| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Dale" |
| Date: |
06 Oct 2004 12:38:33 AM |
| Object: |
Morality, Expedience, Murder, War, Abortion |
Some christians are fond of equating abortion with murder, but many of these
same have no problem with killing people in war time. Alvin C. York, Sgt.
York the fundamentalist Christian pacifist turned WWI hero, famously
reasoned that if the Germans manning a machine gun nest were allowed to
continue to shoot at his fellow soldiers, then many more of them would die,
and the only way to stop them was to kill the machine-gunning Germans. so
that is what he did, despite his strong beliefs against killing.
Likewise, the faithful today who desire to keep the Commandments are still
able to find reason to kill people if it means that killing them will avoid
loss of life among the innocent. In other words, all killing of humans is
murder, unless it is expedient to kill them, then it's okay.
It's easy to see why this must be so. A society cannot tolerate murder among
its population. If the society did not punish murderers, then individuals
would have to take matters into their own hands, and many more people would
die, some innocent among them, because no one would tolerate the murder of a
loved one without retribution. In the ensuing chaos, a society would have to
act, or face extinction. If there were societies in the past which allowed
murder, no doubt this is the fate they faced, leaving us today with only
people from societies that maintained an organized response against murder.
But killing in self-defense is universally allowed, and killing in war is
often seen as self-defense, or as serving a higher purpose which makes it
alright to kill people. Everyone knew many Iraqis would be killed if we
invaded, but we did so anyway even though it was not in self-defense,
because the war was perceived to serve the higher purposes of protecting the
world's economy by protecting the world's oil supply, and of giving the long
suffering Iraqi people respite from an evil regime, and the promise of a
brighter future. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette, as they
say.
So it's clear there are times when even people who hold the Commandment
"Thou Shalt Not Kill" to be quite sacred nevertheless find it expedient,
practical to kill people.
And for many people, abortion is another such expediency. Consider the vast
difference between the murder of a grown individual and the killing of a
fetus. No society can survive anarchy with respect to the murder of adults
and children. But societies must allow people to kill in self-defense and in
times of war, otherwise they would face the same extinction as a completely
murderous society.
The killing of a fetus is an act of expediency, similar to killing in
self-defense or killing in war. It has little of the negative effect on
society that murder has. Surely the choice of abortion often has a negative
emotional or moral effect on the one who made the choice, but the choice of
abortion will never threaten the welfare of society as a whole in the way
that murder does, therefore it is rightly a matter of personal choice, and
not a matter to be treated as murder.
Anyone who recognizes that it is sometimes expedient to kill another human,
recognizes for that very reason the right of a woman to choose abortion, and
anyone who demonizes those who support abortion rights without also
demonizing all other forms of expedient killing, is misguided at best, but
is more likely simply hypocritical.
.
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality, Expedience, Murder, War, Abortion |
06 Oct 2004 07:22:56 AM |
|
|
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:txL8d.2887$q%7.866@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Some christians are fond of equating abortion with murder, but many of
these
same have no problem with killing people in war time. Alvin C. York, Sgt.
York the fundamentalist Christian pacifist turned WWI hero, famously
reasoned that if the Germans manning a machine gun nest were allowed to
continue to shoot at his fellow soldiers, then many more of them would
die,
and the only way to stop them was to kill the machine-gunning Germans. so
that is what he did, despite his strong beliefs against killing.
Likewise, the faithful today who desire to keep the Commandments are still
able to find reason to kill people if it means that killing them will
avoid
loss of life among the innocent. In other words, all killing of humans is
murder, unless it is expedient to kill them, then it's okay.
It's easy to see why this must be so. A society cannot tolerate murder
among
its population. If the society did not punish murderers, then individuals
would have to take matters into their own hands, and many more people
would
die, some innocent among them, because no one would tolerate the murder of
a
loved one without retribution. In the ensuing chaos, a society would have
to
act, or face extinction. If there were societies in the past which allowed
murder, no doubt this is the fate they faced, leaving us today with only
people from societies that maintained an organized response against
murder.
If your definition of society is a society exactly like the one you you live
in. But there are other groups of people whom you would not call a society
who do depend on revenge to setle disputes. Very ancient groups.
But killing in self-defense is universally allowed, and killing in war is
often seen as self-defense, or as serving a higher purpose which makes it
alright to kill people. Everyone knew many Iraqis would be killed if we
invaded, but we did so anyway even though it was not in self-defense,
because the war was perceived to serve the higher purposes of protecting
the
world's economy by protecting the world's oil supply, and of giving the
long
suffering Iraqi people respite from an evil regime, and the promise of a
brighter future. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette, as they
say.
Protectng the world's oil supply, eh?
So it's clear there are times when even people who hold the Commandment
"Thou Shalt Not Kill" to be quite sacred nevertheless find it expedient,
practical to kill people.
Especially when the world's oil supply is at stake.
And for many people, abortion is another such expediency. Consider the
vast
difference between the murder of a grown individual and the killing of a
fetus. No society can survive anarchy with respect to the murder of adults
and children. But societies must allow people to kill in self-defense and
in
times of war, otherwise they would face the same extinction as a
completely
murderous society.
The fetus cold grow up to be a dictator.
The killing of a fetus is an act of expediency, similar to killing in
self-defense or killing in war. It has little of the negative effect on
society that murder has. Surely the choice of abortion often has a
negative
emotional or moral effect on the one who made the choice, but the choice
of
abortion will never threaten the welfare of society as a whole in the way
that murder does, therefore it is rightly a matter of personal choice, and
not a matter to be treated as murder.
Get them before they grow up and put you in a nursing home, or a
concentration camp!
Anyone who recognizes that it is sometimes expedient to kill another
human,
recognizes for that very reason the right of a woman to choose abortion,
and
anyone who demonizes those who support abortion rights without also
demonizing all other forms of expedient killing, is misguided at best, but
is more likely simply hypocritical.
But the question is, which is more expedient. Having a child or an abortion?
--
Chinese accordions suck.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality, Expedience, Murder, War, Abortion |
06 Oct 2004 09:21:49 AM |
|
|
On Wed 06 Oct 2004 07:22:56a, "Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> kicked
back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a
joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:txL8d.2887$q%7.866@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Some christians are fond of equating abortion with murder, but many
of
these
same have no problem with killing people in war time. Alvin C. York,
Sgt. York the fundamentalist Christian pacifist turned WWI hero,
famously reasoned that if the Germans manning a machine gun nest were
allowed to continue to shoot at his fellow soldiers, then many more
of them would
die,
and the only way to stop them was to kill the machine-gunning
Germans. so that is what he did, despite his strong beliefs against
killing.
Likewise, the faithful today who desire to keep the Commandments are
still able to find reason to kill people if it means that killing
them will
avoid
loss of life among the innocent. In other words, all killing of
humans is murder, unless it is expedient to kill them, then it's
okay.
It's easy to see why this must be so. A society cannot tolerate
murder
among
its population. If the society did not punish murderers, then
individuals would have to take matters into their own hands, and many
more people
would
die, some innocent among them, because no one would tolerate the
murder of
a
loved one without retribution. In the ensuing chaos, a society would
have
to
act, or face extinction. If there were societies in the past which
allowed murder, no doubt this is the fate they faced, leaving us
today with only people from societies that maintained an organized
response against
murder.
If your definition of society is a society exactly like the one you
you live in. But there are other groups of people whom you would not
call a society who do depend on revenge to setle disputes. Very
ancient groups.
Yes, but these groups had very strict traditions about how and why this
could occur. You couldn't simply go around killing people because you felt
like it. The important point is the organized response -- even if that
response doesn't dictate that all cases of murder be punished.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality, Expedience, Murder, War, Abortion |
06 Oct 2004 01:59:44 PM |
|
|
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns957A611303762Mekkala@199.45.49.11...
On Wed 06 Oct 2004 07:22:56a, "Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> kicked
back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a
joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:txL8d.2887$q%7.866@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Some christians are fond of equating abortion with murder, but many
of
these
same have no problem with killing people in war time. Alvin C. York,
Sgt. York the fundamentalist Christian pacifist turned WWI hero,
famously reasoned that if the Germans manning a machine gun nest were
allowed to continue to shoot at his fellow soldiers, then many more
of them would
die,
and the only way to stop them was to kill the machine-gunning
Germans. so that is what he did, despite his strong beliefs against
killing.
Likewise, the faithful today who desire to keep the Commandments are
still able to find reason to kill people if it means that killing
them will
avoid
loss of life among the innocent. In other words, all killing of
humans is murder, unless it is expedient to kill them, then it's
okay.
It's easy to see why this must be so. A society cannot tolerate
murder
among
its population. If the society did not punish murderers, then
individuals would have to take matters into their own hands, and many
more people
would
die, some innocent among them, because no one would tolerate the
murder of
a
loved one without retribution. In the ensuing chaos, a society would
have
to
act, or face extinction. If there were societies in the past which
allowed murder, no doubt this is the fate they faced, leaving us
today with only people from societies that maintained an organized
response against
murder.
If your definition of society is a society exactly like the one you
you live in. But there are other groups of people whom you would not
call a society who do depend on revenge to setle disputes. Very
ancient groups.
Yes, but these groups had very strict traditions about how and why this
could occur. You couldn't simply go around killing people because you
felt
like it. The important point is the organized response -- even if that
response doesn't dictate that all cases of murder be punished.
Be that as it may, his definition of a society is the society he now lives
in.
--
Chinese accordions suck.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality, Expedience, Murder, War, Abortion |
06 Oct 2004 03:28:16 PM |
|
|
On Wed 06 Oct 2004 01:59:44p, "Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> kicked
back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a
joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
Be that as it may, his definition of a society is the society he now
lives in.
Not so. He gave no "definition of a society" in his post. Neither did he
say that a society must forbid *all* murder in order to survive. He said
only that a society must provide an organized response to murder so that
people can't just go around killing each other whenever they please.
History bears him out in every single case -- wherever there is anarchy,
chaos ensues until some sort of organized response system is in place.
There is not one case in all of history that true anarchy survived as a
society.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality, Expedience, Murder, War, Abortion |
06 Oct 2004 07:50:44 PM |
|
|
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns957A9EC7C2C7EMekkala@199.45.49.11...
On Wed 06 Oct 2004 01:59:44p, "Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> kicked
back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a
joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
Be that as it may, his definition of a society is the society he now
lives in.
Not so. He gave no "definition of a society" in his post. Neither did he
say that a society must forbid *all* murder in order to survive. He said
only that a society must provide an organized response to murder so that
people can't just go around killing each other whenever they please.
History bears him out in every single case -- wherever there is anarchy,
chaos ensues until some sort of organized response system is in place.
There is not one case in all of history that true anarchy survived as a
society.
His definition of a society is partly, an entity that can't tolerate murder
in its midst. So I base my assertion on that fact, that he has a definition
of society. Many societies have tolerated murder in their midst, including
those that practiced genocide on portions of their own society.
BTW I apologize for the accidental personal reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality, Expedience, Murder, War, Abortion |
07 Oct 2004 12:20:18 PM |
|
|
On Wed 06 Oct 2004 07:50:44p, "Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> kicked
back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a
joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
His definition of a society is partly, an entity that can't tolerate
murder in its midst.
No, read his post again, because you misunderstood. He said a society
must have an "organized response" to murder. That DOES NOT MEAN that
the society can absolutely never tolerate murder. Here in America, we
murder many of our criminals -- and yet that's considered perfectly
acceptable and right.
So I base my assertion on that fact, that he has
a definition of society. Many societies have tolerated murder in their
midst, including those that practiced genocide on portions of their
own society. BTW I apologize for the accidental personal reply.
Our own society tolerates murder, as I pointed out. Again, he never
once said that a society cannot ever tolerate murder, but only that a
society must have an organized response to it -- which is true, as
history shows us.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality, Expedience, Murder, War, Abortion |
07 Oct 2004 08:49:26 PM |
|
|
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns957B7EE9CA908Mekkala@199.45.49.11...
On Wed 06 Oct 2004 07:50:44p, "Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> kicked
back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a
joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
His definition of a society is partly, an entity that can't tolerate
murder in its midst.
No, read his post again, because you misunderstood. He said a society
must have an "organized response" to murder. That DOES NOT MEAN that
the society can absolutely never tolerate murder. Here in America, we
murder many of our criminals -- and yet that's considered perfectly
acceptable and right.
So I base my assertion on that fact, that he has
a definition of society. Many societies have tolerated murder in their
midst, including those that practiced genocide on portions of their
own society. BTW I apologize for the accidental personal reply.
Our own society tolerates murder, as I pointed out. Again, he never
once said that a society cannot ever tolerate murder, but only that a
society must have an organized response to it -- which is true, as
history shows us.
I haven't been able to get back to this until now, but yes, I only gave a
little thought about places like what Ike is talking about, prefering to
keep my arguments streamlined. To be fair to Ike, he's right, I did say "A
society cannot tolerate murder among its population". But in regards to my
conclusion, it's a moot point anyway, because explicitly mentioning
societies where murder is common, if controlled, would only bolster my
argument.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality, Expedience, Murder, War, Abortion |
08 Oct 2004 03:31:47 PM |
|
|
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:Gmm9d.3351$q%7.1881@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns957B7EE9CA908Mekkala@199.45.49.11...
On Wed 06 Oct 2004 07:50:44p, "Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> kicked
back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a
joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
His definition of a society is partly, an entity that can't tolerate
murder in its midst.
No, read his post again, because you misunderstood. He said a society
must have an "organized response" to murder. That DOES NOT MEAN that
the society can absolutely never tolerate murder. Here in America, we
murder many of our criminals -- and yet that's considered perfectly
acceptable and right.
So I base my assertion on that fact, that he has
a definition of society. Many societies have tolerated murder in their
midst, including those that practiced genocide on portions of their
own society. BTW I apologize for the accidental personal reply.
Our own society tolerates murder, as I pointed out. Again, he never
once said that a society cannot ever tolerate murder, but only that a
society must have an organized response to it -- which is true, as
history shows us.
I haven't been able to get back to this until now, but yes, I only gave a
little thought about places like what Ike is talking about, prefering to
keep my arguments streamlined. To be fair to Ike, he's right, I did say "A
society cannot tolerate murder among its population". But in regards to my
conclusion, it's a moot point anyway, because explicitly mentioning
societies where murder is common, if controlled, would only bolster my
argument.
<"If there were societies in the past which allowed
murder, no doubt (extinction) is the fate they faced, leaving us today with
only
people from societies that maintained an organized response against
murder.">
Societies obviously commit murder. But beyond that, you are equating
abortion with murder. Your post is about abortion. Inside and outside of
societies there is murder. When it occurs inside a society and tolerated,
then it is a function of society, including ritual human sacrificewhich is
also occuring when criminals are executed. Used to be when they were
executed, there was a better chance they might escape and harm society,
except during history when "witches" or thieves were killed by society.
ABORTION is not officially considered to be murder. Theoretically, it is the
taking of a human life by humans. However since children are considered
chattels of the parents, society seems to give the right to avoid
accumulating unwanted chattels. Once they get born, they are potentially
chattels of society as a whole, if they are not provided for by the parents.
Society seems to take the position that if they don't make it to the birth
canal, why make a big deal about it.
SO what's your point?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Danti" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality, Expedience, Murder, War, Abortion |
06 Oct 2004 07:29:18 AM |
|
|
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:txL8d.2887$q%7.866@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Some christians are fond of equating abortion with murder, but many
of these
same have no problem with killing people in war time. Alvin C. York,
Sgt.
York the fundamentalist Christian pacifist turned WWI hero, famously
reasoned that if the Germans manning a machine gun nest were allowed
to
continue to shoot at his fellow soldiers, then many more of them
would die,
and the only way to stop them was to kill the machine-gunning
Germans. so
that is what he did, despite his strong beliefs against killing.
Likewise, the faithful today who desire to keep the Commandments are
still
able to find reason to kill people if it means that killing them
will avoid
loss of life among the innocent. In other words, all killing of
humans is
murder, unless it is expedient to kill them, then it's okay.
It's easy to see why this must be so. A society cannot tolerate
murder among
its population. If the society did not punish murderers, then
individuals
would have to take matters into their own hands, and many more
people would
die, some innocent among them, because no one would tolerate the
murder of a
loved one without retribution. In the ensuing chaos, a society would
have to
act, or face extinction. If there were societies in the past which
allowed
murder, no doubt this is the fate they faced, leaving us today with
only
people from societies that maintained an organized response against
murder.
But killing in self-defense is universally allowed, and killing in
war is
often seen as self-defense, or as serving a higher purpose which
makes it
alright to kill people. Everyone knew many Iraqis would be killed if
we
invaded, but we did so anyway even though it was not in
self-defense,
because the war was perceived to serve the higher purposes of
protecting the
world's economy by protecting the world's oil supply, and of giving
the long
suffering Iraqi people respite from an evil regime, and the promise
of a
brighter future. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette,
as they
say.
So it's clear there are times when even people who hold the
Commandment
"Thou Shalt Not Kill" to be quite sacred nevertheless find it
expedient,
practical to kill people.
And for many people, abortion is another such expediency. Consider
the vast
difference between the murder of a grown individual and the killing
of a
fetus. No society can survive anarchy with respect to the murder of
adults
and children. But societies must allow people to kill in
self-defense and in
times of war, otherwise they would face the same extinction as a
completely
murderous society.
The killing of a fetus is an act of expediency, similar to killing
in
self-defense or killing in war. It has little of the negative effect
on
society that murder has. Surely the choice of abortion often has a
negative
emotional or moral effect on the one who made the choice, but the
choice of
abortion will never threaten the welfare of society as a whole in
the way
that murder does, therefore it is rightly a matter of personal
choice, and
not a matter to be treated as murder.
Anyone who recognizes that it is sometimes expedient to kill another
human,
recognizes for that very reason the right of a woman to choose
abortion, and
anyone who demonizes those who support abortion rights without also
demonizing all other forms of expedient killing, is misguided at
best, but
is more likely simply hypocritical.
it is not possible to equate the murder of a fetus (an innocent human
being) with the killing of an enemy at the gates, or a murderer on a
rampage....i can understand there are certain situations when abortion
is a necessity....but a woman has no more right to decide than the
man....i have been up in the air on this question since many factors
must be considered......an expediency? similar to killing in
self-defense or killing in a war?...........hardly....life must never
be considered cheap or a throw away at the discretion of the
"owner"......
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality, Expedience, Murder, War, Abortion |
07 Oct 2004 10:58:32 PM |
|
|
"Danti" <danti@nojunk.net> wrote in message
news:yyR8d.669930$Gx4.125455@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:txL8d.2887$q%7.866@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
[...]
Anyone who recognizes that it is sometimes expedient to kill another
human,
recognizes for that very reason the right of a woman to choose
abortion, and
anyone who demonizes those who support abortion rights without also
demonizing all other forms of expedient killing, is misguided at
best, but
is more likely simply hypocritical.
it is not possible to equate the murder of a fetus (an innocent human
being) with the killing of an enemy at the gates, or a murderer on a
rampage....
Those are some highly emotionalized responses. "Murder of a fetus", "enemy
at the gates", "murderer on the rampage" - in real life there's much more
gray area coming down from these absolutes. Instead of killing an enemy at
the gates, suppose you're occupying a country, and you're stopping cars at a
checkpoint, but one car doesn't stop so you kill a family of five in a hail
of machine gun fire. This has happened in Iraq, but the men who did it were
not tried for murder, and not that many Americans would even consider it
murder. They killed innocent people, the people who targeted the cruise
missiles, the pilots who dropped the bombs, the people who fired the rockets
and the mortars, all of them killed innocent people by the dozens, by the
hundreds. These were completely innocent people who had real lives, active,
sentient lives, who lived in the bosom of their society, entangled and
attached one to the other in a web of love and interdependence. Yet none of
those who killed them are considered murderers, at least not by Americans,
they were simply "collateral losses".
Okay, so that was emotional too, but what I'm trying to get at, actually
what I'm trying to understand myself, is the origins of proscriptions
against murder, and while thinking about this it struck me that morals at
base are practical, and are simply related to the survival of our species.
Proscription against murder is one of the most important of human morals,
but there is an awful lot of slop in the way people abide by it.
And why is there so much leeway? "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty
straightforward, the nuances in interpretation point to the origins of
morality in the practical needs of society. The case can be made that
society benefits more from allowing abortion than from making it illegal.
Or, more precisely, society benefits from not punishing those who perform
abortions or those who choose to have them. Because this is what we're
really talking about. It's one thing to take the position that abortion is
immoral, but what's generally implied is that there ought to be some
punishment for it, punishment of those who provide abortion, and punishment
of those who choose it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danti" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality, Expedience, Murder, War, Abortion |
08 Oct 2004 08:10:34 AM |
|
|
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:Ifo9d.3366$q%7.2690@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"Danti" <danti@nojunk.net> wrote in message
news:yyR8d.669930$Gx4.125455@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:txL8d.2887$q%7.866@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
[...]
Anyone who recognizes that it is sometimes expedient to kill
another
human,
recognizes for that very reason the right of a woman to choose
abortion, and
anyone who demonizes those who support abortion rights without
also
demonizing all other forms of expedient killing, is misguided at
best, but
is more likely simply hypocritical.
it is not possible to equate the murder of a fetus (an innocent
human
being) with the killing of an enemy at the gates, or a murderer on
a
rampage....
