"NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS", HERE'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION

[RCSaunders]

... because we live in societies, it's no good. We have to agree on laws, policies and procedures so that the rights and privileges of all are protected.

But you're not interested in the, "rights of all," only those who agree with you; but we don't all have to agree except on one thing. I will never interfere in your life, or the life of any other adult. If everyone would agree to that, no one would want or need oppressive laws, policies, and procedures. I'm not interested in anyone protecting my, "rights," whatever you think those are, and therefore have no interest in your oppressive laws, policies, and procedures by which you wish to interfere in and control other individual's lives.

... if it's just a matter of our feelings?

A moral individual is guided by what he knows is right, not by what he or anyone else feels.

... A woman has responsibility for her child, but not ownership.

That's exactly what I said, except that I added, "authority," by which I meant she and her husband are the only people who may morally make choices for the child until it is old enough to make choices for itself.

I'm not mocking you, ...

Well you are, but there's no need to apologize. I appreciate mocking when it's done well.

... but I have to remark that I'm always amused to see "nature" invoked as some sort of substitute for God. It's like the same people who will tell you that nature is an indifferent force, or something "red in tooth and claw," will then turn around and suggest nature has a "plan," a "direction," an "intention" for you, which you are obligated to follow. So what God won't do, Grand Old Mother Nature rushes in to do...really?

Nature has no "authority." It has no "plan." It doesn't "intend" for us to be one thing or the other. If there's no God, there's no authority in Nature.

I know rhetoric is not taught in schools any longer, but if it were and you had learned it, you would know the word, "nature," is being used as a metaphor for the way things are before human beings ignorantly interfere in them--it has nothing to do with authority. You are absolutely correct, "Nature has no 'authority.' It has no 'plan.' It doesn't 'intend' for us to be one thing or the other."

Every human being must discover what his own nature is, what the requirements of that nature are, and how he must live to fulfill the requirements of that nature. There is no authority to tell him how to live. A human must discover how to live and then choose to do it.

[Dubious]

Whether right or wrong, the state has nothing to say about it nor any dumb-ass supreme court.

1 - Would you say the same about prohibitions on rape or child molestation?

A fetus or embryo belongs to the mother not to the state.

2 - What's your evidence that it "belongs" to either?

1) Here's a news update. In cases of rape or child molestation the child is no-longer part of its mother's body in which case circumstances are very different, duh! Being inside a womb is not the same as being outside as a fully formed being. One process has ended, another has begun.

2) Where's the evidence that your brain isn't the size of an acorn? I guess your inference is it belongs to god and miscellaneous religious tripe of that ilk. If that were the case why back in the good old days did one often had to have a gross of 7 or more to come out with a net of 2 or 3? Was your god amusing itself?

[Harbal]

And that's rational with my assumption that God exists, His standards are the ones that ultimately judge laws, and He defines what qualifies as "murder."

That would be fine if there were universal acceptance of what God's standards are. Some people think that God wants them to kill innocent people on the streets or in churches. Some people think God is okay with homosexuality and some don't. A different subject, I know, but it illustrates the difficulty in looking to God for a set of rules that we can all agree on.

[Immanuel Can]

But you're not interested in the, "rights of all,"

Sure I am. Rights to life, liberty, property...all good with me.

But there is no "right to abortion," just as there is no "right for it to rain candy every day." Rights-claims have to have justification, and if they don't, they don't succeed in being compelling.

I will never interfere in your life, or the life of any other adult.

From what place do you get the precept, "Thou shalt not interfere in the life of another adult?" How did you acquire this belief? Is it a moral belief, or is it just something you made up and would like to be true. Are you trying to say I'm wrong for thinking I ought to do otherwise, like intervene to save children?

Gee, it sounds like you're wanting to "interfere in my life."

... if it's just a matter of our feelings?

A moral individual is guided by what he knows is right, not by what he or anyone else feels.

Well, the truth is that any psychopath or sociopath would agree to that. So would any narcissist. But such are notoriously difficult to live with in a civil society. We tend to lock them up -- or at least avoid them.

I know rhetoric is not taught in schools any longer, but if it were and you had learned it, you would know the word, "nature," is being used as a metaphor for the way things are before human beings ignorantly interfere in them

No, I'm just bemused by the persistence of the docile 18th Century belief that "Nature," or "the way things are before humans interfere" is all by itself a good thing. Lots of people say it, but I think that they have no idea what they're saying. It's like they believe in some idyllic "natural state" from which we have all (completely inexplicably, in their view) fallen. And if we "get back to nature," we'll be good. But "nature," in another way of their telling the story, is the thing we "moderns" ought to master, overcome and change, because it's bad and old and crude, and we're modern.

However, let's accept that they think this "nature" thing is good.

If human beings are mere artifacts of nature themselves, how can anything they do be "interference"? They ARE bits of "nature," aren't they?

A human must discover how to live and then choose to do it.

How does he do that, though? Does he merely consult his feelings, in the blind hope he won't turn out to be a psychopath or narcissist himself? And if what he chooses is not what his society has chosen -- say he wants to be free, but his society wants to enslave people of his skin colour -- what are the grounds of his protest against this "injustice"?

Will "You're interfering with an adult" tell anybody something they don't know? Is there any inherent reason they should care that he's not enjoying his enslavement?

[Immanuel Can]

And that's rational with my assumption that God exists, His standards are the ones that ultimately judge laws, and He defines what qualifies as "murder."

That would be fine if there were universal acceptance of what God's standards are.

I have no doubt that that would be good, if it happened. But it's not necessary for those standards to be right. God doesn't need man's approval, and man's confusions are no stop to God. The good will be the good, even if men get it wrong.

Some people think that God wants them to kill innocent people on the streets...

You mean like in Sharia Law? Yes, they do think that. And they are wrong.

or in churches.

I've never seen a person killed in church, or anybody in church advocate such a thing. I have, however, heard of people being slaughtered in churches, but by non-believers. But I'm thinking that's maybe not what you meant.

... it illustrates the difficulty in looking to God for a set of rules that we can all agree on.

I think our agreement would be good. But if we fail to agree with God's standards, who is that really hurting? Only those who dissent, not those who agree.

So whether or not we can agree is a contingent matter; people have a right to be wrong, just as they have freedom to choose the good. But if God exists and is the guarantor of morality, then the fact is that there is something we all ought to agree on, whether we happen to or not.

[Dubious]

"If the fetus or embryo is a person, then the fetus or embryo belongs to itself (him- or her-self)."

A fetus or embryo is not a person. It may grow into a person, dog, cat, pig, etc. It knows nothing of "belonging to itself". It subsists as a piece of meat in process of developing into what it was meant to be. Nothing more than that!

[Harbal]

You mean like in Sharia Law? Yes, they do think that. And they are wrong.

But they are acting in accordance with what they believe to be God's wishes, and they think you are wrong. Now why would God make it perfectly clear to you what is right, but not make it clear to them?

[henry quirk]

"It's what she thinks that is important, not what you think. She will have to live with the consequences long after you have forgotten about it."

And if she decides her elderly ma is inconvenient (what with the bed pans and feedings and medicines) and decides ma needs to go to sleep forever, well, "It's what she thinks that is important, not what you (or I) think. She will have to live with the consequences long after you (and I) have forgotten about it", yeah?

[henry quirk]

"Some people think that God wants them to kill innocent people on the streets or in churches."

What generally happens to folks who do such things (kill innocents)?

[Harbal]

What generally happens to folks who do such things (kill innocents)?

They are held to account by the law, henry.

[henry quirk]

"A fetus or embryo is not a person. It may grow into a person, dog, cat, pig, etc. It knows nothing of "belonging to itself". It subsists as a piece of meat in process of developing into what it was meant to be. Nothing more than that!"

I'm a healthy 56 year old man. I'm aware of myself, my surroundings, myself 'in' my surroundings. When I sleep, however, I'm essentially gone, knowing nuthin'. In a certain sense, I'm just meat but still a person, yeah?

[henry quirk]

"They are held to account by the law, henry."

Yes.

Why?

Because they killed innocents.

If what a pregnant woman carries a person, surely that person is innocent.

As I say: in the absence of an answer as to when meat in the womb becomes a person, it's wise to err safely and assume a woman carries a person through most of her pregnancy.

Better temporary and narrow restraint be applied to the woman than irrevocably wipe out a person who's only 'crime' was being conceived.

[Harbal]

As I say: in the absence of an answer as to when meat in the womb becomes a person, it's wise to err safely and assume a woman carries a person through most of her pregnancy.

But all countries that allow abortion set time limits on it, henry. It's all very well you erring safely, henry, but you are not the one who will be left with the consequences.

[henry quirk]

"you are not the one who will be left with the consequences."

Brief anecdote...

I'm raising my nephew. I've had him for his whole life (he'll be 13 this summer). I love him more than I love me (and I love me a lot). My life, in certain tangible ways, would be far less burdensome, far less troublesome, if he were gone. I have no legal obligation toward him. And yet: he lives with me, is my thorn and my joy.

I know consequences...I know about the ill-considered choices of loved ones...I know about fighting to preserve an innocent...I know my nephew is, and always has been, a person who deserves (Crom help him) a knuckle dragger like me to put him first when others won't or can't.

Yeah, I know consequences. Consequences don't outweigh the person.

[henry quirk]

"all countries that allow abortion set time limits on it, henry"

Here, in the US, certain states would make it so a baby can be aborted right before delivery.