I know you can get some cats to lap at the stuff but as a kid I had a dog who ate my used tissues, so I'm not sure if housepets are an ideal barometer since behaviourally, we keep them in a state of suspended infancy.
My cat is dumber than tinfoil. Far dumber than most cats. That's an impediment, too.
Here's the deal though: When the acacia tree is attacked, it fights back . It screams, alerting its kith and kin to danger. It will kill to survive. These sound like very animalistic actions. Just because we can't see it fight and can't hear it scream does not depreciate these actions.
To me ethical vegetarianism is hypocritical. You put animals and people on the same level, but you think you're superior to animals because you arbitrarily choose what living things you eat. It's a prescriptive rather than descriptive way to live.
The reason I personally feel that eating animals is wrong is because animals are aware of their own pain. Your example seems to me to be a reflex, about the same as when the doctor hits your knee, only you are personally aware of what is happening and your own pain. There is no proof that I have come across that shows that this is happening in the acacia tree or any plant.
On that note however:
I've heard so many vegetarians tell me that they're having guilt over eating plants
I do as well. And if there is ever any evidence that plants feel pain, I will do what The Jade intended as a joke earlier--sustain myself on rocks.
|
Here's the deal though: When the acacia tree is attacked, it fights back . It screams, alerting its kith and kin to danger. It will kill to survive. These sound like very animalistic actions. Just because we can't see it fight and can't hear it scream does not depreciate these actions.
To me ethical vegetarianism is hypocritical. You put animals and people on the same level, but you think you're superior to animals because you arbitrarily choose what living things you eat. It's a prescriptive rather than descriptive way to live.
The reason I personally feel that eating animals is wrong is because animals are aware of their own pain. Your example seems to me to be a reflex, about the same as when the doctor hits your knee, only you are personally aware of what is happening and your own pain. There is no proof that I have come across that shows that this is happening in the acacia tree or any plant.
On that note however:
I've heard so many vegetarians tell me that they're having guilt over eating plantsI do as well. And if there is ever any evidence that plants feel pain, I will do what The Jade intended as a joke earlier--sustain myself on rocks.
Mmmmm...
Them rocks be tasty.
But how do you know that rocks are not the material form of some interdemensional being that controls time and space? By eating rocks, you could be endangering the vey fabric of the UNIVERSE!
My question was open to the public. If CRL declines to answer it (though I hope he doesn't, I'm interested in what he has to say), anyone else with an opinion can.Did Lady Aurora answer your question sufficiently, or would you like me to research some of this.
My question had little to do wiht the 10 commandments: I was wondering how the "sin and hellfire" or, conversely, the "eternal paridise" arguments would be adapted for someone who professes to not believe in such things.
The Satan...
Does he know The Man?
Think about it Shiny.
have you ever seen them both at the same place at the same time?
The Satan...
Does he know The Man?
Think about it Shiny.
have you ever seen them both at the same place at the same time?
Come to think of it, I've never seen Jesus and Mohammed together, either. Might just be a coincidence, though.
|
|
HA! I've figured it out!
My neighbor's cat is Jesus, who is really Mohammed's twin brother. An my neighbor is really The Man in disguise. Now I know who's been spying on me! It's THOSE GUYS!
I still haven't figured out how The Satan or his magical cup fit into this. Ask Casca. He's sure to give an appropriate non-answer.
I'm not paranoid. Now STOP SPYING ON ME!
HA! I've figured it out!
My neighbor's cat is Jesus, who is really Mohammed's twin brother. An my neighbor is really The Man in disguise. Now I know who's been spying on me! It's THOSE GUYS!
I still haven't figured out how The Satan or his magical cup fit into this. Ask Casca. He's sure to give an appropriate non-answer.
I'm not paranoid. Now STOP SPYING ON ME!
And those voices you hear in your head are my cat's. Ignore them. Like I said, my cat is dumber than most.
The reason I personally feel that eating animals is wrong is because animals are aware of their own pain. Your example seems to me to be a reflex, about the same as when the doctor hits your knee, only you are personally aware of what is happening and your own pain. There is no proof that I have come across that shows that this is happening in the acacia tree or any plant.
How do you know an animal feels pain other than by its reactions?
My real issue with this sort of vegetarianism is that it smacks of (altruistic) hedonism: pleasure good/pain bad. I think I said it here before: hedonism is shallow (though not particularly offenisve).
On that note however:
I've heard so many vegetarians tell me that they're having guilt over eating plantsI do as well. And if there is ever any evidence that plants feel pain, I will do what The Jade intended as a joke earlier--sustain myself on rocks.
To which I say get over yourself*. Animals eat other plants and animals. Plants consume decaying animals and plants. Microbes kill us all, unless we kill them first. It's the cycle of life. I'm an omnivore because I trust nature over my own ego.
(*Or don't. It doesn't really matter to me.)
PS I totally would not have predicted that I would piss off the vegans before I pissed off the Christians. :-)
Well, you can say "get over it" but that's really just "it doesn't matter to me so it shouldn't matter to you." We each have our own answers. We each know what feels right to us.
Now I know you're half kidding... but let me speak to the half that isn't. You trust nature and not your own ego? So vegetarians are following ego by desiring to do less harm? Well then hooray for that side of ego. The world could use more of it. And ego is in slathered across every honed sentence you craft so ego sublimation doesn't exactly seem like your thing. Nature would dictate that you drop the laptop and go hunt an animal with your mouth. Nature is a default that we haven't listened to all that much lately, and if it still had the power to keep our numbers in check, I might not assume we've begun to outgrow it.
Is your intellect concerning these matters so perfect in its symmetry that you are compelled to share it with people who've taken a different path; one that they're happy with? Do they need to be proven wrong? Other than the masturbation of analytically challenging other people's deepest feelings about personal responsibility with a bunch of zoological interconnections provided as proof... what action or good is accomplished? Here's another zooreference... feather ruffling. In nature, feathers do ruffle, but we as people don't have to go around doing it and then point to roosting crows, boasting, "See? They're doin' it!"
One of the amazing things about being human is that we're so aware of so much that we can suddenly realize the impact of our own existence on others. On everything else for that matter. Some of us are tripped up a bit by the knowledge and I guess a bit pathetic in your eyes, but we are as we were made. Live and let live, my man. You're only responsible for your own enlightenment.
And ego is in slathered across every honed sentence you craft so ego sublimation doesn't exactly seem like your thing.
OK, you got me. I don't trust nature to write sentences. Those monkeys with typewriters are getting nowhere.
Nature would dictate that you drop the laptop and go hunt an animal with your mouth. Nature is a default that we haven't listened to all that much lately, and if it still had the power to keep our numbers in check, I might not assume we've begun to outgrow it.
You're being prescriptive (saying what nature should be), rather than descriptive (saying what nature is). The fact that I don't hunt animals with my teeth clearly shows that it is not my nature; Internet messageboards are more my speed. Humanity cannot outgrow nature because we are nature.
Is your intellect concerning these matters so perfect in its symmetry that you are compelled to share it with people who've taken a different path; one that they're happy with?
Just because I question your beliefs doesn't mean I want to dictate them. I invite anyone to question my beliefs. No, I don't have the hubris to think I know what's best for everyone. But one has to believe that one is on the right track, until evidence shows otherwise.
Other than the masturbation of analytically challenging other people's deepest feelings about personal responsibility with a bunch of zoological interconnections provided as proof... what action or good is accomplished?
Well, I've gained some perspective from this argument. If I'm the only one, then, yeah, it's masturbation. But I hope I've given some food for thought (excuse the pun) to other people. If you're not getting anything out of this argument, then don't participate. Let me rant in peace.
Here's another zooreference... feather ruffling. In nature, feathers do ruffle, but we as people don't have to go around doing it and then point to roosting crows, boasting, "See? They're doin' it!"
Adversity is the catalyst of evolution. If you want your ideas to evolve you have to test them, otherwise they get complacent.
Live and let live, my man. You're only responsible for your own enlightenment.
Very true. I thought this thread, however, was a place to share our discoveries.
1. OK, you got me. I don't trust nature to write sentences. Those monkeys with typewriters are getting nowhere.
I cannot agree. Look at this poem Raffles just whipped up.
SDFDIDBBY FLOAs2
I fed that into a computer and it spat out the meaning of death. Now if only I could invert the equation... hmm.... hmmmmmmmmmmmm...
2. You're being prescriptive (saying what nature should be), rather than descriptive (saying what nature is). The fact that I don't hunt animals with my teeth clearly shows that it is not my nature; Internet messageboards are more my speed. Humanity cannot outgrow nature because we are nature.
No. I never said what nature should be. I don't know why everyone is twisting what I think are a clear messages (Perhaps it's me--I'll have to review my own writing). I was meaning that we, as a modern society, have all been prescriptive with our existence and environment and nature be damned. So long as we're running the show for a time, that leads to choice and so you saying "I choose the sublimation of ego (defined as nature) for diet but the ego (human defined environment) for everything else" seems arbitrary to me and not worth mentioning as a proof. You like meat, you eat meat, is all I need to hear and I'm fine with it.
3. Just because I question your beliefs doesn't mean I want to dictate them. I invite anyone to question my beliefs. No, I don't have the hubris to think I know what's best for everyone. But one has to believe that one is on the right track, until evidence shows otherwise.
Yes, but you were just ragging with an explanation. I'm white, I'm longhaired... if you start making generalized slams against whitey or freaks with long hair it isn't a discussion... it's a rag out. It's not that I need you to believe what I believe in a civilized discussion thread. I don't think what you're doing is civilized discussion... it a vent and it's insensitive and offensive to those that belong in the groups you're downing. Who wants to read that? To think that we all need Vitamin Adversity every day or we'll stop thinking is an excuse for tactlessness. That's why in a discussion on religion I popped in not to try and question the beliefs of those who believe, because it nourishes them and I respect that. I only popped on when I noticed people were slamming my affiliations. Tough times to be a athiest veggie. What did I ever do to any of you? <:|
Sudden flashback: 1982, Dr. The Jade on a lectern in Prague speaking at a Symposium entitled, "Marching against religious meat eaters: Quashing the devolution of the higher mind."
4. Well, I've gained some perspective from this argument. If I'm the only one, then, yeah, it's masturbation. But I hope I've given some food for thought (excuse the pun) to other people. If you're not getting anything out of this argument, then don't participate. Let me rant in peace.
I don't learn anything from someone saying that some vegetarians are poopheads. I already knew that. There are poopheads in all groups at all times. Every race and group has its punk class (no offense to punk rockers) and if we let them dictate how we feel about the group as a whole then we've descended into cynical bias.
Ran out of space on the quoter. BRB with a follow-up. I'm gettin' tired, Hill Giant. :/ This is a lot of typing.
EDIT: I just saw there wasn't much left. You make me have to nap. Too much thinking.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The reason I personally feel that eating animals is wrong is because animals are aware of their own pain. Your example seems to me to be a reflex, about the same as when the doctor hits your knee, only you are personally aware of what is happening and your own pain. There is no proof that I have come across that shows that this is happening in the acacia tree or any plant.How do you know an animal feels pain other than by its reactions?
How do I know you feel pain other than by your reactions? Sure, you can tell me it really hurts to be smacked with a 2x4, but maybe you're just kidding. What if you didn't speak the same language as me, and I hit you with a 2x4? Does the fact that you can't communicate to me using language mean that you don't feel pain? What about a pre-verbal child? Do they feel pain? How do you know it's not just a reflex?
Also, I'm impressed that you managed to get Jade going. He's one of the most mellow people on the board.
Ever wonder about the origin of cheese?
Reminds me of my Philosophy of Mind class. We postulated that cheese, if given enough complexity, would develop sentience and pssably sapience. Cheese-brains, so to speak. You would be correct to shun eating such things. ;)
|
|
... It is wise to refrain from making a statement unless you're willing and able to defend it.I have nothing to defend, you are the ones committing Blaspheme. I am mearly trying to shed light on it so you realize it.
I cannot, by word or action, force you to follow God's commandments or to accept Jesus into your hearts. That choice is yours and yours alone.
Got it. I missed it before (duh) but now I see it.
He's full of s@@!. It's a funny full of s@@! now that I realize it, but full of s@@! nonetheless. Well played - you got me.
I suspected he was b#@!+*%~ting us, but I wasn't 100% sure (as Terry Nichols' brother once said, "There are some real wackos out there.").
Casca, TAKE YOUR RP TO THE PBP THREADS! This is a (mostly) SERIOUS DISCUSSION.
To which I say get over yourself*. Animals eat other plants and animals. Plants consume decaying animals and plants. Microbes kill us all, unless we kill them first. It's the cycle of life. I'm an omnivore because I trust nature over my own ego.
Whatever floats your boat. Certainly, I feel I have ethical reasons for what I do, but I'll be the first to admit that those reasons are not entirely consistent or logical. The main reason I come up with this stuff is to justify my reactions to myself and others (not that it helps, I just feel I need to defend myself when others attack my vegitarianism). That's not to say I don't actually mean this stuff--but it came after the initial decision.
...Actually, that's not entirely true. The idea that animals were perfectly aware of their suffering and could feel fear about their pain is what caused the initial revulsion to meat eating. Just clarifying.
Just because I question your beliefs doesn't mean...
Feel free to question my logic by leave my beliefs the hell alone.
If you want your ideas to evolve you have to test them, otherwise they get complacent.
True, I complettely agree and welcome your criticism...but I refer to the above logic v. beliefs. Because I also agree with the veg=religion thing, and I feel that we should only look at the reasons behind beliefs, not attack people's deepest thoughts.
The fact that I don't hunt animals with my teeth clearly shows that it is not my nature; Internet messageboards are more my speed. Humanity cannot outgrow nature because we are nature.
(Jumping in after being out of this discussion for a few weeks...)
This is a statement I thoroughly agree with. Why is it that when a bird builds a nest or when a beaver builds a damn, its considered "nature" but when humans build buildings it isn't?
Just because a beaver can't use a power tool, doesn't make his building any less "artificial". Yet if that's considered "nature", then so so should a skyscraper.
Humans are nature. We have just gotten more creative at manipulating it.
Greg
The fact that I don't hunt animals with my teeth clearly shows that it is not my nature; Internet messageboards are more my speed. Humanity cannot outgrow nature because we are nature.(Jumping in after being out of this discussion for a few weeks...)
This is a statement I thoroughly agree with. Why is it that when a bird builds a nest or when a beaver builds a damn, its considered "nature" but when humans build buildings it isn't?
Just because a beaver can't use a power tool, doesn't make his building any less "artificial". Yet if that's considered "nature", then so so should a skyscraper.
Humans are nature. We have just gotten more creative at manipulating it.
Greg
We're all agreeing here.
And by that very same logic, regarding the mutability of nature's state according to human wont, natural diet for a human becomes whatever they want it to be. Understand this was in context to an ego-vs-nature-applied-to-diet point Hill Giant was making. I wasn't born on the savannah bringing wildebeests down by the neck, I was born into a society that lets me eat whatever I want. That's not ego, that's the new natural state of things.
Hill Giant, I think maybe if we could take a time machine back to a few days ago and change your thought to, "Some ethical vegetarians I've met have rubbed me the wrong way and have proven themselves to be hypocritical... etc." this thread would have taken a more fruitful direction.
What's more, telling Dirk to get a life isn't actually debate for the edification of all, or telling me if you still want to be a vegetarian, it's yet another notch on the pole of a provocateur. Not the definition of civil by my measure. I don't mind a little wrasslin' but there's no reason to keep coming, trying to prove your point. You're just insulting us and we're trying to be nice to you. If I can accept you for the choices you've made in life, why can you not just return the grace?
Ummm... Okay, bored with this veggie junk. They don't like eating meat for moral reasons. I don't like eating mustard for taste reasons. It is a feeling. They feel something (guilt and revulsion over a creatures pain and fear in this case)so they explore the logical possibilities as to why they feel this way and what they can do to prevent their own personal discomfort.
Sure some vegans are just riding the "check out my cool edgy identity" wave but you can't call someone out on that unless you catch them sneaking happy meals. Not that Jade or Dirk have given anything to suggest they do not mean what they say. They've even admitted that rationality only goes so far, but they still feel the same. I can't logic my way out of hating mustard and they can't stop feeling bad for Willber. (even though he tastes soooooo good)
Belief systems however can grow and evolve on a personal level. So I suggest we go back to that, since it is far more entertaining. Here I'll start first.
Stem cell research anyone?
(coming soon; Roe vs Wade)
Stem cell research anyone?
As a heartless plantslayer, I once locked many flowers in tiny prison cells I kept outside. I studied their stems for years and learned that they always withered brown and died. At first I thought this was due to the lamenting stress of incarceration, but then I realized that there was neither sun nor soil in the cell. Stem cells are great if you want to kill begonias.
Roe vs Wade? What is... things to do at a lake?
|
Stem cell research anyone?
From a religious standpoint, a moral standpoint, or a scientific standpoint?
At least from me, three very different answers.
As for Roe vs. Wade -- I feel that religiously and morally abortion is bad. Politically -- we (as Christians) are living (for better or worse) in a largely non-Christian world. I do not feel that this (abortion) will change politically. It needs to start with the individual people that it directly affects and to teach them of other alternatives and support them through it.
Ironically -- usually people who are for abortion are against the death penalty. So we should keep people alive in spite of the incredibly poor decision they made, but we should kill an unborn child because of a poor decision their parents made? Doesn't make sense to me.
(coming soon; Roe vs Wade)
How 'bout now?
Abortion is just wrong, in my opinion. I won't go into all that junk about how life has innate meaning and speculation aobut when the fetus has a soul-that's just messy. What should be weighed is that the fetus has no choice in any of this. Abortions do not just deny life-they deny futures. Future achievements are taken completely out of the world. And honestly--I think every mother has a duty to do *something* at least to make sure that her child(ren) have a happy and fulfilling future--if you can't take care of your child there are plenty of others who are perfectly capable and would like a child of their own (hell I'll take him/her). I know I am likely to get killed over that statement as I am male and "should not have a say", but htis is what I think.
We're all agreeing here.
I really should learn my lesson: when I argue on the internet I end up in a debate with someone who agrees with me. If I'm reading this right (please don't accuse me of putting words in your mouth!) our premises are the same, but our personal conclusions our different, and we're both OK with that. Let's shake hands and get back to something more productive.
What's more, telling Dirk to get a life isn't actually debate for the edification of all, or telling me if you still want to be a vegetarian, it's yet another notch on the pole of a provocateur.
In the first case, I never said 'get a life', I said 'get over yourself'. That was my sarcastic way of saying: I see where you're coming from, but I don't think it's necessarily so. As for the second case, I regret including the word 'still', as you inferred it to mean I intended to change your mind. Sans the word 'still', I stand by what I said: If you want to be a vegetarian, it's OK with me.
Ummm... Okay, bored with this veggie junk. They don't like eating meat for moral reasons. I don't like eating mustard for taste reasons. It is a feeling. They feel something (guilt and revulsion over a creatures pain and fear in this case)so they explore the logical possibilities as to why they feel this way and what they can do to prevent their own personal discomfort.
You've inadvertently hit on my key points:
1) I think vegetarian guilt is unfounded. (But lest I offend you, I freely admit I could be wrong.)2) There's a big difference between preference and morality. It's one thing to say 'I won't eat meat' and wholly another to say 'It's wrong for anyone to eat meat'. I can't argue with the former, but I will argue vehemently with the latter. However, as no one here seems to be making that point, I'd like to close this discussion.
You can put words in my mouth so long as they're not dipped in turkey gravy.
Discussion close. Hand shaken. My apologies for the misquote. I'm usually lazy about opening a second window to verify and thus go on memory alone.
Well, as Macbeth says: I am in blood, steeped so far 'twere as onerous to return as go o'er. [deep breath]
I'm pro-abortion, because I believe in quality of life over quantity.
I'm anti-capital-punishment, while I believe certain people deserve death, I don't trust the system to decide who (and I don't think any killing is blameless).
An interesting anti-abortion argument I once heard was that it changes history (er... precognitively). Maybe the baby being aborted is going to develop a vaccine for some future pandemic, and by killing them you've killed everyone on earth.
Personally I think religious reasons for the abortion debate are theological not ethical. If the catholic church had decided back in medieaval days that the soul enters the body at birth instead of conception then we wouldn't be having this debate now. I admit many anti-abortionist Christians would be offended at the suggestion that their beliefs spring from Catholicism, but nevertheless it's true. Where the Catholics traditionally draw the line on this issue has become part of the Christian tradition as a whole.
I strongly believe the main reason this debate has never become close to being resolved is because people refuse to separate theological issues from ethical issues on this matter. It's as if most people think that it is impossible to have an ethical stance on abortion that's not formed by some religious or feminist bias.
I can't remember the last time I saw a secular ethicist on a panel debating abortion. It's always God versus feminists, and that's just silly. There are more than two ways to look at the problem, like maybe applying logic to existing ethical theories. Then again I think secular ethicists are one expert that should be listened to a lot more than they are. Maybe because I was trained as one ;)
Clearly many people need non-religious answers to ethical questions, and the fact is that these answers exist. But I think a great many other people cannot trust an ethical judgement unless it comes from on high. That's a habit I think that as a culture we could stand to lose. The Ancient Greeks, the Hindus, many cultures separated ethics from religion, treating it as a branch of philosophy where it was believd answers could be found through careful thought and rational enquiry. We as a culture are still in the dark ages on this one, seemingly unable to get past the idea that ethics=religion. It makes me sad. We have philsophical experts on these issues, but I can't tell you the last time any of them got air time in the mainstream media. Theology, while a difficult discipline, is not philosophy. It begins with a standpoint that can't be changed, it is not free enquiry. Likewise feminist rhetoric is not philosophy either. It is conscious and deliberate politics aimed at changing society.
True. Hey, you sing a dirge at my funeral and I'll sing one at yours. Er...
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Ironically -- usually people who are for abortion are against the death penalty. So we should keep people alive in spite of the incredibly poor decision they made, but we should kill an unborn child because of a poor decision their parents made? Doesn't make sense to me.
Ironically, people on the other side of the debate note the same hypocritical position as well (i.e., life is sacred, but not the life of 3rd world persons we happen to kill in a foreign war or innocent criminals wrongly committed.) Alternatley, some might suggest that unwanted children, i.e., those most likely to be terminated, are the ones most likely to grow into criminals, and therefore the two are linked. Maybe the morale position is that once a life enters the world, there is a responsibility to care for it.
You can create all sorts of contradictions in any set of opinions. Why are people who are pro-life generally anti-welfare? Why is life so precious that it must exist but not precious enough to warrant food, shelter, and an education so that something can come of that life. Or, why is the state so interested in preventing abortions but not interested in providing access to birth control/health care to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
I think abortion is the most horrible thing ever, I don't think anyone should ever do it, but I don't think it's my place to tell them that they cannot do it. Extending the reach of the government into another person is a dangerous precedent. What if the woman drinks when she has reason to suspect she's pregnant? Is that manslaughter? Can a pregnant woman be arrested for riding a roller coaster? What if she is supposed to be on bed rest, but decides to go to work?
End of the day, for me each issue is about the decision makers. In the case of abortion, the appropriate decision maker is the woman. The state's got no business telling people they need to have a child, parituclarly when the state isn't thereafter going to step up and assist in the raising of said unwanted child, or, better yet, providing health care/birth control so that women don't get pregnant in the first place. Resources should be available and should be marshaled for the woman so that she is aware of the options, she should be encouraged to bring the life into the world, but she should not be forced to do so.
In the case of the death penalty, the problem is not the actual killing (unless of course it bothers you that the only other countries that employ the death penalty are third world s+%$holes, in which case, it may be a matter of prestige not to kill), but the decision making process. There is a substantial amount of data showing that race is a significant factor in the death penalty. With the advent of DNA evidence, there is starting to be evidence of innocent people on death row. The questions regarding the death penalty should be whether the system is operating justly. Obviously, some error will occur, and it's really a question of how much error is acceptable in the process.
End of the day, these questions should be answered on a practical level. Which is cheaper for the society, birth control and welfare, or the damage caused by an unwanted child? Who is hurt by abortion? What exactly does the death penalty provide? Is it deterrence? If so, is the deterrence worth the cost in terms of having an adequate process to determine innocence. If not deterrence, then what?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
An interesting anti-abortion argument I once heard was that it changes history (er... precognitively). Maybe the baby being aborted is going to develop a vaccine for some future pandemic, and by killing them you've killed everyone on earth.
Neh. It's also a pro-abortion argument. Maybe the baby being aborted is Hitler and all that jazz. Given the family life that awaits an unwanted child, I think the probability of such a life going awry is greater than the probability of such a life going well, but it's difficult to prove either way.
Neh. It's also a pro-abortion argument. Maybe the baby being aborted is Hitler and all that jazz. Given the family life that awaits an unwanted child, I think the probability of such a life going awry is greater than the probability of such a life going well, but it's difficult to prove either way.
That's true.
Still, I know a handful of intelligent young women who are well-educated and from middle-class families that have had abortions because they are well-educated and middle class. They were exercising their right as a woman to sleep with whoever they want, accidentally got pregnant (sometimes through no fault of their own, eg. contraception failure), and then judged that their life wasn't at the right stage where having a child was convenenient for them. They then exercised their choice and had the baby aborted. I can pretty much guarantee that when these women do have kids their children will be happy normal members of middle-class society (if tehre is such a thing!)
I don't buy that most women who get abortions come from lower class/abusive backgrounds. It seems like the reverse in fact: Poor people tend to have larger families. In my limited experience abortions come from responsible young middle class women exercising their right to choose. Which is exactly what pro-choice is meant to mean and I'm OK with that.
I can't say what I'd do if I was a woman; seems to me every case would be different, and I wouldn't tell my girlfriend what to do if the situation came up (though hopefully we would at least discuss what to do together).
I agree Sebastian, I think the best thing to do is to put it all on the shoulders of the individual woman and allow them free choice. It's not a perfect solution, there never is a perfect solution in cases like this, but I think it's the best thing for everyone.
Hey moff, what happens to the soul of an aborted baby?
I have been thinking of jumping in for a while now, and this seems as good a time as any.
I think abortion is the most horrible thing ever, I don't think anyone should ever do it, but I don't think it's my place to tell them that they cannot do it.
I agree that generally we (and especially the government) shoudln't tell people what to do. However in the case of abortion, someone has to stand up for the rights of the child. Killing is killing, and (except for a few corner cases) is wrong. Why is it allright to abort a child at 39 weeks, but wrong to kill a child 1 week old? What happens at birth that changes the child so it is now wong to kill it.
If you want to say you can't tell someone not to have an abortion, then why can you tell someone not to murder someone?
End of the day, these questions should be answered on a practical level. Which is cheaper for the society, birth control and welfare, or the damage caused by an unwanted child?
This is a great definition of ecconomic rationalism, which I think is one of the biggest evils in our society today. We should not be making decisions based on what is cost effective, we should be making decisions based on what is the right thing to do. That should be our basis for doing ANYTHING, because it is right, not becasue it is economically viable.
Hey moff, what happens to the soul of an aborted baby?
Now that is a big can of worms that even Christians will disagree over. I think the "safest" answer, is that the same thign as what happens to any child (or person) that dies.
Hey moff, what happens to the soul of an aborted baby?
Ahh, now we're entering angels dancing on the head of a pin territory here.
Speaking as a Celtic Pagan, I believe in reincarnation, though I don't think the ego survives. All these are questions of dogma though and don't effect the price of cabbage.I also believe that abortion should be an option open to women- I don't think it's either fair or right to gynecologically shackel women through the religious mores of others. Christianity is the predominant religion of the United States, and is in no danger at all of being overwhelmed by some kind of humanist secular conspiracy- the current trend to attempt to legislate the conscience of everyone else is just plain wrong headed. Sure, I don't think late term abortions are some kind of lifestyle choice; it's a serious matter that can have long term repercussions- but the choice of what a woman chooses to do with her body is hers and hers alone. If as much energy was spent on the children already here and living in poverty as those who may or may not turn up, the world would be a better place with a less depressing and squalid future. Humanity is part of this world, not set above it. If we are truly stewards of creation, then we're doing a pretty bad job- we despoil our future with our appetites and then crap where we eat.
With regards the Death penalty, there is a fundemantal difference- the fetus is a potentiality, a possibility and within the time period set out medically; incapable of surviving outside a womb. A criminal is already here- a fully formed person with a past, though not always a future. The actions or circumstances of the crime has brought the person to this end- but it is wrong for the State to use the ultimate sanction when the potential for a miscarraige of justice is possible. If it is used, then it becomes a case of "kill them all, let God sort them out".
Incidently, I've been here two years, and have been more then a little creeped out by just how blurred the line between Church and State has gotten in the time I've been here. The fact that George W. thinks he has a direct line to the Man Upstairs isn't inspirational or indicative of a wholesome, simple faith, it tells of staggering hubris and self righteous obstinacy. Plenty of leaders have thought they've had a destiny- those who think that destiny is laid out for them by a higher power rarely end well or without showing their piety by leading the rest of us through rivers of blood to their new (and usually overrated) Utopia.
Oh and a final question to be thrown out there- The Rapture: a solid piece of Biblical lore, or a more recent bit of theological sleight of hand, in the manner of purgatory in Catholicism or the framing of the Jews for Jesus' execution?
I have been thinking of jumping in for a while now, and this seems as good a time as any.
I think abortion is the most horrible thing ever, I don't think anyone should ever do it, but I don't think it's my place to tell them that they cannot do it.I agree that generally we (and especially the government) shoudln't tell people what to do. However in the case of abortion, someone has to stand up for the rights of the child. Killing is killing, and (except for a few corner cases) is wrong. Why is it allright to abort a child at 39 weeks, but wrong to kill a child 1 week old? What happens at birth that changes the child so it is now wong to kill it.
What makes it alright to kill a child prior to fertilization.
|
|
Hey moff, what happens to the soul of an aborted baby?
The short answer is "I don't know".
Here is what I have heard -- but more than anything the real answer is that no one really knows (they didn't perform abortions in the Bible).
Many religious circles, including many Christian/Catholic beliefs, seem to indicate that they believe that a child is "innocent" until a certain age. I have heard that some cultures feel that this is 5 years, some it is 8 years, and I think that I have heard it be as late as 12 years. I think that the general concept is that while many children may understand "right" and "wrong", they generally don't have a good grasp of consequences. At any rate, the general belief seems to be that they are going to heaven.
Then there is the question of at what point does a baby have a "soul"?
There is a passage in Exodus that talks about if a person hits a pregnant woman and causes her to give birth prematurely and either the baby or the woman dies, that the man is to be put to death as well. The only reason I bring this up is that if killing a baby before it is born is punishable by death, it seems to be that God felt that it has a soul before it is born.
What do I think? I have mixed feelings. I feel that I really have a hard time believing that if unborn babies have a soul that they would go to hell before they even had a chance to do "right" or "wrong". I don't know about the specific age requirement of children. I find it hard to believe that before 8 years of age (or whatever age), they don't understand consequences at all, but on their 8th birthday they suddenly have full understanding of consequences. Personally I just think that people needed a specific time frame to teach them by.
Basically, I believe that babies (born and unborn) that die go to heaven. That being said, I really don't have much justification for my belief. So, truly, I really don't know.
|
|
Ironically, people on the other side of the debate note the same hypocritical position as well (i.e., life is sacred, but not the life of 3rd world persons we happen to kill in a foreign war or innocent criminals wrongly committed.) Alternatley, some might suggest that unwanted children, i.e., those most likely to be terminated, are the ones most likely to grow into criminals, and therefore the two are linked. Maybe the morale position is that once a life enters the world, there is a responsibility to care for it.
