Those parents should be thrown into jail for a long, long time. And shame on anyone else who knew about this and did nothing.

Agreed. What nasty, hateful people.

Tragic. So very tragic.

shame on the doctor

Uh...shame on her parents. This wouldn't have happened if they hadn't forced her unwillingly into a medical procedure.

I thought abortion was illegal in that part of the world?

I thought no one ever forced an abortion on anyone? (FF)

The R.O.P. allows abortion?

That would have been one good lookin' baby I tell you.

But how sad...how some parents can do things like this to their children who they are supposed to PROTECT in this world is beyond me.

Yes, when women are treated like property, only tragedy can come of it.

I really wish the archaic political hacks at N.O.W and kindred groups really cared about women. Will they ever say anything about how one (unnamed) culture allows women to be kidnapped, raped and killed because of some sort of male honor thing?

Abortion is horrible, forced abortion is horrible, and so is the total subjagation of women being practiced in many places around the world. Those practices are starting to appear a bit closer to home and it seems that traditional Women's Rights groups don't even care.

Don't be ignorant, Anon.

http://www.now.org/press/10-07/10-08b.html

NOW Supports Legislation that Denounces 'Honor' Killings
and Violence Against Women

Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy

10/8/2007

The National Organization for Women is proud to support H. Res. 32, denouncing the practices of female genital mutilation, domestic violence, 'honor' killings, acid burning, dowry deaths, sexual slavery and other gender-based persecutions. We commend Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) for her work on this resolution, and we say it is time for Congress to take a stand for the health and lives of girls and women everywhere.

(continued at the link)

so much for choice, eh?

This poor girl...If I could stand face to face with the men in her family, I would take a bat to them for doing this to her. It makes me sick.

Reality --

Yes, I guess I am ignorant or rather uninformed -- that press release was news to me.

Are they doing anything beyond a press release -- like making the rounds on tv to bring further attention to this? The only time I see a NOW rep it is either about abortion or supporting a democratic candidate.

I'm honestly not just trying to be partisan --- it really bugs me as a woman that woman's groups aren't trying to do more about these practices. The world will forever be in bondage if such a signifcant number of woman are treated as property. In the name of political correctness (or maybe politeness in general) we stand by while women are shrouded in black, punished for being raped, forced to abort or killed with 'honor'.
Yes, I'm not sure what to do, but couldn't N.O.W. make this issue a bit more prominent and perhaps present some actions to take? It would go a long way toward me having some respect for the outfit. I would like to know if any woman's group is trying to do something about this.

Reality,

Has NOW taken a stand against forced abortion in China? Its very commendable they take a stand against all kinds of violence against women but where is there anything about forced abortion?

Reality,

I would also like to know if NOW takes a stand against the deliberate aborting of female babies, both in Asia and the United States. Sexism doesn't get any worse than destroying females for being females.

Gee, if you force someone to carry an unwanted prgnancy, and they die from complications as a result of that pregnancy, doesn't that make you EVERY BIT as bad as Sobia's parents?

The R.O.P. allows abortion?

Posted by: mario at February 1, 2008 2:13 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why not?
About 80% of all women who have abortions in this country are Christians.
If Christians are happy to have abortions, why can't Muslims?

Laura,
This was a married woman who was 5 months pregnant with her husband's child!!
You see nothing wrong with a forced abortion?!

Carla,
She doesn't believe abortion can be forced on anyone. So, instead of facing that aspect, she spins it. Take it with a grain of salt!

Laura,
This was a married woman who was 5 months pregnant with her husband's child!!
You see nothing wrong with a forced abortion?!

Posted by: Carla at February 1, 2008 3:54 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

HELLS YEAH! It's every bit as bad as forcing someone to carry an unwanted pregnancy.

Laura,
No one forces a woman to get pregnant (excluding rape). She makes that choice when she has sex. Pregnancy does not carry the same risk as abortion, despite what you PC's would like to have everyone think.
Another one of those myths you guys circulate to promote the so-called right to murder your child.

Awww look, Laura's back..she just can't stay away..she loves us toooooo much.

Another one of those myths you guys circulate to promote the so-called right to murder your child.

Posted by: Patricia at February 1, 2008 3:59 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Funny, the CDC seems to think that pregnancy and childbirth is 10 or 11 times more lethal than abortion.

Awww look, Laura's back..she just can't stay away..she loves us toooooo much.

Posted by: Elizabeth at February 1, 2008 4:04 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When was I away?

Thanks anon. :) Deep, cleansing breath...
I am just so saddened for this young husband/daddy who now is grieving.

"About 80% of all women who have abortions in this country are Christians.
If Christians are happy to have abortions, why can't Muslims?"

Posted by: FetusFascist at February 1, 2008 3:44 PM

FF: That 80% pretty much mirrors the percentage of Christians in the U.S. population. Christians don't have a monopoly on ignorance.

******************************

"Gee, if you force someone to carry an unwanted prgnancy, and they die from complications as a result of that pregnancy, doesn't that make you EVERY BIT as bad as Sobia's parents?"

Posted by: FetusFascist at February 1, 2008 3:41 PM

FF: No, it doesn't. The intent of pregnancy is always life, sometimes the course of nature doesn't take the path we desire, but thanks to modern medicine the incidence of maternal deaths in the U.S. is quite low. On the other hand, the intent of abortion is always the death of an innocent human life. That is the greatest evil.

I don't think there's anyway we can truly know the physical cost of abortion on women.
How many women might show up at emerg with complications due to abortion but death or incidence of uterine bleeding is listed as pregnancy or some other cause?
This is routinely done.
How many women have incompetent cervixes after pregnancy compared to post-abortion?
So LAURA, your stats make no difference to me -
they don't reflect the real situation.

Pregnancy does not carry the same risk as abortion

True, Patricia, the risk for giving birth is much, much higher.

That would have been one good lookin' baby I tell you.

Elizabeth, I wouldn't doubt it. The girl pictured looks great, while the guy, IMO, looks a bit squirrelly, but still....

I agree it's a sad deal. Don't know if religion is involved, but whatever zealotry on the family's part is involved, I see it as a bad thing.

Doug

Laura,
No one forces a woman to get pregnant (excluding rape). She makes that choice when she has sex. Pregnancy does not carry the same risk as abortion, despite what you PC's would like to have everyone think.
Another one of those myths you guys circulate to promote the so-called right to murder your child.

Posted by: Patricia at February 1, 2008 3:59 PM
.....................................

Have you explained how simply having sex causes pregnancy to the infertile? I'm sure that they would like to hear that becoming pregnant is so much easier than avoiding it.
It is no myth that pregnancy is more dangerous than an abortion.

I don't think there's anyway we can truly know the physical cost of abortion on women.
How many women might show up at emerg with complications due to abortion but death or incidence of uterine bleeding is listed as pregnancy or some other cause?
This is routinely done.
How many women have incompetent cervixes after pregnancy compared to post-abortion?
So LAURA, your stats make no difference to me -
they don't reflect the real situation.

Posted by: Patricia at February 1, 2008 4:27 PM
.............................................

You don't know the 'real situation'. All your info comes from the same place. Use your common sense. Delivering is much more likely to cause an incompetent cervix

FF: No, it doesn't. The intent of pregnancy is always life, sometimes the course of nature doesn't take the path we desire, but thanks to modern medicine the incidence of maternal deaths in the U.S. is quite low. On the other hand, the intent of abortion is always the death of an innocent human life. That is the greatest evil.

Posted by: Janet at February 1, 2008 4:24 PM
...............................................

Pregnancy is incapable of intent.

When was I away?

Well, you hadn't commented in a few days..and it made things somewhat more..hmmm..civil I guess we could say. That's putting it nicely.

But you are back to ruffle some feathers I see. But not really..cause most here are used to you anyway.

How many women have incompetent cervixes after pregnancy compared to post-abortion?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why don't you tell us.

The only woman I know with an incompetent cervix damaged it giving birth.

How many women have incompetent cervixes after pregnancy compared to post-abortion?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why don't you tell us.

The only woman I know with an incompetent cervix damaged it giving birth.

Posted by: FetusFascist at February 1, 2008 7:31 PM
..............................

Me too. It was my oldest sister. She miscarried 6 times after that birth. Obviously, giving birth can kill future 'babies'. @@

HELLS YEAH! It's every bit as bad as forcing someone to carry an unwanted pregnancy.

Posted by: FetusFascist at February 1, 2008 3:56 PM

FF:
You are such a hypocite. Just recently you argued in your opinion that NOONE and I repeat NOONE can ever coerce or force a women to get an abortion since it ultimately is her choice. Remember?? Maybe not, since you were just on a weekend bender in Viva Las Vegas.

Now you are trying to use the arguement that women are forced into carrying a child to birth.
There is no way ANYONE and I repeat ANYONE can coerce a woman to carry a baby to full term. It has to be her choice.

Care to explain?

So Laura and Sally read this article and then go into their old song & dance about who pregnancy is what killing women.

I am simply amazed... the lack of compassion is so evident.

And PeachPit doesn't think the Iraq war is just.

So Laura and Sally read this article and then go into their old song & dance about who pregnancy is what killing women.

I am simply amazed... the lack of compassion is so evident.

Posted by: LB at February 1, 2008 7:55 PM
.........................................

As all of Jill's borrowed articles, this one lacks in enough factual information to make any kind of intelligent comment over the actual situation. Jill wants the article to have meaning for her agenda. It doesn't. If lacking in compassion equals the apparent PL lack of thirst for truth, call me lacking. I'll call you gullible.

Sally and Laura,

During the birth process, the cervix dilatates naturally. During abortion, it will likely be forcibly and unnaturally dilatated. I cared for a woman with an incompetent cervix the doctor was certain resulted from an abortion. She had several miscarriages and had a "cervical stitch" put in. The baby was still born prematurely.
If a woman has an inherent weakness, as the women you mention may have had, it may not show up until after her first birth, in subsequent pregnancies. Also, with each birth the cervix does gradually "loosen" up. That is why women having their 2+ labors tend to go much more quickly and easily than a first time labor.

Incidence/Prevalence of Cervical Incompetence

Cervical incompetence occurs in only 1% to 2% of all pregnancies. It is the cause of 20-25% of miscarriages in the second trimester.

Risk Factors for Cervical Incompetence
bullet

Previous surgical procedure involving the cervix, including a D&C or a biopsy
bullet

Malformation of the cervix
bullet

Maternal exposure to DES while in utero
bullet

Damage to the cervix during a prior difficult delivery
bullet

Multiple gestation

http://www.sapreemies.za.org/premature/cervix.htm

MK, 8:39PM

How interesting that you mention DES. This was another drug that women were assured was "safe", as they are now assured that RU486 is "safe". DES resulted in horrendous reproductive system cancers in the children of the women who used it as well as reproductive system anomolies, among them incompetent cervix.
It seems women have not learned some bitter lessons from the past and are again, without question, taking a drug, RU486, they have been assured is "safe".

As all of Jill's borrowed articles, this one lacks in enough factual information to make any kind of intelligent comment over the actual situation. Jill wants the article to have meaning for her agenda. It doesn't. If lacking in compassion equals the apparent PL lack of thirst for truth, call me lacking. I'll call you gullible.

Posted by: Sally at February 1, 2008 8:16 PM

Sally,
Hello, knock knock anyone home?? You must have been with FF on a bender in Viva Las Vegas.and still haven't found home.

Per the article:
This sad story is all over the British press.

Did you read the full article from The Daily Record? Exclusive by Mark McGivern

Why don't you give him a ring on the tele and tell him he's bloody full of it. His story is blasted inane!

Meaning for Jill's aganda? Try to follow along. I will type very slowly so you cn keep up. This blog is about abortion. The story is about forced abortion. See the connection?

"FF:
You are such a hypocite. Just recently you argued in your opinion that NOONE and I repeat NOONE can ever coerce or force a women to get an abortion since it ultimately is her choice. Remember??"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've said over and over that no AMERICAN woman has ever been forced to have an abortion.
I stand by that. I have no idea if Peter Noone or any of the Hermits forced anyone to have an abortion.

"Maybe not, since you were just on a weekend bender in Viva Las Vegas."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A weekend bender?

You don't remember?

FF,

How do you know for an absolute fact that no American woman has ever been forced to have an abortion?

I know one young woman ordered by her tyrranical father to have an abortion. He had his "image in the community" to protect. He beat her with a 2x4 to prove he meant business.

Sally --

I just did a quick Factiva search and this story is running today in the Times, the Scotish Daily Record and in the Press Association National Newswire.

You just think it was all made up. Your the one who lacks the facts. Just because you don't want to accept the facts doesn't make them untrue.

Didn't you once say you were a librarian?

Sally and Laura,

During the birth process, the cervix dilatates naturally. During abortion, it will likely be forcibly and unnaturally dilatated. I cared for a woman with an incompetent cervix the doctor was certain resulted from an abortion. She had several miscarriages and had a "cervical stitch" put in. The baby was still born prematurely.
If a woman has an inherent weakness, as the women you mention may have had, it may not show up until after her first birth, in subsequent pregnancies. Also, with each birth the cervix does gradually "loosen" up. That is why women having their 2+ labors tend to go much more quickly and easily than a first time labor.

Posted by: Mary at February 1, 2008 8:37 PM
...............................................

Mary, my sister had a 'dry birth' back in 1968 when things gestational were left up to 'God's' will. You know. When women were moving into the work force and 'medicine' found a new income. Babies.
A cervix can make no distinction between your concept of what is natural or not. It seems quite obvious to me that the cervix will be much less damaged during an abortion, during the time frame that the vast majority of abortions are performed in this country, in constrast to full term births.
Stating that the cervix may have just been incompetent to begin with certainly doesn't support the assertion that abortion causes it.

As all of Jill's borrowed articles, this one lacks in enough factual information to make any kind of intelligent comment over the actual situation. Jill wants the article to have meaning for her agenda. It doesn't. If lacking in compassion equals the apparent PL lack of thirst for truth, call me lacking. I'll call you gullible.

Posted by: Sally at February 1, 2008 8:16 PM

Sally,
Hello, knock knock anyone home?? You must have been with FF on a bender in Viva Las Vegas.and still haven't found home.

Per the article:
This sad story is all over the British press.

Did you read the full article from The Daily Record? Exclusive by Mark McGivern

Why don't you give him a ring on the tele and tell him he's bloody full of it. His story is blasted inane!

Meaning for Jill's aganda? Try to follow along. I will type very slowly so you cn keep up. This blog is about abortion. The story is about forced abortion. See the connection?

Posted by: Sandy at February 1, 2008 9:11 PM
.........................................

The story implies a great deal many more complex issues than abortion. What I comprehended out of the piece is how much organized religion hates women in far too many parts of the world. That and how people can move to other parts of the world and bring their hatred with them.
By the way, a tele is a television. One does not ring one up on the tele.

Wait a minute...

If she was newly married and 5 months pregnant, why was she with her parents in Pakistan rather than her husband - especially if her parents didn't approve of the marriage?

This story is lacking a bazillion critical details.

It sounds like she left her husband, she went to Pakistan, and she died of a sloppy abortion in Lahore.
Nowhere does it suggest that she was abducted by her parents, nor forced to have an abortion.

Strange that the husband didn't go with her to Pakistan - especially if he believed that there might be trouble. She didn't call or email? Sounds like they were estranged to me...

I hope that Anti-choicers and Pro-choicers alike can agree that what happened was atrocious. If we can believe what is being reported then this woman did not want to have an abortion and her parents forced her to have the procedure. To me this is on par with honor-killings. Perhaps it was botched on purpose to "teach her a lesson". How do we know that the parents did not intend for her to die this way?

Laura (FF)

You should read up on honor killings and the role of a woman's family in muslim culture. Secret marriages and kidnapping by family members is part of it.

Read up on it in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing

Laura (FF)

You should read up on honor killings and the role of a woman's family in muslim culture. Secret marriages and kidnapping by family members is part of it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

She wasn't kidapped, and knowing that her family was that angry, why would she go back to a violent environment like that? I'm not buying the "Gramma's funeral" story.

Sally, 10:38PM

Women were moving into the workforce decades before 1968 and babies have been a business since male doctors took over childbirth from the midwives.
Yes, a cervix does make a distinction. Any trauma or unnatural dilatation can result in injury, I gave you just one such example in my post. MK gives other examples.
A cervix that dilatates naturally is less likely to be traumatized.

I'm very sorry about what happened to your sister.
It was the OB/GYN who was certain the abortion had caused the woman's incompetent cervix and its entirely possible forced dilatation, no matter how "gentle", can result in injury.

Lillyfoot,

Of course pro-life people consider this atrocious. I have to wonder though if the National Organization for Women considers forced abortion in China atrocious. I've never heard them say anything. I've also never heard them comment on the deliberate destruction of unborn females solely because they're unborn females.
Please correct me if I am wrong on this and they have indeed taken a stand.

"Laura,
No one forces a woman to get pregnant (excluding rape). She makes that choice when she has sex. Pregnancy does not carry the same risk as abortion, despite what you PC's would like to have everyone think.
Another one of those myths you guys circulate to promote the so-called right to murder your child."

Not to mention the fact that in continuing a pregnancy, no affirmative act is taken; nature is simply allowed to take its course. In the case of forced abortion - or any abortion for that matter - an affirmative act is made to end one, and maybe two - lives. The law sees a HUGE difference there, between an affirmative act and the mere failure to act.

S.

"True, Patricia, the risk for giving birth is much, much higher."

In addition to what Patricia said (that the CDC stats do not reflect real causes of death, due to the fact that abortion stats are not well-kept nor are they included in what might have caused subsequent pregnancies or births to be more dangerous for post-abortive women), I would also add that perhaps the risks of giving birth are artificially inflated due to our overuse of c-section in the US (mostly to avoid legal liability... thanks John Edwards!)

Thats tragic. Neither abortion nor gestation should be forced on someone. I hope the parents go to jail for this. What they did was shameful and inexcusable.

Laura our little Fetus Fascist --

You make your living killing animals, I really shouldn't have expected you would have an ounce of compassion in your heart.

Keep posting Laura, your attitudes help me to clarify this issue.

"our overuse of c-section in the US"

You have no idea how many babies have survived or avoided serious disability because of c-section. Thank you John Edwards indeed.

Laura our little Fetus Fascist --

You make your living killing animals, I really shouldn't have expected you would have an ounce of compassion in your heart.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is that what I do?

Hal,

Take my word for it C-section is overused. There was a time when it was used strictly for emergencies, in fact there was a time that if the hospital c-section rate was 5%, there was a major investigation. C-sections for convenience were unheard of. I've cared for more than a few that I knew damned well were not necessary, but were done for convenience.
Thank John Edwards for what? Suing doctors for children born with cerebral palsy? Cerebral palsy is as old as the human race and no one even knows for certain what causes it. One theory is that its faulty wiring that occurs prenatally for reasons unknown. John Edwards played on the sympathy and gullibility of juries, as well as greed. All this suing didn't leave him a pauper. Parents could easily be led to believe CP was the result of medical mismanagement or could themselves be eying a jackpot.
By the way Hal, the costs of John Edwards' lawsuits are passed on to you and other clients by the insurance companies.

I'd LOVE to see John Edwards as Attorney General, I think he'd do more good there than as VP. He's extremely talented in that respect and willing to go after those he needs to.

Though, I may be a little afraid if Obama takes Clinton as a running mate should he run, or vice versa. Neither ruled it out at the last debate, itd be a very odd ticket, and i'd feel very divided voting for an Obama/Clinton ticket, and as much as I love Obama, I don't think I'd be able to vote for a Clinton/Obama ticket if she actually extended him the opportunity.

Oh, Hal, I assume you're on the Obama e-mail list, but just in case you havent yet, go check out www.dipdive.com and watch the video. Its absolutely amazing, gave me chills.

Dan, 3:57PM

Maybe he'll go after those insurance companies for increasing their rates.

I really wish the archaic political hacks at N.O.W and kindred groups really cared about women. Will they ever say anything about how one (unnamed) culture allows women to be kidnapped, raped and killed because of some sort of male honor thing?

Abortion is horrible, forced abortion is horrible, and so is the total subjagation of women being practiced in many places around the world. Those practices are starting to appear a bit closer to home and it seems that traditional Women's Rights groups don't even care.

Posted by: Anon anon

********************
I do care about women. Otherwise I'd close my eyes and say no abortions. Instead I want them to be safe and legal and not stigmatized as they are now.

I still don't know if I believe this story. Pakistan is a very Muslim nation and Islam doesn't condone abortion. Now if they said it was an honor KILLING, I'd believe it sooner.

Reality,

Has NOW taken a stand against forced abortion in China? Its very commendable they take a stand against all kinds of violence against women but where is there anything about forced abortion?

Posted by: Mary

Mary, what China does is reprehensible. However, it is the only way they can see their nation survive.There has to be the one child limit. Perhaps teaching the Chinese that girls are just as good as boys would help. Sorry, being flippant. I took a class last summer that spent five weeks talking about the one child policy in China. Now I'm taking environmental science and there is a very real chance that if mankind wants to survive, all countries, all people are going to have to start practicing that. How do I feel about it? I honestly can't say. It doesn't effect me, I had an only 26 years ago. My husband didn't want more. But I do know that if the population keeps spiraling out of control, mankind is doomed.

Laura,
No one forces a woman to get pregnant (excluding rape). She makes that choice when she has sex. Pregnancy does not carry the same risk as abortion, despite what you PC's would like to have everyone think.
Another one of those myths you guys circulate to promote the so-called right to murder your child.

Posted by: Patricia

Only in the world of the rabid antichoicer is the sex act consent to getting pregnant.

I don't think there's anyway we can truly know the physical cost of abortion on women.
How many women might show up at emerg with complications due to abortion but death or incidence of uterine bleeding is listed as pregnancy or some other cause?
This is routinely done.
How many women have incompetent cervixes after pregnancy compared to post-abortion?
So LAURA, your stats make no difference to me -
they don't reflect the real situation.

Posted by: Patricia at February

Willful ignorance. So sad.

Cheri,

Mankind has been "doomed" for one reason or another since I can remember. According to what I read over 40 years ago, the human race should have long disappeared by now. Many countries are concerned about their declining populations.
Deeply ingrained cultural traditions and biases against females will not disappear so long as the forced abortion policy promotes and encourages the aborting of females.
Already there is concern about a female shortage in China. Ya think? Talk about dooming a country.
Also, it has never failed that where the standard of living improves, the population stabilizes. China has been improving its standard of living. Also, more well monied Chinese can get by the one child policy.

Only in the world of the rabid antichoicer is the sex act consent to getting pregnant.

Posted by: Cheri at February 2, 2008 4:57 PM
.........

you mean in the pro-abort world all I would have to do was have sex, say "NO BABY!", and I would not get pregnant? Cool!

Only in the world of the rabid antichoicer is the sex act consent to getting pregnant.

Posted by: Cheri at February 2, 2008 4:57 PM

It is only natural to get pregnant from sex.
So if you know that and do it you can assume it will happen.
Opinion and attitude have no effect on these natural systems.

Pro abortion folks and pro life folks get pregnant the same way.
It is just natural, normal, healthy bodily process.
Neither law nor politics affect it.

It is not our world or your world. It is just the world.

there is a very real chance that if mankind wants to survive, all countries, all people are going to have to start practicing that

So you're against forcing abortion and YET you think we're going to have to start enforcing population control? Telling people to have abortions if they get pregnant with more than one child or charge them ridiculous fines if they have more than one?

WOW is all I can say to that..because it makes no sense. You're AGAINST forced abortion and yet you think that "for the good of the environment" it may have to be implemented alllll around the world.

Another thing, your husband didn't want more kids so you ran right out and got fixed? Doesn't quite sound like an equal partnership to me.

Cheri,

Only in the world of the rabid antichoicer is the sex act consent to getting pregnant.

Since the beginning of time having sex is how one went about getting pregnant. I was unaware that that had changed. So what, now we just save boxtops from cereal boxes? How do you think a person gets pregnant? Before you answer, I'd like proof of your age, because if you're under 18 we probably shouldn't be talking about this.

Cheri,

Willful ignorance. So sad.

I know, right? Which is why you should probably read up on the subject.

Hal -

All I can say is the overuse of c-secions (nearly 30% of babies in recent years have been born via c-section in the US) is such common knowledge that it doesn't even require a link or a statistic (thank you Mary). However, here are a few, FYI - http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2435, http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-11-15-sections_x.htm, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/16/health/main1048040.shtml.

The fact that such overuse arises from hospital fears of malpractice suits is also commonly known. (see the above artiles as well). Jumping the gun on a c-section is one of the most common deviations from "evidence-based medicine".

