Jump to content

Terrorist incident in Colorado Springs


Werthead

Recommended Posts

 

 

Instead of throwing strongly worded assaults on everyone, try and see why they have their viewpoint.  It tends to make you a lot more palatable to people who hold the opposite viewpoint.

Well I would, but the suspect is in custody and can't be reached for comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I would, but the suspect is in custody and can't be reached for comment.

There's no argument. They weren't babies. But of course it's hard to rile up right-wing nutjobs and incite them to violence over "fetal tissue.

So I'm a right wing job because I disagree with you on when human life begins, which is clearly what leads to calling abortion "murdering babies?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That depends. Are you riled up to commit violence against "baby murderers?"

No.  But if I was running for political office, you can bank on me wanting to try to put an end to most "baby murdering," because I do view (most) abortion as the equivalent of murder, even if it isn't legally murder.  I also don't think that's an unreasonable standpoint to take, since once again we have very different opinions on what constitutes human life.  

ETA: But it's a war of words right now.  There's no place for violence in it.  Asshat whose name I don't know is worse than the people he killed.  They at least should be able to rationally believe that what they are doing is okay.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nestor,

Thank you.  I don't agree with Singer but I do applaude him for not shying away from the broader ethical implications of abortion.

I do think that abortion is an interesting case, in that it often leads people to take a specific moral position that is at odds with the moral positions they take generally.

For example, you often have hardcore conservatives or right-libertarians who are strict propertarians and believe there's no serious moral issue with kicking a poor disabled person out of an apartment even if it means they will die of hypothermia on the streets taking the position that a woman lacks the bodily autonomy to remove an unwanted fetus from her own womb. 

On the other hand, you have some liberals who think that it's a no-brainer for women to have autonomy over their own bodies to expel an unwanted fetus, but that the criminal code should prohibit them from making the decision to exchange sex for money. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The circumstances under which a death takes place has an obvious impact on how people view the treatment of the corpse. I don't see why it's so difficult to view it from the perspective of someone who believes that abortion is the moral equivalent of murder. From that perspective, what you're dealing with is murder compounded by exploitation of the corpse of the murdered. 

However they view it, it is still the legal right of the mother to donate the tissue, they have no say in the matter. 

I understand they view it as murder.  I personally don't like abortion, but I also know that it is a necessary evil.  I would rather a woman make the decision to terminate than bring a child into the world that they don't want.  I have been in the situation of an unplanned pregnancy and I know how hard those decisions can be to make.  We decided that abortion was not an option we were comfortable with and I don't regret it at all.  However, I am able to be realistic about it and know that ultimately it's not my decision to make.  I can't force my morality on anyone.   That's why I feel so strongly about this and making sure that it is understood for what it is.  Tissue donation, not 'selling baby parts.'

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Selling" uses fewer syllables than "charging only for the cost incurred in preserving storing and delivering".  It also does not incorporated assumptions beyond my knowledge, and to which I cannot attest.

The lowly unwashed masses would probably say "selling" occurs whenever money changes hands for an item.  99% of the time, when a lowly common type talks talks of "selling" and "buying", he is in no position to assess the profit margin.  I learned to speak English among this lower species of human animal, and tend to use and understand words in the same non-elite manner they do.

Also, such quibbles have gone beyond any probable or likely relevance to the situation at hand.  I remain unsure that the Colorado Springs Shooter was motivated by opposition to abortion.  If he was, it seems to me unlikely that the sale of body parts would make any difference to him.  But even if he did care about this, it seems to me ridiculously unlikely that he cared about the profit margin, or lack thereof, one way or another.

From a simple business stand point, selling implies there is an attempt to make a profit, or that there is some form of profit motive involved. Since that isn't the case here, selling would an inacurate way to describe the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However they view it, it is still the legal right of the mother to donate the tissue, they have no say in the matter. 

I understand they view it as murder.  I personally don't like abortion, but I also know that it is a necessary evil.  I would rather a woman make the decision to terminate than bring a child into the world that they don't want.  I have been in the situation of an unplanned pregnancy and I know how hard those decisions can be to make.  We decided that abortion was not an option we were comfortable with and I don't regret it at all.  However, I am able to be realistic about it and know that ultimately it's not my decision to make.  I can't force my morality on anyone.   That's why I feel so strongly about this and making sure that it is understood for what it is.  Tissue donation, not 'selling baby parts.'

 

This is not a dispute about what the law is. This is a dispute about what the law should be. I don't think anybody is actually making the claim that fetal tissue donations are not legal. People are making the claim that fetal tissue donations are immoral when the fetus is killed as the result of an abortion. (Some people are also making the strictly factual claim, true or not, that what Planned Parenthood is doing is not actually tissue donation, but rather tissue sales, which are illegal. I haven't seen any actual support for this claim, and it is my understanding that Planned Parenthood has been vindicated in every single investigation into their finances.) 

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your perspective, it's simply not true that people "have no say" in this matter. In fact, just the opposite is true - the only thing most people have is their "say" - and that's political speech, protected by the First Amendment. Now I appreciate that you don't like that - but who cares? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The circumstances under which a death takes place has an obvious impact on how people view the treatment of the corpse. I don't see why it's so difficult to view it from the perspective of someone who believes that abortion is the moral equivalent of murder. From that perspective, what you're dealing with is murder compounded by exploitation of the corpse of the murdered. 

True, but the same crowd that claims abortion to be murder get excited when they hear politicians say they're gonna bomb whole cities to get a few bad guys. One may or may not be murder, while the other is very clearly murder. Hence why the title "pro-life" is garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a simple business stand point, selling implies there is an attempt to make a profit, or that there is some form of profit motive involved. Since that isn't the case here, selling would an inacurate way to describe the process.

I know from an accounting standpoint, sales doesn't matter.  A non profit/not for profit is still selling something, it is just doing so at a margin where profit is not it's goal.  The tissue is sold, although the price is just to make the scientific study of the tissue possible.  

There's a negative connotation associated to the use of selling here, but it is factually correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but the same crowd that claims abortion to be murder get excited when they hear politicians say they're gonna bomb whole cities to get a few bad guys. One may or may not be murder, while the other is very clearly murder. Hence why the title "pro-life" is garbage.

Yes, many people are moral hypocrites. What does this have to do with anything I've ever said? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.  But if I was running for political office, you can bank on me wanting to try to put an end to most "baby murdering," because I do view (most) abortion as the equivalent of murder, even if it isn't legally murder.  I also don't think that's an unreasonable standpoint to take, since once again we have very different opinions on what constitutes human life.  

ETA: But it's a war of words right now.  There's no place for violence in it.  Asshat whose name I don't know is worse than the people he killed.  They at least should be able to rationally believe that what they are doing is okay.

 

There absolutely is a place for violence in it. A niche, created by this insistence on the "baby murdering butchering baby body parts" terminology, which is currently being filled by Dear -- and the violent extremists of his sort that preceded and will follow him. These are people who really believe that baby murdering ("") is evil, and are prepared to take morally justifiable actions (even if they are illegal) accordingly.

If you really do believe that Planned Parenthood, for example, is murdering millions of innocent people, but you do NOT take any fight to them, then you are just like those Germans who knew of the Holocaust but did nothing. So is that what you are then? Hot convictions, but cold inaction? Content to merely utter the inflammatory words but unwilling to take responsibility for when other people are inflamed and take the actions they logically demand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.  But if I was running for political office, you can bank on me wanting to try to put an end to most "baby murdering," because I do view (most) abortion as the equivalent of murder, even if it isn't legally murder.  I also don't think that's an unreasonable standpoint to take, since once again we have very different opinions on what constitutes human life.  

ETA: But it's a war of words right now.  There's no place for violence in it.  Asshat whose name I don't know is worse than the people he killed.  They at least should be able to rationally believe that what they are doing is okay.

 

Here is your mistake, my friend. Whether it's legal or illegal, abortions will always happen. Best make it as safe and rare as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but the same crowd that claims abortion to be murder get excited when they hear politicians say they're gonna bomb whole cities to get a few bad guys. One may or may not be murder, while the other is very clearly murder. Hence why the title "pro-life" is garbage.

And that's why nuances always matter.  I'm all for killing any and every last member of Isis.  Ideally in a way more surgical than targeted drone strikes, and definitely not bombing cities into the ground.  I have no problem with the death penalty when separated from the false convictions (although those alone are probably a good reason to get rid of it).  

What I do have a problem with is the death of an "innocent" human that has not done anything to lose their right to life.  Kill a bunch of civilians (or join an organization whose express purpose is doing it), you've lost your right to life.  But a life that hasn't done anything besides existing? That is where I have an issue with it.  

So I guess it should be pro-innocent-life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There absolutely is a place for violence in it. A niche, created by this insistence on the "baby murdering butchering baby body parts" terminology, which is currently being filled by Dear -- and the violent extremists of his sort that preceded and will follow him. These are people who really believe that baby murdering ("") is evil, and are prepared to take morally justifiable actions (even if they are illegal) accordingly.

If you really do believe that Planned Parenthood, for example, is murdering millions of innocent people, but you do NOT take any fight to them, then you are just like those Germans who knew of the Holocaust but did nothing. So is that what you are then? Hot convictions, but cold inaction? Content to merely utter the inflammatory words but unwilling to take responsibility for when other people are inflamed and take the actions they logically demand?

I use my vote to try and elect someone who claims that they will reduce/eliminate the legal protections for "baby murder." That's the society we signed up for as Americans.  

Here is your mistake, my friend. Whether it's legal or illegal, abortions will always happen. Best make it as safe and rare as possible.

While I can't say it with any sort of scientific authority, I have a hard time believing that the number would not be drastically be reduced. And I don't give a rat's ass if someone I view as committing murder is doing so in a safe manner for them.  (FWIW, when I say most abortions, that includes higher risk pregancies where choosing between one life and another, or possibly one life and none, as well as rape pregnancies, which are by far the exception, but should not be eliminated wholesale when creating policy.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that's why nuances always matter.  I'm all for killing any and every last member of Isis.  Ideally in a way more surgical than targeted drone strikes, and definitely not bombing cities into the ground.  I have no problem with the death penalty when separated from the false convictions (although those alone are probably a good reason to get rid of it).  

What I do have a problem with is the death of an "innocent" human that has not done anything to lose their right to life.  Kill a bunch of civilians (or join an organization whose express purpose is doing it), you've lost your right to life.  But a life that hasn't done anything besides existing? That is where I have an issue with it.  

So I guess it should be pro-innocent-life.

The problem with your logic is that it's next to impossible. Bombing Raqqa would kill thousands of, as you say, "innocent" humans that have not done anything to lose their right to life. Maybe over 100,000 innocent people. And you would kill a couple thousand ISIS members at best. And then you have the dilemma of how many Arab Muslims would be inspired to join ISIS because they just saw the U.S. carpet bomb a Muslim city.

And then use the example from above about a greedy business man who puts people out on the street which could kill them. So pro-innocent-life doesn't really work either.

Look, I'm like Chris G. I don't like abortion, but you're never going to stop them from happening if you make them illegal. You'll just put the mother at a greater risk. Best to make them legal and provide proper SexEd. The latter is the best way to prevent an abortion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

While I can't say it with any sort of scientific authority, I have a hard time believing that the number would not be drastically be reduced. And I don't give a rat's ass if someone I view as committing murder is doing so in a safe manner for them.  (FWIW, when I say most abortions, that includes higher risk pregancies where choosing between one life and another, or possibly one life and none, as well as rape pregnancies, which are by far the exception, but should not be eliminated wholesale when creating policy.)

In HS I watched a girl repeatedly throw herself down a staircase to cause a miscarriage. I get that you see it as murder, but try to put yourself in women's shoes. Men will never have to carry a child to term. It's distasteful to make major decisions for women when us men will never have to bear that burden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with your logic is that it's next to impossible. Bombing Raqqa would kill thousands of, as you say, "innocent" humans that have not done anything to lose their right to life. Maybe over 100,000 innocent people. And you would kill a couple thousand ISIS members at best. And then you have the dilemma of how many Arab Muslims would be inspired to join ISIS because they just saw the U.S. carpet bomb a Muslim city.

And then use the example from above about a greedy business man who puts people out on the street which could kill them. So pro-innocent-life doesn't really work either.

Look, I'm like Chris G. I don't like abortion, but you're never going to stop them from happening if you make them illegal. You'll just put the mother at a greater risk. Best to make them legal and provide proper SexEd. The latter is the best way to prevent an abortion.

"and definitely not bombing cities to the ground."

I'm not a hardcore libertarian type either, so the greedy business man thing doesn't really apply.  I don't think there's anything inconsistent about being anti-abortion, and being okay with someone going through a legal eviction process in a society with welfare, charities, and shelters.  

Leaving off the "mother at greater risk thing," because I think I've already addressed my viewpoint of that above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...