The Nature of Evil

[WIP]

You fall into tricky water when you start habituating your mind to arbitrarily determining something so abstract as personhood and when it begins or ends. Personhood is an entirely legal recognition of something. I believe you realize it is a recognition ; that is, it is the Law recognizing some reality outside and independent of itself, and affirming its existence.

And there is no legal recognition of personhood for embryos and fetuses; which is why there are rightwing crackpots in the U.S. at this moment who are trying to introduce new laws to define such as persons.

You enter this problem : if personhood does not begin at the moment life begins, and demonstrably so (let's not kid, at conception there's an explosion of life and it's happening, and happening fast), when does personhood "happen" ? Is there some legal Incarnation happening ? Does personhood fall from heaven on a human being at some arbitrary point in time ? If so, pray tell what is the cause of this marvelous event, and when does it occur ? You touched on the danger and ambiguity of arbitrarily off-shoring this responsibility to a panel of experts or bureaucrats, for example, and the precedent of doing that is alarming. It puts terrifying powers in the hands of select individuals, powers of life and death, the rights of men or the abrogation thereof.

By this definition, you have to ban most birth control as abortifacients...since they can prevent newly fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus......so, are you going to call for a ban on birth control, along with a ban on abortion like these anti-abortion advocacy groups do?

But let's hold to human custom and convention : a lot of couples, upon discovering they are pregnant

Couples discover they are pregnant? Seems like you're trying to pretend that a man also is going through the stages of pregnancy as something more than a spectator.

Now Christians cannot, and will not, ever care for any of this brutish sophistry, for we have known the Truth far before scientists confirmed it. We know, according to our Scriptures and the Creed, that God "became incarnate of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit, and was made man." That is, identity, gender, personhood - all of these questions were mute at the moment of the incarnation, which corresponds (biologically) to conception. That will not change for us.

Maybe you could explain then why Catholic Church tradition waffled between conception and quickening as the point when a new soul was dropped in to a baby. It has only been consistent since the 1850's on this issue.

The teachings of our religion is that when man divorces himself from God he falls into errors such as rationalism, and the consequence of these errors are the battles we now face, where we feel compelled to demonstrate every moral truth and argument by the arbitrary and capricious determinations of any given set of men. It is this fallacy that undermines the moral order and lends itself to such evil regimes as the Soviets and Nazis, who were not a little opportunistic of the aggrandizement of the state's powers and jurisdictions afforded by the widespread loss of belief in objective truths and the moral dogmas of the Church. These being evaporated, they left a huge vacuum that philosophy and intellectualism are constantly trying, in vain, to fill. Now Liberalism then as now dogmatically dictates that we Christians need to conform to its own fallacious presumptions and appease its own altar of rationalism before being permitted into its holy of holies and receive the blessing of its recognition of our moral precepts. So far our appeasement of this process has already cost hundreds of millions of lives in labs and abortion clinics throughout the world.

One of those evil regimes you mention, was run by a Catholic, who was never excommunicated by the Church....guess which one? If you reject rationalism, you reject the right of the individual to reason and make logical, informed decisions. You are advocating blind obedience to Church authority; and that is truly immoral....since followers acting on a leap of faith have eliminated their capacity to second guess and reconsider their actions.

Now in your final argumentation you compare the loss of innocent human life as being comparable to the loss of a certain amount of blood or the loss of organs following death. Seeing as how the loss of a little blood is not liable to kill me nor will my organs being taken from my body following death change the fact of my beind dead, I am not a little inclined to find such concerns spurious in contrast to rather more important considerations as the saving of innocent life from the death penalty.

And at what stage of development do you consider it to be worthy of having a right to life....a right that cannot be exercised without abrogating the rights of the woman is supporting that life? You ignored the example that was given which illustrates the problem of obligating others to support a life against their will, but it doesn't seem like those rights concern you very much.

[betsy]

I know you religious types don't like KJV Isaiah 45:7,(I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil, I the LORD do all these things) as evidenced by the many translations to discredit it. But then you cannot ignore or shirk away from all the "evil" that God partook in or orchestrated in the Old Testament. Can't have it both ways.

Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;

Isa 45:2 I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron:

Isa 45:3 And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call [thee] by thy name, [am] the God of Israel.

Isa 45:4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.

Isa 45:5 I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else, [there is] no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

Isa 45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that [there is] none beside me. I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else.

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].

As is explained in the study, the phrase "I...create evil" refers to physical evil or calamity rather than moral evil. God is no way pictured in the Scripture as the Author of sin.

Scorpio:

But then you cannot ignore or shirk away from all the "evil" that God partook in or orchestrated in the Old Testament. Can't have it both ways.

It is important to remember that the Old Testament is mostly for and about Israel, the Chosen people of God.

As God had said: My Thoughts are not your thoughts. My Ways are not your ways.

Does God need to explain every details to man? Who is man to question God? God does not have to answer to man. Pride and arrogance of man is man's downfall.

Edited February 23, 2011 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

Give me that old time religion...

[betsy]

Couples discover they are pregnant? Seems like you're trying to pretend that a man also is going through the stages of pregnancy as something more than a spectator.

Don't today's couples announce: "WE are expecting...."

Maybe you could explain then why Catholic Church tradition waffled between conception and quickening as the point when a new soul was dropped in to a baby. It has only been consistent since the 1850's on this issue. One of those evil regimes you mention, was run by a Catholic, who was never excommunicated by the Church....guess which one? If you reject rationalism, you reject the right of the individual to reason and make logical, informed decisions. You are advocating blind obedience to Church authority; and that is truly immoral....since followers acting on a leap of faith have eliminated their capacity to second guess and reconsider their actions.

WIP, we know that you've got an ax to grind, but this is not about the Catholic Church.

The point is: Whereas it used to be legally accepted that the baby is not human from conception to 3 months (and it was legally acceptable to kill him).....over the years, his status as a human had been diminished....and now, he is legally declared not human at all until he's born.

This legislation is in support of the Feminist Movement! Nothing more.

As long as the baby is considered human, he has the right to be protected.

That causes a problem for the FemiNAZIs.

Therefore, it's imperative for him to become non-human. Stripped of all rights. That's all there is to it.

The Jews were considered non-human in Hitler's 3rd Reich, therefore they had no rights.

Feminists...FemiNazis...the last one fits quite snuggly.

Edited February 23, 2011 by betsy

[cybercoma]

As long as the baby is considered human, he has the right to be protected.

For the purpose of expediting this discussion, I'm going to assume you believe a baby is human from the moment of conception. Biologists don't even use such language when describing this process. The "fetus" goes through stages from zygote to fetus before becoming a baby proper after its born. WIP's response earlier already tackle it best, I believe:

By this definition, you have to ban most birth control as abortifacients...since they can prevent newly fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus......so, are you going to call for a ban on birth control, along with a ban on abortion like these anti-abortion advocacy groups do?

And if you would go back and read the example from Judith Jarvis Thomson that I posted, you would see that it doesn't matter if you give a fetus personhood. It does not necessarily follow that it is morally incorrect to "disconnect the violinist", simply because he has a right to life. The person connected also has a right to do as they wish with their body. If you believe that a person does not have the right to do as they wish with their body and the right to life supersedes that, then at best you must agree that it is morally permissable for the government to force you to give blood, bone marrow, and organ donations. Those cases are not even remotely as inconvenient as the violinist example and they do save lives. After all, the sick have the right to life and the sanctity of your body is meaningless.

[Oleg Bach]

Abortion is not usually a decision made strickly by the free will contained in a woman..It is usually brought about especially in western society through social conditioning and persuasive political rhetoric...I believe that abortion as it stands is utter evil. I have watched the change that has taken place in the last 30 years - and what I notice is that we messed with the gene pool - People that should exist and could contribute to society in a real and meaningful way simply do not exist...for instance - when Henry Morgantaler said "unwanted children grow up to be concentration camp guards" - This is dellusional and as paranoid a concept and justifcatioin for abortion that can be imagined...Doctor Morgantaler who spear headed he abortion freedom movement was a nut...and now - all I see are mediocre jerks running the sytem - they inadvertantly killed the smart people.

It was not conspiratorial..nor was it done with conscious intent...It was done on so-called grounds of personal female freedom and economics..we assumed that poor people were stupid - and the aborting of their children was a positive measure - and a pre-emptive strike against the act of bringing stupid people into the world...It was a mistake and the blow back is in the fact that the poor are not genetically inferiour..sometimes the rich are.

[scorpio]

As is explained in the study, the phrase "I...create evil" refers to physical evil or calamity rather than moral evil. God is no way pictured in the Scripture as the Author of sin.

It is important to remember that the Old Testament is mostly for and about Israel, the Chosen people of God.

As God had said: My Thoughts are not your thoughts. My Ways are not your ways.

Does God need to explain every details to man? Who is man to question God? God does not have to answer to man. Pride and arrogance of man is man's downfall.

Oh, God has some explainin' to do. Check out this list of deaths God had a hand in and then tell me that he isn't the epitomy of evil.

link

Edited February 23, 2011 by scorpio

[WIP]

Don't today's couples announce: "WE are expecting...."

Yes, but I don't recall feeling morning sickness or swelling up and feeling bloated or having bladder problems or having the physical experience of delivering a baby during my wife's pregnancies. Being a birth coach is not much different than being a hockey or basketball coach; you may learn a lot about the game, but you're not actually out there playing the game.

WIP, we know that you've got an ax to grind, but this is not about the Catholic Church.

Don't try to twist my words! You're the one who acts as Catholic-basher here whenever you get into the former Catholic speech as a way to interact with the heathens here. I've actually defended Catholics and the Catholic Church here many more times than I've criticized them, because there is never a shortage of condemnation of the Catholic Church on this Board. Whenever there is a priest scandal, or new revelations about the Pope, or Vatican Bank scandals, I can count on someone else posting it up there. My job is usually to point out that Catholic Churches do a lot of work to help immigrants and the poor, even though I feel their rigid rules on procreation (which you agree with) are a root cause of many of these problems.

The reason why I mentioned the Catholic Church is simply because it was the only game in town for many centuries...at least in Western Europe, where most of us are from. The Protestant attitudes on birth control didn't change until relatively recent history. All of the Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian and others pretty much mirrored the Catholic dogma until they decided to cut bait on the birth control issue. But, many of the new Evangelical Churches are going back to that rigid line that anything which interferes with procreation is abortion, and that is why they are now at war with Planned Parenthood in the U.S.. This is not just about abortions; they are trying to eliminate organizations which offer birth control and birth control information, without having to test it in a court of law.

The point is: Whereas it used to be legally accepted that the baby is not human from conception to 3 months (and it was legally acceptable to kill him).....over the years, his status as a human had been diminished....and now, he is legally declared not human at all until he's born.

That may serve as a legal definition, but third trimester abortions are virtually impossible for women to obtain in Canada unless there is a serious medical risk issue, and the situation is not much different in the U.S. In Kansas, Dr. George Tiller was murdered two years ago for valuing the mother's life more than the baby she was carrying inside her....that's pretty much it, pure and simple; in countries where abortion is extremely restricted, such as Brazil, Doctors have been excommunicated and threatened with state law for situations like a recent notorious case where they aborted twins from an 11 year old girl to save her life. Once fetal rights become sacrosanct, pregnant women are back to being expendable vessels for baby-making...just as they were for centuries, when doctors were threatened with the death penalty if they crushed the skull of a baby that was unable to get through the birth canal....rather than just let the mother bleed to death. It's a shame that so many young women who are of child-bearing years, just follow their religious programming without contemplating that they may be putting their own lives in jeopardy if the pro life cause gets its wish!

This legislation is in support of the Feminist Movement! Nothing more.

As long as the baby is considered human, he has the right to be protected.

That causes a problem for the FemiNAZIs.

Therefore, it's imperative for him to become non-human. Stripped of all rights. That's all there is to it.

The Jews were considered non-human in Hitler's 3rd Reich, therefore they had no rights.

Feminists...FemiNazis...the last one fits quite snuggly.

I don't know how old you are, but the problem today with women under 50 is that they aren't old enough to remember what it was like before gender equality became a legislative goal. Even when I was young, there were still separate help wanted columns for men and women; women, like one of my cousins - who was raped so violently that she spent several days in hospital afterward because of massive internal bleeding, were told by their lawyers that they would be better off not pressing charges because of what would happen to their reputations if they went to court and faced an aggressive defense attorney. There is some stupid idea promulgated today by conservatives that the 1950's were a magical time when everything was perfect! Well my earliest recollections only go back to about 1961 or 1962, but I remember enough to know it wasn't the good old days, and the Feminist Movement, just as the unions, was an issue who's time had come. Most of your complaints likely arise from the caustic manner of most of the 2nd wave feminist leaders, who had very difficult relationships with men. Most of them, as their bio's reveal became activists because of their experiences and had a hard time dealing with men after they became leaders....they focused all their attention on women(middle class white women for the most part) and shut every one else out....to their detriment probably, since younger women started seeing being a feminist as something connected with hating men or being a lesbian or something.

Before I forget, on the abortion issue, I don't see the problem having any connection with feminists issues, except that the post-modernists have had the greatest influence. These are people who avoid moral and ethical issues as a rule, and would want every ethical issue to be regarded as a matter of private choice; and this is an approach that will result in a gradual eroding of the liberal position on every issue, because it leaves the conservatives as the only ones engaged in discussing morality and ethics.

[betsy]

For the purpose of expediting this discussion, I'm going to assume you believe a baby is human from the moment of conception. Biologists don't even use such language when describing this process. The "fetus" goes through stages from zygote to fetus before becoming a baby proper after its born. WIP's response earlier already tackle it best, I believe:

What you or what I believe is not the point!

[betsy]

"Anti-abortion laws enacted in the latter half of the 19th century were a result of advocacy efforts by feminists who worked in an uneasy alliance with the male-dominated medical profession and the mainstream media. The early feminists understood that, much like today, women resorted to abortion because they were abandoned or pressured by boyfriends, husbands and parents, and lacked financial resources to have a baby on their own.

Betty Friedan, credited with reawakening feminism in the 1960s with her landmark book, The Feminist Mystique, did not even mention abortion in the early edition. It was not until 1966 that NOW included abortion in its list of goals. Even then, abortion was a low priority.

It was a man -- abortion rights activist Larry Lader, who remains active today -- who credits himself with guiding a reluctant Friedan to make abortion an issue for NOW. Lader teamed up with a gynecologist, Bernard Nathanson, to co-found the National Alliance to Repeal Abortion Laws, the forerunner of today's National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL).

Lader suggested to the NOW leadership that all feminist demands (equal education, jobs, pay, etc.) hinged on a woman's ability to control her own body and procreation.

Dr. Nathanson, who later became a pro-life activist, states in his book, Abortion in America, that the two were able to convince Friedan than abortion was a civil rights issue. Later he admitted that they simply made up the numbers of women dying from illegal abortions, which had been a major point in their argument.

Lader and Nathanson's strategy was highly effective. NOW has made the preservation of legal abortion its number one priority.

http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/Feminism.htm

Edited February 24, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Bernard N. Nathanson (July 31, 1926—February 21, 2011) was an American medical doctor from New York who helped to found the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, but who later became a pro-life activist.

Pro-choice

As a younger man, he had been strongly pro-choice, and he states that he performed an abortion on a woman whom he had impregnated.[3] He later gained national attention by then becoming one of the founding members of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (later renamed the National Abortion Rights Action League, and now known as NARAL Pro-Choice America). He worked with Betty Friedan and others for the legalization of abortion in the United States. Their efforts essentially succeeded with the Roe v Wade decision. He was also for a time the director of the Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health (CRASH), New York's largest abortion clinic. Nathanson has written that he was responsible for more than 75,000 abortions throughout his pro-choice career.[citation needed]

Pro-life

The development of ultrasound in the 1970s led him to reconsider his views on abortion.[4] He is often quoted as saying abortion is "the most atrocious holocaust in the history of the United States".

In 1984, he made the documentary The Silent Scream, which showed an abortion from the perspective of ultrasound. His second documentary Eclipse of Reason dealt with late-term abortions.

He stated that the numbers he once cited for NARAL concerning the number of deaths linked to illegal abortions were "false figures".[5][6]

Referring to his previous pro-choice work, he wrote in his 1996 autobiography Hand of God, "I am one of those who helped usher in this barbaric age."[4]

Nathanson developed what he called the "vector theory of life", which states that from the moment of conception, the fetus has a self-directed force of life that, if not interrupted, will lead to the birth of a human baby.[4]

He was a staunch supporter of the pro-life movement at the time of his death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Nathanson

Edited February 24, 2011 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

As long as the baby is considered human, he has the right to be protected.

That causes a problem for the FemiNAZIs.

How much protection? Should there be measures to ensure pregnant women who are smoking or eating unhealthy foods maintain a healthy lifestyle? How far should the state go in its anti-NAZI campaign to make sure those fetuses are protected?

[betsy]

CHAPTER 62 THE NATIONAL ABORTION RIGHTS ACTION LEAGUE: PROFESSIONAL ANTI-LIFE BIGOTS

American Life League

Introduction.

The most powerful philosophical push for abortion was generated by an elite cadre during the heady 1960s, when authority was being challenged or ignored everywhere, and when the Neoliberal agenda seemed to be advancing almost everywhere against, at best, scattered and disorganized opposition.

One of the most effective organizations pushing for abortion law reform or repeal was the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL), which is now known as the National Abortion Rights Action League.

NARAL: Bigoted to the Core.

Whatever else may be said about them, the leaders of NARAL had their priorities right when the group was first organized. Bernard Nathanson, Bill Baird, Larry Lader, and other pro-abortion activists defined their mission, identified their enemy, and set up a strategic framework within which to operate.

Nathanson summarized the beginnings of NARAL in a 1980 speech;

I want to take you back some twelve years to 1968 at which time I, and later Betty Friedan and Carol Grietzer, organized a political action group known as the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws. We organized it as a tight, well-structured, and dynamic little cadre. It was the right time. Feminism was on the move, the Vietnam War was raging, authority was being destroyed everywhere and, very important to all of us here, there was no organization of those opposed to abortion.

There was only silence from the opposition. We fed a line of deceit, of dishonesty, of fabrication of statistics and figures; we coddled, caressed, and stroked the press. We cadged money from various sources and we, in one short year, succeeded in striking down the abortion laws of New York State and in one fell swoop established the city of New York as the abortion capital of the world. We were calling ourselves pro-abortionists and pro-choice. In fact what we were were abortifiers; those who like abortion.[4]

The most critical action taken by the early leaders of NARAL was their correct identification of their natural enemies the Catholic and Fundamentalist churches. The utter contempt that the NARAL leaders held for any view other than their own is graphically displayed in Figure 62-1. The members of the NARAL committee agreed that the Pope was "running our country" and that Catholics would "stop at no ends to reach their goals," even if such actions included outright terrorism.

The two people who contributed most to the framework of early NARAL strategy were Bernard Nathanson and Larry Lader. In his book Aborting America, Dr. Nathanson describes part of a 1969 conversation he had with fellow abortophile Larry Lader; "Historically, every revolution has to have its villain ... Now, in our case, it makes little sense to lead a campaign only against unjust laws, even though that's what we really are doing. We have to narrow the focus, identify those unjust laws with a person or a group of people ... There's always been one group of people in this country associated with reactionary politics, behind-the-scenes manipulations, socially backward ideas. You know who I mean, Bernie ... the Catholic hierarchy. That's a small enough group to come down on, and anonymous enough so that no names ever have to be mentioned ... "[1]

NARAL soon recognized that such overt bigotry would damage its cause, and so the kind of blatant hate shown in Figure 62-1 was quickly muted. It must be stressed that this hate of religion never disappeared; it just went underground, where it festers to this day.

NARAL's anti-religious bigotry is much more polished and smooth today. This, of course, makes it even more dangerous.

© American Life League BBS 1-703-659-7111

This is a chapter of the Pro-Life Activist's Encyclopedia published by American Life League.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC062.HTM

Edited February 24, 2011 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

Yeah, I figured you wouldn't want to take on that question.

[cybercoma]

What you or what I believe is not the point!

You're right. It's what the mother believes, but you would like the state to take that choice away from her and force her to conform to what you believe God believes.

[cybercoma]

Yeah, I figured you wouldn't want to take on that question.

Get in line, my friend. She completely ignored everything I posted.

[betsy]

You're right. It's what the mother believes, but you would like the state to take that choice away from her and force her to conform to what you believe God believes.

I'm telling you we're not on the same page.

This is not about what you...or I...or what the mother believes.

This is about the Feminazi's Abortion agenda - very much paralleled to Hitler's 3rd Reich - and the apathy (and blind support by a society so wracked with guilt over the mistreatment of women) - is reminiscent of the world's reluctance to believe that something so evil - the tortures and systematic annihiliation of the Jews - was actually happening.

Ironically, a lot of people who staunchly support the killings of babies are the ones so quick to point to the evil of Hitler, whenever religion/God is even mentioned.

Well, deal with this present day evil right on your doorstep!

You may choose to insist arguing this from your standpoint...but I'll choose to ignore it, unless you get right back on track!

Edited February 24, 2011 by betsy

[cybercoma]

So wait, let me get this straight. I just spent two pages articulating arguments and philosophies of right-to-life vs the right to do with your body as you wish, and you're going to ignore everything I say unless I call feminists "feminazis" and compare them to Hitler? Well betsy, you have done nothing to show that these "feminazis" are morally required to stay hooked in to the violinist. But what's more insidious is the suggestion that those who support women's rights not to have legislation forcing them to be incubators against their will, but more than that not to have legislation telling Canadians in general what they can and can't do with their own bodies, are somehow morally comparable to Nazis. I'm sorry, but if you can't see the difference between not allowing a mass of cells to take up residence in your uterine lining and the exportations of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and political dissidents, in other words, fully autonomous, living and breathing persons, who were subsequently burned in furnaces, gassed in showers, and starved to death, then your moral compass at best is broken or at worst is non-existent.

But hey, since you seem to only want to answer to posts that reqard the situation to nazism, how about this. It is YOU that are the Nazi for promoting legislation that would force women against their will to be incubators. It is you that want to legislate against the body in the same way that Nazi Germany legislated against the bodies of "undesirables". You're the one that wants to force these women against their will, health, and psychological well-being to stay hooked in to the violinist. So betsy, if anyone here is going to get the yearbook award for "Most Likely to Gas Jews with a Smile", it would be you because you do not believe in people's right to do with their body as they wish. It is you that would carry out Eugenics experiments on people in order to make a genetically superior race because it's ok to violate the body of people through legislation if it's for what seems to you to be a morally valuable end.

So I bid you good day, Frau Betsy. I do not support you or your horrifingly dangerous ideas.

[DogOnPorch]

Whoa...

[bush_cheney2004]

Whoa...

Indeed....Nazis...the gift that keeps on giving.

[Oleg Bach]

Oh no...looks like I just started a new religion called the Bachians.............I guess it is based on balking at everything created by man kind.... well - could be worse....Here is a bit of scripture "God rains on the evil as well as the good" - seems that the master of the universe does not play favorites...God's purpose is to sustain life...our purpose is to learn how to be god like and good and do the same thing....what is odd is God is like this middle eastern saying..."I do not love him because he is good, I love him because he is my little child" - we give evil to much importance..Mankind is basically good...and we should give ourselves a break ...If you want proof of our goodness look at the issue of nuclear arms...we have had them for quite a while and we are still here...That is saying something positive...Lets no worry so mucy about evi or evil...

Just love them - they have a choice - to accept the love or not to accept the love...for those that reject love - we can love them to death - thus getting rid of the non-compliant earth angels that cos trouble.

[WIP]

And if you would go back and read the example from Judith Jarvis Thomson that I posted, you would see that it doesn't matter if you give a fetus personhood. It does not necessarily follow that it is morally incorrect to "disconnect the violinist", simply because he has a right to life.

The person connected also has a right to do as they wish with their body. If you believe that a person does not have the right to do as they wish with their body and the right to life supersedes that, then at best you must agree that it is morally permissable for the government to force you to give blood, bone marrow, and organ donations. Those cases are not even remotely as inconvenient as the violinist example and they do save lives. After all, the sick have the right to life and the sanctity of your body is meaningless.

I've used Judith Jarvis Thompson's example "The Violinist" previously, because it does get across the point about having a right to decide how your body is used to men, who do not, and never will have a first person sense of what is being expected by demanding that pregnant women carry through all of their pregnancies to birth. But, I think "The Violinist" is only a rough analogy at best; since in the example, the violinist and the hospital patient are total strangers that have no prior relationship. And even more important, the prospective host has gone to the hospital for a different purpose and woken up attached by I.V. tubes to the violinist. In the kind of society that conservatives are trying to return us to, where women have no access to birth control, and married women have no right to refuse their husband's wishes, then the analogy would fit; but in the liberal society that we are rapidly losing hold of, young women still have opportunities to avoid pregnancy...in most jurisdictions of course....I'm not sure about what the hell is going on in the bible belt from some of the stories I'm reading lately!

Anyway, if unwanted pregnancy is accidental or from lack of preparation, the Violinist example doesn't work as well, but first and second trimester clinic abortions may still be justified, because the fetus is not viable outside the womb, and it hasn't started higher brain function that would be needed just to start a conscious existence. The fetus will grow and develop and become a person (thanks to the necessities of life provided by the mother), but lack of conscious awareness and total dependence on the mother make a weak case for declaring it a person with its own rights during most of the pregnancy. What the conservatives are actually doing is making the pregnant woman a servant to the growing fetus inside her.

The other argument for calling fertilized eggs persons, is that it has the potential to become a person, and that is also a weak argument, considering that potentials have to be denied all the time in real life, and these same conservatives think nothing of callously denying the potentials for a decent life of children who are born into poverty....many likely from the same unwanted pregnancies.

[WIP]

http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/Feminism.htm

One of the early pioneers of talk radio here in Canada was the late John Michael.... a sort of libertarian, but socially liberal talker who made a good living working in St.Catharines and Niagara Falls for decades. Whenever I happened to be listening, I recall him frequently saying:"don't read to me, don't tell me what the bible says, don't tell me what the CBC or the Globe & Mail say, I want to hear what YOU have to say," and that point was made both towards liberal opponents and like-minded conservatives who called in. In the same vein, if you want to debate an issue, debate your points, instead of doing the internet equivalent of posting talking points from dubious agenda-driven sources. If you want to live in a safe conservative bubble, don't go on forums where different opinions are offered up. It's easy to find a wide range of opinions on any subject....although all of the anti-abortion spam that shows up in the average search makes it more difficult to find pro choice information. But, if you're really interested in evaluating opposing viewpoints, you can find them. So far, you are making no attempt to expand your sources of information, and just serving up the same stuff we've already heard over and over many times already...so what's the point?

As for your sources, pro life, conservative feminists is an oxymoron, since the leaders of this movement, like Sarah Palin, have been worse form women's rights in their actual terms in government than conservative men. These women are like gay Republicans trying to be accepted at CPAC, after continually being kicked in the teeth by all of the conservative organizations there. Or black republicans, who abandoned their people to ingratiate themselves with well-heeled Republicans, who can reward them with easy money and playing token so that Repubs can say 'see, we got one too.' And, after posting a previous response condemning all feminists as "feminazis"....something I guess you heard on Limbaugh's show....you're now walking it back to say that women who call themselves feminists, but work against the rights of other women, are the okay feminists.

These highly selective historical articles are not worth much consideration from the outset, since they mention that early suffragette and feminist leaders like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, opposed abortion, without bothering to mention that during their time, abortion was illegal, as well as dangerous to the pregnant woman, and most of the abortions were self-administered. This is not the same thing as a modern medical clinic, but because your source is propaganda, they don't bother to mention that fact!

[cybercoma]

I've used Judith Jarvis Thompson's example "The Violinist" previously, because it does get across the point about having a right to decide how your body is used to men, who do not, and never will have a first person sense of what is being expected by demanding that pregnant women carry through all of their pregnancies to birth. But, I think "The Violinist" is only a rough analogy at best; since in the example, the violinist and the hospital patient are total strangers that have no prior relationship. And even more important, the prospective host has gone to the hospital for a different purpose and woken up attached by I.V. tubes to the violinist. In the kind of society that conservatives are trying to return us to, where women have no access to birth control, and married women have no right to refuse their husband's wishes, then the analogy would fit; but in the liberal society that we are rapidly losing hold of, young women still have opportunities to avoid pregnancy...in most jurisdictions of course....I'm not sure about what the hell is going on in the bible belt from some of the stories I'm reading lately!

Anyway, if unwanted pregnancy is accidental or from lack of preparation, the Violinist example doesn't work as well, but first and second trimester clinic abortions may still be justified, because the fetus is not viable outside the womb, and it hasn't started higher brain function that would be needed just to start a conscious existence. The fetus will grow and develop and become a person (thanks to the necessities of life provided by the mother), but lack of conscious awareness and total dependence on the mother make a weak case for declaring it a person with its own rights during most of the pregnancy. What the conservatives are actually doing is making the pregnant woman a servant to the growing fetus inside her.

The other argument for calling fertilized eggs persons, is that it has the potential to become a person, and that is also a weak argument, considering that potentials have to be denied all the time in real life, and these same conservatives think nothing of callously denying the potentials for a decent life of children who are born into poverty....many likely from the same unwanted pregnancies.

Judith Jarvis Thomson's retort to modern contraception and female responsibility is that her example still makes it morally permissable to have an abortion if a woman is raped. The arguments being made here by betsy and others make it seem as though it would be wrong in those cases as well, although it hasn't been asked directly.

The other example Jarvis gives is that of "people seeds" floating through the air like pollen. You open your window to let air into your home, but you put up screens on all the windows and door to keep these "people seeds" form floating into your home and embedding themselves into your drapes or carpet. Unfortunately, one of the seeds has a tiny hole in it that you could not see with the naked eye and one becomes implanted in your carpet. Does this "person plant" suddenly have the right to use your home?

Jarvis argues that it doesn't matter that you took the risk. It is still well within your rights to remove this "person plant" that takes up residence, unwanted, in your home.

Anyway, you can question her analogies, but the fact remains that it's not simply enough to say that a fetus is a person to claim that abortion is morally wrong. That the fetus is a person is not reason enough to say it ought not be killed. No person has a right to claim your body as its own without your permission.

[betsy]

The point:

Abortion is a feminist issue. It became imperative to declare the fetus as non-human otherwise the fetus will have the right to be protected. That is all there is to it.

The rest are just "fluffs" fed to a guilt-wracked society.

It's also convenient to use religion as the "villain" to ensure the galvanized support of those who are anti-religion, secularists, etc.

Why can't a fetus be carried to full term, born, and offered for adoption? We're just talking 9 months here. What is wrong with that?

Edited February 25, 2011 by betsy