49 million Americans held hostage by power-crazed idiot savant

[amicus]

It is precisely 'science' indeed that has determined that 'life' human life begins at the instant of conception.

Since we exist under a document that affirms the 'right' to that life, and that innate liberty, again by definition...the to uphold that innate right to life...one must defend it in all ways.

What you find it hard to accept is a valid pro life argument outside the theological one.

I personally think GWB is a wimp...and I am not impressed with the Republican party either but of the two...one is far preferable to the the other if one advocates human freedom and individual liberty.

Liberals and their superiour attitudes over the common man, wish only to rule and manage and inflict a social agenda that reflects their own view of reality.

I wish to remain free to choose how I live my life...I do not desire your social manipulation, regardless of how much better off you think I might be...

Perhaps other liberals will see my previous post as a mild truce, as it was intended....apparently you did not perceive it as such.

amicus...


amazon.co.uk 1413731007 ISBN

 

[Colleen Thomas]

It is precisely 'science' indeed that has determined that 'life' human life begins at the instant of conception.

Since we exist under a document that affirms the 'right' to that life, and that innate liberty, again by definition...the to uphold that innate right to life...one must defend it in all ways.

What you find it hard to accept is a valid pro life argument outside the theological one.

I personally think GWB is a wimp...and I am not impressed with the Republican party either but of the two...one is far preferable to the the other if one advocates human freedom and individual liberty.

Liberals and their superiour attitudes over the common man, wish only to rule and manage and inflict a social agenda that reflects their own view of reality.

I wish to remain free to choose how I live my life...I do not desire your social manipulation, regardless of how much better off you think I might be...

Perhaps other liberals will see my previous post as a mild truce, as it was intended....apparently you did not perceive it as such.

amicus...


amazon.co.uk 1413731007 ISBN

The framers of the constitution most certainly didn't extend the rights of the constitution to the unborn. In their day and age, they didn't extend those rights to people until they were of majority and not at all to women or black children. Since thy had no way to know a-priori the sex of the child, they most certainly wouldn't have given it the rights of a male adult.

If you are going to use logic and reason as a foundation of your argument, then logically the constituion cannot provide for a basis, since you would have to add interprtation to the literal words and try to divine the minds of the framers to arrive at your conclusion. Neither of which has any scientific validy and flies in the face of reason as it would be pure conjecture.

-Colly

 

[shereads]

I'm mystified by your assertion that conservatives favor individual liberty and that liberals do not, considering that liberals fought to expand civil liberties through women's suffrage and the Civil Rights movement, while conservatives continually try to impose their own moral values. Unless I missed something during the recent election, the only imposition of one group's values on others was the gay marriage ban, a conservative idea. I heard a Baptist minister on NPR explaining that the gay marriage ban was an attempt to stop liberals from forcing their values on Christians. How would that work, other than by forcing a Christian to marry a person of the same sex?

As for the scientific view of life, I hold to the only logical argument I've ever heard about when a fetus becomes "human." The late Carl Sagan reasoned that we already define the end of human life by the absence of recognizably human patterns on a brain scan, at which point it's almost universally accepted that families and doctors have the right to remove life support. Given that a human fetus exhibits human brain patterns at the third trimester, it's not unreasonable to give precendence during the first two trimesters to the health and well-being of the pregnant woman. She is, logically, the only "person" involved who has human human awareness, fears, feelings and aspirations. Abortions during the third trimester are rare, as they should be, and are not something that women are likely to do under any other circumstance than a doctor's insistence that they can't carry the baby to term. What I can't understand is the conservative view that even the so-called morning-after pill constitutes the murder of a baby. Most first-stage fertilized embryos fail to attach to the womb and leave the body naturally, without a woman even knowing she was almost pregnant. Yet you would consider it more moral to allow the embryo to become a human being, unwanted, and at whatever risk to the mother's own well-being, than to allow her to protect against pregancy after a rape or condom failure. If it's not based on the belief that a soul takes possession as soon as the ovum is fertilized, maybe it's rooted in a dislike of women.

 

[amicus]

Colleen...

The true wisdom of the framers of the U.S. Constitution and of those philosophers to whom they referred, was to identify 'life' as an 'A Priori' cause and effect phenomena.

In other words, one of those enigma's to liberals, an 'absolute', i.e., life exists and therefore has a right to exist...

