how do we survive our soul crushing world?

[iambiguous]

So, you are opposed to the death penalty? You're an anti-war pacifist? You don't step on bugs?

Of course, lucky for you, you are not likely to get pregnant yourself.

Right?

You are not likely to face "the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty" that many women do when confronted with an unwanted pregnancy. Because of rape, because of incestuous rape...when giving birth might jeopardize your physical and mental health, when the newborn baby is afflicted with one or another ghastly God-given health condition, when being forced to give birth takes you out of school, causes you to lose your job, brings havoc to your life.

And how far do you take this pro-life stand? Suppose a woman you know and love has an abortion in a place where it is illegal? Do you turn her in? Do you stand by the state convicting her of first degree murder...sending her to prison. As long as they don't sentence her to death?

You display a need to place labels on things that you perceive. Interesting. Did you also collect bugs as a child, each one in a cubbyhole, or each one pinned to a foam core board and labeled with Latin, and its colloquial name?

The death penalty is a punishment. The ultimate punishment, so they say. How do you punish someone? You do them wrong. You do them dirty. You do them an unfairness. You flame their thread. Thus, the ultimate punishment is to do the ultimate wrong to another. For what are the innocent punished with any wrong, let alone the ultimate wrong? Riddle me that.

Note to others:

As I noted here today on this thread -- viewtopic.php?f=20&t=38677&start=30 -- you can't say I didn't try.

Alas, given my own subjective, rooted existentially in dasein frame of mind, this sort of post is practically the rule over at ILP. And look at it now.

Also, the point I noted above that he failed to respond to at all:

The moral issue is life. The divider is death. Since death is not a do-over, then the finality of death is the absolute line once crossed, that cannot be uncrossed.

Like going to the Bible and reading "thou shalt not kill"...only with an * after it.

* Except when God kills:

To wit:

"Fifteen to twenty percent of all pregnancies (or approximately 1 million a year in the U.S.) will end in a miscarriage or stillbirth."

Your God perchance?

God's own abortions let's call them.

Any other "Walkers" here care to take a stab at it?

[Maia]

So, as long as they take responsibility they can have abortions?

and the, again...

If they take responsibility they won't have abortions.

And so what is this process of teaching that leads to this outcome? What do you expect parents to do? And what happens to those who decide to abort? And what happens to doctors who perform abortions? And what happens to parents whose children get abortions?

Children should be taught independence and self-reliance. I don't want to get into a discussion about legal penalties, though.

[Iwannaplato]

If they take responsibility they won't have abortions.

And so what is this process of teaching that leads to this outcome? What do you expect parents to do? And what happens to those who decide to abort? And what happens to doctors who perform abortions? And what happens to parents whose children get abortions?

Children should be taught independence and self-reliance. I don't want to get into a discussion about legal penalties, though.

OK, but actions have consequences and we do have some history of some of those. Are you willing to take responsibility for those.
Also, it ends up being kind of facile. You suggest something in very general and vague terms as a solution. No explanation or what actions this entails, nor what resposibility you or others with your views will take. What kind of role modeling is this?

[Maia]

And so what is this process of teaching that leads to this outcome? What do you expect parents to do? And what happens to those who decide to abort? And what happens to doctors who perform abortions? And what happens to parents whose children get abortions?

Children should be taught independence and self-reliance. I don't want to get into a discussion about legal penalties, though.

OK, but actions have consequences and we do have some history of some of those. Are you willing to take responsibility for those.
Also, it ends up being kind of facile. You suggest something in very general and vague terms as a solution. No explanation or what actions this entails, nor what resposibility you or others with your views will take. What kind of role modeling is this?

I actually have some very detailed ideas of how I would organise an education system, but that's probably something for another thread.

[iambiguous]

On the other hand, I think most people are repelled by the idea of killing babies. But any line between the two is purely arbitrary.

Incidentally, just to put my cards on the table, in cases of rape, I think a good case can be made for abortion, because the baby is an intruder, as it were.

This, in my view, is how people are able to rationalize things when they are moral objectivists. On the one hand, she is repelled by the thought of killing babies...but on the other hand, a good case can be made for killing the baby if it exists as a result of rape. As though the unborn baby here is any less entirely innocent.

And from conception to birth the line between "not human" and "human" is arbitrary [existential] precisely because in a No God world who among us mere mortals is able to demonstrate beyond all doubt when the unborn does become a "human being"?

At the same time, those on the left, in my opinion, convince themselves that a zygote and an embryo and a fetus in the early stages is not really a human being...just a "collection of cells".

As though there is a single one of us on this side of the grave who was not once a zygote and an embryo and a fetus in the early stages ourselves.

But, again, with Maia, the crucial factor is that she will flat out acknowledge that had her life been different, she might be here arguing fiercely for a woman's right to choose "abortion on demand".

Instead, her moral convictions are predicted on her Spiritual Self...wholly in sync only with her own private and personal relationship with Nature. Thus, since you are not her, what can you possibly know about that? Ironically enough, it's not unlike my own moral philosophy. I predicate individual moral convictions on dasein. I argue that since our own individual lives can be vastly different --- from our indoctrination as kids, to the experiences we have as adults -- of course our value judgments might be vastly different in turn.

Thus, the key point here among philosophers is whether, using the tools at their disposal, they can come up with a demonstrable argument [re Kant] that all rational men and women are obligated to embrace.

Yours perhaps?

But there is no good case when the sex was consensual, since no precautions are 100% reliable, and everyone knows that. Again, it's responsibility.

Okay, so what does she know personally about being involved in a "case" where she herself faced an unwanted pregnancy? She practiced safe sex but the contraceptive device failed. She wanted to become pregnant, did become pregnant, but circumstances in her life changed dramatically...and she no longer did. If she is forced to give birth she has to drop out of school, she loses her job, opportunities are lost, her life becomes a terrible ordeal.

The other scenario often brought up is cases of disabled babies. I was born with atrophied and non-functioning eyes, and they were removed when I was little, as an infection risk. If my parents had known this, should they have aborted me?

Again, that was her situation. But there are, however, ghastlier conditions that a baby can come into the world afflicted with. The crucial point being how agonizing these situations can be for many. Situations Maia knows absolutely nothing about.

[Iwannaplato]

Children should be taught independence and self-reliance. I don't want to get into a discussion about legal penalties, though.

OK, but actions have consequences and we do have some history of some of those. Are you willing to take responsibility for those.
Also, it ends up being kind of facile. You suggest something in very general and vague terms as a solution. No explanation or what actions this entails, nor what resposibility you or others with your views will take. What kind of role modeling is this?

I actually have some very detailed ideas of how I would organise an education system, but that's probably something for another thread.

OK

[iambiguous]

So it's ok to kill people in comas, then? Or even asleep?

Not at all. If there's a good chance the person will come out of it, then they are probably still "here", just unconscious. A fetus in the first trimester, I don't think is yet "here".

And yet, the fetus will come out of it, almost certainly.

From my own "fractured and fragmented" frame of mind, both arguments are reasonable. Neither one of them are able to be unequivocally "verified" or "falsified".

Well, unless someone here can demonstrate it one way or the other.

They simply start out with a different set of assumptions regarding when the unborn become "human beings". If Maia had been aborted as a zygote or an embryo, what would she have known of her own oblivion?

But there is absolutely no way that Gary would be around today had he not first been a zygote and an embryo.

Which is why "I" always come back around to this:

I believe what many would construe to be two seemingly conflicting [even contradictory] things:

1] that aborting a human fetus is the killing of an innocent human being
2] that women should be afforded full legal rights to choose abortion

As a result, the first thing many point out is that, regarding this issue, I am insisting women should be permitted legally to kill innocent human beings. And that doing so is in this particular context not immoral.

To which I respond:

"Yes, but..."

But I am "drawn and quartered". Pulled in both directions at the same time. And it is this predicament that the moral objectivists among us [left and right] are most adamant in rejecting.

