Value of life
Offline So, someone started a thread wondering why an atheist might be a "homophobe"
I shall start one about life and abortion.
How could a free thinking atheist, even consider abortion except under the most dire of situations?
I am an athesit and I realize when I am dead, I am dead. Gone, that's it.
To me life is sacred. I am very anti war, anti death everything basicly that may cause death unwarranted or unwanted.. Unless perhaps someone kills, tortures etc, then perhaps they should have the same done to them, because they have proven they have no care for the most important thing we have, life.
Sure, if you want to go skydiving and chance your own life in this fashion, it's up to you.
Using religion in anyway to propogate war and play like "oh if they die they go to a better place" is BS. They are simply dead and their shot at life, is over.
Abortion, as I define it, is mutilating an unborn fetus prematurely to insure it's death. In my eye's you have just taken away someones legitimate chance at life. Yes, for me this is at conception, you just started a chain of events that will result in another human life. If you stop that you have broken a link in that chain and taken away that potential.
Sure people screw up with sex and get pregnant but as a "pro lifer" I feel they should have to deal with those consequences. We are not animals haphazzardly running about having sex when we have any opportunity.. we are supposed to be more intelligent than that.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
- Login to post comments
well there you have it, the fetus doesnt have any sort of legal rights, even apparently right up until birth, even though theres no difference between a fetus 1 minute before birth and 1 minute after
highly unethical and seemingly ridiculous to say that only the will of the mother matters and the rights of the unborn child have no bearing
i dont think it equates to murder because its a far more difficult question than just plain murder, there are situations when an abortion is warranted as in a tubal pregnancy or rape or incest (though in the last 2 cases id say theres even a limit on that, cant have a woman waiting until the baby is 8 months till she decides she doesnt want it)
also, as a personal feeling, i dont feel like i can be for personal responsibility and for abortion, an abortion isnt taking responsibility for your actions, its an absolution of your responsibilities
I didn't expect you or anyone else to agree with me. You asked for my opinion, you got it. As for you, you will never have to make the decision, so who cares about your opinion? Only you.
Let's see - incest or rape is somehow the woman's responsibility? She acted irresponsibly by getting raped by her dad, uncle or grandpa? Bad 12 year old. Nasty little girl.
Contraceptive failure rates:
2-4%
9%
13%
15%
22%
26%
28%
http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/birthcontrol/a/effectivenessbc.htm
Are all these women irresponsible as well?
As for late term abortions:
* In 40%, an earlier test indicated that a defect existed but not how serious it was. Doctors delayed and re-tested to see if the defect was serious enough to be life-threatening. Some genetic conditions can be mild or severe, so to prevent unnecessary abortions the doctors waited.
* In 37%, an earlier test failed to find the serious defects that showed up later.
* In 18%, a diagnosis for this kind of defect can’t be made until the third trimester. This often seems to include anencephaly, a fatal birth defect.
* And in the remaining 5%, doctors or parents delayed the decision to abort.
http://sciencenotes.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/what-causes-third-trimester-abortions/
Some discussion after the article as well.
It is none of my business to get involved in the parent's anguish over a planned birth with expectations of a healthy baby changing to whether a pregnancy should be terminated to reduce stress on the mother so she can safely try another pregnancy. It is none of your business, either. Should we set up a commission so that you personally can review all late term abortion requests to see if they meet with your standards of what is medically necessary? If not you, then who?
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
You talk as if the woman is the only one that can suffer consequences from having children. Sure it's her body, sure she has more say, but to say a man has no say whatsoever... I have 3 friends who's lives have been just short of ruined by child support. One friend lost his 25$ an hour job, and had to get a 10$ an hour job (at the local prison no less) and it took him 6 months before he made any money at all, he was in the negative each pay period. He had to move in with his mom at the age of 36. He finally got his child support reduced via the courts. Sure the woman is the one who actually HAS the child, but the man in most cases is going to have to work his ass off for it, yea for 18 years. So yes, a man can have some stake in this. It is a shared responsibility, it took two people to have sex and make a child.
As far as contraceptives, everyone knows there is still some risk. If the woman chooses to have sex then she is taking on this risk as is the man. If it is a 12 year old she obviously is not old enough to make such a decision and should probably have an abortion asap (imo, because I can't think of any reason for a 12 year old child to have a child). She should also be in counseling and put on birth control just in case, the boy or man w/e the case should be in juvie or jail.
Wow that's sexist I'm saying the boy should be put in juvie and the girl in counseling lol, because I assume it is the male's fault hmm. This is a whole nother can of worms though.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
well i clearly stated there were some cases where an abortion was warranted, even necessary
didnt say getting raped was the womans fault, i was clearly speaking of abortion in general (as far as responsibility goes), minus the exceptions i had already pointed out
posting failure rates for contraceptive doesnt impress me, you know before you have sex that none of them are 100%
im almost stunned that you basically agreed that a baby could be aborted basically 1 minute before birth if the woman did so choose, thats astounding (and i say baby because at that point there is no doubt as to what it is), seriously makes me wonder what type of person would say such a thing, and most likely with a straight face no doubt
again, because im not a woman my opinion on the matter is irrelevant? pretty ridiculous logic, that rules about peoples opinions on just about anything
That is a bit naive cj. Politically and socially he has at least as much authority as you do. If people like him convince enough people to, they will remove or curtail abortion rights.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I'm the type of person who minds her own business. Though seriously, I would doubt you could find a doctor who would perform a discretionary abortion one minute before the baby was born. What the heck else is it when the baby dies during delivery and the doctor induces labor? That happened to one of my friends with her first child. Baby started out alive, baby died after 24 hours, doctor had not agreed to a c-section earlier, but administered drugs to speed things up when it was too late to save the child, and apparently cut the dead infant up to save my friend further tear on her body. Why are you assuming that there are ANY discretionary abortions after viability? Could you please hunt up some valid stats? And I mean pubmed or somewhere similar with some science chops.
And yes, your opinion is irrelevant, as is mine, as is most people's. We are all just shooting the breeze with no stake in the answers and no ability to change the world now or later. Deal with it.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Realistically, we all of us have no authority over what society does, we only get to choose which society we live in. And sometimes, not even that.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
There is a preventative cure for that that is 100% reliable. Keep your pants zipped. Yep, abstinence will prevent pregnancy. I think it would be ideal if there were a 95%+ reliable birth control method for men. Then they would only have to worry about STDs. (sexually transmitted diseases)
I said before, I don't agree with the way most societies handle the father's responsibility for his children. He is not just a wallet.
There have been a number of cases when a very young woman was pregnant and doesn't know she was until very far along, or even after birth. I personally don't see how this could be. But I once had a neighbor who grew up in a very strict household and she had never seen a man's genitals and had no idea what her new husband was talking about on their wedding night and was horrified when she finally figured it out. It was hard to doubt her sincerity. And it was criminal of her parents to allow her to be so ignorant.
Calling pedophilia and the consequences a can of worms is rather an understatement. A young girl who has not even had her first period may get pregnant. It is rare, but it has happened.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Thinking about it, I would like to restate this a little.
We all have opinions which are based on a combination of life experiences and education. Those opinions have some impact on our actions. Sometimes. Patrick Henry - Give me liberty or give me death. Sometimes not. Hence hypocrisy and self-justification, and young female pro-life protesters having an abortion.
If we state our opinion to someone else, it has varying degrees of importance. If my boss asks for an opinion on whether we need to upgrade a particular server, my opinion has a great deal of import. If my boss asks for my opinion on whether it is going to rain today, no import.
A man almost certainly will never have an abortion. Yes, we can all think up sci-fi sort of situations, but realistically, for most men, never. He may have an opinion. His opinion is valid for him. His opinion is not valid for some woman he doesn't even know who has to make hard choices that he will never have to face.
Now, can this hypothetical man act on his opinion so as to influence that unknown woman? Yes. Because that is the way our society works. You may guess I don't like this since I really, truly believe we should keep our noses out of other people's business. But I am aware that my sometimes unlovely opinion may also cause me to act in a way that other people are uncomfortable with. We can not keep everyone around us blissfully happy all of the time. Probably just as well.
This hypothetical man is entitled to his opinion, but it has no import for me. And only if he goes out and campaigns against legalized abortions will I be concerned that his opinion may affect other women. If he just expresses his opinion on the message boards and takes no other action ---
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Nuh UH!
My point was that for some people, the issue is not that others should have abortions, because they don't believe they should in many cases, but that they believe the choice should be theirs to make, hence "pro-choice" is an accurate label.
In refrence to the pedo comment, suppose the boy and girl were the same age? That is what I was inferring. It would make a 12 year old boy a "pedophile" who should be jailed and given sentence, and the girl should undergo counseling, and or therapy. The boy is automaticly assumed to be the guilty party.
In general that is the way our society is, the male is at fault in any sexual indiscretion. Take the hottie teachers having sex with the school boys for example. Most guys I know applaud the boys for it and wish they had had teachers like that lol. Now if it's a guy with school girls, it is completely different, they are pedo's and pervs and should spend life in jail, and I agree with that. It's just something different about the genders.
The thread got derailed long ago though, my original question was not about making abortion legal or illegal, but your personal thoughts on it as an atheist. This should be relevant considering most christians for example would be pro life and want abortion to be illegal in almost all situations. I hope, that there are some atheists who are also pro life, but who at the same time would not impose their own personal beliefs upon others. If not well I guess that's the way it is, I was just curious as to what people had to say about that. Christians use abortion, gay rights etc to demonize atheists. But I am willing to bet we are not as different as they would like to believe on many issues, I think it is simply that we might be more open to what other people think and more unwilling to take someone's rights away because we think differently. Now, do you see where I wanted this thread to go?
I already stated my personal opinion on abortion, I'm a pro lifer who believes even a zygote should have a chance. However would I keep abortion legal? Yes. I would not impose my idea's on everyone else and I think by "law" it should be up to the woman.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Two 12 year olds, it isn't pedophilia, it is playing around and who left them alone together? Pedophilia is specifically adults being turned on by children. And as I understand it, the adult may or may not have a preference as to the sex of the child. I believe a woman who abuses young children is as bad as any man who does.
Teens are hard for people to get. A teenager does not have a fully developed brain and is still unable to make reasoned choices. This is variable as all people develop at their own pace and not at the pace the child development books advocate. But for the most part, you can assume a teen is not pulling on all cylinders - especially when it comes to sex. Women having sex with teenage boys should be prosecuted just like adult men are with underage partners.
Back to my definition of morality - one's personal beliefs about what action you consider is right or wrong for you to do.
From my personal perspective, abortion is moral and it is murder and it should be legal. Just like self-defense where you buy the weapon and the ammunition and keep it fully loaded around the house for the express purpose of killing a complete stranger. How premeditated is that? To me, abortions have the same morality - a once living entity is now a dead entity and any justification is between the involved parties.
I don't think opinions on abortion are strictly on the lines of atheist/theist. I have women friends who are very religious and also think abortion should be legal. Yeah, the ones standing in front of the clinics and yelling their fool heads off claim to be christian, but they aren't the only ones in town.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Does this mean we should be vegetarians so a not to take a life? Should we not kill rats, cockroaches and other vermon so as to not take their potential. Why do you have this affintity for some life and not others?
So this is just moral indignation on your part? You don't want to force any behevior on people with deadly force?
Of course, we're bad for business.
Where does this idea come from? Why would some life be sacred and not others? Should artificial forms of life(i.e. computers, robots) be sacred and protected? What is the rational basis by which one should decide this?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Cockroaches are a far cry from human life. I'm a human therefore I value human life. I like animals but I don't belong to peta. This is only my opinion, if you think I'm trying to convice you of it, think again. I don't care if you think abortion should be mandatory for the first 3 pregnancies or if it should be outlawed all together. I just asked what people thought about it, I'm not trying to debate it.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
I assumed your stance was more nuanced than it sounded; mostly I just wanted you to elaborate. Personally, anyone who can vote and disagrees with me is a theoretical threat to my hopes and dreams. Realistically, almost everyone is too small to matter and most of us would be better off trying to be happy instead of trying to change anything. But that sounds depressing, so I usually ignore that little tidbit of unfortunate truth. I like to pretend I matter.
Oh, and cheers from a fellow IT person
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Which is exactly what I said. Choice is a legal concern, Please re-read what I posted.
ROBJ101!
See:
In other words:
THAT IS NOT PRO-LIFE, THAT IS PRO-CHOICE.
PLEASE stop being an idiot about the definitions- read the definition!
Pro-life is a political stance that seeks to restrict the legal access to abortions, often completely, but also sometimes in part.
If you do NOT support legal action on restricting (or mandating) abortions, then you are PRO-CHOICE!!
Pro-choice is NOT love for or encouragement of abortions- it is merely the legal stance of a woman having a choice in the matter- whether you like that choice or not.
Do you know another stance that is NOT pro-choice? Mandatory abortions.
Pro-life (legal restrictions on abortions) - Pro-choice (Legal abortions, a person's choice) - Pro-mandatory-abortions (legal requirement of abortions)
Of three stances, one of these things is not like the other. I wonder which one it is? Hmmm.... two of them require a totalitarian government. One of them involves a stilly things called *choice*.
I have already informed you of this, and either you do not read, or you have chosen to remain willfully ignorant.
THAT IS NOT PRO-LIFE, THAT IS PRO-CHOICE!
And the law has generally agreed with you on that- women are also imprisoned for statutory rape.
Abortion is NOT murder, as murder in unlawful. Self defense is also not murder, unless the jury determines that excessive force is used: see English common law, and the difference between murder and manslaughter, and homicide in modern law.
Murder is a legal term; not a moral one. It is very specific, and while it may vary from country to country, today it always necessitates an illegal nature to the act, which abortion does not fulfill in the civilized world (and yes, I did just say countries in which abortion is not legal are not civilized).
This is the same reason slaughtering animals (as much as one may disagree with it) is not murder- although in some parts of India it could be argued to be comparable to murder to kill a cow (due to it being illegal).
I do agree there. However, if we do reduce the arguments enough, there is a sense of moral absolutism without reason behind any belief in the immorality in abortion that is very similar to theistic dogma.
Of course, morally speaking, it's a personal whim.
Legally speaking (with regards to pro-life vs. pro-choice [illegal vs. legal abortions]) it's on the lines of irrationality and reason- with those in favor of (or painfully ignorant of) tyranny upon free society in the former camp, and those in favor of maintaining our civil liberties in the latter.
Every now and then, even theists can be rational if a stance has nothing to say against their religions (which for most religions, abortion does not).
Women's rights *were* born from the minds of atheistic women- and while some of those very icons privately and publicly loathed abortion (such as Susan B. Anthony), they still had reason enough in their day to know that legislation was not a practical solution to abortion (and this was even before the failure of prohibition gave them a greater perspective on the issue).
But really, Cj, you seem far too forgiving of these nutters, and far too apathetic of their dangerous and socially destructive ideas...
The stance of a pro-lifer is morally and socially reprehensible, and completely undefendable from any practical position. A person who has set his or herself up as against the free and legal practice of abortion ("pro-life"
has set his or herself up not against abortion, but against personal liberties, and the very survival of our modern society as it was hard won by generations past- still, and all the time more so, largely free from governmental tyranny and moral policing by conservatives *because* of the hard work progressives continue to do. If we stop pushing back against the conservatives, we may soon find ourselves a return to the dark ages (blasphemy laws, moral police, etc.).
They may just be "opinions", but they are dangerously ignorant ones.
While I will give far more consideration even to the arguments of hateful white-supremacists than I do to the profound and inexcusable ignorance and absurdity of the "pro-life" camp, I can't help but acknowledge the threat that pro-lifers still pose to free society. They may be idiots, but there are a hell of a lot of them.
Of course, it could be argued that we're better off forming militias and making clear that they *will* be starting a civil war if they opt to impose their arbitrary and unfounded morality upon us. Sometimes the threat of violence sounds louder than reason to the willfully ignorant.
I don't think that's an alternative you're implying, though.
Merely running away from the problem by moving to another country with our tails between our legs is not a very practical or respectable solution in the long run. It may be a fair last resort, but it shouldn't have to come to that.
Don't you use that yelly font size with ME, young man.
I see now the argument you're having with my secret loverboy Rob. I didn't catch that before.
Yea I went ahead and gave my opinion on abortion in the legal sense as well. So what, everyone seems so concerned about it so I added it.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
I said I think pro life is the way to go for me, however by acknowledging that is only MY opinion (personal opinion) I would be pro choice in the real world (a legal view).
My personal favorite breakfast may be a couple of pancake on a stick and coffee, but I would not try to make everyone else eat pancake on a stick and coffee for breakfast if they like cereal or something else.
Is this clearer now, since you have decided to use the "Big Yelly Text" I hope you are not beyond redemption on this small issue, I would pray to the reading comprehension gods for you but I don't believe in that shit lol.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
So you are pro-choice, and believe in being pro-choice. You don't like abortion, but very few people probably do.
That doesn't make you pro-life. That just means you don't like abortion. You don't want to criminalize it, so you are not pro-life.
/clarified?
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
meh, sorta, I'm kinda tired of trying to emphasize how I would do it myself and how I would let other people do as they chose, so yea, lets just run with your clarification. I guess I'm trying to drown myself in the deep end of thought.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Well, the yelly font size worked, dinnit?
You are thusly redeemed.
Don't worry about it, many people make the same mistake- the names of the political groups make it confusing (I suspect deliberately, but I wasn't around when they were formed).
Just remember that pro-choice and pro-life are 100% political, and don't refer to one's personal feelings on the matters of abortion at all. So the idea of "personally pro-life" doesn't really make any sense, because it has no meaning in that context. Saying you are "personally against abortions but pro-choice" would make more sense, and not risk confusing people.
For example:
I could love abortion, and think it's an absolute delight, but be pro-life because I like to sadistically force people to do things they don't want to do and generally sew discord and social strife (or maybe I just like back-alley abortions and want to fuel the economy of the black market).
Alternatively, I could abhor abortion with every fibre of my breakfast cereal, but be pro-choice because I don't want to make anybody do what they don't want to, and want to keep things peaceful and safe (keeping abortions in hospitals instead of in dumps with coat hangers).
There is no thought to drown yourself in. If you think it should be a choice for everyone (either yes OR no) then you are pro-choice. If you don't think it should be a choice then you are either pro-life (criminalize it), or for mandatory abortions (population control).
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Well said.
I know what Rob is trying to say, though.
Ideologically, I sympathize with mandatory abortions (population control)- there's quite a bit of good to come from it, I think. BUT I can't say I'm personally in favor of mandatory abortions, because it's not a personal thing- that is a social and political thing. One cannot "personally" be in favor of a political position but not be politically in favor of it- it just doesn't make sense.
While it's a *really* close call, pro-choice wins for reasons of practicality in countries like the states, Canada, and Europe. So, that makes me pro-choice, because I do not support mandatory abortions in those contexts- I just don't think it would work out very well.
Now, if I had a super-powerful robotic army that could properly enforce draconian legislation and prevent uprising (civil wars, and guerilla wars in particular are very disruptive to progress and social order), then things might change. Until such a time, though, I may like the idea of mandatory abortions, but I am fully Pro-choice because that's the only practical compromise.
I take comfort in that I matter to myself, my friends and my family.
Any IT jobs in your neck of the woods? Sigh...
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Heh, not really. My company might be hiring another IT person in the next couple of years, but that is about it. What is your specialty?
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Yes, you are right, from the current definition of murder, since abortion is lawful - like self defense, state executions, national defense - it is not murder.
But that isn't my personal opinion which I was expressing. For me, murder is murder, dead is dead. You can call it anything you want. I prefer situational morals - in some cases murder is not only justifiable, it is necessary to maintain your own life and safety. But I KNOW that is not the way most people prefer to view the issue or define the term. I was asked for my own opinion and so I stated it.
My very best friend is B'Hai. She is very rational on a number of subjects. Believes abortion should be legal, believes in evolution, believes the bible was written by a bunch of goat herders and has little basis in fact-theological or historical. She also believes god helps her through the day. But she knows I am atheist and she doesn't proselytize. I am glad I am not prejudiced against theists as I would be missing out on a great friendship.
I am not forgiving. I am realistic. Also cynical. I saw a poll on the internet this morning - way not scientific - 74% said they definitely believed in god. How depressing. Now I'm tired, too. I agree their ideas are dangerous and destructive, not only for me, but for all of society. I have also argued with a lot of people on the subject. If you have anyway at all to convince people to change their minds, please clue me in. I haven't ever changed anyone's mind on abortion rights. And I have managed to convince a few people to leave the church, so I am capable of reasoned debate.
Okay, here is my husband's theory. The current over-the-top theists in the US is actually an extinction burst.
This is from learning theory. Your iPod has a crackling sound. You tap it and it quits. This works for a while, and then one day a single tap doesn't work. So you tap it twice. It works for now, but some time later it doesn't. And then you tap it harder. Your iPod continues to fail, and you continue to increase the severity of your response. Until one day, you throw it on the ground and stomp on it. What worked once, is exaggerated until it is obvious that your actions are truly not working and you change your behavior.
Same with the churchies. Praying to god/s/dess doesn't work. Strictly following the bible doesn't work. Raising your children to be good churchies doesn't prevent suicide, abortions, immorality, etc. It doesn't work. So you do it more. And more. And get weirder and weirder. Eventually, some people will change as their lives become so broken from ignorance and denial they can no longer ignore the problems. Others will just continue on no matter the consequences until all is too broken to fix.
So, when I go out in the world, I do what I can. I show I am a good person and that past mistakes don't have to ruin your life. What little influence I have, I try to express.
Happier?
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Systems administration, security- Windows most recently.
Sigh - they put up a list of applications and operating systems and if you are missing just one thing on that list - your resume is in the round file. And I refuse to exaggerate my experience to get a job. You want to hire someone who lies, fine. I don't want to work for someone that stupid.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Hey, that is what I do!
