a large family and his mother considered an abortion but changed her
mind. That fixed my opinion rather than Church doctrines- which had
allowed abortions, btw. I read- maybe Wm. Manchetser's slim volume on
Chuch history, but maybe not- that the Vatican made a deal with France
so it would repopulate after Napoleon. I am anti-abortion but don't
run the country.
Rape was a bonus for military victories, wasn't it? Women were
considered as objects. I don't think castration was considered, was
it? Even Ike left Berlin females to the fate rapes of the Ruskies.
Yes- let's send the politicians and brass off to the wars they invent
along with the general population who pays for them. Imagine the
charge of Hilary's brigade! She can take Weiner along for the ride- he
can be her press secretary!
Yes- wars are a great boost to medicine- especially new surgical
techniques and many a millionaire starts as a war profiteer.
On Jul 17, 12:29 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Hi rigsy and Tony. You bring up a few issues I ponder and question.
>
> First, it appears that neither of you are against abortion on the
> grounds that it is killing, something that I believe it is… and I
> still think it should be legal. Yet you both, perhaps for slightly
> different reasons seen to think abortions should be 'avoided'. Both
> cite 'convenience' as a reason that is not acceptable. Rigsy says that
> giving birth is 'part of the cycle of life' as a reason and Tony says
> that it is 'cold. He further implies that to abort, it must be
> 'understandable'. This is one reason I leave it to the mother…since
> what is 'understandable' (including the notion of 'convenience') are
> in the eye of the beholder.
>
> Rigsy then shared all sorts of practical justification for her moral
> stance. As to the being part of the cycle of life, so is death as Tony
> points out! Also, an apparent wish to further the overpopulation of
> Earth because we can (medical 'advances'), historical gender
> preferences and one countries solution to overpopulation (one child/
> couple) not appearing to be perfect in her eyes all seem to be
> incomplete 'reasons' or at worst, not valid ones.
>
> Tony shares how most life 'in nature' just isn't 'good' and ends in
> death. To me, if the requirement for living is to have a good life,
> the majority of women on Earth should have been put to death long ago
> because of the extensive occurrence of rape, slave trade, poverty,
> hunger, disease etc. This is *IF* one accepts the premise. I won't
> even address his notion of abortion being 'cold'.
>
> As to his first mention of being against the draft, I too shared that
> stance long ago. More recently (the last couple of decades) I see the
> necessity for a draft as a way of affecting all socioeconomic groups
> thus forcing a wider opinion…hopefully against…of supplying cannon
> fodder. With no draft, the elite including lawmakers never have to
> personally face the issue and can avoid doing so more easily.
>
> OM
>
> On Jul 17, 5:48 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Definitely there are reasons to abort: incest, rape, physical (mental)
> > state of mother, incomplete/damaged fetus. I am against convenience
> > abortions. Weak babies were once left to die- now modern medicine can
> > save them. Boys were preferred to girls. China's one-child policy is
> > back-firing. Well, there are many related topics. I see the bearing
> > and raising of children as part of the cycle of life.
>
> > We have less control to combat our fears. Am I eating Monsanto
> > products sprayed with Round-Up? Etc.
>
> > On Jul 17, 12:24 am, Tony Orlow <t...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>
> > > Hi Rigsy -
>
> > > I started wearing my "Stop The Draft" pin from '69 last fall. We are
> > > all being enslaved on the beach to dessicate, wave by wave until the
> > > tide recedes. Most of that is justified by unjustifiable wars fueled
> > > by fear, and it's time we stopped being such scaredy cats. We didn't
> > > survive by *not* working with wolves to kill mammoths. Now we are
> > > scared of mice and bugs. Enough of that fear tactic. Let's stop
> > > fighting, and simply resist.
>
> > > When it comes to abortion, I have a subtler opinion. I think they are
> > > to be avoided, but are understandable at times. I can think of a
> > > couple personal examples off the top of my head.
> > > The sister of a friend of mine is a complete drunk and addict, thought
> > > she had a miscarriage, but still remains pregnant. There were probably
> > > fraternal twins. Now she's in jail. I'm sure that baby would never
> > > have a chance except to be unhappy.
> > > An ex-girlfriend was with this schizophrenic (as far as I could tell)
> > > and abusive guy, and got pregnant. She had been on drugs and drunk
> > > too, since she got pregnant (says she's cleaned up now), and didn't
> > > want to have a child with this boy. She was going to have an abortion
> > > and (at my suggestion) say she had a miscarriage. Well, she had a
> > > miscarriage before the appointment. It was the right thing to do. God
> > > took care of that, so it wouldn't be on her head (also at my
> > > suggestion).
>
> > > If a potential person has no chance at happiness, and will probably
> > > endure enslavement and abuse (as their mother has), what is their
> > > right to life worth?
>
> > > In nature, most of the young are food, either killed by a predator,
> > > starvation, suffocation, cold, heat, or some disease. That's life. It
> > > ends in death. The important thing is that life be good.
>
> > > In general, if one is to abort, it should be in the first trimester. I
> > > have no problem with that rule in general. If the child makes it to
> > > the third, that's a no-no. In the second, it depends on many factors.
> > > And, one should never use it as birth control for convenience. That's
> > > cold.
>
> > > Peace,
>
> > > Tony
>
> > > On Jul 16, 7:29 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I have a problem with your opinion about death vs. murder as it does
> > > > not cover abortions or warfare which have become antiseptic and
> > > > remote. But this leads to a bigger can of worms. Plus there are
> > > > multiple ways to stymie free choices.//What is your definition of a
> > > > "slave"?
>
> > > > On Jul 15, 3:49 am, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Umm that is an interesting take on it Tony.
>
> > > > > I'm a great beliver in the right of the individual to live life how
> > > > > they wish to. It comes as a by product of my other great belife yep
> > > > > the 'Golden Rule' so I must disagree with you about not allowing
> > > > > individuals to cuase unhappiness.
>
> > > > > If an individual wishes to life a live causeing unhappiness for all
> > > > > then that is their choice and they must then take the consequences of
> > > > > that choice, if that be prison or violence or whatever. I would not
> > > > > curtail this right of the individual but then again, I would personly
> > > > > make the choice to counter this individuals actions if turned against
> > > > > me or mine, and I don't doubt that others would make the same choice
> > > > > that I would.
>
> > > > > I also doubt the power of murder to change thinks for the worst for
> > > > > the majority of people, the rate of murder is overall really not that
> > > > > high, so I must also disagree with you on that score.
>
> > > > > For me the evilness of murder stems not from taking somebody elses
> > > > > life, after all we are all destined to die, so death in and of itself
> > > > > I can't see as an evil thing. Nope for me it is the taking away from
> > > > > somebody all future choices, this I think is a great evil.
>
> > > > > To make a man a slave does the same. Again all attributed to my
> > > > > belife in the golden rule.
>
> > > > > On Jul 14, 1:49 pm, Tony Orlow <t...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jul 12, 5:02 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Hey Tony,
>
> > > > > > > Indeed and I would go further and say that good and evil are wholey
> > > > > > > subjective.
>
> > > > > > > Ben declares that murder is normaly counted as evil, but sometimes it
> > > > > > > serves the greater good. I would ask you all to consider why exaclty
> > > > > > > is it that the majority agree with this.
>
> > > > > > > In short why is murder evil?
>
> > > > > > Because we desire stability in society, and murder causes pain and
> > > > > > discord, making societal progress hard for us all. Is the murderer
> > > > > > evil? No, I think the murderer is sick, but society must hold the
> > > > > > individual accountable for their actions in some sense, or it will
> > > > > > collapse into chaos. One cannot allow individuals to cause unhappiness
> > > > > > for everyone else, or no one will be happy.
>
> > > > > > Peace,
>
> > > > > > Tony
>
> > > > > > > On Jul 11, 6:31 pm, Tony Orlow <t...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Hi Ben -
>
> > > > > > > > A good question, and not one that I haven't spent much time
> > > > > > > > considering. Here are my thoughts.
>
> > > > > > > > One many levels, good and evil are subjective. When a cheetah kills a
> > > > > > > > gazelle, that is good in the cheetah's eye and evil in the gazelle's.
> > > > > > > > Indeed, our sense of what is good or bad rests first in personal
> > > > > > > > pleasure and pain, and as we mature, is extended by association to
> > > > > > > > include that which helps or hurts an object of attachment. For the
> > > > > > > > rich, the current financial situation is good, and for the many poor
> > > > > > > > it is evil. One's personal judgment is generally dependent on their
> > > > > > > > perspective.
>
> > > > > > > > One the other hand, if we assume some greater good, then actions which
> > > > > > > > encourage it are good, and those that set it back or hurt it are bad
> > > > > > > > or even evil. For instance, for those that believe in evolution and
> > > > > > > > would rather be a trillion human cells able to think on our level
> > > > > > > > rather than a pool of algae, evolution may be viewed as a universally
> > > > > > > > good thing. Actions that encourage it are good and those that impede
> > > > > > > > it are bad. Since evolution happens on all levels, from stars to
> > > > > > > > physical organism to minds and memes, one may view this as a universal
> > > > > > > > good. Of course, this depends on whether one personally believes in
> > > > > > > > evolution, so again, even this objective good is subjectively
> > > > > > > > estimated by the individual.
>
> > > > > > > > Hope that was a valuable contribution. Have a nice day
>
> > > > > > > > Tony
>
> > > > > > > > On Jul 8, 11:16 pm, Ben <artistta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > I do not believe that we can define good and evil without entering
> > > > > > > > > into a philosophical conversation.
>
> > > > > > > > > Good and evil are not
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment