Although you might pose the question as to whether justifiable homicide can be expanded to include abortion. This, however, violates the Innocence Rule, the idea that while killing persons who are in some sense guilty, such as enemy combatants is war, attackers in self-defense, or capital criminals, justifiable homicide cannot be expanded to include the truly innocent. The Innocence Rule would not be recommended by act utilitarianism.
"All life is not equal Me: Okay, let's see what happens when the inequality is grounded in personal opinions/values.
"I believe that's what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn't make me one iota less solidly pro-choice."
Me: I believe that's what a Mary Williams is: a human life. And that doesn't invalidate anyone being solidly pro-choice with respect to Mary.
"Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She's the boss."
Me: Yet Mary Williams can be a human life without having the same rights as the CEO in whose business she works. He's the boss, literally.
I'm sure Mary Williams will shriek in horror at the idea that someone wants to end her life because, well, all life is not equal and Mary's life is most certainly less equal than most.
Sounds to me like this lady is disturbed that people who actually have human empathy can be persuaded by listening to pro-life arguments
This: that's a conversation we can have, one that I hope would be respectful and empathetic and fearless.
Also this: And we play into the sneaky, dirty tricks of the anti-choice lobby when we on the pro-choice side squirm so uncomfortably at the ways in which they've repeatedly appropriated the concept of "life."
And this: We're so intimidated by the wingnuts, we get spooked out of having these conversations. We let the archconservatives browbeat us with the concept of "life," using their scare tactics on women and pushing for indefensible violations like forced ultrasounds.
So much for advocating for being respectful and empathetic while characterizing those whom she is screeching against as being sneaky, dirty, wingnuts that use scare tactics like ultrasounds to ensure a woman knows what she is doing.
They believe that if we call a fetus a life they can go down the road of making abortion murder. And I think that's what concerns the hell out of those of us who support unrestricted reproductive freedom....Instead, we let right-wingers perpetuate the sentimental fiction that no one with a heart — and certainly no one who's experienced the wondrous miracle of family life — can possibly resist tiny fingers and tiny toes growing inside a woman's body.
Yes. She's certainly outraged that people who do have a heart think she doesn't. She can fix that by trying to fix what's broken in herself rather than covering it up with rage rants. She needs Jesus.
The Innocence Rule would not be recommended by act utilitarianism.
But people who make up their own rules like that author don't seem to have any system other than their own will at any particular moment. Utilitarian or otherwise.
What is the duty of society regarding those who make up their own rules to the extent they believe they can kill others?
Outside of rape, every woman has the exact same freedom every man has to avoid reproduction - avoid having sex. It's that simple. Lack of self-control is not an excuse to kill.
Once you've conceived, you have already reproduced. Unlike actual reproductive rights, abortion is not about whether or not to have offspring - it is the intentional killing of the offspring you already created.
Categorically, abortion and a mother killing her 5 year old child are identical in nature (killing one's own offspring), as opposed to comparing abortion and wearing a condom or taking the pill, the latter two being attempts to avoid the act of reproduction and the former being a response to the reproduction that already occurred.
This woman sounds very wicked. Not a surprise that Salon would be happy to host her drivel.
Kevin, "every woman has the exact same freedom every man has to avoid reproduction - avoid having sex. It's that simple."
It's more complicated than that, I think. It doesn't change how I would answer the abortion question though.
Having sex comes from a natural human desire, similar to the desire to eat. We can control our appetite for food and sex, thus avoiding gluttony and pregnancy but only for a period of time. Like eating, it would be unnatural to forever abstain from sex, hence the strong God-given desire to get married and have children. There are exceptions - a few can abstain for life - but they are not the general rule. God made human beings to have sexual desires and to fulfil those desires. Simple as that.
Unlike overeating, I know of no surefire way to avoid becoming pregnant while engaging in sex no matter how much you try to stop it.
Does this difference mean you can kill the baby because (a) God designed you to have sex so you did, but (b) you didn't want the baby because unlike putting your fork down at the dinner table you couldn't control getting pregnant?
I am at this point asking about the basis of the Innocence Rule, the idea that innocence on the part of the would-be victim is sufficient to undermine any claims of justifiable homicide. This is a critical part of the pro-life case. I am inclined to think it's probably right, though I can come up with counterexamples to be dealt with. Is it based on Scripture, Tradition, Intuition, Utility, or what? Why do you believe in it?
the idea that innocence on the part of the would-be victim is sufficient to undermine any claims of justifiable homicide...though I can come up with counterexamples to be dealt with.
What are examples of justifiable homicide against innocents?
My approach is from the standpoint of the concept of "unrestricted reproductive freedom" the author brought up, to which I maintain that women currently have the exact same reproductive freedom men do - don't have sex, or risk pregnancy by your own free actions. That's as free as it can get.
This woman is obviously very much a creature of the left. But of the new-left rather than the old left. The old-left was on the side of the weak and vulnerable and so presumably would give preference to the weaker party in a power relationship one would think.
The new-left is of the elite rulers who consider themselves the perfectly virtuous victims at the same time as they are actually running the show. Neat trick.
Here's an article describing the situation: https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2025/01/how-establishment-have-become-both.html
The math that scientists rely on to prove various things all but disproves Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Ironic, eh? - The fastest observed genetic fixation in a species required 1,600 generations. - This 1,600-generations-per-fixation rate included parallel fixations. - The fastest observed spread of a genetic line in humans occurred at a rate that would require at least 8,170 generations per fixation. - Chinese scientists have asserted that genes in complex species such as humans change at a rate that is approximately one-fiftieth the rate of genetic change in simple species like bacteria. This implies at least 80,000 generations per genetic fixation. - The genetic difference between a modern Homo sapiens sapiens and a modern Pan troglodytes required around 30 million genetic fixations between the two species. - The estimated 9 million years since the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor permits for somewhere between 282 and 55 genetic fixations per species. This is less than 0.000000006 percent of the observed genetic difference between modern chimpanzees and modern humans. It is also less than one percent of the observed genetic differences between two genetically divergent modern humans.
Much more info here: https://voxday.net/tag/evolution/
”So, the next time someone asks you why you don’t “believe in evolution”, you can tell them that the current scientific evidence, analyzed by the latest technology, indicates that the mathematical probability of evolution is one percent of zero.”
As for me, I trust the science and distrust the “science”
“If someone tells you the score of a professional baseball game is 562,987 to 3, you know the score is incorrect. If someone tells you he walked from New York City to Los Angeles in 34 minutes, you know he is lying. And when someone tells you that the 37.5 million human-specific base-pairs in the human genome were mutated and fixated by natural selection in less than 10 million years, you know they are absolutely wrong.”
20 comments:
Although you might pose the question as to whether justifiable homicide can be expanded to include abortion. This, however, violates the Innocence Rule, the idea that while killing persons who are in some sense guilty, such as enemy combatants is war, attackers in self-defense, or capital criminals, justifiable homicide cannot be expanded to include the truly innocent. The Innocence Rule would not be recommended by act utilitarianism.
"All life is not equal
Me: Okay, let's see what happens when the inequality is grounded in personal opinions/values.
"I believe that's what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn't make me one iota less solidly pro-choice."
Me: I believe that's what a Mary Williams is: a human life. And that doesn't invalidate anyone being solidly pro-choice with respect to Mary.
"Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She's the boss."
Me: Yet Mary Williams can be a human life without having the same rights as the CEO in whose business she works. He's the boss, literally.
I'm sure Mary Williams will shriek in horror at the idea that someone wants to end her life because, well, all life is not equal and Mary's life is most certainly less equal than most.
Sounds to me like this lady is disturbed that people who actually have human empathy can be persuaded by listening to pro-life arguments
This:
that's a conversation we can have, one that I hope would be respectful and empathetic and fearless.
Also this:
And we play into the sneaky, dirty tricks of the anti-choice lobby when we on the pro-choice side squirm so uncomfortably at the ways in which they've repeatedly appropriated the concept of "life."
And this:
We're so intimidated by the wingnuts, we get spooked out of having these conversations. We let the archconservatives browbeat us with the concept of "life," using their scare tactics on women and pushing for indefensible violations like forced ultrasounds.
So much for advocating for being respectful and empathetic while characterizing those whom she is screeching against as being sneaky, dirty, wingnuts that use scare tactics like ultrasounds to ensure a woman knows what she is doing.
They believe that if we call a fetus a life they can go down the road of making abortion murder. And I think that's what concerns the hell out of those of us who support unrestricted reproductive freedom....Instead, we let right-wingers perpetuate the sentimental fiction that no one with a heart — and certainly no one who's experienced the wondrous miracle of family life — can possibly resist tiny fingers and tiny toes growing inside a woman's body.
Yes. She's certainly outraged that people who do have a heart think she doesn't. She can fix that by trying to fix what's broken in herself rather than covering it up with rage rants. She needs Jesus.
The Innocence Rule would not be recommended by act utilitarianism.
But people who make up their own rules like that author don't seem to have any system other than their own will at any particular moment. Utilitarian or otherwise.
What is the duty of society regarding those who make up their own rules to the extent they believe they can kill others?
"Unrestricted reproductive freedom"
Outside of rape, every woman has the exact same freedom every man has to avoid reproduction - avoid having sex. It's that simple. Lack of self-control is not an excuse to kill.
Once you've conceived, you have already reproduced. Unlike actual reproductive rights, abortion is not about whether or not to have offspring - it is the intentional killing of the offspring you already created.
Categorically, abortion and a mother killing her 5 year old child are identical in nature (killing one's own offspring), as opposed to comparing abortion and wearing a condom or taking the pill, the latter two being attempts to avoid the act of reproduction and the former being a response to the reproduction that already occurred.
This woman sounds very wicked. Not a surprise that Salon would be happy to host her drivel.
Kevin,
"every woman has the exact same freedom every man has to avoid reproduction - avoid having sex. It's that simple."
It's more complicated than that, I think. It doesn't change how I would answer the abortion question though.
Having sex comes from a natural human desire, similar to the desire to eat. We can control our appetite for food and sex, thus avoiding gluttony and pregnancy but only for a period of time. Like eating, it would be unnatural to forever abstain from sex, hence the strong God-given desire to get married and have children. There are exceptions - a few can abstain for life - but they are not the general rule. God made human beings to have sexual desires and to fulfil those desires. Simple as that.
Unlike overeating, I know of no surefire way to avoid becoming pregnant while engaging in sex no matter how much you try to stop it.
Does this difference mean you can kill the baby because (a) God designed you to have sex so you did, but (b) you didn't want the baby because unlike putting your fork down at the dinner table you couldn't control getting pregnant?
I am at this point asking about the basis of the Innocence Rule, the idea that innocence on the part of the would-be victim is sufficient to undermine any claims of justifiable homicide. This is a critical part of the pro-life case. I am inclined to think it's probably right, though I can come up with counterexamples to be dealt with. Is it based on Scripture, Tradition, Intuition, Utility, or what? Why do you believe in it?
The Christian understanding of natural law.
the idea that innocence on the part of the would-be victim is sufficient to undermine any claims of justifiable homicide...though I can come up with counterexamples to be dealt with.
What are examples of justifiable homicide against innocents?
SteveK
My approach is from the standpoint of the concept of "unrestricted reproductive freedom" the author brought up, to which I maintain that women currently have the exact same reproductive freedom men do - don't have sex, or risk pregnancy by your own free actions. That's as free as it can get.
This woman is obviously very much a creature of the left. But of the new-left rather than the old left. The old-left was on the side of the weak and vulnerable and so presumably would give preference to the weaker party in a power relationship one would think.
The new-left is of the elite rulers who consider themselves the perfectly virtuous victims at the same time as they are actually running the show. Neat trick.
Here's an article describing the situation:
https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2025/01/how-establishment-have-become-both.html
"And then there's this: an easy target for pro-lifers, I think"
I wonder what a difficult target would look like. One that uses consistent premises that everyone can agree on.
Jon Stewart
Miley Cyrus
Cher
All promised to move to Canada if Trump won.
Now what?
Will they move to Greenland?
Why not Mexico?
Silly old Innocence Rule:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31885906
Those little girls were asking for it. MP's agree. We mustn't question why they voted that way either. Questioning that would be "anti-democratic".
Off topic.
The math that scientists rely on to prove various things all but disproves Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Ironic, eh?
- The fastest observed genetic fixation in a species required 1,600 generations.
- This 1,600-generations-per-fixation rate included parallel fixations.
- The fastest observed spread of a genetic line in humans occurred at a rate that would require at least 8,170 generations per fixation.
- Chinese scientists have asserted that genes in complex species such as humans change at a rate that is approximately one-fiftieth the rate of genetic change in simple species like bacteria. This implies at least 80,000 generations per genetic fixation.
- The genetic difference between a modern Homo sapiens sapiens and a modern Pan troglodytes required around 30 million genetic fixations between the two species.
- The estimated 9 million years since the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor permits for somewhere between 282 and 55 genetic fixations per species. This is less than 0.000000006 percent of the observed genetic difference between modern chimpanzees and modern humans. It is also less than one percent of the observed genetic differences between two genetically divergent modern humans.
Much more info here: https://voxday.net/tag/evolution/
SteveK,
Sorry "Science" says differently. And you can't question "Science" even if the science is mathematically impossible.
”So, the next time someone asks you why you don’t “believe in evolution”, you can tell them that the current scientific evidence, analyzed by the latest technology, indicates that the mathematical probability of evolution is one percent of zero.”
As for me, I trust the science and distrust the “science”
“If someone tells you the score of a professional baseball game is 562,987 to 3, you know the score is incorrect. If someone tells you he walked from New York City to Los Angeles in 34 minutes, you know he is lying. And when someone tells you that the 37.5 million human-specific base-pairs in the human genome were mutated and fixated by natural selection in less than 10 million years, you know they are absolutely wrong.”
So you're saying there's a chance, right? ;-)
Post a Comment