Pro-abortion China: Living in the “dark ages” of women’s rights
Make no mistake. China’s One Child Policy is enforced through forced abortion, forced sterilization and infanticide.
Women are dragged out of their homes, strapped to tables, and forced to abort babies they want, up to the 9th month of pregnancy. Women sometimes die during these violent procedures.
The One Child Policy is China’s war on women. Adopting it world wide would hurl women’s rights back to the dark ages.
~ Reggie Littlejohn, president of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, as quoted by Christian Newswire, August 9
[Photo (via WRWF) is of 23-year-old Wang Liping and her 7-month-old aborted child, who was left beside her in a plastic bag after she was forcibly aborted and could not pay the “disposal fee” for the child’s body.]
Aug.11, 2011 6:00 am |
Feminism, Genocide, Social Justice |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
This is one of the most disturbing abortion photos I have ever seen – and I saw quite a bit in pregnancy care centers.
How does a mom such as this one, forced by their government to abort, ever recover from seeing their aborted baby?
LL
I am sick to my stomach. So, so sad.
That is a horrific photo.
Something is wrong with the links…
God help us.
Absolutely heinous.
Joan,
What was that you were saying about China’s one child policy?
omg i almost threw up i didn’t see the baby at first
the hospital where i delivered my four kids performs abortions they were asking for donations one day so i sent in the picture of the dark haired baby in the garbage bag and wrote”this is my only donation until you stop killing babies”
I do not want to derail the thread but I can’t help wondering what the suicide rate is for women in China? For women that are forced to abort their beloved babies?
omg where is the choice? I’d bet that even some of the hard core PC women would be smart to remain mum on this one! Carla i would venture to say that this is enough to push anyone off the deep end and if these women aren’t killing themselves I’ll bet they remain terribly. depressed
1. Make no mistake, the choice movement supports a woman’s right to CHOOSE pregnancy or abortion. Coercion in either direction is not something we support.
2. Forced abortion would happen in China whether abortion is legal or not, because of their anti-woman beliefs.
3. The problem here is not abortion, it is China’s attitude toward women and girls.
If folks haven’t visited Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, they should. Reggie is doing a terrific job at getting the message out about China’s barbarism, but needs all of our support.
Jane,
I take it, then, That WRWF is an organization that you could actually get behind and support?
the right to choose that bloody mess in the bed?
This piece is really an intentional distortion and misrepresentation of the one child policy, in theory and in practice. That’s not to say that this scenario doesn’t happen, but it’s much, much rarer than most Western critics claim that it is. For one thing, the one child policy only applies to couples living in urban areas where living space is limited (rural Chinese, who still make up a majority of the population, are generally allowed a second child); for another, violations of the policy are more often punished with a fine than with compulsory abortion or sterilization, depending on region, since the policy is administered provincially.
Jane you are right, it is China’s attitude towards women and girls, as well as men and boys; their “citizens” are gears in the machine and if they don’t work for society they get broken down and hauled to the dump. I never hear any complaining from pro-choicers about this modern-day evil. RHrealitycheck spends all day clamoring about sinister secretive right-wing plots to enslave all women in America and then they go and support organizations like the UN Population Fund that play a role in making your 1, 2 & 3 a reality.Pro-choicers have winked at this for far too long and your words are hollow. A few years ago I heard some lady talk fondly of population control and put her stamp of approval on the one-child policy because China is too crowded for their own good. She has been a good student, learning that people are a burden on others and killing is an acceptable solution. We need to remember Jane that either every human being is worthy of dignity, or we’re in the business of debating how to draw lines through humanity and abuse those who find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
Joan, really? I just finish typing and you are not only winking but practically endorsing it? Or, was that woman and her baby just another piece of collateral damage for the good of society?
Chris- I have no feelings whatsoever about population growth. I come from an irish catholic family of 10, and I support my mother’s right to choose to have a large family!
Like I stated before, I am absolutely against coerced abortion, as well as coerced pregnancy. China’s 1 Child policy is indicative of their attitudes toward women, and has nothing to do with abortion.
Gerard- as much as it pains me to reply to you, I’ll say that I would support any organization that seeks to give women their right to bodily autonomy. Sex trafficking takes away a woman’s right to her own body, and so I am against it. Coerced abortion takes away a woman’s right to her own body, and so I am against it.
As long as an organization doesn’t seek to end women’s access to their freedom to CHOOSE (key word) then I support it. And I’m glad you support body autonomy for women, too, Gerard Nedal phd. It sounds like you’re starting to see the light.
Chris, I believe you’re mixing up Joan and Jane. Calm down.
joan,
I have heard that the fine for violations is several times the “offenders” make in a single year. They often lose their homes. Give us a number to show how “rare” forced abortion and sterilization is in China. Explain why we shouldn’t “demand that China drastically alter its laws and values to accomadate Western liberal ideals” like respecting the freedom of individuals.
I’m not mixing you two up, I was just aghast that after I said winking at the one-child policy Joan comes along and acts like this is OK because it doesn’t happen “much,” so she thinks.
Jane,
coerced pregnancy
I am against that too! Unfortunately, killing one person so another can escape an already existing pregnancy is not acceptable. The ends never justify the means.
Rcjc- lot’s of factors can play into whether or not a woman was coerced into the sex that got her pregnant in the first place: an abusive relationship, power level differences between her and the man she has sex with, drugs and/or alcohol, mental illness, age, and a whole host of other reasons.
It might not be so clear as to be called “rape” explicitly, but it doesn’t mean that every time a woman has sex that she is doing it of her own free will. She should at least have the right to decide whether or not to remain pregnant. You and I have fundamentally different believes about what constitutes life, and what constitutes murder. I don’t believe that an abortion is murder. So there you go. We will never see eye to eye on this.
Jane,
Do you see how you are not at all interacting with the substance of what RCJO is saying? She is saying that you can’t kill a person to escape an already existing pregnancy and you have brought up something about women having sex and doing it out of their own free will. Note that nothing about sex or free will was at all part of what RCJC is saying, yet for some reason you have brought it up. Then you simply blow off the whole basis of teh argument by appealing to “fundamental difference about what constitutes life and what constitutes murder.” Of course, this is the whole question of the debate. So why not put forward your understanding of life and see if it holds up to scientific and philosophical scrutiny?
She said that she was against coerced pregnancy, so I expanded on that, and then I replied to her comment about “killing one person.”
I’m not sure what part of that is not interacting?
How awful. Forcing this young woman to abort and then charging her a fee for its disposal. If she can’t pay, I guess she has to throw out her own child. It’s like something from a distopian horror movie. The only thing left to complete the horror flick is to turn the aborted baby into food like in Soylent Green.
Because HOW the woman ended up pregnant in the first place is irrelevant to the claim that killing an unborn human being is morally reprehensible. She never claimed that abortion was bad because the woman decided to have sex in the first place or anything like that. Your repose does not address her claim that the end never justifies the means. She is against coerced pregnancy, that much is clear. But once that evil action has taken place, is it morally justified to kill an innocent human being in order to “undo” the evil action? That is the point. You seem to be claiming that HOW the woman ended up becoming pregnant has some sort of moral dimension to whether or not abortion is acceptable, and nothing that RCJC has said implies that her opposition to abortion is somehow based on the circumstances of becoming pregnant. So that is how you are not interacting with the main claim and rather trying to (unintentionally) make it seem like her opposition to abortion is somehow linked to the circumstances surrounding becoming pregnant.
That’s fine Bobby, believe what you wish about my commenting skills. I hope someday to become the Jill stanek commenters I always thought I could be, but I will only get there with your tutelage! How lucky I am to have you around.
Because you asked, and because I’m feeling cheerful this afternoon, I’ll tell you: I don’t believe that the rights of the fetus supersede the rights of the woman carrying the fetus. I believe that a fetus is human, and I believe that it is a life, and none of that affects my belief that a woman should have to lose power over her own body simply because she’s carrying a fetus. I believe in abortion on demand and without apology. Like I said, we disagree and will never see eye to eye.
Let us not forget to pray for this poor woman.
pmbh,
Something like this perhaps?
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/08/11/china-businesses-sell-aborted-babies-as-stamina-booster-pills/
Joan, with no respect due at all, you do not have the slightest clue what you’re talking about when it comes to Chinese policy in practice.
Carla, lifenews is a crock, do you have any actual reputable news sources?
Well then the point is, Jane, if you aren’t able to properly understand and interact with the arguments given, why are you so confident in your pro-choice views? It seems that you don’t even know what the pro-life claim is or don’t care, given your inability to properly interact with teh claims made. What other important decisions does one feel justified in making when they don’t even know what the other side claims or can articulate it properly? Should I really feel confident in my opinion the validity of M-theory if I can’t even properly address what the opposition is claiming?
“I don’t believe that the rights of the fetus supersede the rights of the woman carrying the fetus.”
We do not believe this either. We believe that in a situation where two rights are in conflict, the law should fall on teh side of the one who has more to lose. When abortion is the issue at hand, it is ALWAYS the fetus who has more to lose because it is a question of life or death in teh case of the fetus. So here we are in agreement.
“a woman should [not] have to lose power over her own body simply because she’s carrying a fetus.”
How does she lose power over her body? Because she can’t kill the life growing inside her? Is the idea that she should be allowed to do anything she wishes to her body? Suppose she wishes to torture her fetus for fun, or mutilate her fetuses vagina while still in the womb. Should we allow these so that the woman does not lose power over her body? Suppose she wants a child with no arms. Can she have a doctor tear off the fetuses arms while still in the womb so that she is born without arms? It seems like not allowing this would make it so that the woman loses control over her body. Yet anyone who would allow the tearing off of arms of a fetus would be a moral monster, an extremely depraved and twisted individual. Thus in the name of not allowing the woman to lose power over her body, is it morally permissible to allow a woman to tear the arms off of her fetus so that she may fulfill her dream of raising an armless child?
Wasn’t addressing you Jane. Sorry.
Find a crockless source to share with the class.
I agree Patrickk that we should not forget to pray for Jane.
Please don’t pray for me…prayer should never be used in such a condescending way as I see it used on this site.
Sorry JackB
There is no name calling.
Sorry, Carla. Lost my temper. :(
Uh, Jane, I believe Patrickk was referring to Wang Liping, you know, the poor woman this post is about? Not that you don’t need some prayer, but I’ll give you a little heads up that has a broader application in the light of your comments: it’s not all about you!
Jack,
Easy to do here isn’t it?!
No worries.
Jane, to pray for someone’s heart to be open to the truth is not condescending. Christians have an obligation to pray for those who support grave evil. The alternative is to be indifferent to whether your neighbor walks down a path of destruction, and that’s not very consistent with loving your neighbor as Christ taught.
Klynn3- I promise I’m not as dumb as you seem to think I am…I’m referring to praxedes’s comment at 11:45 that say “I agree Patrickk that we should not forget to pray for Jane”
Too true, Carla.
Jane, people praying is a very strange thing to get upset about.
Jane. you had plenty of free will and body autonomy before you jumped on the sack and created that baby
Joan, your argument of “it doesn’t happen that often” leads me to these questions:
How often does it have to happen for you to condemn it?
How many women must go through such horror?
Feel free to express it in a cumulative number or in a quantity to time ratio (e.g. “Once we reach 1,208,000, then I’m appalled” or “45,000 per week would do the trick”). Thanks.
H, sorry that I don’t shame women who “jumped on the sack,” like you’re so happy to do.
Not every pregnancy is the result of uncoerced sex. Many women make every attempt to prevent pregnancy through contraception, and abortion is simply a more extreme form of birth control.
I have no problem with prayer…my grandma prays for me every night. I don’t appreciate people offering to pray for me in a condescending tone.
abortion is simply a more extreme form of birth control.
No Jane, abortion is not “simply” an extreme form of birth control. Abortion, quite plainly, is the intentional destruction of a child who is already alive and here. It’s killing.
Tomato, tomahto, jen
Jane – LifeNews is not a crock. But if that’s what you think, then I will point out that the story was written by International Business Times in San Francisco and republished by LN with credits to IBT.
They are sincere, Jane, but you don’t seem to believe that any of us have good intentions.
Abortion may be birth control by your definition, but that doesn’t change the fact that it kills a distinct human being.
Hello All,
Everyone, please watch this 4 minute video to hear the story of the woman whose picture is featured on this website:
http://www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/blog/?p=219
I wanted to respond briefly to Jane. I’ll respond to Joan separately.
Jane, you commented that China would have forced abortions without the One Child Policy, because the root of forced abortion is the Chinese attitude towards women and girls. If you take India as an example, where women are pressured by their families into abortion because of the cultural son preference, this may explain some abortions. But it certainly does not explain all or even most of the abortions in China. I have cases in which the woman and the family were entirely delighted with the pregnancy, the woman was determined to carry the pregnancy to term, and she was grabbed out of her home or off the street and forced to have an abortion BY THE GOVERNMENT. This does not happen in India, and is not the result of son preference. Forced abortion applies equally to boys and to girls. it’s gendercide, the sex selective abortion of baby girls, that is affected by son preference. Here are three cases of forced abortion that would not have happened except for the government’s One Child Policy. In one of these cases, the woman died along with her full term baby.
http://www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/index.php?nav=cases
Joan, I wanted to respond briefly. First, you said that forced abortion only happens in the urban centers. If this were true, would that make it ok? Hundreds of millions of people live in China’s urban centers. Also, it is not true. Forced abortion happens all over China. The fact that some people in the countryside can have a second child when the first is a girl does not obviate forced abortion. If they get pregnant without a birth permit – even if it is the first child – they are subject to forced abortion. If they get pregnant with the second child before the required waiting time is over, they are subject to forced abortion. You say that they can pay a fine. That is true sometimes, depending on where they live. Did you know that, according to the State Department China Country Human Rights Report, this fine can be ten times a person’s annual salary? Most people cannot pay these fines, so they end up with forced abortion. You can find out much more by clicking here, where there are 13 expert reports generated for the Congressional Hearing on the One Child Policy in 2009. There will likely be another hearing with updated information this fall. This information will further document what I’ve written here.
http://www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/index.php?nav=congressional
in the sack
Carla,
Good question. China has the highest female suicide rate in the world. According to the World Health Organization, 500 women a day end their lives. Could this be related to trauma associated with forced abortion, forced sterilization and infanticide?
Jane doesn’t care about the “bodily autonomy” of the child that actually DIES in ABORTION. You can try to justify the killing of another human being however your sick mind wants to try to…but in the end, you are still killing another innocent HUMAN BEING. Your OWN flesh and blood. YOUR OWN CHILD…when you “choose” abortion.
Sickening. There is nothing “right” about a “woman’s right” to kill her own baby. That is disgusting, evil, heartless, and to *try* to justify the killing of another innocent human being…esp. one so tiny and defenseless.
I swear I do not understand how some people sleep at night with the things they JUSTIFY. It is gross and disturbing.
Abortion is NOT birth control. It is murder. To take the life of another human being at force. Quit sugar coating it with your pro-baby killing. Babies in the womb are NOT “free game” to pick and choose on who lives and dies. When I read stuff like this from those who find NOTHING wrong with abortion, it reminds me of the “thumbs down” sign the Romans used to give for who lived or died. TAKE ALL LIFE SERIOUSLY and CHERISH it, and quit trying to think you sound so freaking “pro-woman” when you think a mother has a RIGHT to kill her own unborn child. There is NOTHING “pro-woman” about MURDERING a baby Jane.
Jane,
You and I have fundamentally different believes about what constitutes life
My belief’s foundation is biology, the whole of biology and nothing but biology. Yours is based on what is convenient, as far as I can tell. Feel free to correct me.
I believe that a fetus is human, and I believe that it is a life, and none of that affects my belief that a woman should have to lose power over her own body simply because she’s carrying a fetus.
I don’t believe that one should lose power over one’s body. This includes both the mother and the fetus. In giving both people equal weight, it becomes apparent that killing either one is not an acceptable way to free the other from the consequences of being temporarily connected through the umbilical cord. For the woman, this does not mean enslavement. It means a temporary inconvenience, which women are tough enough to handle.
Not every pregnancy is the result of uncoerced sex.
Yes, we know. Let’s work together to end all forms of rape. In the mean time, you still have to justify abortion for healthy pregnancies that are a result of uncoerced sex.
.
Bobby,
Thanks for stepping in! I had to step away from the computer for a while.
Jane said: I believe in abortion on demand and without apology. Like I said, we disagree and will never see eye to eye.
So Jane – you’re okay with a woman killing her own child at any point up to delivery. I imagine your primary argument is even though her child fully depends on her, the mother can nullify any and all responsibility, due to the child’s location within the mother’s womb. Yet, the womb is the most natural place for her child – which the child can’t willingly change. So does location justify use of deadly force? Is your’s an issue of liberty?
A mother’s liberty overrides her child’s life.
If location justifies ignoring mercy to eviscerate/dismember an innocent human being, please explain why anyone should defend your life, or show mercy to you if you were found within space claimed by another who possessed deadly power over you.
I guarantee if you felt your life threatened, you’d seek immediate protection from others to secure your safety.
Life comes down to 2 belief systems – might makes right or do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
People waffle back and forth between the two, but there’s only one you can truly live by. You live at the mercy and sacrifices of others, but completely fail to understand that dependency – our mutual responsibilities to each other.
May God open your eyes and heal your heart. You truly need it.
Jane, at the risk of being “condescending” let me just tell you very clearly: you are deceived. You are in grave peril of losing your soul. Laugh all you want, I don’t care. Your remarks here are chillingly heartless and void of conscience. Your cavalier attitude toward the killing of children is depraved, as is the case with most pro-aborts.
God’s mercy is infinite, and I truly hope you avail yourself of it and change your life while you have the chance.
Joan, that’s for you as well.
abortion is simply a more extreme form of birth control.
Simply?? Jane, anyone who makes a statement like that above needs some prayers. My prayers for you are sincere and it doesn’t matter whether you believe it or not.
The young woman in the photo has many angels surrounding her. I am asking the angels to surround you too.
Carla,
Good question. China has the highest female suicide rate in the world. According to the World Health Organization, 500 women a day end their lives. Could this be related to trauma associated with forced abortion, forced sterilization and infanticide?
Add on the cultural “son preference” and you have a recipe for tragedy.
The ONLY people who will argue that a unborn baby at ANY stage of development is NOT human, or a REAL PERSON, are those who want the right to KILL THEM.
They try (and fail!) to manipulate even basic logic and science. IT DOESN’T WORK.
Sorry, if I sound angry…but I look at that picture of that poor mother and her DEAD BABY (a victim of this “choice” called abortion), and I am angry! I am angry that people can see a dead child with their own eyes, and justify it as some women’s “CHOICE”. Wake up people.
Jane, I will be praying for you too. Not saying I will be praying to be condescending…but simply because you need your eyes to be opened, and I believe in prayer. If I didn’t care about you, I certainly wouldn’t pray for you. Nor would anyone who believes in God and the power of prayer. I can’t believe you are offending by someone saying they are praying for you.
* sorry, meant “offended”…typo. :)
This piece is really an intentional distortion and misrepresentation of the one child policy, in theory and in practice. That’s not to say that this scenario doesn’t happen, but it’s much, much rarer than most Western critics claim that it is. For one thing, the one child policy only applies to couples living in urban areas where living space is limited (rural Chinese, who still make up a majority of the population, are generally allowed a second child); for another, violations of the policy are more often punished with a fine than with compulsory abortion or sterilization, depending on region, since the policy is administered provincially.
And now I get to point out that this is one of the most anti-woman statements I’ve ever seen by an abortion proponent.
Pro-abortion and anti-woman. A truly compassionate combination, isn’t it?
TOTALLY AGREE with you Kel!
We need to remember Jane that either every human being is worthy of dignity, or we’re in the business of debating how to draw lines through humanity and abuse those who find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
Beautifully stated!
(*wry look*) It never fails: I leave for a few days, the trolls swarm, and even the best of us get lured into tossing troll kibble. My dear ladies and gentlemen: Joan and Jane are trolls, and feeding them will not help them get better. Do what I try to do (and yes, sometimes I slip, too!): take every urge to toss troll-yummies, and turn it into a prayer for them, instead.
Rule #1 of troll interaction: never let a troll’s words or manner determine your own response; if they weren’t off-base and incapable of responding to you correctly, they wouldn’t be trolls in the first place!
(Now, where on earth is Doug? It’d be nice to chat with a civil abortion-tolerant person, for a change… and he owes me an end to our conversation! :) )
Actually Paladin, although I risk the entire world exploding by doing this, I may have to… *gulp… disagree with you! Well, at least in some cases. My guess is that there are many people reading the blog who don’t comment and who are on the fence about issues, or maybe only leaning slightly in one direction or another. It is good for them to see that, for the most part, there is very little intellectual credibility to the pro-choice position. It helps for them to see that while certain things may sound reasonable or promising on teh surface, there is almost no depth to them and that there is almost no reason that anyone with a moral compass should hold to the pro-choice position.
That is all.
I agree, Bobby. As I grew more on the fence about abortion, I hesitated before commenting, because I wasn’t sure I could defend my arguments well enough. But I kept reading what other people wrote, and what did you know – THEY couldn’t defend THEIR arguments well enough either. The difference between us was that they resorted to mudslinging and insults in lieu of legitimate debate, and I just quieted down. But if EVERYONE had just quieted down, or if everyone had ignored the alleged trolls, I wouldn’t have been forced to confront that reality.
Jane is clearly an unethical pro-lifer conducting false-flag trolling, in order to make pro-choicers look like monsters. Methinks he protesteth too much. Not subtle enough. Too over-the-top. Heading into lampoon territory. This isn’t even in uncanny valley territory — we’re talking about two-bit rotoscoping trying to pass itself off as real. In short, not a credible representation of pro-choicers because no one could possibly be like that.
Nice try, “Jane” — but I’m onto ya!
Jane, why is it necessary that abortion end with a live baby? Why couldn’t a 7-month-old baby–like this one–have been delivered if his or her mother didn’t want to remain pregnant? At that age the child will almost always survive, though he or she needs some special care at first.
Do parents have an obligation to care for their children? If one parent cannot provide that care, does that remove the other parent’s obligation–or strengthen it? Does the circumstances of the conception of a newborn change her rights? Do children born in the waiting rooms of abortion clinics have rights? Is it okay for them to suffocate in biohazard bags? If a two-year-old were conceived by rape, and as he got older and older he looked more like his mother’s attacker, would it be okay for her to neglect her 2-year-old son? To stop feeding him? To rip off his arms and legs, stab him in the back of his head, and suck his brain out with a vacuum cleaner? After all, a two-year-old still requires a lot of hands-on care from the woman’s body.
If the fetus is a living human being–and you have admitted as much, right?–he or she is beyond any doubt the offspring of the woman whose uterus provides him or her with nourishment. That means the woman is the baby’s mother, and the fetus is the son or daughter of the woman. CHILDREN ARE ENTITLED TO THE CARE OF THEIR PARENTS. This is one of the building blocks of a humane society. Not caring for one’s children is neglect. Hurting one’s children is child abuse. Abortion is the brutal murder of a human child at the request of his or her own mother. This means it is a particularly heinous form of child abuse. If we consider human children outside the womb, the circumstances of their conception, the difficulty of caring for them, their potential or diagnosed disabilities, and the resources of their families do not change or even mitigate the laws that say not taking care of one’s child is neglect, and hurting that child is abuse. The law is not contingent on which parent can or should take care of the child. If the child is neglected, both parents are charged if they both have custody and could have seen to the child’s care. If only one parent–male or female–had custody, that parent is charged, because the other parent cannot take care of the child. So when it comes to caring for unborn children, if we apply the same standards, the mother must care for them because she is the parent and the father cannot care for unborn children.
There is no moral difference between the born and unborn child. At 25, 30, or 40 weeks, a child will be the same inside or outside the womb–same level of development. Same rights. Same basic humanity. In fact, at 25 or 30 weeks, the child in the womb is a lot less vulnerable and more likely to be in good health. But this is the child it is legal to kill, and ripping the arms and legs off a 28-week preemie is a horrific crime no one would condone. Killing a child that same age, in the same way, while she is in the womb, is lauded as choice.
A newborn is harder to care for than a fetus. All of the jobs my body did for my 37-week-old children without my conscious involvement–feeding, taking away waste, holding–I had to take over by 41 weeks. In that four month period, they scarcely gained any independence other than physically. They needed to be held almost all the time. They needed to learn to take food by eating–from my body–and I needed to learn how to help them get it. Instead of my body carrying away their wastes without a thought, I had to change tiny diapers and clean tiny bottoms. All of that was a lot more time- and labor-intensive than just being pregnant. But at 41 weeks I had no right to kill my children, and at 37 weeks I could have had (somewhere in the US, maybe Carhart’s) a “safe and legal” abortion–“on demand and without apology” that would have left my children dismembered and dead. At 41 weeks it would have been a horrendous crime, and I would have been outcast from society. But at 37 weeks you would have upheld my right to have my son and daughter brutally killed, just because I said so. How the heck is that about anyone’s rights?
Thanks for sharing, Alexandra. And I think we’ve seen this here on this thread. We’ve seen not even an attempt at a response to any kind of substantive argument against abortion. We have seen that the seemingly reasonable sounding defense of abortion in terms of “the woman’s right to do what she wants with her body” proves way too much without any qualifications, allowing torture or mutilation of a fetus. When given an opportunity to show the shortcomings and inconsistencies in a pro-choice argument, I will gladly take the opportunity, even when I know that I will not see any sort of careful or thoughtful response.
Thats the most evil thing I’ve ever seen. That poor mother and her baby.
hi Jasper nice to see you buddy!
Hm. :) I understand your point, Bobby… and, ironically, I argued that very point to a (more experienced) fellow on another forum, years ago. Sadly, I’ve regretted it every time I failed to heed his advice. It’s also an irony that, for every person we might possibly impress by our tenacity in the process of showcasing the shallowness of any given troll, we’ll disgust another person by our alleged “food fight”, “lack of civility/charity”, “love of argument for argyument’s sake”, and the ever-popular “failure to win hearts and minds” (a canard thrown by some of the trolls on this site, in fact). Since it’s all one, whichever way we go, I recommend the path which is least likely to raise blood pressures and ire. Feel free, if you must, but: don’t say I (and the wise fellow who warned me) didn’t warn you! :) I’ve tried the experiment more than a few times… all to no avail.
Jane,
See the first story from Jivin J today. Maybe that will be from a more credible source.
Rasqual, an interesting theory about Jane and Joan, but I’m not sure.
Although I notice that neither of them has had the guts to respond to Reggie Littlejohn and the evidence he showed them. Whoever or whatever they are, they have no interest in the truth.
Joan,
Besides forced abortion in rural areas, midwives in rural areas also do infanticide. Many have a bucket beside the bed and the baby is dumped into that – sometimes it’s a slop bucket.
Of course, baby girls are much more likely to end up in that bucket.
Alexandra – I was the same way. I came to these blogs initially hoping to find better arguments to bolster my pro-choice defense. Exercise in futility to say the least. So Bobby definitely has a point. Though I think the throw down bad arguments and run tactic is classic troll so…..I’m torn on these characters.
Well I think “technically” the definition of a “troll” is someone who comes on a site JUST to make trouble, and they do it usually only once or twice.
Since Jane and Joan are “regulars” on here, I don’t think they qualify as “trolls”.
I could be wrong ;)
Hi Heather,
God Bless you dear, hope you and your family are doing well.
(Now, where on earth is Doug? It’d be nice to chat with a civil abortion-tolerant person, for a change… and he owes me an end to our conversation! )
Paladin – back today, and we certainly can continue our conversation.
On China’s policies and actions – certainly not pro-choice, and yeah, sad.
Yes! choice is great! If only the mother had made the decision to slice and dice that child, everything would be ok! sickos.
I don’t know if anyone else clicked on the other links that Reggie provided, but the other stories are equally heartbreaking. It is hard to imagine living in a place where such a thing could happen to you with no recourse. America has been a blessed nation with beautiful freedoms. I pray that we don’t continue down a road that leads us to such a horrible future.
Bernard Nathanson’s “Silent Scream” is such an eye-opener to what happens during an abortion, when the fetus pulls away from the abortionist’s instrument of death. I wonder if Jane or Joan have ever watched this.
Felicity,
Thank you so much for taking the time to view the links I provided, and for recommending that others do the same. These simple acts are a huge help — the world must know the brutal truth about what’s happening in China!
Reggie, thank you so much for the wonderful work you are doing to alert people to this horrendous human rights abuse. Yes, the world must know!
Dear Reggie,
Thank you for your commitment and your passion!! This horrifies me!(as it should horrify us all)
WHAT CAN WE DO??
Pamela,
:) You’re reminding me that I really do need to finish that book on Troll Taxonomy (e.g. classic troll, jocular troll, concern troll, troll-who-takes-up-residence-under-your-bridge, etc.) which has stayed in my imagination, but hasn’t yet come to paper (or text-file)! If only I could find someone who was good at drawing the various types of Troll, I could perhaps break my own inertia on that matter!
Doug,
Welcome back, good sir! I’ll try to copy (briefly) some of the salient points (which bears into the current thread’s topic, in fact), and return with some replies as soon as I can.
Dear Carla,
Thank you so much for asking what you can do. Here are three things:
1) Pray for me and Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, for God’s protection, provision, vision, and open doors.
2) Watch the four minute video, send it to your friends, and “Like” it on Facebook, tweet it, etc.
http://www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/blog/?p=219
3) Do the same for this petition.
http://www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/index.php?nav=sign_our_petition
Blessings and thanks,
Reggie
Back in the saddle again, as they say! :)
Doug wrote (on another thread):
I don’t think there is any intrinsic morality, and the difference between things which displease us is a matter of perception unless it’s physical reality, logic, or something else that’s truly external to us.
:) My dear fellow, do you see what you’ve done? The very issue at hand is the question, “Is morality solely subjective [i.e. completely inside me], or is there some external, intrinsic, objective standard by which morality is measured?” You’ve said, essentially, that “there is no external morality, save for cases when the morality is truly external”. That’s quite true, as stated… but I hope you see the difficulty! (E.g. “It’s not raining, except when it’s raining.”)
In no way am I trying to claim license to do whatever I please, nor for the individual within society – most things really are not being disputed to any meaningful degree, though of course abortion is a large-looming exception. Peoples’ desires are so common, the world over, that moral codes tend to be very similar.
Therein lie an immediate problem: on the one hand, you want to portray morality as a mere matter of consensus of those who are currently living; but on the other hand, you shy away (and rightly so) from the idea of doing whatever you please, whenever you please, to whomever/whatever you please, within the limits of your power. Since human history is replete with examples of “unthinkable evils” becoming emotionally acceptable/tolerable (and often tolerated/protected by law, soon afterwards), you’d be forced to admit that even the most stomach-turning evils, which you (personally) would never endorse under any circumstances (e.g. making it legal to rape a toddler to death, forcibly killing a woman’s unborn child by abortion, etc.), can become “socially acceptable”. If you’re seriously maintaining that “social acceptability = morally allowable”, then you ARE claiming license for man to do whatever he pleases, ultimately… or else, you’re claiming that “the only wrong thing is to defy the consensus”–in which case the abolitionists (of slavery) and the heroes who strove to rescue Jews from the Nazis were acting “immorally”.
[Doug]
“It’s not just that “my tastes don’t run in that direction,” it’s that as with the Jewish woman getting raped, horrible suffering can be present, and we can have great empathy with that.”
[Paladin]
Some people might. Many S.S. members (including the rapist) did not. Who are you to say that your empathy is rightly placed, and not simply a burst of silly sentimentalism? For that matter, why should (mind you, I say SHOULD, not COULD) anyone else CARE whether another person suffers, or not? Why make that the basis for any sort of restrictions on me? If I desire to murder and rape as I please, who are you to say that laws should be in place to stop me?
[Doug]
I’m just one person, same as you, but on murder and rape there isn’t significant disagreement, while on abortion there obviously is.
But surely you see the problem? As soon as there IS significant disagreement, your whole schema falls to ashes. You seem to be saying that there is no such thing as an intrinsically evil law… but only laws which don’t happen to suit your personal preferences/tastes (or the collective personal tastes of those responsible for making laws/policy); and you also seem to be saying that a “good law” is any law which forbids [x] if [x] runs against the personal whims/tastes of a sufficiently large number of people. The “one-child” policy in China (and other attendant abuses which are codified in Chinese law and practice), for example, was duly enacted by the recognized rulers of the country… so, while I’m delighted that you find such a law (and the brutal enforcement of it) abhorrent, I’m baffled as to how you could think so. You seem to agree with me only by sheer coincidence, or chance!
My feelings, per se, may not constitute a good enough reason for there to be laws, but enough people, or really, just a sufficient opinion – held by those who can make law – can make for a law being.
That’s part of my main point: not only are the “feelings” of an individual not sufficient reason to enact a law, but even the “feelings” of a large group (or even a majority, or even a unanimity) are not sufficient reason! Suppose 100% of the residents of some alternate-reality Earth (which would allow you not to be a member, for the purposes of this example) voted… either by preference, or by being brain-washed into supporting it… to enact a law mandating that a particular toddler be raped to death; on what basis would you object to that law? It would reflect the preferences of all parties concerned (and the toddler could perhaps be sedated, and raped to death while unconscious… so none of his or her “feelings” would be violated), and it would have been duly enacted by the “legitimate” law-making body/bodies. Would it be mere squeamishness which would lead you to object (comparable to squeamishness at slaughtering a chicken, or shooting a caged and rabid dog, or eating raw squid), or would yours by a deeper and more “morally relevant” objection?
A society is a group of people with things in common, and it ends up that society says you can’t legally rape, for example, and that if you do you’ll be “put out” of society, in effect, by imprisonment.
Nazi Germany did not do that, in the case of Jewish women. Do you see the problem? Your schema gives a callous majority (or a tyrant, etc.) full rights to abuse any given minority as they please!
Why should we care about the suffering of others? That’s like asking why we should have desires at all.
