LITTLE STANDING
The Irish Labour Party is certainly holding the line for secularism. Whether it is Eamonn Gilmore telling the Vatican to get lost or Pat Rabbitte blowing off Cardinal Sean Brady’s proposal that the Church would lobby the government on the abortion issue, the lines have certainly been drawn. Priestcraft has little purchase with the Labour Party and society is all the better for that, even if there are grounds to suspect that because it has failed miserably to hold the line for socialism its push against Church encroachment is solely down to the secular providing the one space where the party can wax radical.
Yet Rabbitte would appear to have got it wrong on the issue of how the Church should be treated in respect of the abortion issue.
I don’t have any objection to any of the churches stating its position and making it clear, but I think it would be a retrogressive step if we were to go back to the days of the Catholic Church dictating to elected public representatives how they should address an issue.There is little chance of that happening. With knowledge widespread of how it covered up its child rape activities, few take seriously anything the Catholic Church says these days. The Irish at best have become what Denis Faul once said of the French: hatch, match and despatch Catholics. Outside of birth marriage and death, the Church can keep its distance.
Fianna Fail is somewhat wide off the mark in its charge that Rabbitte is ‘poisoning the atmosphere over the abortion issue, showing disrespect for the Catholic Church and trying to muzzle debate’. There is no reason whatsoever for anybody to show respect to the Catholic Church. Treating it with contempt is a healthy stance for people to take. But there is a danger that debate will be muzzled. Ireland claims, like most other European states, to be a pluralist democracy. In that type of system interest groups have a right to lobby and make their voices heard. To deny the Church, one of many interest groups in Irish society, the right to lobby would be fundamentally undemocratic.
The Catholic Church or Shamrock Rovers, if the club so chooses, should have every right to express their views to government on the abortion matter or anything else that takes their fancy. It does not follow that government has to take anything either might say on board. Rabbitte could take a lead from his party chair Colm Keaveney TD who said the Catholic Church was certainly entitled to be listened to, but what it might have to say would be “in excess" to its current standing in Irish society.
INSTITUTIONAL RACISM
When the the Macpherson Report in the wake of the Stephen Lawrence murder deemed the Metropolitan Police to have a culture of institutional racism it shook British policing to the core. Well, that’s what the police would like people to believe. But the recent case of a black teenage Londoner gives the lie to this.
The youth claims to have been stopped 50 times by the Met. He has been both searched and stripped searched as well as having endured detention in police cells on a number of occasions but has always been released without any charges being pressed. Recently a case against him was thrown out of court after CCTV showed that the cops were lying. In court a cop alleged that the teenager, handcuffed and face down on the ground, assaulted him and grazed his knuckles. Now what would a cop be doing with knuckles that would cause them to be grazed? It all sounds a bit like the guff erstwhile RUC chief constable Kenneth Newman would come out with, alleging that people in custody sustained injuries by beating themselves up just to get his men a bad name.Lee Jasper, chair of the London Race and Criminal Justice Consortium said:
It is particularly shocking that this has been going on for such a long time and started when the boy was so young. This case exemplifies the harsh realities of being a black kid in London.That "harsh reality" has been given a quantitative dimension by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission who point out that the Metropolitan Police is 11 times more likely to stop and search black people than white people.
Currently a college student, the teenager has, since he was 14, faced a number of charges, not one of which has stood up. He is to sue the force for racism. ‘I can't think of any other reason why the police keep doing this to me apart from racism.’ Seems nobody else can either.
FULL OF IT
Not so long ago the airline refused permission to a 69 year old woman from County Louth to board her flight with a colostomy bag. How she was supposed to manage her business was not considered the business of Michael O’Leary.
After a doctor’s letter was ignored and something that sounds like a strip search took place Frances Duff was eventually allowed on to the plane although her colostomy bag and a spare were kept separate from her. Describing her ordeal the woman said of the Ryanair flight attendant:
She just pushed it out of my daughter’s hand. She didn’t want to speak to me or know me. She humiliated me so much that I started crying in front of people. I cried all the way home and I’ve been crying ever since. One day she’ll be my age and by God I hope she doesn’t go through the same ordeal.
However, the unfortunate woman was not without support. A prominent member of the Irish colostomy bag community weighed in to back her. Louth TD Gerry Adams, hitting out at the incident, called for a “full and fulsome” apology from Ryanair. He travels regularly and would not like to be banned from flights just because he is full of shit.
Good post as usual a cara,the catholic church is against abortion and birth control for the simple reason .. they would run out of children to molest..the difference between the lady who had trouble with Ryan air or "Fly on air" as you rightly pointed out and the TD for Louth is that lady needs a bag to catch the shit, the bearded is a bag of shit that was never caught...
ReplyDeleteAbortion is not and never has been a question of religion. It is a breach of Natural Law and has always been abhorred in any right thinking society, be it pagan, Christian, Moslem or Jewish etc.
ReplyDelete"In teaching, for example, Babylonia religion which I have for several years, I would quote from Babylonian Hammurabi. Abortion was punishable by execution of the women who had the abortion and all her accomplices. Date 1800 BC, place Babylonia. And we call the Babylonians pagan! My God! What shall we call our American abortionists?" -Fr. John Hardon, SJ (Source: American Life League "Communique")
What in the fuck is Natural Law John?
ReplyDeleteBig Bob doh Brains hated his partners cat so much that he drove to the next town and dumps it.when he gets home its there,next day he drives fifty miles and dumps it,when he got home it was there again,so the next day he drives to the other side of the country and dumps it. 6 hours later his partners phone rings,she answers Bob doh Brains was on the line ,he asks "doh is that f#@kin cat home?""yes ,why?"his partner asks"doh put the f#@ker on the phone I,m lost doh"...Thomas natural law is... the pope fucks the cardinals...the cardinals fuck the bishops.. the bishops fuck the priests ..and they fuck everybody else ,..naturally...
ReplyDeleteBob doh Brains was asked what he thought of county Down..he said it wasnt the same since Carol Voderman left doh..
ReplyDeleteThomás,
ReplyDeleteNatural law is that which may be deduced from the very nature of things when looking at their purpose. It is what tells us that we should do good and avoid evil, that honesty is to be preferred to dishonesty, that we shouldn’t steal or rape or murder. It is that whereby we see the natural purpose of something and do not oppose it.
Any attempt to thwart the purpose of nature, while enjoying its benefits, is disastrous. That is why we condemn those ancient Romans, who so distorted nature, that they would make themselves vomit so that they could eat more.
It is never right to take what is, (and this we can all agree on), at the minimum a ‘potential human being’, and prevent their continued existence. To that extent the primary reason to oppose induced abortion is that it destroys the fruit of the very purpose of what allows humanity to continue.
Personally I believe, and the Catholic Church teaches that it is also murder, but that is another issue.
Fifty cops arrested for child porn.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-151784/50-police-officers-arrested-child-porn-raids.html
1,300 others. And not a priest among them.
Aye John but I bet there is more than a fair share of "deeply religious "fuckers among that shower,
ReplyDeleteJohn
ReplyDeleteThe RC heirarchy's continued defence and protection of child rapists at the same time as seeking people to offer forgiveness just comes across as crass. They are out of touch and destroying their own church.
'It is never right to take what is, (and this we can all agree on), at the minimum a ‘potential human being’, and prevent their continued existence. To that extent the primary reason to oppose induced abortion is that it destroys the fruit of the very purpose of what allows humanity to continue'.
This I can relate to. Particularly with contraception freely available and morning after pills etc. If women and men demand the right to decide on issues relating for their own bodies they should be inteligent enough to visit a chemist. If I stick my hand in a fire no-one will be surprised that 1. I'm fuckin thick...2. i got roasted. But I do think rape victims should be entitled not to continue a pregnancy.
Tomas,
ReplyDeletenatural law is something they make up and then tell you its natural and that canon law will sort the rest out and that is alk you need to know about it. One of those known for arguing the concept of natural law was Thomas Aquinas who was the Churh's foremost authority on angels. A bit like me claiming to be an authority on mermaids and unicorns while telling you at the same thime that natural law cannot be breached.
Many of those who cite natural law also believe in the ability to survive your own death and virgin births. Go figure.
John,
ReplyDeletea very simple question.
A bishop rapes a young girl. She is not sure she is pregnant but will not take a chance. So she decides to take the morning after pill. The bishop demands that she be prevented from doing so and that if she is pregnant she must carry and deliver his child. The Church backs him.
Do we in society deny the bishop's rape victim the morning after pill or do we grant her it?
AM,
ReplyDeleteNatural moral law can no more be denied than natural physical law.
You may not like it, but you are held down by gravity, you grow, you age, and finally you die.
To deny the natural (moral) law is just as insane as to deny the natural (physical law).
Breaking the natural law will always have consequences. Nature can be brutal when it is ignored.
John,
ReplyDelete'You may not like it, but you are held down by gravity, you grow, you age, and finally you die.'
And then you can be brought back to life again by a guy called Jesus?
