The Nature of Evil

[GostHacked]

Boy, if you were raped....would you wait 3 months to get rid of that life? It's normal procedure for a raped woman to get to the doctor for evidence of rape....AND to be "cleaned" out! Pronto! Not 3 months after!

Little miss violin player must be doing her dusting once every 3 months or so! Talk about ridiculous analogy. Come up with your own!

The parallel between Hitler's 3rd Reich and Feminist's Abortion fits so well....because there is indeed a parallel. Not a made-up one!

So you do support abortion in certain cases. That seems clear to me.

[WIP]

My personal belief is not the issue.

Yes it is! Otherwise, what the hell is the point of discussion? Pretending your own beliefs are not an issue is a way to duck having to take a clear position and lay out your claims on an issue. I see it all the time on the global warming threads where deniers shift from claiming no global warming to it's natural causes to yes, humans are altering the climate, but we can't do anything about it to...right back to square one. It's a ruse like trying to fight brushfires, without being able to expose the weaknesses of the other side's argument.

This is the issue:

A woman was able to abort her child - rape or not - within the first 3 months. After that, it was considered illegal. Therefore, a fetus was considered human...and had rights!

So, after three months it was considered human, but not before three months? And where did you get this story that abortion used to be legal up to three months....where was this, and why was three months chosen as the cutoff point? I mentioned the example of the Catholic Church in earlier times determining that "ensoulment" occurred during the quickening process, when the fetus starts to kick...but that does not occur in the first three months....it's between 15 and 20 weeks, according the wikipedia entry. And during most of that time, the Catholic Church still did not approve of abortion....it's just that before 1869, most of the popes declared that aborting a fetus prior to quickening was a venial sin, not a mortal sin.

So I ask you...

Why is it now that the fetus is not considered human at all?

It's not an issue of whether it is human, it's whether a fetus should be regarded as a person, with rights that could infringe on the rights of the mother.....and it's still a contentious issue, in case you haven't noticed! I don't claim to have it all figured out, since there are competing interests; and I think those who consider it to be cut and dried, have not weighed all of the consequences before taking sides.

[WIP]

So you posted Judith Jarvis Thompson's "thought experiment." Whether you "explained" it or whatever....at the end of the day, you still used her and her "thought experiment" in this forum! Why? Because it supports your argument.

Which is not quite the same thing as you posting pages without explaining why you think they're important, and how they factor in to your arguments.

So why is it okay for you to bring in dubious "thought experiment creations" by dubious apparently pro-choice activists....and you have beef that I bring up some HISTORICAL FACTS to support my argument?

If you bothered to check, Judith Jarvis Thompson is a philosopher who spent most of her academic career at M.I.T.. She is not an activist....and you would have known this yourself if you bothered doing any checking.

And who are you to say what my thoughts are or are not? You sound kinda like a child crying "Foul!" "Foul!" because he cannot give a head-on rebutt to the real issue!

Because I'm curious if you have a consistent position on this issue, since you've claimed to be pro life, but are now indicating that you accept abortion in the first three months of pregnancy. Why is it such a problem for you to tell us where you stand on an issue that is important enough to post pages from anti-abortion websites?

[WIP]

Boy, if you were raped....would you wait 3 months to get rid of that life? It's normal procedure for a raped woman to get to the doctor for evidence of rape....AND to be "cleaned" out! Pronto! Not 3 months after!

Little miss violin player must be doing her dusting once every 3 months or so! Talk about ridiculous analogy. Come up with your own!

Your "3 months" has nothing to do with the example! As clearly stated, the thought experiment was to illustrate the imposition of expecting a woman to spend the next 9 months giving life as a result of something that she did not consent to.....and that's why it matches non-consensual sex resulting in pregnancy.

[WIP]

Okay, enough of Ms Thompson. I want to know your take on Mr Nathanson. He is, after all, much much relevant to the issue at hand, since he was one of the founding members of this "holocaust" in modern times. He used the term "holocaust," btw.

How is he relevant? He was an abortion supporter who performed many abortions, and then he switched sides in the 1970's...so, just because he changed his mind, why should that in itself have any influence on this issue? And what am I to make of the veracity of a claim he made, according to that anti-abortion site you used, that he said later that he lied about the number of illegal abortions being performed prior to legalization? Did he lie then, or did he lie later on when he declared himself to be pro life, and, according to the N.Y. Times article about him: In addressing anti-abortion audiences, Dr. Nathanson often drew gasps by painting himself, in his pro-abortion-rights days, in lurid colors. Sounds like he had good reasons to do a lot of embellishing as a prolifer!

It mentions in the Times obituary that he narrated the anti-abortion film "Silent Scream," wherein he claimed that a three month old fetus being aborted, has its mouth open trying to make a scream.....considering his considerable medical background, he would know enough about fetal brain and nervous system development to know that would be impossible...as noted in the Times article. So, that should serve as an example of him lying as a prolifer for his cause of stopping abortions.

But, back to square one, just because an abortion provider became an anti-abortionist does not mean that he had anything more compelling than his own personal reasons to change his position on the issue. This seems eerily similar to your approach on the theory of evolution, or belief in God previously. I recall you posting articles about scientists or academics like Anthony Flew, as if we're all supposed to change our minds too on the subject! I prefer to do my own thinking, rather than have someone else be declared the authority on a subject and do my thinking for me.

[betsy]

Who says a fetus is not human until its born? What is it if not human?

I not only said a fetus is human, but I allowed for it to have personhood.

With the acknowledgement above, this brings us back again to my previous assertion that:

Betsy:

Atheist believe there is no meaning and value in life, and so can't consistently claim the distinction between right and wrong.

How can it be consistent when you pick and choose which torture/killings are deemed wrong? You see the wrong in Hitler’s atrocious evil and yet you champion the torture/killings of the fetuses.

Furthermore, this proclamation from the same poster only illustrates the relativism of an atheistic stance. It underlines the driving force that supports the murder of the fetus: EXPEDIENCY for the “I.” The “me.” “The mine.”

The Feminists’ slogan says it all: “My body, my choice.”

The dissected quote below came from post #135. I highlighted the interesting declamation illustrating that “value to life” pertains solely to self.

Cybercoma

Finally, stop saying that atheists believe there is no value to life. Once again, atheists have all different beliefs about many different things. I can tell you about myself, but not the next atheist that shows up in the thread. For me, the value in life is that I'm alive. The conditions were such that out of billions upon billions of possibilities and the billions of preconditions that needed to exist, I am the result.

When you believe you just happened to exist by accident I suppose this must be how one would feel.

Here I am with a finite amount of time on earth, so I had better make the most out of that time and try to leave an environment for future generations to make the most out of their time here, since there time is also finite.

Hedonism - the ethical doctrine that pleasure, variously conceived of in terms of happiness of the individual or of society, is the principal good and the proper aim of action.

So the aim is to have a hedonistic society.

I don't believe my reward is in heaven. I don't require the threat of suffering in the afterlife to be moral and altruistic. The threat to not being altruistic is living in a time and a place where people are not altruistic to one another.

Altruism - the unselfish concern for the welfare of others; Selflessness. The general welfare of society is the proper goal of an individual’s action.

How many millions of fetuses died all these years? At present time we grapple with the reality of an age-ing population....and we import young people to fill that void.

How can it be good for the general welfare of society when we kill our future?

The threat is creating suffering in the here and now. I don't want to suffer, so I try not to make others suffer. Life is precious because it is incredibly rare to begin with and at any point it can be extinguished. So, please... stop telling me what to believe and what you think I believe because you're wrong on both accounts.

The last highlighted sentence sums it all up why it is preferable to kill the fetus instead of carrying him to full term, giving birth and offering him for adoption. It is the justification for extinguishing the life of the fetus.

Edited February 26, 2011 by betsy

[WIP]

Since we've moved away from the laws and legal decisions, where betsy had originally taken the argument, then I will give you my opinion. Should it be permissable to abort a 24 week old fetus because it has the wrong sex or minor birth defects? I think I agree with Dr. Morgentaler when he says, "every child should be wanted." Abortions should be on demand and it should be a decision that the mother alone makes about her own body.

At 24 weeks gestation, you're at the point where neural connections between the thalamus and the cortex level of the brain are being made; and that makes it possible to have a conscious sense of pain....although this is so early in development that medical experts have no real idea what a pain experience for a fetus would be like. Nevertheless, causing pain and suffering is one marker for conscious awareness, and that is a strike against abortion for personal reasons like wrong sex, or minor birth defects. Unless the mother's life is in danger, or there are serious birth defects, I can't go along with Morgentaler here. Also, the sex-selection issue is one that has wider implications, since it has led to a demographic imbalance in China, where abortion has been freely available, but cultural bias still favours a male child....especially after the imposition of the One Child Policy.

Your point is leaning precariously on being moot, since the vast majority of abortions are done before 12 weeks. The very few abortions that are done after that are done so because there is a high chance of the mother dying or the baby having severe defects, rather than simply wanting to abort the child based on sex or a minor defect.

Yes, that was one of the big arguments against Republican Congressmen 20 years ago when they made "partial birth" abortion their hobby horse when Newt Gingrich was the House Leader. It was pointed out that as a percentage, late term abortions were very rare already, and the kind of amendment the Republicans wanted would just put pregnant women's lives in danger, if something went wrong late in the pregnancy. Still, it's worth examining all of the issues....even the unusual cases.

[betsy]

WIP,

I try to give an argument from a philosophical point of view. We all know my personal belief as a Christian....and I try not to drag religion into this. Again I repeat my musing in reply to Bloodyminded somewhere in this thread: If I as a religious person can discuss without using religoon/God/belief/faith as an argument....why can't an atheist do the same?

Clearly at some point in time, it was illegal to abort in Canada. Clearly, the fetus was protected.

Then abortion got decriminalized, but only to the extent for reasons of health risk to the mother.

Clearly, the fetus still enjoyed his right to be protected.

But now, his status had changed. He can be killed while he is still in his mothers womb. From having his right.... to none at all. That's a big change, don't you think?

You see, as long as he is considered a human, he has the right to be protected. This became a dilemma for the Feminist Movement. Therefore, it is imperative to make him non-human so he can be stripped of his right to be protected. That is my point.

And I pointed out the eerie similarity how the Nazis viewed the Jew as non-human, and how the fetus is now deemed non-human.....so atrocities (from tortures to maiming to killings and indignities) can be justified, and be acceptable to society.

You asked why Nathanson is very much relevant. Well, if you can't see his relevance at all in this discussion, his relevance to the Feminist Movement (alongside Lader), yet you place this quasi-"thought experiment" of Thompson as high up there....what can I say?

I clicked to open your response and the first thing I see is a rant about my belief. Whoa, I also caught a glimpse of global warming somewhere, etc.., so I stopped reading.

I clicked to open your response and scrolled fast down and your last paragraph is another rant about my belief. All I see is just rant.

Edited February 26, 2011 by betsy

[WIP]

With the acknowledgement above, this brings us back again to my previous assertion that:

Betsy:

Atheist believe there is no meaning and value in life, and so can't consistently claim the distinction between right and wrong.

Your assertion is wrong right from the start, since atheists only share a disbelief in common, not a set of beliefs. I mentioned previously that nihilists are ones who believe that life ultimately has no meaning...but unless you have evidence that cybercoma is a nihilist, you have no justification for making that statement. And, for the record, most atheists believe that the Universe is devoid of having a greater purpose that depends on us; we are creatures who have a high need for having a purpose, but most of us avoid trying to apply our sense of meaning to inert objects, plants and animals, the earth, and the whole universe as well. If the universe has a purpose, there is no evidence that we have anything to do with it, so we get on and go about our own lives.....and I'll end it here, since cybercoma may have a different take on finding meaning.

Furthermore, this proclamation from the same poster only illustrates the relativism of an atheistic stance. It underlines the driving force that supports the murder of the fetus: EXPEDIENCY for the “I.” The “me.” “The mine.”

The Feminists’ slogan says it all: “My body, my choice.”

Feminists are not all atheists! Judging by the fact that self-identified atheists are overwhelmingly male, the odds are that most feminists believe in God in some sense...though not likely the kind of religion you are partial to. And weren't you quoting previously from some feminists who claim to be pro-life? Now, here you are again condemning all feminists! It's even possible to be a pro-life atheist! I wouldn't have believed it myself until I came across one two years ago on Sam Harris's discussion forum. He made his argument based on the utilitarian principle of maximizing benefit to the greatest number of people...which in his example included maximizing all human potentials....right from fertilization. I don't know if he convinced anyone, but it just goes to show that you can't lump everything you don't like in the same category!

When you believe you just happened to exist by accident I suppose this must be how one would feel.

No, that's how YOU would feel! For those of us who approach the world from a position of skepticism, we don't really find the randomness of quantum physics, or the apparent randomness in the way the Universe has evolved, to be troubling. If you feel that the Universe has to function for a higher purpose...which you do, then you find that thinking about a Universe that goes on with or without us to be upsetting. But consider that we do not all think the same, or have the same needs. I don't see the evidence for a creator at work in our Universe, but I can't prove that there is no creator to those who believe in one, nor do I really want to disprove the existence of a creator to people who consider it important.

Hedonism - the ethical doctrine that pleasure, variously conceived of in terms of happiness of the individual or of society, is the principal good and the proper aim of action.

So the aim is to have a hedonistic society.

I don't subscribe to hedonism! I see a lot of what's wrong with today's society as being caused by a consumer culture that puts experiencing pleasure above everything else. I'm more on the side of the Stoics, who considered attaining control of desires to be the pathway to true happiness. Most forms of Buddhism follow a similar line of thinking.

Altruism - the unselfish concern for the welfare of others; Selflessness. The general welfare of society is the proper goal of an individual’s action.

I agree!

How many millions of fetuses died all these years? At present time we grapple with the reality of an age-ing population....and we import young people to fill that void.

How can it be good for the general welfare of society when we kill our future?

There is a prevailing fallacy that has been promulgated all across rightwing literature and websites that we (meaning the white race actually) are not producing enough babies, and will be overrun in a few generations by the darkies....check out some of Pat Buchanan's books on the subject for example.

It's true that we have an aging population; but the problems in Third World countries that have forced pregnancy on women through banning abortion and birth control, have created societies with very young populations....but the problem is that, like Egypt, they cannot feed all of their people or provide jobs. The cities in these overpopulated nations are crowded and have overwhelmed water and waste treatment systems. I covered some of this on the threads about climate change....the greatest crisis facing this world today is that our current population of almost 7 billion is at least three times what the world can sustain on a permanent basis....our population is living on borrowed time already, and world population needs to be reduced now, and very rapidly to prevent what could result in extinction of the human race in one or two centuries. Now, with that in mind, how much do we need more babies? I don't want to be callous about it, hopefully we won't see a world functioning by lifeboat ethics...but the last thing we need now are ways to increase world population.

[betsy]

It's true that we have an aging population; but the problems in Third World countries that have forced pregnancy on women through banning abortion and birth control, have created societies with very young populations....but the problem is that, like Egypt, they cannot feed all of their people or provide jobs. The cities in these overpopulated nations are crowded and have overwhelmed water and waste treatment systems. I covered some of this on the threads about climate change....the greatest crisis facing this world today is that our current population of almost 7 billion is at least three times what the world can sustain on a permanent basis....our population is living on borrowed time already, and world population needs to be reduced now, and very rapidly to prevent what could result in extinction of the human race in one or two centuries. Now, with that in mind, how much do we need more babies? I don't want to be callous about it, hopefully we won't see a world functioning by lifeboat ethics...but the last thing we need now are ways to increase world population.

I have not read the book....so I wouldn't know. Anyway, my point is not about being "overrun by darkies." Again you bring an irrelevant argument to the topic.

My point is neither right or left I would think....since you yourself had said that there are pro-life atheists/lefties, and I know that there are also pro-choice rightwing.

I am talking about us. Our society here. Canada. We have an age-ing population. That's reality.

We need young people. We don't have enough. We import!

And since you've brought the problem of the third world. It is their government, not the population, that's causing their problem. It is the "management." If these societies are similar to how we run ours, I am pretty sure they would've been right along with us, prosperous...or self-sufficient, at least. But then that's another topic.

[WIP]

I am talking about us. Our society here. Canada. We have an age-ing population. That's reality.

We need young people. We don't have enough. We import!

And since you've brought the problem of the third world. It is their government, not the population, that's causing their problem. It is the "management." If these societies are similar to how we run ours, I am pretty sure they would've been right along with us, prosperous...or self-sufficient, at least. But then that's another topic.

Our country and their countries are all part of the same world. We share the same atmosphere, along with the same water cycle, and thanks to globalization, all of the world's commodity markets are interconnected. And, as food prices continue to rise, along with the price of oil, the world is going to face a refugee problem beyond a scale of anything seen so far. I doubt that a relatively sparsely populated country like Canada is going to be able to keep everyone out who wants in 20 or 30 years from now. By 2050, Canada will be faced with armed climate refugees from America moving north. So much for worrying about our aging problems then!

[betsy]

Our country and their countries are all part of the same world. We share the same atmosphere, along with the same water cycle, and thanks to globalization, all of the world's commodity markets are interconnected. And, as food prices continue to rise, along with the price of oil, the world is going to face a refugee problem beyond a scale of anything seen so far. I doubt that a relatively sparsely populated country like Canada is going to be able to keep everyone out who wants in 20 or 30 years from now. By 2050, Canada will be faced with armed climate refugees from America moving north. So much for worrying about our aging problems then!

So you're on to climate change now.

[betsy]

Your assertion is wrong right from the start, since atheists only share a disbelief in common, not a set of beliefs. I mentioned previously that nihilists are ones who believe that life ultimately has no meaning...but unless you have evidence that cybercoma is a nihilist, you have no justification for making that statement.

Well, I'm basing it on Cybercoma's reply....which I assume reflect how he thinks/feel/reason. I'm using logic.

[betsy]

Okay WIP, I'm curious how you'd see this from my point:

What is wrong about carrying the baby to full term, giving birth, then giving him up for adoption, if the mother still doesn't want him?

He didn't have to die. A childless couple will be happy to become his parents. His biological mother can go on living her life as if he never existed at all.

That means we roll back to making abortion illegal unless it's a health risk to the mother - so I guess that was in 1969 (? can't remember the date).

Edited February 26, 2011 by betsy

[pinko]

George Carlin and Abortion

[cybercoma]

I'm so tired of betsy either intentionally ignoring or completely missing every point that I make that I think I'm not even going to bother.

[GostHacked]

I have not read the book....so I wouldn't know. Anyway, my point is not about being "overrun by darkies." Again you bring an irrelevant argument to the topic.

My point is neither right or left I would think....since you yourself had said that there are pro-life atheists/lefties, and I know that there are also pro-choice rightwing.

I am talking about us. Our society here. Canada. We have an age-ing population. That's reality.

We need young people. We don't have enough. We import!

And since you've brought the problem of the third world. It is their government, not the population, that's causing their problem. It is the "management." If these societies are similar to how we run ours, I am pretty sure they would've been right along with us, prosperous...or self-sufficient, at least. But then that's another topic.

Thanks for this, I needed a good laugh today. You are now my favortie troll.

[DogOnPorch]

I'm so tired of betsy either intentionally ignoring or completely missing every point that I make that I think I'm not even going to bother.

Yeah...still waiting on her theory re: T-Rex and Noah's Ark.

[bloodyminded]

Okay WIP, I'm curious how you'd see this from my point:

What is wrong about carrying the baby to full term, giving birth, then giving him up for adoption, if the mother still doesn't want him?

????

WIP has never, to my knowledge, even faintly suggested that there is something "wrong" with such a scenario.

[betsy]

????

WIP has never, to my knowledge, even faintly suggested that there is something "wrong" with such a scenario.

Good eye, Bloodyminded. I have to edit that post and be more specific. Thanks.

[BubberMiley]

I just don't buy those pickaninny justifications and rhetorics about dah body and dah choice.

Why are the anti-choice fascists so caught up in bringing race into the argument?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/abortion-billboard-nyc_n_827219.html

[WIP]

????

WIP has never, to my knowledge, even faintly suggested that there is something "wrong" with such a scenario.

There would be nothing wrong except that betsy ties that suggestion with banning abortion....which would make it an order, not an option.

[WIP]

Okay WIP, I'm curious how you'd see this from my point:

What is wrong about carrying the baby to full term, giving birth, then giving him up for adoption, if the mother still doesn't want him?

He didn't have to die. A childless couple will be happy to become his parents. His biological mother can go on living her life as if he never existed at all.

That means we roll back to making abortion illegal unless it's a health risk to the mother - so I guess that was in 1969 (? can't remember the date).

I'm wondering if you have children, since that would give you some perspective on what is being asked of primarily young girls who get pregnant and are faced with either the abortion option, or putting everything on hold for nine months and then going through labour and childbirth. And, I have no personal perspective on how great or not so demanding this requirement is, or whether or not the statements by many young women that it's an ordeal to give it up for adoption afterwards. I don't have any daughters, but if I did, I wouldn't want society to close off all of the options for young women because of some exaggerated importance given to the interests of fetuses and embryos.

[bloodyminded]

There would be nothing wrong except that betsy ties that suggestion with banning abortion....which would make it an order, not an option.

Yep.

[WIP]

Why are the anti-choice fascists so caught up in bringing race into the argument?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/abortion-billboard-nyc_n_827219.html

Good point! The conservatives that bankroll these groups are part of the larger movement that targeted blacks and latinos in the 2008 election cycle by trying to scare the white suburbanites about losing control of society, and trying to make it even more difficult for them to vote and have a part in the democratic process; and of course they want to completely gut social programs that would disproportionately affect minorities. So, why do they all of a sudden care about abortion in inner city neighbourhoods? But, then I'm back to asking why the vast majority of the anti-abortion groups are led by conservative men? That's what makes it impossible to just study this issue on its face value, without considering the underlying agendas of these groups who are also promoting patriarchy and high birth rates out of the other side of their mouths.