One of the basic axioms, self evident, that do not require proof.

And do not think that those framers of the constitution did not debate over slaves and indians and women...when the approved, "all men are created equal.." they did consider all but could not gain enough support.

Throughout all history prior to the 1970's to reach into the womb and kill the child within was properly considered the taking of a life.

The taking of life without due process and cause has always been a crime in most societies and was punishable.

Perhaps it was left to science to determine that the moment egg and sperm joined became the instant that new creation gained the status of 'life'. Although it is not such a great leap of faith for even the uninformed...as...what else would it be?

so..***** exists...in nature...in reality and human life becomes the basic standard of value by which all other values are measured.

I do not criticize the framers for what they did not do, but rather praise them for what they did accomplish.


amicus

 

[Guest]

I do not criticize the framers for what they did not do . . .
amicus

Whew!

(They were pretty worried.)

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

"One of the basic axioms, self evident, that do not require proof." — Amicus




Isn’t it amazing how many of these phenomena show up when Amicus is debating, and always in support of his arguments, too!

 

[amicus]

Shereads....

Big issues...and a handful of them...

There has long been two opposing viewpoints when it comes to human freedom and individual liberty.

Slavery and the place of woman in society throughout all of recorded human history was somewhat the same for about 6000 years. Only in the 19th and 20th centuries did the changes come about

You are well read, you know as well as I do why those two events evolved in history, whether you like to admit it or not, it was functional for society to use slaves and it was natural for women because of biology to be treated as second class citizens.

It was really the advent of the industrial revolution (thanks to capitalism) that set both man and woman free from the harsh labor of producing goods for consumption. Machinery made it much quicker and easier.

With the advent of surplus...there was also the freedom to learn and to invent and even to question the ways and means that societies evolved.

Two distinct and opposite view emerged...one of a managed, regulated, controlled society, where a strong central government dictated all things and of course the other, a small, limited central government wherein individuals determined how they 'pursued' that happiness.

You advocate the former style, you believe that society is responsible for the welfare of the individual and you believe that society is morally responsible for health, education and welfare in terms of redistributing wealth to bring about equality within that society.

You see the food stamps, medicare, social security, labor laws, building restrictions..the whole liberal realm of social manipulation as a good thing.

Others do not.

You do not grant liberty and freedom, nor does government, we innately possess those rights and the only legitimate function of government is to protect those rights.

You said: "I'm mystified by your assertion that conservatives favor individual liberty and that liberals do not, considering that liberals fought to expand civil liberties through women's suffrage and the Civil Rights movement, while conservatives continually try to impose their own moral values..."

And I cannot demystify you with what I have said thus far as I do not accept that either group, liberal or conservative, have been consistent in upholding individual rights. And yes the conservative religious right wishes to impose...but so to does the liberal activist left...

Perhaps I can return to the second part of your post as this is already overly long....

amicus...

 

[amicus]

Shereads....the second part of your earlier post, you said:

"...As for the scientific view of life, I hold to the only logical argument I've ever heard about when a fetus becomes "human." The late Carl Sagan reasoned that we already define the end of human life by the absence of recognizably human patterns on a brain scan, at which point it's almost universally accepted that families and doctors have the right to remove life support. Given that a human fetus exhibits human brain patterns at the third trimester, it's not unreasonable to give precendence during the first two trimesters to the health and well-being of the pregnant woman. She is, logically, the only "person" involved who has human human awareness, fears, feelings and aspirations. Abortions during the third trimester are rare, as they should be, and are not something that women are likely to do under any other circumstance than a doctor's insistence that they can't carry the baby to term. What I can't understand is the conservative view that even the so-called morning-after pill constitutes the murder of a baby. Most first-stage fertilized embryos fail to attach to the womb and leave the body naturally, without a woman even knowing she was almost pregnant. Yet you would consider it more moral to allow the embryo to become a human being, unwanted, and at whatever risk to the mother's own well-being, than to allow her to protect against pregancy after a rape or condom failure. If it's not based on the belief that a soul takes possession as soon as the ovum is fertilized, maybe it's rooted in a dislike of women...."

As I have said before, I am not comfortable discussing this as so many women have more than a passing interest and it is not my wish to be on the angry end of remarks from a woman who have undergone the procedure and may or may not have lingering concerns as to the moral issue involved. And it is a moral issue of some large import I think.

