Would you convict this man?

@Bonaventurian,

The., you and Caroline have said that my positions are logically inconsistent, but I fail to see where I have contradicted myself. My position is that it's not wrong to kill a guilty man, but it's wrong to kill an innocent man. Where's the contradiction?

By my definition, if one kills an abortion doctor, it's not murder. The abortion doctor is guilty.

I am not claiming that the moral code is some "personal moral imperative." It's a set of common a priori notions we all have, upon which the law is based, and without which the law has no authority whatsoever.

@William,

William;66850 wrote:

Caroline, in all due respect, I most assuredly hear all you are saying, furthermore I understand why you are saying it and it's intensity derived by the tone indicated by the words you are using.

"The key is prevention-not to get pregnant in the first place but accidents happen....."

The answer to that is to make sure the foundation is set, if and when the women does become pregnant, accident or otherwise the child will have a stable environment that is so necessary to enter this world. That's what the marriage is all about that establishes that covenant that establishes that foundation. In it's simplest terms, if that foundation is not set, DON'T participate in sexual intercourse.

"no one....."

Let's clarify, no woman.....

"....wants to go through an abortion it is often the last resort......."

In my opinion giving the child up for adoption to a stable husband/wife home environment is the last resort. Abortion, IMO is the easy way out. Abortion and the terminology that justifies it has render the unborn child as a piece of meat, or fetus that allows one to rationalize what is actually taking place. Life is life and it starts with the collision of man's sperm with that of woman's egg. That is when life begins, I don't care how you try to redefine that. It is a universal truth. If you do not want a child, do not participate in that activity in which that collision could accidentally take place. There are alternatives measures if one finds themselves in the heat of passion. That's precisely what they are there for.

"The hardest decision and pain for the rest of ones life and people dont need others shoving their beliefs down your throat when your going through such a traumatic experience. Prevention".

I absolutely agree. The truth hurts like a *****. That's why we have created a reality that, through rationalization, avoids it. You are right prevention is the key. Bringing a child into the world is an awesome responsibility. We will never be able to "swallow" the truth that is shoved down our throat if we keep rationalizing our wrongs to make them seem right. The only truly preventive measure that is full proof is DON'T ENGAGE IN THE ACT, IF YOU ARE NOT TOTALLY PREPARED TO HAVE A CHILD. It's that damn simple.

"William, birth control is both peoples responsibility. If I were a man i'd be wearing a condom, I wouldn't be taking any chances. I don't know where you get this idea that it is solely the woman's responsibity, because it is both".

Yes it is both's responsibility, but the woman has to give her permission to engage in the act at all. If he is not using a condom, it is her responsibility to make sure that he does, or DON'T; even though condoms are still not full proof. Speaking from my male perspective, wearing a condom is like taking a shower with your boots on, I rather not. I, IMO, feel most men would agree. That's why, it is the responsibility of the woman, since she has to go through the pain of delivering a child, to make sure all the necessary precautions are in place. A man and a woman can engage passionately and reach satisfaction without engaging in penetration of any kind. As a matter of a fact, I encourage it to determine if the man and the woman are capable of having a child, both anatomically and sexually.

"And saying abortin is a method for birth control is the most ridiculas horrifying thing you can say, i cant believe someone has actualy said that, it doesnt even warrant a response, ignorance is prevailant in this thread, yes i think i'd rather have an abortion then use any other form of birth control, i think i can have unprotected sex whenever because i can just nip down the hospital after work and get it sucked out of me blah blah blah, you really have no idea do you".

In all due respect this graphically illustrates the contradictory rhetoric espoused by "feminism". On the one had they want to be "liberated" from the male; yet of the other hand "it takes two". Are you telling me close to 50,000,000 abortions are as a result of rape, incest or the endangerment of the Mother? You have got to be kidding! Freedom of choice is birth control. Damn! It is definitely controlling the birth of a child. Period. Of course it is not a child, is it? It's a piece of meat. I do agree though, there is a lot of ignorance here disguised in denial.
William

PS: It is not my intent to make you angry, but if I were a woman that has had an abortion, I would with all my strength defend that right, for the truth is indeed hard to swallow. I have labored to convey it is not anyones fault, it is the reality we live in. That is what is flawed. Most are victims of that reality.

How would you set the foundation, marriage is failing.
People will always engage in sex without being prepared to have a baby.
What are the reasons behind the 50,000,000?
I do hope you're speaking to the reader when you covey your thoughts on when a fetus is life and you say "I dont care how you redefine it", as I havent stated my views on when or what I think the fetus is.
I do agree with you in that there are other things you can do then penetration but it's educating people to partake in this not only to avoid unwanted pregnancies but stds and HIV. It is good practise for all of these reasons but how do you get the public to practise especially the younger ones as the UK is the highest for teenage pregnancies?
I do apologise for my tone in previous posts but you've got to admit it was a unfair to lay it all the woman, i mean come on there are two people involved here not to mention educating both sexes increases the chances of successful results,ie, less pregnancies.

@Bonaventurian,

Bonaventurian;66921 wrote:

All of this is irrelevent. George Tiller wasn't innocent.

Furthermore, you're dodging the real point here. Is it wrong to kill a guilty person? I'm not talking about law for the moment. I'm talking about the act itself, the very act of killing a guilty person on account of his guilt. Is that wrong? Clearly not.

Therefore, regardless of the state of the laws, George Tiller's killer isn't guilty.

So if someone kills,Tillers killer because of their beliefs is that ok...not what the law says ..

@Bonaventurian,

Bonaventurian;66925 wrote:

I am not claiming that the moral code is some "personal moral imperative." It's a set of common a priori notions we all have, upon which the law is based, and without which the law has no authority whatsoever.

I do not hold this set of common a priori notions. You are making sweeping generalizations based on your personal beliefs.

@Bonaventurian,

Bonaventurian;66925 wrote:

The., you and Caroline have said that my positions are logically inconsistent, but I fail to see where I have contradicted myself. My position is that it's not wrong to kill a guilty man, but it's wrong to kill an innocent man. Where's the contradiction?

By my definition, if one kills an abortion doctor, it's not murder. The abortion doctor is guilty.

I am not claiming that the moral code is some "personal moral imperative." It's a set of common a priori notions we all have, upon which the law is based, and without which the law has no authority whatsoever.

The contradiction is the dr aborts foetus' which you say is wrong, you kill him because he killed, that makes you just as bad as your own belief.

@Bonaventurian,

Bonaventurian;66925 wrote:

The., you and Caroline have said that my positions are logically inconsistent, but I fail to see where I have contradicted myself. My position is that it's not wrong to kill a guilty man, but it's wrong to kill an innocent man. Where's the contradiction?

The abortion doctor is not guilty. Thus, an innocent man was murdered. That is where the logical incoherence comes into play. Not to mention, it is wrong to kill a guilty man, because the law says that premeditated murder is illegal.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;66932 wrote:

The abortion doctor is not guilty. Thus, an innocent man was murdered. That is where the logical incoherence comes into play. Not to mention, it is wrong to kill a guilty man, because the law says that premeditated murder is illegal.

There's no logical inconsistency on my part. I don't hold that the abortion doctor was innocent. I hold that he was guilty. I'm not being inconsistent. You merely disagree with me.

In any case, the law can be wrong. I'm still wanting to know your position on the legality of "honor killings" in the Middle East, and on the legality of the holocaust in germany. Law =/= morality. You can morally do what the law forbids when the law forbids what we are bound to do by duty, and you can still act immorally but legally when the law does not forbid what duty prevents us from doing.

@Bonaventurian,

Honour killings are wrong and so was the holocaust, what's your point?

@Bonaventurian,

sad,
how the west has so subverted the notion of justice,

That when someone heroic kills a mass-killer of innocents they all rush to the defense of the mass-killer, and condemn he who has defended the innocent.

It reminds me of another story I once heard. (But thats another story.)

....

I have made a serious in-depth study of women who have had abortions.
In all but 1 of the 8 primary cases (many others studied in lesser detail)
the woman was coerced into the abortion by her father or father-in-law, or mother or mother-in-law.

The most despicable reasons being
1) the father was not white (racial genocide)
2) the father was not white (racial genocide)
3) the father wanted his daughter to be a prostitute.
4) the extremely wealthy father could not 'afford' it.
5) the extremely wealthy father-in-law could not 'afford' it.
6) the mother-in-law did not like the daughter in law.
7) the mother wanted her daughter to be a famous artist.
8) the woman herself just did feel like having children yet (4 abortions at last count) - this is the one that freely chose it - who cares what the fathers thought?

In one case, the mother was already severely mentally disturbed, so the abortion MAY have been justified. Adoption would have been a simpler more ethical solution, however.

Every single one of these woman is now a pathological lier, except the one who freely chose it - she is a mere sociopathological man-eater.

The one who was severly mentally disturbed, is now extremely mentally disturbed.
She is riddled with guilt, obsesses about her abortion, and is without doubt far far worse because of it. Had the child not been aborted, she would certainly not be as bad. Its very hard to decide what type of child she would have had.

The fathers of all these abortions have all suffered from less severe psychological problems : borderline personality disorder, extreme narcism, alcoholism, fraud, theft, etc.

Bo,
you are a hero.
Well done.
It is awful that 90% of the people in society are toadying narcisists that agree with the system no matter how evil it has become.

No doubt to justify their own murderous intentions and deeds.

Now there may be some reasons for abortion. But in my limited, but detailed experience, perhaps 1 in 11 were justified. The other 10 were certainly not.

I have very strong reasons to suspect that many of the fetuses were used for stem cell research, which was certainly true in at least 1 of the cases, and possibly in more.

Society has a greater capacity to deal with unwated children than ever before, and yet in the darkness of stem cell research, abortion os more prollific than ever?

For the record, before I studied this in detail, I was pro-choice.
I initially was only informed by my studies,
my religious beliefs came as a result of these type of studies (and others)

I smell a stinking nazi rat, major!
(Just don't call him Basil!)

@Bonaventurian,

It's not your body that changes, noone is forcing you to carry a child that you dont want for nine months, its not your body thats going to change and cause you stress, how can you force someone to go through a nine month pregnancy?
What do you mean society can cope with unwanted children, are you kidding? There are thousands and thousands of children in care because there are not enough carers/adoptive parents, the system is not coping. Not to mention the high rate of teenage pregnancies.
And btw you should mention who your sources are when presenting stats.

@Bonaventurian,

My sources are my own personal studies on real people.
I don't place much value on texts written by other people when it comes to hot issues like this. I would rather not mention names at this stage.

But the point remains that however difficult it is today to raise children, historically it was far worse.

I do not feel the adoption agencies have a clue what they are doing in many many cases either.

It is a profoundly wrong thing to do to allow homosexuals to adopt.

The so called checks and balances, and endless waiting lists, actually just cause bribery, and corruption. Sadly often the worst are allowed to adopt, and the best are not. At least that appears to be true from my limited perspective.

Its a mistake to think that any solution is going to be 100% perfect.
Its also avoiding the issue to think that a woman can have her first child aborted (all of those I studied personally in detail) and to think that there is no knock on effect.

Once a woman has been coerced into an abortion, especially the first child, she loses her nurturing instinct, as all my examples have shown me.

She becomes a pathological lier, a fraudster, thief and worse, in every case I have studied (except the one who is merely a man-eater)

I think the issue is to get to the cause :
which is quite simply :
sexual immorality.

Abortion, murder, pathlogical women and men, all of these are far far worse than any benefit from pornography, prostitution and promiscuity.

Lets hope Tiller becomes the tipping point.
The straw the breaks the poor old camels half-broken back.

@Caroline,

Caroline;66943 wrote:

Honour killings are wrong and so was the holocaust, what's your point?

Precisely. We say that honor killings and the holocaust are murder whether or not the laws of the respective States in which they occurred gave/give them a protected status or not. Even if Germany's law didn't define killing Jews as murder, and even if the Middle East countries don't define honor killings as murder, you still want to say that they are.

Ergo, it's stupid for you or anyone else to say to me "But Bonaventurian, US law doesn't define abortion as murder!" Who cares?

And Caroline, I have already pointed out that it's impossible to force someone to be pregnant/have a child. Pregnancy is sheerly a natural process. It doesn't originate from an agent.

@xris,

xris;66896 wrote:

I apologize for the assumption but your views are so reminiscent of the faith driven ethics.Do you agree with contraception? that is denying life in the extreme views expressed by the faithful.So you always see life as possibility when unprotected sex is performed, you would not even agree to the morning after pill? So your views are not faith driven in any way?

contraception is not interfering with the conceived child. i am aware that some people think sperm and bacteria because they are life forms should not be destroyed. i dont personally agree with that. the morning after pill, i dont know anything about.

not only is my personal opinion not faith based, i am not carrying a banner for either side to follow my personal beliefs. i am more interested in understanding the whys and wherefors of other people's beliefs.

@Bonaventurian,

Re:Poseidon Sorry im not getting how you're getting from a woman who has had an abortion to becoming a pathalogical liar etc?

---------- Post added at 07:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:31 PM ----------

Bonaventurian;66957 wrote:

Precisely. We say that honor killings and the holocaust are murder whether or not the laws of the respective States in which they occurred gave/give them a protected status or not. Even if Germany's law didn't define killing Jews as murder, and even if the Middle East countries don't define honor killings as murder, you still want to say that they are.

Ergo, it's stupid for you or anyone else to say to me "But Bonaventurian, US law doesn't define abortion as murder!" Who cares?

And Caroline, I have already pointed out that it's impossible to force someone to be pregnant/have a child. Pregnancy is sheerly a natural process. It doesn't originate from an agent.

I said carry a child, there is a difference.
And i dont really understand your first paragraph. I believe that this law in the middle east is babaric and the same with the germans. I dont really understand your point?

@Bonaventurian,

Bonaventurian;66925 wrote:

The., you and Caroline have said that my positions are logically inconsistent, but I fail to see where I have contradicted myself. My position is that it's not wrong to kill a guilty man, but it's wrong to kill an innocent man. Where's the contradiction?

By my definition, if one kills an abortion doctor, it's not murder. The abortion doctor is guilty.

I am not claiming that the moral code is some "personal moral imperative." It's a set of common a priori notions we all have, upon which the law is based, and without which the law has no authority whatsoever.

i see now you are talking about ethical questions apart from legality. so you stated that if someone is guilty of murder, it is not murder for someone else to kill him.

bona, i have a question for you. you said that intention is imperative in considering the question of guilt or innocence, am i correct?

then consider this. if the abortion doctor believes that a foetus is not a human being then how is he guilty of murder? you cant believe that all abortion doctors are actively intentionally committing murder just to get money. they could probably make a lot more money in other fields without putting their lives at risk. are you going on some particular knowledge about this doctor named tiller? do you know he believes foetuses are human beings and happily goes about destroying them as a part of his daily work?

@Caroline,

Caroline;66960 wrote:

I said carry a child, there is a difference.

Carrying a child doesn't require agency.

Quote:

And i dont really understand your first paragraph. I believe that this law in the middle east is babaric and the same with the germans. I dont really understand your point?

Did Hitler murder the Jews or not?

@Bonaventurian,

You missed my point.
And yes he did?????

@Bonaventurian,

Bonaventurian;66957 wrote:

Precisely. We say that honor killings and the holocaust are murder whether or not the laws of the respective States in which they occurred gave/give them a protected status or not. Even if Germany's law didn't define killing Jews as murder, and even if the Middle East countries don't define honor killings as murder, you still want to say that they are.

Ergo, it's stupid for you or anyone else to say to me "But Bonaventurian, US law doesn't define abortion as murder!" Who cares?

then you are saying there is a moral code that all people must adhere to-where is it? you are saying it is somewhere in our conscience and that all of us if we could hear our conscience would come up with the same answer as to what constitutes murder and what does not?

i wish that were true...but in my lifetime i have not yet been able to find that. living in a democracy means we have to abide by the law that is approved by the majority (in theory). but there are times i would choose to go to jail rather than obey a law that goes against my own particular moral code. i understand what you are saying.

but you are telling us that humanity has to go by your moral code-i know you dont think that is what you are doing, because you think there is a universal moral code and that you have found it. but i am sorry to have to say that i think you are wrong there. it would make things so much easier wouldnt it...we wouldnt need this forum and we wouldnt have any questions.

@Poseidon,

Poseidon;66956 wrote:

It is a profoundly wrong thing to do to allow homosexuals to adopt.

This is a sad thing to say. It's always nice when people have to resort to discrimination for no reason

Quote:

I think the issue is to get to the cause :
which is quite simply :
sexual immorality.

This couldn't be further from the truth. Abortion really has nothing to do with sexual immorality. Most of the time it has to do with the health of the mother, or looking out for the well-being of an unborn fetus.

This thread has truly turned into a train wreck caused by people holding morality best suited for the dark ages.

@salima,

salima;66962 wrote:

bona, i have a question for you. you said that intention is imperative in considering the question of guilt or innocence, am i correct?

then consider this. if the abortion doctor believes that a foetus is not a human being then how is he guilty of murder?

1. Aristotle makes a distinction between ignorance of particulars and ignorance of universals. Ignorance of the universal "for example, killing innocent people is murder" doesn't take away guilt. It makes you bad. Ignorance of the particulars only makes you guilty, for example, "this particular person is innocent."

If he truly were ignorant of the personhood of the unborn child, then it would be of the universal sort of ignorance, which doesn't take away his guilt. It makes him a bad person.

2. As I said before, this dude specialized in late term abortions. He can't claim ignorance by any stretch of the term. It's obvious what he was killing.

3. If you look at the pro-choice side and talk to them, it's obvious that they aren't ignorant. This whole "personhood" thing is entirely a matter of semantics for them. They aren't ignorant.

Quote:

do you know he believes foetuses are human beings and happily goes about destroying them as a part of his daily work?

I think that's the case, or, at least the ones he was killing.

---------- Post added at 08:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:03 PM ----------

Caroline;66966 wrote:

And yes he did?????

Therefore the law cannot define murder other than as it is.

Philosophy Forum

Would you convict this man?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know