> 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.
That's true, and it gets really iffy sometimes whether or not it's the
right thing to do. It most directly affects the mother's life, and the
father sometimes should have some say, but not always, and never the
ultimate decision. I do think it's cold to negligently create a life
and then blithely dismiss it as a nuisance that can be cleaned up and
tossed out. This also applies to people with pets they neglect or
abandon, in some ways more because the animal is sentient and they
made a choice to have the animal, and in some ways less because the
animal is not our own creation but something we adopted. Though, the
fact that we chose the animal gives us more responsibility. Many
shades of gray...
>
> 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.
I have two children, and that's enough. If everyone did that, the
population, if anything, would decrease through child-bearing
attrition. Unfortunately, the dumb seem to have more children on
average than the intelligent, so what do that do to the population?
Maybe I should donate at a sperm bank, then get a vasectomy. :{
>
> 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'.
It's cold if taken that way. I do believe the vast majority of women
receiving abortions have all sorts of mixed feelings and are not
"cold" about it, just like most people killing in war are affected
heavily by the experience, and don't take it lightly.
Now, Ornamental Mind (I like the name by the way, even though it makes
the mind sound like tinsel), on the subject of men vs. women, and the
relative goodness of their lives, the time has come to stop blaming
men for women's woes all the time. I haven't participated, nor would
I, in any of the crimes you've mentioned above. I've never paid for
sexual favors, and have seen very little porn and don't like it
because it's when one can see right through the abuse involved. Men
and women need each other, and men can be assholes, but women can be
bitches. More and more these days, men would like a stable
relationship, but women can do whatever they want now, and so that has
become incredibly harder. I don't know what the answer is, except for
inter-sexual partners to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of
each sex, and appreciate and forgive them, in the name of
cooperation.
Don't have a girlfriend. Don't want one. Life is hard enough. :) Did
that sound jaded?
>
> 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
OM -
I think you contradicted yourself a little here, but you make a good
point. When the draft was in effect, anyone could be called. Now,
especially with the economic downturn, the poor turn to military
service for some kind of opportunity while the rich play polo. In that
sense, the draft is actually better, perhaps. Except, if the poor are
poor because they're stupid, maybe they should be the first to go...
hmmmm. ugh!
Anyway, I started wearing the button because I feel we are all being
sucked in and conscripted by a system where we are made to be nothing
and have no rights, like animals (who DO have rights, imho). Maybe
that is "maturity"? No, I think that's voluntary enslavement, and it's
time for us to follow Libya's example, and give the boot to the war
machine. Better to selectively euthanize an embryo at a time than to
slaughter a wedding party with a drone.
Peace (hopefully)
Tony
>
> 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 »
0 comments:
Post a Comment