But you would have to kill me in single combat to take my job, that is sort of how promotion and hiring work out here.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
*sigh* That's the problem- the definitions of words are not personal opinions. And USING personal definitions of words unnecessarily (particularly emotionally charged words like "murder"
is just dishonest, and a tactic of the rationally disinclined practice of illogical and deceitful appeal to emotion.
Cj, I've agreed with most everything you've said, but using a personal definition of "murder" isn't appropriate- I know you're better than that.
How about just "kill"? I think that suits what you want- although less emotionally loaded, more honest and correct.
I have a number of friends sort of like that- and I am prejudiced; I'm just not stubbornly so.
What it means to be prejudiced is a bit loaded- I think it's reasonable to make certain tentative assumptions for practical purposes.
Just a couple hours ago, I was walking through a low income neighborhood, and I crossed the street unnecessarily to avoid walking by a group of about a half-dozen black youths who were being boisterous and were dressed "gangsta". I am neither proud nor ashamed of that- it is a calculated maneuver based on statistics. If they had been a bunch of business men in suits, I would not have crossed the street.
This is prejudice- yes- as it is action based on a preconception. Prejudice is not dangerous in itself, but useful and essential, because we never have the time to gather all of the facts.
It is when prejudice is still held, rather than quickly dissolved and remedied, after exposure to contrary evidence that is the problem. If I got close enough to hear, and they were reciting Shakespeare in perfect British English, that would have changed my preconceptions entirely.
Oh, I meant pro-lifers.
I explain to them how pro-choice is a compromise by taking the position of mandatory abortions (for which I can make a *very* good argument- including appeal to emotion).
After arguing with them about mandatory abortions for a while, they can understand how pro-choice is a middle ground where we can all agree to disagree and not be at each-other's throats. (It could, hypothetically, be very useful to have a third party come in and advocate pro-choice after things are heated).
The problem is, they see Pro-choice as the "worst" position, so they don't really understand the notion of libertarian compromise for the sake of mutual peace. You can also explain game theory to them.
In my experience, convincing people to adopt pro-choice stances has been far easier than dispelling religious belief. Give it a try from that angle, and let me know if it helps out.
Your husband's theory is interesting.
We all have personal definitions of words - sometimes they match the general usage, sometimes not. For most conversations, I try to use the same definition everyone else does. But this was a special case where I was asked for my personal opinion and if someone asks, they will get it whether it fits with the general usage or not.
Yes, there is a lot of baggage around the concept of prejudice. It is one of my soap boxes, I try very hard not to prejudge anyone. There are plenty of people willing to prejudge me and I don't like it. So why should anyone like it if I prejudge them? And that is what the term means - judging before you have knowledge. It may be reasonable or it may not be.
Funny how each person has their own unique view of the world. I would probably not have noticed the group of young men at all. I've been accosted for money before but it was by an old drunk white guy who tried to mug me but never really got anywhere. I still laugh about him, what a loser.
My favorite story is the first trip I made to Philadelphia. I had an opportunity to slip downtown early enough one evening to see Independence Hall. That was a bust and I went on to the Ben Franklin museum - much more fun. By the time I found where I had parked the car and found my way out of the maze of one way streets - I wasn't very intimidated, Portland is much the same - I missed the highway I came in on and wound up totally lost. And hungry. There was a Colonel Greasy Fried on the street and I stopped and ordered dinner. The girls behind the counter were black, the only other customer was another black girl. Didn't impress on my conscious mind - so what? Once I had dinner in hand, I asked if they knew how to get back to the named subdivision I was staying at. Hadn't heard of it, but, if I turned around, that gentleman could probably help. I was very startled to see that a half dozen more customers had come in, and all the other customers were black as well. I'm more used to ethnically mixed neighborhoods. The very tall bus driver was able to give me directions back to familiar territory and my hotel.
It felt a little odd to be the only pale person in the room. But I didn't feel nervous or afraid.
Yeah, I knew that. But it is just another sign of the times.
I will have to think about it. I get way over the top because of my and my friends' and my female family members' experiences. Cool is probably a better attitude. And I have not thought to bring up mandatory abortion or population control. Thanks.
When I argue with theists, I usually go for "you are being deliberately manipulated". And I spell out exactly how. The more intelligent ones generally get a clue and move on.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
We all have different personal connotations for words, but only the deceitfully manipulative have drastically different denotations- particularly when they know those denotations are inaccurate.
The definitions of words are not opinions, but fact derived from historical and common usage within the context in which they are used. The exact meanings are arguable, and have some flexibility, but there is a point at which the use becomes simply dishonest because it is so very deviated from anything resembling the origin or proper usage.
Language is imperfect, but wherein it is technical and well defined, it does have fairly concrete meaning- particularly something of legal origin.
Did somebody ask what you thought the definition of murder *should* be, or what you thought of abortion? If the former, I could understand your comments- if the later, they really weren't relevant, and at best were confusing while at worst deceitful.
I could say *I* think the definition of murder should be misusing words for emotional effect. You murderer!
It doesn't work like that...
What you're doing (the degree of it) is very much like calling chefs arsonists.
If the statement itself was more public, it could very well be brought to suit as libel.
Ah, I've been robbed and beaten up by a gang of low-income youth before. It's not fun, so I try to avoid those situations where they may be more likely to occur.
I was also acutely aware that I had my laptop, and probably $700 in my pocket. If I didn't have anything, their motivation to accost me, and my potential risk, would have been lower.
I don't have a big problem with any prejudice as long as it's corrected when new information arrives. It's willful ignorance that's the problem.
When I was much younger, I believed that responsibility-guilt-blame was all one word. I had been raised that way. It still manifests even 50-60 years later, as my husband says I am still too ready to be guilty when unnecessary. I didn't change my internal definition of the word until I was called on it and actually looked up "responsibility" in the dictionary. And my internal definition still floats.
"Murder" is one of those words with multiple meanings - legal and colloquial. There are many words that have multiple meanings and we all need to be clear as to which one we are using when debating.
Chefs=Arsonists - I like it! I won't use it, promise. Someone was asking my views on abortion, and murder is a word frequently associated with abortion, even if incorrect from a legal definition. So to illustrate my views, I gave my definition.
I doubt it. Since I did not call a person a murderer, but just gave my feelings on the subject, I don't see how that is libel. But, it would be entirely possible I totally misunderstand the definition:
"2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel"
Are you thinking definition a? Makes no sense - if people could be prosecuted under definition a, every single politician in the world would be in big doo-doo.
That old saying, "a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged, a liberal is a conservative who has been jailed" might apply.
Willful deliberate ignorance is the enemy of us all.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
They frequently are prosecuted, but as it is a civil claim, money just changes hands and it's all hush-hush. Usually the guilty party just settles, and both sign contracts of confidentiality, etc.
However, there are a number of defenses against it: 1. Truth (if the statement is true, you usually can't get in trouble 2. Opinion (can't get in trouble for stating opinion) 3. No damage- if the statement can't be shown to be damaging (but usually, the amount of the ruling depends on degree of damage)
There are a few others I don't really want to list. Libel and Slander are fairly complex, with a robust case history generally outlining a very hazy region of law.
If I were a lawyer, though, I'd probably take the case (even just to shut up the anti-abortion activists who keep saying it).
Interesting. I'm generally socially liberal, though- libertarian, actually, would be the closest you could get to definition of my stances in the states. Kind of centrist, overall.
It would seem you are advocating that the "rights" of the fetus should supersede the rights of the mother, at least in cases where rape, incest and health are not at issue. If this is not your position, then I have to ask, what bearing do you propose the fetus' rights should have? And if it is your position, how is it not at least equally unethical and ridiculous to say that only the rights of the fetus should matter and the rights of the mother have no bearing?
Also why should the rights of the mother weigh more if she has been raped? What makes those fetuses less worthy of rights?
Rill
In the US, libel is a civil claim, so you cannot be prosecuted. A prosecution only occurs in criminal cases (eg: State vs. Defendant). Civil cases have a plaintiff and a defendant, not a prosecutor and a defendant.
With public figures (and polititians fall into this category), defamation of character much include "actual malice" (New York Times v. Sullivan, supreme court 1964). The biggest difference between slander and libel is that slander is spoken, while libel is written or taped (even audio tapes, while spoken, are considered libel).
The biggest reason that defamation suits don't pop up is that it now publishes to a broad audience what you didn't want to be shared. After all, why spread a lie to a broader audience? The other is that if the public figure is big enough, it would be cheaper to simply do a PR spin on the subject rather than spend the time and money in courts. Finally, most public figures would get more negative attention for presenting the defamation case. The average person in the US isn't going to lend a sympathetic ear to the multi-millionaire that is being "wronged" by the press.
Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."
Are you sure the word is not still used? I believe the action of seeking damages for wrongdoing in court is still regarded as civil prosecution- as opposed to criminal prosecution. In particular, many civil lawyers still tend to use this language- is it only colloquial?
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prosecute
This usage can be found, at least on the web, on sites raging from law firms to law universities.
While the plaintiff is not typically called 'the prosecutor', they are still prosecuting in civil court, to my understanding.
Yes, this is true; It's harder to lose to defamation claims from a public figure (and that thins out the cases quite a bit). This doesn't apply as much to an abortion doctor (for example).
Good points, but this isn't the case when the charge is settled (which, I believe, represents the majority of such cases)- settlement usually involves some form of retraction too, if the libel was from the media. Large media companies all have libel insurance, though, as they are sued and settle constantly.
I do think you're underestimating the frequency of occurrence here though.
If it is used, it is purely in an historical context. The two terms would be "Criminal Prosecutions" and "Civil Suits". My father did contract law for years, and I never heard him refer to it as a "civil prosecution". The main difference is that civil suits are just that...lawsuits that determine liability and damages in terms of money, whereas prosecutions can result in fines, jail, or both. The state can also be a defendant in a civil case, as my uncle worked for the DOJ as a defense attorney.
Check out the American Bar Association:
http://public.findlaw.com/abaflg/flg-2-1-2.html
The rules also differ, in that prosecutions require a "beyond reasonable doubt" in defining sufficient evidence to find a person guilty, whereas a civil case determines the amount of liability from "the preponderance of evidence". No one is found guilty in a civil suit; someone is found to be liable.
Unless the abortion doctor suddenly becomes part of the public spectrum through newscasts, public appearances, etc., even if it is without choice. Then he is considered a pubilc figure.
I totally agree about the settlements. I would say that only about 10-15% of the cases my dad handled actually went to trial. Even if it isn't settled, most smaller cases would go to private arbitration and/or mediation. With the backlog in the civil court system right now, binding arbitrations are becoming more of the norm. This is what my father does now, and it is a full time business for him.
Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."
For me, (human) life becomes less sacred the more we overpopulate ourselves in the various parts of the world.
Ironically, during the late mesolithic up until the neolithic, where human population is believed to have numbered in the millions or tens of millions, individuality and individual existence could have easily been considered more 'sacred' than the squalor of today's human existence.
...which is done largely on a regular basis in current times. There is also the day-after pill, which evangelical christians BMG to no end about because it discards whatever growing embryo was developing in (usually) the fetus.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Uh, the embryo developing in the uterus? Humans aren't usually parthenogenic.
Actually, the morning after pill prevents implantation in the uterus. So strictly speaking, the zygote (an embryo is formed after implantation) is somewhere in the fallopian tubes.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
You might ask him, then, how he has heard it used. I generally also hear "civil suits", of course, but when discussions are had as to whether somebody will pursue a case, the term "prosecute" seems often to be used, even with regards to civil cases.
Of course, I know all of this already- this was not the point of contention. I know the differences between civil and criminal trials; however, it seems "prosecute" can be used as "follow through with"/"pursue" in either case. It may be more regional, but I haven't seen evidence of this.
But not if the Libel was committed before this point in time, I believe.
i guess my basic point is this:
this is a difficult question that no one has an easy answer to, so thats why i want it out of the hands of the federal govt
the beauty of our constitution is that the harder the question, the more local the answers should be
i'm just trying to point out that the fetus is, in fact, a legal entity and has certain rights, how much those rights weigh i dont know, like i said, very difficult situation to figure out
i'm not a huge fan of the "pro-life" label myself, but for simplicity purposes i place myself there, though its far more complex than that for me
in the end, the well being of the fetus must be taken into account, hitchens makes an elegant case for this
I agree. Not that individuals are now less deserving of kindness and consideration but when a resource ( human beings ) are so plentiful and can be replaced almost as if the supply were never-ending it does have the effect of cheapening the value of the individual.
With over six and a half billion human beings now in existence, whose really going to even notice that someone has died ? The loss to humanity at large is utterly insignificant.
Massive population growth devalues human life.
Then leave it in the hands of the women, where it is and where it should be.
What could be more local than the women it affects?
Would it make you feel better if I told you the fetus got 49% of the vote on the matter?
And I like the "pro-choice" label. Because like others have said, even if one has a personal abhorrence for abortion itself, someone who is "pro-choice" recognizes that it's best not to take the choice way from women. And certainly not put it into the hands of politicians.
But apparently you didn't feel the need to make one. I'm not familiar with Hitchen's case, so I can't comment on it.
Rill