Apparently, the religious on RF don't even know the difference between good and bad.

[Madhuri]

SINNER!!!! THOU SHALL NOT KILL!!!! HE'S BURNING IN HELL AS WE SPEAK!!!!!!!! :help:

ROFL!!:biglaugh:

 

[McBell]

When do YOU suggest that someone stand up to protect the innocent?

Innocent?

And here I thought that all humans were deserving death and hell fire and only by accepting Jesus Christ are they redeemed from the hell fires...

Ya'll really need to make up your minds here...

I think the second question is ridiculous - are you honestly saying that you wouldn't be able to pass judgment on someone whose beliefs were so extreme that they were killing innocent people?

Again with the word innocent...

Others would say the death penalty would be called for. Personally, I believe we have the resources available to prevent them from ever killing again.

I agree.
We put them to death.
Since the Bible has absolutely no problems with the death penalty, why do you?

If we truly have someone who absolutely cannot be controlled by any prison or facility, then perhaps the death penalty would be an option, as a last resort.

Fair enough.

 

[McBell]

I didn't say that people should kill abortion doctors. I said that the abortion doctor is definitely evil though.

So - I really wish you would answer my questions for a change. Are you saying that you think ACTIONS are evil, not people? Can you provide an example of an evil action in which the PERSON committing the action didn't have evil intent?

Seems to me that the word evil is so subjective as to be rather useless....

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So - I really wish you would answer my questions for a change. Are you saying that you think ACTIONS are evil, not people?

Well, if someone doesn't perform an evil action, why exactly would they be evil?

Can you provide an example of an evil action in which the PERSON committing the action didn't have evil intent?

Already did. The guy killing the abortion doctors thinks he is doing something good. In his eyes, his intent is good. That's the thing about intentions - they're entirely subjective, based on the person - which happens to be my whole point.

 

[Vile Atheist]

ROFL!!:biglaugh:

I'm glad you find moral absolutes just as ridiculous as I do

 

[Madhuri]

I'm glad you find moral absolutes just as ridiculous as I do

I think that seeing life in black and white is rediculous.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I didn't say that people should kill abortion doctors. I said that the abortion doctor is definitely evil though

Why is the abortion doctor evil?

Applying my personal moral code/methodology - for quick reference:

...I judge each action individually, taking into account the agent's knowledge, circumstances, consequences of action, rationale of action, benefit to the agent, benefit to the receiver, detriment to the agent, detriment to the receiver, etc, etc.

Action: Aborting a three day old embryo
Agent: The abortion doctor
Receiver: A pregnant woman
------

Agent's Knowledge: Doctors are well-informed of risks and consequences of the procedures they commonly perform and have an ethical obligation to inform the receiver of these risks and consequences - and they always do.

Circumstances: Rape

Consequences of Action: Receiver does not have the burden of mothering an unwanted, unplanned child that was forced onto her by the seed of her assailant. A clump of unspecialized cells that is not yet a developed human with sentience is removed from the receiver.

Rationale of Action: An honest, well-intentioned effort to alleviate the suffering of a raped woman giving no pain to a non-sentient clump of unspecialized cells.

Benefit to the Receiver: Alleviated psychological, mental, financial, and physical burdens. A child does not enter the world knowing his father was a good-for-nothing rapist and that he was an accident.

Benefit to the Agent: None. A doctor doesn't abort for money as there are plenty of other patients he can see. There is unfortunately never a shortage of the sick.

Detriment to the Agent: Possibly having his abortion clinic bombed by fanatical Christians. Or having his family and friends threatened. Or his property destroyed.

Detriment to the Receiver: Social neglect by Christians showing no compassion to a woman who was raped, thinking she should have bore the child - a burden I'm certain they themselves would never take. Possible side effects from abortion is low or lack of fertility.
------------------


So the doctor has no underhanded motivations, good intentions, has the pain of the mother and the sentience of the embryo in mind, receives no benefit, but the detriment is potentially fatal (Dr. Tiller the Baby Killer, anyone?), is well-informed of the consequences of his actions, informs the receiver of those risks and consequences, and shows compassion as she was raped.

Can you still say this man is evil? I wouldn't.

 

[Scott1]

Circumstances: Rape

While I appreciate your well written explaination... I still find it lacking.

Granted, I'm a bit biased: my wife/mother of my children was once that "clump of unspecialized cells" resulting from a rape...

Alleviated psychological, mental, financial, and physical burdens. A child does not enter the world knowing his father was a good-for-nothing rapist and that he was an accident.

I'm wondering if you believe it would be ok to end a human life for any of these "benefits" if the child was, for instance, three years old?

Peace be with you,
Scott

 

[Vile Atheist]

While I appreciate your well written explaination... I still find it lacking.

Granted, I'm a bit biased: my wife/mother of my children was once that "clump of unspecialized cells" resulting from a rape...

I chose a specific scenario. I can't possibly cover them all in one post, nor at quarter to three in the morning am I willing to even attempt that.

If you find it lacking, point out where and hopefully I can elaborate for you.

I'm wondering if you believe it would be ok to end a human life for any of these "benefits" if the child was, for instance, three years old?

So long as it is sentient, I am opposed to the abortion. A three year old is obviously sentient. So long as it is not sentient, I support abortion.

How can you kill something that isn't yet alive?

 

[Madhuri]

How can you kill something that isn't yet alive?

The problem with this statement is that there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that the 'clump of cells' is not alive. It may not be sentient, but it does not follow that it is not alive. Many will argue that an organism could not grow without life-force.

So the argument then transforms into: when does the organism become a sentient entity?
And there is no satisfactory answer to this either. Scientists everywhere seem to have different ideas.

 

[Scott1]

I chose a specific scenario. I can't possibly cover them all in one post, nor at quarter to three in the morning am I willing to even attempt that.

Understood...

So long as it is sentient, I am opposed to the abortion. A three year old is obviously sentient. So long as it is not sentient, I support abortion.

Forgive me, but I always like to be sure I understand .... what is your definition of "sentient"?

How can you kill something that isn't yet alive?

Your definition of "sentient" will help me answer this....

 

[Vile Atheist]

Your definition of "sentient" will help me answer this....

I already like you. You're to-the-point.

I regard sentience as brain activity. If there is no brain activity, the fetus does not live, does not feel pain, and is not self-aware.

In order for a fetus to be sentient, it needs to have a central nervous system - a brain, spinal cord, neurons complete with axons and dendrites. The endocrine gland must be developed in order to release neurotransmitters like noradrenaline. Without neurotransmitters, brain activity is still impossible.

Sufficient, or should I elaborate further?

 

[Vile Atheist]

The problem with this statement is that there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that the 'clump of cells' is not alive. It may not be sentient, but it does not follow that it is not alive. Many will argue that an organism could not grow without life-force.

So the argument then transforms into: when does the organism become a sentient entity?
And there is no satisfactory answer to this either. Scientists everywhere seem to have different ideas.

My apologies. I missed this post until now.

As I mentioned to Scott, I regard sentience as a fully-developed central nervous system and endocrine system. Basically, as soon as there is brain activity, the option of abortion should be off the table in my view.

 

[Madhuri]

My apologies. I missed this post until now.

As I mentioned to Scott, I regard sentience as a fully-developed central nervous system and endocrine system. Basically, as soon as there is brain activity, the option of abortion should be off the table in my view.

Yes I agree with this. The problem is that most people seem to think this stage occurs much later than is shown to. I tend to think that week six should be the cut-off legally.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Yes I agree with this. The problem is that most people seem to think this stage occurs much later than is shown to. I tend to think that week six should be the cut-off legally.

I fully agree with that. I think abortion should be heavily circumstantial and protected from potential abuse of it. Abortion at will is immoral as well, sentience or not.

 

[Scott1]

I regard sentience as brain activity. If there is no brain activity, the fetus does not live, does not feel pain, and is not self-aware.

Well.... ok... I'll let this stand for now.

In order for a fetus to be sentient, it needs to have a central nervous system - a brain, spinal cord, neurons complete with axons and dendrites. The endocrine gland must be developed in order to release neurotransmitters like noradrenaline. Without neurotransmitters, brain activity is still impossible.

Great definition... thank you.

But it does make me wonder a bit about your earlier statements... clarify if you would, please:

Why is the abortion doctor evil?

Would you consider an abortion doctor who killed a sentient human to be evil?

 

[Madhuri]

Hi Scott, I would just like to mention another potential for confusion in this discussion is the term 'evil'.
Because of my own conditioning it is difficult for me to attach 'evil' to good intention. If a person believes that what they are doing is moral and good, it seems to me that there is a level of innocence attached to the action even if the result is the same. The action might be evil, but the person, in my opinion, is not (necessarily).
I believe that 'evil' results from ignorance. So if the doctor is in fact doing 'evil' without realising it and one day does realise and changes his ways he has not gone from -being- evil to -being- good. He has only changed his actions based on knew knowledge gained. He was always a good person.

Does that make sense?

 

[Scott1]

Hi Scott, I would just like to mention another potential for confusion in this discussion is the term 'evil'.

Hiya Madhuri!

Yes.... good and evil are difficult concepts.

Because of my own conditioning it is difficult for me to attach 'evil' to good intention. If a person believes that what they are doing is moral and good, it seems to me that there is a level of innocence attached to the action even if the result is the same. The action might be evil, but the person, in my opinion, is not (necessarily).

This is expressed in Catholic theology as well... to be clear, ACTIONS are good/evil and not people (in my view -- ONLY God can judge)... I'm just hoping to learn a bit about what ContentiusMaximus believes.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Would you consider an abortion doctor who killed a sentient human to be evil?

As I'm a moral relativist, everything is highly circumstantial. You are a sentient human being. I am a sentient human being. A "baby" in the late second trimester is also a sentient human being.

If you are talking about an already born person, an abortion doctor killing that person outside of self-defence would be an immoral/evil act (or any other scenario where killing would be unnecessary).

If you are talking about a "baby" in the late second trimester (which I think you were trying to get at), an abortion doctor killing that "baby", would definitely not be doing a moral act.

This is for the reason the mother still suffers and the "baby" is now self-aware and feels pain. So the "baby" also suffers in death (and can actually be said to die because it is sentient). The mother still suffers, the "baby" still suffers. There is no longer alleviation of suffering and thus the whole practice is largely pointless. I would then say it is immoral because if both mother and child are going to suffer, the detriments now outweigh the benefits and regardless of the circumstances are not worth it. The actions taken by the agent, even with good intentions, are now going to do more harm than good.

 

[Scott1]

If you are talking about a "baby" in the late second trimester (which I think you were trying to get at), an abortion doctor killing that "baby", would definitely not be doing a moral act.

Ok... thanks for the clarification.