The Morality of Abortion

Talk about anything under the sun or stars - but keep it civil. This is where we really get to know each other. Everyone is welcome, and invited!
AnthonyByakko
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 663
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:28 am

Postby AnthonyByakko » Thu Nov 23, 2006 3:56 am

In the Gilded age, America was largely run as a plutocracy, with large Trusts having immense power in government,
This is why the Gilded Age was not a true capitalism.
and often effectively being able to buy their way in the government.
Which should never be allowed to happen, because the government has the monopoly on force and force should only be used to the detriment of criminals (violators of other people's rights)
Morever, it is the large businesses (the capitalists), who often fund political canidates who support the thrusting of the government into private, personal life.
How are those people capitalists? Smeone having a large business doesn't mean jack about their philosophical leanings. Anyone who thinks politicians should be interfering in personal, private lives is an Idiot, not a capitalist.
The capital can be just as big of a threat to the common weal as a government.
Capital as in finances? Or do you mean Capitol as in the government? Please clarify.
Who screwed Enron employees out of their hard-earned pensions?
Thieves. Thieves who happened to be the controlling officers of Enron. Anyone who takes something from someone else has violated their rights and is a criminal.
I also remind you that it was for the interests of the capital that the armed forces were used to break apart peaceful strikes during the gilded age.
Strikes are a result of unionization. This is apart from capitalism. And the shutdown of peaceful strikes was done by politicians bought and paid for by Idiots (people who believe the government should be in the business of private lives and business).

jotabe
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:59 am
Title: Leekmaster Kirbyfu

Postby jotabe » Thu Nov 23, 2006 4:43 am

"This is why the Gilded Age was not a true capitalism."
That shounds like: "Soviet Union was not a true communism"

Now, for what you told me:
I am not talking about a society that is built over objectivism (subjecting a society to a single moral system... now THAT DOES sound a whole lot like collectivism), i am talking about the objectivist morality for the individual. If i were objectivist, the moral good in my actions would be to look for my own profit. No better way to get profit for me than enslaving a whole country. If other people are weak, and/or have less money, to stand against me and stop my schemes, it's their own individual fault, for not being so.

You can help yourself from other phylosophic systems, but the "an it harm none, do what thou wilt" doesn't belong with Ayn Rand.

And btw, i wasn't talking about an unborn daughter. I was talking about a hypotetical... 12y.o. (for example) daughter.

Now, let's go to Kant. His position about God? You may think it is a cowardly compromise (he was just trying to reason that believing in God, by itself, did no harm), but it still doesn't classify him as collectivist.
About the moral, you are gravely mistaken. First, in that paragraph, he is just speculating about that possibility, and what would be derived of it. The possibility of God existing and henceforth, a moral law that would come from him. Phylosophers love doing that, you know. Speculating.

Later, if you read about his book on morals, "Critique of the Practical Reason", he reasons that since God existence is out of all proof, because it belongs to metaphysics and not to physics (something proven in Critique of the Pure Reason), a moral law that comes from God is not appliable. So he tries to find a moral law independent from any religion, that comes from reason alone. And this is the Cathegorical Principle: "Behave in a way that you think everybody could behave." Which is a lot more individualistic and objective than anything Ayn Rand said in his life. Because objectivism would only work if a whole society is forced to follow it... and still, it takes a lot of faith to believe in such objectivistic paradise. But Kant's moral works for everyone individually. And it's a lot closer to the Satanist "an it harm none, do what thou wilt" (which in actuality comes from the Christianism, namely from St. Agustin's "love, and do what you want").

Oh! I see i was mistaken. I had always thought that the main division of phylosophy was between rationalism and empirism. Right from the birth of phylosophy to our days. You know, phylosophy has always been more concerned about knowledge than about human beings.

User avatar
hive_king
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
Title: has been eaten by a bear
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Postby hive_king » Thu Nov 23, 2006 4:49 am

How are those people capitalists? Smeone having a large business doesn't mean jack about their philosophical leanings. Anyone who thinks politicians should be interfering in personal, private lives is an Idiot, not a capitalist.
By capitalist, I mean the powerful entreperneurs such as Rockafeller and others who controlled the capital (money) in the business. As you know, the three components of a business is land, labor, and capital. This is a perfectly legitimate use of the term, apart from the philosophical meanings. Don't ya just love our language?
Capital as in finances? Or do you mean Capitol as in the government? Please clarify.
I also mean Capital here to mean the entrepernuers and industrialists who were so prominent at the time.
Thieves. Thieves who happened to be the controlling officers of Enron. Anyone who takes something from someone else has violated their rights and is a criminal.
Thieves driven by greed, the shining virtue of Randian philosophy. They could do that because there was nothing stopping them.
This is why the Gilded Age was not a true capitalism.
And this is the problem with true capitalism. It is unattainable. True capitalism is just like anarchism or socialism. It looks pretty on paper, but is unworkable in the real world, because not everyone is going to be ideologically inclined to follow the rules, so to speak. Socialism is a great concept. If socialism worked like it was supposed to, with everyone working exactly their fair share of the work, and everyone getting exactly their fair share of the rewards, things would be great. However, socialism does not work because people get lazy, people get greedy, people get envious, people get power-hungery, and people get angry.

Similarly, true capitalism does not exist because people aren't going to play by the rules. Industrial leaders are going to try to make more money, even if it makes more people suffer. Companies are going to use faulty, dangerous products to save their overhead. Companies will dump toxic waste in places where it can contaminate people. Tyrants are going to sense they can use the existing framework of the capitalist society to get more power. You talk about "should". What "should" happen, what people "should" be like, what type of government "should" we have. However, you're forgetting "will". what kind of government "will" happen? How "will" people be treated? If you think that capitalism is going to be any less prone to corruption and poisoning by people trying to get ahead, you're as foolish as the socialists who want a collectivist government.
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

User avatar
hive_king
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
Title: has been eaten by a bear
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Postby hive_king » Thu Nov 23, 2006 4:53 am

Oh! I see i was mistaken. I had always thought that the main division of phylosophy was between rationalism and empirism. Right from the birth of phylosophy to our days. You know, phylosophy has always been more concerned about knowledge than about human beings.
That's why I always thought one of they few truly legitimate philosophers, though I do still have some disagreements with his teachings, was William James, who actually went out and experienced life instead of living in an ivory tower like almost every other philosopher.

Also, you didn't answer what safeguards there are in objectivist utopia to take care of the sick, the elderly, and the cripple. What are there? I never saw any when i read Rand.
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

AnthonyByakko
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 663
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:28 am

Postby AnthonyByakko » Thu Nov 23, 2006 4:57 am

I am not talking about a society that is built over objectivism (subjecting a society to a single moral system... now THAT DOES sound a whole lot like collectivism),
It's not as much a "moral system" as the idea that there is only one universal moral - the volition and rights of one man are inviolate to another, and outside the volition and rights of anyone else. Whatever morality you want to follow beyond that is fine by me.
i am talking about the objectivist morality for the individual. If i were objectivist, the moral good in my actions would be to look for my own profit. No better way to get profit for me than enslaving a whole country.
As we've already discussed, slavery is an unprofitable enterprise. The moral good for you would be to look out for your own profit, understanding that again, as we've already discussed, you do not have power over the rights and volitions of others. This I think is the sticking point for you that you aren't getting.
If other people are weak, and/or have less money, to stand against me and stop my schemes, it's their own individual fault, for not being so.
Yes, if we're talking about a sterile business sense. Not in any other. AGAIN, your rights end at the rights of the next person.
You can help yourself from other phylosophic systems, but the "an it harm none, do what thou wilt" doesn't belong with Ayn Rand.
You're right - it belongs to Anton LeVay, who wrote it years AFTER Rand and who admittedly borrowed from her philosophy. Anyone home?
And btw, i wasn't talking about an unborn daughter. I was talking about a hypotetical... 12y.o. (for example) daughter.
Wait, what? 12 year old's have rights. What the hell are you talking about?
Now, let's go to Kant. His position about God? You may think it is a cowardly compromise (he was just trying to reason that believing in God, by itself, did no harm),
"believing in god, by itself, did no harm" - I beg to differ. Believing in god requires that you follow the morality set created by god and his followers, which can and does cause harm.
Later, if you read about his book on morals, "Critique of the Practical Reason", he reasons that since God existence is out of all proof, because it belongs to metaphysics and not to physics (something proven in Critique of the Pure Reason),
He doesn't prove anything, anywhere, ever. He's a philosopher, not a scientist. Secondly, metaphysics is: the branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value. The nature of god does NOT belong in the realm of metaphysics.
And this is the Cathegorical Principle: "Behave in a way that you think everybody could behave."
I believe you are thinking of the "Categorical Imperitive", which actually states, "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law. " Kant concluded that the expected consequences of an act are themselves morally neutral, and therefore irrelevant to moral deliberation. The only objective basis for moral value would be the rationality of the Good Will, expressed in recognition of moral duty. I.e., Kant = crazy.

Which is a lot more individualistic and objective than anything Ayn Rand said in his life.
Her, jota. Ayn Rand was a her. :roll:
Because objectivism would only work if a whole society is forced to follow it...
Forced? Forced to do whatever they want so long as they don't prevent others from doing the same? What kind of pills are you on?

AnthonyByakko
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 663
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:28 am

Postby AnthonyByakko » Thu Nov 23, 2006 5:00 am

Also, you didn't answer what safeguards there are in objectivist utopia to take care of the sick, the elderly, and the cripple. What are there? I never saw any when i read Rand.
Really? And what "Rand" exactly did you read?

User avatar
hive_king
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
Title: has been eaten by a bear
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Postby hive_king » Thu Nov 23, 2006 5:04 am

The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectavist Thought. A book of essays by Rand, Peikoff, and Schwartz. Did I miss something in my reading?
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

AnthonyByakko
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 663
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:28 am

Postby AnthonyByakko » Thu Nov 23, 2006 5:09 am

The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectavist Thought. A book of essays by Rand, Peikoff, and Schwartz. Did I miss something in my reading?
Um, yeah. Almost all of it. Firstly, it's "Objectivist", secondly, the posthumous collection is only a small sampling of the works in objectivist thought, most notably missing is "Philosophy: Who Needs It?" and "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", pretty much the two most important works in Objectivism. Peikoff and Shwartz are pansies anyways, Bernstein's Capitalist Manifesto is pretty much the authority when it comes to history and fact for capitalism, especially between 1800 and the mid 1900's.

User avatar
hive_king
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
Title: has been eaten by a bear
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Postby hive_king » Thu Nov 23, 2006 5:12 am

Sorry about the typo, I should probably get more sleep in my week. Since you've read all those presumably, what have you noticed in Objectivist philosophy to ensure the safety, security, and welfare of people who are not able to take care of themselves like cripples, sick, and elderly?

I think its funny how you completely disregarded my entire other post.
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

AnthonyByakko
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 663
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:28 am

Postby AnthonyByakko » Thu Nov 23, 2006 5:22 am

I don't find it funny at all. I didn't see it, since I'm discussing this simultaneously with both yourself and Jota.

Greed is not a virtue. It's an emotion, as far as I'm concerned. Rational egoism and rational self-interest are the virtues of Randian philosophy.

True capitalism is not unattainable; it is merely improbable in the current state of affairs.
Similarly, true capitalism does not exist because people aren't going to play by the rules. Industrial leaders are going to try to make more money, even if it makes more people suffer. Companies are going to use faulty, dangerous products to save their overhead.
If a company produces a faulty, dangerous product (just as sometimes happens now), we become aware of it (obviously, if the product does not work as it should or is dangerous, we're gonna find out right quick). Companies then suffer poor image, bad PR, and lose as much or more money than they saved in "overhead." (Assuredly, not in their "rational best-interest")
Companies will dump toxic waste in places where it can contaminate people.
And... again, people will be PISSED about that, and would consist of a massive violation of the rights of everyone effected - hence, a crime, punishable by the legitimate force of the government.
Tyrants are going to sense they can use the existing framework of the capitalist society to get more power.
How? Even if a person who wanted to be a dictator were elected, in a capitalist society, to that society's most prominent political position, the core tenet of capitalism precludes any use of presumed political or other power against the volition or rights of other people.

User avatar
hive_king
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
Title: has been eaten by a bear
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Postby hive_king » Thu Nov 23, 2006 5:40 am

You assume everyone is going to follow the tenants of your capitalism. That is your flaw. Let's say this dictator-in-waiting (named Smith for easy reference) becomes president. Then, a war breaks out between Smith's Randtopia, and nearby Collectivstan. Smith then tells people that while this epic war, which is a struggle for Capitalism itself, is happening that certain rights might have to be temporarily suspended to keep the country secure and to keep Collectivstan infiltrators from ruining the war effort and sabotaging Randtopia. So as this war rages on, Smith slowly erodes more and more civil rights in the name of freedom. Eventually people get used to less and less freedoms. They're even told that there's commie infiltrators in their midst trying to ruin everything. Finally, something happens like the reichstag burning that convinces people they need to be run by a dictator. People can be dumb. If the conditions are right, and the people are fearful enough, they will willingly surrender their rights.
True capitalism is not unattainable; it is merely improbable in the current state of affairs.
If it's so perfect, then why don't people willingly embrace it? Why would people pass up such a good thing?
If a company produces a faulty, dangerous product (just as sometimes happens now), we become aware of it (obviously, if the product does not work as it should or is dangerous, we're gonna find out right quick). Companies then suffer poor image, bad PR, and lose as much or more money than they saved in "overhead."
And this justifies the possibly thousands of people who might have been killed by the product before people find out its deadly instead of having a government oversight group who makes sure that people aren't, lets say, being slowly poisoned? I don't know about you, but a government oversight group seems much more productive to the public weal. And that's assuming its not some sort of carcinogen or something that might not be tracked down to the product. It's possible people won't realize its the product at fault.
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

AnthonyByakko
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 663
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:28 am

Postby AnthonyByakko » Thu Nov 23, 2006 5:44 am

You assume everyone is going to follow the tenants of your capitalism. That is your flaw. Let's say this dictator-in-waiting (named Smith for easy reference) becomes president. Then, a war breaks out between Smith's Randtopia, and nearby Collectivstan. Smith then tells people that while this epic war, which is a struggle for Capitalism itself, is happening that certain rights might have to be temporarily suspended to keep the country secure and to keep Collectivstan infiltrators from ruining the war effort and sabotaging Randtopia. So as this war rages on, Smith slowly erodes more and more civil rights in the name of freedom. Eventually people get used to less and less freedoms. They're even told that there's commie infiltrators in their midst trying to ruin everything. Finally, something happens like the reichstag burning that convinces people they need to be run by a dictator. People can be dumb. If the conditions are right, and the people are fearful enough, they will willingly surrender their rights.
Um, kind of like is happening now? Of course any society can fall given the right conditions. I fail to see how this proves your point.
True capitalism is not unattainable; it is merely improbable in the current state of affairs.
If it's so perfect, then why don't people willingly embrace it? Why would people pass up such a good thing?
Allow me to quote you here: "People can be dumb."
If a company produces a faulty, dangerous product (just as sometimes happens now), we become aware of it (obviously, if the product does not work as it should or is dangerous, we're gonna find out right quick). Companies then suffer poor image, bad PR, and lose as much or more money than they saved in "overhead."
And this justifies the possibly thousands of people who might have been killed by the product before people find out its deadly instead of having a government oversight group who makes sure that people aren't, lets say, being slowly poisoned? I don't know about you, but a government oversight group seems much more productive to the public weal.
The only problem I have with this is that a civilian oversight group would be more effective and less costly to taxpayers. You assume that it would thousands and thousands of incidents before people woke up to the fact that a product is HURTING people. Which is irrelevant anyways, since capitalism does not preclude oversight groups testing new products for safety. Psh.

User avatar
hive_king
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
Title: has been eaten by a bear
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Postby hive_king » Thu Nov 23, 2006 5:53 am

By the way, I ask you again, what protection is there in Objectivism for the sick, disabled, and elderly?
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

jotabe
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:59 am
Title: Leekmaster Kirbyfu

Postby jotabe » Thu Nov 23, 2006 6:05 am

Correction: Churches, and people, do harm. God doesn't.

God, as a cathegory in the mind, has its rightful place in Metaphysics. God, Soul, World... anyone?
And yes, you can prove things outside science. That's what logics are for. And logics are mathematics, not science. A language.
What Kant proved is that no methaphysical research can achieve any certain knowledge of scientific kind. No methaphysics (hence no theology) can claim scientific knowledge. Does it look as a poor achievement? he was the first one to do it.

Yep, Cathegorical ImperAtive. And you might think he is crazy for believing in moral duty (note that it isn't a duty to others, but to oneself). But you still haven't said why he is a collectivist.

About rights and will... what rights and will? If i open a shop in a good spot... what if someone else discovers my spot, and opens a new shop right in front of mine, AGAINST MY WILL?
And what rights should be respected? The only rights that are consistent with Ayn Rand's moral are the rights that profit me. Should i neglect any right that doesn't benefit me?
You might say that the rights to be respected are the legal rights. That's just great: a moral system backing up (and being backed up by) a government. Sounds pretty collectivistic to me.

Yep, a 12-y.o. has rights. But if she is my daughter, and i behave altruisticly towards her, then i will be acting morally bad, within objectivism.

Oh well. Ayn Rand was a woman. I don't know know much about the gender of made up names.

AnthonyByakko
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 663
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:28 am

Postby AnthonyByakko » Thu Nov 23, 2006 6:22 am

About rights and will... what rights and will? If i open a shop in a good spot... what if someone else discovers my spot, and opens a new shop right in front of mine, AGAINST MY WILL?
Your will cannot be imposed on his right to open a store. What are you trying to prove?
And what rights should be respected? The only rights that are consistent with Ayn Rand's moral are the rights that profit me. Should i neglect any right that doesn't benefit me?
I'm baffled, honestly. I simply can't understand what you are saying. Let's break it down: What rights should be respected? All rights. What is a right? Something other people cannot (morally) prevent you from doing. What can other people not (morally) prevent you from doing? 1) Anything inside the power of your mind (your volition, thoughts, hence, the rights to beliefs, expression, ideas, etc), 2) Anything inside the power of your body (your actions, etc) that do not infringe upon #1 or #2 for other people. Therefore, you can neglect any right you wish - if you don't want to exercise your rights, what do I care? But you can't go outside these 2 rights - that's why they are so broad, to, with simplicity, provide the greatest individual freedom possible.
Yep, a 12-y.o. has rights. But if she is my daughter, and i behave altruisticly towards her, then i will be acting morally bad, within objectivism.
You know, other than running that sentence through BabelFish, I don't know what to do. EDIT: perhaps, you meant that altruism towards a family member or other loved one was morally "bad" within the construct of objectivism. This would be true, except that genuine altruism is an unattainable state, and thus you wouldn't be acting altruistically towards her if you performed the assumed and typical parental duties. Children are, if you think about it, investments. Just like any other capital, people who care about the investment take care of it; and in the case of people who have children, are emotionally attached and "love" them. They try and raise them well and give them a good start; but this isn't altruism, and thus, not "bad" objectively.

jotabe
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:59 am
Title: Leekmaster Kirbyfu

Postby jotabe » Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:50 am

And that's my whole problem with objectivism. Altruism, true altruism, is morally bad. Someone who sees an unknown person in the sea, and dies saving that person, is acting bad. Volunteers working for the Red Cross are acting bad. Anyone who risks something for the good of someone else, without any prospect of benefit, nor obligation to risk it, is evil.

It seems a completely warped moral system.

eriador
KillEvilBanned
Posts: 2512
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:02 pm
Location: North Plains, OR (read Portland)

Postby eriador » Thu Nov 23, 2006 2:28 pm

Correction: Churches, and people, do harm. God doesn't.
I disagree. I think that God is directly responsible for every church and every action taken in his name. A person can be just as guilty for not doing something, leading to harm as they can be if they did do something. If God does exist, every ounce of harm that is done can be pinned on him, because he, as an omnipotent being didn't do everything in his power to prevent it.

God is also especially guilty for everything done in his name. If somebody does something bad in his name, it is because of one of two reasons:
1. God wants the harm done.
2. That person doesn't understand God. However, this is God's failing, because as an omniscient, omnipotent being he easily has the power to make sure that people understand him. Therefore his failure to correct these people reflects a desire in him to have whatever the person is doing done.

In either case, God is ultimately okay with whatever is going on.

(this is all written under the assumption that God exists and is a basic, theistic deity)

User avatar
hive_king
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
Title: has been eaten by a bear
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Postby hive_king » Thu Nov 23, 2006 2:57 pm

My great-grandmother died last year, but before she died, she was extremely senile, and couldn't take care of herself very well. My mother would spend sometimes weeks of her valuable time taking care of her poor senile grandmother. Where's the investment there? The lady was old, had alzheimers, was about to die, and had nothing to benifit my mom. Was she evil by taking care of my great-grandmother?
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

Eaquae Legit
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 5185
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:30 pm
Title: Age quod agis
First Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Location: ^ Geez, read the sign.

Postby Eaquae Legit » Thu Nov 23, 2006 7:44 pm

Let's not get back into this "persistant vegetative state" BS. There was no consciousness in the shell that used to be Terri Schiavo. She was dead long before the tube was removed.

