Are You a Good Person? Documentary that discusses this subject and Abortion.

Great Debates
362

And is that the “end” you think pro-choicers are seeking? Nothing further than that? No plans for legalized abortion being the first step, world domination to follow?

Geez, what a let-down. I thought you were trying to equate pro-choice with Nazis or something, and then I find out pro-choicers aren’t even at the German Workers’ Party stage.
[/QUOTE]
Actually there are some other aspects, such as keeping organ harvests legal. A definition of “person” that includes a fetus would pretty much have to include a brain dead body as well, rendering organ harvests illegal. There’s also the problem that defining a fetus as a “person” undercuts the whole reason for considering “person” a legally important category; calling a mindless fetus a “person” makes it no less mindless. It also creates a legal precedent for things to be defined as people, then be given legal precedence over actual people. And then there’s the problem that you’d logically have to treat every miscarriage as a murder investigation.

363

Well, I’d be happy to debate it at length with OMG, but I don’t think he’s talking to me.

364

Nuh uhn!

(Okay, your turn)

365

(checks self)

Nope, still a bad person. :frowning:

366

Word to the wise; typing a lot does not mean you say a lot. Anyway…

This is all I need to quote. It’s a terrible basis for forming the law only when you disagree with with societal consensus (moral questionableness is not a matter of personal opinion). But that’s what happens when you live in a non-anarchy.

Fine. I’ll give you one such example; gay marriage. Now what do I win?

(And it’s kind of early to be throwing out the “Sharia Law” boogeyman.)

367

Moral questionableness is not a matter of personal opinion? That comes as quite a surprise, and is readily demonstrated wrong just by looking around and gathering opinions on what is morally questionable. If moral questionableness was not subjective, if there was some absolute and universal standard, we wouldn’t see such wide variability. There are some very basic low-level near-universal standards, like not murdering or not stealing, but even these are subject to argument. On less basic issues, like whether or not homosexuality is immoral, or non-marital sex, or the corporal punishment of children, one can get radically differing opinions within a single family, let alone across an entire society.

Rather, I suggest actual consequences be regarded as a better legal guideline. It’s not the role of law to represent some hopelessly idealistic standard of behaviour, but a compromise between individual freedom and the state’s power to curtail that freedom with, I propose, individual freedom being the default unless the state can demonstrate a compelling need to intervene. Rape and murder (before you can respond with “then why I am I not free to commit rape and murder…”) cause harm to others. Abortion may or may not, also, depending on how one chooses to define “harm” and “other”, but is a sufficiently unique situation (one being inside the body of another) that it is reasonable to treat it differently than rape or murder or anything else.

What about gay marriage? It looks like a total non-sequitor to the paragraph you quoted. Are you holding it up as an example of something that is morally questionable? Something that should be allowed or disallowed? I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make, let alone see the “win”.

Not really. You’re talking about allowing or disallowing actions (not just agreeing with or disagreeing with, but actually allowing and disallowing, which is only significant if you’re talking about legislation) based on “moral questionableness”, a concept which itself is highly questionable. It’s is not at all far-fetched to picture the end result of such thinking being to resorting to holy scripture as a moral (and legal) guide - if not Sharia and the Qu’ran, it could be Ray Comfort and whichever version of the New Testament he recognizes. What moral code are you suggesting be used as the “questionableness” yardstick? That you know moral questionableness when you see it?

368

…Okay. So let me try this again.

Do you live in an anarchy? No.
Do you live in a well-defined society? Yes.
Are laws formed based on what you believe? No.
Are laws formed based on what society believes? Yes.

Simple, right? It should be. Again, you could save yourself a lot of time by not typing out so much.

I’m sure the Nazis would agree with the gist of your post. In fact, I know they would.

ahem

[QUOTE=You]
It’s your opinion and I have no (and wish no) control over it, or wish no-one else to have control over it, but “Whether or not an action is allowed or disallowed is based on the moral questionableness of said action” is a blatant falsehood and I call you on it.
[/quote]

I gave you one such example of an action being banned (or allowed) based on its moral questionable. You’re welcome.

369

:smack: (That’s the closest one we have to a facepalm smiley)

Let me ask you something very simple: did those Jews live inside Hitler’s body? NOT as separate entities, somewhere else. But his actual, physical body, taking control of his physical needs, nutrition, health, possibly causing serious complications of the former?

THAT is what I am asking. Said fetus, embryo, zygote (depending on the stage of pregnancy), is still a part of my body. And until said fetus is viable and certain to live on its own, it is a part of ME. I come first. Period.

What, do you think women go and get pregnant JUST to have abortions? Or just wake up one day and say, “You know, I changed my mind, I’m gonna go and have an abortion today, that’ll be fun!”

:rolleyes:

370

Ok here I am. Back again. And back again rambling. After I vowed to not do it again. But sorry here it goes. (And please excuse my certainly faulty English. It’s not my first language):

And I’m sorry if I just repeat what other already said but after seeing this documentary I don’t have the patience to read all the posts. My skin already turned green and my cloth don’t fit me no more. So I have to post quickly before my fingers can’t manage the keyboard.

First things first. The sixth commandment doesn’t mean “though shalt not kill”. It means “though shalt not murder”. Just because the translations are bad and plentifully doesn’t make them right. Actually it proves that god (who ever she might be – yes I put a “she” in there just to stir things up) does not prove read every thing that is written about her nor everything that is written, allegedly, by her. “But you are wrong! I can show it to you! Here my King James Bible says in Exodus 20.13: ‘Though shalt not kill’. That means that all live is sacred. And never, never, ever should any one kill someone.“(I actually have only a pdf version: http://www.bookbindery.ca/KJBIBLE.pdf . But my real, paper German Bible translates to the same – more or less). Yes, thank you! You well meaning, life loving, well educated, open minded, free spirited christian (Uhg… “Hulk” pulled a muscle writing this. But “Hulk” want’s to stay out of the pit. And “Hulk” is actually well meaning, well educated, open minded, free spirited and even life loving – in a Woody Allen kind of way) and when the Bible in Exodus 21.12(et seq), Exodus 35.2, Leviticus 20.9(et seq) and in many, many other passages encourages the believer to kill somebody, for one reason or another, it is just fooling around. Yeah that passages are not to be taken seriously. They just wrote that for entertainment… Yeah right. Other highlights: Exodus 21.7 (“You are allowed to sell your daughter into slavery.” And by the way: slavery in general is on the up and up), Leviticus 21.17(et seq) (“People with disabilities shall stay out of church”). And that is just the stuff I happen to read by chance yesterday on a completely unrelated matter. You may count THAT as evidence that God exists – I kind of do. And yes, she (Yep, my girl - still is a girl) sure does work in mysterious ways.
So please, PLEASE if you want to argument against abortion do it without using the bible and “though shalt not kill”.

But what really got my blood boiling – and my skin turn green: Comparing abortion to the Holocaust. It may be because I know what the Holocaust was. It may be because I know who Hitler was (an Austrian - by the way). It may be because I know what terrible, unbelievable crimes he committed (he still makes it just so in the top-3 of most evil men ever). It may be because I am a post war German. It may be because we are a somewhat sensitive bunch about this. But you do not compare anything to the Holocaust! Nothing! Simply nothing! It is …… sorry I can’t explain how I feel about this. There are no words that I know of that can describe it and that I am free to use in a civilized conversation. But I am pretty sure that the guy who made the “documentation” took quite some heat for doing so. And he probably heard most of the words that I would like to say about that from others. Thanks guys!

To the questions raised by the film:

Would I kill Hitler? Gladly, happily. He is one of the few people that I would have killed with a smile on my face.

Would I kill his mother with him as an unborn child? What a sick question is that? No I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t even kill him before he starts to do evil shit. I’m not a sociopath you know.

Would I kill people (yews in a mass grave), by burying them or by shooting them if I can’t save them but me? Yes. And I would prefer using the gun. I’m a pretty good shot and they wouldn’t feel a thing. Sorry to say this. But if the question is “them and me” or only “them” then it is “them”. If the question would be “them” or “me” then I hope I would be strong enough to sacrifice me. And somehow I think I would do it. I couldn’t live with me if I don’t. Don’t get me wrong. I would feel terrible about killing them. I would hate my self for doing it. But every live is precious, even mine. Throwing it away for no good reason would be wrong.

Killing a baby in the womb is ok when…? The woman says so. Actually when she has a good reason. But if you want a unambiguous answer: If the woman says so. What right should anybody else have in this? To be honest: If I’d be the god emperor of mankind there would be laws that force and forbid abortions under certain circumstances. But I’m not. And no one else shall infringe the right of a woman to her own body.

Am I a good person? Surprisingly yes. I have many, many flaws. I have probably broken every commandment but the sixth and the first (if you don’t start nitpicking). And I broken a lot more of the lesser ones (I don’t hate gays. I have worked on the Sabbath. I eat pigs. I even eat Balkenbrij (Pannas to me)).But I care about your well being. I would help you if I could. I would protect you. I would be there if you need me. And the well meaning god I believe in will understand me. He/She/It will forgive me my sins. Even that I’m “pro choice” and therefore (as it seems) “anti life” and pro Holocaust.

Ups. I almost forgot. When does live begin? Human live begins at conception. Actually Cecil changed my opinion on that a few years ago. But what does that mean? A few cells are certainly not able to register pain in a meaningful way. And if you believe in Christianity then children are born in the state of grace. And a child, even a unborn one, that dies goes straight to heaven. No pain, no suffering. Just straight to heaven. That is a somewhat cynical argument and I don’t feel good making it, but still. And if you think there is suffering then be consequent. Don’t eat meat, don’t swat a fly.

What should you do? IMHO. Sex education in schools would be a good start. Less unprotected sex - equals less unwanted pregnancies - equals less abortions. Create a “welfare state” where having a child doesn’t mean a high risk of poverty for mother and child. That would not work? It does for us. Compare the numbers on abortions and teenage pregnancies: http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Germany/United-States/Health

Abortions: Germany 97,936 United-States 1,210,880
Teenage pregnancy: Germany 29,000 births United-States 494,357 births

The other numbers say the same. We are doing somethings right.

371

How and why something is killed is the determining point of between right and wrong for that action. Most societies recognize some types of killing as justified therefore right, or at least acceptable and lawful. Other types of killing are condemned. Shooting your neighbor in his driveway is considered murder. Shooting your neighbor as he runs toward you swinging a machete is justifiable self defense. We don’t accept as non-criminal the killing of already born babies except under certain circumstances the most common being diminished mental capacity of the mother, but we also recognize that warfare, slavery, and severe maternal abuse can also be acceptable excuses. Feti are terminated as a by product of what is necessary to remove them from the mother’s body.

372

I suspect he or she might believe so. I have encountered anti-abortion people who do believe urban legends like “abortion doping.”

373

Sure, but your claim was, and I quote: “Whether or not an action is allowed or disallowed is based on the moral questionableness of said action.” (emphasis yours) Somewhere along the way, you overlooked how laws actually get written, which is a matter of some significance and relevance. Moral questionableness might contribute to how a law get proposed, but simply being about something morally questionable (however one chooses to define such a spectacularly slippery descriptor) won’t get a law automatically passed, but I elaborate on this later in this post.

I guess I should be offended by this, but it’s simply too nonsensical to get worked up about.

Okay, I get your point now. Prohibitions against gay marriage (and past prohibitions against women voting and blacks voting and interracial marriage… really, lots of prohibitions that were inherently unfair) are gradually being whittled because “moral questionableness” is indeed a bad basis for forming law. A lot of what is considered “moral” in a given era is informed by the prevailing prejudices and fears and pseudoscientific beliefs, which fall away as the population becomes more educated. Were women and blacks incapable of voting? A lot of people sure thought so, to the point that it became a moral issue to them, something to be actively resisted. Was interracial marriage something that would create “mongrels” ? A lot of people sure thought so, to the point that it became a moral issue to them, something to be actively resisted.

I admit I should have included a qualifier, so I offer this: “Moral questionableness is a terrible basis for forming law. When moral questionableness has been the sole or driving basis in the past to make a law (or keep an obsolete law), it is virtually certain to be defending bigotry and not promoting good public policy. Moral questionableness remains a powerful temptation, though, and candidates like Rick Santorum who trumpet banning abortion on strictly moral grounds with no regard and in fact seemingly willful indifference to the consequences do a disservice to their constituents by so pandering to their fears. I find it regrettable and shameful that such tactics still play in American politics and, to my chagrin, occasionally in Canadian politics, though it happens less often since the thunderclap issues of abortion, capital punishment and gun ownership are fairly well settled here, and nobody seems to really care what religion a particular candidate is, nor how observant he or she is.”

So what you “won” was just my admission that some of your lawmakers and indeed many of your voters are motivated by bigotry masked as morality. To be fair, some of my lawmakers and voters, are too. I expect no country exists or has ever existed that was free of such behaviour, but at least I live in an era where social progress has occurred and is occurring within my lifetime, so the damage they can do is being limited year by year. I suspect (indeed, hope) gay marriage will be legal across the U.S. within 20 years. I suspect (indeed, hope) that any effort to put major restrictions on abortion in the U.S., on the federal or state level, will be met with a backlash and scofflaw indifference and evasion.

I can only hope (and it’s a faint hope) that people who like to say “There oughtta be a law!” in reflexive response to something that pings their moral radar will put some thought into what such a law would entail before they make their political contributions and cast their votes.

374

I have only one tiny question about this. Who decides what is moral and what is not moral?

375

Apparently it’s whatever society believes and no further explanation is required or forthcoming.

376

Aren’t abortions accepted by the majority of the society? Even in the US? (I have to admit that some things about the American way are totally alien to me) One might argue that that makes it morally right.

377

I’m actually Canadian, and while it’s really tempting to say “yes, the pro-choice stance is self-evidently moral in the U.S. since a majority of the U.S. accepts it”, it’s not really something I believe.

378

Because?

379

Because I think rational consideration with a bias toward individual freedom should count for more than subjective morality in the formation of law.

380

Which among other things would mean that the enslavement of blacks in America was “morally justified”. “Moral = whatever the majority thinks” is an idea that quickly leads to absurdities.

381

Actually, the selective viewpoints of morality can be quite fascinating. I remember during the badly-named film G.I. Jane (in which Demi Moore plays a woman going through Navy SEAL training) a moment when another SEAL student, a black guy, expresses some admiration for her effort and describes how his own grandfather wanted to serve in the navy during WW2 but because of his race was limited to being a cook or steward.

Thing is, later in the film Moore’s character gets bounced from training because of innuendo that she might be a lesbian (such innuendo consisting solely of pictures of her at a beach party with other women) and nobody even suggests that the idea of tossing her on this basis is unfair. It’s that the accusation is bullshit which is supposed to outrage the audience (who knows that she’s straight since we see her earlier in the film in the bathtub with her boyfriend) - not the notion that banning a lesbian is as pointlessly prejudiced as banning a woman (or for that matter, banning a black man). The message of the film was supposed to be that if she was physically and mentally capable of finishing the training, her gender shouldn’t matter. It seems odd that her orientation should, though.

This was in 1997 though, when (I guess) gays in the military was widely considered as ludicrous as, say, gay marriage still is to some people.