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 absolute rules nor can there be a universal good
> > > > > > > or a universal evil.
> > > > > > > The concept of what is good and what is evil must be taught to us as a
> > > > > > > child, because we are not born inherently good or evil.
>
> > > > > > > To murder is bad. However the statement does not speak of a universal
> > > > > > > good. Murder in so many cases has been used in good ways.
> > > > > > > Euthanization has been used to end a suffering patients life. Abortion
> > > > > > > has been used to prevent a child from being born when childbirth could
> > > > > > > end a mothers life. To murder is bad in many cases but not all. The
> > > > > > > extreme case of the word murder means to kill another human being
> > > > > > > under conditions specifically covered in law. We can not define murder
> > > > > > > without discussing the implications. There are many instances where
> > > > > > > murder must be re-defined as a good not a bad.
>
> > > > > > > A child is not born inherently good or evil. Human beings are unique
> > > > > > > in the power of our brain. We are able to quickly associate good and
> > > > > > > bad. These associations are learned from society, our elders and
> > > > > > > peers. A child that is born with no contact from these influences will
> > > > > > > associate good and evil with pain and suffering. A child with contact
> > > > > > > from these influences will be able to conceptualize good and evil and
> > > > > > > apply it to many different aspects of everyday life.
>
> > > > > > > Finally, no universal good or evil will ever be agreed upon. There is
> > > > > > > no absolute good or bad that we must all follow. One concept can
> > > > > > > impede on another and we must accept those societies that have a
> > > > > > > rational way of thinking. Each society must continue to evolve these
> > > > > > > rules and change the commandments that were made centuries ago to fit
> > > > > > > the present day reality of life. To murder is bad, however we live in
> > > > > > > a civilized county in which many cases of murder are legal because
> > > > > > > they are good. No one is born inherently good or evil and our society
> > > > > > > must continue to define every aspect of what could be good or bad in
> > > > > > > order to teach our children and they to develop their own, more
> > > > > > > complete understanding to be taught to their children.
>
> > > > > > > I challenge those of you who have read this to define an absolute good
> > > > > > > and evil.
>
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Ben Kaylor- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment