|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you saw someone killing somebody else, would you or would you not rush to stop the murder - using whatever means necessary, including lethal force on the perpatrator of the crime?
If so, and one is convinced that abortion is murder, how could one NOT condone, yea celebrate even, the use of lethal force on abortion doctors?
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To premeditatedly kill a murderer is to become a murderer yourself. I totally agree though: to him, he is preventing murders. But on the other hand, he's still taking a human life to do it. (Two actually.) Very complex, isn't it. He took two lives that were not his to take, but to him they are no better than the Nazi "doctors" who committed atrocities.
I think he's a nutter. To read his essay, you'd think he believed God had personally come down and insisted that he do this, when actually it's just his own particular construal of certain passages in the Bible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If its all about stopping murder, then why wouldn't we condone, even celebrate, the killing of those who would kill the doctors?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 04, @12:32PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
It’s moral relativism. Saying I believe I am right to shoot you. I only have to justify it to myself, then I can shoot you. No-one can be judged for anything ever again. Can I go and shoot a child support worker if a harassed father commits suicide? Can I go and shoot a feminist if I think she is going to destroy the family, and hence undermine and possible completely destroy the whole human race? Can I shoot you if I don’t like you? (Remember I only have to justify it to myself). or do I have to believe you are a threat to me? If so, what kind of threat? A threat to my money, and hence my well-being? Can I go and shoot all persistent insurance salesmen? I can only shoot you if I believe I am right and you are wrong, and that there is no possibility that you are right and I am wrong, or that at least you are as entitled to your views as me to mine. If you believe in moral relativism then anything can be justified. Would the Nazis not be right to gas 6 millions Jews if they believed the Jews were a threat to them? What about the 9-11 terrorist attack? Would they not be right if they believed that they were right and America was a threat to them. Clearly anything you want can be justified if you alone are the judge of your own morality (Check with any feminist).
So what are the alternatives? Obviously moral absolutism. But then whose absolute morals? Can we say Christianity, when Islam and other religions wish to be heard? And if we were to say Christianity then which variant? Do “thou shalt not kill” mean you can’t defend yourself? You can’t attack the Nazis or Saddam Hussain? If you can kill, who can you kill? And why? Nazis? Terrorists? Suspected Terrorists? (and on what evidence?) Abortion Doctors? People who kill abortion doctors? Who decides?
There must be middle way. A democratic way. Moral consensus. The idea that you may be right or I may be right but at the very least we have to respect each others views. Thias could mean that abortion is legal some places, and not in other places. This could mean the death penalty is legal some places and not in others. The alternative seems to be anarchy or possibly even war.
Personally, I am not pro-life but I think abortions are a bad idea and should be avoided for sociological and psychological reasons. It devalues the women and the foetus and possibly children in general (look at some of the discussions that try to justify infanticide. The notion of the valueless newborn is a close cousin of the notion of a valueless foetus)
There is one other aspect that applies. Besides the legal and moral objections, it is also counter-productive and ineffective. Has it stopped any abortions? It’s unlikely. It’s highly likely that the abortions scheduled for that day were done later. Has it changed anyone’s minds? It’s unlikely. People who feel threatened tend to harden their attitudes. Not soften them. Words are less likely to persuade them not to have or give abortions after this. A few might be scared for a while, but the effect of one death is unlikely to stop it. Like any terrorist action, its effects are short-lived. Is anyone not flying these days?
I have thought about this because there have been incidents of men striking out at women and/or feminism, including a couple of berserk killing sprees. None of them has helped men and the feminists use them as further proof of men’s violence. If you want to literally fight feminism, don’t call me until you are 10,000 or 100,000 strong, and even then I would prefer non-violent alternatives. While we can still get more people to protest cycle paths in London than family courts, then I think we have still got an activist job to do, not a military one.
Raymond Cuttill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So morality by majority vote, and then enforcement of morality at the barrel of a gun?
Kind of what they did in the fascist states of the early 20th century?
KIlling is wrong always - or it isn't. Okay, then murder is always wrong - but what did an unborn child do to you? It's not a person? Sez who? A majority vote?
Return to the top.
Moral relativism is the wrong term to use here, as moral relativism implies some inconsistancy. It's a viable (though affirmative) defense for me to excuse the killing of someone as a "justifiable homicide" if I can present clear and convincing evidence that I percieved a clear and present danger to the life and well being of myself or another person, even if my perception was WRONG. If you and your sweetums are acting out a rape fantasy in the backseat of a car somewhere, and I haul you out of the car and cold-cock you, there's hardly a jurisdiction where I would even be prosecuted.
Would allowing this affirmative defense result in open-season on abortionists? Probably. There's certainly precedent - in my state at least, if your ass is in my house without my okey-dokey, your ass belongs to me, and all the police will do is pick up the body. "Hey, it was dark, I heard a noise, I saw a figure, I said stop, it moved like it had a gun so I fired. Can I call my lawyer before we go any further, please?" I'll be home to finish my sleep before the cock crows. It's open season on burglars in Indiana, and I need neither license nor registration to keep any kind of (legal to own) gun in my home.
You look about an abortion gets treated like a sacrament in this country, and a lot of people are opposed to it, and opposition to it doesn't mean they are Nazis or trying to shove their beliefs down people's throats, but they are sick of their tax dollars being used to support and protect it. The pro-abortion crowd is the first to clamor about "How the taxpayer's money shouldn't be used by State's Attorneys to argue against something that is legal" but are often themselves the first to propose legislation and lawsuits to undercut something else that's legal that gores their ideological ox.
Now that's moral relativism there.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So morality by majority vote, and then enforcement of morality at the barrel of a gun?
Kind of what they did in the fascist states of the early 20th century?
I've no idea what this has to do with my post. I think you'll find that the fascists are actually moral absolutists. They think they are right and no-one else has a valid opinion.
KIlling is wrong always - or it isn't. Okay, then murder is always wrong - but what did an unborn child do to you? It's not a person? Sez who? A majority vote?
Obviously you make my point exactly. Who decides what is right or wrong? If everyone decides for themselves, than it is moral relativism (by everyone's definition except yours) and moral relativists can't, by definition, condemn anyone for anything, as long as that person claims they think they are right.
The alternative I was proposing is a moral consensus. Perhaps you have an unusual definition of the word "consensus" as well. Where I come from it means everyone more or less agrees on something, such as what is right or wrong.
Now you can complain about tax money being used for political purposes and I would agree with you. But if it's not illegal (legality can often be contested) and there is no moral framework then a moral relativist cannot truly condemn it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A consensus presumes that everyone subscribes to it. Since not everyone subscribes to the "fetus is a thing, and not a person" we can't be said to have reached a consensus.
Now, a legal fiction shoved down the throat of those who have moral objections to it, yes. In other words, the pro-abortion side is right and nobody else has a valid opinion...
But... but ... Wait, that would be - moral absolutism? Fascism?
Hmmmmmm....
Remember when peaceful change becomes impossible, violent change becomes inevitable.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uhm, hombre, I love ya, but how does this tie into men's rights? I could throw in the interesting perspective of that it seems to be male pro-life activists who we see in the media, either as actual criminals or as the stereotypical "pro-lifer" though I've met far more vehement women than men. But the article didn't really comment on that.
""Paul Hill did our cause no favors. You don't kill abortionists. You try to convert them peacefully," says Mr. Scheidler" saw an article about that awhile ago, basically the majority of OB/GYNs who don't perform abortions don't perform them because of their personal objections. More people closely examining the rad.fem's screaming antics, namely of "WOMEN HAVE A RIGHT TO CHOOSE!!! NO MATTER THE CIRCUMSTANCE!! SHUTUP, ANY CIRCUMSTANCE IS OKAY!!" just maybe?
Gonzo, I could also argue that because a vegetarian truly feels that a farmer/butcher/meat eater is a murderer, they have the right to murder them. If you kill omnivorous human, you save 83 animals a year! [if we listen to PETA] Does the fact one person, nay, lots of people, feel something to be a good thing, make it so?
In contrast, theoretically, if everyone [or the majority] felt that it was a justifiable homicide, it would be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"uhm, hombre, I love ya, but how does this tie into men's rights?"
Hey Luna,
Abortion has always been tangentally tied to men's rights issues in that men have no legal ability to stop it from happening to their children, (or future children, depending on how you look at it), and also it is often mentioned as women's counter choice justifying choice for men proposals. I've seen the topic discussed many times in various men's rights forums and I believe it is one that interests many men's activists. Although there's always a risk when posting an abortion article in a forum such as this, I feel that the article is sufficiently unbiased and the story of Paul Hill is too big for MANN to not mention it at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Abortion has always been tangentally tied to men's rights issues in that men have no legal ability to stop it from happening to their children, (or future children, depending on how you look at it), and also it is often mentioned as women's counter choice justifying choice for men proposals.
See, there's the tie-in, I wanted to know where it came from - the article didn't really touch anything traditionally considered men's issues. where do you stand on it, praytell?
My brother tells me Penthouse ran an article about how feminism has degenerated into trying to get attention for women while letting men 'rot' so to speak - by a woman. since they don't post articles on their site, there isn't a way to post that here, is there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"See, there's the tie-in,"
Thanks for showing it to me. ;)
" I wanted to know where it came from -"
Aha, So that's why you asked! :D
"the article didn't really touch anything traditionally considered men's issues. where do you stand on it, praytell?"
As a MANN admin, I choose to take an unbiased stance on abortion in this forum. Sorry if I'm being a bitch about it but I feel its important for MANN to remain neutral on topics which are hotly disputed amongst men's activists. But I appreciate your curiousity. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gonzo, I could also argue that because a vegetarian truly feels that a farmer/butcher/meat eater is a murderer, they have the right to murder them. If you kill omnivorous human, you save 83 animals a year! [if we listen to PETA] Does the fact one person, nay, lots of people, feel something to be a good thing, make it so?
It's more of a philosophical exercise. I've long observed about PETA is that they're real big on hassling rich old white women with fur coats, but somehow they never seem to complain about biker gangs and their leather jackets.
Politically, to be consistant, I don't believe da gubbmint has any business in it beyond defining it for the invasive and elective medical procedure it is. Likewise, I don't feel they have any business in subsidizing it.
I'm somewhat detatched on it, as I was fixed a long time back, but I would never give aid or succor to anyone seeking or providing an abortion. I wouldn't shoot an abortionist - but I wouldn't save one either. I'd sure as hell never vote for the death penalty for an abortion killer, but I wouldn't vote for the death penalty under any circumstances.
Morally, I think thaat if used as retroactive birth control, it is irrensponsible in the extreme and both repugnant and reprehensible.
The moral cowardice position is an interesting one for a philosophical conundrum - if you believe that murder is wrong, and see someone committing a murder, are you not obligated, morally, to intervene? Is not failure to do so moral cowardice?
?????
Beats me. We'd first have to some to a consensus on whether abortion is murder, and I don't see that we have, one way or another as a society. Until we do, it's premature to label Paul Hill as a whack-job.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's more of a philosophical exercise. I've long observed about PETA is that they're real big on hassling rich old white women with fur coats, but somehow they never seem to complain about biker gangs and their leather jackets.
There's no irony there if you think about it. Presumably the biker jackets are made from cowhide, and you should easily be able to get a jacket out of a hide. That and the fact that the rest of the cow was most likely eaten as food.
Contrast that to your typical mink coat...you trap 100 or so mink to make a single coat and throw away everything except the hide. Plust cows are killed relatively humanly, where as mink might have a leg crushed in a trap for days before it dies, or drown if the trap is rigged to sink in the water.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's no irony only if you rationalize it. PETA claims to be foursquare against farming animals for food, research, or any reason whatsoever. By their own words, a leather jacket is just as bad as a fur coat, and many of their anti-fur campaignas are also anti-leather.
Read their website for yourself, though. Don't just take my word for it.
Thing is, they are happy to red-paint a fur or leather jacket on some rich old white woman (Or rich young one for that matter). Put that same jacket on a man who's liable to turn around and clean their clocks without even breaking a sweat, and watch the little pansies get all meek and quiet until he's out of earshot.
I know, because it has happpened to me. I purposely rode my bike and wore my leathers to a place where they had a protest at a fur store. Not one peep. Gee, maybe a seven foot tall man with a terminator jacket and a .45 on his belt just kind of made them rethink their - ahem - commitment to their ideals, hm?
Chickens, the whole mangy lot of them.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's no irony only if you rationalize it.
There is no irony unless you ignore all common sense. Which seems to be exactly what you are doing, just so you can be smug at PETA.
Sure, if you ask a card carrying PETA member, they might tell you that a mink's life is worth just as much as a cow's life, But we aren't talking about a cow and a mink. We're talking about a cow to make a biker jacket versus 80+ minks to make a women's coat. They do the math.
You also seemed to skip right over the "pain and suffering part", where a cow is killed in a matter of seconds at a slaughterhouse, whereas the mink might suffer for hours or even days in a trap before it dies.
One point I didn't make is biker jackets, in addition to looking good, have a very utilitarian purpose: saving your skin in the event of a crash. The only purpose a $3,000 mink coat serves is to try and show up the other rich bitches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no irony unless you ignore all common sense. Which seems to be exactly what you are doing, just so you can be smug at PETA.
I don't have to do anything except put my brain in low gear to be smug at PETA, which is more than those tree-hugging, tofu-munching, far-left whackos do. A bigger group of nut-jobs with a desperate need of a job I have never seen.
Sure, if you ask a card carrying PETA member, they might tell you that a mink's life is worth just as much as a cow's life, But we aren't talking about a cow and a mink. We're talking about a cow to make a biker jacket versus 80+ minks to make a women's coat. They do the math.
Ah, statistical morality! Meat is murder, saith the Holy Writ of PETA. Kill 80, kill 1, and you're still a murderer.
And I don't even "hire my killers." I do it myself. I'm a regular hunter, and much of my meat comes from game I have personally killed.
You're forgetting something else too - Cows are placid and peaceful animals. Weasels (minks) are vermin.
You also seemed to skip right over the "pain and suffering part", where a cow is killed in a matter of seconds at a slaughterhouse, whereas the mink might suffer for hours or even days in a trap before it dies.
Minks are FARMED, me bucko. And (To quote from PETA's own propaganda) "Life on factory farms is so miserable that it is hard to see how we are doing animals a favor by bringing them into that type of existence, confining them, tormenting them, and then slaughtering them." Repeatedly PETA likens dairy farms, chicken farms, and so on to concentration camps.
So which part of "suffering" did I skip, again?
One point I didn't make is biker jackets, in addition to looking good, have a very utilitarian purpose: saving your skin in the event of a crash. The only purpose a $3,000 mink coat serves is to try and show up the other rich bitches.
Hmmm. Seems to me that a certain Gonzo took a couple of doeskins and several rabbit skins (From animals he'd hunted and trapped) And cured them, made a suede coat, and lined it with rabbit fur. Both stylish and functional, it keeps me very warm during the winter. Much warmer, in fact, than several commercial coats owned by several of my friends (on top of that it actually fits my mutant ass.)
Would my buddy Gunner Jim's $1500 calfskin bombadier jacket qualify as utilitarian, or rich-bitch?
So let's just say for the argument that a mink coat is only a vulgar display of wealth. So What? So is an Aston-Martin. BFHD. They are mere animals. It's NOT murder. Animals have no rights because animals are incapable of respecting other's rights. They are suborninate. They are prey. Animals, wonderful though they may be, are inferior to human beings. That doesn't mean we should wipe them out on a whim, but they're not as important as human beings and if we can benefit from their deaths or carcasses, so be it. Be that food, ostentatious displays of wealth, or research, it's all fine with me.
Unlike the nutcases in PETA, I live in the real world. Yes, animals make good companions, provide an endless source of entertainment, and make excellent research test subjects. They're cute, cuddly, and often quite tasty. While one can truthfully say many wonderful things about animals, one can not truthfully say that animals have rights. Animals are property to be possessed, cultivated, or disposed of as their human owners see fit.
Rights do not come from being cute, or fuzzy, or particularly likeable in any way. Perhaps the best statement on the origin of rights is in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights."
Of course, it's also self-evident that all goldfish are created equal, but are they endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights? To claim that they are, it is necessary to say that a fish's right to life is violated whenever one fish eats another. It's also necessary to say that a dog's right to property is violated whenever one dog grabs a bone from another or whenever a person gives a dog a bone and later takes it away. When considering this, it's self-evident that the notion of animals having rights is absurd.
Why, then, would some people make the ridiculous claim that animals have rights? The overwhelming majority are well intentioned, good natured individuals. They're animal lovers who don't wish to see animals treated poorly and don't realize they are trampling upon the property rights of their fellow man by advocating the policies they do. Basically, these are the people Stalin called "useful idiots."
Others fall into the "animal rights whackos" category. These people are simply insane. They've made the belief in equality between man and animals a religious tenet that determines for them whether a person is good or bad. These are the people who can, with a straight face, tell you that a shark that has eaten a swimmer deserves a trial before being killed or that they would save two baby apes from a burning building before they would save one baby human being.
Finally, there are those who are so filled with hatred for capitalism that they attack property rights from any angle possible. These communist fellow-travelers use the aforementioned useful idiots' love of animals as a means to advance their anti-freedom, anti-property agenda.
PETA, and ALF, and all their cronies are just a bunch of organizations chock full of the stupid, the insane, and those whose brains are so eaten up with drugs that they have to carry a drool cup. If they just wrote their hogswallop and left it at that, they might be entertaining. But they also happen to be terrorists.
My uncle happens to be a diabetic of many years standing, and he CAN'T take the new synthetic insulins. I was told by a PETAN that he should die before being allowed to take animal derived insulin. WTF? No. Go back to your home planet of Utopia, PETAns and Vegans, and all you other eco-fascists.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>It's more of a philosophical exercise. I've long >observed about PETA is that they're real big on >hassling rich old white women with fur coats, >but somehow they never seem to complain about >biker gangs and their leather jackets.
I've never seen a PETA protest [and how did I guess you didn't like them?] either way, I've seen more stuff on their site about fur than leather, theoretically because fur is status symbol - it coincides with their members general far-left stance, they're quite upfront about doing whatever appeal more. I've seen people against leather but not against fur, as generally fur animals are treated better than the leather bearing. Not PETA members, though.
I don't know, the fact they harass rich women more often than bikers didn't really have anything to do with the argument - I was trying to say anyone could justify a murder if they really felt they were saving someone from murder. Abortion is something a lot of people feel is murder, but do you extend the same to vegetarians if they feel meat is murder? How about the woman down the hall who thinks the guy is going to eventually beat his wife to death? Would the woman down the hall be justified in planning out and proceeding to shoot him? At what point do you say "no, it's just plain not preventing murder, you're crazy if you think so"?
mine's as much of a philosophical exercise too, I suppose.
>The moral cowardice position is an interesting >one for a philosophical conundrum - if you >believe that murder is wrong, and see someone >committing a murder, are you not obligated, >morally, to intervene? Is not failure to do so >moral cowardice?
Ah, but there's a difference between intervention [calling the cops, frightening them through words or violence, trying to reason with them] and murder. He did cold-bloodedly [is that a word?] plan out and preform the execution of two other person, theoretically, the people there agree it's okay to kill him for that.
Another point: He knew the difference between right and wrong, so thereby he isn't clinically insane. We aren't killing him for having a "crazy" opinion that he acted on.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
