The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum

=> Answer to Parhad

Answer to Parhad
Posted by Paul Younan (Guest) - Thursday, September 9 2004, 20:14:36 (CEST)
from Commercial - Windows XP - Internet Explorer
Website:
Website title:

>...the fetus dies as it has for thousands of years in millions and millions and millions of abortions

There's a difference. If you died naturally, no one would be prosecuted, but if someone murdered you, he would be prosecuted. That's the protection of the law. You have it, and enjoy it. ALL citizens are entitled to it. If you can set aside any class of citizens as nonpersons, any other class is vulnerable in the same way. It was "fetuses" in 1973, it's "Muslims" today. That's the fallacy of chattel slavery, and of genocide. And, it's the fallacy of legalized abortion. This is at the bottom of it, a civil rights issue.

>...your morality demands the woman pay the same price..it isn`t MURDER you resent..it`s FREE women!

The same price as what? The price the fetus pays? My mom carried me all the way to birth, and it didn't kill her, and she did it freely. No one resents free women. Women have all sorts of freedoms to which no one objects. The objections only arise when their idea of freedom totally tramples the freedoms of another. It's a lead pipe cinch that the babies you want to kill will never get a chance to enjoy any freedom, and over half of those are female, as in WOMEN. The notion that freedom allows each person total control of his or her life is called radical autonomy. If I want total control, and you want total control, what happens when our paths cross? Something has to give. Either there is an established rule of law which prioritizes freedoms the way a stop-sign prioritizes right-of-way, or might makes right. In the latter case, one of us will enjoy radical autonomy and the other must yield to the power of the winner. In this way, radical autonomy is nothing more than anarchy and anarchy is the tyranny of the strong over the weak. Pro-lifers are merely people who understand that one of the prerequisites of a civilized society is laws to protect the weak from the strong. This idea has been common to all civilized societies since the Code of Hammurabi, a code of laws set forth by that Pagan (note: not neo-Pagan humanist like you) King Hammurabi in ancient Mesopotamia, the birthplace of civilization.

>...The people who made abortion legal ALSO have morals..and they all agree that aborting a fetus, a potential life is a TERRIBLE thing to do

There are two fallacies here:

1) A fetus is not a POTENTIAL life, he or she is a life. Have you ever seen a rock or a chunk of ice or a dead animal spring to life? Of course not. Anyone who understands the first thing about nature knows that life only comes from life and anything that ever will live already lives. In common speech, we already understand this. That's why pregnant women talk about feeling the baby kick, not feeling the potential baby kick, and they are really not stupid enough to think that something that only has the potential to live, but not life itself, can kick.

2) If the people who made abortion legal really had morals, would they realize that it's so terrible and still want to do it? Dr. Bernard Nathansen is one of the people most instrumental in making abortion legal in the United States, and as he came to fully realize just how terrible of a thing he was doing, his morals converted him into a very active pro-lifer. We even know "Jane Doe's" name today, because she is a very active pro-lifer.

Those who understand the horror, and persist in it, don't have morals in the principled sense in which morals are understood. Rather they have easily comprimised feelings and preferences.

>...but when your car needs gas, your country does TERRIBLE things to get it for you...

The point is not as relevant as it seems at first blush, because abortion is an intrinsic moral evil, and war is not. Over the centuries, moral philosophers and moral theologians have set aside principles of just warfare. The moral principle of double effect permits one to accept the evil side-effects of war in order to solve a problem that's bigger than the evils of the war, itself, provided that the evils are not directly intended and the good does not arise directly from the evil. For example, we all know that innocent people are killed in wars as collateral damage. It is never permissable to deliberately target those innocent people, and the good resulting from the war must not result directly from the death of the innocent civilians. There were exceptions to this practice, for instance Hiroshima and the war in Iraq today.

Deliberate abortion is an intrinsic moral evil because the baby is directly killed and the desired end is gainded as a direct result of that killing. The death of the baby is not merely an unintended secondary evil.

Even if every war was for oil, and war were a terrible evil tantamount to deliberate abortion, it would not excuse abortion because two wrongs do not make a right. Being poked in the ear with a sharp stick still hurts even if being poked in the eye with a sharp stick also hurts.

>...and when a woman wants her body back for WHATEVER reason,,we allow HER to do terrible things she would do ANYWAY..

First, she never lost her body. It's still there even with a baby inside, and the baby won't be there forever. Even if a good end could justify an evil means, should one person die to free another for fewer than 9 months? Which is bigger, 9 months of one person's life or the whole rest of the youngest person possible's life?

Second, she would not usually do the terrible thing ANYWAY. It's a known fact that there were orders of magnitude fewer abortions when it was illegal. Back alley abortions were downright rare. The pro-aborts had to really cook the books to fool people into thinking otherwise. Look at Ireland today...or Malta or Portugal.

>...we just don`t want to punish her as well

Would you punish anyone? Would you punish a wife-beater, or a bank robber, or a rapist? There are laws in this world that put penalties on doing terrible things....abortion is a terrible thing. Are all those laws wrong, or just the ones against what you want to do?

>...that is YOUR morality not ours

This is delusional. What's so is so even if no one believes it. For centuries, people believed that the Sun orbited the Earth, and not the other way around. During that time was the Sun orbiting the Earth? Of course not, we all know better. To think that there can be "your morality", and "our morality" is just as silly. There's one morality. Some people respect it others are in mighty denial. The idea that it's permissible to murder your own offspring is so obviously perverse, that it takes a mighty denial of reality to believe it, but believe you must, because convenience is your god, and the truth is not convenient in this case.

>...we stop at doing the terrible thing to the fetus..you go on...after the terrible thing is done to the fetus you want ANOTHER terrible thing done to the woman..because you are MORAL..we stop at one death..you want to go for TWO.

Who is this second death you keep ranting about? Did someone mention capital punishment for abortion? I must have been elsewhere that day. There would be no second death unless the woman decided to break the law and put her own life at risk, she already condemned the baby.....

-Paul



---------------------


The full topic:



Content-length: 7958
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/vnd.ms-excel, application/vnd.ms-powerpoint, applicatio...
Accept-encoding: gzip, deflate
Accept-language: en-us
Cache-control: max-age=259200
Connection: keep-alive
Cookie: *hidded*
Host: www.insideassyria.com
Pragma: no-cache
Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf2/rkvsf_core.php?.7UZg.
User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)
Via: 1.1 proxy1.allantgroup.com:3128 (squid/2.5.STABLE6)
X-forwarded-for: 172.16.3.148



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9