On abortion
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
I wouldn't presume to tell you how to live your life, and I wouldn't want anyone else telling me to do or not do something based on another's personal moral code.
But Stan is a fascist. He spends much of his time telling other people how to live their lives. If he had the power, we'd all march in lockstep with him.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
But Stan is a fascist. He spends much of his time telling other people how to live their lives. If he had the power, we'd all march in lockstep with him.
Yes, because obviously someone who believes that political power belongs in the hands of the people and not in the hands of an all powerful supreme court is a fascist but someone who believes that we should all be forced to obey the dicatats of that court deciding what ever it wants to with no regard at all for the actual text of the constitution is not a fascist. Yeah, that makes a hell of a lot of sense. Is that another example of that libertarian mental agility of yours?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
I wouldn't presume to tell you how to live your life, and I wouldn't want anyone else telling me to do or not do something based on another's personal moral code.
Nothing wrong with that... Until people start dying. I'm assuming you don't have the same indifference to Jeffrey Dahmer, Chucky Manson, Scott Peterson, Somalia, Hitler, etc. I'm assuming you say that because you don't view abortion as the killing of another human being. I assume you're not an anarchist. My point is, virtually every nation on planet Earth condems murder and has laws regarding it. And most normal people don't see many just uses for it. And the laws prohibiting murder (like all laws) are telling someone what to do or not do based on a moral code. Your argument trivializes the actual issue, the core question of "is it human life".
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
And the laws prohibiting murder (like all laws) are telling someone what to do or not do based on a moral code.
But the taking of a human life is not the definition of murder. An executioner does not commit murder when he pulls the switch. A cop on the beat doesn't commit murder when he shoots to kill a bad guy pointing a gun at him. Not even a drunk in an SUV commits murder when he plows into a guy on a motorbike. A pilot who drops a bomb on a town, killing women and children as well as enemy soldiers, or a soldier who fires a machine gun into a house where guerillas are hiding and kills his target and his targets wife amd kids are not murderers. My point is that virtually every nation on earth allows humans to kill humans under special circumstances without defining them as murderers. And the last time I looked, once the state assumes the power to say there are exceptions to moral imperatives like "Thou shalt not kill," then a debate about what exceptions are permissible is unavoidable. Can I assume that you approved of the execution of Dahmer which was conducted by another inmate, and not the state? Most people do. Does that make them (and possibly you) into anarchists or (according to Stan, something worse) libertarians?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
BoneSoft wrote:
And the laws prohibiting murder (like all laws) are telling someone what to do or not do based on a moral code.
But the taking of a human life is not the definition of murder. An executioner does not commit murder when he pulls the switch. A cop on the beat doesn't commit murder when he shoots to kill a bad guy pointing a gun at him. Not even a drunk in an SUV commits murder when he plows into a guy on a motorbike. A pilot who drops a bomb on a town, killing women and children as well as enemy soldiers, or a soldier who fires a machine gun into a house where guerillas are hiding and kills his target and his targets wife amd kids are not murderers. My point is that virtually every nation on earth allows humans to kill humans under special circumstances without defining them as murderers. And the last time I looked, once the state assumes the power to say there are exceptions to moral imperatives like "Thou shalt not kill," then a debate about what exceptions are permissible is unavoidable. Can I assume that you approved of the execution of Dahmer which was conducted by another inmate, and not the state? Most people do. Does that make them (and possibly you) into anarchists or (according to Stan, something worse) libertarians?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
once the state assumes the power to say there are exceptions to moral imperatives like "Thou shalt not kill," then a debate about what exceptions are permissible is unavoidable.
And where should the authority to make such a determination exist? Is the government to have exclusive authority to do so because otherwise any such determination might reflect some religious perspective among the people?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
once the state assumes the power to say there are exceptions to moral imperatives like "Thou shalt not kill," then a debate about what exceptions are permissible is unavoidable.
And where should the authority to make such a determination exist? Is the government to have exclusive authority to do so because otherwise any such determination might reflect some religious perspective among the people?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Is the government to have exclusive authority to do so because otherwise any such determination might reflect some religious perspective among the people?
It certainly isn't surprising that you, like Adnan, disagree. But many of us are Jeffersonians: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." - Thomas Jefferson.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Is the government to have exclusive authority to do so because otherwise any such determination might reflect some religious perspective among the people?
It certainly isn't surprising that you, like Adnan, disagree. But many of us are Jeffersonians: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." - Thomas Jefferson.
I wasn't disagreeing with anything. I was just asking a simple question. Are you trying to suggest that Jefferson would have agreed that the courts should have the authority to control the social agenda in order to protect society from religious influence?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
I wasn't disagreeing with anything. I was just asking a simple question. Are you trying to suggest that Jefferson would have agreed that the courts should have the authority to control the social agenda in order to protect society from religious influence?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Are you trying to suggest that Jefferson would have agreed that the courts should have the authority to control the social agenda in order to protect society from religious influence?
Why do you consistently try to put words in the mouths of people you disagree with? Is it because you recognize that you cannot debate the points they are making? Or do you truly have that much trouble reading standard American English?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Are you trying to suggest that Jefferson would have agreed that the courts should have the authority to control the social agenda in order to protect society from religious influence?
Why do you consistently try to put words in the mouths of people you disagree with? Is it because you recognize that you cannot debate the points they are making? Or do you truly have that much trouble reading standard American English?
Than could you please translate for me what you think Jefferson was actually saying? You know, in your own words? And why what he was saying is significant to the conversation at hand. And, further, which part of his quote you think I disagree with.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
And the laws prohibiting murder (like all laws) are telling someone what to do or not do based on a moral code.
But the taking of a human life is not the definition of murder. An executioner does not commit murder when he pulls the switch. A cop on the beat doesn't commit murder when he shoots to kill a bad guy pointing a gun at him. Not even a drunk in an SUV commits murder when he plows into a guy on a motorbike. A pilot who drops a bomb on a town, killing women and children as well as enemy soldiers, or a soldier who fires a machine gun into a house where guerillas are hiding and kills his target and his targets wife amd kids are not murderers. My point is that virtually every nation on earth allows humans to kill humans under special circumstances without defining them as murderers. And the last time I looked, once the state assumes the power to say there are exceptions to moral imperatives like "Thou shalt not kill," then a debate about what exceptions are permissible is unavoidable. Can I assume that you approved of the execution of Dahmer which was conducted by another inmate, and not the state? Most people do. Does that make them (and possibly you) into anarchists or (according to Stan, something worse) libertarians?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Yes I made the mistake of using the word muder again. Legal distinctions aside, I meant the killing of another human being. I see your point, but feel obligated to point out that all of your examples are accidents, self defense, or acts done in war. None of them have a correlation to abortion.
Oakman wrote:
then a debate about what exceptions are permissible is unavoidable
Agreed, and I have no problem with that.
Oakman wrote:
Can I assume that you approved of the execution of Dahmer which was conducted by another inmate, and not the state?
No you cannot. As much as I sometimes feel like applauding vigilante behaviour, I would very much prefer that the laws standard to us all handle the dealing of punishment. Anarchy is about as welcome to me as communism, which is to say not in the least.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Yes I made the mistake of using the word muder again. Legal distinctions aside, I meant the killing of another human being. I see your point, but feel obligated to point out that all of your examples are accidents, self defense, or acts done in war. None of them have a correlation to abortion.
Oakman wrote:
then a debate about what exceptions are permissible is unavoidable
Agreed, and I have no problem with that.
Oakman wrote:
Can I assume that you approved of the execution of Dahmer which was conducted by another inmate, and not the state?
No you cannot. As much as I sometimes feel like applauding vigilante behaviour, I would very much prefer that the laws standard to us all handle the dealing of punishment. Anarchy is about as welcome to me as communism, which is to say not in the least.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
None of them have a correlation to abortion
Nor do they have much correlation with each other with the possible exception of the soldier on the ground and the cop on the beat. But they do permit the concept of abortion to be considered, even if you believe that a week-old fetus has a soul. (Throw out vehicular homicide, I mentioned that simply to point out that killing isn't automatically the same as murder.)
BoneSoft wrote:
Agreed, and I have no problem with that.
Which then takes us into the area of rape and incest resulting in pregnancy as well as forcing us to deal with abortion to save the life of the mother. I should note that I hate abortion. I think it is a disgusting act. (And I am afraid that there are people who regard it as "oopsie-birth control, even though some people claim otherwise.) I just don't think that it can be eliminated by outlawing it and, all other things being equal, legalize abortion is somewhat preferable to the days of 16 year old girls dying after coat-hanger abortions - which was the case in the '50's.
BoneSoft wrote:
As much as I sometimes feel like applauding vigilante behaviour, I would very much prefer that the laws standard to us all handle the dealing of punishment.
Me, too. But as long as there's no death penalty for creeps like Dahmer, I cannot help but applaud his killer.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
BoneSoft wrote:
None of them have a correlation to abortion
Nor do they have much correlation with each other with the possible exception of the soldier on the ground and the cop on the beat. But they do permit the concept of abortion to be considered, even if you believe that a week-old fetus has a soul. (Throw out vehicular homicide, I mentioned that simply to point out that killing isn't automatically the same as murder.)
BoneSoft wrote:
Agreed, and I have no problem with that.
Which then takes us into the area of rape and incest resulting in pregnancy as well as forcing us to deal with abortion to save the life of the mother. I should note that I hate abortion. I think it is a disgusting act. (And I am afraid that there are people who regard it as "oopsie-birth control, even though some people claim otherwise.) I just don't think that it can be eliminated by outlawing it and, all other things being equal, legalize abortion is somewhat preferable to the days of 16 year old girls dying after coat-hanger abortions - which was the case in the '50's.
BoneSoft wrote:
As much as I sometimes feel like applauding vigilante behaviour, I would very much prefer that the laws standard to us all handle the dealing of punishment.
Me, too. But as long as there's no death penalty for creeps like Dahmer, I cannot help but applaud his killer.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Without getting neck deep in this topic again... I don't have a problem with abortion as self defence, and even for rape and incest. Stick to those and we'd have 99% fewer abortion in this country. Leaving no room for anybody to complain about the other handful that happen every year. Or if they would at the very least put half as much effort into educating and whatever else could be done to promote prevention, as they do in promoting abortion and the various "rights" surrounding it. Whoever suggested that parents shouldn't have to be notified should be retro-actively aborted on national TV.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.