Those are some highly emotionalized responses. "Murder of a fetus",
"enemy
at the gates", "murderer on the rampage" -
i agree but did i say anything contrary to truth? is it possible to
equate a fetus with a murderer on the rampage?
in real life there's much more
gray area coming down from these absolutes. Instead of killing an
enemy at
the gates, suppose you're occupying a country, and you're stopping
cars at a
checkpoint, but one car doesn't stop so you kill a family of five in
a hail
of machine gun fire. This has happened in Iraq, but the men who did
it were
not tried for murder, and not that many Americans would even
consider it
murder. They killed innocent people, the people who targeted the
cruise
missiles, the pilots who dropped the bombs, the people who fired the
rockets
and the mortars, all of them killed innocent people by the dozens,
by the
hundreds. These were completely innocent people who had real lives,
active,
sentient lives, who lived in the bosom of their society, entangled
and
attached one to the other in a web of love and interdependence. Yet
none of
those who killed them are considered murderers, at least not by
Americans,
they were simply "collateral losses".
you are describing an entirely different scenario, if we were to stay
with the issue at hand then a reasonable solution may be
reached....human life should never be considered cheap.....war is
wrong and should not be used as an example....
Okay, so that was emotional too,
:-) )) yes it was but go on............
but what I'm trying to get at, actually
what I'm trying to understand myself, is the origins of
proscriptions
against murder, and while thinking about this it struck me that
morals at
base are practical, and are simply related to the survival of our
species.
Proscription against murder is one of the most important of human
morals,
but there is an awful lot of slop in the way people abide by it.
i agree so far...........
And why is there so much leeway? "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty
straightforward, the nuances in interpretation point to the origins
of
morality in the practical needs of society. The case can be made
that
society benefits more from allowing abortion than from making it
illegal.
why such a black or white approach........society imo benefits from
closely scrutinizing individual cases.....
that is why its a hot topic....i have been neutral on this for some
time.....but slowly i am beginning to realize that a fetus is a
potential human being (took me long enought).....i can understand
medical reasons, i can understand by reason of rape, but to utilize
abortion in a non discriminatory way must be given a hard look...
Or, more precisely, society benefits from not punishing those who
perform
abortions or those who choose to have them. Because this is what
we're
really talking about. It's one thing to take the position that
abortion is
immoral,
let me say up front, i do not consider the morality, only the
logic....i have enjoyed my life and would not have wanted some short
term decision depriving me of it..................obviously the fetus
has no say in it and so there must be those who speak for
it.............
but what's generally implied is that there ought to be some
punishment for it, punishment of those who provide abortion, and
punishment
of those who choose it.
i can understand your concern....perhaps if society made it known that
abortion does indeed take a life and that life should never be
considered "collateral damage" (so to speak) we all can move forward
on this issue...............and if once we decide this, how do you
control those who wish it and those who for a fee perform it?
possible scenario at a bus stop....."i am having an abortion at 9 this
morning......i'll meet you for lunch at 12.....
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality, Expedience, Murder, War, Abortion |
06 Oct 2004 09:26:35 AM |
|
|
On Wed 06 Oct 2004 07:29:18a, "Danti" <danti@nojunk.net> kicked back with a
beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then fell
asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
it is not possible to equate the murder of a fetus (an innocent human
being) with the killing of an enemy at the gates, or a murderer on a
rampage....
Why is that, Danti?
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality, Expedience, Murder, War, Abortion |
06 Oct 2004 01:59:45 PM |
|
|
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns957A61E1BE0A2Mekkala@199.45.49.11...
On Wed 06 Oct 2004 07:29:18a, "Danti" <danti@nojunk.net> kicked back with
a
beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then fell
asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
it is not possible to equate the murder of a fetus (an innocent human
being) with the killing of an enemy at the gates, or a murderer on a
rampage....
Why is that, Danti?
Right. Like I said, the fetus cold grow up to be a Hitler or put you in a
nursing home where they pop a needle in your ***** every time you complain
until you're a human vegetable.
--
Chinese accordions suck.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Morality, Expedience, Murder, War, Abortion |
06 Oct 2004 03:49:44 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 12:29:18 GMT, "Danti" <danti@nojunk.net> wrote:
.i can understand there are certain situations when abortion
is a necessity....but a woman has no more right to decide than the
man...
A man will have the right to make such a decision when he's the one
who's pregnant. Until then, it's solely the woman's choice.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