Not quite. Many Nazis (and other citizens who supported them) were good husbands and wives, were kind to animals, worked hard at their jobs, and had plenty of empathy for the sufferings of their family-members and friends; it’s simply the case that, having been brain-washed into thinking that the Jews were non-persons who happened to resemble “true men and women”, and that objecting to their abuse/slaughter would have been as silly and sentimental as an objection to spraying pesticide on a swarm of locusts.
It’s just a fact, starting out, that we have desires, and that almost all of us empathize with others, admittedly to varying degrees there.
See above; empathy can be a very selective thing, and one doesn’t have to be a true sociopath (or other rare outlier) in order for that to be true, and for this particular point to come apart at the seams.
All other things being equal, we tend to not want somebody to suffer, versus them suffering. If they are to suffer, we see a good enough reason for it – or at the least we want to.
Exactly… and I’m not saying that there’s never a good reason to cause suffering (e.g. getting a tooth drilled to repair a cavity, etc.); I’m saying that there must be an objective moral standard by which we can judge the “good reasons” from the “bad reasons”… or else everything we could possibly say (or assert) about morality at all would crumble into nonsense. I also assert that you know this, at least at some level, and that you live according to it.
Example: Joe Blow comes up and spits on me. Okay, that’s one thing, and in this example I have not done anything to Joe, don’t know him, etc., and I see what he did as a moral wrong, and that it causes me some suffering.
Half a moment, here. To borrow an example from C.S. Lewis: if a man trips me up by accident, I do not (save perhaps for a moment, until I come to my senses) blame him… despite the suffering that the trip caused me. On the other hand, if a man tries to trip me up, and fails (perhaps through bad timing or bad aim), I do blame him, despite the fact that I did not experience the suffering that I experienced in the first case. And are we to blame a man whenever we happen to get irritated at him (for whatever reason, good or bad), on the basis that anger is an unpleasant emotion which could constitute “suffering”?
Were he to steal my wallet and whack me on the head, I’d suffer more, see that as worse, morally, than just spitting.
:) Ask St. Francis of Assisi, and he’d disagree with you. Do you see the problem? If a thief means me harm (by theft and assault), but if I happen to be the type who’s delighted to offer up such sufferings to God (for the sake of souls), does this mean that the original thief is “more moral” than is a thief who happens to attack someone who’s less altruistic? It’s no credit to the thief that St. Francis (or whomever) was so self-sacrificing, you know (and the thief was likely ignorant of that, until after the fact)… so how could it make the action “less immoral”?
Would not have to be that way – if I had some extreme phobia or fixation about spitting, perhaps I’d rather take the whack on the head and have my wallet stolen – but as things are now, like most people, I think the spitting isn’t as bad as the other.
But don’t you see? If I were to brain-wash you into not caring about a toddler being raped to death, you would experience no suffering at all… and by your schema, you would then find it perfectly morally acceptable! It would also suggest that it would be “more immoral” to murder a popular movie-star than it would be to murder a friendless and homeless man. Do you want to claim that?
[Doug]
“I don’t say we are morally free to kill other animals at any perceived need. The situation matters.”
[Paladin]
Why on earth would it matter? What moral principle could possible stand in the way of me throwing concussion grenades at every pod of dolphins, of taking a flame-thrower to every last endangered baboon, of committing mayhem against every last elephant for the sake of enriching myself with ivory, or the like?
[Doug]
It matters because the valuation can change, and the argument for the killing can be very different. A tiger jumps on you and is biting you, hey – go ahead and defend yourself even if it means killing the tiger. A tiger is lying on a rock in the zoo, then I say don’t kill it.
Yes, but WHY? Saying that “the valuation can change” simply begs the original question: on what basis are you determining the valuation at all, and are you right in doing so? What argument, aside from personal taste, could you offer in urging me to stop? If I would find it delightful to shoot that caged zoo tiger to bits, and if I bribe the officials to keep me out of trouble, then on what possible basis could my action be immoral? If you don’t like shooting caged tigers, then don’t shoot any! :) (That’s a bit of a tweak of those who say “if you don’t like abortions, don’t get one”, and other such blithering nonsense.)
People who defend feticide and infanticide are lucky that all they get called is ‘trolls’. They are morally and spiritually bankrupt. Of course pro-abortion bloggers call me a troll, which I find droll. Lol. :>).
I will pray for these women. They need it. Of course the Chinese women also need our prayers.
Lord, please heal our sisters and make their hearts whole again. I ask this in Jesus’ name, Amen.
Actually… forgive the whimsy, here, but the idea of “morality by consensus”, and the problem of brainwashing enough people to get that consensus (thereby nullifying the whole point of a consensus), reminded me of this bit of the “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”:
[Ford] Your brain was a part of the configuration of the program.
[Arthur] Of the whatty?
[Ford] Drink?
[Arthur] I will.
[Trillian] The mice seem to think the Question might be buried in your brain.
[Ford] Is that what they think?
[Trillian] Yes. They wanna buy it.
[Arthur] What, the Question?
[Frankie] No, no, your brain!
[Arthur] What?
[Ford] What?
[Trillian] What?
[Zaphod] That’s all right. Who’d miss it?
[Arthur] Thank you!
[Trillian] I thought you said you could read his brain electronically.
[Benjy] Yes, but we’d have to get it out first.
[Frankie] It’s got to be prepared, diced.
[Arthur] Thank you!
[Zaphod] It could be replaced if it’s important.
[Frankie] Yes, an electronic brain. A simple one should suffice.
[Arthur] Simple?
[Zaphod] Program it to say “What?” and “Where’s the tea?” Who’d know the difference?
[Arthur] I’d notice!
[Zaphod] You’d be programmed not to!
:)
P.S. Rasqual: very interesting theory about Joan and Jane! I’ll have to give that some thought… ;)
Jane, as a secular and otherwise “liberal” pro-lifer, I can say that I believe that our unborn babies’ right to live supersedes a woman’s right to NOT BE TEMPORARILY INCONVENIENCED. Sorry, the “bodily autonomy” argument is flimsy beyond comprehension. How can we claim “bodily autonomy” while violently dismembering and incinerating the body of another, the bodies of our own children?
Where does bodily autonomy end?
OK, say I work in an emergency room. A huge accident occurs, but the patients arrive just as my lunch hour is set to begin. How dare those patients arrive now and inconvenience me! I have every right to eat my lunch at the appointed hour. After all, I’m hungry and I need to eat. Everyone knows that a human starves to death if the human stops eating. Therefore, I am perfectly justified letting these patients die so that I can go eat my tuna sammich.
Paladin, woe be unto me, Sir, for you have caught me at the tail end of a couple bottles o’ wine.
Dawg: “I don’t think there is any intrinsic morality, and the difference between things which displease us is a matter of perception unless it’s physical reality, logic, or something else that’s truly external to us.”
Paladin: My dear fellow, do you see what you’ve done? The very issue at hand is the question, “Is morality solely subjective [i.e. completely inside me], or is there some external, intrinsic, objective standard by which morality is measured?” You’ve said, essentially, that “there is no external morality, save for cases when the morality is truly external”. That’s quite true, as stated… but I hope you see the difficulty! (E.g. “It’s not raining, except when it’s raining.”)
I’ve bookmarked this thread so I don’t get lost, Paladin. In the meantime, let me just respond to this one paragraph, and sure as the world I’ll get to the rest later. ‘Tis Friday night, and on the morrow I have to go to a local Pub/Eatery/Chicken Wing place where there’s a car show tomorrow where two or more of my buddies have entrance; and as well there is a lot of good beer and wings and me beating the pants off of all comers in the in-house and online trivia games.
No, I don’t say that “morality is truly external.” Save for within the mind, there is no morality. That which is intrinsic to us is not morality, or, to allow for those minds which might exist beyond us – that which is morality does not exist outside the mind. That which is physical reality is not morality. Logic, mathematics, science, etc. – these do not pronounce upon morality. Without a mind with desires, without a mind feeling the good/bad/ right/wrong which we impute to the moral realm, there is no morality.
Doug wrote:
Paladin, woe be unto me, Sir, for you have caught me at the tail end of a couple bottles o’ wine.
:) Oh, dear. I hope the vintage agreed with you, at any rate! (The pub excursion on the morrow sounds capital; enjoy!)
[Paladin]
My dear fellow, do you see what you’ve done? The very issue at hand is the question, “Is morality solely subjective [i.e. completely inside me], or is there some external, intrinsic, objective standard by which morality is measured?” You’ve said, essentially, that “there is no external morality, save for cases when the morality is truly external”. That’s quite true, as stated… but I hope you see the difficulty! (E.g. “It’s not raining, except when it’s raining.”)
[Doug]
No, I don’t say that “morality is truly external.” Save for within the mind, there is no morality. That which is intrinsic to us is not morality, or, to allow for those minds which might exist beyond us – that which is morality does not exist outside the mind.
