Pro Choice Catholics

[aristotle]

Let me explain the concept of “tense” in English. You have to vote before “his policies” end up accomplishing anything.

In other words, you pays your money and takes your choice.

Good point.

Let me rephrase.

If I believe that his/her policies will ultimately lessen the number of abortions, then I will vote for him/her.

The rest is mired in speculation, and as such does not apply well to the topic of this thread.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well, we might have war and torture under this administration, but at least abortion is illegal. Wait a minute. No it’s not!

But we do have more pro-life judges and we did get the Partial Birth Abortioin bill passed.

Would we be better off with 9 pro-abortion Supreme Court judges? Would we be better off with taxpayer-funded abortion? Would we have not been attacked in 9/11?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Good point.

Let me rephrase.

If I believe that his/her policies will ultimately lessen the number of abortions, then I will vote for him/her.

The rest is mired in speculation, and as such does not apply well to the topic of this thread.

But will you accept the blame if you are wrong?

 

[aristotle]

But will you accept the blame if you are wrong?

From whom will I be accepting this blame?

Assuming there is blame to be handed out (requiring both that I am wrong and that there is some higher court on these matters in my lifetime), then I will take the blame apportioned to me based on my vote.

Say, if my voting for the person I did increased abortions by 200% over 8 years, and if I were 1 of 50 million who voted for this person, I would take responsibility for 0.000004% of the abortions committed, which would be about .192 times the potential life of one child, or about 15 years.

I would be willing to go to jail for 15 years if the plan ends up failing to this degree.

 

[vern_humphrey]

From whom will I be accepting this blame?

From yourself – will you admit you are to blame if your idea results in increased abortions?

Assuming there is blame to be handed out (requiring both that I am wrong and that there is some higher court on these matters in my lifetime), then I will take the blame apportioned to me based on my vote.

Good.

Say, if my voting for the person I did increased abortions by 200% over 8 years, and if I were 1 of 50 million who voted for this person, I would take responsibility for 0.000004% of the abortions committed, which would be about .192 times the potential life of one child, or about 15 years.

I would be willing to go to jail for 15 years if the plan ends up failing to this degree.

I’ll call a friend and reserve a cell for you.

 

[aristotle]

From yourself – will you admit you are to blame if your idea results in increased abortions?

I will feel sad at the mistake I have made.

I will admit that I would be, at part, to blame, yes.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I will feel sad at the mistake I have made.

I will admit that I would be, at part, to blame, yes.

And remember, the nation is like a ship – it turns slooooly. So if you see an increase in abortions this year, the numbers will be up for many years to come. In the end, you calculus must take that into account, too.

Consider this – since Roe v. Wade in this country alone, we have killed 4 times as many innocents (almost 48 million) as the Nazis killed in the Holocaust.

 

[aristotle]

And remember, the nation is like a ship – it turns slooooly. So if you see an increase in abortions this year, the numbers will be up for many years to come. In the end, you calculus must take that into account, too.

Of course.

This is why I would give my candidate the full 8 years, find out how his or her policies played out in the 4 years following those 8 years, and then change tack, if necessary. It is also why virtually no argument would dissuade me at this time. In 12 years time, maybe, or if the system I have suggested had been explicitely tried out the way I’d described it, maybe.

Consider this – since Roe v. Wade in this country alone, we have killed 4 times as many innocents (almost 48 million) as the Nazis killed in the Holocaust.

A terrible thing, indeed.

However, as unborn children are worth less than born children, and as born children are worth less than adults, the holocaust was overall far worse (and would always be, just as one cannot equate a dollar amount to the life of one unborn child, one adult is intrensically worth more than an infinite number of children).

 

[vern_humphrey]

However, as unborn children are worth less than born children, and as born children are worth less than adults,

How is one human being worth less than another?

the holocaust was overall far worse (and would always be, just as one cannot equate a dollar amount to the life of one unborn child, one adult is intrensically worth more than an infinite number of children).

That’s almost the Nazi argument – that some people (for example, Jews) are worth less than others (for example, Nordics.)

 

[aristotle]

Oftentimes, though not always, finding similarities between one argument, and the argument the Nazis used is a tactic to end a discussion without really beginning it.

So let’s create another comparison to Nazis, for the sake of illustration:

PETA has, in the past, compared the torture of cattle to the Holocaust. After all, who is to say if one life is worth more than another?

The difference, as meat-eaters will happily point out, is that one is “human” and the other is “not-human”. Why this makes such a large distinction, PETA still seems clueless.

I accept that there is a large distinction between types of life, especially between plant life and animal life, and between human life and animal life, as humans have rational souls.

But there is a certain distinction between human life. If one is talknig about the worth of life itself, in terms of death, some lives are worth more. No number of animals is equal to one human, in terms of right to life, and no number of plants is equal to one animal. Humans, children or adults, slave or free, cannot be disposed of for any reason, except to save another, more worthy life.

Worthiness is measured by virtue, maturity, and intelligence, as well as capability to assist in the survival of others.

 

[johnlal]

Would we have not been attacked in 9/11?

Very possibly.

 

[Jerusha]

Hey, Johnlal-- you need to document that statement:

bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/abortion_1.shtml



Consequences are a more legitimate argument than inflammatory analogies.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Oftentimes, though not always, finding similarities between one argument, and the argument the Nazis used is a tactic to end a discussion without really beginning it.

Are you accusing me of that?

So let’s create another comparison to Nazis, for the sake of illustration:

PETA has, in the past, compared the torture of cattle to the Holocaust. After all, who is to say if one life is worth more than another?

It is one thing to say one human is worth less than another, and something quite different to say an animal is less than a human.

The difference, as meat-eaters will happily point out, is that one is “human” and the other is “not-human”. Why this makes such a large distinction, PETA still seems clueless.

Not just meat eaters, but anyone with any sense of logic.

I accept that there is a large distinction between types of life, especially between plant life and animal life, and between human life and animal life, as humans have rational souls.

But there is a certain distinction between human life. If one is talknig about the worth of life itself, in terms of death, some lives are worth more.

No.

Your problem is this: Human life in and of itself, is of inestimatable value. That is the basis of the concept of human rights – that we have some basic rights (the right to life being the first) that no one gives us. If that is not true, then there is no such thing as human rights.

No number of animals is equal to one human, in terms of right to life, and no number of plants is equal to one animal. Humans, children or adults, slave or free, cannot be disposed of for any reason, except to save another, more worthy life.

Worthiness is measured by virtue, maturity, and intelligence, as well as capability to assist in the survival of others.

No. The right to life is inherent in all of us. We all have an equal right to life.

If it were not so, it would be moral to go out and kill drug addicts and the mentally ill, so as to have more resources to educate the geniuses and other “worthy” people. If it were not so, elderly people in nursing homes would receive not care but lethal injections.

 

[johnlal]

Hey, Johnlal-- you need to document that statement:

bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/abortion_1.shtml



Consequences are a more legitimate argument than inflammatory analogies.

1. What statement do you want me to document? That the “God Guns and Gays” voters don’t usually make good picks? Or that our current administration is involved in torture, rape and war? Or that it is possibly that 9/11would not have happened under another administration?
2. Why do I care about islamic views on abortion? I’m not a Muslim.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Very possibly.

Just as there was no car bomb detonated in the parking garage of the Twin Towers during the previous administration?

Just as the USS Cole was not attacked during the previous administration?

Just as there were no simulataneous attacks on two US embassies in Africa during the previous administration?

Muslim extremists in general, and Al Qaeda in particular, launched attack after deadly attack against us for a decade prior to 9/11.

 

[aristotle]

Are you accusing me of that?

No, nor do I absolve. I simply comment that this is often the case.

It is one thing to say one human is worth less than another, and something quite different to say an animal is less than a human.

Not according to PETA.

Not just meat eaters, but anyone with any sense of logic.

Then you can prove, using only symbolic logic, that animal lives are worth less than human lives? What axioms will you use? Probably some people with very deep senses of logic would reject them.

No. The right to life is inherent in all of us. We all have an equal right to life.

I disagree

If it were not so, it would be moral to go out and kill drug addicts…

It does not logically follow. All one must say is that it is wrong to kill drug addicts because drug addicts are people, and it is wrong to kill people.

If, then, a drug addict were trying to kill the President, it would be ethical to kill the drug addict, because the addict’s life is worth less than the President’s.

If the President tried to just go out and kill a drug addict, and the drug addict, in self defense, began to threaten the president’s life, then it would be ethical to kill the drug addict. This does not make what the President did ethical. On the contrary, what the President did is still unethical, and he should go to jail for it.

And I do think more resources should be allocated for the more capable. In fact, they already are. It’s called capitalism.

 

[Jerusha]

I am talking about Muslim perception that USA culture contaminates and degrades their culture, and those radicals who believed that their attacks were revenge on USA. Abortion would have been one of the issues. However, any more discussion of this angle would be taking the thread off-topic.

As for

Or that it is possibly that 9/11would not have happened under another administration?

, my only comment is quite possibly, given Bush’s ties to intolerant evangelical protestantism. Again, off-topic.

 

[johnlal]

Just as there was no car bomb detonated in the parking garage of the Twin Towers during the previous administration?

Just as the USS Cole was not attacked during the previous administration?

Just as there were no simulataneous attacks on two US embassies in Africa during the previous administration?

Muslim extremists in general, and Al Qaeda in particular, launched attack after deadly attack against us for a decade prior to 9/11.

You would think that we would have been ready for the treat when it came, having all of that forewarning. President Clinton specifically warned President Bush of Bin Ladin’s threat to America. truthout.org/docs_03/101703A.shtml
We also had the warning from the Presidential Daily Briefing “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US”.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
Bush was more interested in Iraq than in Al Queda. downingstreetmemo.com/

I’m not saying that we WOULD have avoided attack under another president. I was asked whether I thought we would have avoided 9/11. In my OPINION, very likely so.

BTW, Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the first WTC bombing mentioned in your post was successfully brought to justice and incarcerated during the Bush I and Clinton administrations. Where’s Bin Laden?

 

[vern_humphrey]

No, nor do I absolve. I simply comment that this is often the case.

Why? What is your point in bringing it up?

Not according to PETA.

And according to the Heaven’s Gate believers, the comet Hale-Bopp was coming to take them to heaven, too.

Then you can prove, using only symbolic logic, that animal lives are worth less than human lives? What axioms will you use? Probably some people with very deep senses of logic would reject them.

I doubt they would – since it would be require a start from an axiom.

To explain, there is no system of math or logic which does not rely on external axioms – For example, the famous Euclidian axiom, “A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.” You cannot prove that using Euclidian geometry.

Neither can you prove animal lives are equal or inferior in worth to human lives with symbolic because you have to have a starting axiom – which turns out to be the thing you are trying to prove.

The relative worth of human and animal lives is found elsewhere, in human experience. But that doesn’t mean that human lives are worth no more than animal lives – as you admitted in a previous post.

So why ask me the question, when we both agree?

I disagree

Disagreement is not counter argument.

It does not logically follow. All one must say is that it is wrong to kill drug addicts because drug addicts are people, and it is wrong to kill people.

And all human life is of equal worth!!

QED

If, then, a drug addict were trying to kill the President, it would be ethical to kill the drug addict, because the addict’s life is worth less than the President’s.

No, it would be ethical to use necessary force to protect innocent life from an unjust aggressor – because the right to self-defense (and to defend other innocents) is inherent in the right to life.

If the President tried to just go out and kill a drug addict, and the drug addict, in self defense, began to threaten the president’s life, then it would be ethical to kill the drug addict. This does not make what the President did ethical. On the contrary, what the President did is still unethical, and he should go to jail for it.

No, it would not be ethical to kill the intended victim – drug addict or not – for defending himself against an unjust aggressor.

And I do think more resources should be allocated for the more capable. In fact, they already are. It’s called capitalism.

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production and distribution, operated for profit in a competitive environment. That says nothing about the allocation of resources – and in many capitalist nations, we see large amounts of resources devoted to people who are not productive – capitalism in the service of charity.

 

[aristotle]

Why? What is your point in bringing it up?

A simple observation.

And according to the Heaven’s Gate believers, the comet Hale-Bopp was coming to take them to heaven, too.

So blanket definitions (“all life is equal/ all human life is equal”) may not be a priori true simply because their negation could be used to argue for anti-Semitism.

To explain, there is no system of math or logic which does not rely on external axioms – For example, the famous Euclidian axiom, “A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.” You cannot prove that using Euclidian geometry.

Of course. So logical people can believe very strange things. Like my computer right now, for instance, as it seems convinced that we should all be burned alive by cosmic rays. Very logical, since it can only proceed from what it’s been given.

Neither can you prove animal lives are equal or inferior in worth to human lives with symbolic because you have to have a starting axiom – which turns out to be the thing you are trying to prove.

Or something that all parties in the discussion can agree upon.

The relative worth of human and animal lives is found elsewhere, in human experience. But that doesn’t mean that human lives are worth no more than animal lives – as you admitted in a previous post.

Agreed, I think PETA is wrong. But not necessarily illogical.

So why ask me the question, when we both agree?

Because I find your statement that all human life is equal just as accurate as PETA’s statement that all (animal) life is equal.

Disagreement is not counter argument.

How can I provide a counter-argument when no initial argument has been provided? At least, no coherant one, yet.

]And all human life is of equal worth!!

Sorry. No. And again for the reasons above stated. I am not using Aquinas’s argument. I am using Aristotle’s.

It does not follow that simply because not all humans are of equal worth, it is acceptable to kill a human save for self-defense.