Discuss my article about the recent murder of Dr. Tiller

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder

Discuss my article about the recent murder of Dr. Tiller

Post Number:#1  Postby Scott » June 15th, 2009, 12:55 pm

If you haven't already check out my recent article: Murder, The Right to Life, and Abortion

Please discuss the article, comment on the issues it addresses, and try to answer the questions it asks.

Thanks,
Scott
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?
User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4204 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic

Discuss my article about the recent murder of Dr. Tiller



Become a member for less ads

Already a member? Login
 

PLS Don't Kill Me!

Post Number:#2  Postby Juice » June 15th, 2009, 5:38 pm

I love it that you had the courage to put this topic on the table, now I hope that people will have the courage to discuss this controversial topic without getting their feelings hurt.

I am going to put my head on the chopping block since I do have some broad shoulders and I am willing to stand by my convictions without any mortal fear.

Ethicality and Morality invariable come down to deliberating life and death, and the infringements that can be placed there upon. Although I am a Christian I will not directly posit those principles into my critique since I consider the totality of those arguments to be invariably circuitous (The whole thou shall not kill, eye for an eye, cast the first stone and love thy neighbor thing could get confusing. Not to mention be fruitful and multiply). I will instead try to concentrate my efforts on the concepts of “Human Absolutism”, “Human Exceptionalism” and “Good vs. Evil”.

I find myself increasingly frustrated by the forceful indoctrination and blind acceptance of Darwinian evolutionary speculates. Evolutionist have gone from worshiping Finch beaks to petrified bones to the gene in order to fabricate substance to a scientifically counterfeit premise (please do not argue this with me you will lose). Nature is perfect and perfectly designed. Every living thing can be defined by man and its purpose extrapolated from its design and function, except for man. If we are to accept that the evolutionary trend observed in nature is that each living organism has a purpose and is perfectly suited to its specified environment why then has man left that evolutionary modality to deliberate his purpose and suitability on his own?

Man is the only organism which can manipulate any environment to suit his needs. Man has conquered the sea, land, air and space displaying multi-suitability a characteristic which can only be described as infinite in comparison to any other living organism known. Man conforms his environment to suit his needs thereby ensuring his survival rather than depending on static environmental conditions and random/causal genetic variation as is what is believed to occur in the animal kingdom. An animal genetically adapts or dies, a man imagines and innovates. This is “Human Absolutism”.

Mans ability to explore, discover, and innovate by degrees to specifically impart knowledge to future generations without dependence on gene ascendancy to insure survivability and reproductive superiority is “Human Exceptionalism”. We care about what happens on an intellectual and spiritual level which transcends animal instinct and rote behavior which does not have the ability to modify.

“Human Exceptionalism”? The ability to look at an ocean and see a voyage. The ability to look at the sky and see flight. The ability to look at land and envision cities. The ability to look at the stars and see heaven. Paint, sculpt, write, and CREATE. Watch the loss of a sunset with tears, the birth of a sunrise with joyous expectation, and conception as death.

We spend billions to save animals from extinction. Cheer when an animal is nurtured and encouraged to give birth in a zoo. We talk to plants. Deny the right to keep warm with fur. Gently sweep the ground ahead of us to keep from killing insects. Decry the use of oil from “Gaia” that suffered millennia of birth and rebirth to CREATE, for the sole purpose of enriching our lives. And yet we can kill an unborn child which from its inception holds the promise of life which even animals have the ability to understand and protect.

I am not in the least bit sad, or despondent, over Tillers deserved demise. I only wish the laws allowed for the type of justice he earned. He was evil. Millions were spent in search of Joseph Mengele, the Nazi “Dr. of Death” and it only took one bullet to stop the Kansas “Death Monger”.

Woman have the right to choose not to get pregnant. There are more than enough contraceptives available (all for free), to fore stall them having to make such an inhumane decision. Unfortunately the process of gestation falls solely on women therefore women are in complete control of the process of conception. In the instance of the life of the mother over the life of the unborn choose your life and that is a choice based on logic not fear. In the case of rape or incest please do not blame the unborn for the sick act of someone who should be legally put to death.

Yes I believe in the death penalty! There are evil people on the earth whose purpose it is to undermine life. We see it all the time throughout history and it is about time we learn. Unfortunately it is easier for an evil man to hide among good than it is for a good man to hide among evil. This means that we are all to willing to give evil the benefit of the doubt due to mans innate goodness even though good suffers as a result. But, when it is obvious that evil rears its head then we must act as “good men” to eradicate evil and protect innocence and life which should be the goal and foundation of “Human Exceptionalism”.
User avatar
Juice
 
Posts: 1997 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: May 8th, 2009, 10:24 pm

Re: Discuss my article about the recent murder of Dr. Tiller

Post Number:#3  Postby ape » June 15th, 2009, 8:06 pm

Scott: We need to ask ourselves all sorts of questions.

1. What is murder?
To murder is to kill with Hatred.
There are 2 types:
A. When we hate ourselves and anyone else, we kill our Love with our Hate and commit spiritual murder:sm.
B. When we physically kill who we hate, we commit physical murder:pm.
All PM is caused by SM.
SM is what causes PM.
SM occurs even when PM does not. Matthew 5:21-22.

2. Do we oppose murder always? Yes, we always oppose all murder which is killing with Hate.

3. When do we want it to be illegal to kill something or someone?
When there is any of the Prejudice of Hatred/Malice-afore-thought for anyone or anything.

4. What about animals, human embryos, human fetuses, brainless creatures?
To hate any embryo or any animal or any fetus or any creature shd be illegal and killing any such with Hate is murder. Isaiah 66.
Love for all allows us to kill in Love food and enemies at the right time, and to kill at the right times. Love auto-determines that there is at least 90% life-giving and at the most only 10% life-taking.

5. What about killing one innocent person to save the life of another innocent person?
As long as this is done in Love of all concerned, this is not murder.
All spontaneous miscarriages are divine abortions.
All abortions done in Love for all concerned are fine.
All abortions done in Hate for anyone or anything is murder.
Any Hatred for any aborters or anti-abortionists is spiritual murder, which more times than not, also leads to physical murder.

6. What about when a person lets another person die when the first person could have saved the second?
In Love of all, this is negligent homicide. With any Hate, this is murder.
Numbers 35.

7. Do we support forcing another person to help another person?
No, but we enforce Love for each self as all and all as self, and criminalize Hatred for self and for anyone. Hatred of self and others is the right to be wrong. See Tom Jefferson's comment on everyone has the right to error of opinion where there is freedom to combat it.

8. Do we want an embryo or fetus to have the right to use a woman's body against her will if the embryo or fetus needs to use her body to live?
In Love of all, no. The mother always has priority in Love of posteriority.

9. What about if the woman was made pregnant against her will?
In Love of all, she has the right to abort or not.

10. What about if a woman wants to abort a fetus late-term because carrying it to term will cause significant harm to her?
With Love for all, this is fine. Deuteronomy 22:5-7.

11. What about if the baby was already born but needs a transplant from her to live?
In Love of life and death, baby can be allowed to die, or can be supplied with the transplant.

12. When if at all would we force a person to provide a transplant to anther person?
In Love of all, this wd never have to be done since the Love in all wd provide the motivation to provide at the right time, and the motivation to not provide at the right time.

13: What if providing a transplant poses significant danger or will cause significant harm?
In Love for all, the child cd be allowed to die or the mother can decide to take the risk as a fully informed risk-taker.
ape
 
Posts: 3323 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 6th, 2009, 9:55 pm

Post Number:#4  Postby Nick_A » June 18th, 2009, 11:39 am

Hi Scott

We need to ask ourselves all sorts of questions. What is murder? Do we oppose murder always? If not always, when do we want it to be illegal to murder something or someone? When do we want it to be illegal to kill something or someone? What about animals, human embryos, human fetuses, brainless creatures? What about killing one innocent person to save the life of another innocent person? What about when a person lets another person die when the first person could have saved the second? Do we support forcing another person to help another person? Do we want an embryo or fetus to have the right to use a woman's body against her will if the embryo or fetus needs to use her body to live? What about if the woman was made pregnant against her will? What about if a woman wants to abort a fetus late-term because carrying it to term will cause significant harm to her? What about if the baby was already born but needs a transplant from her to live? When if at all would we force a person to provide a transplant to anther person? What if providing a transplant poses significant danger or will cause significant harm?


Killing is killing. We call it murder when we don't agree with who should be killed. We kill in war, in executions, and in abortions. When we disagree with the motives, killing is defined as "murder" by subjective societal codes.

A baby can be killed a day before being born and it is called abortion. If it is killed a day after being born it is called murder. It doesn't make any sense but is just a societal dictate indicating how little we understand.

The real question for me is how to get the courage to admit that we don't understand and there is something worth understanding. We don't have "respect for life" and scarcely even know what it means.

If we could respect life to the degree that we experienced it as a process that connects the cycle of conception and death, abortion could be put into a higher context. We can't and just consider abortion in isolation disconnected from before and after the moment.

If we honored conception and the quality of the sex act itself as part of respect for life, how many conceptions would lead to abortion? We don't think this way and prefer abortions to respecting life.

Is it possible that respect for life could include the quality of conception, nourishing the fetus, quality of birth, quality of the growing person, and quality of death? I doubt it. We've lost the higher understanding of respect for life so cannot experience its continuum and incapable of honoring it. We are unaware of the value of respect for life since we are so isolated from it.

Dr. Tiller's death is quickly gobbled up by political agenda without a thought of what it means in the context of respect for life and an abortion mill. We don't see how the abortion mill proves how little respect for life we have and how much we are dominated by selfish concerns. We seek instead to justify his death as something noble. This is just secular politics but in a growing secular world, carries far more influence for helping us to avoid considering what "respect for life" means and what we lose by its denial.
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
Nick_A
 
Posts: 2513 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Post Number:#5  Postby Belinda » June 19th, 2009, 4:46 am

Nature is perfect and perfectly designed.
(juice)

But I saw a picture of a baby with spina bifida. Most qualified engineers could do better than Creator-God.

The abortion debate is right and proper: an unexamined God is not worth loving.

Abortion is an imperfect solution to a problem in an imperfect world.

Killing an adult is often worse than killing a baby because the adult is more useful to society: morality is how society works.The mother's life is of more value than the baby's.This may cease to be the case when we begin to see that we have to limit fertility more drastically in which case a fertile man or woman is more immediately dangerous to society than a baby.

In any case, when a person takes the law into their own hands their protest should be peaceful and non-violent.At this time it's legal to perform some abortions. If you want to change that take up a peaceful democratic protest.
And this peaceful protest does not include intimidating pregnant women or doctors at clinics.

We don't have "respect for life" and scarcely even know what it means.
Speak for yourself Nick_A not for me. I do respect life and know what it means.
Belinda
Contributor
 
Posts: 13865 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post Number:#6  Postby ape » June 19th, 2009, 10:49 am

Nick_A wrote:Killing is killing. We call it murder when we don't agree with who should be killed. We kill in war, in executions, and in abortions. When we disagree with the motives, killing is defined as "murder" by subjective societal codes.

ape: Xlnt!
ape
 
Posts: 3323 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 6th, 2009, 9:55 pm

Post Number:#7  Postby Nick_A » June 19th, 2009, 1:31 pm

Hi Belinda

Killing an adult is often worse than killing a baby because the adult is more useful to society: morality is how society works.The mother's life is of more value than the baby's.This may cease to be the case when we begin to see that we have to limit fertility more drastically in which case a fertile man or woman is more immediately dangerous to society than a baby.


We are a long way from respect for life since we are content members of the Great Beast or society itself. Society defines respect for life by what furthers its goals rather than an objective respect for life.

Speak for yourself Nick_A not for me. I do respect life and know what it means.


As long as we equate social values with respect for life, we cannot have respect for life simply because society is as it is because of its lack of respect for life.

Matthew 22

15Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
18But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, 20and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

21"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

22When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.


Respect for life requires understanding what is meant by giving to God what is God's. We are caught up with Caesar's world that has its own ideas of respect for life and assume they are the same. Are they? I don't believe so.
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
Nick_A
 
Posts: 2513 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Post Number:#8  Postby Invictus_88 » June 19th, 2009, 1:47 pm

ape wrote:1. What is murder?
To murder is to kill with Hatred.


Nick_A wrote:Killing is killing. We call it murder when we don't agree with who should be killed. We kill in war, in executions, and in abortions. When we disagree with the motives, killing is defined as "murder" by subjective societal codes.


Both wrong.

The quality of the posts here is, in fact, hilarious.


:lol:
Invictus_88
 
Posts: 597 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: September 5th, 2007, 4:25 am

Post Number:#9  Postby Juice » June 19th, 2009, 6:10 pm

Belinda, Belinda; It sounds as if you are advocating a sort of "eugenics"? Say it ain't so!

Did you mean "An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates/Plato.

One of the most studied aspects of Ethics and Morality is that of killing , in fact it can be said that all ethical inquiries or discourse comes down to a matter of life and death, or pain and suffering. It can be said the these precepts stem from Hippocrates and the oath he penned which states simply to do, "...No Harm...". It would be difficult to ascribe to absolute moralism without a willingness to infringe on the rights of others just as much as it is difficult to ascribe to a relative moralist position without allowing a certain level of anarchy. So is there a sort of happy medium? Judging by the difficulties of accepting one chioce or another there obviously must be. Now it is up to us to decide what that is and how to apply it to the realities of living in a society that expects everyone to live in respectful harmony. I am pretty sure that everyone will agree that there are levels of acceptance to inflicted death whether that be by societal laws, military directives, medical necessity, self defence of property, self, or family. How does this apply to the killing of Tiller? If it can be concluded that Tillers actions caused death, harm and suffering to other human beings then we may conclude his death warrented. My beliefs are not rooted in revenge, but a logical medium of "Do no Harm". I imagine if I could be a Tiller. And if so how far would I be willing to go past ending life not fully actualized to ending life aware. How many of you would be willing to stare into the barrel of a loaded gun without awareness of the consequences? Would you consider the loss of things attained or the loss of things you will never have the chance to attain if the trigger is pulled? What would you think of me if I made the decision for you? What would you do to stop me? Then ask yourself why all life shouldn't be given the same moral consideration.
User avatar
Juice
 
Posts: 1997 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: May 8th, 2009, 10:24 pm

Post Number:#10  Postby Belinda » June 20th, 2009, 5:27 am

As long as we equate social values with respect for life, we cannot have respect for life simply because society is as it is because of its lack of respect for life.


I agree, Nick_A. Also, your quote from St Matthew is appropriate. This most enigmatically difficult saying of Jesus needs a lot of brain power to understand it.It deserves a thread of its own.To begin with, can I just suggest that Jesus together with most of the Jews at that time expected that the end of the occupation was due to happen very soon, and some of the Jews thought that the end of the world was due very soon? They have been proved wrong of course, but that saying of Jesus can still be milked for meaning.

I start as much as I can from what is known and try to have due humility about my personal lack of knowledge.Society is as it is, and we cannot make it better until we can look the devil in the face.

