![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]") |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
 Posted - January 11 2004 : 07:24:33 AM
|
quote:
originally posted by Lainey
Rich said: "there's a lot of common ground within this thread."
Rich, you ignorant slut!
There's no common ground. There's a great chasm in thought.
Ooooh ... I love it when you talk dirty to me!!
"Common ground," as I see it - Let's face it, the vast majority of abortions are done for convenience's sake. Here, has anyone come forth to say that is a good thing?
At any rate ... just acting in my "moderator" role & trying to keep the peace. I've had my say elsewhere in this thread.
Hey Kate! Congratulations! You've "earned" yerself a star!! Yee-haw! |
report to moderator  |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - January 14 2004 : 3:56:31 PM
|
Continuing ...
Regarding the 'facts, figures, & stastistics thing' - while I agree they can and often ARE misused, they remain valuable cells of information that are frequently cited for edification or proof, and are, unlike sentiment & personal feelings, grounded in something concrete. They are tools, not Absolute Truth, & used rightly they offer something revealing & something useful, both helpful in discussions and in our attempts to formulate opinions. Used wrongly they frame an argument built upon half truths, and a half truth position will shortly fall to untruth. [Example; Maternal deaths listed nation by nation by CDC & UN Population Fund include deaths unrelated to pregnancy & childbearing, even deaths from injuries or illnesses occurring months after time of delivery - and incredibly, deaths from abortions are INCLUDED in the maternal death figures while simultaneously being cited separately as abortion related deaths!!! The result is a super-inflated number of alleged maternal deaths being compared to an obviously lower number of abortion deaths so an improper, untruthful conclusion is then drawn; ‘Abortion is safer than childbearing.’ That’s the sort of twisting that ‘in the final analysis’ means nothing at all. It ultimately became a lie.] If I were arguing in favor of abortion for any reason I would not use statistics either; they’d work against me.
Regarding the quoting of books, Christian allegories, non-Christian allegories, & personal views/personal experiences; Other writers often express with perfect coherence and brilliant insight a point that can not be worded any better. Why reinvent the wheel - and why quote from Mr. Paine's book?
Christian & non-Christian allegories - agreed, both contain brilliance & beauty, and as side topics, neither was part of the argument. This isn't a religious argument - it's a human rights argument. Personal views are wonderful, enriching, & very often thought provoking, but useless so long as they are disconnected from absolutes. Personal experiences are better since they reflect something real [so long as they are honestly related], but they are not more real or more valid than factual analysis or perceptive
considerations. One might oppose the current war in Iraq, but you had better argue against it with more than, 'I just feel it's wrong' - or for it with, 'I once had an Iraqi neighbor who had too many children.' Why is it wrong or right? From what standard are you judging wrong or right? What are the realities and consequences?
The chasm I earlier mentioned is on this point ... I, and many, many others, view moral things in absolutes. I simply recognize that there is a great pillar of truth from which we draw our thoughts, perceptions, judgments that remains constant & uncompromised, unchanging in its absolutism & its truth. It’s present even in each of our consciences -an internal manifestation of an external standard or sense of a thing’s rightness or wrongness, of good or bad. Even if we ignore or disobey our consciences, we can’t escape them. It’s not cultural or political, it’s not antiquated or modern. It just is. And from that point, as an avowed moral absolutist [not a personal attribute - a view from which to strive], I see important things in their clear qualities of bad/good, virtue/vice, right/wrong, etc. That’s not to say I can not understand, empathize, sympathize or otherwise embrace the human realities behind any given situation. That’s not the point at all, that’s the challenge [what do we do about it?]. The challenge is to rise to the occasion; to struggle & sacrifice & bear heavy tasks & difficulties in a virtuous & caring & good manner. We don't always succeed - I don't necessarily bear my own situations gracefully - sometimes we throw tantrums & sometimes we get angry. But, we must bear it. [One of the main causes of admiration I have for Adele, for instance, is that she has risen to meet the challenges of h |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - January 14 2004 : 7:51:35 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lainey
I have to tell this very short story ...
Years ago, this was. There was a discussion about pregnancy, children, testing, & disabilities, during which one person said, "If I knew I was going to have a baby with Down's Syndrome I'd definitely want an abortion." The next day, while at a park with a group of adults, this person noticed there was a group of 'handicapped children' also there, on an outing. Not paying too much attention & going about his/her business, a while passed before this person turned around. There was a little child with Down's Syndrome standing there smiling. The child reached out, gave a great hug, & said: "I love you."
Just think about that -
So I'm reading this very long, well thought out post, though being a mere mortal, I understood very little of it. [Just kidding there, Lainey!]
But the end, I instantly understood - it was a long time ago; I'd almost forgotten. That was me, in the story, a true story.
Thanks for jogging my memory! |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - January 15 2004 : 02:29:34 AM
|
Excellent post, Lainey. I think this one in particular gets to the heart of the matter for me, and has highlighted some of the reasons why I have always had such a huge internal struggle with this issue.
I remember a discussion a while back on euthanasia to which you, and if I remember correctly, Diana, contributed a great deal. Another person on the board told me that they had read the posts with very clear and definite beliefs on the subject, and that for the first time, that person was questioning those beliefs, and was not as convinced in those beliefs as before. I feel the same way in this debate. Although I started out with a dilemma (and have had that dilemma for many years), I had always had 'leanings' in one particular direction. To be perfectly honest, I have always envied people who were completely SURE of their beliefs (either way) where abortion is concerned. To me, it has always been a minefield, and although I do not sit on the fence, I have had real difficulty formulating a strong opinion either way - very unusual for me!
Anyway, the point is....thanks to all who contributed to this debate, because it has really helped me clarify a few issues for myself.
HM
PS Thank you for the compliment you paid me Lainey, but if there is one thing I have learned, there is always someone out there with a situation a great deal worse than oneself. I have NO doubt, there are people on this very board, who either have tougher things to handle than myself, or are a great deal stronger in coping with their difficulties. That is VERY humbling, and very useful! It prevents us from drowning in a sea of self-pity, and makes us appreciate our good fortune in the things we DO have. We can all draw strength from others - don't you agree? |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Gadget Girl
Gatherer of Gathering Gadgets
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
 Posted - January 15 2004 : 3:27:17 PM
|
Elaine, you pompous bitch!  *** As a health care provider I would like to coerce you into trying this new product – SEE BELOW
Image Insert:
43.64 KB
 
Image Insert:
45.44 KB
Above pictures meant TOTALLY in jest!!!!! I don't think you are a bitch at all, we might talk about pompous though 
First to address some earlier thoughts…
quote:
***According to the NC Dept. of Health & Human Services, there are abortions performed *legally* well past 20 weeks in the state. The numbers weren't real high [as in a lot of other states] but they're sure doing it. I wonder, is it the BROAD 'health of the mother' clause that's being used since that permits abortions at any age, any reason by way of a skewed mis-definition of 'health.' [Stress, financial burdens, boyfriend problems, can't cope ...]
A pregnancy termination after 20-weeks would not be allowed for the reasons you wondered about (know a specific case?), more likely other than the ectopic pregnancy, uterine considerations, etc., it WAS due to a maternal health issue such as cardiac failure from a hypertrophic cardiomyopathy or some other life threatening disease that was present prior to pregnancy. Most institution’s Neonatal physicians will not perform life saving measures on say a 21-week fetus. This is past the 20-week cut off and before viability (chance of survival), but ending the pregnancy is the only answer to saving the Mom. Any pregnancy intervened on after 24-weeks would be a premature delivery. Reasons for induction might include premature rupture of membranes, incompetent cervix, or placental abruption. Delivering the fetus is the only possible chance to save it. For maternal concerns for premature delivery, the most common is preeclampsia or eclampsia. If Mom is in an intractable seizure state, what chance would prolonging the pregnancy give to EITHER Mom or baby – None. The deliveries you found in the stats must have been between the legal cut off and accepted viability (20-23.5 or so weeks). Do you REALLY believe that they would have been done for boyfriend problems or coping issues??? I’m sorry, but I don’t know a physician that would risk his license to help someone get her boyfriend back or pay the light bill. Was that not a judgmental comment?
Yes, I agree with you that my comments alluding to good reasons/abhorrent reasons were judgmental. I was thinking of instances where I would or would not even consider an abortion. Poorly stated!
quote:
***I was trying to get more clarification on this. Delivered early ... how? D & E? Labor inducement? [And I DO appreciate your help with this!]
How? Yes, labor inducement. Regarding pain management from your most recent post, no, pain management would not be a consideration, because to sedate the baby the Mom would have to be sedated and to sedate a Mom for 24 weeks would be contraindicated due to concerns for her health. One could not sedate the baby only either because that would involve invading the sterile intrauterine environment every few hours and risk infection. Again, not an option; however, during labor induction to terminate, the Mom is sedated as much as is safe and needed and thus the baby would be too.
To the present argument…
After returnin |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Kaylynn44
Mohicanite
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 13 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
 Posted - January 15 2004 : 4:55:04 PM
|
Diana,
I gain more and more respect for you every time I read one of your posts. If there is anyone on this board that I consider moral, then it would be you. You are out there helping women and babies every day, and I think that it takes a very special person to do that.
BTW, I think that you are VERY intelligent, and we need more people with your "mini morals"!!!
Kay |
~ An Infinite Zephyr~
Some things never end
As long as goodness exists
Winds shall always soothe
www.cloudsbooks.com
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - January 15 2004 : 7:14:22 PM
|
I've got a great idea ... let's just continue this conversation until there's no one left here to post. Not sure of the definition of "win," but that might be a good example of "lose."
It is obvious to me that no one who feels strongly about this issue will convince the other side to "cross over," so what is the point of it continuing?
Though I doubt my suggestion will be heeded, I would humbly & repectfully request this thread to end.
As for me - I think I'll take a vacation ... |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Kaylynn44
Mohicanite
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 13 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - January 15 2004 : 7:41:54 PM
|
Rich,
That is a GREAT idea!!! I think that you are very wise to ask this thread to end. Nobody here is a winner if it means hurt feelings (on both sides). I think that this board is full of very good and moral people, and maybe we should do as Rich asks and move on. I know that is what I am going to do.
Kay |
~ An Infinite Zephyr~
Some things never end
As long as goodness exists
Winds shall always soothe
www.cloudsbooks.com
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Gadget Girl
Gatherer of Gathering Gadgets
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - January 15 2004 : 10:41:05 PM
|
Rich,
I agree to put my folder away on this topic at your request. I do want to add that in NO WAY was any of my post meant mean-spiritedly. In reading it again, I find that it is perhaps not very effective to say "You hurt my feelings - now here...isn't his funny" all in the same post. I was also a bit heavy on the sarcasm - I apologize if it has been perceived other than how it was meant. I have been in one of those = "Oh yeah - here I am one of the worst of the worst" moods all day and in retrospect may need to give myself at least *3* days before posting when I feel strongly about something OR just simply keep them to myself. Sometimes I don't follow my own best advice.
Don't go on vacation - I'll sit down now!
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - January 16 2004 : 02:35:51 AM
|
My karma must be very good today - the PC was on lockdown since late morning, and what an absolutely pretty day it was ... I think.
"We can all draw strength from others - don't you agree?"
I do, Adele. For better or worse ... I do.
Susquesus, I read your post but now it's gone. 'Moral Absolutism has no place in debates/discussion ... unwilling to compromise ... It leads to moral grandstanding ... especially when they think they're backed up by God, the Universe, everything ... I think I've got a grasp on who the players are ....'
Respectfully, I don't think you've grasped the debate, let alone the players. Just a tiny, but important clarification; I never once argued from a God point - that's a whole other level of argument - did you simply assume God/Universe backed up something here? Or did you presume that MUST be the driving force behind all this effort? I was curious since you placed the statement in there as if it had been actually part of the debate. Perhaps you misjudged. Moral absolutism has no place in debates/discussion? Where would they, since they are assertions of absolutes & conviction that form our positions, have a place then? Why do you expect compromise? Are there no convictions in your thoughts? What is philosophy, what does it hope to discover, & by what method is it most vigorously pursued? [I'm not judging, of course - just having a hard time imagining Socrates, Plato, & Cicero purging the Cardinal Virtues from their discourse. Probably just my own inability to grasp it on a higher level.] Your statements on moral grandstanding and moral absolutism were, incidentally, grandstanding examples of moral absolutism. Thank you for illustrating that so pointedly without judgment.
Rich, no ... the point isn't to get cross-overs. The point is much richer than that.
Kay, thank you for highlighting Diana's exceptional qualities; especially the "moral" & "good" traits of which you've absolutely judged well. I thought they were obvious all these years to those of us who've known her, but ... still, there is something ... morally uplifting {?}... in knowing it for the first time all over again. And, I'm leaning towards thinking you're a very sweet, very jovial, very well intended person - but, who can say without a standard from which to measure? Who can know what all this good, moral stuff is if we haven't a standard? I thought I knew, but now ... how confusing!! Nonetheless, you, too, have proven my point regarding moral absolutism & I, well, I feel like we've made a small breakthrough. Isn't that great?! One small favor - if you so utterly fail to comprehend the difference between acknowledging absolute morals in our judgments, from judging the moral character of a person please refrain from gushing moral vs immoral quips, no matter how tempting it is to pepper your rallies with such punch. They really sound judgmental and, after all, we all know that's nonsense anyway. Also, if you please, if you've nothing more to add to a debate, especially at a critical, emotionally charged juncture beyond, 'What she said!' & 'You go, girlfriend!' you might consider a more contemplative role. Just a mini-moral suggestion.
For the record; a discussion on the existence of moral absolutism is quite different from judging one's morals. Interesting to see the quick reversal of my point; I was arguing there really are no mini-morals against those who claim there are. The responses suggest the opposite. That was a great misread if ever I saw one. If any wish to comment on the content of the posts in question, please do so without pretense of having been judged. Better still - read & make a little effort in understanding what was actually said before taking offense; you might avoid taking some undeserved cheap shots to be regretted later.
I'll answer Diana's charges separately ... & I will define 'win.'
|
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - January 16 2004 : 02:57:31 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by richfed
I've got a great idea ... let's just continue this conversation until there's no one left here to post. Not sure of the definition of "win," but that might be a good example of "lose."
It is obvious to me that no one who feels strongly about this issue will convince the other side to "cross over," so what is the point of it continuing?
Though I doubt my suggestion will be acted upon, I would humbly request this thread to end.
As for me - I think I'll take a vacation ...
Have to disagree with you there Rich! The point of continuing this discussion is for various reasons. First, how do you know that no-one will change their opinions? Mine are changing at the moment on this issue! Secondly, the point of this forum, is not to change minds, it is to inform, and to share and to express. Thirdly, Diana has raised several very valid, very intelligent, and very informative issues, for which she has asked a response from Lainey. It is only through asking the questions, and getting the answers, that progress can be made! Feelings are always going to be affected on an emotive subject such as this, and in my humble opinion, Diana has the healthiest and most productive way of dealing with her feelings, through expression, humour and a fine supportive argument. She didn't stomp off in a huff, she backed up her position and said that she wanted more information supporting Elaine's perspective - that is debate! Right?!
There are plenty of options in a forum debate. You can withdraw from it, without conceding defeat, you can stay in the background and read and learn, you can become fully involved in stating your opinions and supporting them, you can have your opinions swayed or even changed (and hopefully have the good grace to admit that). Nobody is forced to stay here. When you think that someone is making a judgment on YOU by expressing a different opinion to you (particularly when it is a moral argument), you are, in fact, making a judgement on THEM.
This particular issue is one of the most difficult and emotive to discuss. I think most of us are agreed on that. However, I feel very strongly, that it isn't properly debated enough, to allow people to really examine the full issue in depth. This is part of the problem I have had in coming to a decision that I can feel completely comfortable with. It's way to easy to sweep it under the carpet - how can you know what you are against, if you don't really get to hear WHY people feel the way they do?
Sorry.. have babbled...but I have really found this debate useful and encouraging, and I have particularly enjoyed seeing two very intelligent, caring people, Diana and Lainey, state their cases.
HM |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Gadget Girl
Gatherer of Gathering Gadgets
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - January 16 2004 : 09:59:15 AM
|
Oh Goodness Guys...my "define win" comment was rhetorical really. I simply meant How could one 'win' this debate - better yet SHOULD anyone win this debate. Sure, someone can make the best argument, but... It just sounded competitive to me and in these types of discussions don't we ALL win through the sharing of ideas and information?
Incidentally, thought some might find this amusing...In high school, I was on the debate team one year, wasn't chosen as a front line debater (no big surprise there) but excelled at *Dramatic Interpretation* - go figure!
GG |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - January 16 2004 : 1:28:34 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gadget Girl
Oh Goodness Guys...my "define win" comment was rhetorical really. I simply meant How could one 'win' this debate - better yet SHOULD anyone win this debate. Sure, someone can make the best argument, but... It just sounded competitive to me and in these types of discussions don't we ALL win through the sharing of ideas and information?
Incidentally, thought some might find this amusing...In high school, I was on the debate team one year, wasn't chosen as a front line debater (no big surprise there) but excelled at *Dramatic Interpretation* - go figure!
GG
lmaooooooo!!!! Why does this NOT surprise me?! Oooooo....maybe we should start dishing out Lions Den Debate Awards?!!
Will ponder that one for a while....
Adele
PS Anyone want to be nominated with Rich for the Ignorant Slut Award?!!  |
| report to moderator |
|
|
susquesus
Mad Hermit of the North Woods
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 03 2003
Status: offline
|
Posted - January 16 2004 : 9:34:02 PM
|
"Susquesus, I read your post but now it's gone. 'Moral Absolutism has no place in debates/discussion ... unwilling to compromise ... It leads to moral grandstanding ... especially when they think they're backed up by God, the Universe, everything ... I think I've got a grasp on who the players are ....'
Just decided that this was not a debate I wanted to invest myself in further. I'm not sure how I feel about it and didn't want to interfere in the ongoing firefight. Erasing that post within hours of putting it up was my way of staying out. Frankly, it's not worth the stress or effort.
"Respectfully, I don't think you've grasped the debate, let alone the players. Just a tiny, but important clarification; I never once argued from a God point - that's a whole other level of argument - did you simply assume God/Universe backed up something here?"
Yes, actually. Considering the Catholic church's official position, and the fact that millions of Catholics worldwide look to the Vatican for their moral guidance I thought it obvious that the "God" card was heavily in play in this debate. Incidentally, I wasn't referring to YOU specifically in my post. As to moral absolutism in debate- what's the point of trying to come to a consensus if both sides have already decided not to give ground? What I see in the abortion debate is two unyielding opponents each insisting that the other is wrong. No movement. It's very much like the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Condescend 1. to behave as if one is concious of descending from a superior position, rank, or dignity. 3. to put aside one's dignity or superiority voluntaily and assume equality with one regarded as inferior. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - January 18 2004 : 01:23:41 AM
|
quote:
I believe that in a Democratic nation, ‘freedom of choice’ is part of our basic human rights. Elaine, you say that the very fact that folks continue to use this old ‘democratic freedom of choice’ chestnut to vindicate our every action in this Brave New World is taking America – nay, the WHOLE WORLD, to hell in a handbasket.
Not quite - I don't equate "democratic" & "freedom of choice" as one and the same, nor do I see how 'freedom of choice/abortion rights' are even remotely reconciled with basic human rights - the most basic human right is life itself - that is the very thing 'abortion rights' trample upon. These are two radically different concepts, they are incompatible. To have one is to deny the other. Society must necessarily decide in favor of one at the expense of the other. To decriminalize abortion is to compromise human rights at its most fundamental point; its roots. If the right to life is not vigorously upheld & protected there can be no other human rights. Democracy speaks to limited individual freedoms for all (theoretically) with an incredible quantity of necessary restraints; anarchy speaks to unlimited freedoms - an impossible system to maintain for more than a few days as such a disordered climate inevitably produces despotic rule. What I did say is that we are well into the Brave New World mode.
quote:
Well… I’d say that if we did not put limitations on the Abortion process, that that might become a fair point. However, in creating Abortion laws that were based on the good, ethical models but which were ‘flexible’ when absolutely necessary, this ‘end of the world is nigh’ prophesy of doom scenario needn’t happen.
What limitations? What good, ethical models? Roe vs Wade alone gave sweeping room for abortion on demand! This is a point that needs clarification because I do not believe people yet understand what was done in 1973. A new political theory was put forth that completely bypassed the democratic process of presentation, debate, & vote within the legislative branch of government, and was instead legally implemented & decreed by right of power (tyranny in action) from the bench of the Supreme Court. The theory was this - during the 1st trimester of pregnancy the state has ZERO interest in the life of an unborn & therefore has ZERO rights to protect the unborn's life [no restrictions on abortions]; during the 2nd trimester the state has limited interest & could intercede on the unborn's behalf in a limited manner [limited restrictions on abortions], & during the 3rd trimester the state has full interest in the unborn's life & could, therefore, impose restrictions meant to protect the unborn's life [complete restrictions on abortions} with the added 'life of the mother' exceptions. In a nutshell, Roe "established" the "right" to abortion & mapped out a time frame declaring at what point the state had an interest that permitted restrictions. Do remember, the Supreme Court was not interpreting existing law or weighing laws on constitutional grounds - it was LEGISLATING them. This is exactly what the court had done with the Dred v Scott case.
Further, and this is rarely mentioned so I think it, too, has been lost in the rhetoric & polls, Roe vs Wade had an accompanying decision - Doe vs Bolton. Whereas R vs W established the 'right,' Doe vs Bolton [410 U.S. 179] went much further ... it said no abortion could be prohibited if the abortion was sought in the interest of a woman's health, and it defined health in such broad terms as to include psychological, emotional, familial, financial, age, etc. Anythin |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - January 18 2004 : 02:17:43 AM
|
quote:
Just decided that this was not a debate I wanted to invest myself in further. I'm not sure how I feel about it and didn't want to interfere in the ongoing firefight. Erasing that post within hours of putting it up was my way of staying out. Frankly, it's not worth the stress or effort.
Ah well! Then I do apologize for putting you back into it. I was ready to post my reply which included your comments, brought up a second window, & didn't see your post anymore. My comments would have seemed strange indeed without your initial post. Your reluctance is understandable & fair ...
A couple of small matters, however, which you should ignore ... but I have to address.
quote:
Yes, actually. Considering the Catholic church's official position, and the fact that millions of Catholics worldwide look to the Vatican for their moral guidance I thought it obvious that the "God" card was heavily in play in this debate. Incidentally, I wasn't referring to YOU specifically in my post.
I don't know what to make of that ... one could draw several conclusions;
A) - All Catholics are opposed to abortion [were it a perfect world]
B) - Only Catholics believe in God
C) - God is a pro-life activist [well ... figure that one out!]
D) - Only Catholics expressed pro-life views in this debate
E) - All non-Catholics are pro-choice/pro-abortion
F) - All non-Catholics do not believe in God [it's a Catholic thing ...]
G) - The Catholic Church has an unofficial position that supports abortion rights
quote:
As to moral absolutism in debate- what's the point of trying to come to a consensus if both sides have already decided not to give ground? What I see in the abortion debate is two unyielding opponents each insisting that the other is wrong. No movement. It's very much like the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Again ... moral absolutism is a definite standard from which we all make judgments - it isn't the judgment in & of itself. It isn't necessarily a complete statement on any given point, but it is the source of our sense of right & wrong & it is from this we apply the things we call justice, fairness, kindness, & all sorts of good stuff. It is like a well from which we draw our judgments, opinions, conclusions, etc. & without it we shall all die from thirst before even grasping the idea of right or wrong, let alone believing it.
Does it leave room for debate & consideration of moral dilemmas? Of course ... without it there'd be no debate & never a moral dilemma would rise - what would be the dilemma if there were no central standard or reference point to begin with?
The Israeli/Palestinian conflict ... interesting analogy on which I'll offer no comment.
quote:
Condescend 1. to behave as if one is concious of descending from a superior position, rank, or dignity. 3. to put aside one's dignity or superiority voluntaily and assume equality with one regarded as inferior.
Sorry you feel this way, too ... but you have heard of me! |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - January 18 2004 : 05:08:41 AM
|
1) A man's family is starving. He has no food, no money, no land. He is desperate. Unable to stand the sound of his children crying from hunger, he goes off searching for anything edible. Before long, he comes upon a small outdoor market with food piled high on shelves and tables - all of it for sale. He has no money, though. He looks around & sees the merchant is nowhere to be found. No one else is near. He can hear his children crying in his mind. He takes a few apples & a loaf of bread & quickly returns to his family.
Was he wrong?
2) A second man comes to the market. He is traveling & stopped to buy food on his way to a vacation cottage where he's meeting friends for the weekend. He is already an hour late. He doesn't see the merchant & is anxious to be on his way as he's been waiting nearly ten minutes. He finally decides to continue on but not before stuffing some fruit, wine, cheese, & bread into a sack & pinning a note of I.O.U. to the door. He promises to return on another day & pay for the food. He doesn't sign his name.
Was he wrong?
3) A third man comes along. This time the merchant is back at his market - having been gone only a short time - and the two men recognize each other. They once had a dispute over money but neither one mentions it. This third man picks out a few things he needs & while he's doing that he begins to get agitated about the dispute. Convinced he was cheated of a fair price earlier, he decides to get back the difference by pocketing whatever he could fit & paying for only some of what he's taken. The merchant doesn't notice. The sale is done & the man goes off feeling a sense of justice.
Was he wrong?
4) A fourth man comes along, his wife & children with him. He, like the first man, has fallen unto hard times. His children are hungry & he has no money. He stops briefly to look over the array of fruits & breads & cheese. He knows how hungry his children are & he thinks for a moment of stealing a loaf of bread. He starts to reach for it - but then he turns and walks away. His children are still hungry.
Was he wrong?
*********************
"I don’t doubt for a minute that sincere compassion is the motive for some individuals to want to exempt certain ‘cases.’"
My 'draft' post contained a paragraph that followed this one sentence. Yes, I do choose my words carefully - sometimes too much so - I omitted the rest of the paragraph & moved on to the issue of motives less noble. I had assumed that having expressed several times previously in this very thread that I DID understand the intentions, the good vs bad thing, the desire to do the right thing, & that I empathized with the perspective being raised by Diana regarding particularly difficult scenarios, & having also expressly thanking her for clarifications & "thoughtful" posts, & knowing full well what it is that she does ... I deleted the rest of the paragraph. Why? I had complimented, in this same post, one person who had lately replied on this issue regarding aborting the disabled, & in re-reading my words it crossed my mind that explicitly & very respectfully praising Diana & the what's & the why's of what she does, and assuming that was already understood, while also applauding Adele for what she does, could give the appearance of intentionally offending another person who also posted. Besides, I thought it might come off a bit condescending since I was disagreeing on the issue ... ironic, ain't it?
quote:
The deliveries you found in the stats must have been between the legal cut off and accepted viability (20-23.5 or so weeks). Do you REALLY believe that they would have been done for boyfriend problems or coping issues??? I’m sorry, but I don’t know a physician that would risk his license to help someone get her boyfriend back or pay the light bill |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!] |
© 1997-2025 - Mohican Press |
|
|
| Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.34 seconds |
 |
|
Abortion Debate in the Presidential Race
