Would you convict this man?

@Bonaventurian,

Late term abortions are special cases that are either caused by danger to the mother's health, or by a fetus that has some sort of major defect. It's not like women have late term abortions just because they do not want to have a baby. They do it either to save themselves or to not allow a handicapped baby to be born that will suffer the majority of its life.

@Caroline,

Caroline;66926 wrote:

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.

"How would you set the foundation, marriage is failing".
I very rarely even use the word "marriage". Please refresh my memory as to how you arrived at this statement.

"People will always engage in sex without being prepared to have a baby".
Not as much before the birth control pill, which is when all this "hooking up" really began. Prior to the birth control, making love was a term used in in the covenant of marriage, primarily. Making out was a term used to identify the raging hormones of the teenage libido, but for the most part it was under control. "Putting out" was in reference to those girls who "went all the way", and were held in low regard because of the chance of getting a "venereal disease" that consisted of gonorrhea mostly and rarely syphilis. For the most part those were the only two. Now you can fill up a page listing all the "sexually transmitted diseases" (STD's), AIDS and Herpes being the two biggies for which there are no cures. Back then good old penicillin did the trick.

Now making love is rarely used anymore, as having sex has primarily taken over. Love, at least as how we define it has slowly dwindled, and sex has become the main stay. That's a good topic for a whole new thread; "love and sex". It used to be love before sex, now it's just sex. It seems, to me anyway, the tables have turned. It used to be the boys who pursued the girls, now it seems the girls are pursuing the boys. Much to the delight of the male, but bad news all the way around. It also seems as if the girls are using there sensuality to entrap, thinking if she gives in, the guy will automatically be seduced by her charms; Now this has always gone on forever and those women were called "vamps". Meaning seductress, femme fatale, siren, tease, vampire, witch, temptress. And that is what the Genesis of the Bible accused Eve of being. In my opinion a big, big mistake which I address in another post. Woman can easily seduce a man. That's a no brainer. But I promise you, being a male, it is no way to get to his heart.

"What are the reasons behind the 50,000,000"?
Because they can. Since roe v. wade removed all sexual restraints. As a matter of a fact the ACLU is defending NAMBLA and the rights of gay men to engage in "hooking up" with underage boys. That will be legal one day too. I guarantee you there are judges on the bench who like the idea.

"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 haven't stated my views on when or what I think the fetus is".
Be my guest. State your views. I have stated mine. I know the politically correct version. Again, I am not politically correct, nor will I ever be.

"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 practice especially the younger ones as the UK is the highest for teenage pregnancies"?
Thank you. Now that is an honest of God real life issue we can all discuss. But first we must discuss, why we don't do that now? In my opinion, we can't afford to do it and it's not politically correct, plus the peer pressure, plus taking any sense of morality out of the schools and we are teaching our children as if it didn't exist. And sure enough, any since of morality is gradually going down the tubes.

"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",
Apology gladly accepted. If you will please forgive my, at times, adamant tone, for this is a very crucial subject. If you would, please tell me why, since it is the woman who "makes the final decision", why is she not responsibility? I understand the concept of "it take two". Caroline, that's understood by all. We do not, do not disagree there. I don't care how bad the male wants to have sex, in the final analysis, it is the woman who must say "yes". She holds all the controls unless she is drugged, drunk or incapacitated against her will. In that case it is rape. And there are very good laws against that. Now drugs and alcohol, I will admit, do not help the situation any. They are some, in my opinion why "hooking up" is so out of control. I will agree, the guile, trickery and games are used by both male and female. But in the final analysis, it is the female who has the final say.

"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".
Caroline, that IS the answer. Education. But in this politically correct society our teachers hands are tied. The NEA is absolutely responsible for the curriculum that is taught in pubic schools. The family is the answer, and it has been severely damaged creating a divide between parent and child, coupled with the unbridled crap they see on television and the internet they are exposed to, it is no wonder why they are 'hooking up'. This is not a problem that can be solved by simply abolishing abortions. It's gone far beyond that. That damage has been done. It will take education and it begins right here with me and you discussing this very serious problem. I surely hear you, Caroline, please hear me. I am not trying to instill guilt and please don't think that. As I have said and tried to explain this reality is all screwed up and abortions is but one or the items on my infamous list. Zig Zigglar one of the most famous motivational speakers of our time said "If a family has 4 children and treats them all the same, they are treating three of them wrong" and he also said," You cannot force anyone to change their mind to arrive at a decision; you must supply them with new information that will allow them to arrive at a new decision".

In my personal opinion, if we clean up the public domain and take all the explicit and overt sexuality out of it, if only for the sake of the children, it would be the first big major step. It would lessen he male's testsoterone levels and the over aggressive sexual behavior of the female. Let's put sexual activity back in the bedroom where it belongs.

Thank you, for your considerate post.
William

@William,

William;66972 wrote:

In my personal opinion, if we clean up the public domain and take all the explicit and overt sexuality out of it, if only for the sake of the children, it would be the first big major step. It would lessen he male's testsoterone levels and the over aggressive sexual behavior of the female. Let's put sexual activity back in the bedroom where it belongs.

I think that would be a terrible idea. I think much of the problem with sexuality is that it is confined to the bedroom, for the most part, and ends up promoting despicable acts. The reason for much sexual violence is due to the fact that sexuality is generally taboo in much of the world, and children are not properly taught about it as they are maturing, thus, much of what they learn about it is from media and pornography.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;66971 wrote:

Late term abortions are special cases that are either caused by danger to the mother's health, or by a fetus that has some sort of major defect. It's not like women have late term abortions just because they do not want to have a baby. They do it either to save themselves or to not allow a handicapped baby to be born that will suffer the majority of its life.

This is irrelevent. The ends does not justify a means. No matter what the "excuse" is, the moment you say "I am intentionally going to slay an innocent person," regardless of the reason, is the moment you are guilty of intending to murder somebody, and murder is necessarily wrong. It cannot be justified. EVERY act of murder warrants death.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;66968 wrote:

Abortion is... looking out for the well-being of an unborn fetus.

And you accuse me of contradictions!

@Bonaventurian,

Bonaventurian;66976 wrote:

And you accuse me of contradictions!

Well, you edited the quote out of context by combining two different sentences.

---------- Post added at 08:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:26 PM ----------

Bonaventurian;66975 wrote:

This is irrelevent. The ends does not justify a means. No matter what the "excuse" is, the moment you say "I am intentionally going to slay an innocent person," regardless of the reason, is the moment you are guilty of intending to murder somebody, and murder is necessarily wrong. It cannot be justified. EVERY act of murder warrants death.

But you have stated numerous times that the murderer of the abortion doctor was not guilty. Now you are saying that every act of murder warrants death. Make up your mind!

By the way, it is not irrelevant. You are using that as a cop-out to avoid the justification of late-term abortions. There is no reason why a mother should not be able to seek an abortion when her health or life are at a risk. There is also no reason why she shouldn't be able to have a late term abortion when it is know that the baby will have major birth defects or not even live for much more than five minutes after birth.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;66978 wrote:

But you have stated numerous times that the murderer of the abortion doctor was not guilty. Now you are saying that every act of murder warrants death. Make up your mind!

No. I'm saying that the abortion doctor wasn't murdered. Note the difference.

Quote:

By the way, it is not irrelevant. You are using that as a cop-out to avoid the justification of late-term abortions. There is no reason why a mother should not be able to seek an abortion when her health or life are at a risk. There is also no reason why she shouldn't be able to have a late term abortion when it is know that the baby will have major birth defects or not even live for much more than five minutes after birth.

There's a very good reason. It's murder. No ends can justify an intrinsically evil means.

@Bonaventurian,

I dont think all women are seductive temptress, for a start that imply an unhealthy sex life and not many intelligent women want that, the ones i know are all in healthy loving relationships.
Yes it starts in the schools and the families. Back along they weren't allowed to educate the kids on HIV now they, things are changing, they're are people educationg them on drugs too now. But sexual practises are tricky.
I do understand what your saying about it being the womans final choice and i think we were making seperate points, i just think that contraception is tricky, a condom is advised as the best form because it protects you from HIV and other stds where as the pill doesnt, plus the pill leaves female hormones our water.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;66974 wrote:

I think that would be a terrible idea. I think much of the problem with sexuality is that it is confined to the bedroom, for the most part, and ends up promoting despicable acts. The reason for much sexual violence is due to the fact that sexuality is generally taboo in much of the world, and children are not properly taught about it as they are maturing, thus, much of what they learn about it is from media and pornography.

So in your opinion, education is totally out of the picture. My god, have you seen what is in the public domain. That domain also includes the internet.

William

@Bonaventurian,

I think you're both getting your wires crossed, i mean clean up the smut or at least keep it to the top shelf, and im all for teaching kids the right way about sex, learning from porn is what needs to go.

@Bonaventurian,

I agree that the worst of the smut needs to go, but I am all for proper sexual education. I think William misunderstood what I was trying to say. The reason why children learn about their sexuality from porn and the media is due to parents keeping their sexuality behind closed doors. I think we need to remove the sexual taboo that the greater society holds in order to properly educate about sexuality.

@Bonaventurian,

Yes definately.......

@Bonaventurian,

Bonaventurian;66903 wrote:

"An unjust law is not a law," St. Augustine.

I must have missed his signature on the US Constitution last time I visited the National Archives.

By the way, I'm Jewish. Why should I care what Augustine has to say about anything?

Bonaventurian;66903 wrote:

We don't need the law to tell us what murder is.

By definition we do if we are going to make it illegal.

Bonaventurian;66903 wrote:

We have an intrinsic understanding of what murder is. We have an a priori notion which, if vague, is common to us all.

We don't even have an a priori notion of what a fetus is, let alone an a priori notion of whether or not its death is equivalent to murder. If it weren't for a whole lot of biology research and technology, then 90% of this conversation would be moot -- we wouldn't even have discovered conception.

Bonaventurian;66903 wrote:

when the law declares an action not murderous which intuitively is murderous, then the law errs, it is unjust, and it ceases to be lawful.

Where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that?

And where does our law provide for ANY legal protection for behavior you undertake for this rationale? None.

You don't like the law, then change it. And if you can't change it, then you'd best quit the whining and accept that your view of where the law errs is NOT held by most others. Sorry. There are things I don't like too.

@Aedes,

Aedes, I am going to ask you outright:

Why should I care what the law says any more than I would have cared what the German law said when holocaust was legal, any more than I should care about what the Middle Eastern laws say about "honor killings"?

What gives the law it's moral authority?

@Bonaventurian,

I think you are wasting your time, Aedes, much like I have, and others have as well. Just think, if things were the way that Bo has been proposing, we would have total anarchy where vigilantism would reign as the rule of law based on a priori moral codes that are subjective by nature. God forbid "murdering" a fetus, but abortion doctors providing a legal service are fair game to be killed at will. By that reasoning alone, we could rationalize killing just about anyone that we disagree with based on our own personal moral code.

Considering that, I find stupid people that do not think for themselves as morally aborrent a priori to the law. Thus, why don't we all start killing stupid people, because they are morally in the wrong for not following the a priori purpose of human existence that I declare, by which everyone must abide by because I say so.

@Bonaventurian,

The a priori notions by definition aren't subjective. When I say "a priori notion," I have something like Kant's moral law in mind, which is binding on every rational agent.

@Bonaventurian,

Bonaventurian;67001 wrote:

Aedes, I am going to ask you outright:

Why should I care what the law says any more than I would have cared what the German law said when holocaust was legal, any more than I should care about what the Middle Eastern laws say about "honor killings"?

What gives the law it's moral authority?

People give the law its moral authority. Personally, I think it should be within the bounds of my morality to kill people that promote murdering others. That does not make it right though. I would love to see war criminals put on trial, and then stoned to death by the people. But because the greater society does not agree with me, I know it is not possible to do so. You may think that abortion is murder, but your in the minority. Deal with it. Become a politician and change the law if you think you are right. But good luck finding others that agree with your minority position. I am sick of dark age philosophy ruling in an age that should be enlightened by experience.

---------- Post added at 10:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:27 PM ----------

Bonaventurian;67003 wrote:

The a priori notions by definition aren't subjective. When I say "a priori notion," I have something like Kant's moral law in mind, which is binding on every rational agent.

But Kant has no authority when it comes to the law of nations. This is where Kantian ethics disintegrates into academic nonsense. While it may sound nice, it holds no authority over anything.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;67005 wrote:

People give the law its moral authority.

And here, I can't agree with you. Then, the holocaust was entirely moral, since it was backed by the Germans who perpetuated the Nazi state, and honor killings are just fine, since they are backed by the Muslims who uphold those laws.

The law, insofar as it has a moral content, insofar as it has a moral authority, does not derive its moral authority from the people, but from the Moral Law.

Kant tells us that the easiest way to see if something is in line with the moral law is to ask yourself: "Can I universalize my maxim?" If the answer is no, then your maxim (principle of volition) is clearly not being performed out of respect for the Moral Law.

Clearly, abortion isn't universifiable. Can you will that every woman have abortion? You cannot. If every woman has abortion, then your mother has an abortion, and you don't live. Therefore, since you don't live, you can't will that every woman have an abortion. You are both willing and not willing the abortion. Therefore, your maxim isn't universifiable, and it's obvious to every rational man that abortion runs contrary to the Moral Law.

President Reagan was on to something when he noted that all of the pro-choice people have been born.

@Bonaventurian,

Bonaventurian;67007 wrote:

And here, I can't agree with you. Then, the holocaust was entirely moral, since it was backed by the Germans who perpetuated the Nazi state, and honor killings are just fine, since they are backed by the Muslims who uphold those laws.

You are plain wrong here. Sure the Germans may have rationalized the Holocaust, but the rest of the world declared it was unjustifiable. Thus, the greater population gave the moral authority to stop the Nazis.

Quote:

The law, insofar as it has a moral content, insofar as it has a moral authority, does not derive its moral authority from the people, but from the Moral Law.

The Moral Law is an abstract concept that has no real bearing in the overall scope of things. Sure, it would be nice if there was a universal moral law, but as we can easily see, it is just not possible. That is why utilitarianism rules morality. It does not always give rise to the best possible world, but it is the only moral code that holds any weight in today's world.

Quote:

Kant tells us that the easiest way to see if something is in line with the moral law is to ask yourself: "Can I universalize my maxim?" If the answer is no, then your maxim (principle of volition) is clearly not being performed out of respect for the Moral Law.

That is great that Kant tells us this. But Kant is a philosopher that does nothing to provide laws to nations. Most people have never heard of Kant's moral philosophy, which was derived outside the scope of society. General society will never accept Kant's philosophy, so it is rather meaningless in law. It sounds great, but it requires too much to ever be practical.

Quote:

Clearly, abortion isn't universifiable. Can you will that every woman have abortion? You cannot. If every woman has abortion, then your mother has an abortion, and you don't live. Therefore, since you don't live, you can't will that every woman have an abortion. You are both willing and not willing the abortion. Therefore, your maxim isn't universifiable, and it's obvious to every rational man that abortion runs contrary to the Moral Law.

Now you are guilty of the slippery slope fallacy of argumentation. Sure, my mother could have had an abortion when she was pregnant with me, but she didn't. Had she had an abortion, it would not have any meaning to my life because it would have never happened. I am sure that if I was an aborted fetus, my feelings would have never been hurt, because I wouldn't have had those feelings in the first place. Kant has no real application in the real world. It sounds nice and all, but disintegrates upon real life concerns and situations that it fails to account for.

Quote:

President Reagan was on to something when he noted that all of the pro-choice people have been born.

What does that even mean? Pro-choice people are born every day through their life experiences that lead them to those views. I have numerous friends that were once pro-life, but have seen the reasons why abortion is necessary, and have since changed their stance. As they grew older, they began to think for themselves and saw how abortion can help solve problems that are totally unnecessary. Seriously, abortion is necessary due to utilitarian ethics. That is why Kant's practical philosophy is seriously flawed. It does not account for individual situations that cause for unnecessary suffering. In a Kantian world, many people would suffer horribly due to nature placing unnecessary burdens upon their lives.

@salima,

salima;66959 wrote:

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.

The morning after pill is a pill women use when they did not have safe sex the night before...I would be still interested if faith has formed your opinions? When life becomes valid is a personal view but this view is coloured by others views.

Philosophy Forum

Would you convict this man?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know