Hm. All right… at least I think I see your position a bit more clearly (though your previous comment about “externals” still confuses me, a bit), but you’re now faced with at least three key problems. Here’s the first:
1) How would you prove your assertion? More specifically: how would you prove that morality is (if I understand you correctly) simply “manufactured” by the mind, and that our minds aren’t simply *perceiving* that which is truly external to us (or “hard-wired” within us, apart from our conscious choices, if you prefer)? It’s a bit philosophically intense, but: I could just as easily claim that all matter (protons, quarks, plates of fish and chips, etc.) is simply “manufactured” by minds, and that there is no such thing as a “material world” at all. How would you prove me wrong? All the evidence supports my view as well as yours. Or perhaps we could take the solipsistic view, and suppose that only you (Doug) exist at all… and that Paladin, Carla, Jill, your family and friends, the material world, and all similar things are merely conjured up within a vivid, perpetual dream that you’re experiencing. How on earth would you disprove it? Try it, and you’ll see why, even though a positive defense of objective morality is difficult, it’s really not so dead an issue as you might think.
That which is physical reality is not morality.
2) Not only would you need to prove this assertion (and not simply fall back on asking your opponents to prove you wrong; perhaps both your idea and its opposite are resistant to “proof” in the mathematical sense), but I do wonder if we’re mixing up two distinct terms: “physical” and “material”. Properly speaking, “physical” (in the philosophical sense of the word–I realize that the term “physical sciences” is often used as a synonym for “material/empirical sciences”, in common speech) applies to anything which exists (including spiritual things), while “material” applies only to “matter and energy” (i.e. the “stuff” whose study is proper to the empirical sciences). There is no need for morality to “be physical” (and that’s vague enough for me to be uncertain of your exact meaning) in order to be true, just as there is no need for a square root to be “physical” in order to be true.
Logic, mathematics, science, etc. – these do not pronounce upon morality.
Ah, but they do! Ethics is the science which studies “rightness” and “wrongness”, and it is guided as surely by logical principles as are the empirical sciences. Logic, at least, can determine whether someone’s moral world-view is self-consistent (i.e. free of internal contradictions) or not. That’s one of the main things I’m trying to examine, in fact: I suspect that your view (unless it has truly dissolved into utter amorality and personal impulse) has some logical inconsistencies.
Without a mind with desires, without a mind feeling the good/bad/ right/wrong which we impute to the moral realm, there is no morality.
I would not use the word “feel” when describing one’s perception of “right/wrong”; while it’s possible (and even desirable) for a person to feel emotional revulsion at the presence of evil, one’s recognition of the evil is not limited to that. One can deduce, given sound principles on which to start and using the intellect alone, that a given action is morally illicit. In fact, the use of the intellect is one way that we “calibrate” our feelings to reality; in the case of someone suffering from scruples (or, if you like, some sort of pathology), we can tell the person that it is not, in fact, a moral crime to step on a crack in the sidewalk… and one would not need to have recourse to polls and surveys about the cultural views on the subject, either; pure reason would suffice.
And I would say again: the fact that a mind exists does not logically imply that it “manufactured” morality out of whole cloth, as it were; the mind can perceive that which truly exists externally, in addition to “conjuring” up phantasms and abstract ideas. I can day-dream about unicorns, but I’m also quite capable of perceiving one, should a real one come galloping up to me.
Hmm. If it makes for good conversation with Paladin, I think I’ll make some inroads into the wine m’se’f. ;-)
If we know that Chinese women are being targeted by their own government than why isn’t the current administration making it clear that such behaviour will not be tolerated by the world community and that those who are targeted by Chinas one child policy will be allowed to immigrate. I think at some level Obama does care about the rights of women he just doesn’t care enough. I also think he is more likely to make political moves that are politically correct and caring about what happens to women in China is not on the priority list of those who profess to be the champions of women.
If it makes for good conversation with Paladin, I think I’ll make some inroads into the wine m’se’f. ;-)
Rasqual. : )
I think it’s an individual thing, and that some alcohol can sort of “unlock” part of us. It can quickly dull us, too, and some of us would never really benefit, I don’t think. Those that “do benefit,” IMO, have lowered inhibitions, and perhaps (not totally sure about this) – some added inspiration or at least timely access to one’s inner thoughts that may have not been apparent before.
Paladin, again sorry for the 3-day lapse until this reply. This is just a crappy time of year for me, re message boards. We’re doing a demonstration for the federal gov’t right now, and here it’s 6 or more hours later than I’d usually be able to post…
Hm. All right… at least I think I see your position a bit more clearly (though your previous comment about “externals” still confuses me, a bit), but you’re now faced with at least three key problems. Here’s the first:
1) How would you prove your assertion? More specifically: how would you prove that morality is (if I understand you correctly) simply “manufactured” by the mind, and that our minds aren’t simply *perceiving* that which is truly external to us (or “hard-wired” within us, apart from our conscious choices, if you prefer)? It’s a bit philosophically intense, but: I could just as easily claim that all matter (protons, quarks, plates of fish and chips, etc.) is simply “manufactured” by minds, and that there is no such thing as a “material world” at all. How would you prove me wrong? All the evidence supports my view as well as yours. Or perhaps we could take the solipsistic view, and suppose that only you (Doug) exist at all… and that Paladin, Carla, Jill, your family and friends, the material world, and all similar things are merely conjured up within a vivid, perpetual dream that you’re experiencing. How on earth would you disprove it? Try it, and you’ll see why, even though a positive defense of objective morality is difficult, it’s really not so dead an issue as you might think.
I hear you on “just what can we really prove.” I’ve said it many times – what, beyond the fact of its own consciousness, can an entity really prove? Nothing. How do I (or any conscious being) know that what we’ve perceived thus far is not akin to a “dream” and we will later “wake up” and find that reality (or at least a different level of consciousness) is something new?
Morality is ideas and ideals. What can there really be of morality that is not of the mind? If there was no mind with any caring, any desire, and wanting to certain things to be or not be, to happen or not happen, then what “morality” could there be? I am making the assumption that not only do I have physical existence, but so do the “other people” on earth, etc., and that they too have their own consciousnesses.
I’m saying morality is opinion. Now, certainly, with the assumptions I’m making, there are other opinions than mine, and there is the morality of other individuals, other groups, other societies, etc. Those are external to me, but it’s still a case of morality being in the mind, just other minds in those cases. I do think there is some hard-wiring via biological imperatives for morality, i.e. often a group will have better survival chances than an individual, so in a survival-sense it fits that we in general don’t want solitary lives and that we tend to form societies. Isn’t morality the peceptions of good/bad/right/wrong? There has to be a mind, in the first place, for any such thing to exist. A thing with physical existence, or an action, isn’t “good” or “bad” in itself, with no mind to be aware of it or care about it.
_____
That which is physical reality is not morality.
2) Not only would you need to prove this assertion (and not simply fall back on asking your opponents to prove you wrong; perhaps both your idea and its opposite are resistant to “proof” in the mathematical sense), but I do wonder if we’re mixing up two distinct terms: “physical” and “material”. Properly speaking, “physical” (in the philosophical sense of the word–I realize that the term “physical sciences” is often used as a synonym for “material/empirical sciences”, in common speech) applies to anything which exists (including spiritual things), while “material” applies only to “matter and energy” (i.e. the “stuff” whose study is proper to the empirical sciences). There is no need for morality to “be physical” (and that’s vague enough for me to be uncertain of your exact meaning) in order to be true, just as there is no need for a square root to be “physical” in order to be true.
I’m saying that physical existence, on its own, has no moral or ethical properties. It remains for a mind or minds to have feelings about that existence – then there can be morality. Whether it’s a grain of sand, a star in a galaxy, a bucket of pizza sauce in the driveway, three sheep on a mountain, etc., morality isn’t there until the mind/some minds cares one way or another about them. The same for actions, too.
_____
Logic, mathematics, science, etc. – these do not pronounce upon morality.
Ah, but they do! Ethics is the science which studies “rightness” and “wrongness”, and it is guided as surely by logical principles as are the empirical sciences. Logic, at least, can determine whether someone’s moral world-view is self-consistent (i.e. free of internal contradictions) or not. That’s one of the main things I’m trying to examine, in fact: I suspect that your view (unless it has truly dissolved into utter amorality and personal impulse) has some logical inconsistencies.
Again, I disagree with that. Science, for example, may say, “this is” or “this is not” but there’s no morality involved until the mind/some minds care one way or another.
____
Without a mind with desires, without a mind feeling the good/bad/ right/wrong which we impute to the moral realm, there is no morality.
I would not use the word “feel” when describing one’s perception of “right/wrong”; while it’s possible (and even desirable) for a person to feel emotional revulsion at the presence of evil, one’s recognition of the evil is not limited to that. One can deduce, given sound principles on which to start and using the intellect alone, that a given action is morally illicit. In fact, the use of the intellect is one way that we “calibrate” our feelings to reality; in the case of someone suffering from scruples (or, if you like, some sort of pathology), we can tell the person that it is not, in fact, a moral crime to step on a crack in the sidewalk… and one would not need to have recourse to polls and surveys about the cultural views on the subject, either; pure reason would suffice.
Isn’t it a sin to step on a crack and break your mother’s back? Okay, that’s a good example you gave, and I don’t know anybody who thinks stepping on the crack is really “immoral.” But how about if it was a religious symbol? There are those who would think it very immoral, especially if done in a derisive manner, then…. I do think it’s how we feel. Given that most of us want to live, it’s no surprise that we feel that killing (without a good enough reason) is wrong. Same for having our stuff taken – we deem it “theft” and “evil” etc., when there’s not a good enough reason for it. You gave the example of torturing the toddler to death, and there there is such commonality of opinion among all the world’s people that it’s close to an “objective” deal even if it’s still just an overwhelming commonality of individual opinions.
_____
And I would say again: the fact that a mind exists does not logically imply that it “manufactured” morality out of whole cloth, as it were; the mind can perceive that which truly exists externally, in addition to “conjuring” up phantasms and abstract ideas. I can day-dream about unicorns, but I’m also quite capable of perceiving one, should a real one come galloping up to me.
It’s the “truly exists externally” that I disagree with. I take it as self-evident that we, as individuals, have our own desires and ideas of right/wrong/good/bad (again, given the assumptions about our existence that I make). But where is the proof of morality that is “external”? I’m not saying that physical reality and logic are the only “real” things, i.e. I accept that people have religious thoughts, for example – that would be true whether or not I agreed or was aware of it.
In no way am I trying to claim license to do whatever I please, nor for the individual within society – most things really are not being disputed to any meaningful degree, though of course abortion is a large-looming exception. Peoples’ desires are so common, the world over, that moral codes tend to be very similar.
Paladin: Therein lie an immediate problem: on the one hand, you want to portray morality as a mere matter of consensus of those who are currently living; but on the other hand, you shy away (and rightly so) from the idea of doing whatever you please, whenever you please, to whomever/whatever you please, within the limits of your power. Since human history is replete with examples of “unthinkable evils” becoming emotionally acceptable/tolerable (and often tolerated/protected by law, soon afterwards), you’d be forced to admit that even the most stomach-turning evils, which you (personally) would never endorse under any circumstances (e.g. making it legal to rape a toddler to death, forcibly killing a woman’s unborn child by abortion, etc.), can become “socially acceptable”. If you’re seriously maintaining that “social acceptability = morally allowable”, then you ARE claiming license for man to do whatever he pleases, ultimately… or else, you’re claiming that “the only wrong thing is to defy the consensus”–in which case the abolitionists (of slavery) and the heroes who strove to rescue Jews from the Nazis were acting “immorally”.
Yeah, I think some things that most of us would totally shy away from can be socially acceptable, at relatively rare times. Had you and I been raised in two opposite societies, tribes that were each other’s sworn enemies since time immemorial, who knows how we’d feel about each other, or about each other’s toddlers? While it’s not *that* extreme, I’m thinking of the Palestinians and the Jews of Israel, some of whom have grown up with one side lobbing bombs at the other, then the second attacking and killing a bunch of people within the first, etc., etc., on and on until – as we have it today – even though they realize the other side are “people,” for some it’s hard to think of them as anything but “the enemy” and wish them dead and gone.
I’m not saying morality is “mere consensus.” You or I may well disagree with the consensus, here or elsewhere, on a given moral issue. A given group may agree or disagree. In no way does the consensus even have to be involved, depending on what we’re talking about. For any society of individuals to succeed – and not all ideas of just what “success” is will be the same – I do think that the individual must bend his will to what the group as a whole decides. This applies whether or not there are others who think that society does “bad” things or not. “Socially acceptable” does mean “morally acceptable,” perhaps not to every society or individual but in this case it does mean that to the society being mentioned. Female genital mutilation. Acceptable/moral or not? I say no, but many others say yes, and some societies say yes. They think there’s a good enough reason for doing it. I don’t.
____
[Doug]
“It’s not just that “my tastes don’t run in that direction,” it’s that as with the Jewish woman getting raped, horrible suffering can be present, and we can have great empathy with that.”
[Paladin]
Some people might. Many S.S. members (including the rapist) did not. Who are you to say that your empathy is rightly placed, and not simply a burst of silly sentimentalism? For that matter, why should (mind you, I say SHOULD, not COULD) anyone else CARE whether another person suffers, or not? Why make that the basis for any sort of restrictions on me? If I desire to murder and rape as I please, who are you to say that laws should be in place to stop me?
[Doug]
I’m just one person, same as you, but on murder and rape there isn’t significant disagreement, while on abortion there obviously is.
But surely you see the problem? As soon as there IS significant disagreement, your whole schema falls to ashes. You seem to be saying that there is no such thing as an intrinsically evil law… but only laws which don’t happen to suit your personal preferences/tastes (or the collective personal tastes of those responsible for making laws/policy); and you also seem to be saying that a “good law” is any law which forbids [x] if [x] runs against the personal whims/tastes of a sufficiently large number of people. The “one-child” policy in China (and other attendant abuses which are codified in Chinese law and practice), for example, was duly enacted by the recognized rulers of the country… so, while I’m delighted that you find such a law (and the brutal enforcement of it) abhorrent, I’m baffled as to how you could think so. You seem to agree with me only by sheer coincidence, or chance!
No, my scheme stays the same. Yes, there have been the Nazis, etc., and some things which were at least deemed acceptable in their society by those in power go against what most societies and most people think is acceptable. It’s not “intrinsically” good or bad, but in the case of the Nazis most think they were bad. Now then – yes, there are certainly laws which suit my personal taste or not – and maybe our society has a given one of them or maybe not. My opinion of a “good law” won’t necessarily match with yours, with our societal opinion, etc. Yet other than on the topic of abortion, I don’t know of any issue where I’m not in a pretty solid, even overwhelming majority. Not saying that necessarily matters, either – there could be other issues where there was significant disagreement – but as of now I think abortion is the only one. I wonder about female genital mutilation….
On China’s one-child policy, I see the imbalance it helps create – more boys than girls, and that to me is a bad thing. I am not saying that attempts to slow population growth are, per se, a bad thing. I think China felt it had to do *something.” They have not got a good solution, but I don’t blame them for some concern. Why is it baffling to you that I don’t approve of the one-child policy? I don’t think they have a good enough reason for it, i.e. it’s not a net positive, IMO. Does China have a good enough reason to force a woman with a wanted pregnancy to have an abortion. No, I don’t think so.
____
My feelings, per se, may not constitute a good enough reason for there to be laws, but enough people, or really, just a sufficient opinion – held by those who can make law – can make for a law being.
That’s part of my main point: not only are the “feelings” of an individual not sufficient reason to enact a law, but even the “feelings” of a large group (or even a majority, or even a unanimity) are not sufficient reason! Suppose 100% of the residents of some alternate-reality Earth (which would allow you not to be a member, for the purposes of this example) voted… either by preference, or by being brain-washed into supporting it… to enact a law mandating that a particular toddler be raped to death; on what basis would you object to that law? It would reflect the preferences of all parties concerned (and the toddler could perhaps be sedated, and raped to death while unconscious… so none of his or her “feelings” would be violated), and it would have been duly enacted by the “legitimate” law-making body/bodies. Would it be mere squeamishness which would lead you to object (comparable to squeamishness at slaughtering a chicken, or shooting a caged and rabid dog, or eating raw squid), or would yours by a deeper and more “morally relevant” objection?
(Sometimes, as with a monarchy, the feelings of an individual have been sufficient opinion for a law to exist. Now, “sufficient reason to enact the law” – that might depend on whether the observer was for the law or not.) Any moral opinion is going to be in the eye’s of the beholder, whether it be an individual or larger group. Nothing says that one law, somewhere, will necessarily be agreed to be an individual or given group – that’s just the way of the world. Happens all the time. On the toddler – yeah, there’s some squeamishness for me, but also it’s a case of me not thinking there to be a good enough reason to so kill the toddler. I don’t see what societal need could justify that. Really, the same as I don’t see enough societal need to force an abortion on a woman with a wanted pregnancy, or to deny one to a woman who wants one (to a point in gestation).
_____
A society is a group of people with things in common, and it ends up that society says you can’t legally rape, for example, and that if you do you’ll be “put out” of society, in effect, by imprisonment.
Nazi Germany did not do that, in the case of Jewish women. Do you see the problem? Your schema gives a callous majority (or a tyrant, etc.) full rights to abuse any given minority as they please!
There is a difference between “me giving them full rights” like that – personally I don’t think they have the right to do that – and noting that at times such things have occurred on earth. There may come a time – I am not saying it is here now, nor near, when worldwide people really start feeling that we have to control population – this would be when our effect on the planet isn’t really debateable any longer, and when the effects were demonstrably bad enough that “control the population” or even “reduce the population” were the words of the day. In that case, I think that quite a few things that most of us now consider to be “horrors” would gain quite a bit of acceptability. Yet again – it’s in the eye of the beholder. In some times past, when resources were severely low, people were “put out” of society – the sick, the old, even at times some of the young – so that the society itself gained a better chance at survival.
____
Why should we care about the suffering of others? That’s like asking why we should have desires at all.
Not quite. Many Nazis (and other citizens who supported them) were good husbands and wives, were kind to animals, worked hard at their jobs, and had plenty of empathy for the sufferings of their family-members and friends; it’s simply the case that, having been brain-washed into thinking that the Jews were non-persons who happened to resemble “true men and women”, and that objecting to their abuse/slaughter would have been as silly and sentimental as an objection to spraying pesticide on a swarm of locusts.
That didn’t mean the Germans had no desires nor cared about others. They still did, but they did not care about all other people on earth, equally. This is still the case, many places – where is it *truly* equal, anyway?
I’m not saying that anything will be entirely egalitarian. However, people simply do have desires, and this leads to laws, morals, customs, etc. If an individual truly does not care about the suffering of any others, then would not that individual be really asocial, quite a rate thing?
____
All other things being equal, we tend to not want somebody to suffer, versus them suffering. If they are to suffer, we see a good enough reason for it – or at the least we want to.
Exactly… and I’m not saying that there’s never a good reason to cause suffering (e.g. getting a tooth drilled to repair a cavity, etc.); I’m saying that there must be an objective moral standard by which we can judge the “good reasons” from the “bad reasons”… or else everything we could possibly say (or assert) about morality at all would crumble into nonsense. I also assert that you know this, at least at some level, and that you live according to it.
No, it doesn’t crumble into nonsense. This is the way we have the world. Yes, there will be objections: individual versus other individual, versus other groups, versus society, etc. Sometimes it’s society versus society. But overall there is vast commonality of opinion, and societal and national laws tend to be very similar for the most part. The exceptions give us some wars, some cases of individuals or groups being cast out of society, and many times it’s just us bitching about this or that, but still – overall the world goes on much as it has for a long time.
____
Example: Joe Blow comes up and spits on me. Okay, that’s one thing, and in this example I have not done anything to Joe, don’t know him, etc., and I see what he did as a moral wrong, and that it causes me some suffering.
Half a moment, here. To borrow an example from C.S. Lewis: if a man trips me up by accident, I do not (save perhaps for a moment, until I come to my senses) blame him… despite the suffering that the trip caused me. On the other hand, if a man tries to trip me up, and fails (perhaps through bad timing or bad aim), I do blame him, despite the fact that I did not experience the suffering that I experienced in the first case. And are we to blame a man whenever we happen to get irritated at him (for whatever reason, good or bad), on the basis that anger is an unpleasant emotion which could constitute “suffering”?
I’m figuring that it wasn’t an accident that ol’ Joe spit on me, and I’d see it as a wrong. Sometimes, indeed, we get mad at somebody and then later realize they really were not at fault or didn’t mean it, etc.
_____
Were he to steal my wallet and whack me on the head, I’d suffer more, see that as worse, morally, than just spitting.
Ask St. Francis of Assisi, and he’d disagree with you. Do you see the problem? If a thief means me harm (by theft and assault), but if I happen to be the type who’s delighted to offer up such sufferings to God (for the sake of souls), does this mean that the original thief is “more moral” than is a thief who happens to attack someone who’s less altruistic? It’s no credit to the thief that St. Francis (or whomever) was so self-sacrificing, you know (and the thief was likely ignorant of that, until after the fact)… so how could it make the action “less immoral”?
I see no problem with that – again, it’s in the eye of the beholder. If a dude didn’t mind having the wallet stolen, then all fine and good. However, that would not apply to me, at least not in the here and now. I also don’t think the cases like that – delight at having the wallet stolen, versus suffering because of it – are prevalent enough to justify removing that from things that are legislated against. “Less immoral” – well, if St. Francis thought so, then that’s his opinion.
_____
Would not have to be that way – if I had some extreme phobia or fixation about spitting, perhaps I’d rather take the whack on the head and have my wallet stolen – but as things are now, like most people, I think the spitting isn’t as bad as the other.
But don’t you see? If I were to brain-wash you into not caring about a toddler being raped to death, you would experience no suffering at all… and by your schema, you would then find it perfectly morally acceptable! It would also suggest that it would be “more immoral” to murder a popular movie-star than it would be to murder a friendless and homeless man. Do you want to claim that?
Or what if “nobody” objected? Then nobody would think it was immoral. Eye of the beholder.
On the killing of the movie star versus the homeless guy – in neither case do I see a good enough reason presented for the killing. I see both as immoral. Not saying there cannot be degrees, though. Take the case of burglars or home-invaders. Some states pretty much allow you to just blast away at them, without fear of penalty. Not so in others. For an 80 year old woman, alone, to gun down multiple intruders who she knows nothing about – I see that as “more moral” than me, for example, to shoot-to-kill when I’ve got a pretty good idea it’s just the 14 year old from down the block. Not saying I think the 14 year old should never be shot – hey, sometimes they should be, and they should have thought better of breaking in if they didn’t want to be shot, but I am saying that some situations do make me think of “more moral” and “less moral.”
_____
[Doug]
“I don’t say we are morally free to kill other animals at any perceived need. The situation matters.”
[Paladin]
Why on earth would it matter? What moral principle could possible stand in the way of me throwing concussion grenades at every pod of dolphins, of taking a flame-thrower to every last endangered baboon, of committing mayhem against every last elephant for the sake of enriching myself with ivory, or the like?
[Doug]
It matters because the valuation can change, and the argument for the killing can be very different. A tiger jumps on you and is biting you, hey – go ahead and defend yourself even if it means killing the tiger. A tiger is lying on a rock in the zoo, then I say don’t kill it.
Yes, but WHY? Saying that “the valuation can change” simply begs the original question: on what basis are you determining the valuation at all, and are you right in doing so? What argument, aside from personal taste, could you offer in urging me to stop? If I would find it delightful to shoot that caged zoo tiger to bits, and if I bribe the officials to keep me out of trouble, then on what possible basis could my action be immoral? If you don’t like shooting caged tigers, then don’t shoot any! (That’s a bit of a tweak of those who say “if you don’t like abortions, don’t get one”, and other such blithering nonsense.)
The difference in valuation is that one case is me valuing my life – as almost all of us do – and me thinking that wanting to stay alive is a good enough reason to kill the tiger (can’t really think of a good enough reason for the tiger to kill me). The other case is me wanting to kill the tiger because – it would be a thrill, I wanted the tiger pelt (?) etc. – I don’t see there being a good enough reason in that case. Likewise, I support society being able to imprison me, even kill me, if I do certain things. But not for stepping on the cracks in the sidewalk.
On killing the tiger – “am I right in doing so?” Well, that’s in the eye of the beholder. Self-defense is going to be the more popular reason, versus shooting the tiger when he’s on the rock in the zoo. Even on the basis of personal preference, it would be yours or mine (if we shot it) versus what I am presuming are the many more people who don’t want the tiger killed in that situation. Sometimes it is just a matter of votes, so to speak.
Blah. These “moving target” threads move down/expire too quickly for these meaty, kilobyte-long discussions! :) (Is that a setting on WordPress, or something?) We may have to hitch a ride on a new thread, soon! I’ll try to reply soon, as well!
China’s policies are likely to come back and haunt them some 30 or 40 years from now when they have a large geriatric population and a relatively small youthful population to take care of them. They may not be able to either. China’s “booming economy” consists of a handful of billionaires with a large section living in poverty. They’ll be very hard-pressed to take care of their older population.
Robert, you are so right! The reduced younger population will not be able to sustain the increasingly older population. I call it China’s “senior tsunami.” Here’s an article about it.
China Census Shows China Population Ageing and Urban, BBC News, 4/28/11
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13218733
You are also right about the fact that the “booming economy” is not benefitting everyone. Here’s an article about that.
Rise in Billionaires Tests China’s Rich-Poor Divide, Reuters, 3/10/11
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/10/us-billionaires-china-idUSTRE7292DX20110310