Do you really think that c-section is the best or better option in most cases? Are you familiar with the medical diagnoses "failure to progress" or "cephalopelvic disproportion"? Do you really think that a full 1/3 of us American women are unable to have babies because our pelvises are too small in relation to our babies? If so, how on earth did the human species even survive prior to use of c-section? In 1970 when the c-section rate was 5%, were 25% of women in childbirth dying?

By the way, for those who really support "choice", why not lobby your local hospitals to allow vbacs? Most of them don't anymore, due to the fact that vbac incurs risks not of poor medical outcomes, but risk of lawsuit in the event that something should go wrong.

And finally, I stand by my statement that John Edwards is a hack and a wuss :)

"Only in the world of the rabid antichoicer is the sex act consent to getting pregnant"

Must be lonely in your world....

Mankind has been "doomed" for one reason or another since I can remember.

Mary, just how old are you? ; )

That's been true for quite a few thousand years, in spite of religious hand-wringing all along.

Doug

Right.

...And every time you get into a car you know there could be an accident. That's why car accident victims shouln't have access to medical intervention. They knew the possible consequences, and it's their own damn fault!

The question is: what is the nature of the sexual act? When one attempts to violate that nature, what are the consequences? The purpose (or nature, I suppose) of a car is transportation. When one drives a car and ends up somewhere, they are not surprised that they ended up there because they acted in accordance with the nature of the car. Similarly, when one becomes pregnant after sexual intercourse, this should not come as a surprise since they acted in accordance with the nature of the sexual act.

If one decides to put water in their gas tank, then they are violating the nature of the car and consequently, it is their own fault. But driving a car driving a car in accordance with its nature should not warrant unsympathy from anyone.

Doug 10:59am

A lot older than dirt and just slightly younger than God.

The question is: what is the nature of the sexual act? When one attempts to violate that nature, what are the consequences? The purpose (or nature, I suppose) of a car is transportation. When one drives a car and ends up somewhere, they are not surprised that they ended up there because they acted in accordance with the nature of the car. Similarly, when one becomes pregnant after sexual intercourse, this should not come as a surprise since they acted in accordance with the nature of the sexual act.

Bobby, the nature of the sexual act is that most times it's done for pleasure, not in order to have kids.

Agreed that one should not be too "surprised" by pregnancy, provided there was reasonable grounds for suspecting the possibility beforehand. There have been guys that have had vasectomies, and 5 or 6 months later, voila, the woman get's pregnant. Now that'd be a surprise for most folks, though sure - such is not "impossible."

Anyway, having sex in no way is any agreement to remain pregnant.

Doug

Doug,

"Bobby, the nature of the sexual act is that most times it's done for pleasure, not in order to have kids."

What about the nature of it in and of itself? You mentioned a reason that people do it, and sure, that may very well be the reason that most people give, but why does the sexual act exist? Evolutionarily speaking, why did our species evolve to be able to do the sexual act? Was it for pleasure?

I submit that it is akin to eating. The nature of eating is to gain nutrients to keep the body healthy. Sure, one can say that part of eating is the pleasure of it, but when someone tries to sever the pleasure of eating from the affect that the food will have on their body, we call it bulimia. They want to be able to enjoy the taste of the food, but not deal with the weight that it causes, so they throw it up. The analogy carries over to sex and it's consequence, babies. In both cases, one wants the pleasure of a certain act without the consequences that the act can bring about. Note that it is not always the case that one gains weight when they eat, just as it is not always the case that one becomes pregnant when one has sex. God love you, Doug-ol-buddy-ol-pal.

Bobby,
Great points as usual. I love your posts. Sex was designed to be pleasurable so we would pro-create. If it wasn't any fun, our species would never reproduce.

Also, can you post the link for the article written about birth control and it's effects on society. I can't remember the author. I started reading it, but couldn't finish and lost where to find it. I will save it this time.
Thanks!
Sandy

I knew Sobia, went to school with her... I still can't believe this has happened to her, But u know what i bet her parents are really regreting it now... they prob didn't think she would die during the operation, but they shouldnt have forced her into it in anyway. My heart goes out to Usman, it's such a shame what happened. I wish it never happened, i wish it wasn't true.

Thank you, Sandy. Although, like I said before, all I do is repeat things that I've heard other people say. The article is http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

It's called "Contraception: Why not?" by Janet Smith. I strongly encourage anyone who has ever wondered why some pro-lifers oppose birth control to at least skim this article. It mentions God and the Catholic Church, but if you read carefully, almost nothing it argues is based on God or the Catholic Church. Like I've said before, the claim that birth control is wrong is so out there and so against what society says that it is worth giving it a serious investigation as to why.

"Bobby, the nature of the sexual act is that most times it's done for pleasure, not in order to have kids."

What about the nature of it in and of itself? You mentioned a reason that people do it, and sure, that may very well be the reason that most people give, but why does the sexual act exist? Evolutionarily speaking, why did our species evolve to be able to do the sexual act? Was it for pleasure?

Sure, to reproduce, if we are talking biological "purpose."
......

I submit that it is akin to eating. The nature of eating is to gain nutrients to keep the body healthy. Sure, one can say that part of eating is the pleasure of it, but when someone tries to sever the pleasure of eating from the affect that the food will have on their body, we call it bulimia. They want to be able to enjoy the taste of the food, but not deal with the weight that it causes, so they throw it up. The analogy carries over to sex and it's consequence, babies. In both cases, one wants the pleasure of a certain act without the consequences that the act can bring about. Note that it is not always the case that one gains weight when they eat, just as it is not always the case that one becomes pregnant when one has sex. God love you, Doug-ol-buddy-ol-pal.

Thanks, Bobby. If we want to go with biological "purpose," then men would be mating with as many women as possible, etc. Human reproduction does come from sex, but the point remains that there's no necessary agreement to pregnancy.

Same as for eating then having surgery, exercising, etc., to not gain weight. Weight gain can and does occur, but people don't have to accept it, any more than they have to accept being pregnant if they don't want to.

Doug

Same as for eating then having surgery, exercising, etc., to not gain weight. Weight gain can and does occur, but people don't have to accept it, any more than they have to accept being pregnant if they don't want to.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at February 3, 2008 10:25 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Could you avoid any discussion that implies discipline while I'm sitting here grossly bloated on Superbowl "dude food?"
I don't even watch football, but I'll go anywhere those fried, breaded, macaroni and cheese poppers can be found...

Doug denies the biological purpose of women.
The "biological purpose" of men "would be mating(reproducing) with as many women as possible,etc."
A statement of Doug.
The biological purpose for women then "would be to mate(reproduce) with as many men as possible" to maintain reproductive "equality of women".
Doug denies the reproductive purpose for women by abortion and contraception. Also, Doug denies his own "biological purpose" for his reproductive organs, by the decision to not have off spring.
This leaves only one reason for the reproductive organs for Doug's total life, to date.
Which is the non-"biological purpose"; the pleasure,the emotion,the desire, Doug receives from his penis.
Sadly, Doug is reduced to being a penis lover through the passion for pleasure, and the decision to deny the only logical(non-emotive), biological purpose, for his reproductive organs.
Doug has faithfully followed his philospohy to deny the biological purpose(rational purpose) of his reproductive organs and follow the pleasure his penis can give him, till death do part Doug, and his lonely penis, that seeks out women who deny their biological purpose with Doug.
Which is the only reason Doug is for abortion, since it denies the rational reason for the reproductive organs and makes women share his need for pleasure without doing what comes naturally, or biological for men and women:"mating with as many men and women as possible"

See what happens when you are raised in a atmosphere of irrational religionist, who worship a God that kills and then "silently" makes you Quake in fear of his irrational killing of humans.
You end up being a atheist allowing women to kill their off spring. A Doug.

Mornin Doug!

"Thanks, Bobby. If we want to go with biological "purpose," then men would be mating with as many women as possible, etc. Human reproduction does come from sex, but the point remains that there's no necessary agreement to pregnancy."

Perhaps I didn't quite make myself clear. If you want to argue that men should be mating with as many women as possible, then that would be a statement about HUMAN nature, not the nature of the sexual act. Whether one performs the sexual act with one women or 100 women, the question still remains as to the essence/ nature of that act. What does it do? It's not quite the same as purely the biology behind it, although that gives us a lot of evidence and reason to base our understanding of its nature.

"Same as for eating then having surgery, exercising, etc., to not gain weight. Weight gain can and does occur, but people don't have to accept it, any more than they have to accept being pregnant if they don't want to."

I agree with this. The analogy with eating is just that- an analogy, and can only be taken so far. My point in discussing eating was to try and illustrate what I mean by the nature of an act. However, once we look at the results of acting in accordance with the nature of eating and sex, we see (at least the pro-lifer would argue) a radical difference. In fact, I would argue that exercising is very much in accordance with the proper nature of eating, which is nourishment and health. But let's look at the two "unwanted cases"- too much body fat and pregnancy. Well, here is where my analogy breaks down. Undergoing surgery is for the good of the patient. "Terminating the pregnancy" if argued in the same manner, begs the question as to the humanity of the unborn. If the result of pregnancy is a human being, then eliminating that human being is not an acceptable option, unlike eliminating extra fat.

I want to ask this, though. Suppose that the nature of the sexual act is not to become pregnant. We see pregnant women all the time. What action's nature results in pregnancy? God love you, Doug.

BTW, I want to make clear that I am arguing that the nature of the sexual act is procreative NOT TO THE EXCLUSION of a unitive aspect. I would argue that the sexual act also brings the couple close together, uniting them in a way that is unlike anything else, but I think most people would agree with that.

Bobby,

The article is interesting; unsuprisingly, however, I take issue with almost everything said in it.

In my opinion, individuals do not necessarily become better people once they have children. Ms. Smith portrays people without children as inherently selfish, self-interested and uncarig while she portrays these same people, after they have children, as selfess, caring, kind, thoughful peole. This is problematic on many levels and it is not possibe to draw a sweeping generalization like this with any accuracy. I would, additionally, enjoy seeing her provide some proof for her assertion.

Bonding and having a child are not mutually exclusive acts; however they are not mutually inclusive either (ie. one can exist without the other). Are infertile couples able to bond through the sex act even though this form of bonding cannot be coupled with the act of procreation? What about women who have gone through menopause--is their sex life suddenly less meaningfull because they no longer have the capacity to bear a child?

That study she cites--I forget the name of the researcher involved--cannot prove casuation. Statistically, it is simply not possible. One can prove that two variables coincide and can make speculations about why this is, but one cannot prove that one of these variables has caused the other witout experimentation.

Her treatment of overpopulation is further problematic; simply because a stated hypothesis has not (or not yet) come true does not mean that it has no basis in reality. I would go on, but if I do I'll be late.

Enigma,

You are correct about not making sweeping generalizations. We also have to take into account why people have children. It may be to fulfill their own emotional needs, and when the children fail to do this they are neglected or abused. Also there are men and women who simply have no capacity for parental bonding and love. I have seen too many situations where parenthood did nothing to make someone a better person. Personality traits are what they are and will not magically change.
Yes, parenthood may bring out the best in some people, but may also do nothing to curb the worst.

Hi Enigma! Thanks for taking the time to read the article. I appreciate it. You bring up some good points, especially your first paragraph. I think what Janet was trying to say was that people tend to become better parents when they have children, but there can be many exceptions. I can only speak from personal experience when I say that, more or less, there was an ontological change in me when my daughter was born. I think her point was that people tend to become more responsible when they have children but, granted, that is not always the case.

"Are infertile couples able to bond through the sex act even though this form of bonding cannot be coupled with the act of procreation? What about women who have gone through menopause--is their sex life suddenly less meaningfull because they no longer have the capacity to bear a child?"

These are good points, too. However, I think Janet was trying to point out problems when people WILLFULLY contracept, as opposed to those who through no fault of their own cannot bear children.

"Her treatment of overpopulation is further problematic; simply because a stated hypothesis has not (or not yet) come true does not mean that it has no basis in reality."

This too is true, but at this point, it seems as though there isn't any reason to worry. But again, Enigma, I'm impressed that you took the time to give our understanding of contraception a chance. TTYL, friend.

yllas: Doug denies the biological purpose of women.

Uh, that would be a "nope."
......

The "biological purpose" of men "would be mating(reproducing) with as many women as possible,etc." A statement of Doug.

Yes, yllas, looking at it "biologically."
......

The biological purpose for women then "would be to mate(reproduce) with as many men as possible" to maintain reproductive "equality of women".

No, no, no - good grief, silly, that's not it at all. "Equality" there is in your mind, not from any representation of biological reality. Men and women are not the same, there.

Actually, women tend to mate with those they consciously or subconsciously feel have good genes, and with those they feel would make good providers and protectors.

The rest of your silly ranting speaks for itself.

And hey, what happened to my Vulcanism? And the spinndrift coming off those fast-moving waves out on the open sea? ; )

....that act. What does it do?

Bobby, sometimes, it results in pregnancy. No argument there.
......

I hear all you say, but when we go with "acting in accordance with nature," or the like, then there is the biological sense, and there is also the sense of being in line with our conscious nature, which may differ from biological "purpose" to any degree.

We're agreed on biological reality, and pretty much on the same page with most social issues, abortion notwithstanding. Marriage, for example - I'm not saying that people "have" to be monogamous necessarily, but growing up as I did and where I did, I'm substantially conditioned to view it a certain way, and my wife and I are happy together and we don't want other people in that way and it would make a big difference to either of us if the other didn't feel that way.
......

Undergoing surgery is for the good of the patient. "Terminating the pregnancy" if argued in the same manner, begs the question as to the humanity of the unborn. If the result of pregnancy is a human being, then eliminating that human being is not an acceptable option, unlike eliminating extra fat.

Often-tread ground here. I don't see the humanity of the unborn as at issue here. "Human" is a given. There are more complex, more specific, less-inclusive meanings for "humanity" too, and that's where the arguments lie. There are valued characteristics which develop later in gestation which are not there to a point in gestation.

Even saying "human being" doesn't go to the actual debate. Okay, call the unborn whatever, but it still comes down to all the "shoulds" and "should nots" and it not only involves the unborn and the characteristics therein, but also the pregnant woman. It's not only valuing the unborn, it's the comparison of the unborn and what the woman wants.

Doug

Could you avoid any discussion that implies discipline while I'm sitting here grossly bloated on Superbowl "dude food?" I don't even watch football, but I'll go anywhere those fried, breaded, macaroni and cheese poppers can be found...

Laura, the ancient Egyptians used salt for embalming.

Doug

Since yllas has really been slacking lately, let's tour her photo gallery.

Above is yllas's photo of Doug in a candid moment.

yllas's portrait of Doug.

yllas's self-portrait.

yllas at work.

Since yllas has really been slacking lately, let's tour her photo gallery.

Above is yllas's photo of Doug in a candid moment.

yllas's portrait of Doug.

(I do have a beard.)

yllas's self-portrait.

yllas at work.

Doug,

I hope you don't concern yourself with salt. I've been a salt junkie for years and I can't stand up without getting faint. It certainly hasn't given me high blood pressure. Despite my mother preaching that its very bad manners, I still pile on the salt before I even taste food.

Also that swashbuckler picture. Definitely what I fantasized you to be.

Mary,

"I have seen too many situations where parenthood did nothing to make someone a better person."

Is it even fair to say that parenthood makes someone a "better" person? Parenthood changes people, certainly, but who is to say whether or not they are better people because of that change?

"Personality traits are what they are and will not magically change."

Agreed. It is possible for personality traits to be modified but they never fully disapear.

"Yes, parenthood may bring out the best in some people, but may also do nothing to curb the worst."

For the first part of this statement, it depends on what you define as best. For the second part, I absolutely agree. There are some people in this world who simply should not have children.

Bobby,

Hi, I hope fatherhood's still treating you well.

"Thanks for taking the time to read the article. I appreciate it."

Not a problem. I see no benefit in refusing to engage with points of view that are contrary to one's own.

"I think what Janet was trying to say was that people tend to become better parents when they have children, but there can be many exceptions."

Who's to say what constitutes better? Isn't she imposing her own value judegements on other people when she says this?

Having children may bring out aspects of a person's personality that were not previously expressed, but they cannot create them.

"I can only speak from personal experience when I say that, more or less, there was an ontological change in me when my daughter was born."

My mother has said this as well. Still, it begs the question--are these changes for the better and, if they either are or are not, how do we know?

"I think her point was that people tend to become more responsible when they have children but, granted, that is not always the case."

Sorry to keep quoting my mother, but she has said that having children is what makes people grow up. (Whereupon I responded, "Great! Another reason not to have kids!") Seriously though, there is no way for her to proove her assertions and she is guilty of academic dishonesty by presenting her conjectures as fact.

"However, I think Janet was trying to point out problems when people WILLFULLY contracept, as opposed to those who through no fault of their own cannot bear children."

She failed to adequately distinguish between the two. She asserted that bonding and having children were inseperable and made no distintion between "natural" and "artifical" seperation.

"This too is true, but at this point, it seems as though there isn't any reason to worry."

I beg to differ on that. We are expanding beyond our means. Once again, I'd go on, but I must run to class or I'll be late.

Have a good day.

Response to Bobby Continued:

I beg to differ on that. We are expanding beyond our means. Rainforests are being clear-cut to provide more land for grazing/argriculture, the oceans are being overfished, previously fertile and ariable land is turning into desert due to mis/overuse, and areas in the developed world are having to import water because local people have used up all of the available groundwater.

The earth simply cannot support an infinite human population; I base this upon all the evidence of what happens to animal populations when they overexpand. At some point, the animals exaust their habitats and begin to die off. I see no reason why humans should be any exception to this; our technology can only take us so far.

Additional arguments that I ran out of time to make:

The institution of marriage does not exist solely as a support structure for children. It can function as such, but there is no requirement that is must do so. Marriage is not lessened by a lack of children; it is not heightened by their presence.

I further dispute Ms. Smith's contention that the most important conversation that a married couple can have concerns whether or not to have children. She goes further and implies that, as long as these kinds of conversations are taking place within marriage, that one has the healthist type of marriage that it is possible for one to possess. I contend that a healthy marriage is based on more than children: a married couple must necessarily possess factors and attractions between them other than children in order to have a healthy marriage. A strong marriage is not preserved exclusively by the presence of children; rather, is is an unhealthy, weak, and miserable marriage that is held together solely for the sake of the children.

You forgot to post a pic of yourself as Lt. Keefer of the Cain Mutiny, Doug. But, after pondering
your narcissistic personality Doug, maybe Spock rolling some ball bearings in his hand might be more appropriate.
"I knew I had those pro lifers, beyond a shadow of a doubt, with my geometric logic, and my phaser set on stun, so no baby would escape the womb alife".
Btw Doug, that pic of yourself does remind one of the famous blond Aryan youth who struted about with a Nazi flag in his sturdy hand that matched his sturdy chin. Then again, maybe Doug sympathized too much with Christian Diestel in the movie, The Young Lions, when Doug's chin was still getting set to allow the murder of babies in the womb. Ski much Doug?

Hey Enigma,

"Hi, I hope fatherhood's still treating you well."

Indeed it is. Thank you kindly.

"Who's to say what constitutes better? Isn't she imposing her own value judegements on other people when she says this?"

This is true. Now I suppose I"d have to know what specifically you have in mind or what she was talking about to comment on her understanding of "better." Obviously, there is subjectivity in that word, but in some cases, most people would agree that certain things are "better" than others, such as society that has laws rather than total anarchy. That seems like something most people would agree is better to have than not. But granted, there is subjectivity in the word.

"Having children may bring out aspects of a person's personality that were not previously expressed, but they cannot create them."

That's interesting. One aspect that changes for many people after they have kids is that they become less selfish. But should I use the word change? Is it a change or did the child bring it out of them? I don't know, but either way, it does seem to be a "good," although perhaps not everyone would see that as a good, as we discussed above.

"My mother has said this as well. Still, it begs the question--are these changes for the better and, if they either are or are not, how do we know?"

You're starting to push my philosophical knowledge boundaries :) I don't want to say "whatever makes people happy" is better, and I also don't want to say "whatever is best for society" is better. The only satisfactory answer I can think of resorts to delving into Christian theology, which is not pertinent to the discussion. So when you really break it down like that, I don't know. I'll have to think about it a while.

"Sorry to keep quoting my mother, but she has said that having children is what makes people grow up. (Whereupon I responded, "Great! Another reason not to have kids!")"

LOL. Not a problem, your mother sounds like a wise lady :)

"Seriously though, there is no way for her to proove her assertions and she is guilty of academic dishonesty by presenting her conjectures as fact."

You are referring to Janet Smith here, not your mom, right? I wouldn't go so far as to say she's dishonest... maybe misguided? If one doesn't agree with her values, one can still believe that she means well (and hence isn't trying to pull the wool over our eyes).

"She failed to adequately distinguish between the two. She asserted that bonding and having children were inseperable and made no distintion between "natural" and "artifical" seperation."

I'm sorry about that. The reason that might be the case is because the article was all about the procreative aspect of the conjugal act. We actually say the conjugal act is two-fold; unitive and procreative. So when someone is discussing the importance of the procreative aspect, the unitive aspect may be neglected and seem unimportant. In fact, I may have done this above in my "nature of the sexual act" discussion with Doug. So even though she didn't make it clear, it is there, and it is just as important.

"I beg to differ on that. We are expanding beyond our means. Rainforests are being clear-cut to provide more land for grazing/argriculture, the oceans are being overfished, previously fertile and ariable land is turning into desert due to mis/overuse, and areas in the developed world are having to import water because local people have used up all of the available groundwater.

The earth simply cannot support an infinite human population; I base this upon all the evidence of what happens to animal populations when they overexpand. At some point, the animals exaust their habitats and begin to die off. I see no reason why humans should be any exception to this; our technology can only take us so far."

I have no problem with this. I don't know that much about the environment, resources, population stuff, etc. I should point out that this argument you mention isn't what makes contraception (to some pro-lifers) immoral. So for most actions, one can look at the action in-and-of-itself, and the results of that action. What Janet was doing there was trying to show that the result of not using contraception would not be bad. It's kind of like the abortion issue in the sense that one can argue against abortion by saying that it is killing of a human person (the action in-and-of-itself) or one can argue against abortion by saying that it causes breast cancer, post-abortion stress, etc. (the results of the action (whether those are true or not)). Really, the latter "argument" isn't really an argument. Abortion could be perfectly fine but have some bad side effects. That doesn't make abortion bad, but it is evidence to suggest that there may be more going on in a particular action. The point of this long winded paragraph is that even if there was a population/resource problem (which I grant could be true), that wouldn't make contraception okay. The action in-and-of-itself is where the true heart of the debate lies. Does that make sense?

"The institution of marriage does not exist solely as a support structure for children. It can function as such, but there is no requirement that is must do so. Marriage is not lessened by a lack of children; it is not heightened by their presence."

I agree 100% with the first two sentences, as well as the first clause (is that right, a clause??) of your third. But I think it usually heightens a marriage. Sometimes not, but it seems that that is the exception more than the rule.

"I further dispute Ms. Smith's contention that the most important conversation that a married couple can have concerns whether or not to have children. She goes further and implies that, as long as these kinds of conversations are taking place within marriage, that one has the healthist type of marriage that it is possible for one to possess. I contend that a healthy marriage is based on more than children: a married couple must necessarily possess factors and attractions between them other than children in order to have a healthy marriage. A strong marriage is not preserved exclusively by the presence of children; rather, is is an unhealthy, weak, and miserable marriage that is held together solely for the sake of the children."

These are good points, but let me ask this; what do you understand the purpose of marriage to be? I"m not trying to challenge you or set you up for some sort of trap, I'd just like to know a bit more where you're coming from. Alrighty dude, sorry you had to read all that! Take care.

Mary: I hope you don't concern yourself with salt. I've been a salt junkie for years and I can't stand up without getting faint. It certainly hasn't given me high blood pressure. Despite my mother preaching that its very bad manners, I still pile on the salt before I even taste food.

Heh - I was just kidding Laura. Hell, I'm a Salt & Vinegar potato chip guy. Many is the day that I get at least a week's worth of salt. I think what's recommended is around 200 milligrams, and used to be that one little can of Campbell's sould had 6 or 7 times that, frequently.

Some of the motels I stay at in the course of work have those "continental breakfasts" where they set out some grub, juice, coffee, etc. I like it when they have already-peeled hardboiled eggs.

Just take three of those bad boys, sprinkle liberally with salt, and chow down.

In the summertime, a nice fat juicy tomato... slice it up, fire up the salt shaker...YUM.
......

Also that swashbuckler picture. Definitely what I fantasized you to be.

Ah Mary, I keep my beard trimmed - it starts looking "ratty" if it gets longer, and it seems like it's always the whitest of hairs that grow the fastest.

Doug

yllas: your narcissistic personality Doug, maybe Spock rolling some ball bearings in his hand might be more appropriate.

Postal, if there is anybody, I mean anybody on this board that is narcissistic, it's you. You're the last person in the world that should ever presume to tell pregnant women what to do.
......

"I knew I had those pro lifers, beyond a shadow of a doubt, with my geometric logic, and my phaser set on stun, so no baby would escape the womb alife".

Again, this is *your* fantasy, not mine and not anybody else's. There are plenty of babies being born now. There are plenty of pregnancies being willingly continued now - we don't need more for the sake of "more," and we sure don't need to be forcing women against their will, and we most certainly don't need nasty buggers like you having any input into the lives of women.
......

Btw Doug, that pic of yourself does remind one of the famous blond Aryan youth who struted about with a Nazi flag in his sturdy hand that matched his sturdy chin.

I do have some strong hands, for sure.
......

Then again, maybe Doug sympathized too much with Christian Diestel in the movie, The Young Lions, when Doug's chin was still getting set to allow the murder of babies in the womb. Ski much Doug?

You do really crack me up at times. "When my chin was still getting set..." Gotta love it.

I have never skied. I've stood up on toboggans, and gone down some big steep hills backwards - now there's a challenge in keeping upright. Never got into skiing, though. Just too busy for tennis, skiing, amusement parks (it sucks to wait in lines), etc.

I've also never seen that movie, but let me go to imdb.com and check it out.

Hmm... Brando, looking pretty young. "German officer approves less and less of the war...."

Looks like a pretty decent movie, made the year before I was born.

Doug

Bobby,

"This is true. Now I suppose I"d have to know what specifically you have in mind or what she was talking about to comment on her understanding of "better." Obviously, there is subjectivity in that word, but in some cases, most people would agree that certain things are "better" than others, such as society that has laws rather than total anarchy. That seems like something most people would agree is better to have than not. But granted, there is subjectivity in the word."

I contend that, objectively, it is impossible to know whether personality "changes" (I'll get to this later, for now, it's easiest to use this as short hand) are either good or bad. The terms good and bad are both inherently subjective and, as such, do not lend themselves to objective analysis. Additionally, an objective analysis is further hindered by the phenomenon that I like to call wishful thinking. People never want to believe that they have changed for the worse; otherwise, they either would not have changed in the first place or would fight those changes to the bitter end. The human mind's capacity for rationalization is absolutely astonishing; a belief that one has changed for the better may simle be no more than a necessary justification for said changes.

(I'm using the generic you here, by the way). How would you deal with the knowledge that becoming a parent had turned you into a worse human being? In my opinion, one simply wouldn't. One would either regect his/her parenthood out of hand and flee or, more likely, mentally construe circumstances in such a way as to convince oneself that the resulting changes were actually good.

"That's interesting. One aspect that changes for many people after they have kids is that they become less selfish. But should I use the word change? Is it a change or did the child bring it out of them? I don't know, but either way, it does seem to be a "good," although perhaps not everyone would see that as a good, as we discussed above."

This is a pet theory of mine. Based on my own experiences and what I have observed, I have come to believe that one's personality cannot be fundamentally altered by circumstance. Each human individual possess a mutlitude of possible personality traits; it the the ones that we choose to express that determine who we are. Experiences may affect which traits we choose to bring to the fore, but they cannot create traits that were not already within us and they cannot permanently destroy traits that were already there.

"You're starting to push my philosophical knowledge boundaries :) I don't want to say "whatever makes people happy" is better, and I also don't want to say "whatever is best for society" is better."

It's an intriguing question, one that I still cannot answer. I know that I would certainly like to believe that any "changes" that I've made are for the best; however, I recognize my judgement is impaired in this regard. I kind of addressed this comment in my first paragraph.

"The only satisfactory answer I can think of resorts to delving into Christian theology, which is not pertinent to the discussion."

A wise decision. I have deliberately not delved into the Christain aspects of Ms. Smith's arguement.

"You are referring to Janet Smith here, not your mom, right? I wouldn't go so far as to say she's dishonest... maybe misguided? If one doesn't agree with her values, one can still believe that she means well (and hence isn't trying to pull the wool over our eyes)."

Intent here is irrelvent. Ms. Smith is presenting her own personal conjectures and beliefs as irrefutable fact and that is academicly dishonest.

"I'm sorry about that. The reason that might be the case is because the article was all about the procreative aspect of the conjugal act. We actually say the conjugal act is two-fold; unitive and procreative. So when someone is discussing the importance of the procreative aspect, the unitive aspect may be neglected and seem unimportant. In fact, I may have done this above in my "nature of the sexual act" discussion with Doug. So even though she didn't make it clear, it is there, and it is just as important."

It is possible, in fact probable, that this article was addressed to an audience who would already understand this. Since I am not part of that group, I do not and will have to take your word for it, though I still do reserve my right to argue that she did not address this issue. Though, if that wasn't the intent of her article, that may not necessarily be a weakness.

"I have no problem with this. I don't know that much about the environment, resources, population stuff, etc. I should point out that this argument you mention isn't what makes contraception (to some pro-lifers) immoral. So for most actions, one can look at the action in-and-of-itself, and the results of that action. What Janet was doing there was trying to show that the result of not using contraception would not be bad. It's kind of like the abortion issue in the sense that one can argue against abortion by saying that it is killing of a human person (the action in-and-of-itself) or one can argue against abortion by saying that it causes breast cancer, post-abortion stress, etc. (the results of the action (whether those are true or not)). Really, the latter "argument" isn't really an argument. Abortion could be perfectly fine but have some bad side effects. That doesn't make abortion bad, but it is evidence to suggest that there may be more going on in a particular action. The point of this long winded paragraph is that even if there was a population/resource problem (which I grant could be true), that wouldn't make contraception okay. The action in-and-of-itself is where the true heart of the debate lies. Does that make sense?"

It does indeed. Actions themselves determine their morality. However, I would like to add that if Ms. Smith genuinely wanted to refute the overpopulation problem, she did a shockingly poor job of it. She looked only at those aspects of the arguement that supported her conclusions and ignored everything else. This tendency, though human and difficult to avoid, does not make for convincing arguements.

"I agree 100% with the first two sentences, as well as the first clause (is that right, a clause??) of your third. But I think it usually heightens a marriage. Sometimes not, but it seems that that is the exception more than the rule."

Since I am not married and do not have children, I recognize your enhanced knowledge in this area. However, since direct experience is not required to hold an opinion, I reserve my right to disagree.

"These are good points, but let me ask this; what do you understand the purpose of marriage to be? I"m not trying to challenge you or set you up for some sort of trap, I'd just like to know a bit more where you're coming from."

To me, marriage is a loving union between two peole who have decided that they wish to care for and support one another for the rest of their lives.

I recognize that the definition of marriage has changed throughout the course of human history; my definition is not a universal one and other definitions/meanings/purposes may be just as, if not more, valid than my own. Ultimately, however, I believe that marriage, like so many other things in life, is what you make of it.

Holding these beliefs, I can justify my statement that Ms. Smith is wrong because she presented her personal views as the only possible source of legitimacy within a marriage.

Another point that I neglected to mention that I dispute in her article:

I take issue with Ms. Smith's lamentation of the fact that women have gained greater financial independence. This independence allows them to enter in to--or remain part of-- a marriage as an equal partner. In this lovely world of ous, money is power. Those who have money also have power and those who lack money, by and larger, lack power as well. Wheverner there is any type of prolonged interaction between two people/coorperations/ ect. with unequal amounts of power, the possiblities that the entity with a disproportionate share of the power will abuse that power is increased enormously. Placing these two key players on equal footing reduces--though it does not eliminate--this risk. The fact that women, as a whole, have gained greater finacial independence is something that should be lauded, not condemened. If more marriages end as a result of this, one should not look towards and blame this increased level of finacial independence. Instead, one should attempt to address those structures and traditions which serve to preserve an unequal power dynamic within marriage itself.

"Alrighty dude, sorry you had to read all that!"

You're kidding, right? Did you see what I just wrote?

"Take care."

You to.

Doug 11:09PM

I remember that movie well. An excellent one. You could probably get it on Amazon.com. Trouble with early war movies is they tend to santitize war. There was a movie about the Siege of Bastogne, of which my father was a survivor, starring Charles Bronson and some other well known names. Anyway, much is made in this movie of the fact American POWs were gunned down by the Germans during the major German counteroffensive in 1944. Yes this was an atrocity but my father said the Americans, himself included, did the exact same thing, line German POWs up and gun them down. They couldn't do much else with them. Of course no mention of this distateful bit of history is mentioned in the movie or anywhere else that I've known of. I've only heard it from my father and other veterans.

Enigma,

Also the fact a marriage remains intact does not mean it is a happy situation or one that should remain intact. People may stay trapped in an unhappy situation for reasons other than financial, like for psychological or social reasons. My mother's financial independence enabled her to support her family and get out of an abusive marriage as early as the late 50's, early 60's. Her aunt spent 40 years trapped in an abusive marriage because of financial dependence and social stigma against divorce, plus her own personal convictions about "toughing out" a difficult situation.
Not too long ago I had a neighbor who's husband was a total controller. This woman wasn't allowed to drive a car or wear makeup. At the same time, I think she saw this control as an indication of her husband's love. I think she was also insanely jealous of my independence in my marriage.
I agree with you that one must indeed look at other factors in the marriage, such as psychological and social, other than the financial independence of the woman. The making or breaking of a marriage is not so simplistic that one can say this factor or that always makes a difference.

Enigma,

An added thought. There is also this tendency to assume we "know" how "happy" someone's marriage was until she got a job or some "other woman" stepped into the picture. I remind people constantly that if one does not live in a relationship then one is totally clueless. You only know about people's marriages what they want you to know.
I've had to lay it on the line to my father's relatives concerning his mental illness and abuse. They "knew" my mother just cruelly dumped him.
Again this goes back to your point about other factors in a marriage that can lead to its downfall about which outsiders are totally clueless.
I could advise more than a few ladies I work with to concern themselves less with what other women's husbands are doing and keep a closer eye on their own.

Mary,

"Also the fact a marriage remains intact does not mean it is a happy situation or one that should remain intact."

I absolutely agree. There are some marriages that the world is better off without.

"I agree with you that one must indeed look at other factors in the marriage, such as psychological and social, other than the financial independence of the woman. The making or breaking of a marriage is not so simplistic that one can say this factor or that always makes a difference."

Indeed. I abhor the human tendency to refuse to address the deeper underlying problems and merely deal with the most obvious or most easily "correctable" symptom.

You know, I must admit that I much prefer the Jewish view of marriage and divorce to, shall we shall, the Christian one. In Judaism (I hope I spelled that right), there is no stigma to divorce. The general consensus is that people tried it (marriage) and realized that it didn't work out, so they simply ended it and moved on.

Bobby,

I don't know if you will get this, but it is an interesting point that I thought I would raise.

You believe that children "heighten" a marriage and I do not. That, however, begs the question: what do we mean by heightened?

In the way that I used it, I meant "achieve a higher purpose; obtain a higher level of existence." But how can we know for sure if having children gives marriage a "higher" meaning or allows it to achieve a greater form of existence? What is "higher" and what is lower? What makes one inherently better than the other and more conducive to greater purpose?

On an unrelated note, you stated that you felt having children made people less selfish. Assuming this as our starting point (ie. accepting the premise of this arguement), I would like to raise the point that it is possible that people are not becoming less selfish but, instead, have a redefined sense of self.

Before having children, a person is primarily concerned with th self or perhaps with the self and the spouse (if there is one). After having a child, I would content that the individual person's sense of self has simply expanded to include the child. The person is just as selfish as ever but the scope of this selfishness would then have changed.

What do you think?

Hi Enigma!

"You believe that children "heighten" a marriage and I do not. That, however, begs the question: what do we mean by heightened?"

Indeed. I would say that your definition seems fairly adequate.

"In the way that I used it, I meant "achieve a higher purpose; obtain a higher level of existence." But how can we know for sure if having children gives marriage a "higher" meaning or allows it to achieve a greater form of existence? What is "higher" and what is lower? What makes one inherently better than the other and more conducive to greater purpose?"

From simply a Darwinian stand point of view, it would be good solely for the purpose that it continues the species. I think that this is going to start to go back to what we were discussing earlier, about what "good" and "better" means. In fact, even though I can't give it a serious defense, I would say that at least one aspect of "good" is putting others before oneself. So if we a couple things I've said together, namely that 1) putting others first is good and 2) children usually cause people to become less selfish, it would follow that children usually make a marriage better (I'm using good and better interchangeably.) I would then say that when one chooses good/ participates in good, this is a higher purpose.

Hmmm, I kind of feel like I just threw a bunch of words together without a whole lot of substance, but there might be something to what I wrote.

"On an unrelated note, you stated that you felt having children made people less selfish. Assuming this as our starting point (ie. accepting the premise of this arguement), I would like to raise the point that it is possible that people are not becoming less selfish but, instead, have a redefined sense of self.

Before having children, a person is primarily concerned with th self or perhaps with the self and the spouse (if there is one). After having a child, I would content that the individual person's sense of self has simply expanded to include the child. The person is just as selfish as ever but the scope of this selfishness would then have changed."

I think this is a great insight. This can be generalized to nearly anything. Do I (me personally) do [what I understand to be] good out a true love for God and desire to please him, or do I do it because I think I'll get a "reward in heaven?" Obviously I'd like to think I do the former, but who knows! So if I understand you correctly, do I want to see my daughter happy for her own sake, or because it makes me happy? (I use me as an example, I know you're not accusing me)

I think, though, that an aspect of "becoming less selfish" after having a child is not just towards the child, but towards others. For example, once one knows what kinds of hardships come with parenting, one is more inclined to be sympathetic and helpful towards OTHER parents. So maybe a man has a child, he has no problem bashing [insert religious faith here or atheism/agnosticism] in front of other people's kids. But after he has a child, he begins to realize that his sharp tongue undermines the values that the parents wish to instill upon their children, and consequently keeps quiet out of respect for the parents. What would be the man's motivation? Possibly that he doesn't want the same thing to be done to his kids, but it seems more likely that he has a real concern for others. Kind of a silly example, but things like that can happen after having a child.

BTW, I hope you don't think that I'm sitting back here saying to myself "well, she's not married so she doesn't know squat, I'm married with a child, she can't tell me anything hla hla hla hla hla." I hate that crap. That isn't an argument, since if you did have children I couldn't simply blow you off like that. So I just wanted to make sure you knew that I value what you have to say. Alrighty, TTYL.

Trouble with early war movies is they tend to santitize war. There was a movie about the Siege of Bastogne, of which my father was a survivor, starring Charles Bronson and some other well known names. Anyway, much is made in this movie of the fact American POWs were gunned down by the Germans during the major German counteroffensive in 1944. Yes this was an atrocity but my father said the Americans, himself included, did the exact same thing, line German POWs up and gun them down. They couldn't do much else with them. Of course no mention of this distateful bit of history is mentioned in the movie or anywhere else that I've known of. I've only heard it from my father and other veterans.

Mary, yes indeed, and I hope you're still reading this thread.

I work with a guy who's a little older than me. He was in Vietnam, and it was just plain nasty, he says, the old "War is hell" deal. Hot, steamy, dirty, buggy, not to mention the danger and stress.

Days of boredom, at times, then there'd be a night patrol, and something would happen - there'd be a noise, etc., and the next thing he knew they were all running through the jungle, firing their M-16s behind them.

For a dose of realism, I think the beginning of "Saving Private Ryan" is pretty tough.

Doug

Hi Enigma!

"From simply a Darwinian stand point of view, it would be good solely for the purpose that it continues the species."

That may be (and, actually, I'm inclined to agree: in a Darwinian sense, a marriage with children is "better" than one without), however it does not actually address good/better, hihger/lower in terms of the institution of marriage itself, irrespective of outside impositions onto the definition of marriage itself. (I'm not sure if you read my earlier post addressing this topic; it's further up on this thread). Does marriage exist solely within the confines of a Darwinian understanding of humanity? If it does not, I think Darwinian understandings of purpose cannot encompass the entire meaning/purpose/ect. of marriage and thus cannot be used to determine whether marriage itself has acheived eithr a higher or a lower purpose.

"In fact, even though I can't give it a serious defense, I would say that at least one aspect of "good" is putting others before oneself."

Even though I would agree, I'm still going to push here. Why is putting others before oneself good or better than putting oneself before others? Isn't this simply a value judgement on our parts and, in making this statement, aren't you imposing your views on others? What makes this view any more correct than any other opinion?

In terms of purely altruistic actions, I would say that humans rarely, if ever, act from a purely unselfish standpoint. I am incredibly suspicious of human nature; as you noted in your post, humans have the capacity to perform an action and convince themselves that they're doing it for "x" reason when, in reality, they are doing it for "y." I would contend that many of those apparently unselfish "x" reasons really are a mask for more selfish "y" reasons.

"So if we a couple things I've said together, namely that 1) putting others first is good and 2) children usually cause people to become less selfish, it would follow that children usually make a marriage better (I'm using good and better interchangeably.)"

Adopting your premise that putting others first is good, I still don't quite see how you achieve your second point. Simply because one thing is good does not mean that it will improve every aspect of a person's life. To do so, the good must directly relate to the specific outcome outself; I must admit, I fail to see the relationship between being unselfish and an improved marriage in terms of children. Most people are already fairly unselfish when it comes to their spouse; is this level of unselfishness towards the spouse heightened, or is this "new" level of unselfishness solely directed towards the child?

"I would then say that when one chooses good/ participates in good, this is a higher purpose."

So participation in a good automatically entails higher purpose? I'm a bit dubious on this one; I don't think my academic endevours have been heightened (or have achieved a higher purpose) simply because I use the knowledge/skills I have acquired to help others. To me, education itself is entirely neutral and can neither be heightened nor lowered by the use that one puts to it; one's education is thus wholly removed from one's subsequent actions.

"I think this is a great insight. This can be generalized to nearly anything. Do I (me personally) do [what I understand to be] good out a true love for God and desire to please him, or do I do it because I think I'll get a "reward in heaven?" Obviously I'd like to think I do the former, but who knows! So if I understand you correctly, do I want to see my daughter happy for her own sake, or because it makes me happy? (I use me as an example, I know you're not accusing me)"

As mentioned above, I am inherently suspicious of human nature.

On one hand, I suppose that one could make the arguement that it does not matter what one's intentions are as long as the outcome has been improved (ie. that a parent's motives in behaving "unselfishly" when, in actuality his/her definition of self has expanded, are irrevlevent as long as one behaves in an apparently unselfish manner).

I, however, would argue that it is the intent that determines the morality of action. If I save a person's life who then goes on to kill twenty-four other people, is my origonal action of saving this individual's life immoral because of the outcome? If I fail to act to save this person's life and twenty-four other people are saved as a result, would my actions be more moral than if I had, in fact, acted in a manner that would have permitted me to save this person's life?

I would argue that acting to save this individual's life is always moral and not acting to save this person's life when I could easily do so is always immoral, regardless of the outcome.

"For example, once one knows what kinds of hardships come with parenting, one is more inclined to be sympathetic and helpful towards OTHER parents."

But couldn't that be solely because of the principle of reciprocity/karma? Even if the individual in question knows that he will never see these particular individuals that he/she has supported/helped again, maybe the origonal person holds a belief that any supportive action, regardless of who it is directed towards, would make others more likely to support him/her.

"So maybe a man has a child, he has no problem bashing [insert religious faith here or atheism/agnosticism] in front of other people's kids. But after he has a child, he begins to realize that his sharp tongue undermines the values that the parents wish to instill upon their children, and consequently keeps quiet out of respect for the parents. What would be the man's motivation? Possibly that he doesn't want the same thing to be done to his kids, but it seems more likely that he has a real concern for others."

Is it really more likely that he has a real concern for others? Even if he tells himself that that is his motivation, how can we be certain? What makes you say that it is more likely that he is demonstrating a real concern for others?

"BTW, I hope you don't think that I'm sitting back here saying to myself "well, she's not married so she doesn't know squat, I'm married with a child, she can't tell me anything hla hla hla hla hla." I hate that crap. That isn't an argument, since if you did have children I couldn't simply blow you off like that. So I just wanted to make sure you knew that I value what you have to say."

Don't worry; I don't. Experience is not required to have an opinion on a given subject. You never debate in a manner that would me think that you value my insights any less because you happen to have more experience in particular areas than I do. Though I have to admit, that if I did have experience in some of those areas, (ie. marriage and having kids) at this age my parents would go nuts.

Have a good day.

Hi Enigma. Wow, LOTS of stuff to talk about! Today is my wife's birthday, so I probably won't have time to respond, but I'll think about some of the things you've said and we'll talk some more tomorrow, perhaps. Later, dooood.

Bobby,

No problem.

I hope your wife has a good birthday. I would ask you to wish her a happy birthday for me, but that would be weird because I don't her.

Take care and have fun.

Hi Enigma! I guess I was able to find some time to write today. (I wrote this on Microsoft Word!)

“…To me, marriage is a loving union between two peole who have decided that they wish to care for and support one another for the rest of their lives

…That may be (and, actually, I'm inclined to agree: in a Darwinian sense, a marriage with children is "better" than one without), however it does not actually address good/better, hihger/lower in terms of the institution of marriage itself, irrespective of outside impositions onto the definition of marriage itself. (I'm not sure if you read my earlier post addressing this topic; it's further up on this thread). Does marriage exist solely within the confines of a Darwinian understanding of humanity? If it does not, I think Darwinian understandings of purpose cannot encompass the entire meaning/purpose/ect. of marriage and thus cannot be used to determine whether marriage itself has acheived eithr a higher or a lower purpose.”

I’ve been thinking a bout this a bit. So first of all, let me give you my understanding of marriage,. I the purpose of marriage to be the mutual sanctification of the spouses i.e. the institution of marriage exists so that each spouse helps to “get the other into heaven.” Obviously, we can’t really work with this definition. But I think that your understanding follows from mine. Now to be honest, I’m not sure what the general consensus on the origin of marriage is. So we should probably assume it’s a secular institution. If that’s the case, then from the Darwinian standpoint I mentioned above, children would be good for society (the continuation of the human species), not necessarily marriage. It seems that there’s no reason that marriage is necessary from a Darwinian standpoint. So I grant that that doesn’t seem to work.

“Even though I would agree, I'm still going to push here. Why is putting others before oneself good or better than putting oneself before others? Isn't this simply a value judgement on our parts and, in making this statement, aren't you imposing your views on others? What makes this view any more correct than any other opinion?”

Right. This is good to push me. So, to reiterate, I would define one aspect of “good’ to be “putting others before oneself.” Now this is a definition, but we all seem to have a notion of what the word good means, so why did I chose this to be part of my definition? Well, one reason is that it seems to me that if this rule is followed, it becomes easier to grow and prosper as a society because people care about the needs of others so that tasks are able to get done easier. But now one could continue to ask the same sorts of questions about my reasons. So what I want to do now is to look at the alternative that it seems (I think) you were alluding to; since a value judgment imposes a certain set of views on others, is it moral for anyone to tell me what is “good” for me?

Now, you may have a problem with the way I phrased it (so let me know if this is what you were heading towards or whatever.) Actually, let me wait on answering that question, because I don’t want to set up a straw man. So let me know what you think of that, or how you would phrase it, or if you don’t care. But it seems like this is the question (or a variation of it) that needs to be scrutinized.

“In terms of purely altruistic actions, I would say that humans rarely, if ever, act from a purely unselfish standpoint. I am incredibly suspicious of human nature; as you noted in your post, humans have the capacity to perform an action and convince themselves that they're doing it for "x" reason when, in reality, they are doing it for "y." I would contend that many of those apparently unselfish "x" reasons really are a mask for more selfish "y" reasons.”

I can certainly see this. I have no idea how someone would argue against this without resorting to theology. Just FYI, I do believe that human nature is corrupted, but basically good, and we actually can BECOME good. I base this 100% on theology and the teaching of the Catholic Church, but I’m in no position to defend it outside of that, so I can say that currently, I find no problem with you believing what you do about human nature.

“Adopting your premise that putting others first is good, I still don't quite see how you achieve your second point. Simply because one thing is good does not mean that it will improve every aspect of a person's life. To do so, the good must directly relate to the specific outcome outself”
I see what you mean here. I think you’re right. My understanding was too narrow.
“I must admit, I fail to see the relationship between being unselfish and an improved marriage in terms of children. Most people are already fairly unselfish when it comes to their spouse; is this level of unselfishness towards the spouse heightened, or is this "new" level of unselfishness solely directed towards the child?”

What I tried to argue in the previous post was that this unselfishness is directed not just at the child or just at the spouse, but CAN be directed to almost anyone. So similarly to my example before, when one has a child (I’m not trying to speak from personal experience, just in a general sort of “this-seems-to-make-sense” way) they have to give up a lot. They can’t go out to the movies as much, or they can’t hang out with their buddies at a bar, or go skiing as much. So while going through all this and sacrificing, the parent may begin to feel empathy for other parents. Thus they may be willing to go out of their way to do a favor or something special or help out someone who is a parent because they know that that parent is giving up a lot. I guess I think of “unselfish” in a somewhat broad sense. I would consider my example something that falls under the category of “unselfish.” However, I think this is independent of the question of motivation that you mentioned above. While something like this may very well happen quite frequently, WHY do they want to help out another parent? So that goes back to the above question, which I can’t answer.

“So participation in a good automatically entails higher purpose?”

I think so, yes.

“I'm a bit dubious on this one; I don't think my academic endevours have been heightened (or have achieved a higher purpose) simply because I use the knowledge/skills I have acquired to help others. To me, education itself is entirely neutral and can neither be heightened nor lowered by the use that one puts to it; one's education is thus wholly removed from one's subsequent actions.”

Yes, I too think education is neutral. But I would say it’s neutral in contrast to the question of “good,” not whether it heightens or not. I think I’m beginning to realize that my understanding of “good” can basically be equated with what is “moral and/or virtuous.” For example, I would say that compassion is a virtue. But education is not a virtue. So it’s not a “good” in that sense. Obviously in everyday parlance I would say that education is good, but I think what I mean by that it can be helpful to bring about a good; perhaps you get a job as an accountant and provide a much needed service to people. Providing that service is virtuous, and hence a good.

I should probably take this time, Enigma, to point out that I realize that I’m kind of all over the place, changing up my definitions, throwing in new words that one can take as being synonymous with other words. I’m learning a lot about what I think and how to articulate it throughout these conversations, but it is at your expense. Thank you for bearing with me.

“As mentioned above, I am inherently suspicious of human nature.
On one hand, I suppose that one could make the arguement that it does not matter what one's intentions are as long as the outcome has been improved (ie. that a parent's motives in behaving "unselfishly" when, in actuality his/her definition of self has expanded, are irrevlevent as long as one behaves in an apparently unselfish manner).

I, however, would argue that it is the intent that determines the morality of action. If I save a person's life who then goes on to kill twenty-four other people, is my origonal action of saving this individual's life immoral because of the outcome? If I fail to act to save this person's life and twenty-four other people are saved as a result, would my actions be more moral than if I had, in fact, acted in a manner that would have permitted me to save this person's life?

I would argue that acting to save this individual's life is always moral and not acting to save this person's life when I could easily do so is always immoral, regardless of the outcome.”

I very much agree with your final paragraph and your entire analysis. The intent determining the morality is very much a basic tenant of my moral system. This is one of the reasons that I assume the best in abortion-choice advocates. I believe that they really are sincere and really believe that to not allow abortion would be a grave offense against women. So even though I believe abortion is objectively immoral, I know that there is a very big subjective component where they really believe that they are doing good.

“But couldn't that be solely because of the principle of reciprocity/karma? Even if the individual in question knows that he will never see these particular individuals that he/she has supported/helped again, maybe the origonal person holds a belief that any supportive action, regardless of who it is directed towards, would make others more likely to support him/her.”

True. However, I see no reason why a self-described materialist (in the sense of they believe that matter is all that exists, no God, no karma; what you see is what you get) couldn’t be the person in my example. I’m sure there are lots of people who don’t believe in anything like reciprocity, but do things that will have no effect on them solely for another. Again, this goes back to the question several paragraphs above which I had to resort to theology to give you my understanding. I suppose I could try and cite this as evidence, but ehh.

“Is it really more likely that he has a real concern for others? Even if he tells himself that that is his motivation, how can we be certain? What makes you say that it is more likely that he is demonstrating a real concern for others?”

Well, I guess right now I can only site his actions as EVIDENCE for what I would conjecture to be a real concern for others. But in sort of an absolute sense, I don’t think we can be sure.

“Don't worry; I don't. Experience is not required to have an opinion on a given subject. You never debate in a manner that would me think that you value my insights any less because you happen to have more experience in particular areas than I do. Though I have to admit, that if I did have experience in some of those areas, (ie. marriage and having kids) at this age my parents would go nuts.”

Hehe, no doubt. It’s quite commendable that you’re really very seriously thinking about these issues at your age (20, right?). I know I didn’t give a crap about it when I was 20.

“Have a good day.”

You too!

Bobby,

I hope that your wife had a good birthday.

"(I wrote this on Microsoft Word!)"

I've been known to do that.

"I’ve been thinking a bout this a bit. So first of all, let me give you my understanding of marriage,. I the purpose of marriage to be the mutual sanctification of the spouses i.e. the institution of marriage exists so that each spouse helps to “get the other into heaven.”

Just out of curiosity, do you perceive everything in the world through the prism of your religious faith? I ask because I'm genuinely curious and not because I'm trying to attack in any way. Even when I was religious, I never perceived the world in this fashion; of course, considering the fact that I rejected my religious beliefs at the age of ten, this might not be suprising.

"It seems that there’s no reason that marriage is necessary from a Darwinian standpoint. So I grant that that doesn’t seem to work."

So one avenue is closed but the rest remain. It's still possible that children heighten a marriage but through other means. I suppose having children might deepen the bond between husband and wife somehow...I really have no idea, I'm just throwing random ideas out and seeing what I come up with. Using you definition of marriage, I could additionally see how children might further the sanctification of the two spouses and, hence, how children would heighten a marriage according to this understanding of marriage itself. Not to put you on the spot or anything, but I do wonder if there is an arguement for how children could "heighten" a marriage in secular terms.

"Well, one reason is that it seems to me that if this rule is followed, it becomes easier to grow and prosper as a society because people care about the needs of others so that tasks are able to get done easier."

I challenge this; many actions in the world which have beneficial repercussions for others are origonally undertaken for selfish means. Do you think that Bill Gates founded Microsoft because he thought, "If I create computers, society will advnace and millions of people's lives will be improved?" That's just one example, and in the interests of time, I will limit it to that.

"But now one could continue to ask the same sorts of questions about my reasons. So what I want to do now is to look at the alternative that it seems (I think) you were alluding to; since a value judgment imposes a certain set of views on others, is it moral for anyone to tell me what is “good” for me?"

Not quite, though that is an intiguing aspect of morality. I was trying to get at the elusive question of how we know what is moral/immoral and how we know that one system of values is any better than any other.

"But it seems like this is the question (or a variation of it) that needs to be scrutinized."

Agreed. And if you want to continue in this vein, I will be more than happy to do so.

"I can certainly see this. I have no idea how someone would argue against this without resorting to theology."

To be honest, I don't either. What makes it even more difficult is considering whether or not individuals themselves even know what their motivations are.

"Just FYI, I do believe that human nature is corrupted, but basically good, and we actually can BECOME good."

Strangely enough, my views are not too dissimilar. I believe that human beings are, by nature, good. I also always try to think the best of people, though I am fully expecting life to beat this out of me at some point.

I feel I should elaborate on this a bit more; I can believe this and yet be suspicious of human nature because I believe A.) that humans often do not know what their true motives are and B.) that selfish motives are not incompatible with doing good in the world.

I should probably elaborate upon my understandings of good and morality. I believe that many actions which are good are moral but that not all of them are. For instance, I would argue that it is good to turn you homework in on time or to refrain from littering, but I would not argue that it is moral to do so.

It's difficult for me to actually pin down my understanding of good, since the concept itself, to me, embodies a multitude of different aspects.

On the one hand, I have my more economical understadning of the word: here, there is a whole range of potential "goods" that can be either immaterial or material, ie. a social good, a poltical good, a personal good, ect. To me, this type of good can be exchanged/used for one's own benefit.

Another of my understandings is an action that is taken for the benefit of others.

A third is an action that benefits the individual performing it without hurting others.

The first part of my understanding might not be pertinent to this conversation, but I felt that I should throw it in anyway.

"I base this 100% on theology and the teaching of the Catholic Church, but I’m in no position to defend it outside of that, so I can say that currently, I find no problem with you believing what you do about human nature."

I should probably mention that, since I was raised Christian, many of my morals are still the same. That said, I do not believe that birth control is wrong (though since my church didn't teach that it was) or that premarital sex is immoral.

“So participation in a good automatically entails higher purpose?

I think so, yes."

I really feel like I should argue this one, but can't think of an example at the moment.

"Yes, I too think education is neutral. But I would say it’s neutral in contrast to the question of “good,” not whether it heightens or not. I think I’m beginning to realize that my understanding of “good” can basically be equated with what is “moral and/or virtuous.” For example, I would say that compassion is a virtue. But education is not a virtue. So it’s not a “good” in that sense. Obviously in everyday parlance I would say that education is good, but I think what I mean by that it can be helpful to bring about a good; perhaps you get a job as an accountant and provide a much needed service to people. Providing that service is virtuous, and hence a good."

So, in your understanding, something is "good" if it is A.) either moral or virtuous or B.) leading up to something that is either moral or virtuous. Do I have that right?

"I should probably take this time, Enigma, to point out that I realize that I’m kind of all over the place, changing up my definitions, throwing in new words that one can take as being synonymous with other words."

That is the fun of philosophy; it challenges all of us to redefine our understandings of the world.

"I’m learning a lot about what I think and how to articulate it throughout these conversations, but it is at your expense. Thank you for bearing with me."

Not a problem. And before you feel too bad about changing arguements and forcing contradictory points, read my next section.

"I very much agree with your final paragraph and your entire analysis. The intent determining the morality is very much a basic tenant of my moral system."

Now that we've agreed on this as a basis for morality, I'm going to do my best to completely tear it down. For sake of arguement, let's assume that people like Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot genuinely believed that they were doing good and had the best of all possible intentions. Would the attrocities that they committed then become moral?

What about the people who forcibly removed Native American children from their homes and shipped them off to boarding schools to "civilize" them? They had good intentions, but were their actions moral?

I would further argue that morality cannot be judged on the basis on the opinion of those who have been "helped." An alcholic will resent being forced into a treatment program by the state; does this make the state's actions immoral?

Ultimately, I would argue that morality is determined on a case-by-case basis and is a combination of three factors: the actor's intent, the outcome, and the point of view of the one whom the actor's actions are intended to aid.

"This is one of the reasons that I assume the best in abortion-choice advocates. I believe that they really are sincere and really believe that to not allow abortion would be a grave offense against women. So even though I believe abortion is objectively immoral, I know that there is a very big subjective component where they really believe that they are doing good."

That's very humane of you.

"True. However, I see no reason why a self-described materialist (in the sense of they believe that matter is all that exists, no God, no karma; what you see is what you get) couldn’t be the person in my example."

I may have misspoken (mistyped) slightly. I didn't mean that a person must genuinely believe in something like karma or the reciprocity principal but may be acting, without realizing it, in accordance with the principle of reciprocity. Additionally, one must take the "selfish" aspects of helping others into account; most people feel better about themselves after helping others.

Let's look at me as an example. I genuinely like helping others and all of my friends know that they can come to me if they need help and I will willingly drop everything to aid them. Heck, I even do that for people I don't know.

Now let's look at my motives. I habor no illusions about my own character; or, at least, I try to limit them as much as possible.

A.) Helping others makes me feel good about myself.

B.) I like to feel like I've contributed something postive to the world, made someone's day better, ect.

C.) I like to be useful.

D.) I personally feel that having the reputation of being a helpful person makes other people more likely to help me. (Yes, I've admitted it to myself). Would I still help people if I knew that my helpfullness had no chance of increasing other people's liklihood to help me? I would like to think so and the previous reasons stated would not be affected, so it is possible that I would. I cannot, however, be certain.

How many of those motives are altruistic and how many of those motives are my own selfish desires leading me to do something that appears to be completely selfless?

People, by and large, are far more similar than they are different. I am only one, but I believe that other people, if they examined themselves closely enough and were willing to abandon illusion, would find that they act "unselfishly" for similar reasons.

"Well, I guess right now I can only site his actions as EVIDENCE for what I would conjecture to be a real concern for others. But in sort of an absolute sense, I don’t think we can be sure."

Why would you think that his actions provide evidence for your assertion? Do you prefer to think the best of people as well or is it a reflection of a belief on your part that you might possible be projecting onto another? (ie. I think that having children has made me more unselfish, so I think that having children has made others more unselfish as well and this man's unselfish actions have confirmed my belief.) Sorry to put you on the spot; feel free to hound me on the finer points of my internal inconsistencies.

"Hehe, no doubt. It’s quite commendable that you’re really very seriously thinking about these issues at your age (20, right?). I know I didn’t give a crap about it when I was 20."

Close, I'm twenty-one. So I've had an extra year to gain wisdom and understanding (I am kidding about the gain wisdom and understanding part). To me, talking about ideas and theories is one of the most enjoyable activites in the world.

TTYL

Hi Enigma. I’m sorry it took so long to respond. Also, I only responded to about the first half of what you wrote. I’ve been really busy, and have been spending too much time on Jill’s blog lately. I love talking to you, and I think you are by far the most insiteful abortion-choice advocate I have ever “met”. It’s just that I’m not sure I can keep typing these long posts. Part of the sacrafice I have to make as a dad, I guess (see, it all comes full circle!) But here’s what I was able to write over the weekend.
“Just out of curiosity, do you perceive everything in the world through the prism of your religious faith? I ask because I'm genuinely curious and not because I'm trying to attack in any way. Even when I was religious, I never perceived the world in this fashion; of course, considering the fact that I rejected my religious beliefs at the age of ten, this might not be suprising.”
No I understand, that’s fine that you ask. The answer is yes, I do. I haven’t always, even though I have always “been religious” (at least somewhat) my whole life. But at around the age of 24, when I really got fired up about my faith, everything around was somehow connected to that. And if it’s true that there is a God who created the world and is personal, then it should make sense that everything is somehow related to him. But when I talk to people who I know don’t accept it, I do try to stay as “natural lawish” as possible, although as we have seen, when I’m pressed, it can be hard for me to separate the two. But yeah, that’s how I see it.
“So one avenue is closed but the rest remain. It's still possible that children heighten a marriage but through other means. I suppose having children might deepen the bond between husband and wife somehow...I really have no idea, I'm just throwing random ideas out and seeing what I come up with. Using you definition of marriage, I could additionally see how children might further the sanctification of the two spouses and, hence, how children would heighten a marriage according to this understanding of marriage itself. Not to put you on the spot or anything, but I do wonder if there is an arguement for how children could "heighten" a marriage in secular terms.”
Yeah, I think a lot of that makes sense, and I absoultely think that from a secular POV children heighten a marriage. One way I might argue this is to observe that communication between the spuses can improve with a child. The spouses begin to discuss issues such as values that they would like for their child to have, ways of discplining, etc. They also need to work out who does what; who works when, who watches the baby when, who changes the diaper, who gets up in the middle of the night. I think these can also be tied into what we were discussing about selfishness. If one know that his wife really, really hates getting up in the middle of the night,
“I challenge this; many actions in the world which have beneficial repercussions for others are origonally undertaken for selfish means. Do you think that Bill Gates founded Microsoft because he thought, "If I create computers, society will advnace and millions of people's lives will be improved?" That's just one example, and in the interests of time, I will limit it to that.”
Well, I would agree with your example. He may have had a selfish motivation, but he ended up going what I would consider a good, even if he didn’t want to (providing a needed computer interface for people; maybe he’s done lots of other bad stuff like destroy small businesses or something. I don’t know much about Bill Gates.)
“Not quite, though that is an intiguing aspect of morality. I was trying to get at the elusive question of how we know what is moral/immoral and how we know that one system of values is any better than any other.”
Okay, so that isn’t quite what I thought you might be getting at. So to make sure, do we agree that there is an objective set of morals out there, but the question is how do we determine what that is?
“To be honest, I don't either. What makes it even more difficult is considering whether or not individuals themselves even know what their motivations are.”
Word.
“Strangely enough, my views are not too dissimilar. I believe that human beings are, by nature, good. I also always try to think the best of people, though I am fully expecting life to beat this out of me at some point.”
Good for you.
“I feel I should elaborate on this a bit more; I can believe this and yet be suspicious of human nature because I believe A.) that humans often do not know what their true motives are and B.) that selfish motives are not incompatible with doing good in the world.”
Again, I hope you don’t think I’m just trying to be agreeable, but I think this is right on.
“I should probably elaborate upon my understandings of good and morality. I believe that many actions which are good are moral but that not all of them are. For instance, I would argue that it is good to turn you homework in on time or to refrain from littering, but I would not argue that it is moral to do so.”
I would agree to a certain extent. What I mean by that is that I might judge the morality of that action based on intent, like we discussed before. So for your homeowrk example, if you didn’t turn it in because you were busy with other somewhat important stuff and didn’t really make the time but could have, I don’t think that is immoral. If you don’t turn it in to spite your teacher, that’s pretty close to immoral I’d say. If you didn’t turn it in because of sheer laziness and lack of motivation, that’s kind of in between. Hard to say.
“It's difficult for me to actually pin down my understanding of good, since the concept itself, to me, embodies a multitude of different aspects.
On the one hand, I have my more economical understadning of the word: here, there is a whole range of potential "goods" that can be either immaterial or material, ie. a social good, a poltical good, a personal good, ect. To me, this type of good can be exchanged/used for one's own benefit.
Another of my understandings is an action that is taken for the benefit of others.
A third is an action that benefits the individual performing it without hurting others.
The first part of my understanding might not be pertinent to this conversation, but I felt that I should throw it in anyway.”
I like it. I think we’re starting to see that “good” has many different levels. While I primarily think of morality, you’ve pointed out that there are many other aspects which I would have no problem with.
“I should probably mention that, since I was raised Christian, many of my morals are still the same. That said, I do not believe that birth control is wrong (though since my church didn't teach that it was) or that premarital sex is immoral.”
I understand.
“So, in your understanding, something is "good" if it is A.) either moral or virtuous or B.) leading up to something that is either moral or virtuous. Do I have that right?”
I think that that is starting to go in the direction I want, yes. Although you have pointed out some other goods above and I don’t necessarily want them to be excluded from the definition of good, I would say the moral/virtuous definition works in an absolute sense. So the social, politiacl, economic good etc. are a bit more subjective.
“That is the fun of philosophy; it challenges all of us to redefine our understandings of the world.
Not a problem. And before you feel too bad about changing arguements and forcing contradictory points, read my next section.”
Alright!
“Now that we've agreed on this as a basis for morality, I'm going to do my best to completely tear it down. For sake of arguement, let's assume that people like Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot genuinely believed that they were doing good and had the best of all possible intentions. Would the attrocities that they committed then become moral?”
No, so let me clarify our basis for morality. I believe that there is an objective and a subjective aspect of morality. So objectivley speaking, the actions of Hitler and others was evil (objective aspect). However, they could have believed that what they were doing was good (subjective aspect), but that doesn’t make it good. I think Hitler and the others is a fundamentally different example of the idea of “the intent of the action being good” than your “not killing someone who would go on to kill 100 people” example. So the action of you not killing someone in-and-of-itself is good. He may go on to do evil, but that is not your fault. The action of Hitler, though, even though he may intend it to be good, in-and-of-itself is evil because he is murdering innocent people.
“What about the people who forcibly removed Native American children from their homes and shipped them off to boarding schools to "civilize" them? They had good intentions, but were their actions moral?”
I was a bit too hasty in FULL agreement with you. Now rereading very carefully what you and I both wrote, I see that what I shouldsaid is that intent is part of determining morality, but is not the basis. And also when I agreed with you, I had in mind something like removing the cancerous uterous of a pregnant woman to save the mother’s life. The intent is to save the mother’s life, but an unfortunate side-effect is the death of the fetus. I also had your example that I mentioed above in my mind, so I was a bit hasty to be in full agreement.
But let’s see, the Native American example, I would say it was not moral, even though there was a good intent, because unless the parents were abusive or neglectful, they are the guardians of their children and they determine what the children should or should not learn. It’s one thing to be part of a culture, like here in the US, where education is mandatory, but it’s quite another to violate someones culture like that.
But yeah, I should have been more careful in my words.

So again, sorry for not getting around to adressing everything. I’ll talk to you later.

Ugh, sorry again for the fact that after I pasted, it didn't skip lines in between paragraphs. Annoying on the eyes.

Bobby,

On both counts, (the no line skipping and the time it took to respond) no worries. Life has a way of taking over and forcing a change in plans. When this happens, I've learned to just go with it, things often turn out better that way.

"I love talking to you, and I think you are by far the most insiteful abortion-choice advocate I have ever “met”."

Thanks. The truth is simply that I think far too much. I love it, though, so I'm not intending to stop. :)

I also enjoy talking with you much more than many of the anti-abortion advocates here: you are willing to go beyond surface answers and press for something deeper.

Stop me if I get too personal, but you mentiond that you got "all fired up" about relgion around the time when you were 24. Is there any particular reason--did something happen in your life or did you come to a sudden realization that you had not found before?

"Yeah, I think a lot of that makes sense, and I absoultely think that from a secular POV children heighten a marriage. One way I might argue this is to observe that communication between the spuses can improve with a child."

I'm not going to disagree with your first sentance but I do dispute your notion that communication within a marriage improves with children. Assuming that communication does, in fact, improve with children, I would not see this as heightening a marriage. Using our understanding of the word heightened, something can be improved without being heightened. Consequently, improvements in communication might make a marriage better, but would not necessarily bring the marriage to a higher level.

That said, if this improved communication leads spouses to discuss deeper moral values and understandings of the world, this communication has deepened the bond between the spouses and thus brought the marrital bonds between the two to a higher level--which would fit with our understanding of the word heightened. You have indeed both convinced me and found an avenue by which you can demonstrate that having children can heighten a marriage.

"So to make sure, do we agree that there is an objective set of morals out there, but the question is how do we determine what that is?"

Yes; my personal feelings on the subject are that objective morals and truths do exist, but that humans lack the capacity to know what they are because we are all caught up in our subjective interpretations of both objective truth and morality.

Before you ask, I have no idea where this objective morality would come from. I simply cannot shake my absolute conviction that there are things that are objectively wrong or objectively right in this world irrespective of human interpretation. Welcome to the insane and confusing world of my own personal philosophies.

"I would agree to a certain extent. What I mean by that is that I might judge the morality of that action based on intent, like we discussed before."

There is an element of morality to me personally that is also based on intent (More on this later). To me, however, intent with regards to the homework example would not factor into the equation at all. My conception of morals is that they are a higher aspect of reality and, consequently, many things in life slip in beneath the level of morality. I suppose, to try to make that a little bit more intelligible, to me, morals do not and can not address everything in life. Instead, morals address important facets of our lives and do not touch some of are more trivial actions.

"No, so let me clarify our basis for morality. I believe that there is an objective and a subjective aspect of morality."

I like this idea and had nevr thought of it that way. I suppose this fits in pretty well my understandings of morality. So one could be behaving "morally" in terms of their subjective morality but might be behaving in a manner that is immoral because it violates objective morality.

To some extent I agree with your "an action's morality should be judged in terms of the action itself" and not it's consequences and on another level I disagree with it. I believe that it is often laudable to act in moral manner even if you know that it will have negative consequences (ie. exposing you company's corrupt labor practices or dangerous products) even though you know that A.) you will be fired and B.) that no one will believe you and the company will cover it's tracks so that there will be no proof of what has been done). On the other hand, I that in some circumstances committing a normally immoral act might be the most moral thing that a person could possible do. For example, say that there's a terrorist group or something that rounds up a bunch of people and then singles out one individual and offers this person a choice. This one individual can either kill one other person or the terrorists will kill everyone except for the individual in question and whoever he/she would have had to kill. Let's further pretend that outcomes in this situation are guaranteed; ie. that the terrorists will keep their word and let everyone go unharmed if this one person dies. Faced with this choice, would you still say that it is immoral for our chosen individual to pull the trigger on another in order to save everyone else?

Perhaps I should have been more clear with my Native American example. The fundamental goal was not to educate the children, it was to remove them from the Native American culture and impose a new one upon them because those doing the removing felt that Native Americans were uncivillized and that their culture was inferior.

Good luck with everything.