Abortion

[Snorri1234]

War is bit of a diffrent discussion, it would be a much better arguement for your sake. I would lead in with that one, and not capital punishment if I were you. I think the diffrence between war, is that in ideal, members of both armies are there of their own consisent. Killing of a civilian is just that, and I would consider that murder, just as I think anyone would.

Every war features the death of innocent civilians.

Not every, but that's an irrelevancy. It's still murder, or if unintentional, manslaughter.

Right, I don't think the war that lasted 38 minutes did ofcourse, but every big war in history has featured the death of innocents.

And do you think the people who either intentional or unintentional killed (or ordered the death of) those civilians should be tried?

[Napoleon Ier]

War is bit of a diffrent discussion, it would be a much better arguement for your sake. I would lead in with that one, and not capital punishment if I were you. I think the diffrence between war, is that in ideal, members of both armies are there of their own consisent. Killing of a civilian is just that, and I would consider that murder, just as I think anyone would.

Every war features the death of innocent civilians.

Not every, but that's an irrelevancy. It's still murder, or if unintentional, manslaughter.

Right, I don't think the war that lasted 38 minutes did ofcourse, but every big war in history has featured the death of innocents.

And do you think the people who either intentional or unintentional killed (or ordered the death of) those civilians should be tried?

Yes, if possible. Though obviously, given the nature of war, it's entirely possible that good and honest men may have completely accidentally killed some civilians under immense stress and pressure, so I'd adivse leniency.

[Snorri1234]

Yes, if possible.

So do you think that Truman should have been tried for ordering the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even though it helped end the war?


(And naturally soldiers who accidentaly kill innocents should be treated lenient, mistakes are always made in war.)

[dewey316]

War is bit of a diffrent discussion, it would be a much better arguement for your sake. I would lead in with that one, and not capital punishment if I were you. I think the diffrence between war, is that in ideal, members of both armies are there of their own consisent. Killing of a civilian is just that, and I would consider that murder, just as I think anyone would.

Every war features the death of innocent civilians.

Yes they do. And, as I said, I consider it murder. That goes on all sides, the US is just as guilty as England, or France, or Iraq, or North Korea. When inocent people are killed anywhere in the world, its murder. I got long winded, all I was saying is that **I** value human life. I was responding to the likening of abortion to that of capital punishment and war. I pointed out the couple of differences that I see between them.

And MeDeFe, I didn't just say ladies, I want to hear from the women who HAVE children, a 14 year old girl who has never been pregnant, has about the same perspective that I do on this. I am just saying, I **think** that those people who DO have children, would tend to be willing to trade their own life for that of their childs. People without the perspective (such as myself, I am willing to admit I may be wrong on this, as I have no experience to go off of) of having a child have a differing perspective on this.

[Napoleon Ier]

Yes, if possible.

So do you think that Truman should have been tried for ordering the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even though it helped end the war?


(And naturally soldiers who accidentaly kill innocents should be treated lenient, mistakes are always made in war.)

I reckon so, though again, the consideration of the potential thousands of lost American lives and pressure from the situation would also cause me personally to be lenient. But you know, history is judging him right now.

[dewey316]

So do you think that Truman should have been tried for ordering the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even though it helped end the war?

This should likely be a whole new thread for itself. This opens what is in my opinion a VERY interesting and thought provoking discussion that can get into a WHOLE lot of subjects. I am going to say right now, that I do not have all the answers, and I wrestle with questions like this, as there is not an easy answer.

This is really one of those measuring out the greater good type of scenerios that gets very hard to look at. Remeber, by the point in WWII that the bombings took place in, the draft was already in action. You had soldiers (I am going to assume on both sides, but at least on the US side for sure), that were not people who willingly joined the military. This complicates this issue, as the lifes that Truman was trying to save, were those of projected deaths on both sides of the war. Part of me has always wondered, if Truman had chosen not drop the bombs, what the civilian casualty rate would have been. I would guess that at the time, people all over the world probably thought about brining charges up, and ultimatly I think they probably could have stuck. IMHO, the higher ups in Japan at the time who ordered the initial attack on Pearl Harbor, and who kept the war going, are at fault as much as Truman, probably more. Reacting in self-defense (as a nation in this case), is different than being the one who attacks to begin with. If we don't already have a thread somewhere about this, we probably need to start a new one though, this is getting way off the abortion track...

[MeDeFe]

And MeDeFe, I didn't just say ladies, I want to hear from the women who HAVE children, a 14 year old girl who has never been pregnant, has about the same perspective that I do on this. I am just saying, I **think** that those people who DO have children, would tend to be willing to trade their own life for that of their childs. People without the perspective (such as myself, I am willing to admit I may be wrong on this, as I have no experience to go off of) of having a child have a differing perspective on this.

Not every female person on CC is 14, you know?

[Napoleon Ier]

And MeDeFe, I didn't just say ladies, I want to hear from the women who HAVE children, a 14 year old girl who has never been pregnant, has about the same perspective that I do on this. I am just saying, I **think** that those people who DO have children, would tend to be willing to trade their own life for that of their childs. People without the perspective (such as myself, I am willing to admit I may be wrong on this, as I have no experience to go off of) of having a child have a differing perspective on this.

Not every female person on CC is 14, you know?

Oh. Really? Well what a waste of suggs' time.

[joecoolfrog]

War is bit of a diffrent discussion, it would be a much better arguement for your sake. I would lead in with that one, and not capital punishment if I were you. I think the diffrence between war, is that in ideal, members of both armies are there of their own consisent. Killing of a civilian is just that, and I would consider that murder, just as I think anyone would.

Every war features the death of innocent civilians.

Yes they do. And, as I said, I consider it murder. That goes on all sides, the US is just as guilty as England, or France, or Iraq, or North Korea. When inocent people are killed anywhere in the world, its murder. I got long winded, all I was saying is that **I** value human life. I was responding to the likening of abortion to that of capital punishment and war. I pointed out the couple of differences that I see between them.

And MeDeFe, I didn't just say ladies, I want to hear from the women who HAVE children, a 14 year old girl who has never been pregnant, has about the same perspective that I do on this. I am just saying, I **think** that those people who DO have children, would tend to be willing to trade their own life for that of their childs. People without the perspective (such as myself, I am willing to admit I may be wrong on this, as I have no experience to go off of) of having a child have a differing perspective on this.

I think you may have slightly missed my point, I was not comparing war or capital punishment to abortion but simply saying that if one reliies purely on an ethical stance then its not possible to seperate the three. As I said in an earlier post my view is that the concept of greater good must always enter the equation ,this is why I reject the notion that abortion is always wrong just because it is ethically the case. Actually I believe that the real problem arises when abortion is performed not for the greater good but simply for convenience, the same of course can be said for warfare ( if we substitute power for convenience ) and capital punishment which is an act of revenge more than anything else.

[tzor]

so you advocate anal sex as an alternative to unwanted pregnancy.. hypothetically speaking.

Well no, as much as I give due importance to the classic movie "Debbie Does Dallas" and the notion that sperm are very determined so that unprotected anal sex could actually lead to pregnancy, I am reminded of an old statement; if God wanted everyone to have anal sex he wouldn't have given some hemorrhoids. (Enough said the better.)

[suggs]

It was more fun when we were talking about giving a bird one up the pooper

[Napoleon Ier]

War is bit of a diffrent discussion, it would be a much better arguement for your sake. I would lead in with that one, and not capital punishment if I were you. I think the diffrence between war, is that in ideal, members of both armies are there of their own consisent. Killing of a civilian is just that, and I would consider that murder, just as I think anyone would.

Every war features the death of innocent civilians.

Yes they do. And, as I said, I consider it murder. That goes on all sides, the US is just as guilty as England, or France, or Iraq, or North Korea. When inocent people are killed anywhere in the world, its murder. I got long winded, all I was saying is that **I** value human life. I was responding to the likening of abortion to that of capital punishment and war. I pointed out the couple of differences that I see between them.

And MeDeFe, I didn't just say ladies, I want to hear from the women who HAVE children, a 14 year old girl who has never been pregnant, has about the same perspective that I do on this. I am just saying, I **think** that those people who DO have children, would tend to be willing to trade their own life for that of their childs. People without the perspective (such as myself, I am willing to admit I may be wrong on this, as I have no experience to go off of) of having a child have a differing perspective on this.

I think you may have slightly missed my point, I was not comparing war or capital punishment to abortion but simply saying that if one reliies purely on an ethical stance then its not possible to seperate the three. As I said in an earlier post my view is that the concept of greater good must always enter the equation ,this is why I reject the notion that abortion is always wrong just because it is ethically the case. Actually I believe that the real problem arises when abortion is performed not for the greater good but simply for convenience, the same of course can be said for warfare ( if we substitute power for convenience ) and capital punishment which is an act of revenge more than anything else.

It's moral to kill iff:

1/ethical double effect applies (justifying some wars, some forms of capital punishment, some cases of abortion)
2/lawful vindication applies (justifying capital punishment).

Notice that using these concepts, I can still hold my stance on abortion, war and capital punishment without having to resort to utilitarianism.

[tzor]

I mentioned this before but will try again,if there is an absolute ethical case against the taking of human life then by the same token capital punishment and warfare must also always be ethically wrong.One cannot reasonably argue the case of ' greater good ' in these instances and yet refuse to except the same criteria when it comes to abortion.

Capital punishement is a complicated notion because one brings "due process" into the situation. I don't think we want to bring a fetus to trial to prove beynond a reasonable doubt that he or she is a clear and present danger to the woman; by the time the trial ended the woman will probably be dead. Thus there is a complex situation that in some cases the state may use capital punishment. Those arguments tend to fail when other practical methods (life with parrole being and example) are available.

Warfare is also complicated based on the Just war theory. You can have "war crimes." (Although in general the winner never arrests himself; might makes right is technically wrong but is used all the time.)

Neither is really based on the "greater good" argument. (Although the "lesser evil" argument or the principle of double effect is often applied in the arguments.)

Once again this only proves that absolutes are never a good idea. In the Untied States we currently have an absolute; any time for any reason. There is no reason why you need the absolute in order to ensure the happy medium, but whenever someone complains about the absolute, it is assumed that they want the opposite absolute. This is not the case.

[dewey316]

Joe,

Ok, I see what you are saying. I think the war is still a bunch more debatable (discussable?) stance. I think the capital punishment is one of those situations, where someone has proven that they are so imcampatable with anything that resembles orginazied society, and have done something to the point that there is no other choice for society, but to end their lifes for the better of society. We agree on that, that is a greater good. The difference here is that, the person being put to death has made a very concience and thought out choice, knowing the consequences of their action. In the flip side, in abortion life being taken, has done absolutly nothing wrong. I think that is a very big difference, that goes beyone just making a moral judgement. Capital punishment has been set aside for those people who have done something horrible to another (generaly several other) humans. I don't think that there is a moral stance on this planet that says an inocent life should be ended without that person having made a choice to do something with fatal reprocutions. My question is, what greater good are we servering society by abortion. Sure an argument can be made for the burdens of a child growing up in a house that may not be good for them, they may even be a finicial or criminal burden on society, but then we would pose the question of, should we euthenize for the greater good? There is a point where the sactity of life, outweighs the common good. The question here becomes, at what point is an fetas life, that is the debate in its entirety. No matter what benifit or good there may be to other people or the mother from an abortion, if it is purposful taking of a life, we as a society should not stand for it, and should not allow it. Even in the most unthinkable and unwanted scenerios (rape, etc) there is no justification in to take a life, regardless of how horrible the events that lead to that lifes creation may be.

I find this subject to be one, that it is very hard to be middle ground on, in my book it is either a living being we are killing, or it isn't. Convience or circumstance, or a byproduct of a horrible crime, shouldn't matter if we descide it is a life. If it isn't a life, then the circumstances become meaningless. The when and where and hows shouldn't matter, what should matter is if we are taking a human life.

[joecoolfrog]

War is bit of a diffrent discussion, it would be a much better arguement for your sake. I would lead in with that one, and not capital punishment if I were you. I think the diffrence between war, is that in ideal, members of both armies are there of their own consisent. Killing of a civilian is just that, and I would consider that murder, just as I think anyone would.

Every war features the death of innocent civilians.

Yes they do. And, as I said, I consider it murder. That goes on all sides, the US is just as guilty as England, or France, or Iraq, or North Korea. When inocent people are killed anywhere in the world, its murder. I got long winded, all I was saying is that **I** value human life. I was responding to the likening of abortion to that of capital punishment and war. I pointed out the couple of differences that I see between them.

And MeDeFe, I didn't just say ladies, I want to hear from the women who HAVE children, a 14 year old girl who has never been pregnant, has about the same perspective that I do on this. I am just saying, I **think** that those people who DO have children, would tend to be willing to trade their own life for that of their childs. People without the perspective (such as myself, I am willing to admit I may be wrong on this, as I have no experience to go off of) of having a child have a differing perspective on this.

I think you may have slightly missed my point, I was not comparing war or capital punishment to abortion but simply saying that if one reliies purely on an ethical stance then its not possible to seperate the three. As I said in an earlier post my view is that the concept of greater good must always enter the equation ,this is why I reject the notion that abortion is always wrong just because it is ethically the case. Actually I believe that the real problem arises when abortion is performed not for the greater good but simply for convenience, the same of course can be said for warfare ( if we substitute power for convenience ) and capital punishment which is an act of revenge more than anything else.

It's moral to kill iff:

1/ethical double effect applies (justifying some wars, some forms of capital punishment, some cases of abortion)
2/lawful vindication applies (justifying capital punishment).

Notice that using these concepts, I can still hold my stance on abortion, war and capital punishment without having to resort to utilitarianism.

Cant disagree with that summing up.

[Dancing Mustard]

The only joke here Mustard, is the one everybody here with a capacity for critical thought greater than that of a clinically retarded ape is having at your expense.

See, pre-pubescent flaming. You can't write a post without it.

PS. This debate was over on page 14. For those of you who can't be bothered to flick back that far, I won.

[suggs]

Why is that some girls don't want to be taken roughly from behind, the WHOLE time?

[Napoleon Ier]

The only joke here Mustard, is the one everybody here with a capacity for critical thought greater than that of a clinically retarded ape is having at your expense.

See, pre-pubescent flaming. You can't write a post without it...

1/ What would be necessary for you to renege your belief that my flames are pre-pubescent? Or would that be impossible?

2/Is this accusation one you'd care to substantiate, or is it, ahh, how shall I say, one of those "petty aspersions" you're so keen to denounce? Are you, as you well know you should, going to duly and properly bring evidence forward to support your accusation?

PS. This debate was over on page 14. For those of you who can't be bothered to flick back that far, I won.

You certainly did and still do provide the most potent argument for abortion and involuntary euthanasia I've seen in a long time ... thumbs up on that one.

[joecoolfrog]

STOP PRESS

Nappy agrees that there is a case for Abortion....thread closed !

[dewey316]

PS. This debate was over on page 14. For those of you who can't be bothered to flick back that far, I won.

Umm, you didn't even post on MY page 14. Can you like the post number you are talking about.

[got tonkaed]

actually we probably could have ended this thread 30 pages ago...pretty much around the last time i posted. Seriously though, we get it, some people think choice trumps the fetus, other people believe the fetus is a sanctified being which trumps choice. Though im sure most of the last 30 pages have been flames of some sort.

[InkL0sed]

It would be amusing to see this thread moved to Flame Wars, to say the least.

[Dancing Mustard]

That has been my goal for quite some time now...

[tzor]

That has been my goal for quite some time now...

What further need have we of witnesses? DM is guilty! Guilty I say!

I mean here we were, me and player, having this lovely discussion about abortion, reaching agreement, comming to consensus, and DM goes and starts painting red grafitti all over the thread, as though we were wearing mink coats.

Now can we get back to the issue and stop dancing with the condiment?

[Dancing Mustard]

That has been my goal for quite some time now...

What further need have we of witnesses? DM is guilty! Guilty I say!

I mean here we were, me and player, having this lovely discussion about abortion, reaching agreement, comming to consensus, and DM goes and starts painting red grafitti all over the thread, as though we were wearing mink coats.

Now can we get back to the issue and stop dancing with the condiment?

Shut it fatty.