have to risk her own.

To refuse to run into a burning building, for example, to save someone, even your own family, isn't "negligent homicide" unless you're a fireman.

By definition, pregnancy is an inherently life-threatening event, being that pregnancy induces bodily changes that put the mother at risk, such as runaway high blood pressure, etc.

Being that motherhood isn't a profession, and no oath is signed, where does the state get off saying that women should be REQUIRED to risk their lives because the fetus has a higher right than any of the rest of us out here in the world of the living?

There is no similar situation in law that I know of where a person is required to share their BODY (keyword, here) with another to sustain that person's life.

This situation of 1). Requiring that life threatening risks be taken and 2). Sharing one's body with another person puts the issue of forbidding abortion in a distinctly different class than, say, not getting someone care in a negligent manner.

I therefore totally reject your counter-examples as being analogous ones.

 
At 10:25, Blogger lovin' it said...

Except you miss one very important point. No pro-life person has ever suggested that a woman whose life or physical health was threatened by her pregnancy should be required to carry to term. Of course abortion should be legal when it's medically necessary to protect the life of the mother.

No law forces me to risk my life to save my children from a fire. That does not mean I can just kill them. Keeping abortion legal without restriction because it is sometimes medically necessary to save the mother's life is like saying you should be able to kill your two year old now to avoid the risk of being burned later trying to rescue her from a fire.

 
At 19:26, Blogger dorsano said...

At the other end of the spectrum, if your father has a stroke and you just let him lie there and die instead of making every possible effort to get him medical care, you will be guilty of negligent homicide.

Sounds like we need Medicare for everyone.

 
At 19:31, Blogger dorsano said...

dorsano - I prefer not to engage in philosophical speculation. Human life is sacred.

That's philosphical statement right there :)

How come you can make them and I can't? Why is it sacred? Because it has a soul?

 
At 19:33, Blogger dorsano said...

Except you miss one very important point. No pro-life person has ever suggested that a woman whose life or physical health was threatened by her pregnancy should be required to carry to term. Of course abortion should be legal when it's medically necessary to protect the life of the mother.

You might want to check the case currently being heard by the Supreme Court.

 
At 06:47, Blogger lovin' it said...

Dorsano - We all agree that an innocent human has a right not to be killed merely because his death will better the life of another, right? That isn't speculative, we all support that position.

Some people choose to speculate that a time exists when a creature genetically homo sapien is not human because it doesn't have a mystical thing called a soul. To which I say, maybe, but the burden of proof falls on the one who wishes to use that as a defense of killing.

 
At 12:42, Blogger RedStateExile said...

Callie - You should care.

What part of it's "an issue to be dealt with" didn't you understand?

I'm talking about root issues and problems, not sitting here piously at a computer pointing a finger at people assuming we know where they stand.

Like you assume, I'm going to answer "no" to your question. Why? Because you think I'm some big ugly lesbian baby killer? Because you think I don't want women to have children?

Maybe people should be more willing to adopt older kids

Well, at least you FINALLY mention a solution!!! But do you REALLY think that they suddenly were placed in the system when they were teenagers?

No, they were put there when they were babies and nobody took them home. You seriously think ALL babies could be placed in a home??? Think again.

I had a friend that just adopted a four year old African American boy. He started fostering him at two years old and the agency was worried that he may never get adopted because he was getting too old. He had already be shuffled from foster home to foster home to foster home. Plus, he medical and behavioral issues that needed special care. Nobody wanted to deal with him, except my friend. This kid got lucky, but many other don't.

Don't believe me??? Go to one of these agencies, ask to look at their books of foster kids, and see for yourself. See how long they've been in the system.

Then, either offer some solutions or get off the discussion because you don't know what you're talking about.

 
At 12:45, Blogger RedStateExile said...

as-colo

Sounds like a pretty good argument to me. I never really thought of it that way.

 
At 16:44, Blogger dorsano said...

That isn't speculative, we all support that position.

Agreed.

but the burden of proof falls on the one who wishes to use that as a defense of killing.

That doesn't follow logically. The conclusion assumes that a fertilized egg is sacred presumably by virtue of it's genetic potental to become a self aware human being.

You seem to be taking my argument seriously so I'll tell you what I believe.

 
At 16:55, Blogger dorsano said...

I don't know when a fertilized egg acquires a soul - I know what the Catholic church instructs me to believe.

I believe that people of faith, whether they are Christians, Jews, Muslims or whatever and thoughtful people of no faith

can come to different rightful conclusions about this.

I'll never have to make that choice for myself but I can't imagine a circumstance where, if I were a woman, I'd choose to have an abortion - and my wife feels pretty much the same way.

She'd rather die if it meant she could give birth to a healthy child - though since we had three at the time, I'm grateful she agreed to give that decision more thought as her last pregnancy progressed.

 
At 17:02, Blogger dorsano said...

If I could wave a magic wand and write national legislation that would put an end to this debate,

I wouldn't allow ANY abortions after the 16th week of pregnancy except to preserve the health of the woman unless the woman could convince a judge that she had good reason not to terminate the pregnacy earlier.

During that 16 weeks, I would place no restrictions on the woman - she wouldn't need a permission slip from her husband or parents - no intervention by the state at all.

And I would make sure that every woman had access to confidential and safe facilities whether they could afford them or not.

 
At 08:16, Blogger lovin' it said...

Dorsano - Explain how your position is morally any different then the Pol Pots, Emperor Hiroshitos and Hitlers of the world. They too were convinced that the genetically human creatures they were killing were fair game because they didn't really have souls. They just chose different victims.

Callie - The problem is that your position ignores historical reality. The number of teenage pregnancies and children abandoned to foster care has skyrocketed since the legalization of abortion. Legal abortion hasn't solved the problem of unwanted children. It's gotten much worse.

More importantly, can you explain why you can condone abortion under these circumstances, but not infanticide? The doctors tell us that a newborn is not self-aware until at least six months of age. Should a mother be able to painlessly kill her two month old baby if she decides that she cannot take care of him any more?

I agree that we need solutions. But the solution is simple. Refrain from sex until you are ready to have a child. I know, I know, rape and incest. But those cases are less then 5% of the abortions. Surely our system could handle that 5%.

 
At 08:17, Blogger lovin' it said...

p.s. Your sexuality had nothing to do with my understanding of your position. I've read what you've wrote about abortion before. That was my clue.

 
At 20:58, Blogger dorsano said...

Explain how your position is morally any different then the Pol Pots, Emperor Hiroshitos and Hitlers of the world.

That's an old rhetorical trick called syncrisis. You already know it apparently (though maybe not by that name) since you've used it but others can find more here if they click on syncrisis.

Part of the trick involves finding one attribute in common between an opponent's position and something disgusting and using that as the basis to imply that the two are equal.

It's like "reasoning" A dog has a tail, an elephant has a tail - a dog is an elephant.

I think it's plain how "my position" differs. If you're interested in discussing it further,

why don't you restate my position, to demonstrate that you understand it,

and then explain how it's different.

Or the world could "reason" like you do and observe that al-Quida uses Islam to build and consolidate it's power in the Muslim world just like the GOP uses Christianity to turn out evangelical voters and deliver the margin of victory in elections - thus the two are equal.

 
At 05:44, Blogger lovin' it said...

Hitler believed that Jews were not human beings with an inalienable right to life. Therefor he believed they could be killed if their deaths benefited those who he deemed more valuable. In his case, it was the Aryans.

You believe that the unborn are not human beings with an inalienbale right to life. Therefor you believe that they can be killed if their deaths benefit those you deem more valuable. In your case, this is the already born.

The only difference between the two that I can see is which set of humans you deem unworthy of protection. You tell me what I'm missing.

 
At 13:37, Blogger RedStateExile said...

The number of teenage pregnancies and children abandoned to foster care has skyrocketed since the legalization of abortion. Legal abortion hasn't solved the problem of unwanted children.

Ummm, then doesn't that mean that they aren't having abortions but giving their children up???

I'm still waiting for offers of solutions from you instead of finger pointing.

Bring it on. Otherwise, you have nothing but empty rhetoric and bile. If that's the case, I'm done with this "conversation".

 
At 15:03, Blogger lovin' it said...

Empty rhetoric and bile? Come on. That's not fair. I've stated my position using facts (illegitimate pregnancy and child abandonment rates) and reasoning. You may disagree with my conclusions, but that is not the same as what you accuse me of.

By child abandonment, I'm refering to cases of child abuse where dependents are left without care until rescued by social workers. This does not refer to mothers giving a child up for adoption.

As for solutions . . .

I'm advocating creating a social climate where people are held responsible for their life choices. Legal abortion without real limits helps teach that we can be free to make irresponsible choices without consequence. It fosters the idea that sex can be commitment free. If a child is conceived, not a problem. Just kill it.

Contrary to popular mythology, it is more often the father then the mother who pushes for an abortion. Too many men want commitment free sex. Abortion enables this behavior.

Society needs to teach that adults should only engage in sex when they are able to take responsibility for the possible results. Ideally, this means sex should wait until marraige. But at the very least you need to take precautions to avoid pregnancy. What you don't get to do is engage is risky sexual behavior and then just kill an innocent baby because you made bad choices.

Pregnancy doesn't happen by accident. We all know what causes it. What we need to do is enforce a responsible sexual ethic. Abortion is a way to short circuit that responsibility. But that does not make it moral.

 
At 22:06, Blogger dorsano said...

Not even close lovinit - try again if you care to.

Hiring is one of the most difficult things a company has to do. Once those with a lack of skills or experience are weeded out, even a rigourous interview process is only marginly effective at identifying good people.

I hope for your family's sake that you've got a good job and can manage to keep it

because you've raised red flags brighter than I've ever seen in over 30 years.

 
At 07:20, Blogger lovin' it said...

Dorsano - What are you talking about? Was that supposed to be an insult against my intellectual reasoning? LOL Try engaging the actual issue for once. It's easy to just say "you're so dumb you wouldn't understand." It's a bit more challenging to actually defend your position.

Pro-abortionists are the ones saying that human creatures can be killed for the convenience of others. You explain why this is a moral practice. I've told you why I think it's immoral. Prove me wrong, if you can.

p.s. I run my own business, since you seem concerned about my employment status.

 
At 12:58, Blogger RedStateExile said...

SIGH...

I've stated my position using facts

Well, I went back through the posts on this thread and I don't see a source.

You're all over the place. It would be nice if you picked a topic and stuck to it. We've gone from abortion to adoption to (somehow) child abandonement and child abuse.

As for your solution...

Not a bad start to be honest. They sound really good coming from a soapbox, but how will it be practically implimented?

I really like the idea of What we need to do is enforce a responsible sexual ethic.

How will this be done? What's your plan?

 
At 18:53, Blogger dorsano said...

Was that supposed to be an insult against my intellectual reasoning?

No - if you're looking for an insult - consider it directed toward your reading comprehension and social skills.

I'll gladly defend my position if you restate it.

but you're a chicken shit - and you won't.

 
At 19:24, Blogger dorsano said...

"Witness A" testified in Saddam's trial today. The woman recounted her interegation at Abu Gharib.

She recalled how she was forced to undress there and was then tied up, beaten and given electric shocks by a gang of five officers whose names she didn't know.

As part of the cross examination the defense asked:

Lawyer: We agree conditions in Abu Ghraib were very bad until recently. Did they use dogs on you?
Witness: No.
Lawyer: Did they photograph you?
Witness: No.

All of which are references to the abuses at Abu Gharib by U.S. troops.

Hopefully, Iraqis don't reason like lovinit does. If they do, they might conclude that Saddam's treatment of Witness A is no different (less egregious actually) than George Bush's treatment of the Iraqi prisoners at Abu Gharib.

And Saddam might get by with life.

 
At 13:30, Blogger lovin' it said...

dorsano - I've restated your position as I understand it. In a debate, the next step is for you to explain why you think I'm wrong. Do you actually have an answer, or is the sum total of your argument just to call me stupid?

callie - I offer you the same challenge. It's easy to throw out insults. How about actually rebutting my argument?

 
At 20:02, Blogger dorsano said...

Here is my statement (cut and pasted) ...

-------

I believe that people of faith, whether they are Christians, Jews, Muslims or whatever and thoughtful people of no faith

can come to different rightful conclusions about this.

I'll never have to make that choice for myself but I can't imagine a circumstance where, if I were a woman, I'd choose to have an abortion - and my wife feels pretty much the same way.

She'd rather die if it meant she could give birth to a healthy child - though since we had three at the time, I'm grateful she agreed to give that decision more thought as her last pregnancy progressed.

-----

What choice would I make for myself (if I were a woman - which is a big if) about abortion?

 
At 05:58, Blogger lovin' it said...

dorsano - You're dodging the issue. Murder is not a legitimate choice.

The debate is not over what choice you would make. It is whether or not you should have the right to choose in the first place.

You wouldn't accept that answer in any other context. "Oh, I can't imagine any situation where I would kill dorsano, but I don't want to restrict your right to kill him if you feel differently."

or "I can't imagine ever forcing my children into prostitution, but I don't want to judge others whose financial situation was so desperate that they had no choice."

That's a crap answer. I'm looking for a defense of why abortion is a morally acceptable choice. So far you've avoided that. But you can feel free to try again. ;-)

 
At 22:53, Blogger dorsano said...

Does a 16 day undifferentiated cell have a soul, lovinit?

Before you answer that, you might want to review the definition of "undifferentiated". Here it is:

Having no special structure or function; primitive; embryonic.

or

Not differentiated; specifically (Biol.), homogenous, or nearly so; -- said especially of young or embryonic tissues which have not yet, undergone differentiation (see Differentiation, , that is, which show no visible separation into their different structural parts.

Is a 16 day undifferentiated cell sacred? Why? Why do you know better than someone else? Is God granting you an exclusive audience that he isn't granting any of us?

That's a crap answer. I'm looking for a defense of why abortion is a morally acceptable choice.

I'm still wonder when I became Hitler.

 
At 06:51, Blogger RedStateExile said...

Um, when did I insult you? What? Just because I asked you to go further than preaching to a kid about the evils of premarital sex and going to hell for having an abortion?

Come on...I figured if I could get you to think that far ahead that maybe I could get you a little further.

It's the teacher and trainer in me that hates to believe all is lost.

 
At 09:41, Blogger lovin' it said...

dorsano - Does a Jew have a soul? Do gypsies? Do you? How would you go about proving it?

There is no scientific way to demonstrate the existence of the soul. Belief in the soul is purely a matter of faith.

There is a scientific way to demonstrate whether or not you are human. It's called your genetic code. And your genetic code is human from the moment of conception. If you wish to use the supposed lack of a soul as justification for killing a genetically human being, the moral burden of proof lies with you, not me.

Even if we did accept your test of the level of differentation, abortion in this country is legal until birth. No law takes this into account, so it really is irrelevent in the discussion about our current abortion situation.

I equate your position with Hitler's because both of you take the position that certain humans can morally be killed based not on any action they have taken but on their physical characteristics. You explain to me how they are different. I fail to see any moral distinction.

 
At 17:16, Blogger dorsano said...

The medical establishment defines pregnancy as begining when a fertilized egg attaches to the womb.

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.

By your definition, a woman who uses the copper-T intrauterine device or takes Plan B, Ovrette, Ogestrel, Ovral, Cryselle, Levlen, Levora ....

are committing murder and are morally equivalent to Hitler.

 
At 17:23, Blogger dorsano said...

What about a woman who has a tubal ligation and experiences an ectopic pregnancy?

Is she guilty of murder too?

 
At 17:35, Blogger dorsano said...

I'm looking for a defense of why abortion is a morally acceptable choice. So far you've avoided that

Morality is a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct. For many people if not most, that framework comes from Religion.

Like I said above, I believe that people of faith, whether they are Christians, Jews, Muslims or whatever and thoughtful people of no faith

can come to different rightful conclusions about this.

I'm not going to make that choice for them.

 
At 17:41, Blogger dorsano said...

98% of human DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees.

Chimpanzees have been taught American Sign Language, have constructed their own sentences using it, expressed emotions and demonstrated self awarness.

My your definition, killing a premeditated killing of chimpanzee is punishable by death.

 
At 17:50, Blogger dorsano said...

That's a crap answer.

No -- equating my willingness to permit

a woman to choose to have a fertilized egg removed from her body

with someone who systemically killed millions of adults and children

makes you pretty bonkers

 
At 06:40, Blogger lovin' it said...

dorsano - You posted lots of different answers, I'll try to address them all in order.

1. Birth control that prevents fertilization is not murder. Birth control that actually acts as an abortificant is murder. Your moral culpability would depend on whether or not you were aware at the time you took it what it actually did.

2. If you have been reading my posts, you would know that I've already stated that abortions needed to save the life of the mother are not immoral.

3.You are perfectly willing to impose your morality in many other areas of life. I assume you think murder, rape, assault, and theft should be illegal and that those who commit these acts should be punished by the state. Why should the murder of unborn babies be the only exception?

This argument falls flat. The only way it works is if you assume the unborn are not actually human. Which is the question at hand.

4. I would be perfectly content to feast on chimpanzee brains without the least twinge of guilt. They are not human. Nice try though.

5. Calling me bonkers is not a reasoned answer. So far your only defense against this charge has been to insult my intelligence. It's beginning to sound like you don't have an answer.

Hitler condoned the killing of Jews because he said although they were human they didn't have souls. About six million died.

You condone the killing of the unborn because you say although they are human they don't have souls. So far 40 million have died in this country alone.

You explain the moral difference to me, if you can. So far you haven't even tried.

 
At 12:44, Blogger RedStateExile said...

I can't believe I have two men on my blog arguing about a woman's right to choose how to handle her own body!

Lovin' it, does it not EVEN occur to you that you are making moral judgments (i.e. passing judgment) in a very personal matter that has absolutely NO impact on you?

You are basically trying to make a case that anyone who doesn't think and believe as you do would be a murderer of the equivalent of Hitler, simply because they don't think it's their place to make that choice for a woman. How dare you be so arrogant?

You're not God and you can't stand in judgment of those who don't believe as you do.

We're obviously at totally different ends of the spectrum on this. It's time just to agree to disagree.

 
At 16:41, Blogger dorsano said...

a tubal ligation is meant to prevent fertilization but there are instances where it fails - the result is always either the death of the mother or the destruction of a fertilized egg.

A woman is informed of those risks when she has the procedure.

So I'm curious, knowing there is a chance of failure, do you think she's guilty of murder?

 
At 16:46, Blogger dorsano said...

Had Hitler lived, he would been executed at Nuremberg.

Do you intend to excute everyone who's pro-choice, including the majority of rank and file Republicans because we are no different than Hitler?

The Republican Majority for Choice is an organization of Republican men and women throughout the United States, who believe in our party's traditional principles of individual liberty, strong national security and sound economic reason. We endorse the 'big tent' philosophy of inclusion and tolerance on social issues.

We support the protection of Roe v. Wade and want to ensure that the right to choose is personal and NOT political. The choice issue is symbolic to the majority of electoral voters who know that there is much more that can be lost if we do not actively work to protect that right. At stake are our fundamental constitutional rights that are so tightly woven into our country's social fabric.

 
At 16:49, Blogger dorsano said...

Birth control that actually acts as an abortificant is murder

Now you're a doctor too - and are redefining abortion? According to the medical establishment, pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg attaches to the womb. The drugs I mentioned above are labeled as emergency contraception.

Both a doctor and God - you gonna assume any more roles?

 
At 16:51, Blogger dorsano said...

Hitler thought the DNA of the Arian race was special too - that's why he systematically killed Jews.

It had nothing to do with their souls.

All you've done is push the parameters of his reasoning out a 1+%

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home