I do not accept Dr. Sagan's definition of 'death' as it relates to determining life. Health and well being of the woman...are arbitrary terms but if a pregnancy is life threatening to the woman it is logical to choose the life of the mother over the child if that is the bottom line.

You said...".... Yet you would consider it more moral to allow the embryo to become a human being, unwanted, and at whatever risk to the mother's own well-being, than to allow her to protect against pregancy after a rape or condom failure...."

Although I am sure you consider it unfeeling of me, yes, I think the moral action is give life to the child under any of your above mentioned circumstances.

If in a moment of anger you put a bullet through the brain of a straying boyfriend or mate...I think you should be held responsible for your action.

And if you have created a child, I think one almost must be responsible for that life.

And no, I do not hate women or wish remove any freedoms they should have.

I maintain that sexual intercourse between a man and a woman, is the most intimate relationship two humans can have and I further think it should be something of value, not casual and not promiscuous. Yes, I know that recreational sex is both casual and promiscuous, but I think one must be responsible for ones actions and if you make a baby you should be responsible for it.

I cannot foresee the turmoil that would be created if Roe v Wade is overturned. I think it would bring about a terrible time in our history, one I would rather not be a part of.

Yet it is a deep moral issue that divides a nation and must one day be resolved.

amicus...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colleen...

The true wisdom of the framers of the U.S. Constitution and of those philosophers to whom they referred, was to identify 'life' as an 'A Priori' cause and effect phenomena.

In other words, one of those enigma's to liberals, an 'absolute', i.e., life exists and therefore has a right to exist...

One of the basic axioms, self evident, that do not require proof.

And do not think that those framers of the constitution did not debate over slaves and indians and women...when the approved, "all men are created equal.." they did consider all but could not gain enough support.

Throughout all history prior to the 1970's to reach into the womb and kill the child within was properly considered the taking of a life.

The taking of life without due process and cause has always been a crime in most societies and was punishable.

Perhaps it was left to science to determine that the moment egg and sperm joined became the instant that new creation gained the status of 'life'. Although it is not such a great leap of faith for even the uninformed...as...what else would it be?

so..***** exists...in nature...in reality and human life becomes the basic standard of value by which all other values are measured.

I do not criticize the framers for what they did not do, but rather praise them for what they did accomplish.


amicus

Exactly how is life cause and effect? Even the most studly of fellows can have unprotected sex and it doesn't neccissarily produce a child. Pregnant women miscarry. Back then far more often than now. Cause and effect? Gimme a break. That's lame even for you.

Life is not cause and effect, it wasn't to them and it isn't to us.

Life, is not sacred. Period. If it is, then everytime you jerk off you become a mass murderer. When you bursh your teeth you are killing thousands. No reputable scientist has ever endorsed the proposition that human life begins at conception, in the same way that no reputable scientist has ever stated it as fact that it dosen't. I can say this with assurity, because no preponderance of proof exists to support either case. No reputable scientist will make a claim when he can't prove his position using the sceintific method. if he cannot give you verifiable results you can test in your own lab, then he will present his findings as just that findings. Since there is no way to TEST the hypothosis that life begins at conception, no scientist worth his salt would make such a claim. Quaks will. Scientists with a politcal/theological agenda will. Many scientists have even said in their personal opinion life begins at conception. The most they will say with certainty is that cellular life exists. But Celluar life was present in both egg and sperm BEFORE they joined.

Before 1970 it was actionable to have an abortion. Like a lot of laws that were designed to give men total hegemony over women, the law was changed. Deal with it.

In this argument, science won't help you, because there is no concensus among scientists. In point of fact, most scientists would tell you flat out, your question is not one for science but for politics or theology.

A scientist can tell you all about pregnancy, from fertilisation to Birth. But he can't tell you where human life begins. He most certainly can't make a statement on it with certainty and not have scientists just as reputable dispute him.

Your position that life begins at conception isn't theological, I don't accuse you of that. It is rather, part of an overal world view that seeks to relegate women to the level of brood animals. Hijacking the fact that we carry children as a means of ensuring we stay subserviant.

It's a load of crap.

I can accept the arguments of someone like SweetNPetite, although I violently diagree with her. In your case, I accept it for what it is, another misogynistic brick in a very misogynistic wall within your head. That said, don't try to prove with science something it can't. Don't try to give me the real thoughts of men long dead. In short, if you can't support what you are saying, just ignore requests that you do as usual, rather than coopting a discipline that is beyond you to master.

-Colly

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Colleen Thomas
If you are going to use logic and reason as a foundation of your argument, then logically the constituion cannot provide for a basis, since you would have to add interprtation to the literal words and try to divine the minds of the framers to arrive at your conclusion. Neither of which has any scientific validy and flies in the face of reason as it would be pure conjecture.

She's right.

--Joe, Logician.

 

[Pure]

Sound Familiar?

(for those who are thinking about the present dangers to free speech.)

Review, by Chris Hitchens, of Geoffrey Stone's Perilous Times

11-07-2004 NY Times Book Review



Stone's pages on this [civil war]period are completely absorbing. He shows that Lincoln did imprison or fine the occasional editor, but with scant relish for the business, and that wartime censorship was so easily evaded as to be no censorship at all. The crisis came, rather, over conscription and the concomitant suspension of habeas corpus. Lincoln's secretary of state, William Seward, was widely quoted as having told the British minister: ''I can touch a bell on my right hand and order the arrest of a citizen in Ohio. I can touch the bell again and order the imprisonment of a citizen of New York, and no power on earth but that of the president can release them. Can the queen of England, in her dominions, say as much?''

This boastful inversion of the original purposes of the American Revolution may have been overstated for effect, but not by much. Lincoln did order nighttime arrests, and did ignore Chief Justice Roger B. Taney's ruling that a president had no power to deny habeas corpus. Taney's position is that the Constitution reserves such extreme measures only for the Congress. If a president wants to assume such powers, he cannot do so without at least resorting to the courts, which Lincoln steadily declined to do.

Instead, he rather demagogically demanded to know why the law should force him to shoot ''a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts, while I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to desert.'' The cause celebre here became that of Clement Vallandigham, a leader of the Copperheads, northern Democrats sympathetic to the South, who spiritedly opposed both conscription and emancipation. He was arrested, then exiled from the Union.

I have never seen it argued that this measure had any influence on the desertion rate (improbable in any case, given that the thought of the firing squad probably had a greater effect on the mind of the simple-minded soldier boy). The best that can be said is that Lincoln seems to have sensed the absurdity of his own logic, and regularly urged local commanders not to embarrass him by locking up people who merely uttered anti-Union sentiments.

 

[Pure]

Amicus stated,

Throughout all history prior to the 1970's to reach into the womb and kill the child within was properly considered the taking of a life.

This is, of course, utterly false. For instance the matter is not covered in the rather extensive rules of the OT. Indeed the one case mentioned, of striking a pregnant women, who loses the 'child' is stated to incur a fine.

St Thomas and many medieval Xtians believed in 'quickening' around week 20. Ensoulment. It follows that the extinction of the life of the being before that, was not prohibited in Church law.

The 'at conception' idea is a more recent Catholic doctrine I'd estimate to be a couple hundred years old.

If I recall correctly, most anti abortion stuff came into US law in the 19th century.

It would be fairly easy to document these claims, but amicus has no particular response to 'facts'. He has a direct pipeline to the Moral Law of his amoral universe.

His mentor Ayn Rand and most 'objectivists' and well as most libertarians and 'minimal government' types all have a 'pro choice' position.

{{Added: His question

Or do you [colly] just 'know' you are right?

is easily answered regarding himself. He 'just knows'. As stated, most folks--i.e., libertarians-- reasoning from the same premises about life, liberty, etc. have NOT reached his conclusion about what's sacred. }}



===
Here are a couple overviews for the persons interested in reality.

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/women/html/wh_003500_birthcontrol.htm

US
Readers Companion to US Women's History.


Until the nineteenth century abortion was almost never punished as a crime in the United States if it occurred before quickening; even after quickening only the abortionist might be charged with a high misdemeanor if the woman died. From 1829 to 1860 states revised their statutory codes and in the process _not always intentionally_ tightened restrictions against abortion. Even then prosecutors found it difficult to win abortion cases and state supreme courts upheld the common-law tradition of tolerating abortions.

From the 1860s through the 1880s states passed more intentionally restrictive abortion laws, instigated by a handful of physicians who belonged to the new and ambitious American Medical Association, a group of men who wanted greater professionalism in medicine.

=====
http://www.bpas.org/page.asp?id=50&page=56&cont=71
Great Britain

British Pregnancy Advisory Service


The history of British abortion law

Abortion in England and Wales was first made illegal in the 19th century. Before then English Common Law had allowed abortion provided it was carried out before the woman felt the fetus move ('quickening') when it was believed the soul entered the body.

Abortions performed after quickening were an offence under Common Law but there were no fixed penalties and the woman having the abortion was not necessarily held responsible. In 1803 the law changed and abortion became a criminal offence from the time of conception with penalties of up to life imprisonment for both the pregnant woman and the abortionist.

The Offences against the Person Act 1861

Section 58 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 made abortion a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment from three years to life, even when performed for medical reasons. No further legal changes occurred in England until 1929. The Offences Against the Person Act is still in place and the current law simply provides exceptions to the 1861 law by clarifying when an abortion can be legal.

------
------
I realize this is not from lawbooks directly but it's pretty likely accurate and more documentation that one has ever seen from amicus.

 

[amicus]

Well, Colleen....

I suppose I should not expect you to see beyond what you wish to see...but perhaps for others...who read and may or may not post...who seek a non religious moral foundation for being pro life, then perhaps what I have to say will be meaningful.

Regardless of how you interpret what legitimate scientists think or do not think, it is through science that we can even identify sperm and egg.

It is through science that we learned the egg and sperm combine to form a third thing that is both and neither egg or sperm, but something more.

That something more, like it or not, is life, human life.

You say human life is not sacred. Not sacred in the eyes of some church perhaps, but sacred in the sense of human values.

All of evolution has primed we homo sapiens to procreate, we are driven to it by deep seated biological and psychological urges that we still try to comprehend.

An unfertilized egg is discarded at the end of a montly cycle, unused sperm is either re absorbed or ejaculated by the body, all nature's intent.

To control and limit re production is not immoral, that is the choice we have, thanks to science and thanks to inventions that no longer require a large number of children to support the parents and grandparents.

The marvels of the industrial revolution and the science that created surplus have given us better health and longer life and the means to control our own individual reproductive styles.

We are in an age of transition and change and it is, as it has always been, a difficult time. Religious groups, who once had sway over all things moral, have lost that position to modern times where the Church is not all powerful.

Thus we rational, non religious humans are left without a god or the ten commandments or papal annoucements by which to give us ethical and moral guidance. We must look elsewhere.

Where do we look?

To the mind, of course, to reason and rationality. We must begin somewhere and that somewhere is to question life itself, what is it from whence came it and what might the purpose be?

We acknowledge that human life does in face exist.

We draw from that, that if it does exist, then it has a right to exist, without the approval of god, government or assorted churches.

That's not so hard to follow, now, is it?

Next, after we have life and the right to live...we also have the rights to seek those things that enable life to continue, food, shelter, clothing. These things are provided for the new human being by those who created that life, the parents.

It would be helpful to know who those parents are...thus we have the institutution of marriage; a contract between two consenting parties, a man and a woman, that they agree to support each other and that new life they may or may not create.

Right and wrong, Moral and Immoral, Good and bad...all words that describe human actions, called ethics by the philosphers.

How do we determine what those things are, with enough certainty that we might use them to guide our daily lives and long term hopes and dreams?

As there is so much disagreement about moral issues in the contemporary world...it must be a rather difficult task. Would you agree?

Or do you just 'know' you are right?

amicus...

 

[Pure]

Amicus:

We acknowledge that human life does in face exist.

We draw from that, that if it does exist, then it has a right to exist, without the approval of god, government or assorted churches.

That's not so hard to follow, now, is it?
=====
[pure:]
No, not at all, but utterly fallacious, argued from atheist premises.

It's not clear what a 'right to exist' means.

Humans ('men') apart from society (which always has a governing mechanism ) do not bear rights, any more than do eagles or alley cats.

But if 'right to life' follows from mere existence, it applies to ants, bacteria, anthrax spores, as well as practices like making war, killing infants or the old, etc.

 

[shereads]

Instead, he rather demagogically demanded to know why the law should force him to shoot ''a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts, while I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to desert.''

Simple-minded soldier boy? Gosh, thanks President Lincoln.

"Wily agitator" at least sounds like a compliment.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Well, Colleen....

I suppose I should not expect you to see beyond what you wish to see...but perhaps for others...who read and may or may not post...who seek a non religious moral foundation for being pro life, then perhaps what I have to say will be meaningful.

Regardless of how you interpret what legitimate scientists think or do not think, it is through science that we can even identify sperm and egg.

It is through science that we learned the egg and sperm combine to form a third thing that is both and neither egg or sperm, but something more.

That something more, like it or not, is life, human life.

You say human life is not sacred. Not sacred in the eyes of some church perhaps, but sacred in the sense of human values.

All of evolution has primed we homo sapiens to procreate, we are driven to it by deep seated biological and psychological urges that we still try to comprehend.

An unfertilized egg is discarded at the end of a montly cycle, unused sperm is either re absorbed or ejaculated by the body, all nature's intent.

To control and limit re production is not immoral, that is the choice we have, thanks to science and thanks to inventions that no longer require a large number of children to support the parents and grandparents.

The marvels of the industrial revolution and the science that created surplus have given us better health and longer life and the means to control our own individual reproductive styles.

We are in an age of transition and change and it is, as it has always been, a difficult time. Religious groups, who once had sway over all things moral, have lost that position to modern times where the Church is not all powerful.

Thus we rational, non religious humans are left without a god or the ten commandments or papal annoucements by which to give us ethical and moral guidance. We must look elsewhere.

Where do we look?

To the mind, of course, to reason and rationality. We must begin somewhere and that somewhere is to question life itself, what is it from whence came it and what might the purpose be?

We acknowledge that human life does in face exist.

We draw from that, that if it does exist, then it has a right to exist, without the approval of god, government or assorted churches.

That's not so hard to follow, now, is it?

Next, after we have life and the right to live...we also have the rights to seek those things that enable life to continue, food, shelter, clothing. These things are provided for the new human being by those who created that life, the parents.

It would be helpful to know who those parents are...thus we have the institutution of marriage; a contract between two consenting parties, a man and a woman, that they agree to support each other and that new life they may or may not create.

Right and wrong, Moral and Immoral, Good and bad...all words that describe human actions, called ethics by the philosphers.

How do we determine what those things are, with enough certainty that we might use them to guide our daily lives and long term hopes and dreams?

As there is so much disagreement about moral issues in the contemporary world...it must be a rather difficult task. Would you agree?

Or do you just 'know' you are right?

amicus...

Of the two of us, I am the one who is perfectly willing to admit I don't know. If you would admit you didn't know, it would be something indeed.

The issue comes down to a simple point, and at least with asking if I just know, you are close to it. Nobody knows. Since you don't admit the existance of god, i con't even have to qualify that statement.

Your refusl to ackowledge the fact that no one knows, in no way changes that fact or demeans it. this isn't an opinion you can weaken by refusing to ackowledge. It's a simple fact. No one knows.

Your choice then, in the face of uncertainty is where to err. Pro life people, if they are honest, simply choose to err towards making sure no human life is being destroyed. Pro choice people, like myself choose to err on the side of not ripping rights away from an obviously viable human being on the off chance you are doing so in the best interest of another being.

You can sprinkle in theology. You can sprinkle in Politics. You can quote a lot of science, and add your interpretation to facts that don't prove the issue. But in the end all of that is window dressing to the central point.

I don't know when human life begins. That's an admision I can make and am willing to do so. Are you a big enough person to admit you don't know either?

 

[amicus]

Collen Thomas....

You said...in part...:

"I don't know when human life begins. That's an admision I can make and am willing to do so. Are you a big enough person to admit you don't know either?"

Several months ago...I came on this forum with a straightforward attempt to demonstrate that man can 'know' certain things about his existence and his nature.

My effort was stonewalled as all the secular humanists here delared in loud voice that man can know nothing, that nothing is absolute, that all is relative.

As long as they and you claim that you cannot 'know' with absolute certainty, anything concerning human ethics and morality, if it is to remain always ambiguous or situational to you, then you will never find and ethical moral course to pursue in your life and you will never reach the peace of mind of knowing that you are right about any issue.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pure...you said...in part:

"Humans ('men') apart from society (which always has a governing mechanism ) do not bear rights, any more than do eagles or alley cats...."

"Humans do not bear rights...."

From your perspective that only society can grant rights, I suppose any discussion of the innate or inherent rights of man would have no bearing on you.

Thus what would be the point? Rest well in your world of no values, no rights, no purpose, no ethics and no morality save whatever feels good.

Life exists for its own purpose...each and every individual life, that purose is to sustain life by exercising the right and the power to funtion, i.e. eat, drink and make Mary, and Mary Lou, if she is willing...

amicus...

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Colleen Thomas
Of the two of us, I am the one who is perfectly willing to admit I don't know. If you would admit you didn't know, it would be something indeed.

It isn't a popular thing to admit "I don't know" here. He wouldn't be the first person to take an absolute stance on a maybe-issue

 

[shereads]

Amicus, not until you are able to comprehend the horror of having your body put under someone else's control for nine months so that an embryo can use it unimpeded by your will, will you have a clue what "rights" and "freedom" really mean. You would reduce a woman, pregnant for whatever reason, to the status of a prisoner whose choices are criminal prosectution, escape from the United States to a country where she can seek asylum, or to do your will: act as an incubator at whatever risk to her health, her life in some cases, and even her sanity if she is the victim of incest or rape and can't bear the thought of producing a child from such a nightmare. By your own acknowledgement, since you don't believe there is a "soul" in the early-stage embryo or that God wills it, you would deny this woman the most basic freedom - the freedom to protect her own body as best she can - for the sake of a fertilized ovum that isn't capable of appreciating your generous gesture. It can't yet want its life, nor can it fear the end of life. It doesn't think yet. It's no different than any of the many more embryos that are naturally flushed from women's bodies without our even knowing they existed. She, on the other hand, has needs and fears that you can't possibly understand. That's why it's none of your business. Thank God.

When Christians propose that a woman's freedom should be denied in the interest of a fetus, they at least have the excuse that God ordains it. If it happens to be seated in a long tradition of suppressing women and restricting their choices in life, that's just back-story. But coming from an athiest who is smart enough to know that a cell division isn't a cooing baby, your insistence that the embryo is at least the equal of its woman host when it comes to human rights, is so contemptuous that it's chilling.

The only kind of freedom you truly seem to value is economic freedom, and the freedom of white males to manipulate the lives of lesser creatures.

"If men could conceive, abortion would be a holy sacrament."

~ author unknown

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by shereads
Amicus, not until you are able to comprehend the horror of having your body put under someone else's control for nine months so that an embryo can use it unimpeded by your will, will you have a clue what "rights" and "freedom" really mean.

I don't necessarily agree with amicus on much of anything, but this statement is far from correct. Yes, it is possible that he can have a very full idea of "rights" and "freedom" even though he isn't a pregnant woman. Of course, if you could show how pregnant women are the only creatures party to ethical and axiological knowledge... I'd be delighted to hear that.

 

[shereads]

I don't necessarily agree with amicus on much of anything, but this statement is far from correct. Yes, it is possible that he can have a very full idea of "rights" and "freedom" even though he isn't a pregnant woman. Of course, if you could show how pregnant women are the only creatures party to ethical and axiological knowledge... I'd be delighted to hear that.

I have zero interest in discussing it with you. You completely misread my statement. i said nothing like what you just re-worded.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

. . . . I came on this forum with a straightforward attempt to demonstrate that man can 'know' certain things about his existence and his nature. . . My effort was stonewalled . . . .

Never stopped once to consider whether the reason your demonstration failed to convince was because it might be faulty, did you?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by shereads
I have zero interest in discussing it with you. You completely misread my statement. i said nothing like what you just re-worded.

I can quote you warmly and accurately... you doubted that amicus has a sufficient grasp of certain things because of a lack of experience in something else.

What about that was inaccurate? Because, to be honest, taking what you quote-fully said, not many people can.

 

[shereads]

God protect us all from insecure white men.

 

[amicus]

Shereads....you said...in part:

"...Coming from an athiest who is smart enough to know that a cell division isn't a cooing baby, the insistence that the embryo is at least the equal of its woman host, is so contemptuous it's chilling...."

An embryo is human life, a woman is human life...that may be chilling to you but it is not a contempt for human life, it is a respect. That you advocate destroying that life because it is an inconvenience, now that is chilling and contemtible....

I do not wish to continue if this is going to degenerate to a personal level...it is not a discussion presented on personal terms, rather one of logic and reason. If the thoughts are that men can never judge abortion as they cannot experience pregnancy, if you feel that only empirical knowledge is meaningful then there are no grounds for discussion.

amicus...