We are a long way from respect for life since we are content members of the Great Beast or society itself. Society defines respect for life by what furthers its goals rather than an objective respect for life.
Here too I agree with you Nick_A
Last edited by Belinda on June 20th, 2009, 5:36 am, edited 2 times in total.
Belinda
Contributor
 
Posts: 13865 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post Number:#11  Postby Belinda » June 20th, 2009, 5:33 am

Belinda, Belinda; It sounds as if you are advocating a sort of "eugenics"? Say it ain't so!

Did you mean "An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates/Plato.


No. I advocate education in contraception. I hate abortion. I advocate a reduction in world poverty which will be the initial condition for poor people to adopt contraception.Eugenics is not necessary or ethically desirable; education in contraception ethics and methods is necessary.

I was tongue in cheek referring to S/P. It's the examined bit that has the bite whatever it is that is up for examination. It's why I like philosophy.
Belinda
Contributor
 
Posts: 13865 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post Number:#12  Postby ape » June 20th, 2009, 7:10 am

Belinda wrote:
No. I advocate education in contraception. I hate abortion.

ape: Hmmmmm If I hate abortion, am I not for the abortion of the Baby of Love for all words?

Belinda wrote:I was tongue in cheek referring to S/P. It's the examined bit that has the bite whatever it is that is up for examination. It's why I like philosophy.

Hmmmmm If I love philosophy, am I not for the abortion of the Baby of Hate for any words?
ape
 
Posts: 3323 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 6th, 2009, 9:55 pm

Post Number:#13  Postby ape » June 20th, 2009, 10:36 am

Juice:It can be said the these precepts stem from Hippocrates and the oath he penned which states simply to do, "...No Harm...".[quote]
Ape: Juice, correct me if I am wrong. I know: you wd do it any way!:) Since Dr. H wd have to harm me to heal me by the harm of cutting out my tonsils or appendix, does he not have to mean something else by 'no harm'?

Juice: It would be difficult to ascribe to absolute moralism without a willingness to infringe on the rights of others just as much as it is difficult to ascribe to a relative moralist position without allowing a certain level of anarchy. So is there a sort of happy medium? Judging by the difficulties of accepting one chioce or another there obviously must be.
ape: Such a categorical imperative, Dr. J!:)

Juice: How does this apply to the killing of Tiller? Ape: Since Dr. T believed in abortion, then he also had to be for the abortion of his life--which he did not want.
If his killer believed in aborting Dr.T, then he also had to be for the abortion of babies--which he did not want.

So it is clear both were for and against abortion.

Therefore what was really the harm in both cases has to have been their pre-abortion of the real heal, of the real 'no harm': The Love & R for themselves as both opposites, with same-time implant of Hate for self as the other!
With Love for both, they wd have shown themselves and each other the Love & R that wd have re-shown and re-vealed to each and the other that there had to be a time for one and a time for the other. qed.

Juice: How many of you would be willing to stare into the barrel of a loaded gun without awareness of the consequences? Ape: No one without L&R.
Would you consider the loss of things attained or the loss of things you will never have the chance to attain if the trigger is pulled? Ape:Only in L&R.
Juice: What would you think of me if I made the decision for you? Ape: With L&R.
Juice: What would you do to stop me? Ape: I wd in Love do the same thing you are trying to do to me to stop you!
Juice: Then ask yourself why all life shouldn't be given the same moral consideration.(?) Ape: By which consideration, we have to mean the Consideration of L&R since we do not give the life we love and eat the same physical consideration of life as we give to ourselves while giving the same consideration of L&R to both them and us.
ape
 
Posts: 3323 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 6th, 2009, 9:55 pm

Post Number:#14  Postby Mauds » May 1st, 2010, 10:18 pm

A preganant woman can be murdered, along with her unborn baby, and it is called murder.
A woman who chooses to abort is ending something unnaturally, but that doesnt make it wrong. The circumstances have to involve a sense of justice. The murder of an abortionist does not stop women from getting an abortion. It only removes a practised individual and can possibly harm both mother and unborn baby if that mother chooses a less reputable doctor. Is he justified in killing him? He thinks he is, for saving the lives of unborn babies. Justice however does not reside within ignorance. Many babies terminate naturally, and that cannot be stopped. I think its humourous that men think they should have any stance on the issue. It is not us that have to carry and nurture the baby.
Mauds
 
Posts: 8 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: May 1st, 2010, 8:54 pm

Post Number:#15  Postby Scott » June 8th, 2010, 6:22 pm

Firstly, I want to quickly say thanks to everyone for their replies and also to anyone who didn't post a reply but still took the time to read the article I wrote. :)

Your replies are all interesting and I will post my comments to them below. But I do want to ask everyone, aside from Ape who already has, to consider pleasing me by briefly, individually answering all the questions I asked at the end of the article:

Scott wrote:What is murder? Do we oppose murder always? If not always, when do we want it to be illegal to murder something or someone? When do we want it to be illegal to kill something or someone? What about animals, human embryos, human fetuses, brainless creatures? What about killing one innocent person to save the life of another innocent person? What about when a person lets another person die when the first person could have saved the second? Do we support forcing another person to help another person? Do we want an embryo or fetus to have the right to use a woman's body against her will if the embryo or fetus needs to use her body to live? What about if the woman was made pregnant against her will? What about if a woman wants to abort a fetus late-term because carrying it to term will cause significant harm to her? What about if the baby was already born but needs a transplant from her to live? When if at all would we force a person to provide a transplant to anther person? What if providing a transplant poses significant danger or will cause significant harm?


Whether or not it will work, I did try to play Socrates and come up with a series of questions that will help get to the fundamental philosophy and common principles, helping weed out contradictions and helping discover the true sources of our disagreements.

***

Juice, much of what you wrote about man is quite inspiring. It reminds me of some of the most enjoyable parts of Ayn Rand's writing of mankind as heroic.

Juice wrote:In the case of rape or incest please do not blame the unborn for the sick act of someone who should be legally put to death.

On the one hand, I of course agree with that sentiment not just about unborn but the born as well. I have read and seen fictional stories that I think are not unrealistic in which mothers choose to give birth to a child they conceived from rape, but have negative feelings toward the child. More commonly, we hear of women being abandoned by the father and having some resentment for the shared child. I agree that resentment is misplaced, but unfortunately maybe one of the unavoidable flaws of our psychology. In extreme cases, a professional psychologist could be used to help such a mother work through her resentment. Nonetheless, imagine the awful possibility that a mother strangles her born child at the age of say 2 years because of a transferred resentment towards the child's rapist father. I agree that would be an awful state of affairs and that is murder and that the mother would need to be institutionalized until if ever she can be cured of her violent tendencies.

In the case of abortion, though, some feel it is not murder. Some feel that the harm done by destroying a brainless, nerveless embryo is not significantly greater than the harm done by destroying a blade of grass or a tree. Some may think that the woman has a right not to be a slave to the embryo and to not have to provide the charity letting it use her body against her will. You argue against those views by saying, "Woman have the right to choose not to get pregnant." Whether I agree fully or not with its implications, I can see that it is at least arguable that a woman consents to the risk of being pregnant for 9 months or so and giving birth when she consents to having sex. But that doesn't apply to rape. Pro-choice people aren't arguing that a woman has a right to take out her resentment towards the father on the child born or unborn; they are making the same argument in terms of non-rape abortions except your objection about her choice to get pregnant does not apply.

Juice wrote:Yes I believe in the death penalty!

You can I have discussed the death penalty quite a bit. In the context of this discussion, what I find interesting is that Scott Philip Roeder apparently felt that he was, as a vigilante, initiating the death penalty on Dr. Tiller because Roeder felt that Dr. Tiller was a murderer. So what is it about Roeder's actions that you oppose? Do you only support the death penalty when it's democratic? Do you only support the death penalty for a certain class of actions in which the allegedly murderous act of abortion is not? Do you just oppose vigilantism? Would you support Roeder if he was a paid soldier working for the government hired by the government to execute Dr. Tiller for the crime of abortion?

Please note, I personally am not a pacifist. I would defensively kill someone if lethal defense was the reasonable way to stop that person from severely offensively attacking another person--at least insofar as that severe attack is criminal according to democracy or majority opinion and the one being attacked is a born human who is not brain-dead.

Juice wrote:How does this apply to the killing of Tiller? If it can be concluded that Tillers actions caused death, harm and suffering to other human beings then we may conclude his death warrented. My beliefs are not rooted in revenge, but a logical medium of "Do no Harm". I imagine if I could be a Tiller. And if so how far would I be willing to go past ending life not fully actualized to ending life aware. How many of you would be willing to stare into the barrel of a loaded gun without awareness of the consequences? Would you consider the loss of things attained or the loss of things you will never have the chance to attain if the trigger is pulled? What would you think of me if I made the decision for you? What would you do to stop me? Then ask yourself why all life shouldn't be given the same moral consideration.

What were you getting at there, Juice? I feel like you might be contradicting yourself. On the one extreme, I can interpret you as supporting the killing of a killer as if you would of pulled the trigger in a Church instead of Roeder? But then elsewhere you say you may want to give Roeder the death penalty for giving Tiller the death penalty? Then on the other extreme you even go so far in defending life and opposing killing that you demand people don't stop the process that uses their own body often at great risk and expense to create life?

***

Ape, though English is an informal language, I think the definition of murder you give is inaccurate. "Killing with hate," is not what I think most people specifically mean when they use the term murder. Though I agree with your general opposition to all types of murder (definitional differences aside), I don't agree with your general sentiment of supporting anything done "with love" and opposition towards anything done "with hate." To use a vulgar but clear example, I don't care whether a rapist is supposedly raping out of love or out of hate; I still strongly oppose rape and want him stopped by whatever means against him necessary and restrained.

***

Nick_A,

Nick_A wrote:A baby can be killed a day before being born and it is called abortion. If it is killed a day after being born it is called murder. It doesn't make any sense but is just a societal dictate indicating how little we understand.

Yes, I agree and think that you make a very important point there. I cannot comprehend the way some people feel so strongly about an arbitrary distinction such as birth. To supplement your example, consider Mary conceives one week before Jane. Let's say Jane gives birth 1 month early and an hour after the baby is born she suffocates it under a pillow. Let's say Mary is still a pregnant a few days after her due date and get an abortion. Note that going by date of conception Mary's baby was well over a month older when it was killed. I cannot conceive of what kind of consistent principles and premises one could believe that would lead to a strong opposition and desire to criminalize what Mary did but a strong desire to tolerate and legalize what Jane did--aside of evidence-less superstitions or religious beliefs which if believed can justify anything in the eyes of the believer.

Nick_A wrote:If we honored conception and the quality of the sex act itself as part of respect for life, how many conceptions would lead to abortion? We don't think this way and prefer abortions to respecting life.

Indeed, that is another good point Nick_A. I'd say most of the most people who most adamantly claim to be opposed to abortion still don't 'respect the life' of the unborn human in the way you propose. You're right; how many conceptions would lead to abortion if self-proclaimed anti-abortionists adopted a few unwanted children themselves, donated a lot more to anti-poverty campaigns particularly for pregnant women and poor mothers, et cetera?

Similarly, I wonder how many of those animal-rights activists who blow up buildings and commit vandalism in the name of animal rights spend $50 or so on cable TV each month rather than putting $50 more each month to animal shelters, to environmental relief charities, et cetera?

There's no shortage of self-righteous people claiming to have the high ground when it comes to respecting life and caring for other living creatures particularly those capable of feeling pain and those with great potential to grow up into something great. But there is a shortage of the real thing.

Nick_A wrote:Respect for life requires understanding what is meant by giving to God what is God's.

I disagree. For example, I think many atheists respect life more than religious people. Indeed, murder in the name of god(s) is very, very common. Religious wars are very, very common.

In the eyes of the believer, superstition and religion can create the most fervent, black-and-white outlook on what actions the believer faithfully, hardheadedly believes are tolerable and which ones are extremely intolerable. These distinctions may seem ridiculously arbitrary or even inconsistent to the one who does no share that believer's specific superstitions or religion. For example, a Hindu may find the life of a stupid, injured cow extremely more valuable than the life of a smart healthy dolphin or smart healthy monkey; a Hindu may find the act of offensively, intentionally killing the cow as an extremely awful act worth criminalizing with the strictest hand of the law while may encourage and even participate in the killing of dolphins or monkeys. A certain religious person may believe there is a singular, omnipotent being who has commanded that no human kill any other human for any other reason but has said that killing and torturing animals is okay; that religious person may feel about destroying/killing a brainless, nerveless, unconscious embryo how that Hindu person felt about destroying/killing a cow while they both agree that torturing and killing a smart monkey is fine and dandy because they don't have any superstitious beliefs condemning that. Another superstitious or religious person may believe that a certain tree is sacred or the incarnation of their god, and may rather legalize third-trimester abortion, cow-torturing, cow-killing and literal infanticide before legalizing the killing of that brainless, unconscious tree. This type of superstition or religious person feels that one who doesn't share his particular superstition or religious view cannot understand the so-called right or value that he believes is being violated or ignored particularly the right to life that most people belief at least some living things have to varying degrees. Often anyone who doesn't share that person's specific superstitions or religious views would feel the opposite; they would think it is precisely the fact that the religious person's respect of certain types of life or other values is so dependent on their personal superstitions or person religious views is what is blinding that religious or superstitious person.

In any case, while superstitious religious people may define their morality religiously and hold values based on their superstitious and religious views (e.g. "doing X is bad because god said not to do it"), I definitely am adamantly opposed to any kind of theocracy and definitely and adamantly support what Thomas Jefferson referred to as a wall of separation between Church and State.

***

Belinda,

Belinda wrote:In any case, when a person takes the law into their own hands their protest should be peaceful and non-violent.

To an extent, I agree. But I think there is a limit to my demand that civil disobedience and protest be either peaceful or legal. There are possible situations and conditions where I would support illegal violence. Consider in the movie Braveheart, in which the King legalized rape of new wives by the government's agents and William Wallace breaks the King's law and fights back violently. Consider the movie Valkyrie, in which a group of German's attempt to illegally kill Hitler.

In my eyes, William Wallace and those Germans who illegally used violence against the democratically elected Hitler and his Nazi government are heroes, and Roeder is a awful villain. A animal-rights protester who beats up or kills women for wearing fur or motorcyclists for wearing leather would also be a villain in my eyes. But the difference between them is not the use of illegal violence. They all used illegal violence.

***

Thanks for your comments, Mauds. I also think the anti-choice sentiments about abortion among men and law is in great part the result of a long history of patriarchy. The same men who cry about their economic freedom being infringed when one suggests regulations limiting the ability of a slumlord to evict relatively helpless tenets who may otherwise die from homelessness are completely uncaring about the ramifications in terms of freedom of forcing a women--even a rape victim--to use her body to turn a brainless, unconscious embryo into a baby at great pain, expense, risk of death and other problems such as possibly losing her job due to the need for maternity leave.
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?
User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4204 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic

Next

Return to Ethics and Morality

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Philosophy Trophies

Most Active Members
by posts made in lasts 30 days

Avatar Member Name Recent Posts
Greta 162
Fooloso4 116
Renee 107
Ormond 97
Felix 90

Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST

Most Active Book of the Month Participants
by book of the month posts

Avatar Member Name BOTM Posts
Scott 147
Spectrum 23
Belinda 23
whitetrshsoldier 20
Josefina1110 19
Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST