Boro Nut

Erm... I think you are straying more than a little way away from official church doctrine there. Best keep mum on that embarrassing slip and we'll say no more about it.

Boro Nut

Columbus

Oh dear, why would anyone inject official church doctrine into this discussion? Is it not already contentious enough? I think official church doctrines have already done enough damage. :banghead:

Tom

B_Sharp

Abortion cuts up babies limb from limb.

How is that not worse than needles in one's ears?? Enlighten us please.

PEEDNAR

Don't worry about him, Boro Nut is the hermit comedian around here. He's responsible for many a guffaw from me.

Columbus

The "morning after" pill doesn't do this. Does that mean it's OK?

I ask because you've posted stuff on other threads that gave me reason to believe that you and I don't share much in terms of morality. In particular, I'm refering to the post about your ex-girlfriend. The one you knew cheated on her husband for years, but you seemed distressed when she cheated on you. Your description of your own behaviour gave me reason to doubt whether we share many beliefs about what moral behaviour entails.
So I don't assume that we share any particular belief unless you specifically say so. I'll believe anything you say about your beliefs, unless they contradict something else you've said about your beliefs. When you say you have taught honesty to people by spying on them and lying to them about what you were doing, I think you are contradicting yourself and I don't think your morals are worth much. This is just my opinion. Maybe I'm missing something and you will show me what that is.
Nothing personal, I'm just trying to understand you, like I'm trying to understand Yggdrasill. But I will call a spade a spade.

Tom

long winded fool

The problem with this is that it assumes that babies have value. We don't want them to have to be raised in unloving environments to unfit parents. I think that this should be avoided if at all possible.

But look at what I am saying. If I value the life of a baby enough to wish that it is wanted and loved, then it makes no sense to end the life. The worst most abusive scenario a child could endure without dying is still a step up from dying. We don't "put humans out of their misery" simply because they are, at the moment, unhappy. We don't say, "Your future is too bleak, therefore I have the right to kill you." To argue that it is kinder to destroy a human than it is to stand by and allow it to come to harm is flawed logic. We all may agree that it is unkind to sit back and allow a human being to be harmed, but you cannot use this fact to justify bringing harm to said human, or to another human.

If a pregnant woman refuses to take action to keep her fetus alive, she gives birth to it. No deliberate action is required to keep a fetus alive. The only conscious action a fetal human requires on the part of other humans is sexual intercourse for conception to take place. Pregnancy is not an act of will, it is an act of nature and instinct. It may take considerable willpower to remain happy and healthy during pregnancy, but taking no conscious action in regards to the fetus usually results in birth. Sometimes it results in miscarriage, but accidents happen. Therefore, when women go to clinics and have abortions, they must logically be taking deliberate action with the intent to destroy.

The definition of homicide to which I am referring is the killing of one human by another. Taking action to "refuse to give a human your resources" would be equivalent to using a condom or birth control in this scenario. Once it is using your resources, you no longer are capable of protecting your resources by refusing action. It's like ripping a vital organ you didn't want to donate out of a donee and calling it "refusal to take action." You can only kill the donee in order to stop it from using your resources. This is not refusing to take action, it is taking action. Homicide is action taken, not necessarily action refused, though if the motive is there then it is murder.

And justified homicide in self-defense means defense of life, not of resources. You cannot kill a man who is using your resources without your permission, and you can only be pardoned for homicide if it is reasonable to conclude that you sincerely believed your life was in danger. Why are there humans to which this principle doesn't apply, and what does that mean for inalienable human rights?

On what grounds? If all humans ought to have the inalienable right to life regardless of criteria of any kind, then the only consideration that can possibly be indulged is a threat to this right. All other concerns must be secondary if a human life is in question. To 'fudge' this conclusion with empathy for one type of human and lack of empathy for another is to destroy the premise.

If the motive is the destruction of a human, then it is murder. A pregnant woman should get as much leniency in this situation as a mother who lets her child starve to death. Yes, there is legally enforcible responsibility at play here. If I find an infant on my doorstep in the dead of winter, I am obligated to keep the infant alive within reasonable limits until it can be safely taken off of my hands. And the loophole of "within reasonable limits" can never warrant deliberate destruction of said human. If I have no heat in my cottage and no blankets and the infant dies of exposure, then this is not murder. I simply did not have a reasonable ability to keep the infant alive. If I do have heat and have the ability to turn it on, and I refuse, even though it costs me money this is murder, because I refused to take action with the intent to destroy a human. It's not hard to apply this to a fetal scenario. A woman is never required to donate her uterus to an unwanted fetus, but should such a donation occur, she ought to be required to refrain from destroying said fetus. And if such a destruction occurs and was premeditated, then it is homicide.

Legally speaking, and without empty emotional appeal, why should they be? What makes them better than anyone else? Their trauma? In what way does that make them above the law? For what reason should their rights outweigh anyone else's? Because they had their rights violated and we feel sorry for them, and therefore think they should get to violate someone else's? Because they are vulnerable women, and the rights of vulnerable women should have greater value than the rights of other humans? Where is the logic in these rationalizations? I feel just as much empathy for rape victims as anyone else, but the law is the law. To undermine it with contradictions is to destroy it.

Basic human rights ought to apply to all humans regardless of majority opinion, and for this to be the case the human right to exist must be inalienable.

This is philosophical equivocation. We know what a human is, we have an accepted definition in any english dictionary, so your premise that the definition of human is arbitrary is false. The philosophical notions of what it means to "be" are irrelevant to law. There is an artificial boundary of species and genus that we recognize as being objective. All of the species included in the genus homo are humans. To argue "when is a rock a rock?" is useless because we have accepted definitions for english words objectively available to everyone. Arguments that question the philosophical implications of accepted definitions in order to prove an unrelated point are arguments of desperation. I could just as easily and no more irrationally argue that dark-skinned homo sapiens are not humans by solipsistically questioning the definition of "human" and use that to fortify an argument that slavery does not violate human rights. If you cannot accept the definition provided by the english dictionary as an authority, then we are not communicating in the same language. In the year 2005, a human means an organism of the species homo sapiens. All organisms of this species are humans. No organisms outside of this species are humans. (excluding extinct species of course.) That is the meaning of the word. There is absolutely no scientific reason to add criteria to this definition. The only reason to do so is to justify discrimination against humans after the fact, and discrimination against humans is what "human rights" exist to prevent.

B_Sharp

A woman who is pro abortion would not be a man's best choice. It is against a woman's better nature to desire to snuff out her child. Studies have shown that the trauma and sadness of abortion may last the girl's entire life.

That is good. I believe we learn more from those we respecfully disagree.

I'm debating if I should mention this story in my second book. It is a how to book for our emotional half. Could be a near best seller. One never knows, has the correct formula, original, broad, mainstream ... Anyway, people loved the story while it happened.

RAGE
Distressed is an understatement. It was true rage. Rage is a healthy emotion. Unless one is type A, rage only occurs rarely in a lifetime. Uncontrolled or violent, it is not. Rage is strong anger where the body takes over on autopilot. It desires quick resolution through action.

It is not retribution but action to find the honest truth quickly. Cheaters and liars facade crumbles when brought face to face with their cohort. Just like the TV show, "Cheaters", resolution is quick. Those folks you see are in Rage. Rage is good. The body says, "I am runnig things now until this confusion is solved and over".

HONESTY & CLOSURE
The body seeks, "honesty" and "closure". Then it returns control back to you.

My guess is you are beating around the bush. Dig deep and get to the point. On many boards, the worst that happens is you get censored for not being shallow like other posters.

That bush is taking a real beating.

Spy is your words.

Trust is earned. You have every right to check up on other people to test them. Raise your right hand. "I promise ... to check up on others, especially my spouse or lover, until I feel comfortable I can trust their word".

Trust a 'human being'?? We are on the edge stupid decision every minute of our lives. Trust but verify.

And "morals [not] worth much" is an extreme response.

Additionally important, cheaters bring sex disease into a relationship. Common sex disease brings high risk of cancers later in life. Another's cheating becomes a serious health issue to you. It is your duty to expose and halt cheating, immediately.

I care too much for my own health to allow another person to compromise it. And I expect the same from them.

Around and 'round that mulberry bush ... honestly just say what you mean.

My hunch is, that if you yourself cheated on others, and they let you get away with it, there may be some lingering discomfort. Amends to those we have harmed is a good start. Humility. :notworthy

And who is Yggdrasill, I'll have to check his posts.

Yggdrasill

You might, I don't.The question of whether a dark-skinned person is a human depends entirely on the definition of "human", it's because people use arbitrary definitions of "human" that people judge one organism as human and another not. Saying that only white people are human is just as objective as saying that only "humans" are humans. Which is, not at all. (Well actually, the former definition would be more objective, as it's a requirement that the organism must be white, while "human" is completely undefined.)Look, I've already said that the dictionary definition is crap (and given reasons), we aren't speaking different languages, it's just that you can't come up with an objective definition to support your arguments. Dictionaries aren't infallible, so when I provide evidence that the definition is inane, the dictionary should try to make it's definition more concise. (I would suspect the reason why the definition is just a synonym is that humans are too diverse to be defined.)I'm amazed at your ability to say 1=1. A "human" is a human, I understand this, but what is a "human"? I'm not looking for synonyms of "human", I'm looking for the requirements of "human", i.e. it's definition.

Maybe I should attack it from another angle, if my definition of "computer" was "PC", and my definition of "PC" was "computer", would you consider the definitions apt? If you wanted to know what a computer is, would the definition "PC" have been any help, when the definition of "PC" was "computer"? Wouldn't you think that requirements of what makes a "computer" a computer more useful and a better definition?Well, unless you want an objective definition. Uh, no, there's also the reason that you want an objective universal definition.

Boro Nut

I was just trying to make the point that it's a bit risible for a Christian to push the 'abstinence is 100% effective' line when their whole faith is based on the fundamental tenet that the one thing we can be sure of with a certainty beyond scientific fact is that abstinence can't possibly have been 100% effective. Or have I got them mixed up with some other virgin birth loonies?

Boro Nut

The AntiChris

Absolute magic. :rolling: