How Unspeakable Evil Becomes A Spectator Sport

[OP ED]

Having said that, I'd think any sane person with a gun, who encountered someone squishing a baby would probably shoot first and ask questions later.

Really? Cause there's a lot of insane Christian fundies who are locked up just for doing that.

For shooting someone squishing a baby? Really? Name one.

[8bitagent]

Having said that, I'd think any sane person with a gun, who encountered someone squishing a baby would probably shoot first and ask questions later.

Really? Cause there's a lot of insane Christian fundies who are locked up just for doing that.

For shooting someone squishing a baby? Really? Name one.

Heh...well to some squishing a baby a month before its born is not much different than a month after its born...but thats probably a discussion we shouldnt have on here:)

[OP ED]

Granted. I can see the point in that argument. I tend towards pro-lifeness myself, personally, though I'd never sanction state control of such a thing.

I'd rather not do the whole gun control thing myself, as my views are unlikely to change on the subject. Experience has taught my that this is true of others' views as well, for the most part.

As far as shooting to kill goes, hell, they taught that in the concealed carry permit class. Also, never shoot them more than two or three times, unless you're a cop, because this implies personal spite towards the shot, and therefore excessive force. Strange, yes, but true, statistically. Oh, and its not that cops are allowed to do this, just that they almost always get away with it, whereas you won't.

I'd be willing to give up my gun. Just get everyone else to give up theirs first, and then round up all the illegal guns held by the gangbangers on my block, then we can talk about it...

---

Back to the origin.

Yes. We are sick. Humans tend to be mesmerized by violence, and the majority of them lack the initiative to intervene on behalf of another. I'd suggest that the vast majority of social and political problems result from these tendencies.

[Horatio Hellpop]

Well why the hell not 8bit?

Isn't it amazing that it is such a taboo topic?

I think there may be answers to some of your original questions here.

It's not my intention to be flippant about the original topic. Absolutely shocking and horrible crime that churned my guts upon reading. And I'm sure the reaction was the same for most people who read it.

But why don't my guts churn when I hear about an abortion? The doctor uses a blade and a vacuum to slice and squish a _______* to death. I guess I'm conditioned to think it is acceptable up until some arbitrary point to kill human young.

Is it possible that a society that accepts this, doesn't really object to other forms of killing?

*Insert own definition of whatever it is that resides in a womans stomach during pregnancy.

Disclaimer: I am not religious.

[tKl]

Granted. I can see the point in that argument. I tend towards pro-lifeness myself, personally, though I'd never sanction state control of such a thing.

Since we haven't been able to measure the presence of awareness or spirit, but we can measure sentience, and sentience does not occur in a fetus until after the first trimester, on what 'realistic' religious grounds should first trimester abortions be objected to?

[OP ED]

Granted. I can see the point in that argument. I tend towards pro-lifeness myself, personally, though I'd never sanction state control of such a thing.

Since we haven't been able to measure the presence of awareness or spirit, but we can measure sentience, and sentience does not occur in a fetus until after the first trimester, on what 'realistic' religious grounds should first trimester abortions be objected to?

That state-derived/defined measures of "sentience" should not neccessarily be the basis for deciding what constitutes life, perhaps?

My grounds are personally religious, and cannot easily be expressed, as they result from experience, not from theory or philosophy, wherein I remain amoralist, in general.

That said, I find particularly, neo-moral-relativistic attempts at defining "sentience" and/or "human" as being silly, at best. You are human if you possess a unique homo-sapien-spectrum genetic code. The removal of this codes continued potential for expression, is homocide (by definition) and attempts to reclassify it are philosophically unstable.

I don't buy general philosophical arguments, pro or con for abortion. For example, while I regard the unborn as human, I do not believe that humans possess rights other than those our potential for violence has granted us (by threat of force, historically). therefore, no "right to life" exists. An adult human may be dependent on you for their survival, but I do not believe you are required to give it. Likewise, the unborn.

As said, my reasons are personal, and not neccessarily rational, in a philosophic sense, for my position. I do not believe in morality, so I cannot maintain the superiority of my position except in my attempts to be as physically correct as possible.

So, uh, no, I don't really have a reason I can easily explain, nor would I attempt to dissuade others from their positions on this based on my experience.

(put as bluntly as possible, without detail, one reason: my own experiences are previous to even my own first trimester...)

now define sentience.

[Horatio Hellpop]

Granted. I can see the point in that argument. I tend towards pro-lifeness myself, personally, though I'd never sanction state control of such a thing.

Since we haven't been able to measure the presence of awareness or spirit, but we can measure sentience, and sentience does not occur in a fetus until after the first trimester, on what 'realistic' religious grounds should first trimester abortions be objected to?

Wow, that's a pretty definitive statement. How is sentience determined/measured?

[tKl]

Wow, that's a pretty definitive statement. How is sentience determined/measured

Reaction to stimuli. It's pretty basic.

[edit] It's more philosophically defined as "self-awareness" but it is often framed in terms of discernible reaction to painful and pleasurable stimuli. I prefer the definition of "the ability to feel pleasure or pain."

Here is a BBC article I just googled:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6099982.stm


Ms Dorries said the usual argument for reducing the time limit centred on viability - the likelihood of the foetus surviving outside of the womb - which is considered to be 23 weeks.

"However, my argument for reduction rests not on viability, but on the issue of foetal sentience - how foetuses respond to pain, sound etc.

"The latest scientific research puts the case of sentience at around 21 weeks."

[Horatio Hellpop]

OP ED:

As said, my reasons are personal, and not neccessarily rational, in a philosophic sense, for my position. I do not believe in morality, so I cannot maintain the superiority of my position except in my attempts to be as physically correct as possible.

Nicely put.

I WAS raised a irish/roman catholic but I discarded any belief in that system years ago. So I assure you that religion plays little part in my thoughts on the matter.

I see legalised abortion as a shining example of all the arbitrariness and hypocrisy and misanthrope of society.

Abortion has been around since pre-history I'm sure. As we've modernized we have (supposedly) cast aside a lot of the barbarism that existed in primitive society. Abortion has remained because it is a great convenience. So why can't I kill someone when they are making my life inconvenient?

I'm not entirely convinced by the first trimester lack of sentience argument raised by tkl. I just think it's an arbitrary point. So did PKD. He wrote a short story where the arbitrary age for a child to be terminated was 12 years. A prominent feminist wanted to kick the shit out of him for writing it.

[Stephen Morgan]

A prominent feminist wanted to kick the shit out of him for writing it.

I once came across a feminist who thought a mother should be allowed to kill her child until it was five years old. She also called herself a "harlot", wanted the legalisation of prostitution and the revokation of citizenship for the racially impure. ON the whole I'm not sure why I mention her, but she was interesting.

[8bitagent]

Granted. I can see the point in that argument. I tend towards pro-lifeness myself, personally, though I'd never sanction state control of such a thing.

I'd rather not do the whole gun control thing myself, as my views are unlikely to change on the subject. Experience has taught my that this is true of others' views as well, for the most part.

As far as shooting to kill goes, hell, they taught that in the concealed carry permit class. Also, never shoot them more than two or three times, unless you're a cop, because this implies personal spite towards the shot, and therefore excessive force. Strange, yes, but true, statistically. Oh, and its not that cops are allowed to do this, just that they almost always get away with it, whereas you won't.

I'd be willing to give up my gun. Just get everyone else to give up theirs first, and then round up all the illegal guns held by the gangbangers on my block, then we can talk about it...

---

Back to the origin.

Yes. We are sick. Humans tend to be mesmerized by violence, and the majority of them lack the initiative to intervene on behalf of another. I'd suggest that the vast majority of social and political problems result from these tendencies.

Hey what can I say, Im a pro life, pro gay marriage creationist, but I do not want to see abortion made illegal for a number of reasons. Theres a good documentary called "Lake of Fire" that shows in graphic detail both sides of the argument. Abortion disturbs me, what can I say. Maybe Im a bad liberal. But the anti abortionists also disturb me.

Actually, the most pro life people I know are strangely enough women. If I was king, I'd say there should be a safe RU486 pill which would end the abortion argument. No need to crush skulls and vacuum organs if there's a safe pill.

And I am absolutely pro death penalty. Anyone who says they arent, are going into existential reasons and playing mental gymnastics. However, I believe also in case by case basis. Look how many non violent drug offenders fill the prisons, while rapists get let free all the time. All just monster factories really.

I think the cop who shot that guy should be given the highest rewards.
Sadly, NYC cops can get away with blasting away unarmed innocent black men, and it gets swept under the rug.
I would never own a gun, but I also believe the first step toward tyranny is gun confiscation.

As far as gangbangers..I understand the deep complexity of the impetus of urban gang activity in America and cycles of inner city violence...
I just don't believe they have the right to terrorize whole neighborhoods.
My friend who lives in Richmond California has seen first hand, just walking to the store, the real life Grand Theft Auto shootings and crazyness that has plagued that city. (Mexican vs Black gang turf and drug wars) Funny how just a few miles away Pixar makes billion dollar movies for Disney.

A prominent feminist wanted to kick the shit out of him for writing it.

I once came across a feminist who thought a mother should be allowed to kill her child until it was five years old. She also called herself a "harlot", wanted the legalisation of prostitution and the revokation of citizenship for the racially impure. ON the whole I'm not sure why I mention her, but she was interesting.

Well, L Ron Hubbard was said by his son, and former mistresses to have an "abortion fetish", and often took great enjoyment in performing home abortions.

[8bitagent]

But why don't my guts churn when I hear about an abortion? The doctor uses a blade and a vacuum to slice and squish a _______* to death. I guess I'm conditioned to think it is acceptable up until some arbitrary point to kill human young.

Is it possible that a society that accepts this, doesn't really object to other forms of killing?

*Insert own definition of whatever it is that resides in a womans stomach during pregnancy.

Disclaimer: I am not religious.

Oh my guts churn thinking about abortion, especially later term abortion.

I want a sticker that says "I support a woman's right to murder her unborn child". Haha, just the reaction I'd get.

I mean I call abortion clinics "Abortuaries", I have no bones with saying that the origin of the abortion movement in America was racial eugenicists setting up shop in Harlem and poor areas. Yet I believe Planned Parenthood and other such clinics should remain, and women should be allowed to have an abortion without protestors in their face.

Then again, look at the new trend of aborting a fetus due to gender...its like "honey, if you waited that long, where the baby's sex is visible...just keep it".

I definitely support the outlawing of late term abortion, and I support slowly creeping the window periods back.

I also hate the enviromentalist extremism(or what I call Malthusian eugenics) belief that "there's too many people, people need to die off to save the planet". Then again I also hate Christian fundamentalism, enviromental destroying companies. I guess I'm an enigma:)

Btw, why are most pro lifers, also pro war? Nothing kills babies like Uncle Sam and Israel's missiles.

Granted. I can see the point in that argument. I tend towards pro-lifeness myself, personally, though I'd never sanction state control of such a thing.

Since we haven't been able to measure the presence of awareness or spirit, but we can measure sentience, and sentience does not occur in a fetus until after the first trimester, on what 'realistic' religious grounds should first trimester abortions be objected to?

Well that goes into a whole other esoteric subject.

Some Christians, Jews, Wicans, Left Hand Pathers, Buddhists and other folks I know believe in a literal "soul".

My question is, at which point does this "soul" come into a human?

Does a parasitic twin, whose other twin has absorbed the parasitic twin...does that have a soul?

Is a baby born horribly deformed to where its not even conscience, is a Thylidamide baby, or a baby born dead...or a baby with no brain...do they have souls?

I guess that's where faith comes in, which I seem to be lacking:)

[Avalon]

*Insert own definition of whatever it is that resides in a womans stomach during pregnancy.

During pregnancy (and before it, and after it) a woman's stomach is full of food, and secretions like gastric acid and enzymes that break the food down.

The embryo/fetus resides in the uterus.

Perhaps you should in future refrain from any discussions regarding female anatomy?

[lunarose]

thank god for tkl. otherwise here we have a lot of guys talking about how awful abortion is, being the taking of 'human genetic code' (did you know you are flushing human genetic code down the sink every time you wash your hair?!?!?) while at the same time talking about how comfortable they are with the death penalty, owning guns and shooting people to death on sight. which is, ya know, ALSO the taking of human life, but the big difference is a MAN is doing it, so its completely copasetic with no moral grey zones at all.

it's starting to sound like that old argument 'let the men handle the big issues her, honey, you little women just don't have the moral weight to deal with life and death - we men just have it in our bones'. i mean please, what sexist unthinking putrid crap.

from idiots who think babies come from a woman's stomach, no less, most likely after ingesting watermelon seeds..............yep, hard to imagine a more well qualified, nuanced group of arguments gathered together in one place.

i am out of here.

[OP ED]

8bit:

I tend not to regard "souls" as objects, so that question is likely beyond the scope of my own religous views. I tend to see only one soul, as an ongoing process, that all objects have semi-equal share in.

I consider there to be many legitimate reasons for the termination of a pregnancy. And I also consider it to be not neccessarily my place, or that of any governing authority to decide which reasons are legitimate. That said, I find its use as birth control to be distasteful at best. There are cheaper, safer, and less contentious forms of birth control that are widely available for free at most of the same clinics. I view this practice as symptomatic of the laziness and over-inflated-self-importance of modern societies.

That said, fundies who block clinics are wasting their time. If they wanted to save lives they'd be better off campaigning against the governments they elect, statistically speaking.

and I don't know about most pro-lifers being pro-war, really. a lot of the lifers I know are catholics, who've been pacifists since Nam. Not all Christians are Southern Baptists.

As far as crime and guns go...

When was the last time you were robbed at gunpoint?

For me, 2005. also 2003. (Also in years 2004, 2002, and 2001 I was robbed at knifepoint, in '02, I was in my front yard, getting my mail) In '06 someone tried to rob me at knifepoint and fled when they realized the only thing of value I possesed was a firearm. I did not shoot them, only because the only thing I dislike more than petty gangbangers are Police officers. and maybe Mormons.

The fact that impoverishment establishes a firm basis for most of this crime does nothing to mitigate the dangerous nature of it.

-----

I'm going to avoid dissecting the idea of sentience at present, but suffice it to say for now that I find the criteria examined so far to be woefully lacking in any relevant measure of computative abilities as regards unborn humans. I also find the arbitrary numbers to be somewhat silly. 21 weeks? so, 20 weeks is safe, but 22 is too late? Because all humans develop in uniform fashion? oh they don't? damn. There goes that theory. etc.

Maybe later, with permission to further derail this thread.

Love is Law,
SHCR