How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Ok... let's see who's brave.. lol   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Ok... let's see who's brave.. lol

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


50 posted 12-11-2001 11:54 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Local Rebel .... you wrote:

"I think for me it would have to be proven that there is sentience at conception... or at least be able to prove at one point the capacity for sentience exists... two brain cells able to synapse?  I don't know... "

Just a thought or two...  Even if there were only the remote possibility that fetuses have the capacity for some level of sentience (your test for qualifying something as alive or human, I gather), then wouldn't the burden of proof lie with those who promote abortion rather than everyone else?  After all, the line, as we have all attested, is ambiguous (a clue to me that it has been divinely drawn, ... or that we weren't supposed to meddle here, or at least so confidently).   Straining at such a hopelessly nebulous target, why would the archer want to let the arrow fly?  And where will the responsibility fall when something other than a presumably lifeless target is hit?

I know deep in my spirit that human life is life all along the continuum, from conception to death ... I know this from God's word as well as from my deepest moral convictions of conscience.  It is the archers or promoters of archery (using the analogy above) who are not quite sure about their target.  

also you wrote:

"A fetus is human.
A corpse is human.
Neither are Natural Born (human) Citizens of the United States with Constitutional Rights."


Well that is afterall our question rephrased.  Those who are against abortion believe that unborn children should have constitutional rights.  As a Christian I am also saying there are laws higher than national laws... "inalienable rights".  The Fathers of our nation took a stab at trying to express something "endowed by our creator" that existed quite before the constitution or any other national document was in existence.  

And I'm not arguing that a corpse should have rights... I'm just arguing that we shouldn't be so rash as to turn the first of your two examples into the second.


Brad,

you wrote:

"What about promoting adoption?"

I'm all for it.


"What about promoting the research and money for foetal transference rather than foetal elimination?"

again... all for it.


"What about creating communities that stop stigmatizing women after the fact and work toward giving them a support network where intelligent decisions can be made regardless of someone's personal belief system?"


If you mean (in not so many words) that those who are "pro-life" (to use a catch-all label) should set aside their moral treatment of the issue of abortion, and channel their energies into social reconstruction to help foster alternatives to abortion for women... then I totally agree except for the part about laying aside moral issues concerning abortion  Both must be done.  If one is done and not the other trouble ensues.  

Morality with no social ministry ... that's showing the wrong while hiding the right.  It's painting the delimma in minutest details while blurring the ways of escape.  A social emphasis with no morality also runs into great problems... it tries to encourage "intelligent decisions"  ( I  think you may be inferring decisions other than abortion here), but  procures that abortion itself will always be viewed as a viable option... even an intelligent decision.  With  morality aside, it  actually emerges as one of the most cost effective ways of dealing with unwanted pregnancies ... Consider the costs of welfare.  

And I think the moral "anti-abortion" stance, or "pro-life" or whatever you may call it, is (by it's more noble proponents) not intended to stigmatize women after the fact, but to dissuade many women from choosing abortion before the fact.  It tells them the truth about abortion and warns about the agony of guilt that will inevitably follow.  We've even seen such remorse in this very thread ... my intent is not to condemn.  So I think your idea of a society where there are no moral considerations because they don't really matter may be fit for the John Lennon song "imagine", but not for real life where the rubber hits the road.  Because moral considerations are important even to those who don't profess belief in God.  No one gets away from such questions, they must be answered.  The concern is manifest even with the pro-choice side, in their arguments of "when does life begin?"  If there is no moral consideration, then what does it really matter?  The fact is, it matters.

Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (edited 12-12-2001).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


51 posted 12-13-2001 03:59 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Stephan,

I think you're right, morality does matter. I see no point in hiding one's convictions, but I think acting on one's convictions can go further than simply stating that conviction.

I don't think there are many pro-choicers who believe that abortion is a moral good as such. What would be the reasoning? Eugenics? A decrease in the surfact population?

No, I think we're all closer to agreement than we believe. I just think there are many positions where we can reach agreement and take action while still disagreeing on other points.

It's trying to get away from all or nothing battle divides (where politics does take precedence over morality) to finding moments where we can all work together.

