bryanc has his morality all figured out to the penny.
Not quite sure what you're getting at here. But it seems that you've abandoned your efforts to make substantive contributions to any discussion around here in favour of making snide and/or obscure remarks from the sidelines. So it seems likely that I'm not missing you're point here, but rather that you simply don't have one.
No, of course not. What does that have to do with anything? Obviously less painful outcomes are desirable over more painful outcomes, which, ironically, is the whole point of having an abortion in the first place: to avoid unnecessary suffering.
It must have something to do with the debate since you felt the need to defend the procedure by alluding that its painless. I won't argue with your reasoning why people want abortions though you left out a big one, inconvenience. My issue is with the idea that taking the life of an innocent human is the only solution in those cases and is morally justified.
Hmmm you just knew that a religious thread would turn into pro/anti abortion brow beating.
This is at the top of my list as a smoke screen issue.
The anti abortionist will thump his bible or some other "holy" book and shout: "thou shalt not kill". 'Course that little commandment doesn't count when Israel engages in the endless Gaza blood bath. How about Ireland. Nor did it stop the US from slaughtering many thousands of Iraqis justified only by lies. I am pretty sure Muslim's share a similar decree yet they are also quite willing to initiate the occasional massacre. Apparently the "No Kill" bit comes with a major exemption. It seemingly only applies if the victim is a member of the same sub-sub-sub sect of the same religion as the killer. To be completely cynical as the unborn have not been baptized, circumcised or whatever cized they too must be exempt from the No Kill rules.
I distinctly remember one woman coming into my business soliciting money to aid unwed mothers. Noticing the name of the anti-abortion group on her brochures I asked how the money would be spent. She hemmed and hawed and finally admitted it went mostly to advertising their "cause". I replied that when she could promise; every penny would be spent helping financially challenged unwed moms carry their baby's to term, paying their medical expenses and further aiding those that chose to keep the child, then I would be happy to contribute. Never saw her again.
__________________ ~WARNING: If you see links to ads in the above post, blame the cheesy ad-linking software used by the owners of this website. These ad links were inserted without my permission. I do not endorse them. Don't click on them.~
I retain all rights to images I have posted on ehMac. They were posted that other members of the community could enjoy them. They may not be used or sold in any other way without my written consent.
Not quite sure what you're getting at here. But it seems that you've abandoned your efforts to make substantive contributions to any discussion around here in favour of making snide and/or obscure remarks from the sidelines. So it seems likely that I'm not missing you're point here, but rather that you simply don't have one.
Only stating that you explained in previous posts that you had your moral structure all carefully arranged and worked out. That it allowed you to have one child instead of none, and that your views on abortion are similarly carefully worked out.
__________________
"My life is my own."
WARNING: If you see links to ads in the above post, blame the ad-linking software used by the owners of this website. I do not endorse these links. Don't click on them.
This is at the top of my list as a smoke screen issue.
You've defended abortion with a spectacular smoke screen of your own. So how is it that an individual so passionate about the wrong committed killing fellow humans in war can make the leap to defending the killing of completely innocent humans in the womb?
Cheers
MacGuiver
Last edited by MacGuiver; Jan 18th, 2010 at 01:04 PM.
You've defended abortion with a spectacular smoke screen of your own. So how is it that an individual so passionate about the wrong committed killing fellow humans in war can make the leap to defending the killing of completely innocent humans in the womb?
Cheers
MacGuiver
Neither attacked nor defended abortion. I call it a smoke screen because anti-abortionists willingly vote for politicians who have been bought and sold by the Military Industrial Complex. They vote for them because they supposedly oppose abortion even though those same politicians cheerfully promote the slaughter of living women and children.
As to abortion I firmly believe that any changes in laws should be put to a referendum. As women would suffer much greater impact than men from such changes, only women could vote. If you can get 75% of the nations women to agree with a particular change in the law then it could be enacted but only as presented in the referendum. Further a second confirming referendum should be held during the next general election as a safety valve.
__________________ ~WARNING: If you see links to ads in the above post, blame the cheesy ad-linking software used by the owners of this website. These ad links were inserted without my permission. I do not endorse them. Don't click on them.~
I retain all rights to images I have posted on ehMac. They were posted that other members of the community could enjoy them. They may not be used or sold in any other way without my written consent.
Only stating that you explained in previous posts that you had your moral structure all carefully arranged and worked out.
Yes I do. And the fact that I've spent years studying philosophy, thinking about and analyzing various moral frameworks, and have come to what I believe is an internally consistent ethical system is relevant to the abortion debate how?
Basically, you are either making thinly veiled sarcastic comments or comments that have no relevance to the discussion at all. This is disappointing, because you have previously demonstrated that you are capable of much more, and seem lately to have devolved into a boring internet troll. I really preferred the old MacFury who frequently had intelligent contributions to make.
Yes I do. And the fact that I've spent years studying philosophy, thinking about and analyzing various moral frameworks, and have come to what I believe is an internally consistent ethical system is relevant to the abortion debate how?
Yes, I know you believe it to be consistent. As I explained to McGuiver, you will probably deliver a view which you believe to be consistent on abortion. What is so difficult to understand about this? Do you think you're being insulted?
__________________
"My life is my own."
WARNING: If you see links to ads in the above post, blame the ad-linking software used by the owners of this website. I do not endorse these links. Don't click on them.
As I explained to McGuiver, you will probably deliver a view which you believe to be consistent on abortion. What is so difficult to understand about this? Do you think you're being insulted?
Why would you think predicting that another poster will have an opinion that that is consistent with that posters ethical framework would be a meaningful contribution to a discussion?
As I said initially, you were either being sarcastic in a way that was too subtle for me to interpret, or you weren't saying anything at all.
Apparently the "No Kill" bit comes with a major exemption. It seemingly only applies if the victim is a member of the same sub-sub-sub sect of the same religion as the killer. To be completely cynical as the unborn have not been baptized, circumcised or whatever cized they too must be exempt from the No Kill rules.
Linear Mode
