tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-809323243837962619.comments2021-09-21T15:59:20.800-04:0070 Years Old. WTF!Mike Wolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11791939960831860259noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-809323243837962619.post-77007699271661615132016-06-04T15:00:41.754-04:002016-06-04T15:00:41.754-04:00Thanks for replying. Just saw I had comments to mo...Thanks for replying. Just saw I had comments to moderate. Sorry for the late reply.<br /><br />#1: You understand correctly.<br />#2: You got what I said, but it's not "merely" a matter of opinion. How we form opinions matters.<br />#3: Again, mere.<br /><br />There are two issues: legality, and morality. As far as legality goes, whatever the law says is what's legal. The argument against abortion is based on morality: that it's wrong. Period. So change the law to make it illegal, too.<br /><br />But this assumes that there are absolutes, and in the physical universe, as we know it, there are no absolutes. Everything is part of a continuum. "The moment of conception" would be an absolute, and as I think I've shown, there's no such thing there's a continuum of change. "The wrongness of killing" is also an absolute. I would argue that there's no such thing. Some killings are wronger than others. Their moral value lies on a continuum.<br /><br />Imagine you're in a situation where one of two people must die and you must make the decision that kills one of them. You reliably know that one is a virtuous, worthwhile person -- perhaps a poet, or a scientist, or a Haskell programmer -- good to spouse and kids, and so on. You reliably know the other to be a drunkard, a scoundrel, a wife beater and a child abuser -- or worse, a politician. Which one do you choose?<br /><br />Do you argue that "killing is absolutely wrong" and flip a coin? Or do you acknowledge that there is a difference, that they moral weight of their deaths lie on a continuum, and so choose to kill the scoundrel?<br /><br />Killing a newborn lies at almost the same spot on the continuum of wrongness as killing a a baby just before its birth. Killing a healthy newborn is close -- but not equal -- to killing a newborn with brain damage or a terminal disease. Both would be tragedies, but if you have to choose, it doesn't seem like a tossup. (And if it does, attach a dial to the impaired newborn and turn it until the horror of its future life drives you toward seeing someone who choose to flip a coin as morally reprehensible.)<br /><br />Killing your neighbor, while not equal to killing a newborn, is in the same ballpark. It might be better or worse depending on how big a dick your neighbor happened to be and what the prospects of the newborn might be. That's because there's a much greater similarity between a newborn and your neighbor than between a newborn and a zygote.<br /><br />Moving backward from a newborn toward conception, terminating a pregnancy at any point is always ending a life. And moving backward from conception, failure to fertilize an egg ends its life and failure of a sperm to get lucky ends its life. There's no absolute. Instead, as with everything, there's a continuum. It's the moral weight of ending a life is less and less the further back you go, which is lucky because masturbatiing means the death of hundreds of millions of sperm, and I could never have stood the guilt.<br /><br />The legality of abortion is also a continuum. If the law says three months you're not likely to see someone say "Did we have sex before or after 2PM, because if after, we can't legally have an abortion." If three months is legal, the three months and two days if probably fine, but four months is probably not.<br /><br />But back to morality. We think it's morally wrong to force a person to experience pain and discomfort. We think it's morally wrong to deprive someone of the freedom to live life as they choose -- providing their freedom does not trample others' rights. <br /><br />Supposing a baby was going to die without an intervention, and supposing more intervention was needed than all the volunteers that could be found could give. How many other people would you be willing to deprive of how much of their "right to liberty" to give that baby their "right to life." I think the answer is zero.<br /><br />When does a woman's right to her own life outweigh the right of a single fertilized egg cell. Or an unfertilized egg cell?<br />Mike Wolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11791939960831860259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-809323243837962619.post-8700363300018411562016-04-13T20:56:43.627-04:002016-04-13T20:56:43.627-04:00Part B. I want to make sure I understand what you&...Part B. I want to make sure I understand what you're saying here, so let me roughly summarize and you tell me if and where I've got it wrong:<br /><br />1. It doesn't make sense to talk about the "moment of conception" as a proxy for the moment of person-hood because there is no such moment.<br />2. Therefore when a particular clump of cells becomes a person is merely a matter of opinion.<br />3. Therefore...society should not restrict or prohibit abortion? Because restricting what other people can do based on mere opinions is wrong?<br /><br />I'm not as certain of #3, but I felt it was implied because (a) the abortion debate usually centers around the question of legality, and (b) your statement that "...to make abortion as difficult as they can is just plain fucking wrong".<br /><br />On the conceit that I've got everything right so far, a couple more questions:<br /><br />4. Does #2 imply that the question of whether any particular clump of cells is a person is also merely a matter of opinion?<br />5. Can this whole line of reasoning be applied to the question of whether I can 'terminate' my neighbor because I'm pretty sure he's an NPC and incidentally he has some cool stuff?<br />Daniel Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09623273077660656625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-809323243837962619.post-23974451584815674272016-04-13T09:24:46.956-04:002016-04-13T09:24:46.956-04:00Let me start at the end. Your interpretation of th...Let me start at the end. Your interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount is inconsistent with (a) the examples Jesus used and in particular (b) the rest of scripture. The examples Jesus used make it plain that Jesus was speaking of how Christians should deal with personal offenses. And that is consistent with the other teachings of Jesus that exhort Christians to be selfless. Scripture also makes it clear that Christians are in a battle against evil and are to "overcome evil with good". More to follow :)Daniel Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09623273077660656625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-809323243837962619.post-53673321559025010552016-02-25T18:04:19.755-05:002016-02-25T18:04:19.755-05:00Go Mikey!
LEt's talk soon!
BIg Sister.Go Mikey!<br />LEt's talk soon!<br />BIg Sister. RavenLight Ganeshahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12959020758532876991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-809323243837962619.post-38067214268201874052016-01-10T19:16:56.212-05:002016-01-10T19:16:56.212-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.sugarmamahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10250728338778391148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-809323243837962619.post-6913415528724514032015-12-22T22:00:03.458-05:002015-12-22T22:00:03.458-05:00So mindful! ❤️❤️So mindful! ❤️❤️sugarmamahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10250728338778391148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-809323243837962619.post-19221149473780346192015-03-05T21:56:51.555-05:002015-03-05T21:56:51.555-05:00yuck yuck yuckyuck yuck yuckRavenLight Ganeshahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12959020758532876991noreply@blogger.com