And I object to the backhanded insult. Something I said to someone tet-a-tet has nothing to do with a reasonable debate we now have, and would never enter into the equation.

To elaborate, altruism is an unattainable vagarie, an ideal that cannot be lived up to. It is the perfect cover for other ideals, the glorification of the afterlife and the rejection of the earthly.
A viler evil than to murder a man, is to sell him suicide as an act of virtue. A viler evil than to throw a man into a sacrificial furnace, is to demand that he leap in, of his own will, and that he build the furnace, besides.
The two states are medically very different. I brought it up again because it's a medical technicality that can have an effect on my day-to-day life. It has, in the past. Not on an abstract level. I don't argue it merely for the sake of being pedantic, or out of a desire for PR. The nature of the field I'm in dictates that this be a part of my life on a practical level. Now, having explained why I'm such a pain in the ass about it, I'm going to let it drop, because it's tangential to the main discussion. Especially as we've gotten into a big debate about capitalism/collectivism, etc.

However, since we dragged religion into this debate...

"The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism," (Max Weber, trans. Talcott Parsons. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.) presents the interesting case that capitalism owes a large part of its existence to American Protestantism, specifially Calvinism. I believe he followed that work up with 2 volumes of "Economy and Society" (Los Angeles: UCal Press). I've not looked a whole lot at it, since frankly I am bored to tears by the capitalist/communist debate. But I thought I'd throw it out there.
"Only for today, I will devote 10 minutes of my time to some good reading, remembering that just as food is necessary to the life of the body, so good reading is necessary to the life of the soul." -- Pope John XXIII

London
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 3:01 pm
Contact:

Postby London » Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:11 pm

If you have sex before marriage (or within) and don't want a kid, beware the consequences.
Cities do not learn the lesson of building high walls from their friends, but from their enemies.

User avatar
Janus%TheDoorman
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 563
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 8:05 am
Title: The Original Two-Face
Location: New Jersey

Postby Janus%TheDoorman » Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:32 pm

And that's my whole problem with objectivism. Altruism, true altruism, is morally bad. Someone who sees an unknown person in the sea, and dies saving that person, is acting bad. Volunteers working for the Red Cross are acting bad. Anyone who risks something for the good of someone else, without any prospect of benefit, nor obligation to risk it, is evil.

It seems a completely warped moral system.
Okay... I haven't read through the whole back and forth of this topic. I'll do it later and edit this post, probably, or start a new topic, but your interpretation of objectivism is incorrect. There's no suggestion that acting to protect, benefit, or otherwise aid others is inherently morally incorrect.

Objectivism argues, however, that "True Altruism" that is, absolute sacrifice is impossible, or irrational. Either, A) You have a desire to help those people, and therefore in fulfilling your desire, you're pursuing the one and only purpose that is rationally proper for man, or B) You're acting irrationally either in pursuit of another desire, or deluding yourself into thinking that what you're doing is moral.

Objectivism argues that the latter, actual sacrifice, that is, giving up that which is of value to you, in pursuit of that which is valueless to you, is immoral. Materially, Ethically, Philosophically, Emotionally, it doesn't matter. If you judge something worth obtaining or preserving, it has value to you, and therefore, acting, or giving up something that holds some other form of value, again materially, emotionally, or otherwise, is not sacrifice, but rational pursuit of a desire. If something is indeed valueless to you, and therefore what you're doing is a true and proper sacrifice, what you're essentially doing, is giving up that which you have judged to be proper, moral, or otherwise worth something, for that which you have judged to be base, immoral, and worthless. What "altruism" and "sacrifice", hold to be moral action, is destroying the moral existences of this world, in pursuit of the immoral existences in this world.

Your last bit, about having no prospect of benefit, suggests that man is incapable of holding anything but material objects for value. If someone is volunteering for the Red Cross, or dies protecting someone, it means that, objectively, they have judged that thing towards which the have dedicated their time, or their life to, to be worth what they have given up for it, and so, have given up nothing, but indeed, only traded based upon what their own mind has judged to be of value.
"But at any rate, the point is that God is what nobody admits to being, and everybody really is."
-Alan Watts

Azarel
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:15 pm
Location: Outside

Postby Azarel » Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:38 pm

Anyone responding to this thread actually been through the trauma of an abortion?

I'm just wondering whether the thread topic is actually being considered here and whether anyone commenting has any real point of view on the matter other than the backseat?

...or we could keep arguing in circles and trying to outwit each other by posting subtle insults about grammar, pansies and bigotry.

Abortion is another in a long line of ways humans have tried to 'solve' problems by simply making them 'go away', only to find that you have opened the door to a whole new world of emotional pain that will never really heal because of the world of possibilities you slammed the door on by destroying something that could have brought joy to at least one person's life.

There are a plethora of scenarios in which comfortable justification for abortion may be found, but they offer little solace for just how s*** you feel every day after imposing that kind of loss on yourself.

I wonder if I'll ever meet an otherwise 'sound of mind and body' person who feels warm and fuzzy inside when reminiscing about an abortion...?

...there's a first time for everything I suppose.

zeroguy
Commander
Commander
Posts: 2741
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:29 pm
Title: 01111010 01100111
First Joined: 0- 8-2001
Location: Where you least expect me.
Contact:

Postby zeroguy » Sat Jul 26, 2008 12:21 am

Anyone responding to this thread actually been through the trauma of an abortion?

I'm just wondering whether the thread topic is actually being considered here and whether anyone commenting has any real point of view on the matter other than the backseat?
Are you attempting to insinuate that those without first-hand experience can have no valid arguments on the subject?
...or we could keep arguing in circles and trying to outwit each other by posting subtle insults about grammar, pansies and bigotry.
Welcome to the internet.

(I'll be your guide.)
Proud member of the Canadian Alliance.

dgf hhw

Azarel
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:15 pm
Location: Outside

Postby Azarel » Sat Jul 26, 2008 4:30 am

Anyone responding to this thread actually been through the trauma of an abortion?

I'm just wondering whether the thread topic is actually being considered here and whether anyone commenting has any real point of view on the matter other than the backseat?
Are you attempting to insinuate that those without first-hand experience can have no valid arguments on the subject?
In short, no, not exactly.

Long version is that I think experiencing something first hand puts you in a better place to describe, discuss and discern that experience than someone who hasn't. My question was more the venting of my frustration at so many people who have no frame of reference at all coming down all fire and brimstone about yet another thing we will NEVER stop people from doing.

Laws won't stop it happening, and its the vicious circle problem of abortion not being the cause of itself because unwanted pregnancies are the cause of abortion. If you stop unwanted pregnancies, you'd stop abortion. But show me the human capable of putting an end to rape, drunken extra marital sex, lack of quality sexual education, common sense and self restrain...

Anyway, I for one, think Abortion is wrong, not only because there is death involved but because of the gut-wrenching heartache the people involved suffer for years after.

In an ideal world, unwanted pregnancies would be brought to full term during which expectant mothers would be counselled, after the baby is born, the choice of adoption introduced and either way opted the child would be cared for medically and emotionally as all deserve, the mother again would be given after-care counselling and the child would also receive counselling at the appropriate age to confront the issues surrounding their conception/birth and where to go from there.

But apparently, dumping them into jars and trash cans is a better idea.

...That's what I meant.

zeroguy
Commander
Commander
Posts: 2741
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:29 pm
Title: 01111010 01100111
First Joined: 0- 8-2001
Location: Where you least expect me.
Contact:

Postby zeroguy » Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:50 pm

Long version is that I think experiencing something first hand puts you in a better place to describe, discuss and discern that experience than someone who hasn't. My question was more the venting of my frustration at so many people who have no frame of reference at all coming down all fire and brimstone about yet another thing we will NEVER stop people from doing.
The impression I've gotten from you so far is that your experience in the matter is a single incident (or, if you don't have experience in the matter and were just complaining... well, the rest of this post still holds, just not specifically to you). While this does give you more experience than probably anyone else here (or at least most of us), I do not think that necessarily gives your viewpoint any extra validity. If you saw this kind of thing all the time (e.g. worked at or knew someone that worked at a facility related to abortion somehow), I could see the experience as a boon. A single experience has the possibility to give you a highly biased view of the subject due to your emotions related to that incident clouding your judgement, preventing you from approaching this with anything close to a semblence of objectivity. Given the gravity of a subject like abortion, I'd say that possibility is rather high in this specific case.

But I'm being hypothetical; this is just my impressions. I don't know you, I don't what happened, nor do I want to know. I'm also purely derailing since I have nothing to say about abortion itself, so I'll stop.
Proud member of the Canadian Alliance.

dgf hhw

User avatar
lyons24000
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:46 pm
Title: Darn Red Shells!
Location: Texas
Contact:

Postby lyons24000 » Sun Jul 27, 2008 8:38 am

A Planned Parenthood just opened where I live. I drove past yesterday and they're were two dozen people protesting in front. I was trying to find out what they're signs said and I read things like "Choose Life" and "Think of our children". One woman was even holding her baby up in the air--the hot, Texas air. It was nearly 106 here yesterday. I found that ironic. I was sympathetic towards them but also realistic.

They're not going to accomplish anything.

For the record: I am against the taking of the life of an unborn child
Last edited by lyons24000 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"This must be the end, then."-MorningLightMountain, Judas Unchained

Azarel
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:15 pm
Location: Outside

Postby Azarel » Fri Aug 01, 2008 2:52 pm

I realise after reading and thinking about this topic that as I have no solution, I may as well stop discussing it.

Abortion is simply something that should not have to happen in any circumstance, by that I mean the events that lead to thoughts of abortion should not happen, that's a plainly as I can put it.

buckshot
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1286
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:20 pm
Title: Farmer from Hell
Location: Colbert Washington

Abortion and Obama?

Postby buckshot » Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:49 pm

So what do folks out here think about the presidents new stem cell research policies ?
" Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please"- Mark Twain"

User avatar
elfprince13
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:27 pm
Title: The Bombadil
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Re: Abortion and Obama?

Postby elfprince13 » Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:15 pm

So what do folks out here think about the presidents new embryonic stem cell research policies ?
" Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please"- Mark Twain"
fixed that for you, since this a topic on unborn children ;)
"But the conversation of the mind was truer than any language, and they knew each other better than they ever could have by use of mere sight and touch."

buckshot
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1286
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:20 pm
Title: Farmer from Hell
Location: Colbert Washington

Postby buckshot » Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:14 am

Thanks, and yes it is :)

Erondites
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 3:51 am
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Contact:

Getting back to abortion...

Postby Erondites » Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:37 am

For those who may have forgotten:
This most contentious of issues has yet to be discussed among us. The mid-term U.S. elections showed resounding defeat for abolitionists seeking referendums on all types of abortions, yet defeat for pro-choice activists advocating the termination of parental-notification legislation. While it seems a sign of a centrist majority desiring a middle ground, it is, as with the vast portion of hot-button issues, truly the product of zealous, motivated far-sides of the spectrum. So what is the answer? What's the epistomological truth of the issue?

Personally, I came down on the side of parental-notification in the elections; if a minor has to have a parent's authorization to a get a piercing, a tattoo, a day off of school, why would an abortion not require, at the very least, that the parents of the girl (emphasis on girl, under 18,) are notified of her plan? Isn't any elective surgical procedure something that requires a guardian? However, when it comes to the abolitionists, I have no kind words either.

Our culture is a society of death.

This previous sentence is important to remember when considering the following. Our religions ("our" to mean our world), without major exception, reject life and embrace death. This cannot be put more simply. They reject the value of life, replacing it with vagaries about salvation and man-made, allegedly "divinely inspired" morality sets. Are there exceptions? Assuredly, in individual adherents. But, even assuming the grandiose visions of the ancients were not drug-and-ego induced hallucinations and were indeed valid information about the afterlife and guideposts to constructing one, these do not negate the value of life in this earthly plane, as insidious philosophies would have you believe.

Now, that all seems histrionic and paranoid, but observe the subtleties; notice how anti-life religionists pervert the value and rights of the living by assigning rights to the non-living, i.e., the unborn. Devaluing life is the cornerstone of a religionist philosophy, as men must be broken against the jagged rocks in order to be ruled. By battering mankind into believing it is impotent to change itself, that the universe is unknowable, and that reality and knowledge will always escape us, they attempt to mold the malleable masses into fodder for their respective god, as if (as has been said here) the one with the biggest summer camp is the one and true AllMighty(TM).

I may be hamhanded in my attempts to convey my stance (to thus invoke opposition for the sake of testing and expanding my understanding), but try and see through my incomplete analysis to the truth within - setting aside technical issues such involved in the subject such as terms, trimesters and partial vs. impartial-birth, the issue at its core is one of morality. Do we, a secular society, embrace the values of a death-oriented religious philosophy, or approach it from our own, again secular, ethical standpoint? Do the rights of the unborn (i.e., non-living) supercede the rights of the living? I posit that they do not.
The fact that AnthonyByakko (henceforth described as "Mr. Byakko") finds it necessary to entreaty us to "see through [his] incomplete analysis to the truth within..." belies the utter irrationality and vacuity of his arguments. For in reality, there is no truth at the center of his statement, but rather an extremely clumsily constructed series of sophistries. In the following paragraphs, I, unlike Mr. Byakko, will actually support my statements as I attempt to expose the nearly unmitigated fallacy of his assertions.

First and foremost, as Hegemon so adroitly pointed out, a large part of Mr. Byakko's argument rests on the assumption that the unborn are not living. This is a completely untenable position, as it is neither supported by scientific or philosophical consensus, or (in Mr. Byakko's post, at least) rational argument. Of course, there are many arguments both for and against the possession of life (or as some would have it, "humanity"), and this is indeed the central issue of the abortion debate. All but a small contingent of radicals agree that if the fetus is alive, then killing it would be murder, and this immoral. (Note: Objectivism holds the view that the fetus is alive, but that the mother may cut the cord, effectively aborting the unborn child, at any time.) Following the precautionary principle, which states that "if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action." What this means in terms of abortion is that since we don't know (and likely can't know definitively) whether the unborn are living human beings, no irrevocable action (abortion, or the prospective murder of the fetus) can be taken.

We shall come back momentarily to the issue of abortion, but the eclectic nature of Mr. Byakko's post necessitates a short digression. Mr. Byakko asserts that most world religions "reject life and embrace death...rejecting [the value of life] and replacing it with vagaries about salvation and man-made, allegedly "divinely inspired" morality sets." Once again we find Mr. Byakko overstepping the bounds of rational argument, and venturing quixotically off into a land of groundless supposition. His declaration that the morality sets of religious philosophies are man-made rather than divinely inspired is completely unprovable; as unprovable as the proposition that God does not exist (or, indeed, the proposition that He does exist.) Apparently, Mr. Byakko is content to assemble his arguments out of half-truths (as well as outright lies) and still expect something vaguely resembling truth to be the end result. The idea that most religions reject life and embrace death is yet another distortion of the truth. Religions (or Christianity at any rate) do indeed embrace life--as a gift from their creator--but neither do they fear death. They accept life as the wonderful thing that it is, but also believe that it is not the only form of existence, that there is a life after death. In that sense, to a Christian, there is no such thing as death (which means, to atheists and those of a similar persuasion, the cessation of existence), because the soul survives. Christians do not embrace death, for the same reason we do not embrace the Easter Bunny (and, to be fair, atheists do not embrace God): we believe it not to exist. Therefore, the only philosophy that could possibly be death oriented is a secular philosophy, because death to Christians merely means a second birth.

Coming back to the issue of abortion, Mr. Byakko says that "anti-life religionists pervert the value and rights of the living by assigning rights to the non-living, i.e., the unborn." Having already established that "Religionists" (or at the very least Christians, who make up around 33% of the world population) are philosophically unable to be either anti-life or pro-death, we can clearly see the falsity of the pejorative "anti-life" that Mr. Biakko has assigned to "religionists." Additionally, having established that it cannot be proven that the unborn are non-living, Mr. Byakko's description of the unborn as "non-living" is at best completely useless where rational argument is concerned, and at worst an outright lie.

What the Church is doing is not "assigning rights to the non-living," but assuming the humanity of the unborn, which is really the only morally conscionable course of action. At the very least (when the person performing/consenting to an abortion does not know whether fetuses are alive, and kills them, but they turn out not to be alive after all) abortion is criminal negligence. At the most (if fetuses are alive, but it cannot be known that they are alive, as the present situation stands) abortion is manslaughter. The rights of the living do not supersede the rights of the un-living, but the risk that murder is being performed en masse supersedes the inconvenience suffered by potential parents that is caused either by the necessitation of abstinence to avoid pregnancy, or the responsibility and difficulty of raising a child. Of course in cases where the life of the woman is in danger, most churches (including the Catholic Church) teach that the person who must make the choice in that case is the woman herself. In teaching that the life of the mother is as valuable as the life of the child, "religionists" in no way devalue life--they merely extend life to the unborn. To say otherwise, as Mr. Byakko has, reveals either a supreme ignorance, or an alarming willingness to bend the facts. In this case, I suspect it is a combination of the two.

A small after note: Throughout history, the humanity of groups has been denied in order to allow the persecution of them. The humanity of the blacks was denied in order to justify slavery. The humanity of the Jews was denied in order to justify the Holocaust. Now, the humanity of the unborn in being denied in order to justify abortion.
Lo, blessed are our ears for they have heard;
Yea, blessed are our eyes for they have seen:
Let thunder break on man and beast and bird
And the lightning. It is something to have been.
-G.K. Chesterton, "The Great Minimum"

User avatar
ThatOneGirl
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 1:07 am

Postby ThatOneGirl » Mon May 04, 2009 12:20 pm

An interesting little tidbit of irony that been presented to me in relation to abortion is this:

It's often a big feminist issue - let the woman do what she wants with her own body! Yet, when you have unrestrained abortion in places like China with population control, women tend to decide that when their first born is about to be a girl, they will get an abortion and try again. Would feminists want to stop that - it's the woman's own body, by their own philosophy, can they?

anonshadow
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:03 pm

Postby anonshadow » Mon May 04, 2009 11:21 pm

To me, there is a difference between deciding you do not want a child and deciding that you do not want a specific child. I think that women have the right, at least in the first trimester, to make a decision to have an elective abortion. I do not think that they have the right to pick and choose what child they want.



Erondites
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 3:51 am
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Contact:

Postby Erondites » Tue May 05, 2009 1:16 am

That One Girl:

I think that in the case of countries such as China, feminists would blame society, or men (which in a country where men dictate law, and to a certain extent culture, are arguably the same thing) for creating a culture in which male children are inherently more valuable, economically or in terms of prestige or honor. They can object to the selective abortion of females without objecting generally to abortion as a practice.

Anonshadow:

I understand where your coming from, and I do think that women ought to be able to choose what happens to their own bodies, as should anyone. However, as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." If the fetus is alive, then it has rights too.

Where should we draw the line?

There are two obvious places, conception and birth. Of the two, I find conception the more reasonable, because it is at that point an irrevocable (except by accidental or artificially instigated death of the fetus) process is begun. Plus, I like to be on the safe side. Also, it remains that a woman can choose what to do with her body by choosing not to have sex until she is ready for a child.
Lo, blessed are our ears for they have heard;
Yea, blessed are our eyes for they have seen:
Let thunder break on man and beast and bird
And the lightning. It is something to have been.
-G.K. Chesterton, "The Great Minimum"

anonshadow
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:03 pm

Postby anonshadow » Sat May 16, 2009 3:00 pm

Anonshadow:

I understand where your coming from, and I do think that women ought to be able to choose what happens to their own bodies, as should anyone. However, as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." If the fetus is alive, then it has rights too.

Where should we draw the line?

There are two obvious places, conception and birth. Of the two, I find conception the more reasonable, because it is at that point an irrevocable (except by accidental or artificially instigated death of the fetus) process is begun. Plus, I like to be on the safe side. Also, it remains that a woman can choose what to do with her body by choosing not to have sex until she is ready for a child.
That's a dumb POV.

Drawing the line at either conception or birth is really problematic. For one thing, you're saying that either we need to choose one extreme end or the other because for some reason, there's absolutely no way to meet in the middle. That's completely ridiculous. I think you'll find that an enormous amount of people fall somewhere in the middle; I know that I do. There are plenty of other reasonable places to draw the line, and if you aren't acknowledging any of them, you just aren't looking.

For example:

Almost half of all implanted embryos do not make it to six weeks. Given that, it seems fairly reasonable to make a six-week cut-off, because it's lost so much of the time, anyway.

Viability. While viability is changing, there's no reason the law can't change with it.

Trimester. Have you seen a fetus in its first trimester? Because I have. It's tiny, and there's not much there.

So, yeah. That point of yours is stupid.

Also, your other point is stupid. Yes, women can choose (usually) (in the Western world) to not have sex. That isn't the point. Even if they choose to, that doesn't mean that they suddenly cease to have rights over their bodies. During an unwanted pregnancy, there's mutual fist-swingage. The fetus is harming the mother's body, too. There is no other situation in which one person is forced to give up their health and livelihood for another person, because pregnancy is a unique situation. That doesn't mean that you can just wag your finger and say, "You shouldn't have had sex." Why? Because one action does not remove your right to decide what can happen to your body unless you are sentenced to execution. It's irrelevant.




Return to “Milagre Town Square”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests