Planned Parenthood does more than abort babies. If you defunded it, or vaporized it, would the abortion rate go up or down? I think Hillary Clinton talked about a county in Texas the defunded Planned Parenthood, and the abortion rate went up.
Of course, these consequential issues remind me of another question. Is the point of murder laws to prevent murder? What if we lived in a possible world in which murder laws actually resulted in there being more murders than there would otherwise be. Should murder be illegal if that were true?
119 comments:
Trying again to remove annoying typos.
For one, invoking Hillary Clinton - a proven liar, though apparently lying isn't a problem if you're a Democrat - hurts your case against anyone who isn't inclined to always vote Democrat.
For another, even if I stifled my gag reflex and took Hillary at her word, there are other studies that show an increased distance to an abortion clinic corresponding to a decline in the number of unborn killed. Hillary won't mention those, fair minded person that she is.
It appears that Texas also hit other facilities that provide contraception and family planning services other than killing the unborn, which didn't help matters and is one of the two prime failures of the pro-life movement as a whole, the other being general opposition to social safety nets.
And finally, is there a reason to believe that abortion would increase if it was banned? In 1980 Poland allowed abortion for any reason basically, and they had about 138,000 abortions that year. Modern Polish law bans abortions except for health reasons, and they barely topped a thousand in 2019. A 99 percent reduction by restricting legal justification.
Compare that to progressive utopia Germany, where they still clear a hundred thousand abortions a year. Sweden clears thirty thousand a year despite having only a third the population of Poland.
Would Polish law increase abortion rates in the United States if implemented here? Or are the Polish simply a more enlightened people than we are?
Maybe all those Polish women simply went to Germany or Sweden to have their abortions.
The best way to reduce abortions is to provide good sex education and contraceptives. Abortion shouldn't be their method of contraception, which it apparently is.
John,
Do you have evidence that Polish women left the country to have abortions in other countries?
Is the point of murder laws to prevent murder?
For Christians I would assume the point is to follow the 6th Commandment (5th Commandment to Catholics). But apparently a lot of people claiming to be Christians think God got that one wrong. But of course one might as well ask "what it point of morality? To prevent bad behavior?"
What if we lived in a possible world in which murder laws actually resulted in there being more murders than there would otherwise be. Should murder be illegal if that were true?
Then if that world were a coherent world all laws would result in an increase in the activity that have been outlawed and the only way out would be to have no laws. No laws, no violations, no problems. I'd say no police, but when leftists say that, they just mean they want to be the police.
The best way to reduce abortions is to provide good sex education and contraceptives.
Good grief! The entire world has been force fed sex-ed and the pill non-stop for 50+ years. That experiment is has been concluded and the hypothesis is as dead as the Neru jacket.
I just said "maybe." Do you think it's impossible? Or even unlikely?
Poland in particular has a severe lack of sex education and contraceptives availability, since it's a really repressed Catholic country. If someone had easy contraceptives and knew how to use them, do you think they would choose to use abortion instead?
John,
Kevin quoted facts. Do you have any?
Speaking of facts, what Kevin didn't mention was that after the law was changed in 1993 public opinion shifted to more solidly favoring the law. There's always a segment of the population that will reason that something is right if it's legal and wrong if it's illegal. So changing laws really does change people's behaviors and beliefs whether you like it or not.
And please. Anti-Catholic remarks are degrading to those making them and transparently fallacious in a discussion of whether laws affect beliefs and behaviors. Of course anti-Catholicism has been a tactic from the beginning for abortion advocates according to NARAL's founder. It goes something like this: "You Protestants don't want the Pope telling you what to do, right? Aren't you free from Romish reasoning?" It even works well on leftist Catholics.
Kevin quoted facts? I don't see any quotation marks in his comment. He doesn't say where he got those numbers from. For all we know, it might just be his imagination.
I guess you guys aren't interested in my question about whether some Polish women crossed the border in order to get abortions. But if you ever wanted to persuade someone to come over to your side, you would need to talk about these things.
Is it a fact that the "entire world has been force fed sex-ed and the pill non-stop for 50+ years"? Where's your data?
You guys gleefully insult Democrats but get so huffy with my one mild jibe against Catholics. Wow. Feeling insecure, are you?
“What if we lived in a possible world in which murder laws actually resulted in there being more murders than there would otherwise be.”
It would tell you that people are being spiteful for some unknown reason.
“Should murder be illegal if that were true?”
Yes. Keep it illegal and work toward fixing the problem of spite.
Maybe all those Polish women simply went to Germany or Sweden to have their abortions.
I'm sure a few did. That many though? I doubt it.
Kevin quoted facts? I don't see any quotation marks in his comment. He doesn't say where he got those numbers from. For all we know, it might just be his imagination.
I googled abortion rates for those three countries. The numbers I cited came from either whatever showed on the search result or Wikipedia I believe. I won't die on a hill claiming they are ironclad facts, but I didn't make them up. I didn't quote because I was in a rush and couldn't remember how to hyperlink in a comment.
You guys gleefully insult Democrats but get so huffy with my one mild jibe against Catholics.
As far as I know I'm the only one who insulted a Democrat in this thread. I'm not a Catholic.
John,
I guess you guys aren't interested in my question about whether some Polish women crossed the border in order to get abortions. But if you ever wanted to persuade someone to come over to your side, you would need to talk about these things.
Talk about what things? Your guesses? What's the point of that?
Is it a fact that the "entire world has been force fed sex-ed and the pill non-stop for 50+ years"? Where's your data?
I assumed it was common knowledge for people who attended public school. Are you actually disputing that public schools have taught sex-ed for over 50 years and that contraceptives have been legal and widely available for 50+ years? Sex-ed goes back to the 19th century and Planned Parenthood has been pushing contraception since 1921. There have been no laws against contraception in ages and the pill came out in the 60's leading in the "sexual revolution".
If knowing what makes babies and easily obtaining contraceptives would prevent abortions then we would have never expected to see abortion rates skyrocket after Roe v Wade. On the contrary, people view abortion as just another form of contraception. The reason most often stated for abortion overwhelmingly is that the mother doesn't want a baby, the same reason for contraception. People feel they are morally entitled to sex without responsibility so giving them a handful of pills has never worked to stop abortions and won't if you give then 2 handfuls of pills.
You guys gleefully insult Democrats but get so huffy with my one mild jibe against Catholics. Wow. Feeling insecure, are you?
Actually, your remark gave me an opportunity to show the lies and dishonest tactics of the pro-abortion movement admitted to from one of the original founders of NARAL. I'm grateful. Now other readers have information that they may not have had otherwise.
Related to the OP:
Is the point of murder laws to prevent murder? What if we lived in a possible world in which murder laws actually resulted in there being more murders than there would otherwise be. Should murder be illegal if that were true?
There are no laws against soldiers killing people in war. The number of people killed during war are higher than during peace-time. So it seems that in this world, laws against killing prevent killing. In Victor-world instead of there being anti-war protesters there would apparently be anti-peace protesters to stop the killing resulting from the higher peace-time death rate.
I heard the anti-peace protesters won and they prohibited laws against murder. That actually caused more laws against murder (because that's how things work in that world) thereby causing more murders and a vicious cycle ensued.
I would imagine in that world the definition of "human life" would be intentionally muddied so they could deny a murder even occurred.
Kinda like this world.
Here's a statistic from Guttmacher:
~50% of abortion patients were using contraceptives when they became pregnant.
If contraceptives prevent abortions then why do people who take contraceptives get abortions?
I wonder if dissident Catholics who practice birth control realize that one of the 3 ways that birth control pills work is to prevent implantation and so ensuring the destruction of the newly conceived person. Ditto with IUD's.
So at that point it's really not contraception is it?
That is a myth I used to believe until my daughter told me I was wrong about that.
https://www.popcouncil.org/uploads/pdfs/Sivin.pdf
To be sure, if an IUD is left in situ after a woman recognizes she is pregnant, the chances that the recognized pregnancy will end in a spontaneous abortion are about 50 percent (Vessey et al., 1976), which are higher than in normal pregnancies (20-27 percent) (Roman and Stevenson, 1983; Casterline, 1989).
I think it's true that the primary way IUDs work is to prevent sperm and egg from meeting. Maybe that was the myth? But the study shows that embryos are still created (some apparently deformed: "invasion by leukocytes or macrophages was a consistent feature" ) and after that the IUD's cause "spontaneous abortions" sort of like the secondary effects of the pill.
Some sites claim that copper IUDs don't prevent implantation while progesterone IUDs do. Others like this site claim both do.
What is a Intrauterine Device: IUD?
An Intrauterine device is a T-shaped piece of plastic placed inside the uterus. The piece of plastic contains copper or a synthetic progesterone hormone that prevents pregnancy. The device releases a constant low dose of a synthetic hormone continually throughout the day.
Both the progesterone IUD and copper IUD prevent pregnancy in one of two ways:
The released progesterone or copper creates changes in the cervical mucus and inside the uterus that kills sperm or makes them immobile.
The IUD changes the lining of the uterus, preventing implantation should fertilization occur. It is important to consider the ethical implications of this third method.
However, even Paragard's website (copper IUD) says it may prevent implantation.
Paragard works using just 1 simple active ingredient—copper—instead of hormones. Paragard works by preventing the sperm from reaching and fertilizing the egg and may also prevent implantation.
Sounds like the manufacturer doesn't think it's a myth.
The Population Council article also has this misleading statement:
When IUDs were in place, seven (11 percent) of the flushings produced evidence of degenerating embryos, a percentage virtually identical with the 12 percent found in the control cycles.
Table 1 lists the following conditions and percentages of the rhesus monkey experiment:
No IUD IUD
No egg 42 82
Unfertized egg 7 2
Fertilization 51 16
Developing Embryo (39) (5)
Degenerating Embryo (12) (11)
Total 100 100
The author claims the degenerating embryo percentages are the same. But that is only true using the total searches as the basis, not on the basis of what percentage of actual embryos were degenerating. Since the IUD did it's work, of course the fertilization percentage would be less (35% less in this case, 51%-16%) than if no IUD was used. What matters is the condition of the embryos that actually came to be and if they would continue to survive if the claim is that IUDs do not cause embryos to die.
What we find of the IUD embryos is that 11/16 were degenerating (69%) while only 12/51 (23%) of the non-IUD embryos were degenerating. I assume the degeneration criteria correlates/is responsible for the eventual spontaneous abortion rate and so IUDs do more than just prevent conception.
I think the paper supports the conclusion that IUDs cause the destruction of the newly conceived as a secondary effect.
Oh.
Taking a closer look at that article, I noticed it was not a scientific paper but was titled "Commentary".
So there was no scientific peer review. It has obvious mistatements and misdirections which I pointed out. But who is the Population Council and what do they do?
This is from Wikipedia:
The organization held the license for Norplant contraceptive implant, and now holds the license for Mirena intrauterine system.
OK. The license holder for a IUD device wants to assure the pro-lifers that IUDs only work by preventing sperm and egg from meeting. So they post the misleading paper. But what does the Mirean website advertise?
How does Mirena work to prevent pregnancy?
The hormone released into your uterus by Mirena prevents pregnancy most likely by:
Thickening cervical mucus, preventing sperm from entering the uterus
Inhibiting sperm movement so it’s more difficult to reach and fertilize an egg
Thinning the lining of your uterus, making it less likely for an egg to attach to the uterus
It is not known exactly how these actions work together to prevent pregnancy.
So Victor, does your daughter know all this? The organization that hosts a paper she cites as proof that IUDs do not prevent implantation actually advertises on it's Mirena cite that it does prevent implantation?
She didn't cite the paper, I just found it.
If the intended result of the IUD is not abortion, but may lead to some spontaneous ones, I do not see this as any worse than what God does when he sets of the human reproductive system to spontaneously abort most fertilized eggs.
The Population Council is a eugenicist organization. Change my mind.
If the intended result of the IUD is not abortion, but may lead to some spontaneous ones, I do not see this as any worse than what God does when he sets of the human reproductive system to spontaneously abort most fertilized eggs.
The difference is that you caused the abortion not nature or God. You chose to roll the dice knowing there was a chance for death, like driving a car while drunk.
Yes, God let's people die on the highway anyway but God didn't make you drive drunk and kill people.
It's funny. That's the same argument I've heard from atheists.
x% of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions, so what's wrong with me having an abortion?
That's like saying 100% of people die anyway so why complain if I kill one?
Leave it alone you silly dumbcluts. The legal matter of a woman's right to abortion without interference by governments is established and settled law. Period. You've well and truly lost the battle and the war on this one over 50 years ago. Time to now STFU and move on.
Sheesh!
Papalinton in the 1850s: "Leave it alone you silly dumbcluts. The legal matter of a state's right to legalize slavery without interference by the federal government is established and settled law. Period. You've well and truly lost the battle and the war on this one. Time to now STFU and move on.. Sheesh!"
Instead of posturing like an idiot, just admit you support the killing of the unborn - or "abortion" as you no doubt prefer - and oppose efforts to change the law. You look much less foolish that way, if no less immoral.
Scratch the surface of any abortion defender and you'll find a eugenicist underneath.
I can understand why atheists think it is morally superior for society to prevent the weak/poor/dumb to pollute the population. I can't understand professing Christians defending that.
It's probably time, again, to call attention to the Rockefeller Institute and it's historical support for eugenics.
If you google "rockefeller eugenics" the second link is to Edwin Black's article about the US/Nazi eugenics collaboration. This has been well known to the academic world for a long time. Not so much for NPR listeners I suppose.
The Rockefeller Institute, as well as the other progressive institutes back in the openly eugenics day, didn't really change the mission much after WWII. They just obfuscated the mission statement and dropped the word "eugenics".
Now if you google "rockefeller eugenics population council", the 5th link HERE gives a brief history about how and why John D Rockefeller III started the Population Council. It's always shared goals with Planned Parenthood, so don't expect unbiased or, as we've seen, true information coming from them.
But I found this in that article regarding Paraguard, the copper IUD that admits it can prevent implantation.
In 1984, the Population Council developed the ParaGard IUD, an intrauterine device regarded by Planned Parenthood as the most effective “emergency contraceptive” in use, even more than the “morning-after pill.”
So the Population Council developed or licenses both types of IUDs that admit they can prevent implantation, yet posts a paper trying to denying it. There comes a point where one has to conclude that some liberals are not just ignorant and fooled by leftist activists, but actually want to fool other people too.
Based on the depth of reasoning and maturity of his last post, I don't think Papalinton considers the matter more deeply than "abortion on demand = more promiscuity".
I don't buy the "consider the source" method of evaluating evidence. But this is a Catholic source.
https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/what-abortifacient-and-what-it-isnt
"Consider the source" is a version of Bulverism.
But this is a dissident Catholic source.
Fixed it for you since you pointed out the source.
The author is president of Catholics for Choice. That's sort of the equivalent of Atheists for Jesus.
Regardless, one only has to read that she claims that IUDs do not affect implantation, something the manufacturers of the devices themselves deny, to see she is not telling the truth. The manufacturers have good reason to deny the claim. The data in the paper you linked before shows it does.
That's not to mention her apparently deliberate obfuscation of when science says a new unique human being comes into existence. That is called conception. Contraceptives, as the name implies are supposed to stop conception. When IUDs fail to stop conception, they end up destroying the human being in most cases. The new life is aborted.
She, like other abortion proponents (Bernard Nathanson for instance) is only interested in defending the destruction of the unborn. Truth again is a casuality of consequentialism.
I think you need to get out more Victor.
To think that quoting dissident Catholics to faithful Catholics would be impressive is like me expecting you to be impressed by me quoting Rush Limbaugh (peace be upon him) to you just because you are a straight white male.
Or maybe even if I quoted Kevin just because he is a Protestant ;-)
Since we are discussing myths about the beginning of human life, This paper from The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy clears up some of the misinformation from the NCR article using correct scientific understanding.
Although "personhood" is not a scientific question, if you get the science wrong you'll get the philosophy wrong. The author makes the claim here that the delayed "personhood" concept falls into that category. Seems you'd have to be a old-time Cartesian philosopher to defend it.
III. When does a human person begin?
The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question-not a scientific question. I will not go into great detail here,39 but "personhood" begins when the human being begins-at fertilization. But since many of the current popular "personhood" claims in bioethics are also based on mythological science, it would be useful to just look very briefly at these philosophical (or sometimes, theological) arguments simply for scientific accuracy as well.
Philosophically, virtually any claim for so-called "delayed personhood"-that is, "personhood" does not start until some point after fertilization-involves the theoretical disaster of accepting that the idea or concept of a mind/body split has any correlate or reflects the real world. Historically this problem was simply the consequence of wrong-headed thinking about reality, and was/is totally indefensible. It was abandoned with great embarrassment after Plato's time (even by Plato himself in his Parmenides!), but unfortunately resurfaces from time to time, e.g., as with Descartes in his Meditations, and now again with contemporary bioethics. 40 And as in the question of when a human being begins, if the science used to ground these philosophical "personhood" arguments is incorrect, the conclusions of these arguments (which are based on that incorrect science) are also incorrect and invalid.
Never mind the source. What about the arguments? A valid argument from Satan is still a valid argument.
But this is a Catholic source.
I assume you brought up the source as being Catholic since I'm a Catholic. So I figured you wanted me to react. I did.
Then I showed her arguments were false. Just because Satan makes valid arguments doesn't mean they're true.
"Are you actually disputing that public schools have taught sex-ed for over 50 years?"
Well, I attended public elementary school from 1957 to 1966, and public high school from 1966 to 1970, and I never had one nanosecond of (classroom) sex education during all that time. (Of course, that were more than 50 years ago.)
Now as to private sex education... well, let's not go there.
Apologies... should have typed "that was more than".
My only (lame) excuse is that this is a new computer, and my fingers are not yet used to the keyboard.
I thought your daughter took away your computer for bad behavior.
You must have snuck in an order to Amazon without her finding out.
If you found out your neighbor won the $1 million lottery, but you ended up with the ticket, would it be ethical for you to cash it in? After all, your neighbor was unaware he was going to get the money, so there was no harm done to him. Right?
Besides. That money can really help me out of a tight spot.
How did you end up with the ticket? When a stranger (almost 30 years ago) once found my lost wallet, I told him he could keep all the cash (as a reward for finding it), as long as he returned everything else. It was a win-win.
Ooops.
I meant the money could really help out my hypothetical friend.
The situation's not quite the same.
You knew you were missing the wallet. This gentleman doesn't know he's missing anything.
So is there anything wrong with keeping the money?
I repeat my question. How did you end up with the ticket?
It's a hypotheticial.
What could possibly make it wrong?
Your question cannot be answered without knowing the answer to mine first. Did you steal the card? Did the 2 of you buy it together (as people often do)? Did he lose it and you found it? (In which case, how do you know it was his?) There are radically different answers to just those 3 scenarios, and there are so many more that are possible. You simply have not provided enough details to your hypothetical situation.
OK.
Person 1 knows it is person's 2 ticket. Person 2 has no idea he even has a ticket.
Can you steal something from someone who is unaware that they are even entitled to that something?
Maybe they aren't entitled to something if they are unaware they would otherwise be entitled to it.
So I think it's safe to say there are no objections to Person 1 keeping the money. Certainly no laws would be broken even in theory.
I wish I understood your question better. But I wouldn't jump to the conclusions that there are no objections. I have to first know how the card ended up in person 1's possession, and how did person 2 lose it in the first place. That information is crucial to resolving the ethical issues involved.
If someone finds a wallet on the sidewalk, even if the person who lost it has no idea that he has done so, the finder would be morally bound to return it. I personally once found a wallet on the floor of an airport baggage claim area with more than 1000 dollars cash inside, and went though great effort to find its rightful owner and return everything to them.
But the person who lost the wallet knew he had a wallet and would miss it.
In this case Person 1 ends up with an item that Person 2 does not even know was supposed to have even though Person 1 knows that Person 2 was supposed to have it.
I can't answer if it was stolen, because that is one of the things at stake. Person 2 wouldn't miss the money because he was unaware he would be entitled to it. Does that mean Person 1 is allowed to use the money as Person 1 sees fit.
Here is a possible scenario:
A relative of the Person 2 drops off an envelope addressed to Person 2 at Person 1's house. Then that relative passes away. The envelope has the winning lottery ticket. Person 1 knows it was intended for Person 2, but Person 2 has no idea there was ever an envelope or ticket.
Wow. I've seen some pretty fancy pretzel twisting in my time, but this scenario's "a beaut, Clark. It's a beaut!"
Not really.
The question is simple. Is it OK to take something that belongs to someone else if that person doesn't know he owns it?
I'm advocating that it is OK because the rightful owner doesn't know he's the rightful owner and so is not harmed.
Is this something you have done, and are trying to justify your actions?
Some months ago, there was a story in the Washington Post about a local Washingtonian who began to have suspicions about a piece of artwork he had owned for many years. He went out of his way to investigate its history, and discovered that it had originally been owned by a Jew who had perished in the Holocaust. At tremendous difficulty and great expense he tracked down this person's descendants, contacted them, and "returned" the artwork to a grandson of the original owner, who had no idea that such an item even existed.
So, should the Washingtonian bothered to do this (in fact, was he obligated to do so, or should he have just kept it for himself?
I'm asking hypothetical questions and I'm advocating for a certain position. No its not something I've done. I'm interested in the philosophical questions of the scenario.
What's your judgement? Should there be laws against someone taking someone else's property if the second party is unaware they own that property?
Actually I'd be interested in everyone's opinion.
How about if my older brother found out that my father had set up college funds for my brother and me and I didn't know about it. My brother then took possession of all the funds at our father's death without telling me and spent my fund.
I didn't know I could have gone to college. Was I harmed?
Now that is an intelligible scenario! Your brother would be guilty of theft.
Now... I'm waiting to see how you connect all this to abortion, because that's all you ever seem interested in.
Why would it be theft?
I never knew about the money so how could I be considered to have suffered any harm? If there's no victim, there's no crime.
Hmmm.
So does it make a difference if I, bmiller, am the victim or beneficiary in the scenario?
I thought the scenarios were pretty similar.
Maybe a better question would be should it make a difference?
“ Should there be laws against someone taking someone else's property if the second party is unaware they own that property?”
Yes. WHEN the second party becomes aware that they own the property they should be able to recover it. If there’s no law on the books then I don’t see how they would be able to do that.
“Should there be laws against someone taking someone else's property...”
The “if” that comes after this part of your question doesn’t change how I would answer. At least I can’t think of a situation. It’s similar to the question “Should there be laws against murdering another person if...”. It doesn’t matter what comes after “if” the answer is yes.
SteveK,
The second comment seems at odds with the first. Can you please clarify?
I don’t see any conflict between them. What do you see?
It's these 2 statements:
Yes. WHEN the second party becomes aware that they own the property they should be able to recover it. If there’s no law on the books then I don’t see how they would be able to do that.
It doesn’t matter what comes after “if” the answer is yes.
The first one seems to qualify the "yes" and the second one doesn't.
The first statement also seems to imply that the first party can keep the property only until the second party knows about it. In that case, my brother is justified to keep the college funds since I never knew about it.
It's questions like these that demonstrate why we have a Supreme Court!
There are 2 separate questions.
Can one party actually reclaim his property without knowing he owns the property? Obviously he can't if he doesn't know, but 3rd parties such as the state could intervene if they know the rightful owner.
The second question is if the second party is wronged by the first party. The first party took the property of the second party. This is the question I'm interested in. Is the second party harmed and if so how?
Was I harmed by my brother's action? I was 5 years old at the time and wouldn't know what to do with college funds anyway even if I knew about it.
My brother argues I was not harmed because I didn't/don't know I ever had the funds. I now work as a stocker at Walmart because I couldn't afford college.
@bmiller
I didn’t qualify my “yes”, I was elaborating on what my answer meant.
“The first statement also seems to imply that the first party can keep the property only until the second party knows about it. In that case, my brother is justified to keep the college funds since I never knew about it.”
If nobody knows something was taken from them then of course nothing will happen and the other person will keep it. “Justified” is a moral term and I wouldn’t say he is justified to keep it.
You asked if a law should be created. Laws aren’t created for crimes that nobody is aware of so your question is muddled by introducing unawareness. You can’t act on what you’re unaware of. I’m saying that a law against stealing should exist to address situations where stealing occurs.
“Was I harmed by my brother's action?”
Yes but a statute of limitations may prevent you from having any legal recourse.
If nobody knows something was taken from them then of course nothing will happen and the other person will keep it.
I'm the only one who doesn't know my brother took the funds. Everyone else knows. Even the police. This is the scenario I'm interested in. My brother argues that there was no crime because the supposed victim doesn't know he's missing anything.
Yes but a statute of limitations may prevent you from having any legal recourse.
What harm was done? Asks my brother.
I'm interested in how people view my brother's argument.
What I am learning from this is that I'm not framing my central concern properly.
In fact it's so bad I may have to start from scratch.
Thanks SteveK and Starhopper for pointing this out.
@bmiller
“I'm the only one who doesn't know my brother took the funds. Everyone else knows. Even the police. This is the scenario I'm interested in.”
Doesn’t change anything because
a) other people are aware that stealing occurs
b) other people have created laws against stealing
“My brother argues that there was no crime”
c) see (b) above
SteveK,
OK. I think I got it.
You think it's still stealing even if the supposed victim is unaware of it. So it is/should be against the law. Does it matter that my brother used the funds for a good cause?
Starhopper initially thought it was a crime also. I wonder if he still thinks it is if the person deprived doesn't realize he is deprived.
I've seen nothing here that would cause me to change my mind. I bring up once again the example of something stolen from a Jew during the Holocaust. His heirs today may never have even known the object existed, but the current "owner" still has the moral obligation to relinquish ownership to the heirs, once he is aware of the object's history. He cannot simply retain ownership, even if there are no laws saying he has to hand it over. (And I seriously doubt there are such laws, but I could be wrong.)
@bmiller
“You think it's still stealing even if the supposed victim is unaware of it.”
You framed the question as “taking someone else's property” which could also mean “borrowing” but you didn’t mean that.
Since you meant stealing then the question entails that a criminal act took place, albeit years ago. The question answers itself.
I intentionally killed an innocent man years ago, the victim is unaware of that (obvious) but everyone else is aware. Did I commit a crime? Yes. Victim awareness has nothing to do with it. The question entails the definition of murder, which is a crime.
SteveK,
Thanks for pointing out how I introduced confusion.
Also, your's is a good example.
Starhopper,
Your example raises a lot of questions I didn't intend. It's my fault for framing it poorly. I trying to see if my brother's argument passes legal muster. So far I don't see anyone agreeing that it does.
I wonder if anyone agrees that there is no crime committed if person A takes away something from person B just because person B is unaware of their possesion of that something.
OK.
Looks like it's unanimous. Stealing is still stealing if the victim doesn't know he's had what was rightfully his stolen. Left and Right agree.
Some argue that it's morally OK to abort the unborn because they've had no experiences, or are unaware of any desires, or even conscious. The unborn aren't aware they will be conscious someday and so are unaware they possess a future with conscious experiences. Abortion robs the future life of the unborn. If you steal someone's future life using the excuse that they aren't victims because they are unaware, you are worse than a thief using that excuse.
Now, didn't I predict this? (See above, at April 28, 2021 1:59 PM.)
bmiller, you are so boring!
Can't get anything by you.
Thanks for participating.
I wonder why people turn off their moral compass when the discussion turns to abortion.
Most people have a special contempt for a thief who would steal from the most vulnerable. But it's even more contemptable when you hear this particular justification. "I only stole the property he was unaware of so it doesn't count as theft." Like someone stealing from the tin cup of a blind beggar. The jury should hand out the maximum penalty for this criminal.
But when it comes to abortion some people suddenly think the thief may have a good reason to rob the blind beggar and so we should repeal laws against theft and ask the thief to reconsider (as long as we don't actually impose our morality on him).
It must be exhausting to be a progressive and live with that cognitive dissonance.
"Most people have a special contempt for a thief"
What I do have a special contempt for is anyone who obsesses about one and only one issue 24/7. Now that truly must be exhausting.
Nope. Not exhausting at all. The OP is about abortion right?
How do you justify your consequentialism and still claim to be a Christian?
You really do have a lot of problems if you hold Catholics in contempt and still claim to be one.
I don't hold you in contempt in the least. Nor do I have any contempt for any person's Catholicism. What I do have contempt for is any sort of monomanaicalism.
OK. Then perhaps this is a misstatement.
What I do have a special contempt for is anyone who
Other than telling us that you hate monomanaicalism, do you have any counter-arguments to why there should be laws against theft but not murder of the unborn? Related to the OP.
My question to you is, with all the many vastly more important issues out there, why do you spend all your time and energy on this one? It seems to be all you ever think about.
Aside from the fact that I'm discussing the moral questions of the OP, you see don't you, that you are begging the question? The question about what moral issues are most important?
I answered your question. You're avoiding mine.
I want to know how you justify your consequentialism.
I'm not avoiding your question. I am simply mightily bored by your single minded fanaticism. I see no good coming from following you down your personal rabbit hole. And from experience, I have learned that you are impervious to both discussion and argument. In all seriousness, I advise you to seek professional help.
Now I'm sad you won't answer my question.
Even the impervious have feelings you know.
There are 800,000 humans killed each year in the USA
“Yawn! Boring!!!”
The issue itself is not boring, especially when it is bundled into a consistent, across the board, pro-life stance, to include anti war/militarism/nuclear weaponry, police brutality, Black Lives Matter, the environment, gun regulation, mysogyny, racism, xenophobia, bigotry, living wage, anti capital punishment, prison reform, welcoming of refugees, and universal access to health care. What was once called the Seamless Garment approach to life issues. Check out the Life Matters Journal, published by Rehumanize International (of which I am a proud member) for more info on such a position.
What is boring are the single issue fanatics who can think of nothing else. I'm beginning to wonder about Victor. Dangerous Idea used to be an intellectually challenging site covering everything from Biblical interpretation to philosophical questions, most commonly atheism and materialism. But recently it's become single issue. And yes, that is “Yawn! Boring!!!”. No argument there.
The OP is about abortion. Stop complaining.
"Stop complaining."
I had no intention of complaining (or reason to complain) until bmiller spent several days attempting to deceive (a.k.a. lie to others that he was actually discussing another question. I early on managed to see through his deceit and wasn't the least surprised when the mask was eventually torn off. He was desperately hoping to create a "gotcha" moment.
Pathetic.
Starhopper.
I didn't lie and you know it.
I was discussing another question. To show how it is related to the OP.
You complain when I discuss abortion in isolation then you complain when I discuss it in relation to other moral issues.
Now I want to discuss even another moral issue since you brought it up. Consequentialism. You say I should be one. Why?
"Why?"
You'll have to ask a consequentialist. Not being one, I can't answer your question.
You are every time you vote for a politician that doesn't oppose abortion.
What is boring are the single issue fanatics who can think of nothing else. I'm beginning to wonder about Victor.
Well to be fair (and as I predicted long ago), now that a Democrat is in office, political misdeeds are no longer worthy of pointing out and discussing. His options are so limited now.
As for abortion, I've argued that point since the day I discovered political forums in the early 2000s, and I've changed precisely one person's mind on when life begins, but even that was not enough to sway him that there should be any restrictions on the "procedure". I can argue all day the earth is not flat, but when everyone is impervious to logic the effort begins to get old.
The issue is critical, the discussion is stale.
But the audience is not limited to the participants.
New, younger onlookers are persuadable. I think a lot of then realize now that they have been fed a bunch of baloney. Gotta make the truth available for the folks that are looking for it.
Wow! For once, bmiller and I are in complete agreement on this subject. That's what I've been saying for years now. The solution is education.
You should try learning sometimes then ;-)
I found out why Starhopper refuses to discuss ism's.
Its a video of a young and bitter Starhopper without a car.
May also explain the lack of education.
I dunno. I've never looked that good, except maybe for a brief time in the Army.
You are now the Walrus?
Starhopper,
Bob, you are a decent and good man as I always knew you were. In hindsight I regret posting that YouTube video about the angry Catholic mum yelling at her teenage son about his atheism, grossly insensitive to your feelings.
The offer of staying with us in Australia remains an open invitation.
Papalinton
Well then, I guess I should apologize for saying that you were demon possessed.
As to your invitation, only if you promise me that I'll see a kangaroo!
Starhopper
As you sit down to breakfast every morning I can guarantee you will see stacks of them. And in the afternoon before dusk as they head back into the hills. So bring your camera. And wombats. And maybe an echidna (not so easy, very solitary marsupial). But there is always a chance.
Post a Comment