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?
This admission from an abortion advocate is very interesting:
I have friends who have referred to their abortions in terms of "scraping out a bunch of cells" and then a few years later were exultant over the pregnancies that they unhesitatingly described in terms of "the baby" and "this kid." I know women who have been relieved at their abortions and grieved over their miscarriages.
These women who have had abortions (and are capable of sin regardless of what feminists say) have had to compartmentalize their actions in order to live with themselves. Their purported schizophrenic understanding of the status of their offspring allows them to tell others that aren't really murderers. They naturally know different being part of the human race and feeling the force of natural law within themselves.
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
12 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.
This admission from an abortion advocate is very interesting:
I have friends who have referred to their abortions in terms of "scraping out a bunch of cells" and then a few years later were exultant over the pregnancies that they unhesitatingly described in terms of "the baby" and "this kid." I know women who have been relieved at their abortions and grieved over their miscarriages.
These women who have had abortions (and are capable of sin regardless of what feminists say) have had to compartmentalize their actions in order to live with themselves. Their purported schizophrenic understanding of the status of their offspring allows them to tell others that aren't really murderers. They naturally know different being part of the human race and feeling the force of natural law within themselves.
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
Post a Comment