Is trespassing and leaving a pile of trash on someone else's private property any different than spray-painting a church?

Vandalism is vandalism.

Those a-holes are on the same level as these losers: http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/01/01/drunk-teenagers-trash-robert-frost-historic-site/

Mwahahahaha!!!

Laura: at the risk of stating the obvious: yes, there's quite a difference between spray painting a church and leaving a display behind an illegal fence.

I saw that! It was really cool.

Wow, someone managed to get that all together and set up inside the fence undetected?

Heh-LAIR-EE-us!!

And I love the clever checklist!!

No trespassing means no traspassing. Whoever did this broke the law, and I don't condone it whatsoever, no matter what the reason is.

In addition, the sign makes no sense on either of its sides to me.

and yes, I'm a tad bitchy today!

ABL, now, now. The sign means that Jesus fit all the qualifications of being aborted, according to PP. And "X-Mas" is sans "Christ."

PS - I must add I've noticed the b-word popping up here lately and prefer it wouldn't... :)

Jill,
sorry about the b-word...I promise not to use it again.

As far as the sign, I see where that CAN make sense, but I don't ever remember PP saying that they would have had Christ aborted. The mere thought of anyone putting those words into someone's mouth (even if it is PP) disgusts me.

Laura: at the risk of stating the obvious: yes, there's quite a difference between spray painting a church and leaving a display behind an illegal fence.

Posted by: Nathan Will Sheets at January 2, 2008 2:17 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There's no difference.
If you couldn't be taught to respect other people's property by the time you were 3, I'll have to assume the toilet training didn't work as well...

Was THIS hilarious?
I thought it was dispicable:
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/04/prolife_display_1.php

ABL - no worries. I don't think the sign maker was saying that PP advocated aborting Jesus. S/he was just making the point that Jesus fit PP's qualifications. Plus His mother was extremely young (about 15) and unmarried when she became pregnant.

I don't understand...were Joseph, Mary and Jesus trespassing when he was born in the manger?
:-)

Wow AB...you are off your feed today!! Hope you're feeling your old spunky self soon!!

OK, OK...I know what you need--a good joke...let's see....since I'm blonde and love blonde jokes, this one seems germane:

Why did the blonde scale the chain-link fence?

To see what was on the other side.

*collective groan!*

Which just goes to show that even when I'm ignoring her I can get Laura to bite.

Vandalism is vandalism....yep. That includes the PC idiots who wrote MY BODY, MY CHOICE on the church with spray paint.

I guess it's okay to commit crimes as long as you're PC. Kidnapping your daughter to take her for a forced abortion, murdering kids, vandalism, pedophilia. *sigh* Anything goes.

Hooves,
LOL! Not in the mood for SSFRL or anything, but that was pretty funny! Thanks :)

I still think that it's sacrilegious and shouldn't be equated if even to make a point, no matter how small or big the point...EVER!

Laura needs our attention.

Ab Laura,

I really don't see why you're in such a huff about it or so it seems (can't really tell because it's the computer). It's a comparison..nothing more, nothing less. It gets the point across I think.

Vandalism is vandalism....yep. That includes the PC idiots who wrote MY BODY, MY CHOICE on the church with spray paint.

Posted by: heather at January 2, 2008 3:12 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, we've covered this.
The cretins who set up this display are just like the losers who wrote on the church, and the drunks who destroyed the Robert Frost home.
They deserve jail time.

oh, okay.

Elizabeth,
I just don't agree with using Jesus in any way, shape or form to make this type of point. Especially trespassing (breaking the law) to do it! I think it shows poor taste on many levels. (my 2:29 post explains my "huff")

Any news coverage on that horrible protest that was one on Christmas day?

ABL—

So what you meant to say is that you are feeling:

Canis lupus familiaris; female-y

Or, in blog-speak: CLFFY

;)

BTW--I see your point about blasphemy...I guess I didn’t equate it since Jesus wasn’t in the manger….

Hooves,
It was the wording on the sign...not the lack of Jesus being in the manger (although I do get the meaning behind that, also!)

I guess it's okay to commit crimes as long as you're PC. Kidnapping your daughter to take her for a forced abortion, murdering kids, vandalism, pedophilia. *sigh* Anything goes.

Posted by: heather at January 2, 2008 3:14 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Heather, you'll notice that the people who do those kinds of things have been arrested, tried and convicted.
No, anything DOESN'T go...

Hey, no worries my friend….everyone has different thresholds and this clearly crossed one of yours. Just like Jill’s equation of the chain-link fence to Auschwitz did for me way back when…

just googled the
"Canis lupus familiaris; female-y"

Love it!!!! (took me a few times though - had to delet the female-y part!)

So, I guess not only am I a "CLFFY" today, but also a "DA"

:/

Theresa aka Hooves, I'm so glad you reconsidered!

Well, Safeway is also breaking the law by even having that fence up since their permit for it expired a couple of weeks ago. Isn't anyone a little peeved about THAT?

Thanks Heather ;)

Elizabeth...that would make a straight line between two points. They cannot abide by that...you know that!

Hmmmm ABL…..sounds like you need to go straight to the couch, wrap yourself in a blanket and consume mass quantities of chocolate while watching something sappy on tv.

Oh, wait a minute. My bad…you are PL. You are already on the couch wrapped in a blanket, scorfing chocolate and watching movies.

Hmmm…I’ll have to think of something else.

Well, Safeway is also breaking the law by even having that fence up since their permit for it expired a couple of weeks ago. Isn't anyone a little peeved about THAT?

Posted by: Elizabeth at January 2, 2008 3:34 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You're upset that somebody protected their private property from criminals?
If those freaks had respected the law, that fence NEVER would have gone up. Given the latest events, nobody would make them take the fence down.

Funny…

Whenever Laura goes on a tangent I start pining for my muzzle collection from my previous life as a pet stylist.

I wonder why that is….

Did someone say blankets? It's freezing here.

Heather: what part of the USA is "here"?

I think the fence company and the grocery should be fined for the illegal fence. Why are they allowed to keep up a fence in defliance of the city and the people it represents?

I notice how selective some are in criticizing only the actions of prolife folks.

HIPPIE'S BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're upset that somebody protected their private property from criminals?
If those freaks had respected the law, that fence NEVER would have gone up. Given the latest events, nobody would make them take the fence down.

Oh Laura, the dramatics are abundant today aren't they? You really should be in theatre..I imagine you would be quite successful.

Maybe that’s her problem…she’s a frustrated actress posing as a dog catcher.

National rent a fence

1 800 352 5675

We should ring them up and remind them the permit has expired.

Oh yeah, it's just like the PC side bringing up Paul Hill. They have more "Paul Hills" than you could shake a stick at, but all of their seedy and slimy activities are protected by the word "legal."

Ohio!

Hooves 3:31pm,
oooooooooooohhhhhh..I remember that. Yeah, it's kindof the same "struck a nerve" thing!

Elizabeth,
yes, I am peeved at that the fence is still up...I'm also peeved that PP is still up!!! Everything about PP & the way Aurora has dealt with it peeves me to no end!!!

As a former Cornhusker I will now say the "winter pledge":

BBBBRRRRRRRRR!

Case in point: Paul Hill killed an abortionist. Abortionists collectively kill 1.3 million babies annually.

The name, "Baby Liberation Army" makes me think of someone in a big field, running around and just dropping babies here and there.

*pokes stick at the beehive* Okay, I'm waiting for the stings.

Hooves said, "Oh, wait a minute. My bad…you are PL. You are already on the couch wrapped in a blanket, scorfing chocolate and watching movies."

a ripped up, tattered blanket & Palmer chocolates (you know, the foil-wrapped santa coins) watching my favorite movies on BETA!

anon was me....

Careful ABL...we'll have to change your name to Peeves!

a ripped up, tattered blanket & Palmer chocolates (you know, the foil-wrapped santa coins) watching my favorite movies on BETA!

My Turn: ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!

I support Jill on this one. The message of the sign is that PP's criteria for abortion includes
- too young
- too poor
- marginalized (shunned)
If Mary had followed this logic look what the world would have lost? And by the same token, we don't know what the world is losing through the millions of abortions every year. Maybe the cure for AIDS, for Ebola, the discovery of a new fuel in the future. But we will never know will we? The possibilities are endless.... Choice has consequences and they are not always good.

Hooves,

I like it!!! (maybe not tomorrow, though...but I will definately think about it!!!)

Patricia:

Ditto

Patricia,
I thought PP didn't care who it was coming in for an abortion...they just want to kill as many as they can for $$$!

It's very sad to think about all of the wonderful people we have lost to abortion and what their talents would have amounted to. Sad...very sad!

ABL...

You are obviously out of sorts today. I wouldn’t do this for just anybody, but I am going to “loan” you my g’miball George for the afternoon. He’s quiet and thoughtful and his mere presence will lift your spirits.

And he passes neatly through cyberspace, so here you go:

*pop*

Just make sure he’s home before 11pm. OK?

:)

**putting ice pack on head after g'miball catapults through monitor**

GEORGE!!!! You've lent me GEORGE!!!! You DO love me!!!! Thanks, Hooves...I promise to take great care of him!!!

AB Laura,
I think PP likely targets potential clients. Who are the most likely to abort? Poor, immigrants, illegals. When I did sidewalk counselling years ago, many walking in for appointments were live-in housekeepers impregnated by the man of the family, hoping to disguise the outcome of extra-marital sex. Many were in the country (Canada) illegally, with no health insurance coverage, little money and no family. Others were young teenagers, often Catholic, walking in, in their school uniforms. Some were prostitutes (those marginalized women), homeless etc. While abortion has become more mainstream today, many women will say the couldn't afford the baby, were too young etc.

Ooops, sorry ABL, I didn't know he'd pick up so much speed on the way! Hope he does your spirits good!

*wink*

I need to go all...

I'll check in later!

Patricia,
Wow! I never thought about live-in housekeepers. How terribly sad! The whole thing is just sad to me. I really hate PP!

Patricia, that is amazing. Most of the women I know/knew who aborted, honestly never even had a good reason for having the abortion. No hard luck stories here. They just didn't want to be burdened, and every last one of them could have afforded kids. Most of them already HAD a kid or 2.

Also, a great majority of them were educated.

One "friend" was having a fling with a guy. She was rebounding from her break up with someone else. She were having sex every day, and she told me that she allowed him to ejaculate in her every time because "it felt good." BINGO! Pregnant that very month! Without hesitation she exclaimed "I'm getting an abortion." Baby gone. Guy gone. She could have cared less.

oops *should say she was*

Yes, remember Our Heavenly Mother Mary was ...

YOUNG (15 YEARS OLD)
UNMARRIED
POOR
HOMELESS

Yet, she choose LIFE (God's Will). What a lesson to Planned Parenthood and all of us!

Mike

However, my cowardly girlfriend chose Versed for her abortion. She wasn't goning to subject herself to any unnecessary discomfort.

AAAK, typos *meant GOING* Nope. She didn't want to hear that annoying suction machine.

Mike,

With all respect to your religious beliefs, Joseph and Mary were not homeless. This is a popular misconception. In modern terms, they did not make a reservation ahead of time for a room at an inn, all of which were filled when Joseph and Mary arrived, and had to resort to a manger. Something like the hotel manager who takes pity on a stranded motorist and let's him sleep on a spare couch in an unused room.
Joseph was employed as a carpenter, they had a home, and while Mary conceived before she was married, she and Joseph were a married couple when Christ was born. By the standards of their day they may not have been poor, but more working class. Also, though Mary was quite young by our standards, this was the age when young women married and began bearing children in that time and culture.

Mary and Mike, Happy New Year!

Mike,

My oversight. Mary was indeed pregnant prior to her marriage to Joseph and faced considerable social stigma and rejection, but willingly continued with her pregnancy.

Heather,

Thank you. Happy New Year to you and yours as well. Happy New Year to everyone on this blog.

...not to mention that the whole event, from beginning to "end" was divinely inspired by God! I don't think abortion would have ever been an option, or God would have chosen someone else! The prophesy had to be fulfilled!

Happy New Year, Mary!

AB Laura,

Thank you. Happy New Year to you and yours.

Many of the live-ins were Filipino women and Catholic too. It was very sad. It was almost impossible to get them to reconsider abortion. They were in a terrible bind and terribly afraid. Of course, the men knew their marriages were gonzo if the wife found out and then they'd have a child to pay support for as well. I don't think many realize how strong the pressure to abort can be for many women, even married women. Research is beginning to prove this out.

Mary was not young by the standards of the day. Most young women were popping out babies by then, often to men exponentially older than they were.

maybe there were just telling you a sob story so you'd leave them alone.

No Hal,
They came OUT of the abortion clinic SOBbing. Even the ones who had gone in screaming their heads off at us, swearing and so forth. Many of us helped these women into their cars, because they were SO distraught and were in so much physical pain. (Interestingly, the men were usually emotionally distance and unattentive to their women) Some of us tried to intercede for women who left the clinic, by going to apartments and homes to offer valid material and emotional help, only to see the woman literally forced back to the abortuary a second time - this time to make sure the dirty deed was in fact accomplished. It was truly heart-rending. In my experience, the only way to prevent the abortion at this stage was to convince the woman to physically remove herself from the proabort environment.

And Hal, that bastion and poster child of sensitivity…

Chimes in.

"Dominick's/Safeway" ?

I don't think they even have these in the Boston area, however I will no shop at one of these. stupid fence.

Jasper's in Boston?!

Oh please, oh please...

Say, "He paaaked the caaaa in the yaaaad!!"

For me?!

Erin,

Very true. We tend to judge by our standards of today and are shocked at Mary's young age, though of course in her time this was the norm. They would often be married off to "older" men(possibly in their 30s), who may have been in a position to better provide for a wife and family. Marriages were arranged for various reasons, none of them romantic. I would think the short life spans of that era were another factor, as well as the high infant mortality rate. A woman couldn't risk waiting until she was in her twenties or thirties since it wasn't likely she would still be alive, she was after all approaching "old age", or able to bear many children. I wonder if many of these "old mothers", like John the Baptist's mother, Elizabeth, were women in their late 30s or early 40s who had finally become pregnant.

Oh, and I got my steno machine today! It's so nifty...I can already write cat. And 'said'. And most words that rhyme with cat or hill. Whoo!

But can you do words that rhyme with "said" yet?!

Mary- exactly right. Men were also in a somewhat different position- if a woman didn't produce male heirs, the wife was often cast aside. Death during childbirth was also common. Many men of the era married several times, but always to very young ladies. Pretty much a woman got her period, then was married off.

Hooves- nope, because 'said' is a mandatory, or a word that is used so often that you memorize a particular keystroke. 'said' is DZ.

Weird, right?

"Say, "He paaaked the caaaa in the yaaaad!!"

For me?!"

LOL hooves, yes I suffer from that a little.

Hal, were you the one on that abortionist's table with your legs splayed opened? Were you the one who actually had sharp instruments inserted into your body to tear your baby apart, and then have it suctioned out in pieces? You said that the doctor wouldn't even allow you into the procedure room. Gee, I wonder why. He wanted to spare you the gore. Yet you stood by as your wife actually went through with it. *blah!* What kind of a beast are you?

Then you have the audacity to tell us what a wonderful thing abortion is. Why? Did the 2 abortions save you some money?

Hal, why didn't you do something to prevent it? Why didn't you do your part as a man? You could have had a vasectomy. You could have told your wife that you weren't wanting to "chance it" and refrain from sexual activity. What precautions did you take? It happened twice, Hal.

Hal, how dare you come here and say that abortion is good for women? Women are dying in America's abortion clinics TODAY. You wouldn't know or care, because your wife's abortions were uneventful, but how about women who experience complications. That includes sterilization and death. SELFISH!

Heather,

You raise a valid point about men taking responsibility for birth control as well. Why is it the woman who is considered "stupid enough" to "get herself" in this situation. Oh, she conceived by herself? She should have been more careful, its never he should have kept his pants zipped.

Mary, you are so right. Abortion gives men an easy way out. As Jill told Zoe, 90% of relationships END after an abortion.

Hal may be married, but he denies that he and his wife discuss the abortions anymore. I really find that hard to believe. How do you ever forget?

"What kind of a beast are you?"

the kind that doesn't see anything wrong with a woman deciding to terminate a pregnancy.

Maybe because his wife feels is so guilt-ridden by having two of her children dismembered? I don't know..just a thought!

That's the worst kind I can imagine.

You know, Heather, if you don't talk about things that happened in the past, they magically go away....poof!

Heather,

You may be too young to remember, but I can recall that when Ronald Reagan became president, the media went nuts trying to show all the poverty that was occuring because of Reagan and his policies. Our local paper was no exception. We got this sob story about a young single mother and her hardships. Of course Ronald Reagan was responsible.
I had one question. WHERE is this child's father and why is no one hold HIM accountable for the poverty this young woman and THEIR child are living in? Never once was the father mentioned, much less held responsible for much of anything except having his fun and walking away from his responsibilities.
Too many men think their obligation to a woman pregnant with their child begins and ends with an offer to pay for an abortion.

"How do you ever forget?"

Not everyone is traumatized by the experience. What's there to talk about 10 years later? It was the right choice, no regrets, no further discussions.

No, Hal, you had your children dismembered...

my children are doing just fine. Strong, smart, and beautiful.

and pro-choice too!

Hal,
Drawing up that family tree must be great fun for you guys!!!

hmmmmmm....how many grandchildren won't you have?

Mary thank you for the informative post. It's like the signs these women hold up today BUSH: KEEP YOUR LAWS OUT OF MINE. Excuse me? Abortion has been legal, so what's their beef with our president? How about this one, KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF OF MY VAGINA.........who toughed your vagina, girl? Did you file a police report? Did George Bush touch your vagina? *head spins*

Hal,
Do your living children know that you & your wife slaughtered their siblings?

There was a girl at the "Women's March For Life" wearing that T-shirt. Now, is that directed at the man who impregnated her? Who is she directing that statement to?

*oops, meant touched* above post

Here's a classic. There was a guy at the March for Women's Lives wearing a shirt that said "BABY KILLER" He wore it with pride, and he also donned a purple mohawk and numerous neck chains. Why was his participation allowed? I thought it wasn't a baby. I guess it's whatever they want it to be. *head spins again*

fat-finger syndrome today, Heather?
(happens to me all the time!)
:)

AB Laura, I don't think so. I haven't told them. Think I should?

and how many grandchildren won't I have? I really don't care about that. My girls will have children one day, or not. Their bodies, their choice. Plus, I'm in no hurry to be a grandfather.

Hal,
Come on, you're all about choice...it's your choice whether or not to tell them!

**mouse runs from cheese & doesn't get trapped**

Hal, you are going to tell your girls to be pro choice, but you don't think you should explain what that means? Why not tell them about the abortions? You aren't ashamed, are you?

I find it unbelievable that you, Hal and your wife had 2? abortions. How terribly sad. I also believe if you feel no guilt or remorse over this, then you have a poorly developed conscience and little understanding of what you've done. I'm hoping that's your excuse.
What kind of marriage do you have? That you would refuse the gift of fatherhood that your wife gave you, that you would repudiate her femininity? that she would deny your gift of motherhood? And what do/will your children think? (wow, thank god it wasn't me they killed?)
I do believe you will meet these children in the next life and they won't be blobs of tissue. They will be real souls who will ask you and their MOTHER, WHY?

AB, yes. LOL!

Heather, 6:38PM

Just think of all the responsibility he was able to walk away from, it maybe cost him only a few hundred dollars here and there.

I never told my girls to be pro-choice. they reached that position on their own. I think they know what it means.

Hal, you think they know what it means? *coughing*

Hal,
We can post some pictures for them so they WILL know what "choice" is?????

Mary, I guess a few hundred dollars for extermination was the best choice for him.

How can I meet them in the "next life." If you're right, they're in Heaven and I'm headed to Hell.

Don't sounds so shocked Patricia, millions of Americans have abortions every year. Most are doing just fine and feeling no remorse.

I don't ask my mother if she aborted any of my siblings? If she did, I wouldn't think, "wow, thank God it wasn't me they killed." I would assume she had good reasons for what she did and I'd love her just the same.

AB, Hal can't even stomach the pictures or videos. I wonder how he could ever expect his daughters to view such things.

**taking Sally's heating pad away & giving it to Hal to place on his chest to defrost his ice, cold heart!**

(sorry, Sally...)

Don't sounds so shocked Patricia, millions of Americans have abortions every year. Most are doing just fine and feeling no remorse.

------------------------------------------------------------- That's not true.

Heather,
I think Hal was speaking about the aborted babies that are in Heaven doing just fine & feeling no pain....

Hal, PAS does exist! I can see it in the post abortive women that I know personally. Drinking, drugs, codependency and extreme neediness, psychiatric visits for depression and anxiety, promiscuity, eating disorders.

A woman may not come out and say "I'm upset over my abortion." No,no,no. They want to bury it. They want to forget it, Hal. The pain will show through behaviors. Some women eventually DO realize that their abortion eats at their souls like a cancer. However, that can take years. They may not know what the REAL problem is. Abortion is an assalt on a woman's mind, body, and soul. Hal, abortion is wrong, and you just can't keep running from that fact!

they may not know what the REAL problem is, but you do?

Forgive me if I find that a bit hard to swallow.

Women are not idiots, and I think if a woman thinks she is fine after having terminated a pregnancy, we should accept that answer unless proven wrong.

You say "abortion is wrong." Others disagree, don't you get that? Abortion is wrong for you, fine. But that doesn't make it objectively wrong.
Even if you say it 1000 times.

AB, you're right!:] Hal, you and your wife don't talk about it, because that would mean digging up pain. Do it anyway. There is forgiveness for both of you, but you must seek it. The first step in doing so is to admit that abortion is wrong.

Is it also the last step?

Women are not idiots. I agree. That's why they eventually realize that abortion is bad.

yes.

some do, some don't

There are a lot of pro choice older women out there.

Why is my girlfriend pregnant again just 4 months after her abortion? She's keeping it! Nothing in her life has changed whatsoever. I think it's a replacement baby.

4 months ago the story was "I have a bad relationship with my s/o." "I don't have any money." "I would never bring another kid into this world."......Now, she's ecstatic.

Heather, I have no idea. Was your question directed at me? Ask her.

yes. There are a lot of older PC women out there. Linda Ellebee [sp?] is PC, and she also had an illegal abortion. She had to have a double mastectomy d/t breast cancer. Did you know that? Nope. No link between abortion and breast cancer.

Another lie of the abortion industry.

Hal, PAS does exist! I can see it in the post abortive women that I know personally. Drinking, drugs, codependency and extreme neediness, psychiatric visits for depression and anxiety, promiscuity, eating disorders.

Posted by: heather at January 2, 2008 6:56 PM
..............................

You see what you wish to see heather.

Well, web site after web site supports my claim.

Hal, women who become pregnant shortly after abortion are usually wanting to replace the aborted child. That's another story, but I guess it's true. She' the second girl I've known to do this. The other girl waited 6 months. Both say that their abortions were a mistake.

I'd also venture to say that my girlfriend may still be in some denial, but she sure did tell me that she felt "horrible" about her abortion. Her words, not mine.

yes. There are a lot of older PC women out there. Linda Ellebee [sp?] is PC, and she also had an illegal abortion. She had to have a double mastectomy d/t breast cancer. Did you know that? Nope. No link between abortion and breast cancer.

Posted by: heather at January 2, 2008 7:23 PM
.....................................................

The only link is in the imaginations of the PL spin doctors and their gullible subscribers. There isn't a shred of even basic logic in the assertion that any medical procedure causes cancer. As much as you would like women to be punished for making the choice to abort. Like if a woman aborts spontaneously she will not develop breast cancer but something in the decision center of the brain triggers this cancer if a woman should choose to abort? Come on! That's ridiculous and flies in the face of research that points to a genetic marker.

I don't want women who abort to suffer. That happens anyway.

Silent No More, Rachel's Vineyard, and Safe Haven Ministries are all web sites for men and women who want to heal from abortion. Who do you think set up these sites? Um, it was set up by post abortive men and women.

Hal, women who become pregnant shortly after abortion are usually wanting to replace the aborted child. That's another story, but I guess it's true. She' the second girl I've known to do this. The other girl waited 6 months. Both say that their abortions were a mistake.

Posted by: heather at January 2, 2008 7:28 PM
............................

'Knowing' two people that have 'done this' isn't a convincing qualification for your statement.
A woman whom has aborted may wish to change her circumstances strongly enough to be able to provide a supportive life for a child to actually do so. Why are you always so negative about women?

okay. Gotta go.

Sorry Hal, but abortion IS objectively wrong. You're a relativist and therefore anything goes.Anything can be right, depending upon the circumstances and your needs. However, there is an objective truth which we can know through natural law (placed within us by God and inherent in ourselves) and through divine law (God). There are some things that are wrong period. Taking an innocent human life in the situation of abortion, is one of those. It is wrong because it's against natural law and divine law. The unfortunate problem is that as long as someone hides behind the relativist position (wrong for you, but not for me) no real discussion can EVER take place. This is because there is one side (the relativist) which does not seek to KNOW the truth.
In life issues such as abortion, euthanasia etc, the relativist pposition eventually leads to a utilitarian ethic. This kind of thinking is at the root of the culture of death. Thus, your children will be able to argue equally eloquently that it will be okay to pull the plug on you or your wife if for example, either of you are recovering from a car accident etc. It may be right for THEM but certainly not for you.
What you and your wife did is wrong, not because I say it's wrong but because it breaks both divine and natural law. The truth is out there, find it Hal!

I don't want women who abort to suffer. That happens anyway.

Posted by: heather at January 2, 2008 7:37 PM
.......................................

Suffering happens to everyone. If it is associated with making a choice, the person suffering from choice needs to learn critical thinking skills.

Well, web site after web site supports my claim.

Posted by: heather at January 2, 2008 7:26 PM
..............................................

Ummm, OK. You get all your information from PL web sites. Big surprise.

By the way Hal, I feel, the reason you're so strident in your proabort belief is that a very very sensitive nerve has been touched. Maybe you hurt, then again maybe not....

Patricia- or maybe a woman's right to choose is a very important matter. I was a strong pro-choice advocate before my abortion.

I like how Sally mixes in miscarriage (she calls spontaneous abortion) and abortion in the same sentence. Its like comparing a man who dies from heart-attack from natural causes vs. one who dies from a heart-attack by poisoning (murder).

Okay... I am curious: Does your wife ever read this blog along with you, Hal? It just seems that the topic of abortion would have come up between you two, as much time as you spend discussing it online. Do you not talk with your wife about conversations you have online concerning abortion?

Also, I am still curious as to how you could grieve your miscarriages, and not grieve an abortion? You said that your second abortion was not something that you necessarily wanted, but that your wife felt that her health was in jeopardy by continuing the pregnancy. If this is so, then wouldn't you still feel some type of loss or grief after the abortion, since the baby was not aborted because of un-wantedness, since you say that you have grieved over your miscarriages?
This is very perplexing to me.

"There are some things that are wrong period."
I agree, a law outlawing abortion would be wrong. Not because I said so, but because it is not within the power of our government to tell free people what medical procedures they can have.

"This kind of thinking is at the root of the culture of death. Thus, your children will be able to argue equally eloquently that it will be okay to pull the plug on you or your wife if for example, either of you are recovering from a car accident etc. It may be right for THEM but certainly not for you."

Oh it most certainly would be right for me, and I've told them to do it.

Sally, 7:35PM

Please refer to www.abortionbreastcancer.com for the most up to date research on the abortion/breast cancer connection.

Well Hal, first off, I feel sorry that you would tell your children to kill you off if they felt you were too much of a bother. That's sad. But maybe that's an effect of your abortions - you value your life very little.
It is actually within the power of a government to protect ALL its citizens and unborn children used to be considered citizens. Abortion is NOT a valid medical procedure and in fact, physicians use to take an oath against it.

-------------------------------------------------
Bethany,
The difference for Hal between the miscarriages and abortion is one of convenience - they suddenly WANTED the unborn child. In fact, if this is the case, it merely points out Hal's inconsistent thinking. How could he grieve one child and not another? His kids must be mightily confused.
-------------------------------------------------
Erin,
That's the problem - it is about CHOICE. Except one person has ALL the choice - the pregnant woman. In no other circumstance, does anyone have a say over another person's life the way a pregnant woman does today. It is a measure of how unjust our society has become.

Sorry Hal, but abortion IS objectively wrong. You're a relativist and therefore anything goes.Anything can be right, depending upon the circumstances and your needs. However, there is an objective truth which we can know through natural law (placed within us by God and inherent in ourselves) and through divine law (God). There are some things that are wrong period. Taking an innocent human life in the situation of abortion, is one of those. It is wrong because it's against natural law and divine law. The unfortunate problem is that as long as someone hides behind the relativist position (wrong for you, but not for me) no real discussion can EVER take place. This is because there is one side (the relativist) which does not seek to KNOW the truth.
In life issues such as abortion, euthanasia etc, the relativist pposition eventually leads to a utilitarian ethic. This kind of thinking is at the root of the culture of death. Thus, your children will be able to argue equally eloquently that it will be okay to pull the plug on you or your wife if for example, either of you are recovering from a car accident etc. It may be right for THEM but certainly not for you.
What you and your wife did is wrong, not because I say it's wrong but because it breaks both divine and natural law. The truth is out there, find it Hal!

Posted by: Patricia at January 2, 2008 7:44 PM
.......................................................

Belief in a god/s is not an objective truth.

gotta to go, we want to watch Hairspray.
By the way, my 15 and 13 year girls are baffled by Hal.
Sometimes,out of the mouth of babes....

Truth does not depend upon whether you believe in God.

I support Hal and his logic fully. And I am a dad and grandfather. I have known many women, married and not, who have had an abortion. While not proud of the decision, they harbor no guilt. Not everyone believes a clump of cells is a "child". If you do, well, fine. It certainly does not give you the mandate to dictate to others that your belief is fact.

Thank you Dorchester.

well said.

Patricia, I'm sure your girls and my girls would baffle each other a lot. The experience would probably be good for all of them.

I like how Sally mixes in miscarriage (she calls spontaneous abortion) and abortion in the same sentence. Its like comparing a man who dies from heart-attack from natural causes vs. one who dies from a heart-attack by poisoning (murder).

Posted by: jasper at January 2, 2008 7:54 PM
...................................

Jasper dear, a miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion. Don't like it? Prove to the medical community that miscarriage is more accurate terminology for the termination of a pregnancy due to undetermined causes.
Your heart attack analogy can only work if you can prove that a person causing the death of anything will cause them a disease.
Your analogy is logically, if purposely cause the death of anything, I will get a specific disease. If I accidently cause the death of something I will not get that disease.
I'd bet my last dollar that neither you nor heather will be hailed by the scientific community for anything during your lifetimes.

Dorchester 8:16pm

Why weren't these women proud of their decision?

Patricia-

I love Hairspray!! Hope you and your 'babes'(I think they're a bit old to be considered babes) enjoy it! I always end up dancing around the room when I hear that music!

Wait...

Where are all these hurting women?

The "Silent No More" people had a demonstration on the steps of the Florida State House that drew 8 women. Their Washington demonstration drew 22.
Silent'No More's sad attempt to get 5000 signatures from women who claimed to be "hurt" by their abortions failed miserably.

You guys keep claiming there's this vast, thundering herd of damaged women out there. Where are they?

(PS, if you refer to the "Silent No More Tesimonials" page, I'm gonna post the ones that are PURE BS. They're HILARIOUS.)

Sally,

The person suffering the heart attack is analogous to the unborn child. The unorn child can die on his own naturally or intentionally murdered by the hands of a killer (abortionist).

Heart failure = miscarriage
Heart failure by poision = abortion

I saw my dog chasing his tail tonight.

I thought of Hal for some reason….

"You guys keep claiming there's this vast, thundering herd of damaged women out there. Where are they?"

how many women do you know who look back and say "geez, i'm really glad I had that abortion when I was young."

Hooves,
George isn't helping...are you ready for the aerodynamic little guy to come back your way?

He misses you.

Jasper,
I saw that!

"You guys keep claiming there's this vast, thundering herd of damaged women out there. Where are they?"

they're silent.

Posted by: jasper at January 2, 2008 9:33 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

They don't exist.
It's estimated that 1-2% of all women who have abortions feel any angst over their decision. That's the same percentage of the population that's already tweaked to begin with.

Jasper,
uh oh...

how many women do you know who look back and say "geez, i'm really glad I had that abortion when I was young."

Posted by: jasper at January 2, 2008 9:33 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Go to the Ms. Magazine site or the "I'm Not Sorry" site. You'll find thousands of testimonials from women who were grateful that abortion was available when they needed it.

Laura,
Can you prove that those testimonies were legit and not a slew of bored PP reps that aren't getting enough "business" posting on websites to promote their "business"?

Laura,
Can you prove that those testimonies were legit and not a slew of bored PP reps that aren't getting enough "business" posting on websites to promote their "business"?

Posted by: AB Laura at January 2, 2008 9:46 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How in the hell would that promote business?
"Gee, some chick on a website doesn't regret her abortion. I guess I'll get knocked-up and have one..."

Laura,
Think about it....if thousands of women are supposedly saying "it's ok & you won't feel bad about it"...and you have a young girl contemplating abortion, but not sure because deep down in her heart she knows it's wrong and thinks she may feel bad about it...the scale can tip in favor of the business that's promoting it by using this technique, no?

And why do you always use the word "hell" in a response to me??? Curious.

Laura,
You may want to keep your eyes peeled to see how many prolifers are at the March for Life this year. Oh wait. The media will show 5 PL's and 10 PC's with their wire hangers, of course. Hey, I was one who signed Silent No More's petition! Hey, I am part of the vast, thundering herd! Define "failed miserably."
Silent No More is just one organization. There are plenty.
I am sure I will be dismissed with some nasty comment. Don't disappoint me.

Carla,
But thanks to Jill & many others, the media will not be able to hide the truth much longer.....

Laura,

I mean, do YOU know any women personally who is glad they had their abortion?

It is estimated 1-2% of women who have had abortions feel any angst?
Source please.

I know several women who are glad they had abortions. I can think of four off hand. I don't know anyone who regrets it.

(back to chasing my tail....)

Hal,
Maybe you don't Know me. You know Of me. There.
I'm one who regrets it. One.

Hal,

my wife had a good friend who aborted her unborn child at 5 months pregnant because the doctor told her the child some sort of defect. So, she had the abortion and the autopsy revieled that the baby was normal. This women hasn't been the same since.

Good point Carla......I just checked out your blog, you have a lovely family.

Ok, I'm sorry you regret your decision. Do you think that it would have been better if you made a different decision or if you didn't have the right to make the decision?

Thank you for saying you are sorry, Hal.
A different decision please. I unfortunately did not have anyone I felt I could turn to for advice. There was no "other side" telling me about adoption or offering me a job, a place to live, maternity clothes...I lived across the street from a church and I wish now I would have ran over there just to maybe...just maybe hear something, anything else. I, in no way looked at any other options. Can I tell you something, Hal? I would give anything to have my 16 year old with me right now. Anything! That ache will never go away. That longing I carry with me. I was stupid and selfish and I rushed into something I truly was not prepared in anyway for. My mom brought my sister for hers. My example. Anyway, I am a woman who wishes she could go back and undo it. Really, truly I do. I am blessed to have 4 beautiful children. 4 more 4 life! ha
Thank you Jasper. :)

Dorchester 8:16PM

I'm still waiting to hear why these women weren't proud of their decision.

Hal,
All people have a God given right to freedom of choice. God knew we would sin, but still gives each of us freedom of choice.
But the truth that killing human life is a sin is not an objective statement. It is a truth. Any idea when a blob of cells becomes a human life? Can you somehow make it into an objective statement? Can the truth really vary on a case by case basis? Answer is NOOO. It is murder.

Dorchester,
Maybe you can answer for Hal?

I don't believe in sin.

OK ABL--I just got out of the tub (had a book to finish and it's the only quiet place!) so you may feel free to send George back at your convenience…I’m really sorry to hear he didn’t help!! :(

I’ll just set up a catcher’s mitt in front of my monitor so he will be waiting for me in the morning….I’m off to bed!

"I don't believe in sin."

We have a winner for the deepest-in-denial award...

And the I-will-justify-my-position-at-any-cost award…

Oh yes, and the most-extreme-moral-relativism-statement-of-the-year award…

And it’s only January 2nd.

‘Night all.

I'd like to thank the academy.......

my wife had a good friend who aborted her unborn child at 5 months pregnant because the doctor told her the child some sort of defect. So, she had the abortion and the autopsy revieled that the baby was normal. This women hasn't been the same since.

Posted by: jasper at January 2, 2008 10:23 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WOW! What was the doctor's name?
He must have lost his licence. That woman must have won MILLIONS in the malpractice suit! I'd love to read about it - you know - if the whole story wasn't a poorly-spun lie.

I'm still waiting to hear why these women weren't proud of their decision.

Posted by: Mary at January 2, 2008 10:37 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Should I be proud of a root canal?
Should I be proud that I chose to have a root canal?
You people have a really funny attitude towards simple medical procedures.

Hal,
Are you just o.k. with killing period whenever it suits yours or your wives agenda, or only life in your wives womb. Wether or not you believe in sin does not change the truth that abortion is taking a human life. It is a truth. Your dehumanizing a 12 week old human life by calling it a blob of cells can never change the fact tht you are killing human life.

Hal..... Where do you stand on partial-birth abortion? Is it o.k. or not o.k? I know PP and abortionists are willing to deliver babies to the chest and poke a hole in their skull. And they do it just for financial gain. Do you see a problem with that?

And they do it just for financial gain. Do you see a problem with that?

Posted by: Truthseeker at January 3, 2008 12:27 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Actually, the technique was developed to deliver the grossly distorted heads of hydrocephalic fetuses without hacking the woman to bits.
It was the safest method possible, and had nothing to do with financial gain.

Laura,
Remember, what goes around comes around.
When it comes around for you Laura, your going to have to bury your head deeper then a dog trying to get away from the dreaded dog cop.
Btw, how many dogs have you sent to the death chambers while the dog has been pregnant?
Is that why your pro death for little humans too, Laura?
I see this image of Laura in sunglasses yellin at a old lady with one to many dogs yellin' "Respect My AuthorIty". Is your last name Cartman?

Laura, do you know how many of all the partial birth abortions performed were for performed for that reason. Is that information available to anybody except the abortion providers? Why wait until end-of-term unless the babies are viable? Wouldn't a C-section would be easier? Stabbing a live baby in the skull is just inhumane. Barbaric. Wouldn't you agree

Laura, do you know how many of all the partial birth abortions performed were for performed for that reason. Is that information available to anybody except the abortion providers? It seems like that condition would be easily recognizable by a typical ultrasound. Why kill the baby just cause it has a grossly distorted head? Wouldn't a C-section be easier? Stabbing a live baby in the skull is just inhumane. Barbaric. Wouldn't you agree?

yllas,
The truth speaks for itself. No need for personal attacks.

Well Truthseeker,
When a person makes personal remarks about others, including a dead son's tombstone, one must expect that Laura can accept her words of wisdom comin back to her.
As for truth, it is really simple, one kills innocent life, or one does not. Your not going to change Laura, she enjoys the fruits of death. In fact, Laura is fruity for death.
And you know the definition of truth, it is the mind conforming to reality. Which means, either you or Laura isn't conforming to reality concerning "matters of abortion"(nonsensical phrase learned from Doug)!!!

Bethany, good question to Hal. Hal, does your wife know that you are visiting a PL web site? Where is her input? Are you the one who pushed for her to have these abortions? Do you feel guilty? Does she? Something is wrong with this picture you've painted. Also, you never discuss it anymore? Well, how on earth do you expect to have 2 well adjusted PC girls? You'd better start discussing things.

I think the I'M NOT SORRY site is BS. How come you can't leave a comment?

Hal, did you hear Carla say that she would do anything to have her 16 year old with her right now? Yet, you remain so callous about the death of your own children.

Visit the "Silent No More" web site. You will see more than just a "handful" of women who want healing.

Hal, did you hear Carla say that she would do anything to have her 16 year old with her right now? Yet, you remain so callous about the death of your own children.

Posted by: heather at January 3, 2008 1:17 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hal has never lost a child. He has two fine daughters.
Carla had her pregnancy sucked out because she didn't want a kid. It was her decision, she wanted an abortion, and chose to have one.

llyas,
The truth is not the mind conforming to reality. The truth is reality and does not change due to your minds perception. That was the point I was making. Abortion is taking a human life. Nobody can rationally argue otherwise regardless of their perception.

Visit the "Silent No More" web site. You will see more than just a "handful" of women who want healing.

Posted by: heather at January 3, 2008 1:18 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No. Count the testimonies. Even if you include the ones that are CLEARLY BS, there are very few.

Heather,
You seem to know quite a few people who have had abortions. Of all those people who have had abortions, have any of them lost a child,brother,sister,mother,father by accident, or other means, before their abortion?

Why kill the baby just cause it has a grossly distorted head? Wouldn't a C-section be easier? Stabbing a live baby in the skull is just inhumane. Barbaric. Wouldn't you agree?

Posted by: Truthseeker at January 3, 2008 12:48 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why give a woman a HUGE, slashing, stem-to-stern caesarian to deliver something that's going to live for - maybe - a day? (IF it survives birth at all...) Why not use the technique safest for the woman and her future fertility?

Well Truthicus( a honorific with deference due),
Sadly, the mind does interpret reality. Reality does not change for those interpretations of perceptions. Truth is the mind conforming to reality. That minds try to take a perception of reality and make it conform to their needs and wants is where Laura denies what is really growing in a mother. And even if it is human, the babies humanity is decided by the mind, as having no worth. So, what is the truth/reality, of worth?

Laura, no response to my previous post to you?
Do you know how many of all the partial birth abortions performed were for performed for that reason. Is that information available to anybody except the abortion providers? It seems like that condition would be easily recognizable by a typical ultrasound. Why kill the baby just cause it has a grossly distorted head? Wouldn't a C-section be easier? Stabbing a live baby in the skull is just inhumane. Barbaric. Wouldn't you agree?

yllas,
The mind does interpret reality, you are correct. And people can be blinded to the truth or prefer not to accept the truth. But just cause you get used to the smell doesn't stop the shit from stinking.

Laura says her poop smells like roses!!
But, respect,honor,deference,worth, wishes,really don't exist, without a mind giving a meaning to them. No matter how much you tell Laura her poop is not a rose smell, she interprets the perception of her poop, as the smell of a rose. Your reality does not conform to Laura's reality, one of you is nutz!

Laura,
I know I went through a D&E with my wife and it was a terrible experience. Our baby had something similar but it was actually dead in utero at 20 weeks. I can tell you that the D&E procedure was difficult on my wife even though the baby was already dead. It sounds even sadder to be told that your baby is severly diseased and will likely not survive more than a day after delivery. Just one precious day to comfort and hold a bay after feeling it live and grow insde you for some 200 days? Wouldn't you want to give that to your baby if you could?

And even if you did not want to have a C-section. Wouldn't you at least want to spare your baby the savage stab of a metzenbaum scissors through the skull?

Laura is right, partially. The child I carried was unwanted.It is wanted now. Today. Too late. I chose an abortion, it was my decision. I did not WANT an abortion. I WANTED help. I wanted my family and friends to say that they would support me and help me. I wanted someone, anyone to say that I had other options available to me. How is it "choice" when I never entertained other choices?

HUGE, slashing, stem to stern c-section? What? I have seen my friends scar. Barely noticeable at all. I think it's called a bikini incision.

Doug,

And where does this desire to "Play by the same rules come from".
*
MK, down deep, a society is a group of people with things in common. One of those things in common is the expectation of and desire for "the same rules." Societies don't always do so hot, there, but the desire and expectation is there nonetheless.

But where does this "common desire" originate from?

Are you saying that there are chemical reactions that are caused by pleasurable experiences? Or are you saying there is an objective good and an objective evil?

The original question was, after all, "or do you believe that good and evil are relative.

Doug,

Because, see I'm confused. You say it is relative but then you say "ideals"...this contradicts itself.

Relative is as it relates to you and is subjective, while collective ideals are more objective and based on something outside of oneself.

I certainly believe in it - it certainly is there on many levels, inndividual, group, the human race as a whole, etc., and yes, it's relative to what is wanted. Good is what is wanted. Evil, bad, etc., are what are not wanted. Not wanted because they are seen as injurious, harmful, mean, spiteful, not in line with ideals of good behavior, etc.

Doug,

I feel like they should wait in line, same as everybody else. I do not like it when they cut in.

But they like it when they DO cut in line. Why do your feelings win out. And don't tell me that it's society.

What if there were only three people in the store. You, the clerk, and the guy that cuts in line.

The clerk has no opinion because he gets paid either way. You were in line first. The other guy steps in front of you. How do you feel? Why?
Should he get behind you? Why? Why should he suffer and you should not?

Doug,

Good is what is wanted.

Why? I mean I can understand why the avoidance of pain, discomfort, etc. is wanted. But why do you call this "good"? Why not call it "lack of suffering" or "lack of displeasure". Why call it "good"?

Okay Doug,

One more question. Jesus hung on a cross for us (whether you believe He was nuts for doing so is beside the point). He voluntarily welcomed suffering (by your definition, something unwanted and therefore bad). This resulted in what many of us call "Good".

How do you reconcile somebody voluntarily accepting something that to you defines "bad" in order to produce a greater "good".

If good is avoiding pain, displeasure and suffering, how do you explain this?

Why would a woman that doesn't want to keep her child, "suffer" through pregnancy and childbirth, only to give the child up for adoption?

If suffering is "bad" then why do people sometimes "CHOOSE" to endure it?

Hal, I directed a question to you at 7:54 PM....I'm not sure if you missed it or not.

Doug,

I have continued this argument on the White site...please go back to the archives and respond?

'mornin' B,

I'm back in the saddle with Doug as you can see...go to the White site and read the rest...

mk--once again your logic and articulation (aimed at Doug) amaze me!

MK, I echo Hooves-In-Maw's comment. You really do so well! Going to the White post right now.

Hooves,

mk--once again your logic and articulation (aimed at Doug) amaze me!

He'll weasel his way out of this somehow...

He always does. But he's not fooling anyone!

He seems to have fallen back into the bad habit of "quoting" the law to express his own feelings.

I asked him what he would "DO" if abortion after 24 weeks became commonplace. His response? I wouldn't like it.

I asked what he would DO about it, not how he'd feel.

I love the guy, but he is so passively aggressive that I want to choke him!

I asked him what he would "DO" if abortion after 24 weeks became commonplace. His response? I wouldn't like it.

I know! That is sooo unbelievably frustrating. How hard would it be to just actually answer a question in the way it was asked?
Ugh!

I love the guy, but he is so passively aggressive that I want to choke him!

I know the feeling...

It's easy to "win" arguments (ie. have the last word) when you constantly answer questions that you were never asked, reply to assumptions that were never made, etc, and act as though you've been completely honest and upfront in doing so.

Laura,

I can tell you decisions I wasn't proud of and there was a reason I wasn't proud of them and I could tell you the reason.
Have you every specifically told people "I had a root canal but I'm not proud of my decision"? I would honestly consider that a rather peculiar comment.

A huge slashing scar? LOL! My friend gave birth just over a year ago. She's back in belly shirts and a bikini. No visible scarring.

oops *meant she gave birth via c-section.*

Mary, me too.

Bethany, lol!

I don't see where the Silent no More testimonies are B.S. How so? What do you mean by laughable? Maybe the girl telling her story is only 14, and she's not familiar with medical terminology. Maybe some things are "blocked out." They don't get paid for this, ya know. What would a bunch of liars have to gain by grouping together and lying?

So, every woman is supposed to love her abortion? You are expecting them to be stoic, Laura. Some women cannot handle it. Besides, there IS a possibility that some women don't have a single regret. I would say that these women fit the description of a sociopath. Actually, I do know of one such woman who aborted 7 years ago. She will say things like "I'm so glad that "thing" [man who got her pregnant] is out of my life forever." I will not be returning her calls this New Year. She may not regret her abortion, but she also refuses to accept responsibility for her actions in becoming pregnant,

Heather,

A good point. I'm sure I would sound just as "laughable" trying to use legal terminology. Would we consider the account of a rape victim "laughable" because she doesn't speak well, is uneducated, or is unfamiliar with police and legal terminology? Its entirely possible some of these women were very young and uneducated, that doesn't make them "laughable" or their accounts any less tragic.

Mary, you and I both:]

Besides, I have watched read many of the stories myself. They all seemed believable to me.

AAK, should say watched and read* I need more coffee.

Doug, haven't you figured it out yet?..sigh* another Hal.

Just so Hal doesn't miss it (there are a lot of posts to sift through):

Hal, I directed a question to you at 7:54 PM....I'm not sure if you missed it or not.
Posted by: Bethany at January 3, 2008 7:19 AM

Bethany, we don't talk about this blog. She doesn't know how much time I spend here (it varies too, yesterday was more, today will be hardly any).

We don't grieve the abortions. We have other issues, some good and some challenging, that take our time and attention.

We don't believe abortions are the "murder of our children." We have two children we love and enjoy.

Do you think women on the Pill grieve over the fact that a clump of cells/child fails to implant now and then?

No, they're happy the fertilized egg didn't implant. That's why they're on the pill.

Uh, folks...

A hydrocephalic fetus can carry as much as TWO GALLONS of fluid in its head.
That thing isn't coming out through a lateral "bikini" incision.

Terminology?

Here is one of my favorite BAD abortion testimonials from the "Silent No More" site.
This one is so awful it's funny. (I like the part where the nurse shows up at her bed, spreads her legs, AND SUCKS OUT THE BABY WHILE SHE FIGHTS!)
It's PURE BS.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cries of My Heart

By Roxanne Richard

I was in my early 20's when I went to the ER as I couldn't keep anything down. I told them I may be pregnant, and I was on the Pill. Before I knew it, I was admitted for observation, given x-rays, and had my stomach pumped for hours. Come morning, I was met with an angry doctor, who sat down, flipped open my chart, and pointed to the red inked circled around "positive" for pregnancy. My doctor strongly suggested that I have an abortion because of what they had done to me the night before. I CHOSE ABORTION.

I drove for three hours, registered at the clinic in Iowa City, and sat by a wild-eyed redhead who tried to reassure me by saying the procedure was simple and quick. It was her sixth abortion. Lying on the bed, the nurse spread my legs, and before I knew it there was an awful sucking noise. I realized the sound was coming out of me, so I started fighting for them to stop. They calmed me down saying "it was nothing,” and they “would be done shortly." The next thing I knew I was 10 miles from there, puking my guts out on the side of the road, and moaning how wrong it all was. I slept on the way home and awoke to a cold beer and drugs before my pool league started.

I'm here to share how my choice to have an ABORTION affected my life each and every day for over 25 years. I suffered three miscarriages before I finally had my son Jesse, who is now 20 years old. I couldn't put my finger on it, but there was ALWAYS something missing in my life. I was a control freak, a drug addict, and an angry, bitter female, who couldn't look at herself in the mirror. Plagued with constant, self-destructive thoughts, I forgot how it felt to hold my head high. I told myself I was selfish, condemned, and unlovable to anyone, ESPECIALLY myself. My idea of a relationship was a one night stand or being with the guy who had the most drugs at the time. I went to different doctors for different prescriptions month after month, year after year. I was always in a hurry, chasing what I couldn't understand or define.

I praise GOD for using Silent No More Awareness and Rachel’s Vineyard Abortion Recovery Retreats to touch me and heal places I never knew were broken.

My babies have a name; I will never be the same.

Life is not a game, not even for a minute.

Jesus is my lifeline, and I'll NEVER forget it.

When was the last time a baby with two gallons of fluid in his head was delivered c-section or otherwise? They can now put shunts in their heads to drain the water into their stomachs.
I was a special education teacher. Worked with many children born with this condition. Loved em every one.

Hal, I knew you would be honest with me about that, and that is why I asked. Thank you for letting me know that you do not spend time discussing this blog. However, I do have to ask you why that is. Why do you spend a good deal of time on this blog, but never discuss it with your wife? Do you two normally have good communication? In other areas, do you communicate well? What does she do while you're blogging, just curious?

Do you think women on the Pill grieve over the fact that a clump of cells/child fails to implant now and then?

No, of course not, Hal. But people who have miscarriage grieve their loss, just as you freely admitted that you and your wife very much grieved the loss of your unborn child when you had a miscarriage.

If you can understand one grieving over a miscarriage, as you have grieved over your loss, then why can you not understand grieving an abortion?

Wait a minute...you said "fail to implant", not "fails to conceive", and I read it wrong.

Yes, women do grieve miscarriages which happen before the baby has implanted. This is called a "chemical pregnancy" and generally happens about the time the next period is due. Many women do not actually KNOW they are experiencing a miscarriage, so you're right, many do not grieve these types of miscarriages. But that is not because they did not lose a tiny person, it's because they didn't know. Just as if your child dies in another place and you are not aware of it you wouldn't grieve, as long as you didn't know it happened.

My second miscarriage was due to a chemical pregnancy, and yes, I grieved that loss. I had known I was pregnant for 2 weeks (my hcg levels were extremely high by the 2 week mark, and the doctor said it was possible I was carrying twins).

I find it interesting that anecdotes about friends who regret their abortions and friends who have delivered via c-section with no scarring are 100% acceptable, and yet Hal's admissions about his own life and his own relationship are treated as though all those commenting on this site know them better than he does. Is it really so hard to believe that someone has a different experience with abortion? Think whatever you want about a person who does not regret an abortion, but surely you can't be arrogant enough to believe that everyone either agrees with you or is a liar? That there is legitimately no experience but the one you think is right?

It is just as invalidating to tell a woman that she's repressing her guilt, that someday she will suddenly regret her abortion, as it is to tell a woman that she only regrets it because the big bad pro-life movement brainwashed her into doing so. I'd wager a bet that Hal knows his wife -- and himself -- a whole heck of a lot better than anyone else on this site.

I don't doubt grieving miscarriages, and have done so. (I also said it was difficult but, for me, no where near as hard as losing a child would be). But, I see no reason to grieve an abortion (unless you were truly forced to do it) any more than one would grieve the fact that you don't get pregnant every month when you're on the pill. Even if there was "conception," the "baby" is not wanted and I don't think too many woman are unhappy that the pill causes the "baby" to fail to implant, and that they are no longer pregnant (If you guys have correctly educated me on the Pill's effects)

So, in the same way, I don't think too many women grieve that they were no longer pregnant after an abortion. (I will admit some do. I met one on line yesterday who seems sincerely to regret her choice to have an abortion. I will note, however, although she wishes she made a different choice, she does not wish the choice was taken away by law.)

I'll be offline the rest of the day. Best wishes to all.

It is just as invalidating to tell a woman that she's repressing her guilt, that someday she will suddenly regret her abortion, as it is to tell a woman that she only regrets it because the big bad pro-life movement brainwashed her into doing so. I'd wager a bet that Hal knows his wife -- and himself -- a whole heck of a lot better than anyone else on this site.

Alexandria, yes, there are people who do not regret abortion. We do acknowledge that. However, it is not accurate to say that most women feel relief, which is what the Pro-"choice" community will try to get across to people.

I am simply asking Hal to explain himself. He told me several months ago that he and his wife grieved very much over the loss of one of their unborn children, due to miscarriage. He said it was VERY sad for them.

Compare that to the nonchalant response to the abortion, ("we haven't given it another thought") the abortion which Hal has admitted did NOT happen because the child was unwanted, but because his wife's health was in jeopardy. If this is true, why would he not feel saddened that it "had to come to that", just as he felt saddened that his miscarriage happened.

What Hal claims is contradictory, and I would simply like to hear an honest response to the question at hand.

I don't doubt grieving miscarriages, and have done so. (I also said it was difficult but, for me, no where near as hard as losing a child would be). But, I see no reason to grieve an abortion (unless you were truly forced to do it) any more than one would grieve the fact that you don't get pregnant every month when you're on the pill. Even if there was "conception," the "baby" is not wanted and I don't think too many woman are unhappy that the pill causes the "baby" to fail to implant, and that they are no longer pregnant (If you guys have correctly educated me on the Pill's effects)
So, in the same way, I don't think too many women grieve that they were no longer pregnant after an abortion. (I will admit some do. I met one on line yesterday who seems sincerely to regret her choice to have an abortion. I will note, however, although she wishes she made a different choice, she does not wish the choice was taken away by law.)
I'll be offline the rest of the day. Best wishes to all.

Okay, I hope you have a good day, Hal. When you get back though, I would like you to explain to me why we are talking about women who are on the pill, and not the answer to the question, which was, why did you feel pain after the miscarriage and not after the abortion?
Even if the grief was not as severe as losing a born child, why did you grieve the miscarriage at all? And then, why not the abortion, since you claimed it was not something that you did because the child was unwanted?

Laura 10:48am

Will you specify what in this testimonial you find so hilarious?

Bethany, just to clear up two things. You either misunderstood me, or I wasn't clear before

1. My wife's health was part of the reason to have an abortion, but the pregnancy would not have jeopardized her heath or life. I don't like getting too personal here, especially with my wife's personal life, but it was more of a recognition that we had a lot to deal with and another baby at that time would have been overwhelming. (It's more complicated than even that, but I don't want to pour my life story out here)

2. We were sad about the miscarriage. It was difficult few weeks. For us, it was not VERY sad or like losing a child. I don't dispute that for others it is more disturbing. To be completely honest, there was also some relief, as many of the same issues were in play at that time as well and although we had not decided to have an abortion, another baby at that time would have been a challenge.

Mary, she has posted that testimony laughingly about 5 times now, and as many times as I've read it, I still can't figure out what she thinks is wrong with it. Hopefully she'll take the time to answer you.

2. We were sad about the miscarriage. It was difficult few weeks. For us, it was not VERY sad or like losing a child. I don't dispute that for others it is more disturbing. To be completely honest, there was also some relief, as many of the same issues were in play at that time as well and although we had not decided to have an abortion, another baby at that time would have been a challenge.

Hal, why was the miscarriage difficult at all? If it is simply a "clump of cells" that you lost...what in the world would be difficult about that? Why wasn't it the same emotionally as if your wife was simply having a period again?

Hal,

I'm curious, if another baby was out of the question, did you or your wife ever consider sterilization? Could both of you have been sterilized, as I have known some couples to do, just to be doubly safe? That would have put the issue of any more babies to rest once and for all.

Laura,
Maybe you find the written word hilarious but you could also check out the tv show Faces of Abortion. Pick an episode.
www.operationoutcry.org

I fail to see the hilarity in your post Laura. How do you know that it is pure BS? Where you there? Haven't you ever heard of people having bad experiences with medical professionals?

Laura,
Maybe you find the written word hilarious but you could also check out the tv show Faces of Abortion. Pick an episode.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OK, how about the one where the hostess on that show tells her young daughter about how "Grandma and Grandpa MADE me have an abortion," and asks the young daughter if she's angry at Grandma and Grandpa for FORCING her mother to have an abortion.
It's rare to see that kind of manipulative dysfunction on TV.

Laura,

Its rare to see that kind of manipulative dysfunction on TV? Don't you ever watch Dr.Phil?

The testimonial?

Oh yeah...
They gave her X-Rays after she said she was pregnant? They pumped her stomach for HOURS? The nurse came to her bed and sucked out her baby as she fought? Her abortion caused her life to spiral downward even though she was already a drug addict/alcoholic at the time?

Go to the site. There are at least half-a-dozen that are every bit as bad as that one.

COME ON! I've never had an abortion, and I could write a much better drama-queen epic than that loser did. (Heck, I probably should. I'll put emus or dogcatchers or something in it so you all know it's my work...)

Laura,

Its rare to see that kind of manipulative dysfunction on TV? Don't you ever watch Dr.Phil?

Posted by: Mary at January 3, 2008 12:00 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No, but I will.
Our Christmas gathering was strangely uneventful. I haven't had my annual dose of family DRAMA!

Laura,

Its possible they did all this testing etc. and then determined she was pregnant. It doesn't say she was pregnant and then they tested her. Being she was on the pill they may have assumed she wasn't. Something similar happened to my sister, who was x-rayed, tested, etc. because she assumed she wasn't pregnant and no one questioned it. While hospitals tend to be more stringent now about pregnancy testing, they were not at the time this account seems to have been written.
Her stomach pumped for hours. Yes, they may have had an NG tube in her which we use for prolonged emptying of the stomach. Technically stomach pumping.
It sounds like she began fighting once the abortion was well in progress or about over. By that time it was too late and a nurse may very well have tried to keep her from jumping off the table at this time for this very reason.
Also her drug problems seemed to have occured after the abortion. She says nothing of this being a problem prior to the abortion. She says she awoke to a cold beer, which hardly makes her an alcoholic, and drugs, which may have been prescribed pain medication.

About Dr. Phil, personally, the man grates on me and I don't watch it. People whining about their problems on national TV isn't my idea of entertainment.

Bethany:
Alexandria, yes, there are people who do not regret abortion. We do acknowledge that. However, it is not accurate to say that most women feel relief, which is what the Pro-"choice" community will try to get across to people.

But that was not what I was talking about. Yes, we can speak in generalities about what 'communities' and 'organizations' do, but I was referring to individuals on this site, whose behavior is controlled directly by the individuals on this site. I was talking about the effort to convince Hal that his wife had merely repressed her emotions and that both he and she regretted the abortion but just didn't know it yet. People telling Hal that the reason he and his wife don't talk about it is because they can't bear to dig up the pain. Etc. It seems awfully presumptuous, and a striking example of precisely that which pro-lifers despise when pro-choicers tear apart the stories of women who regret their abortions. I'm sure women know how they feel about their abortions, just as I'm sure Hal knows how he feels about his wife's abortion.

Is it really so hard to believe that someone has a different experience with abortion? Think whatever you want about a person who does not regret an abortion, but surely you can't be arrogant enough to believe that everyone either agrees with you or is a liar? That there is legitimately no experience but the one you think is right?

It is just as invalidating to tell a woman that she's repressing her guilt, that someday she will suddenly regret her abortion, as it is to tell a woman that she only regrets it because the big bad pro-life movement brainwashed her into doing so. I'd wager a bet that Hal knows his wife -- and himself -- a whole heck of a lot better than anyone else on this site.

Posted by: Alexandra at January 3, 2008 11:08 AM

There were plenty of slaveholders and Nazis who never regretted what they did to others. The should regret it however. I would wager they know better than you how they felt about their involvement.

So, Alexandra, what is your point? We all know people can feel fine even when they hurt others. That doesn't make hurting others okay just because they people who hurt others feel they had the right to do it.

Alexandria, Hal has avoided telling us how his wife feels about the abortion for a very long time now...he only tells us how *he* feels. I think it's entirely possible that he feels no emotion about the babies who are gone now. Men do feel differently about these things...not all men, but many. I have asked him though, on several occasions, how his wife feels about the abortions, and either he misses my posts (which I do not believe is possible because I always post the question when he's around), or he is avoiding the question, because he doesn't want to lie, and he doesn't want to tell the truth about it. So he lies by omission, in my opinion. (I see Hal as a pretty honest individual for the most part, so I think that this is the only way he knows to not outright lie about it, but yet still be able to avoid telling whole truth). Once when I asked how his wife felt about the abortions, that he said he didn't want to talk about it, because it was "personal". So that was another thing that made me think the whole truth is not being presented.

As for Hal, and how HE feels, it's entirely possible he feels nothing. But his wife is another story. I have yet to hear of her opinion, even from his perspective (especially since they supposedly never speak of it- how would he possibly know her feelings on it if they don't communicate?), or him even invite her to the blog to defend her position on abortion or anything...so it's very difficult for me to picture her as being as adamantly in support of abortion as Hal.

There were plenty of slaveholders and Nazis who never regretted what they did to others. The should regret it however. I would wager they know better than you how they felt about their involvement.
So, Alexandra, what is your point? We all know people can feel fine even when they hurt others. That doesn't make hurting others okay just because they people who hurt others feel they had the right to do it.

(that was supposed to be a clapping smiley, Hippie. I liked that post very much.)

It seems to me that the fact that Hal is even here sticking his toes in the waters with us while he attempts to justify his position alludes to some deep seated non-resolution. If he really felt nothing, he wouldn’t be here wasting his time….he has better things to do. (Just like the one escort down at my local PP who is friendly and jovial with us….she honestly believes in what she’s doing so she isn’t threatened by smiling and giving me a hearty “Hello!” on her way in.) He’ll spar, but starts going all vague whenever anyone gets too close with a direct question. And I have noticed a lot of language in his posting that alludes to the possibility that these babies would have just “been too much trouble”… I think he knows darn well what the score is….and he’s here trying to make his case…

to himself, not to us.

I never told my girls to be pro-choice. they reached that position on their own. I think they know what it means.

Posted by: Hal at January 2, 2008 6:45 PM

Likewise, I never told my son to lie, he figured it out on his own. I think he knows what lying means. Just think what other stuff kids figure out on their own. Not exactly what builds a great society.

Responsiblity and concern for others has to be taught.

Bad behavior comes naturally.

yay, Hippie!!!!

Responsiblity and concern for others has to be taught.

Bad behavior comes naturally.

Posted by: hippie at January 3, 2008 3:21 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No, maybe Hal's girls are bright, tender, and comapassionate, and your son is just a born sociopath.
That could happen.
Apple and the tree, yanno?

Laura,

I have to agree that we don't always determine how our children turn out. Apple and the tree? Not necessarily. I'm convinced children are born pre-wired, and while we may have some influence, I've seen too many great kids come from horrible homes and too many terrible kids come from great homes.
No dearer soul than my great-aunt ever walked this earth. Her son and my mother were cousins who grew up together and my mother described him as "just born rotten". She said he even tried to sexually assault her when they were just children!
She often said she could never comprehend how someone like her aunt ever gave birth to something like that. Frankly, I can't either.

Want to know how people are wired from birth??

Put one toy in a crib with two toddlers....

In the National Geographic video "In the Womb/Multiples" it showed quadruplets in the womb.

One was also beatin' on his brother, and the brother would curl up in the fetal position...

Interesting...

HM and MK,

I know for instance my daughter has no capacity to empathize or love. No amount of love or nuturing on my part would have ever changed that, the capacity is simply not there.
My mother knew her cousin was sociopathic in childhood, I always thought he was just plain nuts.
I remember an old time OB nurse who could accurately predict that babies would turn out very troubled just by observing certain behavior in the newborn nursery. She gave a nurse the not so happy report that her twins would grow up to be very troubled and sadly was proven correct.

Bethany, I thought I answered you a long time ago. sorry. She feels fine about, and has other things to worry about. We don't talk about it, but the pro-life/pro-choice thing comes up in conversations, and politics, and she remains strongly pro-choice.

Hal,

Could you kindly address my 11:33am post. Thank you.

hi Mary, done and done. we're both "fixed" now.

Hal,

My question was why not before the two unplanned pregnancies if you were so certain anymore children were out of the question.

Hal, you make me sad

yllas: Which means, either you or Laura isn't conforming to reality concerning "matters of abortion"(nonsensical phrase learned from Doug)

No, yllas, it just means you haven't yet learned at all.

You have your likes and your dislikes, but in no way do they necessarily apply to other people, and that is where you fail to be truthful and cognizant of reality.
......

Laura says her poop smells like roses!

Despite your silliiness, even if she actually says that, my money's on her, not you.

Doug

Doug,

Concerning yllas' comment about Laura.

Is nothing sacred?

"MK, down deep, a society is a group of people with things in common. One of those things in common is the expectation of and desire for "the same rules." Societies don't always do so hot, there, but the desire and expectation is there nonetheless."

But where does this "common desire" originate from?

Human nature. Despite being all over the world and separated by many things - geography, culture, etc., there is vast commonality of desire among us. And it's just a fact that people have desires, regardless of the extent that an individual agrees with them.
......

Are you saying that there are chemical reactions that are caused by pleasurable experiences? Or are you saying there is an objective good and an objective evil?

Well, MK, yes, and I think you know that those chemical reactions occur - endorphins, etc. - but no, no "objective" good/evil, just a lot of similarity among people's subjective takes on them. Most countries have laws that are very similar concerning many topics, for example, reflective of similar opinion and similar likes and dislikes.
......

The original question was, after all, "or do you believe that good and evil are relative.

I hear you, and yeah - relative to what is wanted.

Doug

"I certainly believe in it - it certainly is there on many levels, inndividual, group, the human race as a whole, etc., and yes, it's relative to what is wanted. Good is what is wanted. Evil, bad, etc., are what are not wanted. Not wanted because they are seen as injurious, harmful, mean, spiteful, not in line with ideals of good behavior, etc."

MK: Because, see I'm confused. You say it is relative but then you say "ideals"...this contradicts itself.

Relative is as it relates to you and is subjective, while collective ideals are more objective and based on something outside of oneself.

Lots of people have similar ideals. You could say, "it's objective fact that they have those ideals," but the ideals themselves are not "objective," nor absolute, external, etc.

I don't know what the issue is where the most commonality among the world's people exists, but let's take murder for an example.

The illegal killing of a person, (and here I obviously mean the born), without due process or just cause, is exceedingly widely considered to be wrong and unwanted, and "evil." Person by person, that is just the way we are, as a race.

Doug

"I feel like they should wait in line, same as everybody else. I do not like it when they cut in."

MK: But they like it when they DO cut in line. Why do your feelings win out. And don't tell me that it's society.

MK, as a practical matter, they don't always win out. As I said before, though, despite your objections to bringing up society, a society is really just a bunch of people with common desires. If there was not enough commonality of desire as far as waiting in line, it wouldn't be viewed as it is. Unwritten rules and written laws will not exist without sufficient opinion for them.

And, granted that there are people who want to cut in line. Well, they are going against the rules of society, there, and while that's not the largest of deals, at the end of the day if an individual goes far enough against what society wants, they will be put out of society, killed, imprisoned, or otherwise put out of society.
......

What if there were only three people in the store. You, the clerk, and the guy that cuts in line. The clerk has no opinion because he gets paid either way. You were in line first. The other guy steps in front of you. How do you feel? Why?
Should he get behind you? Why? Why should he suffer and you should not?

Improbable hypothetical, to say the least. The clerk almost surely is for the "wait in line," deal.

Push comes to shove, is the clerk going to serve him or not, if I don't do anything? If I really make it an issue, are the cops going to be called? Maybe I don't want a confrontation, so I let him go, and then I go outside and flatten his tires. MK - society really does not function as per your hypothetical. Society functions against such things.
......

"Good is what is wanted."

Why? I mean I can understand why the avoidance of pain, discomfort, etc. is wanted. But why do you call this "good"? Why not call it "lack of suffering" or "lack of displeasure". Why call it "good"?

Because from an early age we learn to associate the word with emotions. Even aside from that, "lack of suffering" versus suffering is simply going to be preferable to people - I cannot imagine you disagree with that. "Lack of displeasure" versus displeasure will just be seen as relatively "good."

Doug

MK,
You've missed your calling.

Ever considered law school?

MK: One more question. Jesus hung on a cross for us (whether you believe He was nuts for doing so is beside the point). He voluntarily welcomed suffering (by your definition, something unwanted and therefore bad). This resulted in what many of us call "Good". How do you reconcile somebody voluntarily accepting something that to you defines "bad" in order to produce a greater "good".

That's an incorrect premise, MK. If he wants to do it enough to endure pain, etc, then that's what he wants. Aside from arguing about Jesus or the story, I don't say that's "bad." There are no absolutes here - he's making a choice. I don't say it's "bad" when somebody cleans a toilet, though of course few if any purely "want" to do that. If we go with the story, then evidently Jesus wanted to do that versus not doing it.
......

If good is avoiding pain, displeasure and suffering, how do you explain this?

Again, you're pretending that it's all in a vacuum, by itself, etc., and it's almost never that way. There are usually trade-offs, choices, etc. It's almost always relative, picking among things which all may be "good," i.e. it's a matter of degree, or trying to find the thing that one has the least distaste for, i.e. "the lesser of (some) evils."
......

Why would a woman that doesn't want to keep her child, "suffer" through pregnancy and childbirth, only to give the child up for adoption?

Because she more wants to continue the pregnancy than to end it. If that wasn't true, she'd end it.
......

If suffering is "bad" then why do people sometimes "CHOOSE" to endure it?

Because while they don't want to suffer, per se, they certainly sometimes are faced with what they'd consider "choosing between two evils," and they'll pick the option that involved the least suffering, overall, in their estimation.

Doug

mk--once again your logic and articulation (aimed at Doug) amaze me!

He'll weasel his way out of this somehow...

Hogwash.

MK: He seems to have fallen back into the bad habit of "quoting" the law to express his own feelings.

Nope.
......

I asked him what he would "DO" if abortion after 24 weeks became commonplace. His response? I wouldn't like it.

And that is true - after viability I am not for abortions solely because the woman does not want to be pregnant. Part of that is because they it's not an either/or decision - at that point the pregnancy can be ended and the unborn life can continue, i.e. delivery.
......

I asked what he would DO about it, not how he'd feel. I love the guy, but he is so passively aggressive that I want to choke him!

MK, that's silly. I've already said if it was up to me that I'd restrict abortions after 24 weeks.

If there were more women who wanted to have abortions after that time, it would not change how I feel.

Doug

Doug, haven't you figured it out yet?..sigh* another Hal.

Heather, Hal and I both have the perspective to see all that goes on, and not to pretend about things.

I think we both treat you pretty well, all in all.

Doug

Concerning yllas' comment about Laura. Is nothing sacred?

:: laughing and laughing ::

Mary, I love you.

Doug

So, Alexandra, what is your point? We all know people can feel fine even when they hurt others. That doesn't make hurting others okay just because they people who hurt others feel they had the right to do it.

Of course, hippie (and Bethany by agreement), this is correct -- some people can do bad things and feel no remorse, especially if they believe they're right. I was not disputing that fact, but merely disputing the collective assumption that Hal's wife must, deep down, regret her abortion.

MK, that's silly. I've already said if it was up to me that I'd restrict abortions after 24 weeks.

She didn't say "if it was up to you", Doug. We're not talking about you having to be "in control" or "in power".... As a common citizen, what would you do, what actions would you take to help, if it (24 week abortions and later) became "commonplace"? You do have the power to do some things.
Take Jill, for instance..a nurse, who upon realizing what was happening to babies (being taken early and left to die), and took action and was behind the born alive infants protection act.
What would you do, as a US Citizen? Would you make ANY efforts to stop the commonplace 24 week and after abortions, or would you simply sit back and say, "Well, I can't do anything about it, so que sera sera."?
If you would take action, what would those actions be? I mean, please, be more specific.

"MK, that's silly. I've already said if it was up to me that I'd restrict abortions after 24 weeks."

Bethany: She didn't say "if it was up to you", Doug. We're not talking about you having to be "in control" or "in power"

Okay, Bethany, and if it's my mistake here, then I'm sorry for that. So many times, it's supposedly "not about the law" or "not about society," though, i.e. it is about what I would do if it was up to me.
......

As a common citizen, what would you do, what actions would you take to help, if it (24 week abortions and later) became "commonplace"? You do have the power to do some things.

All right, fair question, and I really don't know. It is so far removed from current reality that I just don't know. If I had the background that I do now, I'd wonder what in the heck was going on.
......

Take Jill, for instance..a nurse, who upon realizing what was happening to babies (being taken early and left to die), and took action and was behind the born alive infants protection act.
What would you do, as a US Citizen? Would you make ANY efforts to stop the commonplace 24 week and after abortions, or would you simply sit back and say, "Well, I can't do anything about it, so que sera sera."? If you would take action, what would those actions be? I mean, please, be more specific.

Again, I really don't know. If we say "past viability," that is one thing, same as "24 weeks+" but it's still just past the "equal" point IMO, where things are 50./50 for me. Not much more important than letting women be free to choose, IMO, there.

I do see it as a continuum of development in gestation, and it would matter to me whether it's 24.5 weeks, for example, or it it's 30 or 35 weeks.

Woman have an inalienable right to say no and keep their legs crossed. Not the right to kill human life up to some arbitrary 16 week, 24 week, 24.5 week or 40 week period of time. That is NOT family planning. Abortion is the selfish murder of children by out of control sex addicted people.

Comfort your baby.
Sing her a song.
Love her, feel her in your soul.
One day soon you'll have her in your arms.

Doug,
As a common citizen, what would you do, what actions would you take to help, if it (24 week abortions and later) became "commonplace"? You do have the power to do some things.
*
All right, fair question, and I really don't know. It is so far removed from current reality that I just don't know. If I had the background that I do now, I'd wonder what in the heck was going on.
......

This is what I meant by passive/aggressive. You'd "Feel" like it was a wrong thing, but you wouldn't "Do" anything about it. Words are easy. Action is a little more difficult. We feel the same way about all abortions as you would about commonplace post-viability abortions. And we "DO" something about it.

Doug,

The illegal killing of a person, (and here I obviously mean the born), without due process or just cause, is exceedingly widely considered to be wrong and unwanted, and "evil." Person by person, that is just the way we are, as a race.

Wasn't it you that said "If they were brought up in a different society, it might be different."?

But forget that for a moment...
You still have not given me an answer to my original question.

Where does this common ideal of right and wrong, acceptable or unacceptable, come from?

Where does this sense of fairness come from?

Where did it originate?

Why do most societies treat similar things (Theft, murder, adultery) as wrong?

Doug,

MK: One more question. Jesus hung on a cross for us (whether you believe He was nuts for doing so is beside the point). He voluntarily welcomed suffering (by your definition, something unwanted and therefore bad). This resulted in what many of us call "Good". How do you reconcile somebody voluntarily accepting something that to you defines "bad" in order to produce a greater "good".
*
That's an incorrect premise, MK. If he wants to do it enough to endure pain, etc, then that's what he wants. Aside from arguing about Jesus or the story, I don't say that's "bad." There are no absolutes here - he's making a choice. I don't say it's "bad" when somebody cleans a toilet, though of course few if any purely "want" to do that. If we go with the story, then evidently Jesus wanted to do that versus not doing it.

You are missing my point.

People "CHOOSE" to do things that are unpleasant solely for the sake of a "good" for others.

Why?

In the Catholic Church we are taught and often use the saying "Offer it up"...

This idea of sacrifice, of willingly suffering for a cause or benefit outside of ourselves.

Doing something simply BECAUSE it is good and right.

Now here is where this is leading...

People do things because they are "GOOD" and for no other reason. Simply because it is the "right" thing to do, even if it means suffering or sacrifice on their part. Even when they won't get ANYTHING in return other than the knowledge that they did the "Right" thing. This is what I call "GOOD".

People do "GOOD" for the sake of doing "GOOD".

However, people rarely or never do "BAD" simply for the sake of doing "BAD".

If a person steals, it's because he wants something "good". He wants what he can't rightfully have. So he steals. But even in stealing, he is trying to obtain a "good". He has perverted "good" and now we have "bad".

He wants to be in line first, so he cuts in front of you. He chooses a "bad" to obtain a "good".

But where in our world, do people do a "bad" to obtain a "bad"?

They don't. My point is that there is objective good, and when it gets perverted it becomes "bad".

But without the "good" to pervert there wouldn't be any bad.

There is objective "GOOD" and objective "BAD", but "GOOD" came first.

In the beginning there was "GOOD" and only "GOOD".
"BAD" came as a perverted way to get more "GOOD".

I think this is why you have such a hard time defining bad and good. Cuz it's actually all good. What some of us perceive as bad is actually "Good" gone wrong.

So if "GOOD" exists on it's own, and "Bad" only exists when compared to "GOOD", where did this "GOOD" come from?

Carder,

MK,
You've missed your calling.
*
Ever considered law school?

LOL.

I could never be a lawyer as the law has very little to do with right and wrong.

Is there such a thing as a "Moral Lawyer"?

This is what I meant by passive/aggressive. You'd "Feel" like it was a wrong thing, but you wouldn't "Do" anything about it. Words are easy. Action is a little more difficult. We feel the same way about all abortions as you would about commonplace post-viability abortions. And we "DO" something about it.

Marykay, this is why I love you. You say just what I'm thinking.

All right, fair question, and I really don't know. It is so far removed from current reality that I just don't know. If I had the background that I do now, I'd wonder what in the heck was going on.

Okay, well Marykay has already said what I would have said, but I want to ask you another one. If abortion was made illegal again, as a common citizen of the United States, what actions, if any, would you take to make it legal again? Or would you do anything at all? Just curious.

Again, I really don't know. If we say "past viability," that is one thing, same as "24 weeks+" but it's still just past the "equal" point IMO, where things are 50./50 for me. Not much more important than letting women be free to choose, IMO, there.

*daydreaming*

Is there such a thing as a "Moral Lawyer"?

I think that might be an oxymoron!

Woman have an inalienable right to say no and keep their legs crossed. Not the right to kill human life up to some arbitrary 16 week, 24 week, 24.5 week or 40 week period of time.

Truthseeker, great post!

No, maybe Hal's girls are bright, tender, and comapassionate, and your son is just a born sociopath.
That could happen.
Apple and the tree, yanno?

Posted by: Laura at January 3, 2008 3:54 PM-------------------- So, is your mom a psycho too?

So, Hal spends hours on a PL blog, yet his wife hasn't a clue? I always tell my s/o, "I'm going to Jill's site." He supports it.

Bethany,

LOL...don't you think dumping Doug in the trash is a bit harsh...or are you just dumping his "arguments" in the trash?

Me too, Heather. My hubby is 100 percent aware of my being on Jill's blog all the time. I find it very strange that Hal's wife doesn't have any idea about the pro-life blog. I mean, doesn't she walk by the computer sometimes and say, hey, what are you doing there, sweetie? Does she not ever have any curiosity as to what he's doing on the computer all those hours? I have a feeling that either they're living totally different lives and don't communicate at all, or he's being very secretive about his presence on this pro-life blog (and probably others)... and that in itself makes me wonder as to whether he is telling the whole truth about his own feelings regarding his abortions.

Who would spend time every day, alone, defending a choice that he was perfectly happy with, never telling his spouse about this, unless there was something going on. It just doesn't add up.

I do have a feeling that communication is a very big problem for Hal and his wife. And I don't say that to be mean, but I hope that one day he will make a point to ask her about her feelings on her abortion. She's not going to offer it up if he never asks. And asks in genuine concern, not with an attitude of, I am trying to get you to say what I want you to say.

I think I challenged him one time to do this, to sit down with his wife and actually ask her what her feelings were, without implying that he wanted a certain answer. Hal said he would do it, but he never got around to it. It couldn't hurt...I mean, just say, hey, I know this may seem like a strange question, sweetheart, but have you ever thought about the abortions since they happened, or have you ever felt sad about them or wished we had made a different decision? If she really didn't, it shouldn't be such a hard thing to do. She'd just say, oh no of course not, Hal, you know me. I'm thankful and happy that we had those abortions.

If he would ask her this question, without making any implications as to what HE wants the answer to be, I am sure that she might open up to him and tell him her whole heart. But if they never talk about it, how can he possibly TRULY know her heart?

Bethany, I thought I answered you a long time ago. sorry. She feels fine about, and has other things to worry about. We don't talk about it, but the pro-life/pro-choice thing comes up in conversations, and politics, and she remains strongly pro-choice.

Of course she's still pro-choice, Hal.
She would feel like a hypocrite to have had 2 abortions but then tell other women they can't have one. That's a no brainer.

But that doesn't answer the question of how she feels about the abortions, now, does it. You assume just because she is pro-choice that she has no pain, and no regret over her abortions?

I have a sickening feeling that she is very, very emotionally hurt by those abortions and that Hal, you are not there for her. I think that she resists telling you how she feels about the abortions because she knows that you will not understand her pain and heartache. After all, you support choice. You think it's silly to feel pain after abortion. You think a unborn child is a blob of cells.

If she said she was grieving over the abortion, what would be your response? Would it be a genuine, Oh I'm so sorry honey, I had no idea...or would it be a "You must be mistaken. You can't really feel pain over those abortions. We made the choice together because it was what we wanted." kind of atttitude?

I think that this (the abortions) is precisely the reason why you two do not communicate well enough to even know what each other is doing on the computer for hours. Abortion has made it very difficult for you two to talk to each other and share your innermost feelings. If you shared your feelings on other things, surely the topic of this blog would have come up at least once!

I am very sorry though, Hal, if this post comes off as offensive, but I truly do feel that she is not being treated fairly. I feel that your wife is hurting, or at least COULD be hurting, but you'll never know, cause you'll never really ask her.

I think you're a nice guy, but I think you're projecting your feelings onto your wife, instead of actually wanting to genuinely know her own thoughts and feelings. And that is what bothers me.

I also think she could have had the abortions to please you.

LOL MK,

It was all in jest... I couldn't help myself. Those smilies seemed all too appropriate at the time I read that remark. :-P

Bethany, right. I can't believe that she has no knowledge of Hal visiting Jill's site. Hal, I made a choice 3 years ago to buy a car. I am happy about that choice, but I don't have to keep talking about it. It was done 3 years ago. I haven't had a single regret. Why would I keep talking about it? Is your wife bed ridden? Is she glued to the T.V. set? Where is she? Don't you 2 communicate?....There is something very fishy about your story. Hal, I don't think that your wife is okay at all.

I don't think you are either. I think you're in complete denial.

Hal, you explained that you will raise your 2 girls to be PC. Well, I want my kids to be PL. That's why intend to tell them and show them what abortion is about. Why aren't you sitting down with the girls, and explaining abortion to them? Why isn't your wife doing it? Maybe they would be able to watch an abortion video. They just might turn away from what you want them to be.

Bethany, she's not okay. Sorry. But it has nothing to do with abortion, can you give it a rest? Not everything is about abortion.

Bravo, mk.

Ok, maybe not law school.

Philosphy school, perhaps?

Hal...I am so very sorry to hear your wife is not okay. I don't want to hurt you, and I am asking this with all tenderness...does your wife have a mental illness of some kind? Has she always been not okay? I just wonder if it is an emotional thing, a mental thing, or a physical thing that you are speaking of when you say "she's not okay".

And you're right, everything is not about abortion. But of course, at the same time, some things are.

Please remember you are virtually anonymous here. The only thing I know about you- your personal info- is that your first name is probably Hal. Please open up to us a little, Hal. I think I speak for everyone here when I say we care about you.

I agree with Bethany. If you're hurtin' Hal, for whatever reason, most of us here would tread lightly.

I promised awhile ago to pray for your wife, and I have kept that promise. I will continue.

Peace.

I may be virtually anonymous, but it's important for me to stay that way. I know you guys are decent people and mean well, but my wife is well known in our community and if I say too much and it ever became public, I would feel terrible.

So, Let me just say this. She has two serious medical conditions, one of which has both physical and cognitive symptoms.

MK: Bethany, LOL...don't you think dumping Doug in the trash is a bit harsh...or are you just dumping his "arguments" in the trash?

Heh - she's not the first who may have wanted to do that. Sometimes there are no "bumper-sticker" answers, if one is honest.

Doug

If abortion was made illegal again, as a common citizen of the United States, what actions, if any, would you take to make it legal again? Or would you do anything at all? Just curious.

Bethany, I'd vote (same as now) and contribute to Pro-Choice causes.

Doug

MK: As a common citizen, what would you do, what actions would you take to help, if it (24 week abortions and later) became "commonplace"? You do have the power to do some things.

"All right, fair question, and I really don't know. It is so far removed from current reality that I just don't know. If I had the background that I do now, I'd wonder what in the heck was going on."

This is what I meant by passive/aggressive. You'd "Feel" like it was a wrong thing, but you wouldn't "Do" anything about it. Words are easy. Action is a little more difficult. We feel the same way about all abortions as you would about commonplace post-viability abortions. And we "DO" something about it.

No, MK, you're wrong where you say, We feel the same way about all abortions as you would about commonplace post-viability abortions. You're entirely (or pretty much) just opposed to abortion in the here-and-now. That is a far cry from asking somebody a hypothetical question.

First of all, I don't think you are "for" abortions even in cases of such severe fetal deficiency that it's only a small percentage of people, such as yourself, who would disagree with abortion, there. I'm okay with abortions in such circumstances, regardless of 24 weeks or not, should the woman or couple think it is the best thing to do.

It's not being "passive/agressive," it's simply being honest for me to say I don't know what I'd do. It's such a farfetched hypothetical that I need to know what would be the cause of such a vast increase in such late-term abortions. What if a new disease/syndrome became commonplace where women were commonly dying late in pregnancy unless the pregnancies were ended? I think such a thing would matter, even to you. Hypotheticals.....

Doug

Hal, I am also sorry. We really are here for you, and I am guilty of saying some harsh things to you. I just want you to see, but I can't make you understand. Hal, I don't hate you, I just like to debate with you. I don't think you hurt. I KNOW you hurt, so let's talk.

I am very sorry to hear that your family is dealing with those issues Hal.

"The illegal killing of a person, (and here I obviously mean the born), without due process or just cause, is exceedingly widely considered to be wrong and unwanted, and "evil." Person by person, that is just the way we are, as a race."

MK: Wasn't it you that said "If they were brought up in a different society, it might be different."?

Yes, but you'd have to have a society where such killing was said to be okay, and none exist. That is a thing so prevalent in humanity that it's pretty much universal. With other things - feelings on religion, abortion, etc., it is not that way.
......

But forget that for a moment... You still have not given me an answer to my original question. Where does this common ideal of right and wrong, acceptable or unacceptable, come from?

I have indeed answered this. People want things. People have desires. I don't think that's arguable. That which is wanted is seen as good, right, acceptable, etc. That which is not: bad, wrong, uncool, etc. You more want the unborn lives to continue, thus you say that abortion is wrong. I more want women to have the freedom they do, so I say that it is right that we have legal abortion.
......

Where does this sense of fairness come from? Where did it originate?

It comes from common desires among people in a society. We want to be around people similar to us rather than people differing from us in that respect. We want to "play by the same rules" to a large extent." If a society's rules are sufficiently against what we want, we will want to leave. Or, if an individual's behavior is far enough outside the rules, then we will want to put them out of society, i.e. imprison them, kill them, deport them, etc.
......

Why do most societies treat similar things (Theft, murder, adultery) as wrong?

Adultery isn't the same as the other two, but there still is enough societal conditioning in many countries that there's sufficient opinion to make it illegal or frowned-upon, etc.

Murder - we want to live, thus we legislate right-to-life. Theft - we want "our stuff."

MK: You are missing my point. People "CHOOSE" to do things that are unpleasant solely for the sake of a "good" for others. Why?

Nope, MK, it's all the same thing. If people want that "good" more than they want to avoid the "unpleasantness" then they will do it. It just comes down to what they want the most, be it changing diapers, going to war, etc.
......

In the Catholic Church we are taught and often use the saying "Offer it up"... This idea of sacrifice, of willingly suffering for a cause or benefit outside of ourselves. Doing something simply BECAUSE it is good and right.

Same deal - that which is wanted the most.
......

Now here is where this is leading... People do things because they are "GOOD" and for no other reason. Simply because it is the "right" thing to do, even if it means suffering or sacrifice on their part. Even when they won't get ANYTHING in return other than the knowledge that they did the "Right" thing. This is what I call "GOOD". People do "GOOD" for the sake of doing "GOOD". However, people rarely or never do "BAD" simply for the sake of doing "BAD".

Still people doing what they want the most.
......

If a person steals, it's because he wants something "good". He wants what he can't rightfully have. So he steals. But even in stealing, he is trying to obtain a "good". He has perverted "good" and now we have "bad". He wants to be in line first, so he cuts in front of you. He chooses a "bad" to obtain a "good".

Still all the same. A person may want a thing more than he wants to avoid the risk of breaking a law. A person may more want to cut in line than he wants to avoid the displeasure of others, etc.
......

But where in our world, do people do a "bad" to obtain a "bad"? They don't. My point is that there is objective good, and when it gets perverted it becomes "bad".

It's just the obvious fact that people don't want what they don't want. If a thing is seen as "bad" enough, it will not be chosen. If our choice is free, then we pick that which we want the most, or that for which we have the least distaste, from among our available choices.
......

But without the "good" to pervert there wouldn't be any bad. There is objective "GOOD" and objective "BAD", but "GOOD" came first. In the beginning there was "GOOD" and only "GOOD". "BAD" came as a perverted way to get more "GOOD".

No, there is nothing "external" nor "objective" about it. Imaginary things do appeal to some people but it still all goes to desire.
.......

I think this is why you have such a hard time defining bad and good. Cuz it's actually all good. What some of us perceive as bad is actually "Good" gone wrong.

False premise - I don't have a hard time defining them at all. I just don't need to pretend about supernatural stuff.
.......

So if "GOOD" exists on it's own, and "Bad" only exists when compared to "GOOD", where did this "GOOD" come from?

There's nothing magical going on. If our choice is free, then we pick that which we want the most, or that for which we have the least distaste, from among our available choices.

Doug

Doug, your mind has deconstructed the innocent life of a baby in the womb, in the same matter and valuation as a person in prison for taking innocent life. You be for killing Doug, I be for livin.
It's that simple reality that you avoid Doug, that sets you off in a quest to devalue human life as a pirate on the ship of abortion. A typical pessimistic pirate.
And that is why the bouquet of Laura appeals to you as a fun loving, sulfide filled, bottled with a metal cap, wine.
Some wine valuator you are Doug. Not knowing that Laura is poison, hiding as wine, might make me question your ability to know much about wine, much less valuating innocent human life.
So Doug, which part of the wine of Laura is a nasty poison, and the other half is viable and fun loving?
Discerning minds want a decision, Doug.
Drink up Doug, and let that nasty wine of Laura settle on your taste buds. But, a wise wine connoisseur knows when to spit out nasty wine, and ask who made this poison. To bad Laura is from your vineyard, matey.

More nonsensical words of Doug.
"If our choice is free".
I expect a "not" and "then" statement to follow soon! I see the "if" statement Doug. Hurry up and use the "not" and "then" statement.
You do know Doug, that a choice is not a decision, which means nothing has been decided. If nothing has been decided, then nothing has been created. And when nothing is not decided, then nothing but a choice is being thought.
Translation; you may think. No kidding Doug!!

Doug,

I have indeed answered this. People want things. People have desires. I don't think that's arguable. That which is wanted is seen as good, right, acceptable, etc. That which is not: bad, wrong, uncool, etc. You more want the unborn lives to continue, thus you say that abortion is wrong. I more want women to have the freedom they do, so I say that it is right that we have legal abortion.

Forget abortion for a moment...let's go back to cutting in line.

You said that the clerk would probably mind and I'm not sure he'd care one way or the other as long as he got paid...

But the guy cutting in line "desires" to be first. So does this mean that, by your reasoning, cutting in line is good? After all, you said that good is getting what you desire, and bad is not getting what you desire. Therefore you would be bad for stopping him from getting in front of you and he would be good for getting what he desires...

Doug,

It comes from common desires among people in a society.

This tells me what it is, but does not tell me where it originates.

I am asking you, where this "sense" of fair play and honor comes from? I don't really expect you to answer as it doesn't fit into your box.

Going back to abortion...Bethany has broached this a couple of times, but now I am asking in the context of "doing good"...

If everyone agrees that killing a baby that has been born because, say, it has blue eyes and we don't "desire" blue eyed babies, is that wrong? Or does it become good because a majority "desires" it.

Is it not just desire, but majority desire, that makes something good?

Is it not possible that the majority could be for something that is not good, and it does not become good simply because the majority desires it? Is it possible for one man to stand alone and be standing for "good" even tho the majority desires something else?

As to your claim that killing viable infants is hypothetical, you are wrong. It happens every day.

George Tiller and that guy in Denver have done their share. You say that it is not right. But you do nothing about it.

Also, why is it not right? Tiller desires money. A woman desires that her child die. Tiller kills her baby, and gets what he desires. The woman gets what she desires. It's all good. The only people complaining are us crazy pro lifers and we don't stand to gain anything either way.

So if all the pertinent parties are getting what they want, ie: a dead viable baby, then isn't this, according to you, good?

Hal,12:19PM

My heart goes out to you. If you are in fact dealing with mental health issues I can relate only too well. Its devastating.

Doug,

Earlier I gave you the example of a pregnant woman choosing not to abort but rather give her child up for adoption. 9 months of morning sickness, heartburn, weightgain, sleeplessness, backache, not mention labor, only to give her child to someone she will never see.

You're response? She wanted to give the child up more than she wanted to abort...well, duh?

The point is that she is doing something "outside of herself", doing something solely for the purpose of doing the right thing.

What reason, other than altruism, could she possibly have for going through with the pregnancy. What desire do you think she is fulfilling?

Do you think it is ever possible to be unselfish?

Doug,

Let me try it this way...

Why is it that some people "Desire" to do the "right" or "Good" thing even when it is not the easiest, or most pleasurable for them. Where does this desire come from?

mk--your intellectual energy is inexhaustible!!

Must be from popping all those g’miballs. Remind me never to take you on!!

Hooves,

I ain't that bright...it's taken me almost 7 months to figure out that everything Doug does is based on his "desires", that he doesn't understand or believe in unselfish motives, that he doesn't believe in an objective "good" and that he is actually shallow and proud of it.

Doug,
That wasn't a cut to you, just the way I see things. You are an astute thinker, but not a deep one. Your value system is so simplistic that it's austere. No wonder you never played that game about walking down the road last spring...it would have required far too much introspection.

I ain't that bright...it's taken me almost 7 months to figure out that everything Doug does is based on his "desires", that he doesn't understand or believe in unselfish motives, that he doesn't believe in an objective "good" and that he is actually shallow and proud of it.
You’re too modest….I’m no dim-bulb, but I can’t even follow most of what he tries to say….you not only follow it, you refute it very eloquently.
I second the motion—you would make a great lawyer!

Hooves,

Okay, okay I give...I'll send you a whole case of gumeyeballs!!!!! And you're my new best friend.

a quest to devalue human life

yllas, wrong again. The pregnant woman makes the valuation, not me.

And not you.

Okay, okay I give...I'll send you a whole case of gumeyeballs!!!!! And you're my new best friend.

A whole case? For me?!

Awwwww...you shouldn't have!! :)

MK: You said that the clerk would probably mind and I'm not sure he'd care one way or the other as long as he got paid...

He's getting paid regardless, MK. I would bet that most clerks do not want people cutting in line, because they themselves approve of that "rule" in society, and also because they don't want trouble in their store.
......

But the guy cutting in line "desires" to be first. So does this mean that, by your reasoning, cutting in line is good?

It's good enough, at least at that time, in the opinion of the guy, obviously, or else he would not do it.

That is opposed to what I think is good and what society thinks is good, there.

I don't know whether you think that parents spanking kids is "good" or "okay at times" or "bad," but people can and will have different opinions about many, many things. There's a lot more agreement that cutting in line is bad than there is on the spanking issue, for example.
.......

After all, you said that good is getting what you desire, and bad is not getting what you desire. Therefore you would be bad for stopping him from getting in front of you and he would be good for getting what he desires...

No, you are not only incorrectly paraphrasing what I'ved said, you are also neglecting the fact of accepted "rules" whether written or not. Accepted rules - the "accepted" part is very important.

In society, when something is accepted as much as the no-cutting-in-line deal, then those who go against it are going against society's position. Society, me, and I assume you too, would say that the cutter's action is bad. We do not want it. That's the way it is for us, regardless of what he thinks at the time.

Doug

OMG Doug...can you even get your brain around a yes or no answer??

"It comes from common desires among people in a society. "

MK: This tells me what it is, but does not tell me where it originates.

MK, for the manyeth time, people just have desires. That is a premise, here. I don't think you actually dispute that, do you?

The "origination" of those desires really does not matter. They are there, whether it's because of religious belief or not, because of what the parents said or not, teachers said or not, peers and friends said or not, etc.
......

I am asking you, where this "sense" of fair play and honor comes from? I don't really expect you to answer as it doesn't fit into your box.

Baloney. It's all the same thing. There is a commonality of desire among the world's people on these matters. Societies have rules, based on what the members of society want. If there is enough sentiment for a rule, it will be there. If not, then not.
......

Going back to abortion...Bethany has broached this a couple of times, but now I am asking in the context of "doing good"...

If everyone agrees that killing a baby that has been born because, say, it has blue eyes and we don't "desire" blue eyed babies, is that wrong? Or does it become good because a majority "desires" it.

If "everyone" agrees on it, then no, it is not "wrong" in the opinion of everyone. If the majority desires it, then it is "good" in the eyes of the majority.
......

Is it not just desire, but majority desire, that makes something good?

Depends on what group, aside from the majority, that you're talking about. Another group, or individual, might think it was good or bad - depends on them.
......

Is it not possible that the majority could be for something that is not good, and it does not become good simply because the majority desires it? Is it possible for one man to stand alone and be standing for "good" even tho the majority desires something else?

Again, what "good" are you pointing to? It depends who you are talking about. Maybe they agree with the majority, and maybe not. It is possible for one person to be standing for a thing that another individual thinks is "good" (or "bad" for that matter) in opposition to what a society might think on it, sure, or it's possible for he alone to feel a certain way, perhaps.

Doug

Doug,

Well, that brings me back to the question, if it was only you and the other guy in the store, and the clerk doesn't care, which one of you is right?

And to the question, where does this idea of what is right and fair come from?

It's okay to say you don't know. But honestly, to keep saying it comes from society is dishonest. We are talking about society and it's rules and I am asking why we all have similar desires when it comes to stuff like cutting in line, murder, theft and adultery. WHY? WHY? WHY? WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?????

The guy in the rainforest, the ancient Egyptians, the Druids, the pygmies, the Emperor of Rome...thousands of years and vastly different cultures. More things different than are the same, and yet in every culture I would venture to say that the guy who cuts in line gets the other pissed off....so where does it come from?

You're right, some people spank and some don't...some people prefer Colgate and some prefer Crest...but almost ALL people prefer to be UNmurdered or UNrobbed or UNcut-in-front-of. These are universal truths. (is that too close to absolute or objective truths for comfort?)...so where do universal truths come from?

OMG Doug...can you even get your brain around a yes or no answer?

Of course, Hooves. If you cannot, then feel free to question me on anything specific.

Doug,

Again, what "good" are you pointing to?

We like to use Hitler here, so let's go with it.
He had a majority of people buying into his psychosis. A majority of people saying it's fine, no it's good, to kill the un"DESIRABLES". We, the majority, do not desire that these people should exist. So we kill them.

One guy stands and says "BUT THIS IS WRONG!"
According to your reasoning, the lone guy is wrong, and Hitler is right because the majority of Germany desired what he desired.

So, was the extermination of 6 million Jews "good"? It fits your criteria.

I did on the other thread....you still haven't directly answered whether or not YOU believe it’s ok for PP or any abortion provider to lie to women about the risks and realities of the procedure and protect rapists and committers of incest.

In other words, forget the baby/fetus. I’m calling you to the carpet on how the WOMEN are treated. Let’s see if I can be direct enough here:

#1) IN YOUR OPINION IS IT OK FOR AN ABORTION PROVIDER TO LIE TO A WOMAN ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF HER FETUS AND THE RISKS SHE IS ASSUMING?

#2) IS IT OK FOR AND ABORTION PROVIDER TO DELIBERATLY IGNORE LAWS REQUIREING THEM TO REPORT STATUTORY RAPISTS AND CHILD MOLESTORS?

There. YES or NO

If you cannot, then feel free to question me on anything specific.

If I cannot WHAT?

And while we're using Hitler, let me once again point out that the "desire" (imo) to have a healthier, heartier, smarter race is in fact a good thing.

But Hitler perverted good and it became bad.
My premise is that everything that God created was good. But that that good got twisted and became bad. Everything in the world that is bad, is actually a good that got twisted. Why? To fulfill a DESIRE! Beware those desires Doug. They will be your downfall.

Doug,

MK, for the manyeth time, people just have desires. That is a premise, here. I don't think you actually dispute that, do you?

You are beginning to see the light.
Yes.
I dispute that.

I do not believe that everything we do is based on desire. I believe that people can do things that they do not desire to do for purely altruistic reasons. I believe, in fact, that they can do the exact opposite of what they desire, if they believe that a greater good can come of it. Because I, unlike you, DO believe in objective good and objective evil.

So no Doug, that is NOT the premise here. It is YOUR premise, not mine.

And now I am so incredibly tired that I cannot think straight. However, I will read your answers in the A.M. when I am more clear headed.

I can't believe I have gotten myself into this again...mercy, I say, Mercy.

(Speaking of Mercy...no, that will have to wait til another day...)

So if out of sheer frustration we all desire Doug to vaporize into a nebulous gas tapestry that is doomed to float in space over Lake Michigan for all eternity…

is that bad…or good?

(just curious…)

C’mon Doug.

Two questions.

Two words to choose from.

No waiting.

Hooves,

What do you mean by all? Is he sentient? In the womb or out? Define eternity...Is this our desire or were we coerced? Lot of variables there.

Thought you were going to bed!

As to your claim that killing viable infants is hypothetical, you are wrong. It happens every day.

Oh for Pete's sake, MK. Abortions past 24 weeks becoming "commonplace" is vastly different than some very few cases occurring, given the number of people involved.

We're talking about 3 or so such abortions per day in the US, most of them for reasons that most people wouldn't argue about.

Much, much different from thousands of abortions a day. Oy Vey. If there were many hundreds or thousands per day at 24 weeks or later, then I would want to know why - it really could make a difference to me, just as it could to you.
......

George Tiller and that guy in Denver have done their share. You say that it is not right. But you do nothing about it.

I do think that in a very few cases I would say that it was wrong to do the abortion. It is a small enough number that no, I am not unduly worried about it. If you expect "perfection" in such a system, you will always be disappointed. I do wish that elective abortions around viability would have been done earlier, or better yet - that the pregnancies had been prevented.

I see the good of allowing women their freedom as we do as vastly outweighing the bad in some few abortions being done later that where I feel it's okay.
......

Also, why is it not right? Tiller desires money. A woman desires that her child die. Tiller kills her baby, and gets what he desires. The woman gets what she desires. It's all good. The only people complaining are us crazy pro lifers and we don't stand to gain anything either way.

Tiller's desires, or yours, for that matter, may not be in line with society's or mine. I really don't know whether Tiller has done anything wrong by how I would view it. It's possible, I grant you.

Let's say we stop Tiller and the other guy you or Bethany mentioned from practicing at all. Are you going to quit worrying about abortion? Of course not - they are not a big deal in the big picture.
....

So if all the pertinent parties are getting what they want, ie: a dead viable baby, then isn't this, according to you, good?

If you recall what I have said, you already know the answer.

If there are fetal deficiencies that are severe enough, and if the woman or couple wants to end the pregnancy, then I think that's okay.

I go with what the woman wants, to viability. After that, if the abortion is just because she doesn't want to be pregnant, then I do not think it's okay.

Doug

What do you mean by all? Is he sentient? In the womb or out? Define eternity...Is this our desire or were we coerced? Lot of variables there.

I know your trying to sound like Doug...but honestly...

You're scaring me!

Lots of practice....

So if out of sheer frustration we all desire Doug to vaporize into a nebulous gas tapestry that is doomed to float in space over Lake Michigan for all eternity…

is that bad…or good?

(just curious…)

Hooves, no problem, and the answer should be obvious to you.

In the opinion of "you all," it would be good.

You know, I like Lake Michigan...

*tapping fingers*

Oh Dougie….I’m waiiiiiiiting....

You wouldn’t be stalling, now would you??

I knew it...Doug is allergic to YES and allergic to NO...or maybe he's just phobic.

Would that be “affirmaphobia”?

Doug,

(I must sleeeeeep...)

Much, much different from thousands of abortions a day. Oy Vey. If there were many hundreds or thousands per day at 24 weeks or later, then I would want to know why - it really could make a difference to me, just as it could to you.

Tell me, if these were six year olds that we were talking about, would you say, "Well it's only 3 or 4 six year olds a day, and given the numbers of 6 year olds, thats not enough to get worked up about?"

Either a viable unborn child should not be killed or it should. Basing the atrocity of murder on the amount of persons being killed is insane.

And you say it would make a difference to you? How? What does that even mean?

Doug,

We're talking about 3 or so such abortions per day in the US, most of them for reasons that most people wouldn't argue about.

The man has been charged with umpteen felonies precisely because they HAVE been done for reasons that most (sane) people would argue with...

Doug: YES or NO...two questions...not that difficult. Cough it up.

mk: GO TO BED!!!!!!!!!!

mk....MK....MMMMMMKKKKKKKK!

okay.

G'night.

Dream of g'miballs!

Come on Doug...don't make me start thinking you're a chicken.

Let’s try this again Doug:

*repeat*

I did on the other thread....you still haven't directly answered whether or not YOU believe it’s ok for PP or any abortion provider to lie to women about the risks and realities of the procedure and protect rapists and committers of incest.

In other words, forget the baby/fetus. I’m calling you to the carpet on how the WOMEN are treated. Let’s see if I can be direct enough here:

#1) IN YOUR OPINION IS IT OK FOR AN ABORTION PROVIDER TO LIE TO A WOMAN ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF HER FETUS AND THE RISKS SHE IS ASSUMING?

#2) IN YOUR OPINION IS IT OK FOR AN ABORTION PROVIDER TO DELIBERATLY IGNORE LAWS REQUIREING THEM TO REPORT STATUTORY RAPISTS AND CHILD MOLESTORS?

There. YES or NO

If you cannot, then feel free to question me on anything specific.

If I cannot WHAT?

MK: Earlier I gave you the example of a pregnant woman choosing not to abort but rather give her child up for adoption. 9 months of morning sickness, heartburn, weightgain, sleeplessness, backache, not mention labor, only to give her child to someone she will never see.

Your response? She wanted to give the child up more than she wanted to abort...well, duh?

No disrespect, MK, but sometimes you neglect what is obviously true, i.e. the "duh." That applies more widely than you factor in. It is not a matter of anything magical, supernatural, imaginary, etc. This covers it all - if we have free choice, we pick what we want the most, or that for which we have the least distaste, among our available options. This covers the religious, the non-religious, all people, etc.
......

The point is that she is doing something "outside of herself", doing something solely for the purpose of doing the right thing.

No, there you are acting like what she is doing is externally "right," and that's not the case. It's still what she wants to do the most. If she didn't want to do it, she wouldn't. The desire to continue the pregnancy/the desire to not end it is "in her."
......

What reason, other than altruism, could she possibly have for going through with the pregnancy. What desire do you think she is fulfilling?

Many women do NOT want to have abortions, even if they don't want to care for kids, don't think they can, etc., and/or they want to help satisfy other people who want to adopt. Geez, I have no problem with that, nor does any Pro-Choicer (in that respect).
......

Do you think it is ever possible to be unselfish?

Heh - yes and no. (That one is for Hooves.) As far as the connotation of the word, i.e. being generous, altruistic, and/or disregarding one's own advantages and welfare over those of others, then of course - yes.

Yet a deeper examination shows that we still act as per my premise - we do what we want to do the most, or we choose that which we have the least distaste for.

Mother Theresa basically got up each day and did what she wanted to do, whether we think of it as a great sacrifice or not. People clean toilets, not because they simply and purely love doing it, but because they'd rather do that than lose their job, let the toilets remain dirty, etc.

I want to live, but were I beside my wife, crossing a street, and suddenly we're in front of a rapidly oncoming vehicle, I would push or pull her out of the way, even if it meant I would be hit. I think about that kind of thing a few times a month, telling myself to be ready should it ever happen. "Be ready, Doug, act fast and sure." I don't want to die, per se, nor even take such a risk, by itself. But as far as putting myself in danger to help ensure my wife's safety, that is what I want the most.

Same for my nieces and nephews. And, farfetched as it may seem, MK, were you and I together on that street, you'd get pushed out of the way too.

Doug

Ummmm, Doug? YES or NO??

You said you could do it...were you lying?

Kids, I'm still asnwering MKs posts from this afternoon. I'll get to all the later ones.

Hooves, I promise your satisfaction. Well, the best I can do, anyway.

MK: Why is it that some people "Desire" to do the "right" or "Good" thing even when it is not the easiest, or most pleasurable for them. Where does this desire come from?

It comes from the fact that they would rather do it than avoid whatever non-easy stuff and unpleasurable things come of it.

I did an hour on the elliptical exercise machine today, where you move your arms back and forth as well as cycle your legs. I didn't "want" to do it, on a "pure," basis - hell, I didn't even want to put this computer down and get my butt off this couch, but I put up with the displeasure and "pain" (and the last 20 minutes were really getting into pain) because I more wanted the benefits of the exercise.

MK, you know I'm willing to argue and argue, but in the matter of abortion, you more want the unborn lives to continue, and I more want women to keep the freedom they now have. Isn't that really pretty simple and true?

Doug

Hooves, I promise your satisfaction. Well, the best I can do, anyway.

Yeah right Doug. Yes or No doesn't require all evening….I used to be single and I remember what getting blown off feels like.

You loose this round all together. Forget it now, because you’ve already proven you’re a liar by claiming to be able to answer yes or no and then proceeding to prove the exact opposite…which means I’ve already made my point.

G’night all…

MK: I ain't that bright...it's taken me almost 7 months to figure out that everything Doug does is based on his "desires", that he doesn't understand or believe in unselfish motives, that he doesn't believe in an objective "good" and that he is actually shallow and proud of it.

MK, I think you do fine, but it's true for all of us that what we do is based on our desires, unless we are physically compelled otherwise. "Unselfish" - that's been well dealt with in a previous post. Seeing that there are not imaginary things like "objective good" is not "shallow." It's just not having the emotional need to embrace such stuff. It's focusing on what is true for all of us, rather than what some of us wish to believe.
......

Doug, That wasn't a cut to you, just the way I see things. You are an astute thinker, but not a deep one. Your value system is so simplistic that it's austere. No wonder you never played that game about walking down the road last spring...it would have required far too much introspection.

It didn't sting too bad, MK. I do care about what you, Bethany, Hooves, etc, in fact - what almost everybody thinks.

As far as deep thinking, I feel that "my way" has the greater scope, accounting for everybody, including those with beliefs such as you. "My value system" - there I think you're confusing that with the analysis of how things really work.

The game of walking down the road - I first came to Jill's site in August, I think. What is it? I'd LOVE to give it a go.

Don't know whether it's like this or not, but it reminds me of an "ethical dilemma" question. (Copied from the internet:)

"You are standing by a railroad track when you notice that a trolley, with no one aboard, is heading for a group of five people. They will all be killed if it continues on its current track. The only thing you can do to prevent these five deaths is to throw a switch that will divert the trolley on to a side track, where it will kill only one person. When asked what you should do in these circumstances, most people say you should divert the trolley on to the side track, thus saving a net four lives."

Even if they would have said, "it is not right to kill a person," per se, this example comes down to their desire to save the five over saving the one.

A good illustration, IMO.

Doug

MK: Well, that brings me back to the question, if it was only you and the other guy in the store, and the clerk doesn't care, which one of you is right? And to the question, where does this idea of what is right and fair come from? It's okay to say you don't know. But honestly, to keep saying it comes from society is dishonest. We are talking about society and it's rules and I am asking why we all have similar desires when it comes to stuff like cutting in line, murder, theft and adultery. WHY? WHY? WHY? WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?????

Well, I do know. Aside from "the rules" and aside from society, etc., I don't want to wait any longer than I have to, and I don't want to wait for the other guy, unless he would have a good enough explanation. So, bottom line, people don't like to wait. There's your similar desires.
......

The guy in the rainforest, the ancient Egyptians, the Druids, the pygmies, the Emperor of Rome...thousands of years and vastly different cultures. More things different than are the same, and yet in every culture I would venture to say that the guy who cuts in line gets the other pissed off....so where does it come from?

The others don't like to wait. That's where it comes from. Desire.
......

You're right, some people spank and some don't...some people prefer Colgate and some prefer Crest...but almost ALL people prefer to be UNmurdered or UNrobbed or UNcut-in-front-of. These are universal truths. (is that too close to absolute or objective truths for comfort?)...so where do universal truths come from?

"Universal" truths come from everybody or almost everybody having the same desire in the matter.

Doug

"OMG Doug...can you even get your brain around a yes or no answer?"

"Of course, Hooves. If you cannot, then feel free to question me on anything specific."

If I cannot WHAT?

Uh, that would be "get your brain around a yes or now answer."

"Again, what "good" are you pointing to?"

MK: We like to use Hitler here, so let's go with it.

Okay. :: laughing :: I won't even bother invoking Godwin's Law.
......

He had a majority of people buying into his psychosis. A majority of people saying it's fine, no it's good, to kill the un"DESIRABLES". We, the majority, do not desire that these people should exist. So we kill them.

Let me say - I don't think it was really a "majority" of Germans who thought Hitler was right. Hitler had enough power to enforce his opinions, though, yes. If nothing else, I'd say it was people fearing to "fight City Hall" - that kind of deal, with the very real threat of death for one and/or one's family in this case.
......

One guy stands and says "BUT THIS IS WRONG!" According to your reasoning, the lone guy is wrong, and Hitler is right because the majority of Germany desired what he desired.

No, the lone guy is not wrong "according to my reasoning."

The lone guy is wrong in the opinion of Hitler, and those who agree with him. I say that Hitler was wrong.
......

So, was the extermination of 6 million Jews "good"? It fits your criteria.

No, it does not. I've never said that Hitler or any Hitler-life actions are "good" per se or in any external or "objective" way.

You continually forget to say what group's opinion we are talking about. Of course what happened to the Jews was not "good" in my opinion, nor the opinion of most people and most groups of people.

There are those who would kill Jews to this day, and it's the same deal -neither I nor most people nor most groups think it's right to kill Jews.

Doug

Hooves: I did on the other thread....you still haven't directly answered whether or not YOU believe it’s ok for PP or any abortion provider to lie to women about the risks and realities of the procedure and protect rapists and committers of incest.

Well, evidently I haven't yet gotten to that other thread. No, I don't think it's right to protect rapists or incestors (forgive what's likely a made-up word). As far as lying to women, I don't want it to happen whether it's from pro-choicers, pro-lifers, PP, etc.
......

In other words, forget the baby/fetus. I’m calling you to the carpet on how the WOMEN are treated. Let’s see if I can be direct enough here:

#1) IN YOUR OPINION IS IT OK FOR AN ABORTION PROVIDER TO LIE TO A WOMAN ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF HER FETUS AND THE RISKS SHE IS ASSUMING?

No.
......

#2) IS IT OK FOR AND ABORTION PROVIDER TO DELIBERATLY IGNORE LAWS REQUIREING THEM TO REPORT STATUTORY RAPISTS AND CHILD MOLESTORS?

There. YES or NO

No.

"Hooves, I promise your satisfaction. Well, the best I can do, anyway."

Yeah right Doug. Yes or No doesn't require all evening….I used to be single and I remember what getting blown off feels like.

Oh come on - I go by a "first come, first served" procedure, in the main. In no way am I blowing you off.
......

You loose this round all together. Forget it now, because you’ve already proven you’re a liar by claiming to be able to answer yes or no and then proceeding to prove the exact opposite…which means I’ve already made my point.

Heh heh - not at all. You have your answers. Impatience is not necessary a virtue, Missy.

That said, I like your spirit, and hope you keep on at Jill's blog.
......

G’night all…

Good Night, Wild Woman.

Doug

One question. YES or NO.

Are you still having sex with your dog?

YES or NO?

(Gee, maybe there are questions that can't be answered with a simple yes or no...)

Of course you devalue life of humans, Doug.
If killing a baby in the womb, is not devaluing human life, then your denying that a baby in the womb is a human with value, and to deny value to a human is not a human good, unless promoting the decision of killing of a baby human is nothing to ya Doug, but a decision devoid of the value of good or bad, right or wrong, for ya Doug.
But, that is the value model which you allow and preach for Doug, lowering the value of innocent human life in the mother, through deconstructing the value of the object to be killed.
You accomplish the devaluation of babies in the womb, through appeals to pessimism. Such as being a preacher that the world is over- populated!!! What a crock of arrogance, or a appeal of Doug, desiring to be a ally of those who always created famines from being incalable governments/kingdoms/states/ nations to feed their own fellow kinsman.
The world has always been overpopulated, according to any person who has the power to kill by right of law. Ya know, Doug, Romans, Spartans, Athenians, to the present day chimperators, such as Stalin, Lenin, Mao.
By being a ally of those who promote death of innocent human life, your reward Doug, is being a snother human who allows mother's to kill the gift of life.
What a honor, Doug.
And remember Doug, I be for a livin', you be for a killin'. It's that simple.

Doug,

What reason, other than altruism, could she possibly have for going through with the pregnancy. What desire do you think she is fulfilling?
*
Many women do NOT want to have abortions, even if they don't want to care for kids, don't think they can, etc., and/or they want to help satisfy other people who want to adopt. Geez, I have no problem with that, nor does any Pro-Choicer (in that respect).
......

You accuse me of understating the obvious, but, you kind sir, can't seem to move beyond it.

Obviously, if she chooses to continue the pregnancy, it's because she has decided to continue the pregnancy.

My question is, what desire is fulfilled? Helping another couple? Please! That might be incidental, but surely not the main motive! Why not just abort? Why does one woman terminate her pregnancy, while another suffers through it while gaining nothing, in fact, losing something?

Doug,(like a dog with a bone),

Yet a deeper examination shows that we still act as per my premise - we do what we want to do the most, or we choose that which we have the least distaste for.

Let's pretend that I agree with your whole "desire" thing for 30 seconds...

Why do some people desire to go the extra mile for unselfish motives? Why do some people do as little as possible? What makes some people "desire" unselfishness and others "desire" selfishness?

Why are you content being one of the latter?

Doug,

"Universal" truths come from everybody or almost everybody having the same desire in the matter.

That would be the definition of Universal Truths, but it still does not tell me where the original desire comes from.

You don't seem to be able to answer this one, and I wish you'd just say "I don't know".

As the the Hitler thing...
It does fit your criteria. The majority of people for whatever reasons (you know, they desired for their families to stay alive?) backed Hitler. So for that time period, in that place, killing jews was looked upon favorably (for whatever reason, even if it only meant the "desire" not to be killed oneself). Why doesn't this fit your criteria. It fits mine as an external/objective evil. But it also fits yours. The majority of a society has agreed (even if only because their "Desire" is to not get shot in the head) to do things Hitlers way. Just like the law says that abortion is right and the majority consensus is that this is so. But some of us are standing up and saying "No, this is wrong"...you are like the guys following Hitler and saying "there are more of us and the "law (of Hitler)" is on our side. So why was Hitler wrong, but you are not?

Your criteria is that society makes rules. If society says something collectively, then that is "a Good"...Are you now saying that the WHOLE WORLD has to agree?

Why is the lone man right, when he is going against the entire society?

Same with slavery. At one point most of society in the entire world thought that owning slaves was okay. Did that make it right?

I don't understand how you can claim that abortion is right because society desires it, but Hitler was wrong, and slavery was wrong even tho society desired it?

As for saving your wife from a moving train (bus, etc.), why? Why would you give your life? You'd be dead and get no benefit from it. Your wife would live. But according to your belief system, you'd be nowhere. How could you have desires if you're dead?

WHY, notice, yet again, I am asking, not what, not how, not where, but WHY would you give up your life to save someone elses? What desire is being fulfilled? The desire can't be fulfilled if the desirer ain't around anymore?

Laura, are you having sex with your dog? I'd believe that.

@Doug.

mus take he time today and read these post, seems like both Hooves and MK joined yllas in giving you a hard time ... good! (From Hooves posting about the storm there hours ago, I'm really pleased she's here at all!)

Fot he adult, the focus of 'desire' changes. When younger, my ethic could be summed up as:"I'm for #!" which implies my desired all the only ones thzat matter to me. The shift comes about because this sentiment is the same when you realize you are no longer #1 ... but a loved one is ... usually a spouse; or, my family; or for religious folks - God (personal belief).

This mindset is fabulous as long as you and the 'loved one' are copasetic. What if, your wife wanted/desired you to kill your Dad for inheritance purposes? Would you intervene? Would an injustice be in the making?

This aggrieved situation is very similar to PL. Not only do we oppose your desire, but it is of a kind that DEMANDS our intervention. We MUST ...

"OMG Doug...can you even get your brain around a yes or no answer?"
"Of course, Hooves. If you cannot, then feel free to question me on anything specific."
If I cannot WHAT?
Uh, that would be "get your brain around a yes or now answer."
Posted by: Doug at January 4, 2008 11:01 PM
______________________________________________________________

With all DUE respect Doug…your question doesn’t even make any sense there….If I couldn’t get MY brain around Yes or No then why would I even be RAISING THE ISSUE with you??!! Geez would you TRY to make a modicum of sense?

Oh come on - I go by a "first come, first served" procedure, in the main. In no way am I blowing you off.
......
“You loose this round all together. Forget it now, because you’ve already proven you’re a liar by claiming to be able to answer yes or no and then proceeding to prove the exact opposite…which means I’ve already made my point.”
Heh heh - not at all. You have your answers. Impatience is not necessary a virtue, Missy
Posted by: Doug at January 4, 2008 11:19 PM

Again, with all DUE respect Doug….when you look at the chronology of the posts it is self-evident you were skipping my question….repeatedly. So don’t get pissy with me when I call you on your BS..-K?

BTW…Patience is nothing more than the art of hiding your impatience.

OH yes, and thank you for the two NO’s….you may now go smear yourself in Caladryl and wait for your hives to subside. Appreciate your sacrifice.

One question. YES or NO.
Are you still having sex with your dog?
YES or NO?
(Gee, maybe there are questions that can't be answered with a simple yes or no...)
Posted by: Laura at January 5, 2008 3:25 AM

Once again Laura illuminates us with her total lack of class. Bringing your work home with you Laura?

Can't you answer a simple yes or no question?

Just answer yes or no!
Is it THAT difficult?

Just in case anybody missed it on the Aguilera thread:

Ok…I’m going to try Doug’s philosophy for question answering.

Me usually:

Question: If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, what is it?

Answer: A duck

Me on Doug’s therapy program:

Question: If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, what is it?

Answer: Oh come on, that’s so obvious. You know the answer to that. If it looks like a duck then whoever is perceiving the object clearly desires to perceive it as a duck…this is their choice to perceive it that way based on the angle of the light refracting off their retinas, the ambient level of daylight coupled with the apparent existence of feathering, webbed feet and a bill (in the observers mind, of course…) so with that said their desire for perception of a duck results in the commission of a decision to choose to call it whatever they choose to call it based on a collective societal labeling process which is protected by law and the majority rules and right now it is legal to declare that something you perceive to be a duck is in your opinion a duck.

See? I answered your question.

Yes Laura. I have sex with my dog.

Now go buy a cup of class.

I wanted to be the 400th commenter.

Heather...here is your cupie doll!

Hooves: See? I answered your question.

No, you made up a pretend question.

Hooves: Again, with all DUE respect Doug….when you look at the chronology of the posts it is self-evident you were skipping my question….repeatedly. So don’t get pissy with me when I call you on your BS..-K?

No. In fact, I saw one of your posts and answered it - saying that I would get to all your posts in time. I was still going through prior posts at that time. In the end I did answer them all.

Doug

MK: (I must sleeeeeep...)

Ha! I was wondering, since I know you get up like at 5:00 a.m. (Gad!) Heck, it was 11:00 a.m. for me yesterday and after 10:30 today.
......

"Much, much different from thousands of abortions a day. Oy Vey. If there were many hundreds or thousands per day at 24 weeks or later, then I would want to know why - it really could make a difference to me, just as it could to you."

Tell me, if these were six year olds that we were talking about, would you say, "Well it's only 3 or 4 six year olds a day, and given the numbers of 6 year olds, thats not enough to get worked up about?"

Different deal. I was saying that it the number of post-viability abortions increased by such an incredible amount, the reason could very well make a difference to me, as I think it could to almost everybody.

I'm not for any 6 year olds being killed.
......

Either a viable unborn child should not be killed or it should. Basing the atrocity of murder on the amount of persons being killed is insane.

Again, it's not "murder." It also makes a difference to me whether it's 24 weeks or 40 weeks. I think earlier is better than later, and that applies to 24 weeks and before, too, but even though I'd "draw the line" at 24 weeks, I still think 40 is a lot worse than 24 or 25.
......

And you say it would make a difference to you? How? What does that even mean?

Perhaps I missed your answer if you gave one on this - I'm still going through posts - if the reason that there were hundreds or thousands of post-viability abortions was that a new disease or syndrome appeared that had many women dying unless the pregnancies were ended, then it would make a difference to me, and to most people, I think.

If it was just that suddenly a much, much greater percentage of pregnant women began desiring abortions after viability, then I'd be against them as much as I am now, though I see zero chance of that taking place.

You're right, some people spank and some don't...some people prefer Colgate and some prefer Crest...but almost ALL people prefer to be UNmurdered or UNrobbed or UNcut-in-front-of. These are universal truths. (is that too close to absolute or objective truths for comfort?)...so where do universal truths come from?

MK, we are conscious beings. That is the starting point. A consciousness knows of itself, before anything else. Really, that's all it can be sure of without making assumptions.

In human consciousness, as with many other species, desire is a part of it. Some desires are much more variable, and some are so common that we feel they are totally or nearly "universal."

John M: mus take the time today and read these post, seems like both Hooves and MK joined yllas in giving you a hard time ... good! (From Hooves posting about the storm there hours ago, I'm really pleased she's here at all!)

Ahoy, John. I like Hooves too. No "hard time," though. It's been fun, and hopefully productive in certain ways.
......

Fot he adult, the focus of 'desire' changes. When younger, my ethic could be summed up as:"I'm for #!" which implies my desired all the only ones thzat matter to me. The shift comes about because this sentiment is the same when you realize you are no longer #1 ... but a loved one is ... usually a spouse; or, my family; or for religious folks - God (personal belief).

I hear that, John. Yes, our point of view changes (usually) as we leave childhood, regardless of all the stuff you and I, etc., may argue about.
......

This mindset is fabulous as long as you and the 'loved one' are copasetic. What if, your wife wanted/desired you to kill your Dad for inheritance purposes? Would you intervene? Would an injustice be in the making?

Heh - depends on just how copacetic we were - sometimes husband and wife join together in the plot. However, as things are I would indeed intervene and see it as an injustice.
......

This aggrieved situation is very similar to PL. Not only do we oppose your desire, but it is of a kind that DEMANDS our intervention. We MUST

I realize you see it that way. The difference is that as far as whacking ol' Dad, almost nobody is for that. Yet when we look at a pregnant woman with an embryo or fetus inside her, there's a lot more to consider than just the "killing or not," - there's also the woman.

Doug

MK: As for saving your wife from a moving train (bus, etc.), why? Why would you give your life? You'd be dead and get no benefit from it. Your wife would live. But according to your belief system, you'd be nowhere. How could you have desires if you're dead?

Darn... gotta go after this post, but will try and get back on later.

I'd give my life because I want to do that more, if necessary, than to lose my wife and not die in that circumstance. Were I to die, then yeah - I wouldn't care about anything, but that's not what's operative now. What matters now is what I want, there, now.

Same for you, I imagine - you'd rather die trying to save your kids than not try and save them. Of course you don't "want to die," per se, but in our hypotheticals it still comes down to what is wanted most, just as it does with all our choices in life.
......

WHY, notice, yet again, I am asking, not what, not how, not where, but WHY would you give up your life to save someone elses? What desire is being fulfilled? The desire can't be fulfilled if the desirer ain't around anymore?

We have desires, now, regardless of our exact time of death. Why would people have life insurance on themselves, for example, if they'd get no benefit after their death? Pretty obvious.

I more want to save my wife, even if it means me dying, than I want to not save her and live, myself.

Doug

MK: Your criteria is that society makes rules. If society says something collectively, then that is "a Good"...Are you now saying that the WHOLE WORLD has to agree?

Wife ain't ready yet, so....

It's a good, according to society. No, the whole world does not have to agree - a society could well be not in line with what the rest of the world thinks, most of the world, etc.
......

Why is the lone man right, when he is going against the entire society?

He's not right according to society. He's right per what he desires.
......

Same with slavery. At one point most of society in the entire world thought that owning slaves was okay. Did that make it right?

Been here and done this. Some thought it right, yes, and some do now. Most don't now, obviously.
......

I don't understand how you can claim that abortion is right because society desires it, but Hitler was wrong, and slavery was wrong even tho society desired it?

I don't claim that abortion is "right" without qualification. If it's desired more than not, by an individual, group, society, etc., then that's one thing, but the opinion is always going to be on the part of some entity, whether the feeling is "okay" or "not okay."

"Yet a deeper examination shows that we still act as per my premise - we do what we want to do the most, or we choose that which we have the least distaste for."

MK: Let's pretend that I agree with your whole "desire" thing for 30 seconds...

Why do some people desire to go the extra mile for unselfish motives?

Because that's what they want, versus what the observer would probably call "selfish" motives.
......

Why do some people do as little as possible? What makes some people "desire" unselfishness and others "desire" selfishness?

Different people want different things, and others can and will have their opinions about that, and deem it "selfish" or not to varying degrees. The motivation still entirely comes from the self.
......

Why are you content being one of the latter?

Silly. I am saying our motivation is one thing. That is not making value judgments. If you want to do that, then I say it's more "selfish," much more selfish, to want to tell pregnant women what to do, versus letting them make their own choice.

"Many women do NOT want to have abortions, even if they don't want to care for kids, don't think they can, etc., and/or they want to help satisfy other people who want to adopt. Geez, I have no problem with that, nor does any Pro-Choicer (in that respect)."

MK: You accuse me of understating the obvious, but, you kind sir, can't seem to move beyond it.

Obviously, if she chooses to continue the pregnancy, it's because she has decided to continue the pregnancy.

You asked "what reasons" could the woman have - and I gave you some. Everything is consistent with what I have said: we do what we want the most, or that for which we have the least distaste, among our available choices. It is obvious to me, and I think it should be to you as well.
......

My question is, what desire is fulfilled? Helping another couple? Please! That might be incidental, but surely not the main motive! Why not just abort? Why does one woman terminate her pregnancy, while another suffers through it while gaining nothing, in fact, losing something?

If the primary desire is to help the other couple, then that trumps everything else. It's entirely possible that a given person would feel this way.

Why not just abort? Because her desire for that is less than to continue the pregnancy and have the baby be adopted. If she most wanted to end the pregnancy, then that's what she'll do.

Another may "suffer through it" to some degree, but that's quite subjective in the first place - for some women there is much more suffering than for others - but regardless, she more wants to continue the pregnancy, suffering notwithstanding, than she wants to end it. She doesn't see it as "losing," she sees it as what she wants the most.

Doug

yllas: If killing a baby in the womb, is not devaluing human life

Non sequitur. That's one life, and yes, it may be unwanted, on balance. That is not saying anything about the unqualifed "human life."

If killing a baby in the womb, is not devaluing human life, then you're denying that a baby in the womb is a human with value, and to deny value to a human is not a human good, unless promoting the decision of killing of a baby human is nothing to ya Doug, but a decision devoid of the value of good or bad, right or wrong...

Very true, Yllas...great post.

Hooves-in-Maw at January 5, 2008 11:18 AM,

freakin' hysterical!!! ROFLMAOSSFRL!!! George helped & is coming back right now! Thanks, George...thanks HnM!

Sorry Doug, but yes, that is you to a "T"..Hooves NAILED it!!!!

Doug,

Why is the lone man right, when he is going against the entire society?
*
He's not right according to society. He's right per what he desires.

So then, even tho you disagree with him, and even tho, I disagree with him, from a certain perspective (his own/his countries) Hitler was right? You can actually say and believe those words with out qualifying them by saying "obviously he was wrong, but he mistakenly "believed" that he was right?"

You can, in good conscience (two words you don't understand the meaning of, I might add) say that at least from one perspective (his own/his countries) Hitler was good. And you don't need to qualify that by saying he believed he was good, but he was wrong for believing so.

You are only comfortable saying, he was good from his perspective and he was not good from your perspective?

Because as soon as you add the words "He believed", you change this from a relative truth to an objective one.

I, of course, believe Hitler was wrong. I think he "believed" he was right. But I believe he was nuts.

Speaking of nuts, why are people considered mentally ill. Why is the schizophrenic considered "sick" or abnormal. Why aren't his desires just as valid? We as a society judge his perceptions to be invalid because they don't fit our reality.

If a schizophrenic person did something based on desires that came from his "illness" we would judge them to be right or wrong FOR that person and stop them if we thought they were wrong...We even medicate them to "force" them to think more like us...

Doug,

Same with slavery. At one point most of society in the entire world thought that owning slaves was okay. Did that make it right?
*
Been here and done this. Some thought it right, yes, and some do now. Most don't now, obviously.
......

Yes, I know, we've been there done that with your answer too. Unfortunately, you've reverted back to the "orange" reply...

You have not answered the question.

The question was not do some people like oranges.
The question was, given the fact that enough people thought slavery was right, did that make it right.

Was it objectively wrong, or was it objectively right...or are you, again, saying slavery could be considered right if enough people desired it?

Doug,

Different people want different things, and others can and will have their opinions about that, and deem it "selfish" or not to varying degrees. The motivation still entirely comes from the self.

Perhaps, but why is it that you shift the selfishness to us, without ever questioning the selfish/unselfish motives of why a woman would want to kill her child?

You are awfully quick to judge our motives, or the rightness or wrongness, selfishness or unselfishness of the pro life people, but I never hear you question the motives, the rightness or wrongess, selfishness or unselfishness of the abortive women.

Doug,

Say it with me..."WHY?" "WHY?" "WHY?"....

WHY would one woman choose to go through with a pregnancy (and don't divert the discussion to the relativity of suffering, because being a man you don't seem to grasp that no matter how easy a pregnancy is, nor how much it is wanted, being pregnant for 9 months IS a sacrifice) and then give the child up, rather than abort it?

Don't give me this desire crap...I've got that. I am asking why so much of society agrees on some things, but on something like this, with no apparent benefit, a women would sacrifice 9 months of her life to bring her child to term, and then give it away.

I am asking why some women would choose a "selfish" way, and some would choose an "unselfish" way.

What makes some people able to sacrifice/to give, and others to be takers? Some to focus on their own desires, and others to make their "desire" be for others.

Even if Mother Teresa was working from a "desire" to see other people better off, my question is WHAT MADE HER DIFFERENT? What made her "DESIRE" this unselfish path?

I really wish you'd just say "I don't know why some people choose to sacrifice and others choose to just "take what they want"

Some people are givers, and some are takers. WHY? WHY? WHY?

And so help me, if you say because some desire to give and others desire to take...

This is day three and you have yet to answer the original question...Where do these desires come from?

Doug,

Let's use Bethany's orange for a moment.

I say that the orange is an objective good. On it own it contains vitamin C, can quench thirst, contains fiber...etc.

There are some people who cannot tolerate citric acid. These people should stay away from the orange. Subjectively, the orange is not good for them. But the orange is not at fault. The orange is objectively good, and if there is fault to be found, it is in the person who cannot tolerate the orange.

Now if you were to ask if the orange tasted good, the answer would be entirely different. Taste is completely subjective.

You base your entire value system, in my opinion, on the taste question. Every thing is good or bad depending on how it tastes (subjective truth)

I on the other hand look at both. There are objective truths (ie: the orange is good) and subjective truths (ie: the orange tastes good).

By leaving out the objective truth that the orange IS good, (but that some people cannot benefit from this particular good) I believe that your view is much more narrow (hence John's box)than mine.

Babies are an objective good. However, some people are in circumstances where the timing (taste) of a baby is not good. For these people, staying away from babies (oranges) is there best course of action. Getting rid of oranges would be nuts. Just stay away (ie: abstinence/not getting oneself pregnant) would be the "right" thing to do.

But if a person who cannot tolerate oranges, eats one anyway, throwing the orange away (abortion) will not offset the consequences of having already eaten the orange.

Killing the baby will not offset the consequences of having sex. It's like throwing away the orange. Better to just eat apples. You will still have to deal with the consequences of having eaten the forbidden truth. Even if you throw away the orange. Having an abortion may make the orange "disappear" but eventually (we believe) you will have to pay the piper.

But the bottom line is that the orange was NEVER at fault. The persons metabolism or ability to "deal" with oranges was the problem.

To sum up...Oranges are objectively good. People are the variable. You can't blame the orange when you get a bad case of cramps. You have to blame your own body.

We are just a group of people that are trying to say "QUIT EATING ORANGES IF THEY GIVE YOU THE RUNS! AND QUIT THROWING THE ORANGES AWAY! WE WANT THEM! WE DON'T HAVE AN AVERSION TO ORANGES! NOT ONLY DON'T THEM MAKE US SICK, BUT WE ACTUALLY LIKE THEM! SAVE THE ORANGES!"

Doug,

Tell me, if these were six year olds that we were talking about, would you say, "Well it's only 3 or 4 six year olds a day, and given the numbers of 6 year olds, thats not enough to get worked up about?"
*
Different deal. I was saying that it the number of post-viability abortions increased by such an incredible amount, the reason could very well make a difference to me, as I think it could to almost everybody.
*
I'm not for any 6 year olds being killed.

Really? I thought you were all about killing 6 year olds!

Are you being obtuse or just not getting it?

You say that after viability, the unborn attain (in your opinion) personhood. Later you say that 40 weeks has "more" personhood. Are you saying that 6 year olds have even MORE personhood?

I really wish sometimes that you could hear yourself the way you sound to me.

Last week it was "It's not a person in the womb, but during an operation where it was taken out of the womb it would be a person for that period of time, but ceases to be a person when put back in the womb..."

And this week it's, personhood has degrees. With each passing week, a human being gains more personhood."

You remind me of The Princess Bride..."That's where you're wrong...He's only mostly dead!"

Or a woman being a little bit pregnant...

Back to the orange...

It's only partially an orange because Joe can't eat oranges. But it' completely an orange to Marge because she likes them.

Or it's an orange when it's in the refrigerator, but stops being an orange when you take it out of the refrigerator, but becomes and orange again when you put it back into the refrigerator...

AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! One of us needs psychological help!!!!!

Mk I am so thankful you are here!!! Honestly, I would lose my spirit on this blog without you!

Your orange analogy at 7:07 is excellent!

Bethany,

The feelings are mutual...without you I would doubt my own sanity...which would put me in the majority.

Is that good?

Hooves-in-Maw at January 5, 2008 11:18 AM

freakin' hysterical!!! ROFLMAOSSFRL!!! George helped & is coming back right now! Thanks, George...thanks HnM!

AB Laura: Sorry Doug, but yes, that is you to a "T"..Hooves NAILED it!!!!

No, she just made a silly comparison about a duck. The physical reality of the duck isn't in question, and little if any of the abortion argument is about physical reality.

Why is the lone man right, when he is going against the entire society?

"He's not right according to society. He's right per what he desires."

MK: So then, even tho you disagree with him, and even tho, I disagree with him, from a certain perspective (his own/his countries) Hitler was right? You can actually say and believe those words with out qualifying them by saying "obviously he was wrong, but he mistakenly "believed" that he was right?"

Yes, Hitler thought he was right. If somebody truly believes a thing to be "wrong," they are not going to do it unless it is to avoid a greater wrong. I do not think Hitler thought he was wrong.
......

You can, in good conscience (two words you don't understand the meaning of, I might add)....

Your argument is weak enough that you feel compelled to delve into logical fallacies like ad hominem. You can do better.
......

say that at least from one perspective (his own/his countries) Hitler was good. And you don't need to qualify that by saying he believed he was good, but he was wrong for believing so.

You asked about "the lone man," and yes, he can certainly have the opposite desires of most or even "everybody else." Doesn't matter if you, personally agree with him, nor how much you or anybody else dislikes him or his position.
......

You are only comfortable saying, he was good from his perspective and he was not good from your perspective?

Of course not, MK, but nothing more needs to be added to answer your question. Hitler was responsible for massive horror; I know that.
......

Because as soon as you add the words "He believed", you change this from a relative truth to an objective one.

Well, yeah, we can say it's objective fact that Hitler believed/though/felt so-and-so....
......

I, of course, believe Hitler was wrong. I think he "believed" he was right. But I believe he was nuts.

I agree.
......

Speaking of nuts, why are people considered mentally ill. Why is the schizophrenic considered "sick" or abnormal. Why aren't his desires just as valid? We as a society judge his perceptions to be invalid because they don't fit our reality.

"Abnormal" is just beyond the norm - doesn't have to be "bad," necessarily. Schizophrenics typically have hallucinations and delusions, right? I don't know to what extent they're considered dangerous, all in all, but "sick" does seem to be applied. I think that yes, we see our reality as "necessary" enough that the hallucinations qualify as "sick."
......

If a schizophrenic person did something based on desires that came from his "illness" we would judge them to be right or wrong FOR that person and stop them if we thought they were wrong...We even medicate them to "force" them to think more like us...

I don't know much about it. Past a point, a person can be "commited" or "certified" or made a ward of the state, etc., and "forced" in some things, sure.

Doug

Same with slavery. At one point most of society in the entire world thought that owning slaves was okay. Did that make it right?

"Been here and done this. Some thought it right, yes, and some do now. Most don't now, obviously."

Yes, I know, we've been there done that with your answer too. Unfortunately, you've reverted back to the "orange" reply...

Well, that's news to me - if I've missed something, sorry about that.
......

You have not answered the question.

The question was not do some people like oranges. The question was, given the fact that enough people thought slavery was right, did that make it right.

Whose opinion are you asking about? "Right" and "wrong" are opinions.
......

Was it objectively wrong, or was it objectively right...or are you, again, saying slavery could be considered right if enough people desired it?

There is nothing "objective" there. "Enough people," any number of people - those that desire it will think it's okay or "right."

"Different people want different things, and others can and will have their opinions about that, and deem it "selfish" or not to varying degrees. The motivation still entirely comes from the self."

MK: Perhaps, but why is it that you shift the selfishness to us, without ever questioning the selfish/unselfish motives of why a woman would want to kill her child?

You're just wrong, MK, I don't do that. A woman wanting to end a pregnancy is certainly doing it for herself. It's what she wants, on balance. The motivation is definitely coming from the self, there, no question about it.
......

You are awfully quick to judge our motives, or the rightness or wrongness, selfishness or unselfishness of the pro life people, but I never hear you question the motives, the rightness or wrongess, selfishness or unselfishness of the abortive women.

No, I don't judge your motives. I know how you feel and don't "blame" you for it. I do not think your opinion should be forced in pregnant women, but I'm not saying you are a bad person, etc., for thinking as you do. I don't need to have a pregnant woman have the pregnancy ended against her will, and I don't need her forced to continue an unwanted one. I am leaving it to her - I don't need to "judge" her or question her.

Doug

MK: Say it with me..."WHY?" "WHY?" "WHY?"

WHY would one woman choose to go through with a pregnancy (and don't divert the discussion to the relativity of suffering, because being a man you don't seem to grasp that no matter how easy a pregnancy is, nor how much it is wanted, being pregnant for 9 months IS a sacrifice) and then give the child up, rather than abort it?

Don't give me this desire crap...I've got that. I am asking why so much of society agrees on some things, but on something like this, with no apparent benefit, a women would sacrifice 9 months of her life to bring her child to term, and then give it away.

Oh Please, MK - you don't need to convince me that pregnancy is often no "walk in the park." Desire really is the motivation for the woman. On balance, she does not want to end the pregnancy. Otherwise, she would end it. "No apparent benefit" is not the case - the woman sees some benefit in it, regardless of exactly what that is. It can be several things, at least, obviously.

Why do you even say "no apparent benefit" in the first place? Perhaps she just does not want to end the unborn life, and wants it to continue (the apparent benefit to her) - thus going through the pregnancy is what she wants.
......

I am asking why some women would choose a "selfish" way, and some would choose an "unselfish" way.

Those are your opinions. Okay, you see thing A one way, and thing B another way. Some people want A and some want B. It would be no different if you were a rabid "we have to lower the population" fanatic, and thought that ending the pregnancy was "unselfish" and that continuing it was "selfish."
......

What makes some people able to sacrifice/to give, and others to be takers? Some to focus on their own desires, and others to make their "desire" be for others.

It's still all the same thing. Almost everybody wants to "sacrifice for others" to some extent.
......

Even if Mother Teresa was working from a "desire" to see other people better off, my question is WHAT MADE HER DIFFERENT? What made her "DESIRE" this unselfish path?

Who knows all of her motivation? I don't know all that much about her. Had she been taught from an early age that doing certain things was good? Was her greatest joy ministering to the poor?
......

I really wish you'd just say "I don't know why some people choose to sacrifice and others choose to just "take what they want"

Nobody knows all the reasons for everybody. It remains what the individual chooses to do.
......

Some people are givers, and some are takers. WHY? WHY? WHY?

Again, you're imposing your own opinions there. The answer is that some people want to do what makes you think of them as "givers," etc.
......

And so help me, if you say because some desire to give and others desire to take...

You label things one way, that's why. Again - "short of being physically compelled otherwise, we do what we want the most, or that for which we have the least distaste, from among our available options." That covers everything. That allows for different belief sets, etc.
......

This is day three and you have yet to answer the original question...Where do these desires come from?

It is a fact of human consciousness. That's the answer. Our brains have enough complexity, etc., that we have them. We have that type of consciousness. MK, there is nothing more basic than the fact of consciousness. After that, assumptions come in, but the fact of consciousness is the only thing that's not questionable.

MK: Let's use Bethany's orange for a moment. I say that the orange is an objective good. On it own it contains vitamin C, can quench thirst, contains fiber...etc.

Sigh. That's not "objective good." That's subjective, relative to wanting the vitamin C, etc. Look, I know what you mean, but it's predicated on wanting certain things, even "wanting to live," etc.
......

There are some people who cannot tolerate citric acid. These people should stay away from the orange. Subjectively, the orange is not good for them. But the orange is not at fault. The orange is objectively good, and if there is fault to be found, it is in the person who cannot tolerate the orange.

No, the orange is not "objectively good." It's (very often) desired for certain reasons, that's all. Of course the orange is "not at fault." Heck, if anything, it can be said that for the people who can't handle the citric acid, and who presumably want to live, that "the orange is objectively bad." Once a desire is identified, then logical or "objective" or "objectively correct" courses of action may be identified, like not eating the orange, but it all still goes to desire. If there is an objective, a desired end, then we can say it's logical to eat the orange or not to, but there has to be desire in the first place.
......

Now if you were to ask if the orange tasted good, the answer would be entirely different. Taste is completely subjective.

It's a sense impression, and again I know what you mean there. Okay, so that's opinion, as opposed to the orange having definite effects, as above. Yet the "good" or "bad" of the orange (and those effects) still has to go back to some desire.
......

You base your entire value system, in my opinion, on the taste question. Every thing is good or bad depending on how it tastes (subjective truth)

Our value systems are what we want and what we don't want. Same for everybody.
......

I on the other hand look at both. There are objective truths (ie: the orange is good) and subjective truths (ie: the orange tastes good).

I've already disagreed with your premise, there.
......

By leaving out the objective truth that the orange IS good, (but that some people cannot benefit from this particular good) I believe that your view is much more narrow (hence John's box)than mine.

Actually, I think the reverse, but I'll make it a post in its own, because this does go to the heart of the matter.
......

Babies are an objective good. However, some people are in circumstances where the timing (taste) of a baby is not good. For these people, staying away from babies (oranges) is there best course of action. Getting rid of oranges would be nuts. Just stay away (ie: abstinence/not getting oneself pregnant) would be the "right" thing to do.

No, there's no "objective good" nor "objective bad."
......

But if a person who cannot tolerate oranges, eats one anyway, throwing the orange away (abortion) will not offset the consequences of having already eaten the orange.

That person does not want the orange in their stomach. If it's in, pump the stomach, etc., it's an unwanted situation that can be remedied. Same for a pregnancy.
......

Killing the baby will not offset the consequences of having sex. It's like throwing away the orange. Better to just eat apples. You will still have to deal with the consequences of having eaten the forbidden truth. Even if you throw away the orange. Having an abortion may make the orange "disappear" but eventually (we believe) you will have to pay the piper.

The consequences of having sex is the pregnancy. Having the abortion stops the pregnancy. I think that pregnancy prevention is preferable to abortion, MK, so yes - agreed that "it's better to just eat apples" in that case. But if the orange is in the stomach....
......

But the bottom line is that the orange was NEVER at fault. The persons metabolism or ability to "deal" with oranges was the problem.

Right, "no fault," but the orange isn't wanted, in that case. Similarly, of course the unborn baby is not "at fault," but there too it can be unwanted.
......

To sum up...Oranges are objectively good. People are the variable. You can't blame the orange when you get a bad case of cramps. You have to blame your own body

Again, you're taking your own premise, which I don't agree with ("objectively good") and using that to support other stuff. That's no argument with me. I don't mean to go around and around forever on it - it'll never get us anywhere.
......

We are just a group of people that are trying to say "QUIT EATING ORANGES IF THEY GIVE YOU THE RUNS! AND QUIT THROWING THE ORANGES AWAY! WE WANT THEM! WE DON'T HAVE AN AVERSION TO ORANGES! NOT ONLY DON'T THEM MAKE US SICK, BUT WE ACTUALLY LIKE THEM! SAVE THE ORANGES!"

I hear you, MK. I see the analogy, but it's still the same argument. Regardless of your desires, there, a person as you describe with an orange in their stomach is gonna want to take it out.

Doug

MK: By leaving out the objective truth that the orange IS good, (but that some people cannot benefit from this particular good) I believe that your view is much more narrow (hence John's box)than mine.

"Actually, I think the reverse, but I'll make it a post in its own, because this does go to the heart of the matter." Okay, here we go:

MK, the orange is seen as "good" if one is hungry for it, likes the taste, wants the vitamins, water, fiber, etc., in it. That's not "objectively good," that's "wanted" because of such-and-such.

I am not the one having the "narrow" view. My explanation covers everything, regardless of what one says, no matter what we attribute our desires to, etc., whether we are religious or not, whether we have theoretical constructs like God, etc.

If the Bible said, "eat oranges," then many people would want to do it because of that. It'd be one more possible reason for seeing the orange as "good," but it's still desire at work, even it's just people wanting to do what the Bible says.

Doug

Doug,
We can go on and on about Hal beating his head trying to say that killing human life is o.k..
Here's another for you:
*******************************
You say "abortion is wrong." Others disagree, don't you get that? Abortion is wrong for you, fine. But that doesn't make it objectively wrong.
Even if you say it 1000 times.
Posted by: Hal at January 2, 2008 7:09 PM
*******************************
But Hal is gone. Let me ask you a question Doug.
Is there such a thing as five week old human life?

MK: Tell me, if these were six year olds that we were talking about, would you say, "Well it's only 3 or 4 six year olds a day, and given the numbers of 6 year olds, thats not enough to get worked up about?"

"Different deal. I was saying that it the number of post-viability abortions increased by such an incredible amount, the reason could very well make a difference to me, as I think it could to almost everybody. I'm not for any 6 year olds being killed."

Really? I thought you were all about killing 6 year olds! Are you being obtuse or just not getting it?

Neither.
......

You say that after viability, the unborn attain (in your opinion) personhood. Later you say that 40 weeks has "more" personhood. Are you saying that 6 year olds have even MORE personhood?

Yes, MK, that is my opinion. The 40 weeker or full-term newborn certainly has more sentience, personality, etc., than it did at 24 weeks. And of course the 6 year old has more yet.
......

I really wish sometimes that you could hear yourself the way you sound to me.

You are not thinking clearly. I have given you my opinion in the past on what makes for personhood. Not the law, but my opinion, as you asked for. More and more of it develops, usually, as gestation goes along in the last few months. The newborn doesn't have the awareness, personality, etc., that the 6 year old will have - nothing mysterious about this. Additionally, that I see a continuum of consciousness developing over time has nothing necessarily to do with what we were talking about. The point is that an incredible increase in the number of post-viability abortions could have a cause that would change people's opinion about the right/wrong/good/bad of abortion. That applies to me, you, to just about everybody I expect.
.....

Last week it was "It's not a person in the womb, but during an operation where it was taken out of the womb it would be a person for that period of time, but ceases to be a person when put back in the womb..."

You are confusing the law with my opinion. We were speculating about that hypothetical situation. This was not "my position" nor my opinion about personhood. This was saying that if "in the womb" means no personhood attributed, and "out" means personhood, then it's logical to presume that being back in would mean the same status as before. What failure of logic do you see there?
......

And this week it's, personhood has degrees. With each passing week, a human being gains more personhood."

Like I said, you are confusing my opinion with the law and our thoughs about what the law would be in your hypothetical situation.
......

You remind me of The Princess Bride..."That's where you're wrong...He's only mostly dead!" Or a woman being a little bit pregnant...

No - dead or not dead is pretty well nailed-down and accepted, and that's by both you and me. Same for pregnant or not. But as far as developing personality, sentience, awareness, consciousness, desires, emotions, and so forth, there really is a continuum of it late in gestation for most fetuses and for most people from birth onward.

MK: Back to the orange...

This orange is really making the rounds....
......

It's only partially an orange because Joe can't eat oranges. But it' completely an orange to Marge because she likes them.

No, the physical reality is not in doubt. Doesn't matter what Joe or Marge thinks. Same for an embryo or fetus being in existence or not.
......

Or it's an orange when it's in the refrigerator, but stops being an orange when you take it out of the refrigerator, but becomes and orange again when you put it back into the refrigerator...

No, "orange" applies regardless of location - that is physical reality. That is not the same thing as attributed status.
......

AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! One of us needs psychological help!!!!!

I don't think so, MK. (And of course you could then say to me, "You're nuts.")

Perhaps we are doing too many things at once. If you want to just focus on a fewer number, it's fine with me, even if it's the orange.

Doug

Truthseeker: Is there such a thing as five week old human life?

Sure, frequently reckoned from birth or from conception. If you're going from conception, then fine, and yes - the embryo at that point is "human life," and a living human organism.

And zeal for His Father's house......

Gee Doug, what is my premise?

State my premise Doug in that deconstructed sentence you quote from me, to affirm your wanting to kill innocent life in the womb Doug.
You notice I wrote "if", which is your version/translation of the word "choice", when you devalue life.
Which is why you think your logic is air tite Doug, but it isn't. You have no good argument Doug, for killing innocent life in the womb, but you think you do.
In fact, using the word "may" is another word devoid of value, and actually has no logic value at all, unless a conclusion has been decided upon a "may", which is ridiculous logic values, Doug. Much less the word "balance".! Imagine Doug as a rocket scientist. Will the shuttle blow up Doug, if the seal is not tight? Doug's reply, the shuttle MAY OR may not, IF the choice is NOT valued in the matter of balancing !!! See the word "matter", Doug, it is one of your favorite "logic words" you use!!!
The word "may" is a joke when one applies logic rules to a argument, since the word "may" means nothing is decided, Doug. May as well use your one word that allows death for innocent life Doug, "choice".
I love it, a logic man using words such as "not saying anything", in reply to a self deconstructed sentence!!! If I said nothing Doug, what are you replying to Doug? Nothing?
Two can play the deconstruction game, Doug. Your a self believing sophist, that has worked up a head o' steam based on the premise known as "wanted or NOT wanted". Now there is logic at it's finest Doug!!! I Doug, prove my want to kill innocent life in the womb through the logic of "wanted" OR "unwanted". Ah, the logic of "OR", there is a man wanting truth to never be defined for his wants to kill innocent life. That is your whole version of your premise/philosophy, Doug. WANTED OR UNWANTED.
You may kill the baby in the womb, OR you may NOT kill the baby in the womb. The logic of Doug, reduced to the illogic of desire,otherwise known as WANT.

Your hillarious Doug, if you weren''t responsible for not valuing life when it is in the balance of matters of life and death.
Come to think of it, Doug is soo based in the "emotional logic" of wanting the decision to kill innocent life, he deny's being called upon for his actions, words, or deeds.
Your a pirate Doug, sailin on the S.S. Abortion, raising the flag of "non-decision" until the mother is on board, and your matey's, Laura, the karmic thug, Sally, the deathsex perversion. raise the flag of the pirate, the skull and cross bones.
Am I my brother's keeper?
Only if the brother is wanted, right Doug?
The essential Doug.
And when you're not wanted, Doug(being a realistic pessimist, Doug, one most know it comes to that end for us all) , will you be a bothersome brother, to that brother mankind, one more minute then you're wanted, Doug?
Who owes you one "unwanted moment" on this world, Doug? Your brother mankind? I can safely state, that Doug, wants NO THING to owe him one unwanted moment existence on Earth. Why? Because Doug is a man of honor, and wants no person, to suffer a moment, not wanting to serve, a not wanted, Doug. Anything less is using another person as a object of a want.
You be for a killin', Doug, I be for a livin'.

Posted by: uspsgirl@gmail.com at January 7, 2008 2:34 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yllas is an employee of the US Postal Service?

QUELLE SURPRISE!
(Everyone stay down on the floor until the SWAT team gives the "all clear"...)

Doug,

You ask us to point out where you don't answer questions that are asked, but it doesn't seem to make any difference.

I clearly and painstakingly made it clear that I wasn't asking if Hitler THOUGHT he was right, but if by your definition of right, as a subjective process, and being backed up by society, if Hitler WAS right....

MK: So then, even tho you disagree with him, and even tho, I disagree with him, from a certain perspective (his own/his countries) Hitler was right? You can actually say and believe those words with out qualifying them by saying "obviously he was wrong, but he mistakenly "believed" that he was right?"
*
Yes, Hitler thought he was right. If somebody truly believes a thing to be "wrong," they are not going to do it unless it is to avoid a greater wrong. I do not think Hitler thought he was wrong.

Doug,

You can, in good conscience (two words you don't understand the meaning of, I might add)....
*
Your argument is weak enough that you feel compelled to delve into logical fallacies like ad hominem. You can do better.

That was not ad hominem. I truly believe that you do not have a clear understanding of the word good, nor any understanding of the concept of a conscience. Not name calling, just pointing out, that your understanding of "good" and "concscience" is faulty.

Doug,

No, I don't judge your motives. I know how you feel and don't "blame" you for it. I do not think your opinion should be forced in pregnant women, but I'm not saying you are a bad person, etc., for thinking as you do.

Well of course you're don't think I'm bad...that would be inconsistent with your belief system. That would be an objective. I thought we had already established that...

Doug,

I am not conceding to your point, but I am giving up because you do not seem capable of either understanding the question or answering it.

Why do you even say "no apparent benefit" in the first place? Perhaps she just does not want to end the unborn life, and wants it to continue (the apparent benefit to her) - thus going through the pregnancy is what she wants.

I begged you not to answer with "because she desires it" and you went ahead and answered with "because she desires it"...

This is day four.

You haven't answered the question.

I have given you the option, over and over, to say you simply don't know where the desire "comes from" but you refuse to say anything except "because she desires it"...you either truly don't get it, or you simply won't get it.

Either way, I can see I'll never get a straight answer from you, so I'm done asking.

I'm disappointed tho, because you earlier said that you would answer every question. And you seem to smart to not be able to understand what I am asking, so I'm going to assume that you are choosing to be obtuse, and for the sake of my sanity, I'm done asking.

Doug,

That person does not want the orange in their stomach. If it's in, pump the stomach, etc., it's an unwanted situation that can be remedied. Same for a pregnancy.

What kind of a moron would put the orange into their stomach if they didn't want it there?????????? It might be pleasurable to their palate, but they'd have to be an idiot to choose to please their taste buds and then get their stomach pumped. The rational man would forgo the orange in spite of the pleasure that it brings, because he would realize that the temporary pleasure of eating the orange would be offset by the later unpleasantness of having his stomach pumped!

Ah, Come on Laura, you know what goes around comes around Laura. Seems it came around for you, and has never let you not stop killing pound puppies taken from some old women by the authority granted Laura, from the city of South Park.
Bow Wow, you hear the dog barking?
Go gettum Laura. Send another puppy off to the death chambers, with all the rightousness you find for killing the life of human babies.

Doug,

After rereading your posts I think I see your point of view even tho I think it's kind of sad...

You are saying that Hitler was neither right nor wrong. You are saying that what he, or Stalin or Caligula did was neither right nor wrong. Objectively speaking, it just was what it was.

You might think it was wrong, certainly the Jews thought it was wrong, but Hitler thought it was right.

You do not think that I or anyone else however can say that the massacre of 6 million human beings was "objectively" wrong. Or that slavery was "objectively" wrong...

Is that what you are saying?

As to the other question, if on day one you had simply said "I don't think our desires come from anywhere" you sure would have saved me a lot of heartburn...

Again, I wish you could hear yourself the way I hear you...you really do make it difficult sometimes. Simple questions, simple answers.

Or simple questions, complicated, vague, convoluted, twisted, redundant, noncommittal answers...

If you believed in objective good and objective bad you'd see that your way of answering questions is objectively BAD! lol

Doug,

Having never heard of psychological egoism until this morning, I was pleased to see that I am not the only one with objections to this view. And all but this last, I have put forth so far...

As to the last, Bethany and I have been accusing you of circular logic for months now...

Finally, psychological egoism has also been accused of using circular logic: "If a person willingly performs an act, that means he derives personal enjoyment from it; therefore, people only perform acts that give them personal enjoyment". In particular, seemingly altruistic acts must be performed because people derive enjoyment from them, and are therefore, in reality, egoistic. This statement is circular because its conclusion is identical to its hypothesis (it assumes that people only perform acts that give them personal enjoyment, and concludes that people only perform acts that give them personal enjoyment). This objection was made by William Hazlitt[1] and Thomas Macaulay [1] in the 19th century, and has been restated many times since then. An earlier version of the same objection was made by Joseph Butler in 1726.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism

Either way, you might find this article engaging, and I'm sure you can find more by googling "Psycholgical Egoism"...

So seriously Doug,

Is this how you think? That we only do what we want to do because it "benefits" us somehow, we have no moral absolutes, good/bad are relative and we live our lives avoiding pain and seeking pleasure?

Wow.

You're like an alien from my point of view. That is really as different from my perspective as if you were from outer space.

I'm just glad you are in the minority. What kind of a world would we live in if everybody believed as you do?

Yikes.

AB Laura: Sorry Doug, but yes, that is you to a "T"..Hooves NAILED it!!!!

Doug: No, she just made a silly comparison about a duck. The physical reality of the duck isn't in question, and little if any of the abortion argument is about physical reality.

Doug, her post had nothing to do with a duck. It was a parody of the way you answer questions. The duck has absolutely no importance in her point..she could have been talking about a jar of honey, a fairy, or an orange. Same difference. The point was that the question is not being answered, but being avoided by a long, pretentious post about nothing...a post which does not answer the question in any way.

Yes, Hitler thought he was right. If somebody truly believes a thing to be "wrong," they are not going to do it unless it is to avoid a greater wrong. I do not think Hitler thought he was wrong.
......

See, here is a perfect example of the "duck" example above. MK asked you if Hitler was right. You answered that Hitler "thought" he was right.
You did not answer the question. You answered this question, "Did Hitler think he was right?"
But MK did not ask "Did Hitler think he was right", she asked, "Was Hitler right?"

You asked about "the lone man," and yes, he can certainly have the opposite desires of most or even "everybody else." Doesn't matter if you, personally agree with him, nor how much you or anybody else dislikes him or his position.

Again, where do you see MK asking about Hitler's "desires" or his "position"?

Of course not, MK, but nothing more needs to be added to answer your question. Hitler was responsible for massive horror; I know that.

You haven't yet answered whether that horror was justified because of Hitler's desires, or whether it was wrong, Doug.

I don't know much about it. Past a point, a person can be "commited" or "certified" or made a ward of the state, etc., and "forced" in some things, sure.

And again, Doug. MK asks you "why" people are medicated or locked away because they are not thinking in a "normal" manner, and you answer by saying that a person can be locked away for not being normal. You simply repeated what she has already said, instead of answering her question.

Whose opinion are you asking about? "Right" and "wrong" are opinions.

Uh, I think she was talking about YOURS, Doug, unless she was speaking to someone else. Sheesh.

There is nothing "objective" there. "Enough people," any number of people - those that desire it will think it's okay or "right."

So you're saying that Hitler was objectively right, then, based on the number of people who agreed with him? What are you saying, Doug?

I don't need to have a pregnant woman have the pregnancy ended against her will, and I don't need her forced to continue an unwanted one.

Why does it have anything to do with what "you need", Doug?

Oh Please, MK - you don't need to convince me that pregnancy is often no "walk in the park." Desire really is the motivation for the woman. On balance, she does not want to end the pregnancy.

Oh please, Doug. You don't need to convince me that killing 6 million jews is no "walk in the park". Desire really is the motivation for Hitler to kill all those Jews (I mention only Jews for sake of simplicity). On balance, he may not have wanted to kill all the Jews, he may have just wanted the purer race, and not to have to kill to get it. But, alas, the only way to achieve this desire was to kill all those Jews. No one should have ever told him he was wrong as he was only trying to fulfill a "good" desire, in his mind.

Otherwise, she would end it.

Otherwise, Hitler would have been a charitable man who cared about Jews and helped them to live happier lives.

"No apparent benefit" is not the case - the woman sees some benefit in it, regardless of exactly what that is. It can be several things, at least, obviously.

Hitler saw plenty of benefit from what he did, absolutely.

Why do you even say "no apparent benefit" in the first place? Perhaps she just does not want to end the unborn life, and wants it to continue (the apparent benefit to her) - thus going through the pregnancy is what she wants.

What if Hitler didn't really want to end the lives of the Jews...he simply wanted to have a purer, stronger race of white people, Doug. He would have continued living with those Jews around if they'd just had blue eyes and blond hair. If going through living with Jews was what he wanted, he would have done it.

MK wrote: This is day three and you have yet to answer the original question...Where do these desires come from?

It is a fact of human consciousness. That's the answer.

No, that's simply repeating what MK has already stated. It's not an answer.

Our brains have enough complexity, etc., that we have them. We have that type of consciousness. MK, there is nothing more basic than the fact of consciousness. After that, assumptions come in, but the fact of consciousness is the only thing that's not questionable.

MK didn't question whether we are conscious or not, Doug. MK didn't say, Hey Doug, are we conscious people or not? But that is the question you are answering.

No, the orange is not "objectively good."

What? You're saying there is no physical reality, Doug?

It's a sense impression, and again I know what you mean there. Okay, so that's opinion, as opposed to the orange having definite effects, as above. Yet the "good" or "bad" of the orange (and those effects) still has to go back to some desire.

No it doesn't, Doug. There is a physical reality that you're ignoring there.

No, there's no "objective good" nor "objective bad."

Why not, Doug? There is physical reality. Oranges are objectively good. That is their physical reality.
Definition of "good":
"having desirable or positive qualities especially those suitable for a thing specified"

The orange HAS desirable or positive qualities. Simply because some people can sense those qualities and others can't, doesn't take away the physical reality that the orange is "good".

That person does not want the orange in their stomach. If it's in, pump the stomach, etc., it's an unwanted situation that can be remedied. Same for a pregnancy.

Doug, that's just a stupid argument. Who would eat an orange if they knew that they didn't want an orange in their stomach. I mean, really.

I hear you, MK. I see the analogy, but it's still the same argument. Regardless of your desires, there, a person as you describe with an orange in their stomach is gonna want to take it out.

A person who chooses to put an orange in their stomach if they know that they don't want an orange or cannot tolerate an orange is a fool.

I am not the one having the "narrow" view. My explanation covers everything, regardless of what one says, no matter what we attribute our desires to, etc., whether we are religious or not, whether we have theoretical constructs like God, etc.

Translation: Doug knows all.

If the Bible said, "eat oranges," then many people would want to do it because of that.

What in the world does that have to do with ANYTHING MK said?

It'd be one more possible reason for seeing the orange as "good," but it's still desire at work, even it's just people wanting to do what the Bible says.

No, Doug. You're ignoring physical reality again.

MK wrote: Really? I thought you were all about killing 6 year olds! Are you being obtuse or just not getting it?

Neither.

Uh Doug that's kind of hard to believe. I don't know whether you understand analogies or not. I don't know if you actually understand what we're saying and purposely avoid answering questions or if you just really don't understand the basic points we are making. It's one or the other, but I just don't know which yet.

Yes, MK, that is my opinion. The 40 weeker or full-term newborn certainly has more sentience, personality, etc., than it did at 24 weeks. And of course the 6 year old has more yet.

So is it a lesser offense for a woman to kill her 1 year old baby, than it is for a woman to kill her 10 year old child, in your opinion?

You are not thinking clearly. I have given you my opinion in the past on what makes for personhood.

But you've lied, Doug. You say that a child at 35 weeks is a person, yet you also say you would allow that person to be killed by it's mother if she desires to based on reasons of disability. Yet, would you allow me to kill my born children if they were disabled? Either they're persons or they're not, Doug.

More and more of it develops, usually, as gestation goes along in the last few months. The newborn doesn't have the awareness, personality, etc., that the 6 year old will have - nothing mysterious about this.

nothing to US that is mysterious about this, Doug. But you make it mysterious by having an arbitrary stage of "viability" on which to define personhood.
We simply say "human beings are human beings are human beings and human beings deserve to be treated like human beings".

Additionally, that I see a continuum of consciousness developing over time has nothing necessarily to do with what we were talking about.

The continuum of consciousness is still developing after birth.

The point is that an incredible increase in the number of post-viability abortions could have a cause that would change people's opinion about the right/wrong/good/bad of abortion. That applies to me, you, to just about everybody I expect.

I don't think it would for you, Doug. You still haven't answered what you'd do if post viability abortions were happening frequently.

You are confusing the law with my opinion.

Yes, cause that's so hard to do.

We were speculating about that hypothetical situation. This was not "my position" nor my opinion about personhood. This was saying that if "in the womb" means no personhood attributed, and "out" means personhood, then it's logical to presume that being back in would mean the same status as before. What failure of logic do you see there?

What would you do to protect persons from being killed, Doug? Every time we ask you, you say "only 1 percent of abortions are done at that stage",...yet, would that be acceptable to you if it were only "1 percent of 1 year olds"?
1 percent of persons which YOU consider to be persons, is okay with you, Doug, for them to be killed?

Like I said, you are confusing my opinion with the law and our thoughs about what the law would be in your hypothetical situation.

No, I think she asked you a question and you are simply resisting the answer.

I'm just glad you are in the minority. What kind of a world would we live in if everybody believed as you do?

Thank you for reminding me of this, MK. It is comforting to remember that most people would think Doug's views were crazy.

Thank goodness his ideas aren't more prevalent.

If they were, we'd have people constantly questioning whether the children who killed others in school shootings really were doing something "bad" . It would all just be "in the eye of the beholder". No one would be shocked or outraged when they heard of a woman putting her baby in the microwave, and no one would be bothered by it if they heard about a man molesting a child, because they would say, "we have to weigh the desires and suffering of each individual involved. Perhaps the suffering of the perpetrator was more than the suffering of the victim, and therefore it wasn't really a "crime" persay..they were just trying to relieve their own suffering.

Bethany,

hehe I love the smiley! :D

Mk, Psycholgical Egoism has nailed Doug down to a T! I believe you have found the source of his ideas!

Hey, MK, here is an egoism test that we can all take. Hint hint, Doug....

http://www.queendom.com/queendom_tests/transfer?req=MXw2OTJ8MjA0NTgwOHwxfDE=&refempt=1

Which test is it Bethany????

Oh darn, I guess it didn't directly link for some reason.
http://www.queendom.com/tests/access_page/index.htm?idRegTest=692
Try this and if it doesn't work, just try typing "egoism" in the search bar on their site.

Which test is it Bethany????

That's what I just did...ahhhhh, great minds again.

What did you score?

I got an 88 percent, which they said means I bend over backwards for people and like to help them. But I think these people may be egoists too, because they said that I do things for others not only for others, but really for my own benefit. lol

I got 78 percent...a couple were tricky, like would you get out of the car for the teenage boy? Well, if he DIDN'T look all right of course I would. But if he got up and looked fine...?

That was the most difficult question for me, Marykay! LOL I had the same questions about it and finally decided that I would get out and ask if he was hurt. But unless he looked like he was really injured, I don't think calling for an ambulance would really be necessary! lol

**************************************
Truthseeker: Is there such a thing as five week old human life?

Sure, frequently reckoned from birth or from conception. If you're going from conception, then fine, and yes - the embryo at that point is "human life," and a living human organism.
Posted by: Doug at January 6, 2008 11:55 PM
***************************************

And you are o.k. with killing this human life?
Our Constitution says all men are "created" equal. Our Constitution does NOT say "all men become equal at some arbitrary point after their creation". Logic then dictates that you are either blinded to the truth of these words or that you are in denial.

**************************************
Truthseeker: Is there such a thing as five week old human life?

Sure, frequently reckoned from birth or from conception. If you're going from conception, then fine, and yes - the embryo at that point is "human life," and a living human organism.
Posted by: Doug at January 6, 2008 11:55 PM
***************************************

And you are o.k. with killing this human life?
Our Constitution says all men are "created" equal. Our Constitution does NOT say "all men become equal at some arbitrary point after their creation". Logic then dictates that you are either blinded to the truth of these words or that you are in denial.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 7, 2008 10:58 AM

**************************************
Truthseeker: Is there such a thing as five week old human life?

Sure, frequently reckoned from birth or from conception. If you're going from conception, then fine, and yes - the embryo at that point is "human life," and a living human organism.
Posted by: Doug at January 6, 2008 11:55 PM
***************************************

And you are o.k. with killing this human life?
Our Constitution says all men are "created" equal. Our Constitution does NOT say "all men become equal at some arbitrary point after their creation". Logic then dictates that you are either blinded to the truth of these words or that you are in denial.

yllas: Gee Doug, what is my premise?

That some people are so overwhelmed by their own self-hatred on the most basic level that they can only make attempts at expressing that hatred, pretendingly aimed at others; discussing issues rationally isn't possible for them due to this.

That is what you are predicated upon. That is how you set yourself before us.

When people reply to you logically and rationally, all you do is rehash your bad dreams, apparently gotten from over-dosing on 'Twilight Zone' anthologies.
......

uspsgirl

Still, though, you got me on that one, if it's true. I thought you were a guy.
......

Pro-Choicers don't "want to kill unborn life." If they did, they wouldn't be Pro-Choice. The pregnant woman will, on balance, either want the pregnancy or not want it, and we are for leaving it to her, at least to a point in gestation.
.....

For all your ridiculous pretending, there it is.

Doug

Truthseeker: And you are o.k. with killing this human life? Our Constitution says all men are "created" equal. Our Constitution does NOT say "all men become equal at some arbitrary point after their creation". Logic then dictates that you are either blinded to the truth of these words or that you are in denial.

Ouch - man, leave off that "Constitution" stuff. That ain't the Constitution you're talking about. Those words had nothing to do with the unborn, in the first place.

I have never been faced with an unwanted pregnancy; wife, girlfriends, etc. I would have been okay had one of them had an unwanted pregnancy, though.

MK: You ask us to point out where you don't answer questions that are asked, but it doesn't seem to make any difference.

Nope. Let's go through the exchange:

Why is the lone man right, when he is going against the entire society?

"He's not right according to society. He's right per what he desires."

MK: So then, even tho you disagree with him, and even tho, I disagree with him, from a certain perspective (his own/his countries) Hitler was right? You can actually say and believe those words with out qualifying them by saying "obviously he was wrong, but he mistakenly "believed" that he was right?"

"Yes, Hitler thought he was right. If somebody truly believes a thing to be "wrong," they are not going to do it unless it is to avoid a greater wrong. I do not think Hitler thought he was wrong."

-----------------------

I clearly and painstakingly made it clear that I wasn't asking if Hitler THOUGHT he was right, but if by your definition of right, as a subjective process, and being backed up by society, if Hitler WAS right....

You asked: "So then,......., from a certain perspective (his own/his country's) Hitler was right?" There, you are asking about his perspective, and that is what he thinks. Do you not see that?
......

"Right" is not a subjective process. It is a judgment, a valuation. Getting there is the subjective part. We can look at Hitler's opinion, of the society's - to some extent it could be said that "Germany" thought the policies were okay, but also not, since it was a relative few in power.

We can look at your opinion, mine, etc., but there is not 'right" beyond opinion. There has to be "somebody" in the first place to make the judgment.

Doug

MK: You can, in good conscience (two words you don't understand the meaning of, I might add)

"Your argument is weak enough that you feel compelled to delve into logical fallacies like ad hominem. You can do better."

That was not ad hominem. I truly believe that you do not have a clear understanding of the word good, nor any understanding of the concept of a conscience. Not name calling, just pointing out, that your understanding of "good" and "concscience" is faulty.

Okay, MK. I disagree, at least a little, since it looked like you were simply saying that I don't have a good conscience. If not, I stand corrected.

Conscience is easy. As for "good," I believe my understanding is more complete than yours. Speaking of "boxes," you see things from your box, which is a part of Christianity. There is also a larger box, all of Christianity. A Larger one yet would be all the Abrahamic religions, or all religions. Rather like Russian "nesting dolls." Going larger yet, there is that which accounts for all opinions of good, whether religion or not is part of it.

Often, a religious person will take the position that "good" basically comes down to what they think, what they believe. Well, that can be one motivation. I am saying that there is a common motivation for everybody, not dependent on a particular religion nor on any particular belief set at all. Regardless of what we think, if there is an "us" in the first place, then there is consciousness there.

That some people are so overwhelmed by their own self-hatred on the most basic level that they can only make attempts at expressing that hatred, pretendingly aimed at others; discussing issues rationally isn't possible for them due to this.

That is what you are predicated upon. That is how you set yourself before us.

When people reply to you logically and rationally, all you do is rehash your bad dreams, apparently gotten from over-dosing on 'Twilight Zone' anthologies.

********

LOL that sounds about right. USPSgirl, you're gonna find a transfer waiting for you tomorrow.

Doug,
You said you have never been faced with an unwanted pregnancy of wife girlfriend etc.
I thought your wife had 2 abortions? Or was that Hal?
Or is it too late to be reading blogs?

"No, I don't judge your motives. I know how you feel and don't "blame" you for it. I do not think your opinion should be forced in pregnant women, but I'm not saying you are a bad person, etc., for thinking as you do."

MK: Well of course you're don't think I'm bad...that would be inconsistent with your belief system. That would be an objective. I thought we had already established that.

No, MK, that's 180 degrees wrong. I make judgments like anybody else, and think that some people are bad. Not you though.

MK: I am not conceding to your point, but I am giving up because you do not seem capable of either understanding the question or answering it.

Wrong, MK. The question is easy. It's like, "why is their consciousness?" There is no answer to that, as you wish for. Same for the origin of "desire." It is the same thing. First, before anything else, a consciousness knows of itself, the old "I think, therefore I am," deal. There is no "questioning" that - do you see? Everything else can be questioned, but not that.
......

Why do you even say "no apparent benefit" in the first place? Perhaps she just does not want to end the unborn life, and wants it to continue (the apparent benefit to her) - thus going through the pregnancy is what she wants.

I begged you not to answer with "because she desires it" and you went ahead and answered with "because she desires it"

That's the only correct answer, down deep. There simply are such women that would feel that way. If there truly is "no apparent benefit," and the pregnancy is unwanted, then she would not willingly continue it. That she does is because she does feel a benefit to continuing, more than she does in ending the pregnancy.
......

I have given you the option, over and over, to say you simply don't know where the desire "comes from" but you refuse to say anything except "because she desires it"...you either truly don't get it, or you simply won't get it. Either way, I can see I'll never get a straight answer from you, so I'm done asking.

You have gotten the straight answer. It is that it desire exists a priori for us, the same as consciousness. For the pregnant woman it could be filtered through any number of factors - does she have religious beliefs, as yours, for example? That could certainly explain her feeling that way. Or, is it some other feeling of not wanting an abortion because "life is sacred." Or is it that she desires to make a couple who wants to adopt happy? There will be an apparent benefit to her, one way or another.
......

I'm disappointed tho, because you earlier said that you would answer every question. And you seem to smart to not be able to understand what I am asking, so I'm going to assume that you are choosing to be obtuse, and for the sake of my sanity, I'm done asking.

Where do you see me not answering? Can you tell us why there is consciousness? Again, it's the same as telling us "why there is God," or "why would a god have consciousness." There, your belief is that "he simply is." Likewise, and in a provable manner - a consciousness knows of itself. Within human consciousness, there is desire, provided that consciousness has developed to a certain point.

Doug

Doug, You said you have never been faced with an unwanted pregnancy of wife girlfriend etc. I thought your wife had 2 abortions? Or was that Hal? Or is it too late to be reading blogs?

Carla, it's never too late!

That was Hal. I have a sister-in-law, really my wife's sis-in-law, that had three miscarriages. My wife never has been pregnant, and now has had a hysterectomy, so things are fairly well settleed on that score.

Too late for me. :) Thanks for the response. So many new friends, so little time. I do believe this could now possibly be called Doug's Place though. Unofficially.

"That person does not want the orange in their stomach. If it's in, pump the stomach, etc., it's an unwanted situation that can be remedied. Same for a pregnancy."

MK: What kind of a moron would put the orange into their stomach if they didn't want it there??????????

Well, MK, maybe it was a moron that did it. People have done far stranger things.
......

It might be pleasurable to their palate, but they'd have to be an idiot to choose to please their taste buds and then get their stomach pumped. The rational man would forgo the orange in spite of the pleasure that it brings, because he would realize that the temporary pleasure of eating the orange would be offset by the later unpleasantness of having his stomach pumped!

I certainly agree, but people do some wild stuff. In any case, it'd be an unwanted situation, regardless of the cause, and a remedy would be sought.

Doug "Mister Citrus"

MK: After rereading your posts I think I see your point of view even tho I think it's kind of sad...

You're on the right track, MK. As for "sad," I could hate slavery more than you - it's just that I realize that personal feelings and desires are what is operative, not anything "external" or "absolute."
......

You are saying that Hitler was neither right nor wrong. You are saying that what he, or Stalin or Caligula did was neither right nor wrong. Objectively speaking, it just was what it was.

Yes - there has to be "somebody" to make value judgments, to have desires, to care one way or another before there will be anything of moral good/bad/right/wrong. If there was no consciousness, there could never be the concepts we are discussing.
......

You might think it was wrong, certainly the Jews thought it was wrong, but Hitler thought it was right.

As a side issue, I wonder. I wonder if he ever felt his "conscience" and/or his raising by parents, teachers, and the opinions of peers, etc., pulling at him. He did what he did, but were there internal conflicts?
......

You do not think that I or anyone else however can say that the massacre of 6 million human beings was "objectively" wrong. Or that slavery was "objectively" wrong... Is that what you are saying?

As a point of argument, if you truly mean externally, absolutely wrong, then yes - there is no morality without a mind thinking about such things. "Objective" - as far as meaning "not influenced by personal feelings," doesn't apply, since there have to be those feelings in the first place.

Beyond that, I don't think it matters, often, when there is no significant disagreement. If, by "universal" acclaim, people on earth want a thing, then in practice that functions as an "objective" want or "good." It's still dependent on those feelings, originally, but now we're really concerned with the application than the origin.

MK: As to the other question, if on day one you had simply said "I don't think our desires come from anywhere" you sure would have saved me a lot of heartburn...

They come from consciousness, as I've been saying all along. Is that the same thing? You tell me.
......

Again, I wish you could hear yourself the way I hear you...you really do make it difficult sometimes. Simple questions, simple answers. Or simple questions, complicated, vague, convoluted, twisted, redundant, noncommittal answers... If you believed in objective good and objective bad you'd see that your way of answering questions is objectively BAD! lol

No, my answer is true. Once again, consciousness is simply a fact. If you argue with that, then you really do not see, but I'd be surprised.

MK: Is this how you think? That we only do what we want to do because it "benefits" us somehow, we have no moral absolutes, good/bad are relative and we live our lives avoiding pain and seeking pleasure?

Wow.

You're like an alien from my point of view. That is really as different from my perspective as if you were from outer space.

I'm just glad you are in the minority. What kind of a world would we live in if everybody believed as you do? Yikes.

It's all the same thing, MK. Whether or not one likes the idea of absolutes, our world is the way it is, and yes, it all goes to desire, whether we attribute it to a god, gods, the Bible, the neighbor, the consensus, or just "what we want." The world is the same.

I can hate slavery just as much or more than you.

psychological egoism has also been accused of using circular logic: "If a person willingly performs an act, that means he derives personal enjoyment from it; therefore, people only perform acts that give them personal enjoyment". In particular, seemingly altruistic acts must be performed because people derive enjoyment from them, and are therefore, in reality, egoistic.

MK, that's different from my premise.

Short of physical compulsion otherwise, we do what we want the most, or that for which we have the least distaste for, from among our available choices.

"Personal enjoyment" sounds far too positive to fit. We may hate two things mightily, but we will pick "the lesser of two evils," - that which is the most palatable to us, the one for which we have the least distaste, even if we "hate" it.

If a person really hates an action, and there is nothing worse to come if it's not done, then they will not willingly do it.

It all proves out - the motivation for any conscious choice is there....

I don't "like" taking out the trash and garbage. Sometimes I gag and cough like hell. Is that "personal enjoyment"? Not really, but I do it because I more want it gone. It is less distasteful for me to take it out than to avoid coughing and retching.

--------

"If a person willingly performs an act, that means he derives personal enjoyment from it; therefore, people only perform acts that give them personal enjoyment".

I also have a problem with that. Does that have to be the "logic"? I think it is two statements.

1.) People see an apparent benefit in an action willingly done - that's taken from you, and is more-inclusive than "derives enjoyment."

2.) People only do that which gives them an apparent benefit.

It's not anything "circular," really, it's almost the exact same thing stated twice, that's all. # 2 doesn't even have to be there. # 1 is sufficient. Really just the premise stated then restated slightly altered.

"Doug: No, she just made a silly comparison about a duck. The physical reality of the duck isn't in question, and little if any of the abortion argument is about physical reality."

Bethany: Doug, her post had nothing to do with a duck. It was a parody of the way you answer questions. The duck has absolutely no importance in her point..she could have been talking about a jar of honey, a fairy, or an orange. Same difference. The point was that the question is not being answered, but being avoided by a long, pretentious post about nothing...a post which does not answer the question in any way.

B, I like Hooves, but she confused two important things. The duck, or whatever, with physical reality, has an existence that can't be argued much.

There won't be any pretentious posts, nor "posts about nothing." Not if the person is sensible.

As with - "I agree on "human being." There is a living human organism there."

That's physical reality, and I've said as much.

When we get to attributed status, valuations, etc,, then things are not nearly so simple - that is the truth.

If one only wants the "simple" way and "bumper-sticker" mentalities, then one may get impatient with the truth, but the truth it remains.

Doug

You answered that Hitler "thought" he was right. You did not answer the question. You answered this question, "Did Hitler think he was right?" But MK did not ask "Did Hitler think he was right", she asked, "Was Hitler right?"

Again, where do you see MK asking about Hitler's "desires" or his "position"?

Oy Vey. Bethany, I answered MK on this, but since you asked:

MK asked: So then,......., from a certain perspective (his own/his country's) Hitler was right?"

So, from his perspective he thought he was right. That's my answer. It's what he thought, IMO.

??

Bethany: And again, Doug. MK asks you "why" people are medicated or locked away because they are not thinking in a "normal" manner, and you answer by saying that a person can be locked away for not being normal. You simply repeated what she has already said, instead of answering her question.

Here is the exchange:

MK: Speaking of nuts, why are people considered mentally ill. Why is the schizophrenic considered "sick" or abnormal. Why aren't his desires just as valid? We as a society judge his perceptions to be invalid because they don't fit our reality.

"Abnormal" is just beyond the norm - doesn't have to be "bad," necessarily. Schizophrenics typically have hallucinations and delusions, right? I don't know to what extent they're considered dangerous, all in all, but "sick" does seem to be applied. I think that yes, we see our reality as "necessary" enough that the hallucinations qualify as "sick."
......

If a schizophrenic person did something based on desires that came from his "illness" we would judge them to be right or wrong FOR that person and stop them if we thought they were wrong...We even medicate them to "force" them to think more like us...

I don't know much about it. Past a point, a person can be "commited" or "certified" or made a ward of the state, etc., and "forced" in some things, sure.
.....

What, really, is your objections to my answers?

Bethany: MK wrote: This is day three and you have yet to answer the original question...Where do these desires come from?

"It is a fact of human consciousness. That's the answer."

B: No, that's simply repeating what MK has already stated. It's not an answer.

Oh yes it is. Consciousness is the one unquestionable thing for a consciousness itself. Who knows what unseen realilties lurk in the future? But if we are conscious then we know there's a "we."

"I think, therefore I am." You cannot argue with that, can you?
......

"Our brains have enough complexity, etc., that we have them. We have that type of consciousness. MK, there is nothing more basic than the fact of consciousness. After that, assumptions come in, but the fact of consciousness is the only thing that's not questionable."

B: MK didn't question whether we are conscious or not, Doug. MK didn't say, Hey Doug, are we conscious people or not? But that is the question you are answering.

It's all part of the answer. If you agree that consciousness can't really be argued, then great. Can it be questioned? I don't think so. A consciousness of certain complexity will have desires? How about that? Yea or nay?
......

The Great and Powerful Orange:

"No, the orange is not "objectively good."

Bethany: What? You're saying there is no physical reality, Doug?

No, if it has physical existence then there is an orange there. We do not get to the "goods" and "bads" until we bring in desire, however. If there is nobody to want anything, there will be no good/bad to the orange.
......

"It's a sense impression (taste), and again I know what you mean there. Okay, so that's opinion, as opposed to the orange having definite effects, as above. Yet the "good" or "bad" of the orange (and those effects) still has to go back to some desire."

No it doesn't, Doug. There is a physical reality that you're ignoring there.

Oh yes it does. Physical reality isn't in question. There has to be a desire for mass, structures, liquid, nutrients, other chemicals, etc., before there will be any "good" or "bad" perceived.

Bethany: It is comforting to remember that most people would think Doug's views were crazy.

It doesn't matter, really, B. Sounds like you just want others to agree with you, and that's all fine and good. Yet just because I disagree on motivation does not mean that I'll necessarily disagree on the good/bad of things.
......

Thank goodness his ideas aren't more prevalent.

@@
......

If they were, we'd have people constantly questioning whether the children who killed others in school shootings really were doing something "bad"."

Nonsence. Whether one wants to believe in imaginary things or not, just who do you see questioning the "bad," there?
......

It would all just be "in the eye of the beholder". No one would be shocked or outraged when they heard of a woman putting her baby in the microwave, and no one would be bothered by it if they heard about a man molesting a child,

Yes, it's in the eye of the beholder, and for those things the beholders are in such agreement that what you say is wrong.
......

because they would say, "we have to weigh the desires and suffering of each individual involved. Perhaps the suffering of the perpetrator was more than the suffering of the victim, and therefore it wasn't really a "crime" persay..they were just trying to relieve their own suffering.

That's just it - they're not going to say the victim's suffering was small enough to justify the shooting.

http://www.queendom.com/tests/access_page/index.htm?idRegTest=692

I got a negative 20.

Doug

Okay, I got a 73.

Gee doug,
you got all those words from my premise.And all from you taking 12 words I wrote, and making it magically turn into "self hate". Abracadabra, zoom,zam, zoom, Doug the magician uses his logic wand on Yllas. Quite a typical Doug valuation. Your hillarious Doug, from deconstruction to conflation is a serious logical flaw Doug.
Your for the decision of a killin' Doug, and I be for a living. Your a mind that promotes a women deciding to kill her off spring, Doug. That is the decision you promote Doug, for women. If a women wants to become a killer of her creation, Doug allows her to kill her creation from the right of thinking, and deciding, that killin a fetus is only valued as a "want" or "not to want" of the women.
Logic based on want and not want, is a appeal to emotion/passion. No reasoning in desire,except the logic of want and unwant, that ends in a many a tragic deaths. When caught appealing to emotion, Doug and his mateys for death, then use the words, "planned and un(not)planned. Why? Because a plan(the word) is immediately defined,percieved, in the mind of most people, as logic,forethought, critical thinking.
Then Doug steps up and uses his mind of, if,not,then, to self debunk others who argue with Doug. IF your right, and your NOT, THEN, I Doug, am logically the truth of a argument. Since your(debater) NOT able to establish the truth(prove), of my NOT premise, stating your premise is NOT Truth(prove) , my THEN statment/premise follows, which is always true, or a proof of a Doug's THEN premise. Ah, Doug, when Doug gets to his THEN premise/statement, the opponent is always, Not a Truth, since that "your NOT right debater", premise of Doug, is self proving Doug's want to be a truthful mind devoted to killin' human beings in the womb.
I like you Doug, when I think of you, I think of Chesterton's chapters on the Suicide of Thought, and The Maniac. Come on Doug, be brave, read a book not devoted to self confirmations of yourself(put down that wine magazine, Doug) and your want/desire, to allow, the decision, to kill human life, as a valued decision, in your life.

Doug,

I certainly agree, but people do some wild stuff. In any case, it'd be an unwanted situation, regardless of the cause, and a remedy would be sought.

At what point does someone take responsibility for their moronic actions?

Carla,

This has been going on for months now, and I'm seriously thinking of asking Jill to start a thread that allows us to continue uninterupted...

Jill has actually already said she would do it...

Doug, what do you think? Should we start our own thread?

Doug,

"I think, therefore I am." You cannot argue with that, can you?
......

The problem comes in when YOU reverse it...

I am...therefore I think.

We don't see it that way.

Doug,

MK: As to the other question, if on day one you had simply said "I don't think our desires come from anywhere" you sure would have saved me a lot of heartburn...

They come from consciousness, as I've been saying all along. Is that the same thing? You tell me.

That's like saying our oranges come from the grocery store...or the "farm"...

The question I am asking is much (wait for it...)deeper than that. I am asking where consciousness comes from. You don't know. I don't know. That is the answer I was looking for.

Of course the next step is, "I believe it comes from" or in your case "I don't believe it comes from"...but we have consciousness because we are conscious is not an answer.

Doug,

If a schizophrenic person did something based on desires that came from his "illness" we would judge them to be right or wrong FOR that person and stop them if we thought they were wrong...We even medicate them to "force" them to think more like us...
*
I don't know much about it. Past a point, a person can be "commited" or "certified" or made a ward of the state, etc., and "forced" in some things, sure.
.....

The point here is that we are making a value judgment on someone else reality. You do it too. You have made a value judgement on Terri Schiavo's reality. You have decreed that her reality is not valid and can be eliminated because it doesn't fit into your "veiw" of reality.

You say that you have the more open view. I disagree.

Your view has a beginning, middle and end. Everything must fit into your box, and if it doesn't then it is dismissed as imaginary.

My view allows for the unknowable and more importantly, the questioning of the unknowable.

I asked you once about "miracles"...Fatima, Zeuitin, Stigmata, bi-locution...and your response? I don't even remember, but it was something like, sure there's stuff we can't explain.

Well, I, and many others are very interested in that which has not been explained, especially when it comes to the metaphysical.

At the very least, we are willing/able to recognize it as real. You just pawn it off to the imaginary. Calling it magic.

Your philosophy is closed because it only allows for that which you can understand or explain.

Physical reality is not in question. But what happens when physical reality cannot explain "other" realities.

You say a schizophrenic is sick. The schizophrenic says he just sees things (literally) differently. But you are so sure of your reality that you are willing to interfere with their reality.

Not all deaf people want to hear. Not all blind people want to see. Many of them are quite satisfied being who they are and resent the implication that there is something "wrong" simply because there is something different.

I'm not disagreeing that people with mental illnesses should be helped in spite of whether they want it or not, but your view says that they shouldn't be helped because their reality is theirs and they have a right to "desire" what they want to "desire"...(we're not talking about people who are a danger to themselves or others, just people who hallucinate or hear voices).

Also, as to the quote about psycholgical egoism...this was just one argument against one part of PE...It doesn't describe the belief system.

The belief system doesn't say that psychological egoists ONLY do things for pleasure. They also "desire" things to avoid suffering....

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/

http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/egoism.html

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/Egoism.html

There are also some great arguments against this belief system...Some of which I have touched upon...put forth by greater minds than mine...

You really should read them. Fascinating stuff.
Even if ridiculous.

Doug,

That's just it - they're not going to say the victim's suffering was small enough to justify the shooting.

But that's just the point Doug. They DID say that in Germany. Enough people said that the victim's suffering was small enough to justify the killings.

And slavery, enough people said that the "victim's" suffering was small enough to justify enslaving them.

And now in abortion...YOU say, the victims's suffering was small enough to justify these killings...

Don't you see how dangerous your line of thinking can be?

Doug,

It doesn't matter, really, B. Sounds like you just want others to agree with you, and that's all fine and good. Yet just because I disagree on motivation does not mean that I'll necessarily disagree on the good/bad of things.
......

No, it doesn't matter, as long as most people agree. The danger with leaving it up to majority desire, is that sometimes people "agree" with things that are morally WRONG!

Most often, people DO NOT think it is okay to kill 6 million people based on their ancestry or religious beliefs. But once in awhile, as in Rwanda, or Darfur, you get enough people to agree that it is perfectly fine. That's where your argument falls apart.

Sorry Doug, but even if everyone in the entire world thought it was okay to kill people by the millions simply because of their religion, even if not one person alive claimed that it was not right
it would still be WRONG!!!

You don't need anybody at all to see it. It just is. Wrong. Period.

Doug,

Conscience is easy. As for "good," I believe my understanding is more complete than yours. Speaking of "boxes," you see things from your box, which is a part of Christianity. There is also a larger box, all of Christianity. A Larger one yet would be all the Abrahamic religions, or all religions. Rather like Russian "nesting dolls." Going larger yet, there is that which accounts for all opinions of good, whether religion or not is part of it.
*
Often, a religious person will take the position that "good" basically comes down to what they think, what they believe. Well, that can be one motivation. I am saying that there is a common motivation for everybody, not dependent on a particular religion nor on any particular belief set at all. Regardless of what we think, if there is an "us" in the first place, then there is consciousness there."

We are saying the same thing. The difference is that we recognize that "Commonality" as something outside of ourselves. Otherwise, it wouldn't happen. The same laws have been understood to define right and wrong since the beginning of time. Coincidentally (or not) they just happen to be the same laws that Christians/Jews follow...the Ten Commandments. Something we believe was given to us by God. Something created by God.

God did not "create" religion. God created "us" and reveals himself through religion, and His laws have been written on the hearts of every man. That is why throughout history, every man comes up with the same laws. There's your explanation for the commonality...There is the answer to "where does this desire come from?", there is your answer to "Why are men conscious beings?"...because we were created in the creators image.

You can throw that explanation out if you want to, but our entire country is founded on this principal.

James Madison, the fourth president, known as 'The Father of Our Constitution' made the following statement:

'We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.'

Doug,

Rather like Russian "nesting dolls." Going larger yet, there is that which accounts for all opinions of good, whether religion or not is part of it.

Exactly! And the largest doll? The doll that began it all? What do you call that doll?

Doug needs his own blog? Ya think?

Carla, yes, yes and OH yes.

Carla and Bethany,

At least his/our own thread...

I think this stuff is important tho, because it gets to the HEART of the matter.

It's this idea that anything goes and majority rules and no objective right and wrong that brought us this culture of death to begin with...

It's important, I think, to pinpoint how we got here. Fixing it from the bottom up so to speak.

Carla,

I'm SOOOOOOOO glad that you've decided to stay. You're a real joy to talk with.

Thank you MK! I bow to you and Bethany and Jill for your patience. I don't know how you follow others "reasoning and ruminating"!! The Patience Prize I am hereby bestowing!! Congratulations!!

I'd like to thank my mother, my father, my husband, my children...

Actually, if you've been reading the posts you'll notice that I run a little thin on patience sometimes...lol.

But you gotta love the Dougman...

mmmmmmm ok.

yllas: Gee doug, you got all those words from my premise.

No, as I said -

That is what you are predicated upon. That is how you set yourself before us. It's your own behavior.
......

As far as "being for killing," then to a point, yes, Pro-Choicers are for that, when the pregnancy is unwanted, at least to a point in gestation.

As for Chesterton, he once said, "Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly."

So here's hoping there's no "going postal" in your future, Wild Woman. If woman it is.

Doug

"I certainly agree, but people do some wild stuff. In any case, it'd be an unwanted situation, regardless of the cause, and a remedy would be sought."

MK: At what point does someone take responsibility for their moronic actions?

When they say, "This is my responsibility and it's up to me to remedy the situation."
......

asking Jill to start a thread that allows us to continue uninterupted... Doug, what do you think? Should we start our own thread?

I don't know - things go in cycles, and there's been a few days of hitting it hard, but days will come when I for one won't even be online. I'm sort of running down today anyway.

If the thing wouldn't "expire" then I think it'd be good, though at the end of a week I wonder if we'd keep it up....?

Doug

when Doug gets to his THEN premise/statement, the opponent is always, Not a Truth, since that "your NOT right debater", premise of Doug, is self proving Doug's want to be a truthful mind

yllas, despite your zany and madcap posting adventures, there is something addressable therein.

You are, of course, totally wrong. I often note the truth of what others say.

In matters of physical reality, it's comparitively rarely that they are in dispute in the abortion debate, relative to the questions of valuation, rights, personhood, etc.

You can pretend about any and all premises, but the "Barring compulsion otherwise, we do that which we want the most, or that for which we have least distaste for, from among our available choices" covers it all.

Yes, there is a desire for truth. The greatest truths here are so for all of us, not just those who adhere to a certain religion, etc.

"I think, therefore I am." You cannot argue with that, can you?
......

The problem comes in when YOU reverse it... I am...therefore I think. We don't see it that way.

Well, I don't reverse it. Saying, "I am" is thinking in the first place. That self-awareness, be it "I think" or just "I am," is the a priori part, and that which cannot be questioned.
......

MK: As to the other question, if on day one you had simply said "I don't think our desires come from anywhere" you sure would have saved me a lot of heartburn...

"They come from consciousness, as I've been saying all along. Is that the same thing? You tell me."

That's like saying our oranges come from the grocery store...or the "farm"...

Oh no no, that's just location. Desire is part of the type of consciousness we are talking about. To an extent desire is consciousness, as with ours in this case.
......

The question I am asking is much (wait for it...)deeper than that. I am asking where consciousness comes from. You don't know. I don't know. That is the answer I was looking for.

It doesn't come from anywhere. It'd be like you saying where God comes from. It's just the starting point for a conscious being. After that is assumptions. That, itself, cannot be questioned.
......

Of course the next step is, "I believe it comes from" or in your case "I don't believe it comes from"...but we have consciousness because we are conscious is not an answer.

You're already assuming, i.e. that there is a "we, etc. Fine, if "we" are here then we all do it. But it's really not "the next step," it's a whole different deal. Given the assumptions we are making here, it's a given that we have desires - you and I can agree on that (I think). But we're not going to agree on imaginary "separate" causes for it or anything.

The point here is that we are making a value judgment on someone else reality. You do it too. You have made a value judgement on Terri Schiavo's reality. You have decreed that her reality is not valid and can be eliminated because it doesn't fit into your "veiw" of reality.

No, MK, not that it's "not valid," but that there is nobody there that cares. Persistent Vegetative State. "Nobody Home," etc. I realize it's being argued still.
......

Your view has a beginning, middle and end. Everything must fit into your box, and if it doesn't then it is dismissed as imaginary.

:: laughing :: Sort of - my box is everything actually known to be true, or logically provable. It's what's true for *all of us* regardless of what unprovable stuff some of us talk about or like the idea of.
......

My view allows for the unknowable and more importantly, the questioning of the unknowable. I asked you once about "miracles"...Fatima, Zeuitin, Stigmata, bi-locution...and your response? I don't even remember, but it was something like, sure there's stuff we can't explain. Well, I, and many others are very interested in that which has not been explained, especially when it comes to the metaphysical. At the very least, we are willing/able to recognize it as real. You just pawn it off to the imaginary. Calling it magic.Your philosophy is closed because it only allows for that which you can understand or explain.

No, I don't necessarily call it magic, and I realize there are some interesting and "wild" things that deserve to be questioned and possible explained - no doubt about it. Questioning the unknowable is fine by me, but I don't think conclusions erroneously based on those unknown (or unknowable) things should provide the foundation for telling others what to do.
......

Physical reality is not in question. But what happens when physical reality cannot explain "other" realities.

I think there IS a physical reality to it, even if we don't yet know what it is. Of course more things can be examined and found out.
......

You say a schizophrenic is sick. The schizophrenic says he just sees things (literally) differently. But you are so sure of your reality that you are willing to interfere with their reality.

Oh please - I ain't got a dime in that one. Are they dangerous? I don't know much about it at all. The "shoulds" and "should nots" of treating them come from somewhere, but it's not me.
......

Not all deaf people want to hear. Not all blind people want to see. Many of them are quite satisfied being who they are and resent the implication that there is something "wrong" simply because there is something different.

So... what does this have to do with you or me and what we were talking about?
......

I'm not disagreeing that people with mental illnesses should be helped in spite of whether they want it or not, but your view says that they shouldn't be helped because their reality is theirs and they have a right to "desire" what they want to "desire"...(we're not talking about people who are a danger to themselves or others, just people who hallucinate or hear voices).

No, that's not my view.
......

Also, as to the quote about psycholgical egoism...this was just one argument against one part of PE...It doesn't describe the belief system. The belief system doesn't say that psychological egoists ONLY do things for pleasure. They also "desire" things to avoid suffering.

Okay, that sounds better; more complete. I'd say that any action willingly taken can be traced back to the desire behind it.

I think this stuff is important tho, because it gets to the HEART of the matter.

True, MK.
......

It's this idea that anything goes and majority rules and no objective right and wrong that brought us this culture of death to begin with.

That's where you're wrong. "Anything goes" is not the deal. There is such commonality of desire about most things that that's prevented.
......

"Rather like Russian "nesting dolls." Going larger yet, there is that which accounts for all opinions of good, whether religion or not is part of it."

Exactly! And the largest doll? The doll that began it all? What do you call that doll?

Al Bundy?

There doesn't have to be a "began it all." That's one-dimensional thinking when our reality is not that way. The largest doll is what's true for everybody.
......

"That's just it - they're not going to say the victim's suffering was small enough to justify the shooting."

But that's just the point Doug. They DID say that in Germany. Enough people said that the victim's suffering was small enough to justify the killings.

And there are people today who want to kill Jews, etc. The power gained by Hitler and his cronies was unusual, but world opinion past and present is still exceedingly one-sided on it.
......

And slavery, enough people said that the "victim's" suffering was small enough to justify enslaving them.

Same deal - there are people now who'd like to have slaves. Heck, there are those with slaves. And again, there's not much argument at all about it. Great horrors are going on right now in Africa, etc. People are almost all not "for it," but it goes on.
......

And now in abortion...YOU say, the victims's suffering was small enough to justify these killings... Don't you see how dangerous your line of thinking can be?

"Now" in abortion? It's been known, practiced and desired for thousands and thousands of years. There is a lot of sentiment for letting women be free as they are now in this matter. The Jews and the slaves were not inside the body of a person. That's one big reason why abortion is so much different from those and from other, similar things.

MK: At what point does someone take responsibility for their moronic actions?
*
When they say, "This is my responsibility and it's up to me to remedy the situation."
......

So taking responsibility does not involve thinking ahead and avoiding a situation that will have grave consequences...?

Doug,

And there are people today who want to kill Jews, etc. The power gained by Hitler and his cronies was unusual, but world opinion past and present is still exceedingly one-sided on it.
......

My point is not that SOME people at SOME times MIGHT want to kill Jews...My point is that you said most people are not for it and I pointed out that at certain times most people ARE for it and that that is the danger of thinking like you do. You always have the possibility, that because everything comes from desire and majority rules because there is no "Objective" wrong, we run the risk that MOST people at some time will act in "wrong" way because the majority "DESIRES" it.

Whether it is rare or not, is not the point. It can happen, and according to your philosophy, the death of 6 million Jews was not objectively wrong because there was no one around who thought it was wrong.

I believe something can be wrong even if there is no one there to think so...

"And there are people today who want to kill Jews, etc. The power gained by Hitler and his cronies was unusual, but world opinion past and present is still exceedingly one-sided on it."

MK: My point is not that SOME people at SOME times MIGHT want to kill Jews...My point is that you said most people are not for it and I pointed out that at certain times most people ARE for it and that that is the danger of thinking like you do. You always have the possibility, that because everything comes from desire and majority rules because there is no "Objective" wrong, we run the risk that MOST people at some time will act in "wrong" way because the majority "DESIRES" it. Whether it is rare or not, is not the point. It can happen, and according to your philosophy, the death of 6 million Jews was not objectively wrong because there was no one around who thought it was wrong. I believe something can be wrong even if there is no one there to think so...

Well, "wrong" is a thought in the first place.

Thinking as I do doesn't change anything. Most people are against many things, no matter what I or you think. Human nature doesn't change because of what I think or say, and the same for you - there's no "danger" in trying to look at the root of our motivation.

MK: At what point does someone take responsibility for their moronic actions?

"When they say, "This is my responsibility and it's up to me to remedy the situation."

So taking responsibility does not involve thinking ahead and avoiding a situation that will have grave consequences...?

It certainly can, but if the premise is that somebody did a "moronic action," then it sounds to me like there wasn't all that much thinking ahead.

That's the point Doug!

It certainly can, but if the premise is that somebody did a "moronic action," then it sounds to me like there wasn't all that much thinking ahead.

If somebody isn't thinking ahead and is therefore responsible for their actions, should they be able to end human life to cover up their irresponsibility?

At what point does a person say, my stupidity got me here and I should not be allowed to end the life that I, of my own idiocy, created?

Rae says she isn't pro life or pro choice...she's anti-stupidity!

The danger is in the idea that "wrong" is in the eye of the beholder. Because at certain times in history the "beholder" and the majority think that horrendous things are right when I, and all Christians think that they are objectively wrong.

So answer this:

Was what Hitler did to the Jews objectively wrong?
Was slavery objectively wrong?

"It certainly can, but if the premise is that somebody did a "moronic action," then it sounds to me like there wasn't all that much thinking ahead."

MK: If somebody isn't thinking ahead and is therefore responsible for their actions, should they be able to end human life to cover up their irresponsibility?

Oh no - there's no agreement that it's "irresponsible." The woman doesn't owe you or anybody else anything there. I know you don't like it, but there it is. If your opinion is that it's "moronic," then obviously you already think that there was a lack of :"thinking ahead" as you'd like to see it. You don't think it was "thinking ahead" in the first place, so why ask about it?
......

At what point does a person say, my stupidity got me here and I should not be allowed to end the life that I, of my own idiocy, created?

It's all up to them. It's all in their eyes; their valuation. I imagine that LOTS of women feel "stupid" for not using protection, etc., in a given situation, but that doesn't mean they will choose one way or the other with respect to continuing or ending a pregnancy.
......

Rae says she isn't pro life or pro choice...she's anti-stupidity!

You know, I rather felt that way, originally. "If you don't want to have a kid, then why didn't you prevent pregnancy?" Well, even in my eyes, people do stupid stuff all the time. Just a part of human nature, just a fact of existence. After the fact, the question is what is the best way to rectify things?

Tell me about Rae. I don't mean to pry, but I just love her.

Doug

The danger is in the idea that "wrong" is in the eye of the beholder. Because at certain times in history the "beholder" and the majority think that horrendous things are right when I, and all Christians think that they are objectively wrong.

Same deal, MK - there was a time when The Inquisition, the Crusades, etc, may have been supported by Christians. There's no more "danger" than the fact that not everybody agrees about everything in the first place.
......

So answer this: Was what Hitler did to the Jews objectively wrong? Was slavery objectively wrong

In the moral realm I have already said there are no objective anythings. Morals start out as thoughts, as concepts of the mind - they fit the dictionary definition of "subjective," and do not fit the definition of "objective.

I've also mentioned that there is a sense of "objective" which can mean what everybody/almost everybody thinks, and I'm not arguing that. Aborton obviously would not even come under that, either way, anyway.

Doug,

Rae possesses a very quiet strength. She knows who she is, but can come across as shy. I don't think she really is shy. I think she is very confident in herself. She just doesn't always trust that.

She is layers and layers. On the top she is sweet and unassuming, under that she is steely and determined, under that she doubts herself, but the final layer, I think is confidence.

She doesn't do well with stupidity and it frustrates her.

Sometimes she misreads this as being without a conscience, but I believe her conscience is so well formed that she shuts down to avoid feeling bad. She also shuts down, I think, when people are too challenging...not challenging as in interesting...challenging as in making truly poor life decisions.

She is a practical, but old soul, who intuitively understands life, but is frequently frustrated that other people don't.

I would most definitely want her batting for me, as I think she is extremely loyal to those she trusts. She is funny, Waaaaaay intelligent, kind, and astute.

You'd like her a lot. While she is a no-nonsense kind of gal with "real" things, she can really be silly about inconsequential stuff.

I adore her.

Love it - brilliant description, MK.

I'm enormously impressed with the younger people, Rae, PIP, Erin, Leah, Midnight, Elizabeth, Jess, Heather B, Dan etc. Sorry if I left somebody off or they didn't make the cut as far as being really "young." Bethany, for example, is still plenty young and a boatload younger than an old seadog like me.
......

She is a practical, but old soul, who intuitively understands life, but is frequently frustrated that other people don't.

Gotta love it. She's totally honest, too. Geez, when I was that age, I was comparitively just "waking up" about some of the things we discuss here.

I agree with you Doug. I love all of my "girls" and I've watched some of them really "grow-up" this last year. You should have heard them when they first came on...A whole lot of Laura's and Texas Reds.

But that's understandable as most pro-choicers come on here with fists swinging...they're testing us. And after a while their true colors shine through.

Each of my "girls" have big hearts, wonderful personalities, talents, senses of humor, and intelligence. Yet they are each unique. I love them all like daughters.

It's nice that someone else sees them as I do...

This thread will be shut down soon, but if you still want to play that "game" I was talking about, I'm up for it. I'll ask you a question and you answer, then I'll ask another...when they are all done, I'll tell you what they mean. But if you've played before, tell me. No cheating! Not that you would. You're nothing if not honest. Frustrating as all hell, but honest.

Yeah, MK, I'm certainly game. Mebbe we should do it on a more "modern" thread, though?