And it's also getting away from those damned sound bites.  

Interloper,

No, you don't have to convert me, don't worry about it.   It's a strange position, however, to argue a Christian duty to spread the gospel and not worry about the actual conversion rates. My point, at any rate, was not to stress the morality as the end point but as the starting point for more effective strategies.

Brad

PS Rights keeps coming up here. One of these someone remind me to make rights it's own thread.  
Interloper
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Rara Avis
since 11-06-2000
Posts 8628
Deep in the heart


52 posted 12-14-2001 02:54 PM       View Profile for Interloper   Email Interloper   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Interloper

Reb,
I thought you said you were an atheist.  i guess I got that wrong too  

Brad,
Spreading the gospel is a duty of a Christian.  The conversion rate is really a matter between the converted and God.  I have never seen a conversion rate posted or discussed in any church or evangelical meeting or the summaries thereof.

Oh, I'm not worried about converting you, Brad.  You are an intelligent man and you will find the truth when you are ready for it.  Just hold your daughter and look at her and tell me you'd wager her eternal soul on anything.  Then look into yourself and tell me you'd wager your own eternal soul and risk the unpleasantness of eternal damnation.

You say there is no God.  Well, what if  there is?  If the chance of that were 1 in a billion would you like the odds on eternity?

Interloper
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Rara Avis
since 11-06-2000
Posts 8628
Deep in the heart


53 posted 12-14-2001 02:56 PM       View Profile for Interloper   Email Interloper   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Interloper

Reb,

How do you know neither was a natural born citizen of the United States of America with constitutional rights?
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


54 posted 12-15-2001 02:41 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Interloper,
That's a different thread, isn't it?

Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 05-18-2001
Posts 29020
Gaia


55 posted 12-16-2001 01:24 AM       View Profile for Midnitesun   Email Midnitesun   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Midnitesun

As regards to the comments about a beating heart being proof of sentience or humanity, let's not forget the rest of the animal kingdom. My dog has a beating heart, and is aware of his surroundings, and gives love freely. My finches have beating hearts, and sing and entertain me all day. A beating heart is not where the line is really drawn. Humans think about the past, the present, and make plans for the future. We build things, we destroy things, we fantasize and dream. We look to the stars and the moon and the sun, and some look to an all-powerful entity for guidance and protection. So far as I know, my dog and birds never think about the future beyond the next meal, and they sure don't give a hoot about creation, but love to procreate. But it's doubtful they ever think about whether or not there is a God or an afterlife.
So what exactly is a human? And at what stage of "LIFE" are we human, as opposed to being potentially human? I believe in a God, but it isn't the typical Christian version of God. And arguments based upon the Bible have little to no relevance or persuasion with me. But I value life itself, in many forms. (BTW, I am a vegetarian. I do not kill to eat, I do not kill to survive. But I will not try to convert you.) And while I firmly believe in women's rights, we need to focus on adoption or other options, for the sake of all humanity. But don't throw stones at those who disagree or find themselves in a situation where they feel abortion is the only option. And women who go to the clinics should be allowed to do so without harrassment or fear, but should be given a whole lot more information and emotional support than what is usually offered. I speak from a personal experience here, one very much like Serenity's. I never felt there was another viable option, but that did not make it any easier emotionally.
These are just a few thoughts.

BTW, I am brave. I drive a Toyota Tercel in Alaska in the winter, without fourwheel drive or studded tires. Maybe that makes me more foolish than brave? LOL.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


56 posted 12-16-2001 09:45 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

midnitesun,


you wrote... "So what exactly is a human? And at what stage of "LIFE" are we human, as opposed to being potentially human?".

This has been one of the pillars of my position the whole thread... If it is vague... if we are not sure, then why gamble?  If we value life enough to want to see justice done to those who murder 1 year old infants, then why wouldn't we want to be completely sure that the fetus is not "human life" before we advocate terminating them.  Abortion must be the confident assertion that the fetus is definitely not human, or else it is potentially killing a human being,  something which even your own conscience tells you is wrong even though not yet believing in the all-knowing  God who formed your concience.  But those who believe that abortion should be avoided, do not have to know the exact moment when the organic structure becomes human.  In fact the vagueness of that very thing proves to them why it is imperitive not to abort.

It's just too much of a risk.  This is not throwing stones at those who choose abortion, it is telling the truth to dissuade them if possible.  


Stephen.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


57 posted 12-17-2001 04:24 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

How long does this go on?


This argument runs on the presumption that it means one damned iota. IT DOES NOT.

For I promise, as long as women have gathered herbs in the field, and understood the medicinal properties...ABORTION EXISTED.

As long as there is a coat hanger, abortion will exist.

For as long as there are desperate, frightened, HUNGRY women/children...abortion will not be denied...no matter what you postulate or enact into law---

You can pretend to have divine knowledge-- assure yourself that you are intellectually qualified to define life--but yanno, all we really see is one fine point of a fun house mirror.

sigh...(I tried restraint, Ron, I really did.)

beating my head against the desk here...

and perhaps we should start still yet another thread regarding where is the line between religious "duty" and fanaticism...when does one's beliefs invade another's rights...? Rather than show respect and tolerance for a living being already in existance,  some would rather debate the point of existance over such that they have no control--IN PRESUMPTION OF KNOWING the mind of an unknowable GOD!  Why is MY opinion so irrelevant? If I am the vessel, the point of ORIGIN, (debatable, I know, but I refer to myself as  the tactile point of origin here) why is what I say and feel discarded so easily? And why if I bring that point up, am I attacked as acting "superior"--made defensive by the simple biological fact that as a woman, it is MY BODY...my being, which is the vessel? IT IS NOT MY THEORY, BUT MY EXPERIENCE. I am not insensitive to a father's rights, but yanno, It was ME who was anemic, ME who could not walk through a day, ME who glowed like Casper...Me cut open with C-sections...me with two kids and measles and chicken pox...and no money.
Superiority? sigh...at least pass a kidney stone before you talk to me, okay? (OKAY. NOW THAT WAS SARCASM.)

And, as for Biblical quotes:

It sort of sickens me to think that this same motive of 'moral duty' was taken to the extreme of international terrorism, and I, personally would love to see this timely idea addressed. Where is a line drawn between a religious duty to inform, or should we all attempt to convert others, no matter what the means...chapter or verse, inquisition, or a plane piloted by martyrs into buildings, becoming bombs?

May light be with you this Solstice.
Merry Christmas.
Happy Hannukah.
and Kwanza, et cetera...

SEASON'S GREETINGS.

Now...why is that so difficult?
Interloper
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Rara Avis
since 11-06-2000
Posts 8628
Deep in the heart


58 posted 12-17-2001 09:18 AM       View Profile for Interloper   Email Interloper   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Interloper

Midnitesun,

Last time I checked no human ever had an animal(dog, finch, etc) fetus.  Your argument is without foundation.

If you do not believe in what the Bible says, then we have no comman point of debate.  I believe a HUMAN fetus has a soul upon conception and that God "knows" that soul.  You don't ... end of discussion.

I will answer your question as to what is a human ... it is the product of human conception.  You could, of course, use the Webster's definition but Reb would CROAK if I quoted Webster yet again  

Brad, why another thread?  It was just a response to Reb's reply ... unless you are referring to the odds on eternity.  That would not be a bad thread  

We Christians can't get beat up or outnumbered in multiple threads any more than one {I hope }

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


59 posted 12-17-2001 09:54 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Interloper said:  
quote:
If you do not believe in what the Bible says, then we have no comman point of debate.  I believe a HUMAN fetus has a soul upon conception and that God "knows" that soul.  You don't ... end of discussion.

As a Christian, it saddens me to be put in that light. You're essentially saying there can be no discussion except with those whom already agree with you. Jesus rarely taught dogma, but convinced through parable, logic, and example. Where would Christianity be today if He had been so quick to end discussion?


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


60 posted 12-17-2001 11:36 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

No one has yet responded to my point... though alot of emotion has been poured out in many directions.  My desire is not to degrade, condemn, or to offend.  But again it seems to me the presumption of claiming  "divine knowledge" is heaviest with those who support abortion.  They seem to be sure (somehow) that a fetus is not "human".  They must either admit that they know (or that they are the final arbiters of this question), or that they don't care...  It doesn't do away with godlike knowledge, it just places that knowledge  soley with humanity which is far more scary than placing the larger porition of it with God.  

Serenity you wrote...

"You can pretend to have divine knowledge-- assure yourself that you are intellectually qualified to define life--but yanno, all we really see is one fine point of a fun house mirror."

. . . Exactly!

All the expressions here that there is no defining moment of arrival for the fetus (into being a human), far from helping the "pro-choice" position, make it all the more dubious. . .    

And this is something to be considered even before bringing in the belief of God as the arbiter and judge of all moral decisions. . .  so there is always a common point of reference in our morality and ethics as humans ourselves.  

Respectfully,

Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (edited 12-17-2001).]

Interloper
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Rara Avis
since 11-06-2000
Posts 8628
Deep in the heart


61 posted 12-17-2001 12:50 PM       View Profile for Interloper   Email Interloper   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Interloper

Ron,
I agree completely.  I have never, however, tried to equate my poor abilities with those of Christ.  With my limited mental faculties I find it difficult to debate a point where there is not at least some small common ground.

God said it, I believe it, and that's all there is to it.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


62 posted 12-17-2001 05:51 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

I came back to explain my outburst of temper. I'm afraid I received an unpleasant e mail regarding this topic from a bogus hotmail account. I guess I should have expected that. I will not however, change my e mail address, nor will I hide it. I also will not change my mind. I do find the topic title more amusing now, however. (No worries, it's nothing I have not heard before, it just caught me offguard.)

My apologies to the rest of you guys. And for the record, I have never had an argument with Christianity. Just a few Christians.  

I advocate peace and religious tolerance, and in no way do I wish to "recruit" or "convert" others. And I'd like to thank my anonymous benefactor of prayer. I shall pray for you too. Now for penance...I am going to get ready to watch some football. The Saints play the Rams tonight. (GROAN)

Peace to all. Stand up for whatever it is you believe in, and I promise you I will be right there, very vocally supporting your right to do so.

Now, since there are seemingly some prayers being said in my behalf...do you think you could add just a tiny one for the New Orleans Saints tonight?  

Methinks they might be even more in need of them than I.

Love to you all!
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


63 posted 12-17-2001 08:10 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

"We Christians can't get beat up or outnumbered in multiple threads any more than one {I hope }"

I liked that I hope part.  

Honestly, it just cracks me up when Christians play this card. Terribly sorry that you feel victimized in your quest to tell other people what to do.

I know, I know, it's not you, it's God.

It just sounds like you.  

(Please don't take this seriously)

Seriously though, go back and read the beginning of this thread. My daughter, in fact, is the result of legal abortion.

Stephen,

I'll try to come back later and address your humanity question.

Brad

PS Vegetarians still kill to survive, don't they?

hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


64 posted 12-18-2001 12:00 AM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

This entire thread is a good example of why tolerance is a very important quality.

I personally believe that everyone makes mistakes. I have empathy for murderers- I have empathy for women in difficult situations, too. Whether those two are one and the same... it's not my place to judge.

I guess it is just one of those things... you just don't know unless you're in the situation. Serenity makes a good point about the woman's body being the vessel of pregnancy... it's not necessarily one I agree with, but I can definitely see where she's coming from. And... she's right, as long as there are coat hangers available, there will be abortion.

And, on the other hand, Stephan's point is a very strong one. Why should pro-lifers have to prove that a fetus is human? Because it takes a freedom away from a woman? Because pro-choicers can't prove that it's not? Whose freedom is more important- that of the pregnant woman, or that of an unborn child?

These questions are not likely to be answered anytime soon. Also- the world isn't likely to become a perfect place that supports women (including young and/or single mothers- you should hear how pregnant teens get badmouthed at my school- no wonder so many get abortions!) anytime soon, so showing a little understanding for a woman's position has got to be in everybody's best interest, right?

Tolerance means sharing your point of view, and also accepting it when people have a different one. I don't believe in war- my boyfriend does (Not to say he's bloodthirsty, but he sees it as necessary in some instances; I disagree). I don't believe in anti-depressants- my mother's on them. So- if my boyfriend joins the Army reserves, should I break up with him as a matter of principle? Should I look down on my mother for not being able to maintain her mood naturally, or for not taking the approach I would? Of course not!

And I certainly won't use scare tactics like "You're burning in hell if you don't... (insert righteous action here...)" to persuade anyone out of the lifestyle they choose. Sorry, Interloper, but I really think that if you are trying to spread the word of Christianity, you should start somewhere besides the eternal damnation bit.... it's not a very good selling point. And, maybe it's just because I'm young and stubborn, but when people ride in on an impossibly high horse and start barking threats at me, my instinctive reaction is rebellion. You can't break someone into believing, you can't scare the willfulness out of them, at least not if you want to call the faith pure. And I'll make this point again... If I were God, I wouldn't want dominance over a bunch of fearful servants who only professed love out of fear of hell... I don't need a bunch of opportunists kneeling at my feet to feel big... and if the true God really needs this kind of servility to make his... whatever feel big, I'd rather not be a party to it anyway. Yeah, I know, stupid human pride of mine... maybe I'll come around to realize how fruitless all this bucking against the system really is.

It's becoming painfully obvious to me why Brad said this deserves its own thread. I'm done ranting.

"we are all citizens of the womb before we subdivide
into shades and sexes- this side, that side" -Ani DiFranco

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


65 posted 12-18-2001 10:14 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Okay...Penance completed. Now Stephen, I would like to address your point regarding the point of conception as the origin of life. I did not address that, because it takes my mind even further off topic.

Let's assume that you are correct. (nice start, eh? smile with me please...)

Now do we go further to protect the QUALITY of life of the unborn child? Does the child have the right to a smoke-free environment? The issues of alcohol and drug abuse come into play here as well. Should a government monitor every pregnancy to ensure that unborn child is not subjected to various poisons of drug abuse? (By the way, in instances of substance abuse, substance abusers quite often are so physically screwed up, that they don't realize they are pregnant. Should ignorance be an excuse? What a legal can of worms that is!) Beyond the obvious, what about a child's right of proper nutrition? Should the diet of a woman ALSO be legislated? Assuming that is even practical, there is now medical evidence that EMOTIONS also play a part in the health of a child during pregnancy. Are you going to attempt to legislate HAPPINESS?

You ask where does it all begin? I'm wondering where it will all end.

An unwanted pregnancy, not always, but quite often produces an unwanted CHILD. In the instance of a drug abuser, that child quite often is born with birth defects. Who is going to adopt or care for SCORES of children who might be born with holes in their hearts, or the sometimes less obvious instances of sometimes subtle brain damage?

(The rest of this is not necessarily directed to Stephan.)

If you've read the entire thread, you may recall I said my story was a simple one. It is, until you get into the details. I had a friend with the same addiction as I who chose to have her child. That was, gratefully, the only funeral service I attended for a baby. (Joshuah was 8 months old when he died, from an irreparably damaged heart.) And no, I don't feel it justified my decision. My friend's pain haunts me as much as my own. Two women, in the same circumstances, chose two different options and STILL held hands that day and cried.  

Here is yet another true story. My thirteen year old cousin was a beautiful, intelligent girl. She was one who came into puberty early, however. She was an honor roll student and considered "a perfect child." She was SO perfect, that she apparently could not stand the idea of admitting a mistake to her parents. She was about to enter her second trimester of pregnancy when she blew her brains out. ON FATHER'S DAY, with her father's handgun.

I can go on, too. I have held a man who wept inconsolably after learning that his girlfriend aborted his unborn child.

So what is my point? I simply wished to underscore the fact already stated by myself and others, that this issue, has many fine lines of great dimension. It's extremely personal and painful. So I plead with you all to show sensitivity and discretion as you debate what may be purely hypotheses to you. (I said, MAY be, as I'm not presuming to know your life story any more than I presume that you know mine.) I simply ask, that we all be aware and type carefully, as we cannot assume to know another's personal pain.

Oh...came back to add that I know that I repeated myself here. tsk...it's just a habit of mine---I repeat myself until I receive some acknowledgement of being understood, or at the very least, HEARD.

and? Interloper, I respect your work, and I'd like to add that I hope nothing I said made you feel victimized, as that was not my intent. Trust me, as a practitioner of an "alternative" religion, I do know what persecution feels like.    

[This message has been edited by serenity (12-18-2001 11:53 AM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


66 posted 12-18-2001 05:36 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Serenity,

You're being heard.

I agree with much of what you say, not all of it but the part I disagree with involves a tangent that can be better expressed in another thread (You still want to privilege experience over theory and I want to argue that they're so intricately intertwined that it is better to scrap the distinction altogether -- there are good and bad arguments, persuasive and unpersuasive, but they shouldn't be judged in terms of where they come from).

Stephen,

The question of 'humanity' kind of misses the point. The question that this revolves around is whether a foetus has rights or not. I think you're right that the pro-choice movement has, to a large extent, pinned their hopes around this question, the assumption being that if someone is human they have rights.

That's just not true.

If someone has rights, they can lose them. If they can't lose them, they don't have rights. How can a foetus, through its own action, lose its rights? A criminal loses his or her rights by not accepting the responsibility of abiding by the law, by not respecting the rights of others. In order to have rights, you have to have responsibilities. What responsibility does a foetus have?

I don't see how we can separate rights and responsibilites for that would mean that when someone abrogates their responsibilites we can't infringe upon their rights.

And that's exactly what we do.

Brad



Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


67 posted 12-18-2001 06:56 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

What responsibilities do the mentally infirm, the elderly (alzheimer patient) and a two day old baby have?
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


68 posted 12-18-2001 07:14 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

That's exactly where I'm going, Tim.

If they cannot maintain a reciprocal responsibility, they have no rights.

Does that mean we shouldn't care?

Of course not.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


69 posted 12-19-2001 11:32 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Brad,

you're vascillating here.  2 day old babies and the mentally infirm do have rights.  And  laws are set in place with intent to protect those rights.  If we are to go with your theory about rights being inexorably bound to responsibilities, then we have to say that the laws are wrong which protect the "rights" of newborns  (since they don't really have any, due to their lack of responsiblity ).   The genial  "We should care" idea, isn't enough to protect those newborns, and neither is it enough to protect the rights of pre-born human beings.  

You've only replaced the measure of "humanity or not" with "responsible or not"... which is not presently our standard for many other classes of people who are not capable of being "responsible", but indeed have rights... so much so that anyone violating them is subject to criminal prosecution.   If your criterion isn't accepted in those areas why should it be accepted with a fetus?

Another great oversight in my opinion is presuming to know when and what level at which anyone has  valid "responsibility" or not.  How many are in such conditions that the smallest tasks (unconsious to you and I) are their formidable responsiblities for the day... if not to someone else, then to themselves, their loved ones, or to God.  For example, chewing food spoon-fed by a caretaker for some elderly persons with organic brain disorder is something that quite possibly takes more determination than you or I can know.   And even if you don't concede that such things entail "responsibility",  what about the kindred stock from which it springs, "responsiveness"?  . . .a much better (and safer) litmus test by far.  Fetuses kick and suck their thumbs in utero.  They are very active and responsive... and who are we to set the event horizon of 'responsibility' and most of all, of humanity, or the rights thereof?


And where you said "If they can't lose them (rights) they don't have rights"...  Though rights are taken away through one's own actions or in the case of the helpless through someone else's, those rights were never granted based on any action, or lack of.  Those rights were granted on the basis of being.  "Inalienable rights endowed by the Creator".  How responsible did you have to become before you had rights?  I agree that rights are always bound to responsiblity, but in many cases that responsiblity is proxy.  The preborn is one (among several) of those instances.

Stephen.


[This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-19-2001 11:47 PM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


70 posted 12-20-2001 04:24 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Don't have time at the moment to engage this discussion but I would like to acknowledge Serenity's input and suggest that yes -- this debate has gone on, and will go on ad infinitum.... but there is one difference between what has gone before and this discussion and that is that WE are having this one!  

Much thanks to all who are participating and may I add my Holiday wishes to all...
Interloper
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Rara Avis
since 11-06-2000
Posts 8628
Deep in the heart


71 posted 12-21-2001 02:43 PM       View Profile for Interloper   Email Interloper   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Interloper

Serenity,

Nothing you said offended me, personally   All was said with tongue firmly in cheek.

Happy holidays to all.  CU next year.
Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


72 posted 12-24-2001 12:13 PM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

Why is abortion a political issue?  

It shouldn't be. It should be be a private matter between a doctor and her patient.

So, why is it?

Because of religion.

Why should religious people care about what is not their business?

Yet, there has been religious wars for ages where many innocent people have been killed because their philosophy, their religious beliefs differed from those whom had a bigger and more terrible swift sword.

Hypocracy, indeed.

Let each woman choose for herself.

If abortion is not for you, then don't ever have one, but don't try to save others from themselves.

Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


73 posted 12-24-2001 12:59 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

Why should non-religous people care about what other people do?  Perhaps the question is, should people attempt to impose their morality on others? Or perhaps, should people attempt to impose their laws on others?  Hypocrisy is not limited to the religous, no matter what the religion.  As the quote goes, there is nothing wrong with religion, it's just those practice it; or going to church makes you no more a Christian than going to a garage makes you a mechanic.  I realize this is getting somewhat from the point, but why is it an accepted fact that your position on abortion is dependent on your views on religion?  It is easy to pigeonhole the pro-life by characterizing them as religous fanatics as easily as it is to pigeonhole the pro-choice as atheistic murderers.  Perhaps we should not focus on hypocrisy, but human beings attempting to deal with a issue in which there is no discernible solution within our meager capabilities. Drawing a line in the sand is not the answer for either side, although unfortunately, that seems to be the inevitable solution to a majority of our problems. Tragedy and unfairness visit us all without regard to deserving the consequences.  Unfortunately, whether you are religous or not, you have to suffer those consequences.  In a utopian world, maybe all our decisions could be our own, but in our world, we must interact and realize the effect of our actions on others.
Has there been hypocrisy on both sides of the abortion issue?  Is religion the only determinate in arriving at your position?  Is abortion a consequence of our human weaknesses, both male and female? What is the answer?
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


74 posted 12-24-2001 04:18 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Pretty much agree with everything Tim just said but thought I'd add my own thoughts.

It's kind of funny, if as Tim says, we always seem to draw lines in the sand, one would think I'm on Opeth's 'side' but I'm not. I think the issue is far more complex than that.  

"Why is abortion a political issue?"

--Because it involves more than one person. But since I think a person always already involves more than one person, it's always already political.

"It shouldn't be. It should be be a private matter between a doctor and her patient."

--Which you already admit.  

So, why is it?

Because of religion.

--If you scan this thread, you'll see that's only part of the issue.

Why should religious people care about what is not their business?

--I don't know, why should anybody care about the World Trade Center?  

"Yet, there has been religious wars for ages where many innocent people have been killed because their philosophy, their religious beliefs differed from those whom had a bigger and more terrible swift sword."

--And wars have been fought over slavery, islands, ships, gold, love, pride, money, cod, and (almost) over a pig.

Hypocracy, indeed.

--But isn't this a political statement? Aren't you making a judgement here? We all do this all the time, not just religious folks.

Let each woman choose for herself.

--Does that give a woman the choice to kill an infant? Ever looked at infanticide rates in Victorian Britain (or anywhere else)?

If abortion is not for you, then don't ever have one, but don't try to save others from themselves.

--Why not? Are you suggesting that we shouldn't try to help people in times of famine (even a self-generated one like in North Korea)?

--Things are just a little more complex than this.

Thanks,
Brad

PS Not trying to cut off your opinion, Opeth, in any way, but it does seem you want to cut off the opinions of others. Rarely are things so cut and dry.  
Local Rebel will be notified of replies
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Ok... let's see who's brave.. lol   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors