Would you convict this man?

@henry quirk,

henry quirk;66212 wrote:

"...an abortionist, was killed today. A pro life activist shot him..."

"Would you convict this man?"

allow me to parade my amorality

how is the death of one stranger at the hands of another my concern?

i have no relationship to either, so, why should i care?

the 'abortionist' should have self-defended better

the pro-lifer best fly low if he intends to remain free (if, however, he's been captured, then he's truly screwed...he deserves what he gets...not because he killed someone, but, because he was too dull-minded to get away with it)

abortion: i could not care less either way...abort...don't abort...all the moralizing either way matters to me to sum of zero

my advice: if you don't wanna a baby refrain from sex...if you won't refrain: put a rubber on your willie, or, cap your cervix...exercising 'control over the body' is best done before you make with the rutting

but, again: i could not care less about aborted kids...having appetites (rather than being had by appetites) i'll never make a baby...but: if i did, and the woman and i wanted to abort, we would, regardless of what the law, or culture, had to say on the subject

now: have i sufficiently damned myself in the eyes of the 'just' and 'pure'?

HA!

Thank you for being uninhibited in expressing what you feel is your truth. Unfortunately there are entire too many people who think like you who don't. IMO it is sad that there are people that think like you, but of course it is there right. Thank you for having the balls to express it.
William

---------- Post added at 03:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:48 PM ----------

Khethil;65957 wrote:

Yea, this kind of thing scares me a bit.

For an act to be defined as 'murder', the slain need not be innocent at all. Although I think I can understand the feelings involved, this idea that it's OK to kill the killer because the killer killed never made much sense to me.

My common sense tells me the taking of that life was justified to save more lives. The law tells me that law created to protect that life, is flawed allowing him to take more lives. There is a major disconnect here. And that disconnect is what created that anger that took that life. That law should have never existed because the procedure should have never existed. Anyone who thinks it is ok to kill a perfectly viable new human being is a seriously flawed human being. IMO. Being legal doesn't make it right.
William

@henry quirk,

"IMO it is sad that there are people that think like you"

you, of course, are free to feel as you like, william, but surely you understand your opinion of my thinking (and the others who you think are out there...frankly: i don't see much of my thinking out there at all...not in theory or application) is irrelevant

what is important -- in the context of this thread and forum -- is whether or not you, or someone else, can refute, critique, expand, or tweak my thinking

"Thank you for having the balls to express it."

HA!

you're very welcome!

"Anyone who thinks it is ok to kill a perfectly viable new human being is a seriously flawed human being"

why?

what is about the status of 'human' that should compel me to safeguard a baby?

as aside: i am the very proud and doting uncle of a robust boy about to turn three

i would kill you and just about anyone else to preserve him

why? because i love 'him' as individual, not because he's a member of an exalted species

again: i'd kill to preserve 'my' nephew

your nephew?

not so much...that's your job, if you want it...

@henry quirk,

henry quirk;66212 wrote:

my advice: if you don't wanna a baby refrain from sex...if you won't refrain: put a rubber on your willie, or, cap your cervix...exercising 'control over the body' is best done before you make with the rutting

Great advice! Tell the rape victims at once! I'm sure they need to know this.

@William,

Hey William, another strong issue eh?

William;66215 wrote:

My common sense tells me the taking of that life was justified to save more lives.

This is ethically dangerous ground in my humble opinion. Reaping that kind of solution is irreversible; are we without flaw in our predictions of what someone "might" do in the future?

Take care

@Bones-O,

"Tell the rape victims at once!"

not that i have an iota of sympathy, but: today, a rape 'victim' can get an abortion

if the 'law' changes tomorrow and abortion is banned: the cunning 'victim' will still get an abortion, if she wants it...even if she has to self-administer

the problem seems to be: some folks think there's a 'right' to safe and easy abortion

there are no 'rights' to anything

there's only what you can claim and defend for yourself, or, privilege extended by 'authority'

one is a matter of realized self-efficacy...the other: bones thrown to the dog

neither has anything to do with a 'right'

@Bonaventurian,

Yes, HQ, I'm sure you live by these natural dog-eat-dog rules and, even in a natural dog-eat-dog world without laws and social etiquette and political correctness and all that guff you'd be living the same dog-eat-dog life, doing the same thing you are now: sitting at a computer developed and built by others from a foundation of millenia of social co-operation, electronically communicating to everyone that they have no rights, only what you can claim and defend for yourself.

@Bones-O,

"sitting at a computer developed and built by others from a foundation of millenia of social co-operation, electronically communicating to everyone that they have no rights, only what you can claim and defend for yourself."

where did i decry cooperation (of which there is damned little of)?

where did i deny sociality (of which there is damned little of)?

mostly, though: where am i wrong in my assessments?

dancing 'round my position is not addressing it, refuting it, or diminishing it

your 'reaction' to me is not an action against me or my view

try again... Wink

-----

as for what i 'do': i self-employ, my time is essentially my own, i choose to entertain myself 'here' from time to time...certainly: i'm not 'here' like the rest of you...daily, for hours on end...i actually interact with real, living, folks in my day-to-day

how 'bout you?

regardless: i can't see how my being 'here' invalidates my perspective

@henry quirk,

henry quirk;66212 wrote:

how is the death of one stranger at the hands of another my concern?

i have no relationship to either, so, why should i care?

How come it should not be your concern?
Why should you not care? Why does there have to be a relationship for you to care?

@Khethil,

Khethil;66228 wrote:

Hey William, another strong issue eh?

This is ethically dangerous ground in my humble opinion. Reaping that kind of solution is irreversible; are we without flaw in our predictions of what someone "might" do in the future?

Take care

Thanks, I totally agree. I was trying to express the motive behind the anger; not condone it. Thanks, for making me clarify it. When an injustice as "partial birth abortion" exists,it cannot be ignored. I for one will not. As long as it exists that anger will not go away. I, in no way, agree wth the judgement that finally befell him; but I do understand where it came from.
Yes, I am truly thankful all do not go to this angry extreme, but what alarms me the most about abortion in general is how we determine viability. If we can kill our unborn because our legal system considers them not viable, (which does not apply here, for these unborn babies were viable and why the practice is banned in most states), then what other life will be determine is "not viable" and condone eliminating.
Now as we define tolerance, if you mean to simply ignore an atrocity such as this and the repercussions of that atrocity. I will not do that. An atrocity is an atrocity in any manner is not ethical at least as it relates to my understanding of what is ethical and what constitutes an atrocity. at any rate. Legal or illegal. But would you please tell me what you mean as it applies to "ethics".

Thanks,
William

@William,

This Henry Quirk guy seems to be crying for attention. Hey Quirk, if you don't care about anything then why are you in a philosophy forum? Show and prove that you don't care about anything through action.

@Bonaventurian,

To be fair to HQ - the advice of "if you don't want kids don't have sex" is one that isn't proposed often or strongly enough - a lot of unwanted children, or unwanted abortions, are the result of young people who are mystified as to sex. So they feel they should be diving into it in order to enjoy life, and this is mostly because the media world is, by and large, a proponent of the idea that life isn't being lived unless you're regularly indulging in wild and abandoned sexual activity.

So whilst obvious exceptions like the victims of rape exist, "keep it in your pants unless you are ready to have kids" is an opinion which I don't feel gets enough air-time.

That said - I'm still utterly pro-choice and very happy to see that Tiller's Killer is apparently arrested.

@William,

William;66272 wrote:

I was trying to express the motive behind the anger; not condone it.

Yea I see what you're saying. Expressing anger at these kinds of things; such as the urge strikes us, is not only ok but necessary. As we look at these issues and flesh out their elements I don't think anyone should ignore their own humanity.

Other Points for Pondering as anyone all feels so Inclined:[INDENT]In General: If one believes that abortion is the shedding of innocent blood; then it's right and proper that they should express and cry against it. I don't believe that abortion is always ok or always wrong. It's ethicacy depends on the circumstances involved.

To me, at its most basic level and minus exacerbating factors, the ethics of aborting a human fetus depends no just on when we believe life begins, but upon what we base "personhood". Personhood, as I understand the concept, is that condition where someone is deserved of all the respect and rights of anyone other human being.

If I ascribe to personhood being fully attributable at conception; that's where my feelings of wrongness towards destruction will begin.

If I ascribe personhood to being attributed gradually as the fetus developes, then as the pregnancy developes, abortion will similarly become less ethical.

If I believe personhood to be attributable only after birth. Then the ethics of murdering only come into play after birth. Where birth hasn't taken place, nor can murder.

The opening post appears to take the first stance; that the rights due to human beings - regarding terminating their life - begins at conception (or sometime within the mother's womb).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FACTORS THAT EXAGGERATE AND INFLAME:

If one is generally more so against abortion, from my experience some of the multipliers that evoke such strong emotions seem to be:[INDENT]Shock & Protectiveness: "A helpless child, warm and safe in the mother's body should not be so brutally destroyed - they deserve our love and protection!"
[/INDENT][INDENT]Indignation at Excuse-Making: "Many who get abortions are just being lazy and irresponsible, that's not a reason to allow such killing"
[/INDENT]THE RUB: If you abort, you're a murderer and should be treated appropriately

If one is generally more inclined to be OK with abortion, from my experience, some of the factors that evoke such strong emotions appear to be:[INDENT]Self-Righteousness: "That's her body and her right to do with as she sees best - no one should impugn or restrict that right".
[/INDENT][INDENT]Future Consequence: "With overpopulation, child abuse and mistreatment of kids, its better that this baby not be born at all than be born to suffer and increase suffering"

[/INDENT]THE RUB: If you limit or impugn someone's right to their body, you cheapen life itself.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[/INDENT]My personal view was more spelled out here.

As it relates to this thread's topic: The OP's sentiments aren't surprising at all, and likely quite coherent within their value set. While I understand and can appreciate the strong emotions in this issue, I think of the utmost importance that we all think this through; If you feel abortion is wrong, think it through - Why? Once you have that answer, question the 'why' for that as well. Do the same thing if you think it's OK - ask yourself 'why' then question that, too. Once you've through through this thoroughly, then consider: Is it ok to kill the killer?

The purpose of the exercise - to the extent to which believe this has any worth - is not to change your ethics, but to understand why you feel the way you do. I may not be able to change my emotions, but I DO want to understand them. What's more, I fear that many of us haven't critically thought through our own position. When someone like this becomes verbal and upset, they haven't the mental 'background' in which to talk to the issue calmly and end up being overwhelmed by the emotion of their feelings.

Thanks

@Khethil,

Khethil;66346 wrote:

If one is generally more inclined to be OK with abortion, from my experience, some of the factors that evoke such strong emotions appear to be:
[INDENT]Self-Righteousness: "That's her body and her right to do with as she sees best - no one should impugn or restrict that right".
[/INDENT][INDENT]Future Consequence: "With overpopulation, child abuse and mistreatment of kids, its better that this baby not be born at all than be born to suffer and increase suffering"

[/INDENT]THE RUB: If you limit or impugn someone's right to their body, you cheapen life itself.

I agree with both of these myself - and the importance of not making the abortion industry become a backstreet business - which I feel would be a retrograde step, but more important to me is the damage an unwanted child does to human potential.

If I imagine myself as a young and sexually interested girl in her early twenties I may well want a child, or more than one, but not now. I might want to engage in social activity, or career building, or just farting about, until my early thirties - when women are at their most biologically apt to have a child - or even later should it suit me.

Given that abstinence-only sex ed simply does not work, and that no form of contraception is 100% reliable - it might be that I end up conceiving even if I am only moderately sexually active, and careful with it. I'm not made of stone after all and want to enjoy myself whilst young without making any attachments - just like my friends and all the charismatic girls on TV do.

If I become pregnant I am either forced into giving up the baby, aborting it or looking after it. Giving it up means carrying it to term, a strain on my relationships and body, a lack of psychological closure and a choice I may deem unethical for a variety of reasons. Keeping it requires life-long commitment, the first five years or so of which are pretty much 24/7.

Either of these choices might put a kibosh on my plans to have a baby as a thirty-something.

In a sense, these future babies, who would be born to unresenting parents at a time of their lives when they are more settled and willing and able to provide for their offspring, are prevented from existance by the insistence of those who argue that every conception be brought to term.

The physical murder of the unborn does not strike me as worse than the conceptual murder of the potentially born.

I do take some issue with the depiction of the "a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body" arguement as self-righteousness. All stances on the issue involve a degree of self-righteousness I'm sure - but why should acknowledging the right of those who actually are affected by the decision, and able to make choices, to make the decision any more self righteous than any other stance? Saying "I think it's immoral so don't do it" strikes me as more more self-righteous.

I think you're displaying your bias here.

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;66351 wrote:

I do take some issue with the depiction of the "a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body" arguement as self-righteousness. All stances on the issue involve a degree of self-righteousness I'm sure - but why should acknowledging the right of those who actually are affected by the decision, and able to make choices, to make the decision any more self righteous than any other stance? Saying "I think it's immoral so don't do it" strikes me as more more self-righteous.

I think you're displaying your bias here.

Most likely bad wording, since this argument I happen to hold as extremely dear. Hmm... perhaps "Agency over Self" or some such.

Thanks Dave - nice response.

@Bonaventurian,

Probably displaying my own bias in leaping to conclusions...

"Agency over self" is an apt descriptor, I agree.

@Bonaventurian,

Just pointing this out: he practiced late term abortion. Obviously, this doesn't matter to me, since any abortion is the slaying of an innocent human person, so far as I am concerned. This might matter for the rest of you, though.

Lemme get a picture of a 21 week old unborn child.

THESE are the sorts of persons that he was murdering.

He can't even claim ignorance of the Moral Law here. It's not even the case that they don't look like people. They LOOK like persons. They LOOK like babies. He KNEW what he was murdering, and he did it anyway.

He deserved to die. He deserved to die a thousand times. He deserved even an even worse fate. He deserves to burn in Hell (may God grant that he doesn't).

http://www.endtimeprophecy.net/EPN-1/Images-Abortion/5-21wks.jpg

---------- Post added at 10:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:16 AM ----------

YouTube - Megadeth - Washington Is Next! (Live 2007)

@Bonaventurian,

Bonaventurian;66364 wrote:

Just pointing this out: he practiced late term abortion. Obviously, this doesn't matter to me, since any abortion is the slaying of an innocent human person, so far as I am concerned. This might matter for the rest of you, though.

Oh, please. There are reasons. Abortion isn't a picnic. Noone wants to do an abortion, it's usually the last way out. And it's in the grey area. And even if he killed, we have to punish his murderer. Otherwise our society wouldn't work.

@Lily,

Lily;66385 wrote:

Oh, please. There are reasons. Abortion isn't a picnic. Noone wants to do an abortion, it's usually the last way out. And it's in the grey area. And even if he killed, we have to punish his murderer. Otherwise our society wouldn't work.

There's no gray area, Lily. The blood of innocent children is on his hands. Not only that, but the blood of innocent children whom we all recognize as children is on his hands. He was a monster. The man who kills such a person in order to protect these little ones is a hero.

@Bonaventurian,

Like Lilly said do you think someone chooses to have an abortion? Have you really researched all sides of such a very sensitive subject?

@Caroline,

Caroline;66395 wrote:

Like Lilly said do you think someone chooses to have an abortion?

That's a silly question. Of course the woman chooses to have the abortion. If she didn't choose to have the abortion, she either wouldn't be having the abortion, or she'd be having the abortion performed without her consent.

Perhaps what you are asking is "Do you think that someone chooses abortion lightly?" To that, I ask you a question: "Do you think that any murderer takes the decision to murder his victim lightly?"

Philosophy Forum

Would you convict this man?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know