Natural law has been argued to justify Malthusian starvation policies. Humans intervention prevents it. Humankind's mastery of nature has been more beneficial than surrendering to so called natural law.
Morality evolves and changes and society sets its boundaries, not self appointed interpreters of natural law.
AM,
ReplyDeleteWhy restrict your question to the morning after? What about a week after, a month after, three months after, nine months after, or a year after?
A line has to be drawn somewhere. My line is after conception. That has to be the safer course. Can you tell me where yours is?
AM,
ReplyDelete'Morality evolves and changes and society sets its boundaries, not self appointed interpreters of natural law.'
There you have it, - justification for Nazism, Bolshevism, Zionism. Might is right, of the individual who gains control or the might of those who are able to dominate others the most effectively.
When you reject the natural law there is ultimately no morality. Life is just a jungle and every latest 'ism' can re-define morality.
mackers
ReplyDeletebishops don't need morining after pills for wee boys, get up to speed for flip sake.
lese fair/market forces were used to explain londons inaction during the famine, but the same market forces have been set aside for the bankers. Natural law is 'dont do what we say, do what we tell you!
John,
ReplyDeletethe morning after was picked (as was the bishop) because it is a hypothesis which allows us to consider the argument in the extreme case. It helps tease out both the principle and the contingencies and the relationship between the two. You would deny the young girl the morning after pill and force her to carry the bishop's child?
My own view is that it should always be permissible in the first trimester. But if the pregnant female is at any risk then it is permissible to end the termination at any point.
AM,
ReplyDelete‘My own view is that it should always be permissible in the first trimester. But if the pregnant female is at any risk then it is permissible to end the termination at any point.’
I take it you mean ‘any point’ before birth? What would you say should the abortion be botched and the child survive birth? Would you allow the child to live at that point, or would you consider, (as Obama does), that it is a ‘post-birth foetus’ and therefore should be left to die? Assuming for a moment that you don’t share Obama’s extreme view, what exactly changes in that few minutes that would confer a right to life, where just moments before it could be cut out and destroyed? What makes a seven month born child so different to a nine month unborn child? What if it were the seven month child of a bishop who had raped a young girl and the child was born prematurely?
John,
ReplyDelete'There you have it, - justification for Nazism, Bolshevism, Zionism. Might is right, of the individual who gains control or the might of those who are able to dominate others the most effectively.’
You could have added the inquisition.
Might is never right. This is why Nazism and the rest have been challenged by society. Totalitarian systems have been overcome.
‘When you reject the natural law there is ultimately no morality.’
What you mean is rejecting someone’s interpretation of the natural law. And given the hostility of many natural law types to science, the best mechanism for understanding nature, it would be ill advised to buy into their interpretation. Virgin births and resurrections amount to a rejection of the natural law. Outside of human society we don’t have anything to decide morality. How do we decide? There is no rule book that can tell us. People reason and arrive at a conclusion. Do you know any institution or individual who has the moral authority to impart to us a definitive account of the natural law? I don’t.
John,
ReplyDelete“Abortion is not and never has been a question of religion. It is a breach of Natural Law and has always been abhorred in any right thinking society, be it pagan, Christian, Moslem or Jewish etc.”
I usually avoid religious arguments though reading a question came to mind.
Perhaps a little of the abortion argument but more in line with natural law even though my view would differ, as nature is one thing man cannot control physically or spiritually.
If a seemingly healthy pregnant woman miscarries could that qualify as a natural abortion, after all it would be an aborted pregnancy does that make nature a baby killer. My point being even natural law or the law of nature outside of a religious view has no morals and perhaps natural disasters are natures own form of population control.
Curious in the cases of rape victims would the church support the rights of a rapist to have parental custody if the rape victim decided he made the problem and this is her only moral way out.
John,
ReplyDelete‘What would you say should the abortion be botched and the child survive birth? Would you allow the child to live at that point, or would you consider, (as Obama does), that it is a ‘post-birth foetus’ and therefore should be left to die?’
Absolutely allow it to live.
‘Assuming for a moment that you don’t share Obama’s extreme view, what exactly changes in that few minutes that would confer a right to life, where just moments before it could be cut out and destroyed?’
A question I once asked a feminist friend who fell out with me over it and later committed suicide. We never got to make it up.
I don’t think the purpose of abortion at that late stage is to kill but to save the life of the woman. That is why I argued that if it is outside the first trimester and the woman feels a threat it is her right to have the procedure.
‘What makes a seven month born child so different to a nine month unborn child?’
This is why we have the rules about first trimester being different from the third.
‘What if it were the seven month child of a bishop who had raped a young girl and the child was born prematurely?’
Everything should be done to save it.
Would you deny the bishops’ young rape victim the morning after pill and compel her to carry the bishop’s child?
And for all of this I am still not a fan of abortion. But a woman’s right to choose trumps my sentiment. And I know in my heart that if men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament.
mackers
ReplyDelete'A question I once asked a feminist friend who fell out with me over it and later committed suicide. We never got to make it up'
VERY sad.
'And I know in my heart that if men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament'.
In the oldman ruled RC faith i believe that!!
Larry,
ReplyDeleteit was sad. And it seemed so little to fall out over. It was merely a difference of opinion. She ended her life a few years later as a result of depression. I actually tried to rap her up on my first parole but no luck.
Tain Bo,
ReplyDelete‘I usually avoid religious arguments though reading a question came to mind.’
This is not a religious argument, although some seem to keep trying to turn it to that.
‘If a seemingly healthy pregnant woman miscarries could that qualify as a natural abortion,’
It is indeed a natural abortion.
‘My point being even natural law or the law of nature outside of a religious view has no morals and perhaps natural disasters are natures own form of population control.’
When I say ‘natural law’ that is a shortened form of ‘natural moral law’ as opposed to ‘natural physical law’. Yes, nature does operate what might be taken as elements of population control. I am not saying that something is wrong because it is against nature per se, but rather it is wrong when it goes against the finality of any given nature or essence by thwarting the purpose that it is for. If you were to use a mobile phone as a door stopper it would not be long before it would no longer operate as a phone. You cannot thwart nature and its purposes and not end in disaster.
‘Curious in the cases of rape victims would the church support the rights of a rapist to have parental custody if the rape victim decided he made the problem and this is her only moral way out.’
I would not think that likely, unless the mother wanted him to.
AM,
‘Do you know any institution or individual who has the moral authority to impart to us a definitive account of the natural law? I don’t.’
It is remarkable just how much agreement there has always been, until those who deny natural law came to the fore. It is the denial of it that has led to major differences of view. Prior to this denial every society from the Greeks, Romans onwards, whether pagan, Christian, Jewish or Moslem has held to practically the same views on abortion and on homosexuality, to take but two examples it might be applied to.
The most general principle of the natural law is known to all. ‘Do good and avoid evil’. In the absence of natural law we cannot even be held to that.
‘And I know in my heart that if men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament.’
Some of the madder feminist regard it as that already:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Sacrament-Abortion-Ginette-Paris/dp/0882143522
The bottom line is that if you do not have objective morality, we just don't live long enough to know if our view of it is correct or not. How did those in Nazi Germany know their views would be defeated? Were they okay while they were widely held? What about those of Bolshevik Russia? How do you know the modern fad for homosexual rights will survive? Maybe there will be a reaction and society will turn against them. How can morality be predicated on the whims and fancies of an apathetic majority who just want to get on? Reason must come up with an understanding of an objective morality, i.e. natural law, or it must admit that there is no such thing as morality. Everything is then just 'might is right' or anarchy.
Barkin mad: Actress hopes hurricane kills ‘every pro-life’ SOB; Cher hopes Akin gets raped
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDelete'Abortion ... has always been abhorred in any right thinking society'
Read John Riddle on that for a different take. His work was discussed on RTE yesterday or the day before
John,
ReplyDeletemy apology John I understand it is a social argument but when using one version of natural law from the Church it is difficult to exclude the religious factors in the debate.
I am not attached to either side of the argument but definitely view it as an issue of right in this argument women’s right to their own body.
Just curious what about women who choose not to have kids are they acting in defiance of natural law?
Anthony,
ReplyDeletethank god I don’t drink in the same pubs as thon two egits not a great choice kill then all or rape them all nothing like making a bigger problem to spout personal opinion unfortunately people listen to these fading Hollywood idiots.
John.
ReplyDelete"Why restrict your question to the morning after? What about a week after, a month after, three months after, nine months after, or a year after?"
Because it would be to late then, it would have to be aborted. I understand your point of view, I used to be a staunch church goer, But, after my late wife died at such a young age, I would go to church and the graveyard everyday, One sunday our local priest was giving a sermon on Unweded Mothers, I listened to every word he said. The following week he was suspended for knocking an unwedded mother off, and then he was defocked, but its not what you know, Its who you know, He was given a job in an RC secondry school as an RE teacher. Do you agree he should be in such a position?.
I sure as hell don't, proves to me how corrupt the catholic church is by giving him an award!!!.
itsjustmacker
ReplyDeletei think he should be ok to teach. There are hypocrites in all walks of life and people don't always practice what they preach. The RC church of all outfits has ample evidence of that within it. Had he 'knocked a 14 yr old girl up' using his clerical authority to manipulate her then that's different. In my opinion.
Yeah, it would be different were he to have posed a threat to children. He had sex with a woman - hardly the type of thing that would get him a parking ticket unless he did it in a parked car on double yellows but ...
ReplyDeleteTain Bo,
ReplyDeleteMy understanding of natural law does not come from the Church. One of the most ardent advocates of natural law that I know of, (and thus absolutely opposed to homosexuality and abortion) describes himself as a druid.
'Just curious what about women who choose not to have kids are they acting in defiance of natural law?'
If they want the act without the fruit; yes. If they forfeit the act; no.
itsjustmacker,
ReplyDeleteI have no intention of defending what any supposed priest has done since the so-called Vatican Council. Having spent years putting my children through 'Catholic' schools, I can only say I have yet to discover a school that teaches the faith, so it doesn't surprise me that they put runaway 'priests' in them.
There is a good case to make that no-one ordained in the new form that came out in 1968 is really a priest. If that is so, it means most of those in the news for the last forty years and more are not in fact priests at all.
John
ReplyDelete'There is a good case to make that no-one ordained in the new form that came out in 1968 is really a priest. If that is so, it means most of those in the news for the last forty years and more are not in fact priests at all.'
That could save an awful lot of miserable people a divirce ordeal lol
Tain Bo,
ReplyDeleteI didn’t read much of what they said. Saw the link on a page John McGirr referred me to, briefly glanced at it, felt it was relevant in some way and linked it. I think Barkin sounded more angry than Cher.
‘but when using one version of natural law from the Church it is difficult to exclude the religious factors in the debate.’
Natural ‘moral’ law is always somebody’s interpretation of morality which they then try to say is rooted in pure natural law. We are told to respect natural law by the same people who tell us miracles happen.
‘Just curious what about women who choose not to have kids are they acting in defiance of natural law?’
Also are people who cannot reproduce be compelled to desist from sex?
Larry,
‘Natural law is 'don’t do what we say, do what we tell you!’
In a nutshell.
I don’t buy that about priests not being priests. It is a bit like ‘I left the IRA in 1974.’
AM,
ReplyDelete'I don’t buy that about priests not being priests. It is a bit like ‘I left the IRA in 1974.’ '
The Catholic Church does not recognise Anglican orders, but declares them 'null and void.' For the exact same reason many who do not accept the Second Vatican Council would say that of modern priests. They believe that they can demonstrate that the New Rite of Ordination that came out in 1968 cannot ordain priests. I believe that they are right.
John,
ReplyDeleteyou can have your opinion. We won't excommunicate you from TPQ for it. Why do you still refer to them as priests?
Our invisible man can't see your invisible man therefore you are null and void.
The madness of religion.
AM,
ReplyDelete'Why do you still refer to them as priests?'
To avoid confusion by those who won't have a clue why I don't accept them. When I think of it though, I put them in quotation marks.
Of course it does totally change the whole 'paedophile priest' story, if 99% of those accused are in fact not priests.
Not much chat about 'paedo cops' though. Isn't it strange how the press is only really interested when they think 'priests' are carrying out the abuse, but 1300 arrests, (including 50 cops), doesn't seem to bother anyone?
John,
ReplyDeletestrikes me as a ruse to get the men of god off the hook.
As for the cops, they seem to be arresting not covering up. When the evidence that they are covering up is as abundant as it is against the Church, just watch the outcry.
John,
ReplyDeleteyou still haven't told me if you would compel the raped teenager to carry the bishop's child rather than take the morning after pill.
AM,
ReplyDelete'strikes me as a ruse to get the men of god off the hook.'
Those who have maintained this have been saying it since the mid 1970;s that I am aware of, pre-dating any known crisis. Indeed they would see the crisis as confirmation of their thesis.
'you still haven't told me if you would compel the raped teenager to carry the bishop's child rather than take the morning after pill.'
As the novus ordo 'bishops' seem to prefer boys to girls this is a very unlikely scenario. There are no circumstances where I would support the use of abortifacients.
John,
ReplyDeletethe abuse was always there. It becamem a crisis when people broke out of the gulag of fear and told their stories. The crisis for the Church was not clerical child rape but bad publicity. But I take your point. However it makes them sound obscurantist and consequently pretty much irrelevant. 'Ah look, our wee Johnny is the only one in step.'
'There are no circumstances where I would support the use of abortifacients.'
A very frank answer but it leaves you in the position of justifying inflicting a horrendous evil on a young girl.
AM,
ReplyDelete'the abuse was always there'
I grant that, as a trickle. However post Vatican II, it became a torrent.
'A very frank answer but it leaves you in the position of justifying inflicting a horrendous evil on a young girl.'
The evil would have been inflicted by the 'bishop' in your hypothetical case. Two wrongs don't make a right.
John,
ReplyDeleteit was hardly a trickle when some clerics were suggesting the Church purchase an island so they coud put all its paedophiles on.
There is undoubtedly an evil inflicted by the bishop. But it is a terrible evil to deny the raped girl, maybe 12 years of age, the morning after pill, and force her to carry the bishop's child. I can see both evils but you seem unable to because of religion.
You have a greater chance of making an argument against abortion if you drop what most people, including many anti-abortionists I imagine, would regard as an absurd argument. It just strikes me as incredible that anyone would demand that a rape victim carry the rapist's child.
And what if the victim threatens to committ suicide if forced to yield to what she considers an abomination? Would you opt for that rather than allow her the morning after pill?
AM,
ReplyDelete'it was hardly a trickle when some clerics were suggesting the Church purchase an island so they coud put all its paedophiles on.'
Do you think an island would be enough now? It would have to be a pretty big one.
As for abortion, surely the only logical stance is to be opposed to it or to back it. If it is okay in one case, it should be okay in all. Anyway, it is unusual for a twelve year old to get pregnant and even more unusual in the case of rape, (as Mr. Akin informed us).
The ultimate guiding principle has to be it is never right to do evil in order to effect a good. If you reject that principle morality is gone. To kill the fruit of an illicit union might be tempting, but, if its acceptable in that case, why not with a drunken husband, or to avoid poverty, or to go on a skiing holiday?
John,
ReplyDeleteAn island the size of Ireland would suffice. There can hardly be more than 6 million of them.
‘As for abortion, surely the only logical stance is to be opposed to it or to back it.’
The most logical response is a calibrated one.
12 years olds and younger have been known to get pregnant. Priests have been known to rape them. We are not talking about the norm here but the extreme which better allows us to explore the issues.
‘The ultimate guiding principle has to be it is never right to do evil in order to effect a good.’
Which makes it imperative to avoid the evil of forcing the rape victim to carry her rapist’s deposit to childbirth.
‘If you reject that principle morality is gone.’
To force a rape victim to maintain the pregnancy is immoral in the extreme.
‘To kill the fruit of an illicit union might be tempting, but, if its acceptable in that case, why not with a drunken husband, or to avoid poverty, or to go on a skiing holiday?’
The morning after pill is quite acceptable in all those circumstances. It is acceptable in any circumstance.
If the victim feels suicidal should she be compelled to continue to carry the ‘fruit’ of the rapist as you put it? Would you choose her suicide over her right to terminate? It might be a difficult question but does require an answer.
@ Marty Hola! need details for poster re aussies ordering in footsteps of Anne Couldnt find anything online Check yer email asap so can get poster up Ta
ReplyDeleteAM,
ReplyDeleteAs Judge Rolfe says, in what now forms the basis of a legal adage:
"This is one of those unfortunate cases...in which, it is, no doubt, a hardship upon the plaintiff to be without a remedy but by that consideration we ought not to be influenced. Hard cases, it has frequently been observed, are apt to introduce bad law."
Law must be framed around the normal and the likely, not the extreme cases.
To threaten suicide is no justification for ending another human life. The unborn child should not be given the ultimate penalty for the sin of his father.
Ryanair is stuffed - a poxy embarrassing airline Their planes always feel like they could fall apart. What that woman endured is just outrageous. If it had been me i would not have hesitated to smear feces all over the seat i was in & deposits of it all the way down the aisle as I left. She hopefully will seek legal advice = anti discrim. legislation breaches.
ReplyDeleteLolz RE 'Louth TD Gerry Adams, hitting out at the incident, called for a “full and fulsome” apology from Ryanair. He travels regularly and would not like to be banned from flights just because he is full of shit.'
Chief Shitkicker had to run his mouth didnt he. King Krud flies Ryanair.
RE 'The Catholic Church or Shamrock Rovers'
Shamrock Shaggers
LMBO Re 'Tomás Gorman said...
What in the fuck is Natural Law John?'
I must peruse JJ's answer even tho i feel an attack of vitriol coming on without having viewed his answer ahahaha
@ JJMcGirr Natural law is the inner knowing of right from wrong. Everyone has this embedded in them imo be they atheist thru to God believers.
ReplyDeleteYou have become the consultation time with a PP proxy priest on tpq ahahaha
Anthony should set up a online confessional box. We will be voyeurs watching all the disclosures.
RE 'Having spent years putting my children through 'Catholic' schools, I can only say I have yet to discover a school that teaches the faith, so it doesn't surprise me that they put runaway 'priests' in them.'
The thought of mini me JJ's out there is horrifying! I hope they flee RCC indoctrination & tell Dad to shut his face when he drones on with it all. It amazes me you even had/have sex to be honest ahahaha
John something i read dunno if was here or on another article comment was that you said sex should be for procreation. Now we were taught all that palava as wee girls to groom us into submission and popping out babies whether we wanted them or not. Rhythm method etc.
It is just heinous stuff because it keeps the subjugation of women entrenched. Also it teaches young girls their role sexually is to solely please the male & RCC dictates.
Sex is intimacy - one facet of intimacy in a relationship. It is outrageous that those bastards in the Vatican dictate to the masses how we should sexually be and i am referring to both male and female. Just freaking outrageous. It is NONE of their dammed business.
All the RCC ever taught my generation was that our bodies were somehow intrinsically bad and sex was to be had how they dictated. Sin sin sin
They just melted thousands of kids minds with BS... Everything was dirty and bad to do with sex. NB Lie back and offer it up to the saints as some bastard porks you whether you want it or not is what they taught us wee girls.
Howzat for a reality check Over and out LOL
Anthony RE 'Many of those who cite natural law also believe in the ability to survive your own death and virgin births. Go figure.'
I am holding out for the next life and hanging out with God.
John,
ReplyDeleteI concur with Judge Rolfe as it is the way the world works. But you are not concerned about law and more about Catholic morality. And the extreme we choose to discuss is legitimate for teasing out moral positions which often do not correspond to the law but which are useful nonetheless for the sake of discussion. And the template was set by yourself in your prostitute template in which you said once you set the price everything after that is haggling over price and not principle.
So once again I pose the question would you have the rape victim die rather than allow her the morning after pill?
what a twisted bastard
ReplyDeleteSMH,
ReplyDelete'I must peruse JJ's answer even tho i feel an attack of vitriol coming on without having viewed his answer ahahaha'
You just keep taking the tablets, Molly!
AM,
ReplyDelete'So once again I pose the question would you have the rape victim die rather than allow her the morning after pill?'
In what way does my previous answer not reply to this? I said:
'There are no circumstances where I would support the use of abortifacients.'
Coupled with these principles, I think the answer is clear.
'The end, (however good), may never justify immoral means.'
'Two wrongs do not make a right.'
Can I answer that question any more clearly?
I would not 'have the person die' nor would I be accessory to their killing another.
'it was hardly a trickle when some clerics were suggesting the Church purchase an island so they coud put all its paedophiles on.'
ReplyDeleteAustralia????
John,
ReplyDeleteIn what way does my previous answer not reply to this?
I felt it was camouflaged in the wider response. Nor do I want to misrepresent your position so clarity is important.
So there are no circumstances where I would support the use of abortifacients is a simple declaration by you that rather than allow the suicidal rape victim a morning after pill she should be allowed to die if need be as the proper moral action?
I think the answer is clear.
Yes or no is the clearest answer providing the question is fair.
Then you move on to qualify it somewhat with I would not 'have the person die' nor would I be accessory to their killing another.
If the rape victim states quite clearly that she will commit suicide if forced to continue with the pregnancy should she be denied the morning after pill?
My answer is a very clear, unqualified, unambiguous ‘no.’ What is your own?
I accept that it is an easy answer for me to give because most people – even if yours is the correct moral attitude - would see your position as so harsh that it merits little sympathy. We are talking about something as insignificant as a morning after pill where the chances of killing a child are zero. But the question allows us to tease out wider issues. It might even cause you to reflect on your own position, to consider that it might be the incorrect moral position to take, that it might in itself be an evil position which needs changed after reflection.
I think this is one of the reasons that people like myself see much of religion as evil. I think arguments like yours help clarify the abortion issue in that they serve to persuade people that abortion is in many circumstances necessary, that the defence of the case against it is so torturous and twisted that it could not possibly constitute a force for good. It places it on a par with the logic that denies condoms to people in Africa as a means to prevent the spread of AIDS.
If you manage to see that much – as to why people find much religion evil - it alone makes the effort worthwhile.
RE 'what a twisted bastard' link
ReplyDeleteAlmost wish i hadnt read it and seen the twisters face... On the other hand now everyone can see just how sick the whole deal is.
These are the sort of people one may encounter if one goes for RCC counselling which is why many survivors - meself included would not go near any of those kind of RCC services... There is more than a few survivors who have topped themselves after going for counselling and support and getting told shit like that.
I know a man who takes fullon psychotropic medications to block his flashbacks. Was thinkin about him today. It is essentially dangerous meds (i looked them up and the contra indications are scary) but he is desperate. I prefer to wade through flashbacks & have rituals and things i do to handle it all but u/stand some people want the meds to shut it down completely.
It is really hard for people to u/stand because it is our hidden world/reality but i am making it unhidden before i leave this life so people know just how it is.
Years of it fucking years of it thousands of us have had of suffering this shit. Big hulking adults we are but many of us still sleep with the lights on...
@JJMcGirr My therapeutic moments are coming here to goad you and read your outpourings There is always someone worse off than you me mother used to say... Now i know she was right chortle! Anthony has done a good job of walking u through stuff... It is interesting...
AM,
ReplyDelete“‘If the rape victim states quite clearly that she will commit suicide if forced to continue with the pregnancy should she be denied the morning after pill?’”
‘My answer is a very clear, unqualified, unambiguous ‘no.’ What is your own?’
In spite of the ‘loaded’ question, which I would never word like that, it is a very clear, unqualified, unambiguous ‘yes’.
‘I accept that it is an easy answer for me to give because most people – even if yours is the correct moral attitude - would see your position as so harsh that it merits little sympathy.’
So, you concede that my answer may be the ‘correct moral attitude, and then say you would go against it!
‘We are talking about something as insignificant as a morning after pill where the chances of killing a child are zero.’
If she is pregnant, it would kill the child. If she is not pregnant, she would not need to take it.
‘But the question allows us to tease out wider issues. It might even cause you to reflect on your own position, to consider that it might be the incorrect moral position to take, that it might in itself be an evil position which needs changed after reflection.’
It is precisely for this reason that pro-abortionists love ‘hard cases’. You know that if I concede that a child can be aborted in this case, then I have backed direct induced abortion. That I will not do.
‘I think this is one of the reasons that people like myself see much of religion as evil.’
You keep bringing religion into it. It has nothing to do with religion.
‘If you manage to see that much – as to why people find much religion evil - it alone makes the effort worthwhile.’
This question has nothing to do with religion, save in one respect. The Catholic Church relates natural law (reason) to Divine revelation (Faith),and tells its members what position they must hold to remain Catholic. This position is quite simply that which can be worked out by application of the natural law. In other words it only endorses what we can all know from reason, and insists that this position be held by those who claim to adhere to the Church.
AM,
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lifesitenews.com/news/which-one-was-conceived-in-rape-the-viral-image-that-deflated-pro-abortion
AM,
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lifesitenews.com/news/abortion-survivor-lambasts-obama-infanticide-vote-in-withering-new-ad
SMH,
ReplyDelete‘John something i read dunno if was here or on another article comment was that you said sex should be for procreation.’
It should not exclude the possibility of procreation. That would be like eating and vomiting in order to eat more. Once you make the break from the possibility of procreation, then anything goes. How would you then oppose any depravity, whether it be homosexual acts or bestiality?
John,
ReplyDeleteThe question was not intentionally ‘loaded’. It was meant to evoke a response that would better explain your position. You were told from the outset that it was an extreme scenario and you were under no obligation to answer.
So, you concede that my answer may be the 'correct moral attitude’, and then say you would go against it!
In the course of discussion we allow for these things otherwise it is hard to have discussion. I imagine you have heard the terms ‘for the sake of argument.’ And I assume you have singularly failed to persuade anyone reading you that your opposition is the morally correct one. If you could manage that I would concede the point and change my mind. Conversely, however, In fact I think it is a deeply immoral position you hold, one I regard as a very evil position although I refrain from calling you an evil person. In this I suppose I am guided by the opinion of Steven Weinberg that ‘religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.’
If she is pregnant, it would kill the child. If she is not pregnant, she would not need to take it
I don’t believe it is a child at that point. It would perhaps to be too early to tell that she is pregnant but she might have very genuine fears that she is pregnant and would therefore desperately want to take the morning after pill.
It is precisely for this reason that pro-abortionists love 'hard cases'. You know that if I concede that a child can be aborted in this case, then I have backed direct induced abortion. That I will not do.
Hypothesis deals in hard cases. Most people use them not just pro-abortionists. You use them yourself on occasion. But you would allow the rape victim to die, presumably the rapist to live, and all in a bid to prevent the victim of rape taking the morning after pill. If that is not evil, I am not sure what is. And you would not have to back induced abortion. Through the application of reason rather than religion you could calibrate your response to the type of question.
You keep bringing religion into it. It has nothing to do with religion.
I don’t go along with that. I see you as motivated by religious zeal. Your reasoning always seems weak and unpersuasive. I think you do the argument for religion more harm than good. I am not complaining as that suits me. But I give you the latitude to make whatever argument you wish and if you make a mess of it, it is your prerogative. Denying religious motivation is a standard stratagem employed by religious types when they want something to be considered that would otherwise be ridiculed. The case of Intelligent Design in the US is a good example of this. They knew once they described it as religion they would be up against it and would face insurmountable constitutional barriers. So they say ‘no, it’s science not religion.’
In other words it only endorses what we can all know from reason
But how can this be so when I ‘know’ from reason that much of what the Church says is bunkum. Divine revelation (hardly consistent with any natural law) will hardly help you out here. All you are really saying is that the Church will tell us what natural law is and will morally prescribe in accordance with it. But that is merely a Church opinion and there is no objective morality that it can lay claim to. And so many people across the world through reason arrive at a completely different moral position from you or the Church. How can this be so? And many of them have demonstrably shown that they are of a better moral standing than many Church officials. There is really no debate around the moral issue of covering up for child abuse. Those who did it took a less healthy moral stand than those who opposed cover up.
AM,
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line is a child conceived by rape is no less a child.
To think that circumstantial events, however tragic, can allow the weakest to be killed is totally immoral.
I have a line drawn, (ie conception) which should afford protection for all. Your moving line that says, 'it's only the day after conception' would quickly stretch to weeks and months.
Or maybe you could tell us, what if a 12 year old girl is raped and is unable to kill her child until one day into the second trimester, would you allow her child to be killed? What about a day in to the third trimester? What about a minute before birth?
I would never defend killing an innocent child, no matter how they were conceived. You seem to think that a person's right to live is based on emotion and feelings.
You can use this as another tool to bash religion with all you like. My opposition to abortion is nothing to do with my religion. I will never understand what makes people want to kill the innocent. I am not interested in winning arguments and scoring points.
A decent society would lock up those who want to attack children, whether it be wayward priests, through abuse, or wayward atheists, through abortion. Even the wayward priests do not generally kill their victims. That means however 'sick' they may be, there are sicker out there.
http://afterabortion.org/2004/rape-incest-and-abortion-searching-beyond-the-myths-3/
ReplyDeleteDid you hear about the qsf member who has had concussion an amazing 16 times this year...he lives near me..a stones throw away in fact....a qsf cyclist has been run over by a reversing bus,he is still alive but only just..the police are urging the driver to come forward..
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line is a child conceived by rape is no less a child.
But people like me have not been persuaded by people like you that we are dealing with a child one day into pregnancy. What we can all agree on, people like you and people like me, is that a real living person is standing asking for the morning after pill to ensure she does not have to experience the horror of carrying her rapist’s child, and if refused she will end her own very real, very human life. And people like you would allow her to die and people like me would not. That’s the reality of it John.
To think that circumstantial events, however tragic, can allow the weakest to be killed is totally immoral.
Your perspective will make a choice that leads to a fully formed human being to die so that a one day old foetus can survive. My perspective does the opposite. Society can decide the morality.
I have a line drawn, (ie conception) which should afford protection for all.
You are prepared to impose your line on a rape victim and risk her life in order to protect a one day year old foetus.
Your moving line that says, 'it's only the day after conception' would quickly stretch to weeks and months.
And so it might. My perspective will always be guided by best practice. And best practice has boundaries that shift. I have nothing else to guide me. There is no objective moral authority I can draw on.
Or maybe you could tell us, what if a 12 year old girl is raped and is unable to kill her child until one day into the second trimester, would you allow her child to be killed? What about a day in to the third trimester? What about a minute before birth?
That is a loaded question and loaded by the use of ‘child to be killed.’ I don’t believe it is killing a child. But I’ll answer it nonetheless. If the rape victim carrying the child is in danger of death at any point during the pregnancy I would agree with a termination. It is not the ideal outcome, merely the better of the two available.
I would never defend killing an innocent child, no matter how they were conceived.
But you have already told us elsewhere that the saturation burning of towns was a justifiable means to eradicate gays.
You seem to think that a person's right to live is based on emotion and feelings.
Not sure what that means.
You can use this as another tool to bash religion with all you like.
It is not about bashing religion. You manage to show religion as beset with a moral paucity. I don’t have to do anything other than let you talk. Perhaps people can see more clearly from this discussion why it is important to me to oppose religion. But I think you know this and for that reason try to erect a shield to protect religion from what is likely to be seen as a very immoral position.
‘I will never understand what makes people want to kill the innocent.’
Or absolve themselves of responsibility when the innocent are killed?
I am not interested in winning arguments and scoring points.
That’s what I would say too if I never won any arguments!!
John,
ReplyDeleteThe American Life League is good for a laugh. Religious crazies are always are but the Americans take these things to a new level. This is why they are so easy for comedians to parody and caricature.
Natural law is that which may be deduced from the very nature of things when looking at their purpose.
Which really means the purpose human beings ascribe to them.
It is what tells us that we should do good and avoid evil
If so why does it tell different people different things?
that we shouldn't steal or rape or murder.
How does it correspond to the Old Testament which justifies all these things? Or the Inquisition?
It is that whereby we see the natural purpose of something and do not oppose it.
And the natural purpose of disease is?
Any attempt to thwart the purpose of nature, while enjoying its benefits, is disastrous.
I think medicine is brilliant.
That is why we condemn those ancient Romans, who so distorted nature, that they would make themselves vomit so that they could eat more.
They might be condemned by some for that. Others would condemn them for being greedy.
It is never right to take what is, (and this we can all agree on), at the minimum a 'potential human being', and prevent their continued existence.
But sure you people would even complain about somebody having a ham shank on the same grounds. And as it is an opinion there are alternative opinions which most people seem to hold.
To that extent the primary reason to oppose induced abortion is that it destroys the fruit of the very purpose of what allows humanity to continue.
Most of that potential is destroyed by natural law. Very little sperm ends up as a child
Personally I believe, and the Catholic Church teaches that it is also murder, but that is another issue.
And you are entitled to your opinion on the matter, as is the Church. But no need for anyone else to share it. You are free to try and persuade them and hopefully you feel you are given ample opportunity here for that. More than the Church would give you John if you disagreed with it!
AM,
ReplyDelete'If the rape victim carrying the child is in danger of death at any point during the pregnancy I would agree with a termination.'
So you have either to accept that a nine month child in the womb is not human, or that you think there are times when murder is acceptable.
So, assuming you are not advocating murder, what changes in a child between five minutes before birth and five minutes after that can have such vast implications?
Given that you don't believe in objective morality, I guess you can't really call anything immoral, can you?
John,
ReplyDeleteI don’t know at what point a foetus becomes fully human. I am left to conclude that the closer we move to birth the more it becomes human being capable of sustaining life outside of the womb. So I am left to make a judgement based on what evidence medical science can offer. And that judgement might change as medical science reviews and revises in the light of new knowledge.
And I do not accept that murder is acceptable. I do not regard abortion as murder and I guess I am no different from so many others in this world who ponder the issue, are disturbed by the whole thing and try to apply a calibrated approach to it.
So, assuming you are not advocating murder, what changes in a child between five minutes before birth and five minutes after that can have such vast implications?
There would be no implications if a child was removed from a womb five minutes prior to normal delivery time. I believe the pregnancy should be terminated if the pregnant woman feels to continue with it poses a threat to her. I would also advocate trying to save her offspring. It is certainly not something I would celebrate given my dislike for the whole thing. But I see no other option.
Given that you don't believe in objective morality, I guess you can't really call anything immoral, can you?
I have already called your willingness to see a rape victim die to protect some religious belief immoral as well as your justification of mass murder of the innocents as a punishment for gays and your defence of the murderous Inquisition. The absence of any objective morality does not prevent you calling something immoral. Why should it be any different for me? You might believe in an objective morality but that hardly makes it real. You believe in angels and devils and suchlike. You might as well believe in unicorns and mermaids. They don’t exist because people believe they do. My youngest believes in Santa as do millions of others, just as you believe in objective morality. Where is it?
AM,
ReplyDelete‘I don’t know at what point a foetus becomes fully human.’
Then it is surely essential to err on the side of caution. To advocate abortion up until birth and then say that is more than irresponsible.
‘I am left to conclude that the closer we move to birth the more it becomes human being capable of sustaining life outside of the womb.’
But still expendable in your view, until birth.
‘So I am left to make a judgement based on what evidence medical science can offer. And that judgement might change as medical science reviews and revises in the light of new knowledge.’
One minute it is human, then not because someone changes their mind, but hold on, it might change back. But how will you get the lives back that slipped through before the latest view? Of course you are assuming that there is a consensus among these men of ‘science’.
‘There would be no implications if a child was removed from a womb five minutes prior to normal delivery time.’
No implications? Here is a description of what you are justifying:-
“Partial-Birth Abortion: Partial-Birth Abortions are used from the 4th month through the end of the 9th month of pregnancy. These late-term abortions are regularly used to kill healthy babies that pose no danger or threat to their mother.
For this abortion, the abortionist uses ultrasound to locate the unborn baby's legs. Forceps are then used to pull the baby's legs through the birth canal, delivering the baby feet first, except for the head. Scissors are then used to puncture the base of the back of the head. A suction device is then inserted to suction out the baby's brain so the skull will easily collapse. The dead baby is then removed.”
‘I believe the pregnancy should be terminated if the pregnant woman feels to continue with it poses a threat to her.’
How can a child be a threat to its mother? Why should a mother have a right to kill her child?
‘I would also advocate trying to save her offspring.’
‘Offspring’? Anything but a child? Any synonym will do. ‘Foetus’, ‘offspring’ etc, but we are not talking baby goats here, it is baby humans.
‘It is certainly not something I would celebrate given my dislike for the whole thing. But I see no other option.’
If you believe that morality is ‘subjective’ then who are you to accuse anyone of immorality? Why is your subjective view more correct than my subjective view? Why is the subjective view of 2012 more correct than a subjective view of 500 AD, or 1912? There is no such thing as being objectively immoral, while accepting that morality is subjective.
John,
ReplyDeleteHow can a foetus be human if it cannot feel pain or think? It doesn't develop the structures necessary for such activity until the second half of the pregnancy.
But let's get a little crude here, for I think that best underscores the reality of the situation: if some dude masturbates into a test tube and then a scientist throws some chick's ovum into the spunk, do you really believe a human being - a soul - lies therein?
ffs Alfie!!
ReplyDelete8am cupo tae...just read that...really hope you never venture into the 'erotic' movie business. lol
Aha Alfie the genie is out of the bottle ..thats how the bearded one keeps the party membership levels up...
ReplyDeleteAlfie,
ReplyDelete‘How can a foetus be human if it cannot feel pain or think? It doesn't develop the structures necessary for such activity until the second half of the pregnancy.’
A human organism results from conception. If you do not take this as the beginning of human life what is it? It is human, it is alive; therefore it is a human life. There is no other possible point that you could say that human life begins. But from what you say above, presumably you would join with me in calling for an end to induced abortions in the second half of the pregnancy?
‘But let's get a little crude here, for I think that best underscores the reality of the situation: if some dude masturbates into a test tube and then a scientist throws some chick's ovum into the spunk, do you really believe a human being - a soul - lies therein?’
I thought they were doing that already. Haven’t you just described the test tube baby industry?
John,
ReplyDelete"A human organism results from conception. If you do not take this as the beginning of human life what is it? It is human, it is alive; therefore it is a human life. There is no other possible point that you could say that human life begins."
I should clarify what I mean: an embryo is human life, but it is not a human being, nor should it have the same rights as one.
"But from what you say above, presumably you would join with me in calling for an end to induced abortions in the second half of the pregnancy?"
Indeed I will. I think such abortions should be banned.
John,
ReplyDeleteIf they want the act without the fruit; yes. If they forfeit the act; no.
Does that apply to natural family planning/rhythm method/Vatican Roulette?
When I say 'natural law' that is a shortened form of 'natural moral law' as opposed to 'natural physical law'.
Who or what is to arbitrate on matters pertaining to this ‘moral’ law? Where can we find it?
it is wrong when it goes against the finality of any given nature or essence by thwarting the purpose that it is for.
What is meant by purpose? There is no intent in nature, no conscious will, no general teleology taking it somewhere. It evolves. It is in the nature of humankind to give purpose to nature by utilising its energy, rechanneling it, mastering it.
If you were to use a mobile phone as a door stopper it would not be long before it would no longer operate as a phone.
But it can be put to the purpose of a door stopper without any immorality being involved. Ever hear of improvisation?
You cannot thwart nature and its purposes and not end in disaster.
We thwart it all the time to avoid disaster. That is why we give condoms – to halt the spread of AIDS.
It is remarkable just how much agreement there has always been, until those who deny natural law came to the fore. It is the denial of it that has led to major differences of view. Prior to this denial every society from the
Greeks, Romans onwards, whether pagan, Christian, Jewish or Moslem has held to practically the same views on abortion and on homosexuality, to take but two examples it might be applied to.
Every society has practiced birth control, and homosexuality is as old as humanity. People have been into autoeroticism since time began. And they have always experienced prejudice and bigotry.
The most general principle of the natural law is known to all. 'Do good and avoid evil.
But there is a plurality of views regarding what is good and what is evil. Look at how many people believe it is evil to withhold condoms that can prevent the spread of AIDS.
The bottom line is that if you do not have objective morality, we just don't live long enough to know if our view of it is correct or not.
But you have yet to show us what this objective morality is.
Reason must come up with an understanding of an objective morality, ie natural law, or it must admit that there is no such thing as morality.
There is morality. Moral law is like civil law. It evolves and changes over time. There is no single blueprint. Human society decides and sets the parameters. Reason is a dialectical process of movement, engagement, change.
I think people are willing to consider this objective morality if you can just show us it or tell us where we can find it and examine it. If it is objective and outside of human society where is it to be found?
Tony Nicklinson and the Ethics of Assisted Dying
ReplyDeleteAM,
ReplyDeleteHow does this woman fit your criteria? Should she be allowed to kill the child?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2197486/Pregnant-rape-victim-shoots-DECAPITATES-attacker-leaving-severed-head-village-square.html
SMH,
ReplyDeleteNatural law is the inner knowing of right from wrong. Everyone has this embedded in them imo be they atheist thru to God believers.
Then why do people genuinely feel different about what is right or wrong? I genuinely feel birth control is right while others genuinely feel it to be wrong. I genuinely feel there is nothing abnormal about gay people. Others genuinely feel they are deviant. Where is the inner knowing at play here?
‘I am holding out for the next life and hanging out with God.’
Fine by me. At least you have no desire to try and run other people’s lives in accordance with your own religious opinion. You practice religion on yourself and not on others.
John,
ReplyDeleteHope you are not getting desperate and trawling the net for that extreme case you don’t like!
Should the woman be allowed to terminate her pregnancy? If she were my daughter, yes. That she is not my daughter, still yes. She is clearly traumatised by the event, might even kill her child if she delivers it, might even be a danger to herself or her other children. Could you not have found a stronger example than this one where trauma and mental instability seem to be written all over it?
Society should not in my view give rights to rapists to compel raped women to carry to full child status the fruit of their rape. To give the rapist that absolute right to force his victim to deliver him a child seems unthinkable to me. That he would have that right and the woman no rights is egregious.
AM,
ReplyDelete'Hope you are not getting desperate and trawling the net for that extreme case you don’t like!'
No. It came up in my feed today. Posted on account of the decapitation, no doubt.
Earlier you told us:
‘I don’t know at what point a foetus becomes fully human.’
You must, by your own admission, be aware that there is a point that a 'foetus' is human. First you want the right to kill an unborn child if the mother threatens suicide, now you agree to a late-term abortion, without suicide.
To advocate the destruction of a child on account of the sin of its father is abhorrent and morally repugnant.
The only way it is possible for anyone to make any logical defence of abortion is if they are absolutely certain that the unborn child is not fully human.
You defend its destruction, while saying:
‘I don’t know at what point a foetus becomes fully human.’
Before you advocate such destruction, the onus is on you, or those who support it, to answer that question. Anything short of that is to defend murder.
'Natural law is the inner knowing of right from wrong.'
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with that definition. That is nearer to a definition of conscience than it is of natural law. Of course, though there is a close relationship between them.
Like any law, natural law can be broken, (hence abortion and homosexual acts). Like any law that is broken, there is always a penalty to pay, on the individual and on the corrupt society that would allow such laws to be flouted.
John,
ReplyDeleteYou must, by your own admission, be aware that there is a point that
a 'foetus' is human.
There is a continuum where at some point an embryo becomes a human. I am convinced that at conception it is not a human being. I am equally convinced that once it is born and is, as they say, viable, it is a human. At what point it acquires full human status I am unsure. But because society has these concerns and sees how morally problematic the whole issue is, it takes a calibrated approach. The further into the pregnancy the higher the bar is set for the pro abortion perspective to leap.
Given the moral issues that it raises I am left to follow best practice. I take into consideration the perspective of the women who want to terminate pregnancy, the perspective of the medical professionals who carry it out, the latest legal opinion, and the perspective of society as it evolves. I have to consider any secular argument that is presented, both for and against abortion and the same with secular philosophical arguments. And in the round they amount to a persuasive case that whatever the problems with abortion it is not murder.
To advocate the destruction of a child on account of the sin of its father is abhorrent and morally repugnant.
There would much to be said for that if agreement can be reached that a child is being destroyed. The problem is that no such agreement exists. Most societies allow for abortion. They do not state that it is murder. You can understand that I can’t take my guidance from you who justifies the widespread obliteration of cities merely as a punishment against gays. Murder is not the issue for you but rather who has the right to ordain it. I can’t take my guidance from people who accuse one day old embryos of having original sin.
I fail to understand why you or anybody else insists on giving this absolute right to a rapist that his victim be compelled to carry the result of that rape right through to bearing the rapist a child. If you can persuade any of us that a rapist should have such a right we would be compelled to reconsider but there is nothing you have said uo to now that comes remotely close to convincing me that any such right exists. On the other hand I very much feel that the demonstrable human being, the raped woman, has the right not to be compelled to bear her rapist a child. This is one essential difference between us: You insist on this absolute right for the rapist (the logic of your argument while perhaps not the intent) while I insist on the rights of the rape victim.
The only way it is possible for anyone to make any logical defence of abortion is if they are absolutely certain that the unborn child is not fully human.
Quite logical defences have been made of abortion. Some logical defences have been made which I don’t agree with but they possess a logic of their own. There are some logical arguments made against abortion which I consider but don’t agree with. And there are some very illogical arguments made against abortion such as the embryo has a soul.
Anything short of that is to defend murder.
As a matter of interest what do you think of the passover? It was obviously a crime against humanity. Do you condemn it as an act of murder against children?
AM,
ReplyDeleteIf you went out hunting; saw something moving behind the trees; you think it is a deer but you are not absolutely sure; it could be another hunter. You are 99.99% sure that it is a brute animal, rather than your companion. Would you shoot it? Or would you require absolute certainty that it is not a human?
I find these words very chilling:
‘I don’t know at what point a foetus becomes fully human.’
coupled with a defence of abortion up to the moment of birth.
AM,
ReplyDelete'As a matter of interest what do you think of the passover? It was obviously a crime against humanity. Do you condemn it as an act of murder against children?'
I would imagine that you regard it as fictional. If you do, why are so worried about something that never happened? Isn't that a little like asking my opinion of unicorns and mermaids, or how I view St George slaying the dragon?
John,
ReplyDeletelife is riddled with uncertainties. We often make decisions on the balance of probability. Neither you nor I can be 100% certain that if we cross the road we will not be knocked down. We still go out. Each day my children go out to school or ride their bikes I cannot be 100% certain they will come back. I have to go by best practice if I am to engage with the world. Life is rarely black and white. Authoritarian minds need that type of system but not the rest of us.
I don't like abortion. But my personal likes or dislikes are not the determining factor. In a rights culture people other than me have rights and it is not me that decides what rights they have. That is a societal matter.
And you may very well find things chilling just as I find it chilling that you end up giving absolute rights to a rapist and no rights to the rape victim. But I still have to engage with you.
On the passover - what do you think of the deliberate planned deaths of those children? It will help us better understand your views on the protection of children from murder; if you rposition really is moral or just religious.
John,
ReplyDeleteyes I do believe it is fictional, which is less the point. That you believe it makes it different from St George slaying dragons which you don't believe.
So give me your view on the passover deliberate killing of innocent children. It is an easy answer. You remain consistent and condemn it or you add some qualifying condition to your opposition to murder. Evade it and we can safely draw our own conclusions
AM,
ReplyDelete‘yes I do believe it is fictional, which is less the point.’
It is very much the point. We were discussing the ongoing destruction of human organisms, that I say is murder and you say you don’t know if it is or not, but think it should be permitted in any case.
To jump from this to what you regard as a fictional account of something that may or may not have happened thousands of years ago is ridiculous.
If I am right, there is a current, ongoing slaughter that you support. You support it, while admitting that you may be wrong. How is that remotely comparable to something that may or may not have happened thousands of years ago?
‘That you believe it makes it different from St George slaying dragons which you don't believe.’
The destruction of the first born commemorated in the Passover of those not marked with the blood of the lamb prefigures the saving grace of baptism and the effects of the redemption of Christ. As a Catholic I see everything in the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament. (That’s if ever I shake the ‘dust off the Holy Bible’!). To read the Good Book without the context of its culmination would only lead to the monstrosity and heartlessness of Zionism, (which isn’t too far off how many Protestants see it). Christianity is not a religion of a book, it is one that sees everything in the light of Christ, either in preparation for, or in consequence of His coming. Some would deny that Jonas was eaten by a whale. I guess that is why we need an authority to guide us and keep us from going off on tangents due to private interpretation.
For the record, I have an open mind on St George slaying a dragon. It is likely that it is figurative, but I am prepared to listen to any view on the matter. I certainly would not dismiss it out of hand.
‘You remain consistent and condemn it or you add some qualifying condition to your opposition to murder. Evade it and we can safely draw our own conclusions’
One alternative conclusion might be that this is one big red herring, nearly as large as Jonas’s whale. But, sure, I went with it anyway. It got you off the ropes for a breather.
John,
ReplyDeleteNot much wriggle room there. You have discussed your take on god frequently when asked even though that is as much a myth to me as the bible.
We were discussing the ongoing destruction of human organisms, that I say is murder and you say you don't know if it is or not
To the contrary. I said I do not believe abortion to be murder. Nor do most societies. For all these murders that have been committed how many women have been charged or doctors?
but think it should be permitted in any case.
Like the majority of humankind I think abortion should be permitted. Like them also I don’t think murder should be committed. Your difficulty is that you are unable to get your label of murder accepted outside the world of the religious to make it effective. And the type of people who believe it to be murder also believe wearing condoms is wrong.
To jump from this to what you regard as a fictional account of something that may or may not have happened thousands of years ago is ridiculous.
You are sort of hoist on your own petard on this one. If morality is fixed and timeless as you claim because it is objective morality then if it was morally justifiable to slaughter the innocent ‘thousands of years ago’ then it has to be the same today. God is immutable. His law can’t change
If I am right, there is a current, ongoing slaughter that you support.
If you were right? It would be a first!
You support it, while admitting that you may be wrong.
I am not a cheerleader for it. I find it morally problematic, certainly outside the first trimester. I sense the contours and mosaic of morality which is a human social construct. I assent to the woman’s right to choose rather than argue that I have the right to deny her that choice. I listen to the medical profession and try to understand the arguments from moral philosophy. Because morality is a shifting phenomenon, rarely fixed, more often positional, I have to allow for the possibility that I have got it wrong and that science, the medical profession, moral philosophers etc might at some point present something that will cause me to change my mind. But for now they don’t. And I have choices to make as to who best guides us in how we think about these things. The choice between your argument and the arguments of those others is a relatively easy one. You simply fail to persuade.
The destruction of the first born commemorated in the Passover of those not marked with the blood of the lamb prefigures the saving grace of baptism and the effects of the redemption of Christ.
Truly, truly I say unto you. Religious jabberwocky is just the way to intellectually persuade me!
To read the Good Book without the context of its culmination
Context – that old alibi. Which we all use. But the point about context is that is has to be argued for. It can’t just be imposed. Contextualisation is a process of engagement. But it seems you have clarified your position that the bible is not to be taken literally. That is fair enough.
So for that reason I will ask you do you see the biblical account of the Passover as truthful or mythical? Do you believe – not me or the man next door or the wee nun in the convent, just your good self – that the killing of children happened or is it just something else they made up and only evangelical Protestants believe?
John,
ReplyDeleteI guess that is why we need an authority to guide us and keep us from going off on tangents due to private interpretation.
But if the bible is no longer a literal truth and a merely a figurative account then interpretation is all we have. And what authority could possibly interpret it correctly? Hardly the men of god. They have been most deficient in matters of morality as of late. Would it censor challenges to it? How would we know the strength of its conclusions if it suppressed alternatives?
And now that you imply that the bible, Old Testament anyway, does not have to be taken literally, there is no reason for us to think it can be an authority on abortion. That leaves us with the New Testament. And what did Jesus say about abortion? While conceding I am not an avid follower of the debate I recently read Frank Pavone try to refute the pro-choice lobby’s claims that JC said nothing. I was stunned at how weak he was. So what are we left with? St Augustine or St John of Chrysostom? Even less the latter given that Richard Holloway in his stimulating book Godless Morality seemed to effectively nail him as a misogynist. We are left with nothing but the religious opinion of some followers of JC. What weight should that have?
‘One alternative conclusion might be that this is one big red herring, nearly as large as Jonas's whale.’
That is indeed an alternative conclusion. I am really amazed you are beginning to grasp the notion of alternatives. We do live in a culture of intellectual pluralism. Another alternative is that you are trying to hide behind a big read whale because you know that really at the heel of the hunt it is not about morals for you, but theology. Murder is basically alright for you as long as gays get it or somebody else who offends your religious sentiment.
But, sure, I went with it anyway. It got you off the ropes for a breather.
A man of god blowing his own trumpet rather than a wee boy’s! The end of days surely approaches. You are moving with the times John! I am more than happy to allow those following the discussion to make that call. Wouldn’t be the first time you had the ropes only to hang yourself with them!
AM,
ReplyDelete‘Like the majority of humankind I think abortion should be permitted.’
I would be very surprised if the majority of mankind backed induced abortion, and I am absolutely certain that only a sick minority would defend it up until birth.
Abortion is illegal in:
South America:
Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Venezuela,
Sub-Saharan Africa:
Angola, Benin, Central African Rep.Chad, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Dem. Rep. of Congo, Gabon, Guinea- Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Mauretania, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Somalia, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda.
Middle East and North Africa:
Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Oman, Sudan (r), Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.
Asia and Pacific:
Bangladesh, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Sri Lanka.
Europe:
Ireland, Malta, Vatican City
If I were to list all the countries where late abortions, (that you support, ) are banned, it would be most of the world.
‘If morality is fixed and timeless as you claim because it is objective morality then if it was morally justifiable to slaughter the innocent ‘thousands of years ago’ then it has to be the same today.’
As God is the creator and He allows all people to die, would you also maintain that every person who ever dies has been murdered by Him, or at least that He is an accomplice?
‘God is immutable. His law can’t change’
I agree. Good to see you using capitals.
‘But it seems you have clarified your position that the bible is not to be taken literally.’
No. I am just not fixated on a literal interpretation as you seem to be.
‘So for that reason I will ask you do you see the biblical account of the Passover as truthful or mythical?’
I believe that the Bible is truthful from Genesis to Apocalypse.
‘While conceding I am not an avid follower of the debate I recently read Frank Pavone try to refute the pro-choice lobby’s claims that JC said nothing. I was stunned at how weak he was.’
As I said when the subject arose. It is a question that is answered by recourse to natural law, not revealed religion. I would imagine that only Catholics would be convinced by Catholic arguments, so it is a little strange that you keep wanting to bring the question to one of theology.
What shocks me most about your view is you are revolted at the killing of the unborn when late in the pregnancy, but feel compelled to defend it, all while saying that you don’t know if the dead human organism is human or not.
If I were reversing my car, and thought there could be a child behind, I would require absolute certainty, but you would happily drive back, feeling quite sure that you hope there is no-one there.
John,
ReplyDeleteSomething very quick for our readers to consider from Wikipedia, which of course you are free to challenge.
‘While abortions are legal in most countries, the grounds on which they are permitted vary. According to the United Nations publication World Abortion Policies 2011[5] abortion is allowed in most countries in order to save a woman's life (97% of countries). Other commonly accepted reasons are preserving physical (67%) or mental health (63%). Abortion in the case of rape or incest is accepted in about half of all countries (49%), and performing them because of economic or social reasons in about a third (34%). Performing abortion only on the basis of a woman's request is allowed in 29% of all countries, including in North America and in most European countries.’ That would seem to amount to a majority. But I am sure there are alternative views out there.
As God is the creator and He allows all people to die, would you also maintain that every person who ever dies has been murdered by Him, or at least that He is an accomplice?
Enough to confirm that man created him rather than him creating man. But you are not seriously suggesting that if something you call god murders children it is alright?
Good to see you using capitals.
Has it taken you this long to work out that I always do when beginning a sentence? You are getting observant John. Well done. There might be a t I forget to cross or an i I omitted to dot. Not much good to you on the abortion question however.
I believe that the Bible is truthful from Genesis to Apocalypse.
How truthful? Is the description of the deaths of the children in the Passover true? I am only asking you if god did or did not take these innocent lives? What can be so difficult about the answer?
It is a question that is answered by recourse to natural law, not revealed religion.
But you seem to know very little about natural law. Now we are all ignorant about most things. Billions of things I know absolutely nothing about and the best approach is not to pretend to know anything And while you seem to explain natural law as well as I would nuclear physics, I admit to not knowing much about nuclear physics.
What shocks me most about your view is ...
We cannot account for taste John. People wearing rubbers shock you. You are entitled to be shocked by what you choose. As long as your shock does not make others suffer feel free to be a shock jock.
If I were reversing my car, and thought there could be a child behind, I would require absolute certainty, but you would happily drive back, feeling quite sure that you hope there is no-one there.
And for that reason you are a resolute critic of the Omagh bombers who were most definitely not certain that no pregnant woman was there.
But all that aside I am very interested in your view on the mass child killing of the Passover. That I think will explain an awful lot about your morality. Do you believe it to be true? If you do, do you support it?
Simple as John. No equivocation or religious jabberwocky. Here we have no difficulty understanding plain old yes or no.
AM,
ReplyDelete‘Something very quick for our readers to consider from Wikipedia, which of course you are free to challenge.’
I would take issue with the 97%, because although it is never morally permissible to kill an unborn child, there is a distinction to be made where a woman is suffering from a life-threatening illness that, when treated, results in the loss of the child as a secondary and un-intentioned consequence. Most countries, including, I believe, the Irish Free State, would allow such treatment, and it would appear this is reflected in your figures.
I do concede that it is likely that most countries allow a degree of abortion, but I don’t believe that they would take it to the extreme that you do, in supporting it until birth. Maybe you could provide figures for where abortion is allowed up until birth? But, unlike you, I do not think that morality is a numbers game. I will still say it is wrong if I were a minority of one.
“Good to see you using capitals.”
‘Has it taken you this long to work out that I always do when beginning a sentence? You are getting observant John.’
I guess I was digging at your irritating habit, so much practised by the rage-against God crowd of using a lower case ‘g’ where good grammar would mandate a ‘G.’ The name God is here being used in a sense akin to a personal name. To insist on using ‘god’ is confusing and just a little juvenile. Even I use a capital for Satan. Although I do believe that Satan exists, if I did not, I would still use a capital ‘S’. Newsflash: you can use the word ‘God’ and still not accept His existence. Of course you can keep up the puerile practise you have adopted, and we will carry on groaning with embarrassment . I think I know what you will do!
“It is a question that is answered by recourse to natural law, not revealed religion.”
‘But you seem to know very little about natural law. Now we are all ignorant about most things. Billions of things I know absolutely nothing about and the best approach is not to pretend to know anything’.
That actually made me laugh. I don’t think I have ever come in to contact with someone who knows so little about religion and it hasn’t stopped you yet. In fact if I have only seen one rival who probably knows less about religion than you, viz. Richard Dawkins.
Have you ever noticed how you seem to want to tell me what I think all the time? The general practise is to allow one’s opponent to set out his own position. You could learn a thing or two from St Thomas Aquinas here. Now there was a real thinker. He would always allow his opponents the courtesy of having the strongest possible case and then demolish it. Pygmies like Dawkins, who pontificate about what they don’t know are just a laughing-stock. They do, however, have their groupies who will tell them how profound they are when they put up another straw-man to knock down.
I would be tempted to quote:
‘A little learning is a dangerous thing…’
but maybe you are in no danger then, where religion is concerned.
‘And for that reason you are a resolute critic of the Omagh bombers who were most definitely not certain that no pregnant woman was there.’
Have I ever given an opinion on the Omagh bomb? I don’t remember, but no doubt you will remind me.
So you have moved from justifying the death of those you think might be human, to the Passover, to Omagh. Isn’t it customary to deal with one issue at a time? Ancient Jewish history has no relevance to whether or not it is right to kill those, whom, by your own admission, you are uncomfortable with killing. Why are you so uncomfortable if it is justified? Why don’t you celebrate abortion and have post-abortion parties? Deep down your own conscience recognises that it is wrong. You are being dishonest to yourself!
John
ReplyDeleteThe end, (however good), may never justify immoral means.
That still poses a problem. Because forcing a woman to deliver a child for a rapist seems deeply immoral. The person who argues for it might well believe that the outcome is less immoral so they opt for what they believe to be the lesser evil. That often is how the challenges of moral life present themselves.
SMH,
That type of person is supposed to be a moral guardian, an interpreter of the moral code. I think there is much more morality among sex workers who his lot would no doubt lambast. Today in Dublin, that other clown of a bishop was the topic of discussion who said paedophilia was friendship taken too far. One guy said to me ‘these bastards are dangerous.’ They are certainly not moral leaders.
Anthony has done a good job of walking u through stuff... It is interesting...
No I haven’t. He has me on the ropes and has shown everybody what a philistine I am!!
AM,
ReplyDelete'Anthony has done a good job of walking u through stuff... It is interesting...'
'No I haven’t. He has me on the ropes and has shown everybody what a philistine I am!!'
Certainly showed up your lack of a sense of humour!
that's a real insult John. There's me thinking I have a great sense of humour ... about you!!
ReplyDeletehaven't been in humourous form as of late now to be frank. Hope it does not show through.
AM,
ReplyDelete'that's a real insult John. There's me thinking I have a great sense of humour ... about you!!'
'haven't been in humourous form as of late now to be frank. Hope it does not show through.'
Sorry to hear that.
For the record, I do not think I had you on the ropes. If anything I have often made a hash of what I'm trying to say, but I still 'know' I am right! Just trying to put it in the right words.
AM,
ReplyDeletePS,
I don't think you are a philistine either, but I might be wrong!
John,
ReplyDeletethank you. That is very considerate of you. It is a very complex issue and one that perplexes me. I find no easy answers. I just don't share your view of morality. Anyway, probably time to call it quits on this thread. No doubt it will raise its head again. Strangely enough, my views on morality reflect those of Richard Holloway, writing at a time when he was still a Christian. Think he no longer believes.
have a go granny
ReplyDelete