I can go either way with the death penalty. What I really have an issue with is how well we treat our criminals. I work hard. Where do part of my tax dollars go? To prisons where they have cable tv (I don't have cable tv), three square meals a day, exercise (I don't have time to exercise), etc. I have heard a number of people who have been to prison tell me that overall it was great. You don't have to worry about anything and they take care of you. I feel that if prisons were the equivalent of the boogie man to children that there would be far less crime.
(Maybe this belongs on the rant thread...)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I have been thinking of jumping in for a while now, and this seems as good a time as any.
I think abortion is the most horrible thing ever, I don't think anyone should ever do it, but I don't think it's my place to tell them that they cannot do it.I agree that generally we (and especially the government) shoudln't tell people what to do. However in the case of abortion, someone has to stand up for the rights of the child. Killing is killing, and (except for a few corner cases) is wrong. Why is it allright to abort a child at 39 weeks, but wrong to kill a child 1 week old? What happens at birth that changes the child so it is now wong to kill it.
If you want to say you can't tell someone not to have an abortion, then why can you tell someone not to murder someone?
Neh. It's all a matter of semantics. I'm tired of arguing about politics and religion, but I'm sure there's a wealth of sources that can make this argument more adequately and eloquently than I ever could. I recommend seeking them out of you actually want an answer. I can't be bothered to piss in the wind anymore.
End of the day, these questions should be answered on a practical level. Which is cheaper for the society, birth control and welfare, or the damage caused by an unwanted child?This is a great definition of ecconomic rationalism, which I think is one of the biggest evils in our society today. We should not be making decisions based on what is cost effective, we should be making decisions based on what is the right thing to do. That should be our basis for doing ANYTHING, because it is right, not becasue it is economically viable.
Once you figure out what exactly the definition of "right" is and provide some objective criteria for measuring it, I'll consider that option. In the meantime, those of us living in the real world will be busy wrestling in the shades of grey that actually make up life and will be trying to find the compromises that come closest to giving the greatest amount of justice to the greatest number of persons.
Basically, I believe that babies (born and unborn) that die go to heaven. That being said, I really don't have much justification for my belief. So, truly, I really don't know.
Quick question then, why don't I just find a good woman or womans and knock her/them up as often as possible then abort the babies?
They get to go live with god in splendor without ever haveing the chance to experiance pain, or worse yet, screw it up and end up eternally damned. I can't think of any greater service a father could do for his children.
Sure I'm probably damned to hell but it doesn't matter since I'm a christian and I don't do it to get to heaven. I do it because it's the right thing to do.
|
|
Quick question then, why don't I just find a good woman or womans and knock her/them up as often as possible then abort the babies?
They get to go live with god in splendor without ever haveing the chance to experiance pain, or worse yet, screw it up and end up eternally damned. I can't think of any greater service a father could do for his children.
Sure I'm probably damned to hell but it doesn't matter since I'm a christian and I don't do it to get to heaven. I do it because it's the right thing to do.
Why not just get "fixed" and not have to deal with it? That seems like a simpler and more cost effective solution.
It sounds as if you are almost saying that we should get people pregnant just to kill the babies so that they can go to heaven. Which also seems a bit anti-productive (literally). It also sounds a bit like cutting off your arm because of a hangnail you have. Sure it gets rid of the hangnail. You could also justify it by saying that it might have gotten infected, turned into cancer, or any number of things and that you were just dealing with it before the inevitable happens.
I understand what your point is. I just seems INCREDIBLY calloused to imply that people should get pregnant for the sole reason to kill them so that they can go to heaven. I believe that there are FAR better ways to go about it -- especially if your point to it is to send them to heaven.
It sounds as if you are almost saying that we should get people pregnant just to kill the babies so that they can go to heaven.
Not almost, I am.
I believe that there are FAR better ways to go about it -- especially if your point to it is to send them to heaven.
Explain, my way seems pretty flawless. In fact I'm sure I could find a pregnancy terminating toxin, put it in a tranqulizer gun, and start sniping the stuff into pregnant heathens. After all if missionaries are doing Gods work then it's safe to assume a recruitment technique with 100% efficiency would be even better. I'd be able to save hundreds of souls if I played my cards right, hell if I got enough followers behind it we might save thousands. How is this not a worthy enterprize?
Sure I'm probably damned to hell but it doesn't matter since I'm a christian ...I didn't get this at all. "I'm a Christian but I'm going to Hell"?
Easy, I assumed I would go to hell for killing so many innocents. But in this hypothetical world I was a practitioner of christianity. Meaning that the fact I'm sure I'm going to hell is not a deterent to me. I don't care wether or not I go to heaven or hell, I do the right thing for it's own sake, not because I fear hell.
What happens at birth that changes the child so it is now wong to kill it.
Before birth it's a parasite.
(Also, while I wouldn't condone this, I should mention there have been cultures that considered it acceptable to kill a child under a few months old.)