Why? Because it is in believing what they do [for or against abortion] that comforts and consoles them.

[Iwannaplato]

This, in my view, is how people are able to rationalize things when they are moral objectivists. On the one hand, she is repelled by the thought of killing babies...but on the other hand, a good case can be made for killing the baby if it exists as a result of rape. As though the unborn baby here is any less entirely innocent.

Agreed.
Having opinions doesn't do much in the world. And it does take courage to look at what our beliefs entail, ALL of the things they entail, even the unpleasant ones.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It means teaching children how to be responsible citizens in all areas of life.

How? At what age? About what? Are you saying that only irresponsible people have sex?

Not just about sex, about everything. At the earliest possible age. Actions have consequences.

Good idea. Drill them from, say, the age of two, that they either abstain or make babies, because otherwise they will be imprisoned for 'murder'. Sounds like a recipe for healthy young people and good mental health... You will need armed enforcers though, to patrol residences to make sure all parents are complying with the rules. Have to ensure that children grow up nicely indoctrinated with a sense of 'responsibility' towards every sacred littly zygote-- not to mention the Fatherland.
Yuk. Please continue to abstain until menopause.

[iambiguous]

Poor frustrated creature. Must be weird to be a virgin at your age.

Which is purely my own choice.

Maia,

If you are literally a virgin, then you have no experience with sex at all? With copulation? If so, doesn't that make it all the less likely that you can have an informed opinion about the consequences of sex? Doesn't your reaction instead revolve only around what you have "thought up" in your head about these things?

[Walker]

Also, the point I noted above that he failed to respond to at all:

You make a fundamental error. You obviously don't understand the statement that Life is the measure of All Things.

To say that life is the measure of all things does not mean that one should not kill bugs, which is a side road you wandered down. Rather, it is simply stating that life is the objective measure of any action*. Life, and the end of life as we know it, is the objective measure that gives significance to any action.

As I recall, the basis of your position is that there are only subjective measures to determine the significance of an action. The basis of your position is the topic. Not bugs. Not me, and not any consensus agreement you attempt to elicit.

This assertion of only subjective measures, that you assert, is inaccurate, incorrect, and wrong. Pick one. Why? Because, life is the objective measure that determines the significance of any action.

*

What is that word you keep using?




* If you kill a bug so that it doesn't suck your blood and give you a disease, then by the measure of life the significance of that action is that you value your life, over the bug's need to suck your blood and live. Apply the same reasoning to abortion.

[Walker]

Brahmacharya is bigger than any religion.

Whatever you are talking about may well be, but that's a religious word. It's like saying I do a secular Holy Communion in the morning, to say otherwise.

No it's not, and saying it is, is confusing the view with practice, and confusing practice with the view. The meaning is not restricted to that particular word's use in any interpreted religious context. It is not subject to that projected limitation. Neither is it subject to dietary restrictions.

However, after a certain age I think most men prefer home cookin'.

[Iwannaplato]

Brahmacharya is bigger than any religion.

Whatever you are talking about may well be, but that's a religious word. It's like saying I do a secular Holy Communion in the morning, to say otherwise.

No it's not,

It as in the word, certainly is a religious word, whatever your version of the practice is may well not be and sure we can make use of practices that come out of religious without taking on the beliefs. Though, then, of course, they are not exactly the same. Beliefs and practices are intertwined and become different things when separated.
A bunch of white people doing a sweat lodge ceremony are generally doing a 'sweat lodge ceremony' since how they view it affects what they are doing and they'd be more accurate and more polite saying they are doing a sweat. The politeness I could give a shit about in relation to the giant Indian religions who came up with Brahmacharya.

Brahmacharya (/ˌbrɑːməˈtʃʌrjə/; Sanskrit: ब्रह्मचर्य lit. 'pure conduct')[1] is a concept within Indian religions that literally means to stay in conduct within one's own Self.

Why use a religious term for whatever you are doing? Why use one from a non-European source unless you are Indian, say? There are perfectly good words for all sorts of ascetic practices from within the European context and some of them to not come directly out of religions or have a deity in the fucking name - and yes, I do understand that their deities are not always like Abrahamic ones and that Brahma is a very complicated concept, blah, blah, but it is absolutely not a secular word.

and saying it is, is confusing the view with practice, and confusing practice with the view. The meaning is not restricted to that particular word's use in any interpreted religious context.

This would falsely imply that there was this term Brahmacharya that the religions appropriated. When in fact the word comes out of Indian religions and texts.

It is not subject to that projected limitation.

As I said, whatever the practice is doesn't have to be religious though it's not the same, just as eating bread and wine is not the same as doing Holy Communion - yes, that's a more extreme example, but you are calliing your practince something equivalent to Holy Communion.

Why not explain what your version of this is....

It is the proper channeling of energy, not the denial of energy. Energy is perpetual. As such, sex becomes both a natural expression of what it was always meant to express, and it becomes a responsible act because you are now a responsible person. Savvy? Drop that phone. Drop that video game. Exit the matrix, it's the wrong indoctrination.

So, you are having sex, but no one gets pregnant? You responded as if this solved the problem Maia and I were bickering about. So, how does whatever your practice is do this? What is this secular practice and why couldn't you find a Western term to cover it, one used by Indian religions thousands of years before Christ slid out of Mary in a barn.

Regardless, no one is taking whatever your are doing away from you. But if you throw a religious sanskrit word around as what you are doing, when you mean some secular activity and probably at least partially idiosyncratically interpreted by you activity, you can expect that pretentiousness to get called out. Or maybe the Rig Veda was a plumbin manual.

Neither is it subject to dietary restrictions.

Maybe this was a joke, but if not, I never said it was. And if it was a joke based on the Holy Communion involved intake of foods, that doesn't work as a joke since the HC is not about a restriction.

So, tell us: how does Brahmachrya solve the abortion issue? You imply that it does. So, show us.

As such, sex becomes both a natural expression of what it was always meant to express, and it becomes a responsible act because you are now a responsible person. Savvy? Drop that phone. Drop that video game.

That's proud, easy peasy positioning, right there. You got the answer. Ok, lay it on us.

[Wizard22]

Which is purely my own choice.

Oh you sweet Summer child, is there an end to your limitless Innocence?

I'm certain you've had plenty of offers.

"Killing people is everyone's business." Here is the crux of the argument. Maia, you differentiate between 'killing' and 'murder', ignoring the difference between the two. So, is it killing or mudering the Unborn? I agree with the premise though; yes killing is "everybody's business". And if killing children, babies, and the unborn are Most heinous, then Abortion is by default the most egregious (im)moral action. These matters can be side-stepped by sensitivity. It is not the killing that is most critical; rather it is the judgment of Life and Death. In cases where the Mother is in danger, her life is compared to the value of the Unborn. Throughout history, childbirth often resulted in the death of the Mother, if not both the mother and child. This should exclude the notion of 'Murder'. Abortion, then, is a highly complex moral issue.

I'd go further than these simple dialogues. If you can or should protect the Unborn, then why not the not-yet-conceived? Why not the future children, the future generations?

Isn't you and others choosing 'Not' to reproduce, then the same outcome as 'killing'? I daresay it is.

To Honor life, then, is to honor the distant past and distant future. It is a statement to existence to 'Choose' to Live, and living means children.

[Walker]

...

In the interest of advancing philosophy, I supplied the reasoning that leads up to the point. You missed the point. Here's the point that is most relevant to your interest in abortion.

If you kill a bug so that it doesn't suck your blood and give you a disease, then by the measure of life the significance of that action is that you value your life, over the bug's need to suck your blood and live. Apply the same reasoning to abortion.

This is the objective basis, this is the rationale if you will, that determines each individual, subjective need for abortion.

*

Note: I also stressed a proper study of Brahmacharya. That is not under these conditions, so save your speculation that originates from other than a proper study. How's that for layin' it on? You see, your attitude is another element inappropriate to a proper study, Pal.