Comments on: ENDS NEVER JUSTIFY THE MEANS http://www.squarewon.org/2009/05/31/ends-never-justify-the-means/ It's about the ideas. Wed, 08 Sep 2010 07:34:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: lj http://www.squarewon.org/2009/05/31/ends-never-justify-the-means/comment-page-1/#comment-697 lj Fri, 12 Jun 2009 05:05:45 +0000 http://www.squarewon.org/?p=1762#comment-697 Abortion puts women and their future children at risk. Read the article at: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=c8a5da34-3460-4baa-8479-8a43deb2f51a Abortion puts women and their future children at risk.
Read the article at:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=c8a5da34-3460-4baa-8479-8a43deb2f51a

]]> By: wwilberforce http://www.squarewon.org/2009/05/31/ends-never-justify-the-means/comment-page-1/#comment-668 wwilberforce Wed, 10 Jun 2009 05:11:19 +0000 http://www.squarewon.org/?p=1762#comment-668 To clarify, the Nazis began exterminating everyone who they thought were undesireable, beginning with Down's syndrome children and other folks who were thought to have lower brain function. Check out my earliest article on SquarePost: S.L.E.D.-Simple Pro-Life Logic. To clarify, the Nazis began exterminating everyone who they thought were undesireable, beginning with Down’s syndrome children and other folks who were thought to have lower brain function. Check out my earliest article on SquarePost: S.L.E.D.-Simple Pro-Life Logic.

]]> By: wwilberforce http://www.squarewon.org/2009/05/31/ends-never-justify-the-means/comment-page-1/#comment-652 wwilberforce Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:15:30 +0000 http://www.squarewon.org/?p=1762#comment-652 whs, If sentient activity is your threshold of human existence, you are taking the side of the Nazis whether you agree with their "solution" or not. But for the need for protection and nourishment during development, a baby could be raised in the laboratory. My views on the sanctity of procreation in the womb aside, that is a fact. rr has it dead on. A sperm will run out of internal energy and die. In fact, it only has 1/2 of the chromosomes to give, and is a function-based cell "broken off" from the father, as is the egg from the mother. After fertilization, all 46 chromosomes have combined to form an utterly unique organism, wholly different in every way you and I are different from each other. Yet the reasons you stand behind for permitting destruction of this unique organism are all logical fallacies. Please address them recognizing that the "something" has human DNA and will grow to maturity but for human/divine intervention; there are only 4. Size- you can't kill something just because it is smaller than you. We don't allow big people to kill small people. Level of Development- you can't kill something because it is not as developed as you (even if you're the mom and don't want a child). We don't allow teenagers to kill toddlers simply because they haven't passed puberty. Octogenarian women can't kill mid-thirties women because they haven't passed through menopause. Being made up of one cell causes us to ignore that life is a continuum and we are merely in the middle of it. But just because one is on either end (a single-cell embryo or some 110 years old) does not kick you off the continuum. Environment- the fact that a baby develops in the uterus does not mean one can kill it out of convenience/emotional pain. I may be mad or angry as can be but I can't kill someone in the backyard because I am in the kitchen. Degree of Dependency- An embryo is as fully human as you or I are but at a different degree of dependency and needs to be in the womb until that degree can be overcome. Should we allow babies who are nursing to be killed? No. If there are other reasons that trump these, please flesh them out. Good discussion, WW whs,
If sentient activity is your threshold of human existence, you are taking the side of the Nazis whether you agree with their “solution” or not. But for the need for protection and nourishment during development, a baby could be raised in the laboratory. My views on the sanctity of procreation in the womb aside, that is a fact. rr has it dead on. A sperm will run out of internal energy and die. In fact, it only has 1/2 of the chromosomes to give, and is a function-based cell “broken off” from the father, as is the egg from the mother.
After fertilization, all 46 chromosomes have combined to form an utterly unique organism, wholly different in every way you and I are different from each other. Yet the reasons you stand behind for permitting destruction of this unique organism are all logical fallacies. Please address them recognizing that the “something” has human DNA and will grow to maturity but for human/divine intervention; there are only 4.

Size- you can’t kill something just because it is smaller than you. We don’t allow big people to kill small people.

Level of Development- you can’t kill something because it is not as developed as you (even if you’re the mom and don’t want a child). We don’t allow teenagers to kill toddlers simply because they haven’t passed puberty. Octogenarian women can’t kill mid-thirties women because they haven’t passed through menopause. Being made up of one cell causes us to ignore that life is a continuum and we are merely in the middle of it. But just because one is on either end (a single-cell embryo or some 110 years old) does not kick you off the continuum.

Environment- the fact that a baby develops in the uterus does not mean one can kill it out of convenience/emotional pain. I may be mad or angry as can be but I can’t kill someone in the backyard because I am in the kitchen.

Degree of Dependency- An embryo is as fully human as you or I are but at a different degree of dependency and needs to be in the womb until that degree can be overcome. Should we allow babies who are nursing to be killed? No.

If there are other reasons that trump these, please flesh them out.

Good discussion,

WW

]]> By: lj http://www.squarewon.org/2009/05/31/ends-never-justify-the-means/comment-page-1/#comment-650 lj Mon, 08 Jun 2009 15:22:18 +0000 http://www.squarewon.org/?p=1762#comment-650 Scientists testify that life begins at conception: http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/Rec/rec.music.artists.springsteen/2008-10/msg03620.pdf Scientists testify that life begins at conception:
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/Rec/rec.music.artists.springsteen/2008-10/msg03620.pdf

]]> By: lj http://www.squarewon.org/2009/05/31/ends-never-justify-the-means/comment-page-1/#comment-635 lj Sat, 06 Jun 2009 23:53:11 +0000 http://www.squarewon.org/?p=1762#comment-635 whs - still no source whs - still no source

]]> By: whs http://www.squarewon.org/2009/05/31/ends-never-justify-the-means/comment-page-1/#comment-628 whs Fri, 05 Jun 2009 17:26:21 +0000 http://www.squarewon.org/?p=1762#comment-628 Andrew Sullivan (who is pro-life) has been recently posting personal stories of couples and women who have gone through the gut-wrenching process of deciding on whether or not to have an abortion. These are not testimonials in defense of abortion, but they are very powerful, intimate stories that make you rethink your views, regardless of your postion on abortion. They also have the views of various physicians in favor and against abortion rights. If you have the time, I highly recommend everyone read through some of these stories. Anyway, here is a roundup of all of the stories so far: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/its-so-personal-the-roundup.html Andrew Sullivan (who is pro-life) has been recently posting personal stories of couples and women who have gone through the gut-wrenching process of deciding on whether or not to have an abortion. These are not testimonials in defense of abortion, but they are very powerful, intimate stories that make you rethink your views, regardless of your postion on abortion. They also have the views of various physicians in favor and against abortion rights. If you have the time, I highly recommend everyone read through some of these stories. Anyway, here is a roundup of all of the stories so far:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/its-so-personal-the-roundup.html

]]> By: whs http://www.squarewon.org/2009/05/31/ends-never-justify-the-means/comment-page-1/#comment-625 whs Fri, 05 Jun 2009 04:08:56 +0000 http://www.squarewon.org/?p=1762#comment-625 I asked you for a source earlier, still haven't produced anything. This is fun. I asked you for a source earlier, still haven’t produced anything. This is fun.

]]> By: lj http://www.squarewon.org/2009/05/31/ends-never-justify-the-means/comment-page-1/#comment-621 lj Thu, 04 Jun 2009 23:25:42 +0000 http://www.squarewon.org/?p=1762#comment-621 whs - still no source. whs - still no source.

]]> By: whs http://www.squarewon.org/2009/05/31/ends-never-justify-the-means/comment-page-1/#comment-619 whs Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:03:15 +0000 http://www.squarewon.org/?p=1762#comment-619 You cite the Bill of Rights: No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . The "person" that is referenced is assumed to be a thinking, feeling sentient being, not an embryo. I believe an embryo is a potential person. I don't know how much more clear I can be. I said in the comment you posted above that "there is no evidence that will confirm or deny that claim, so we'll leave it at that." So that pretty much answers your question. That is my personal belief as well. As I said, there is no scientific consensus or proof confirming or denying my claim or your claim, so we can agree to disagree. To be honest, I'm not sure exactly what your argument is anymore. I tend to agree with the Supreme Court: We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade You cite the Bill of Rights: No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . .

The “person” that is referenced is assumed to be a thinking, feeling sentient being, not an embryo. I believe an embryo is a potential person. I don’t know how much more clear I can be.

I said in the comment you posted above that “there is no evidence that will confirm or deny that claim, so we’ll leave it at that.” So that pretty much answers your question. That is my personal belief as well. As I said, there is no scientific consensus or proof confirming or denying my claim or your claim, so we can agree to disagree. To be honest, I’m not sure exactly what your argument is anymore.

I tend to agree with the Supreme Court: We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

]]> By: lj http://www.squarewon.org/2009/05/31/ends-never-justify-the-means/comment-page-1/#comment-618 lj Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:05:50 +0000 http://www.squarewon.org/?p=1762#comment-618 whs - You said, in a comment above, "The question of when life begins is still very much debated to this day, so some folks would say there is a difference between living humans and an unborn fetus. That is your personal belief — there is no evidence that will confirm or deny that claim, so we’ll leave it at that." I asked for a valid scientific source for your statement. Some people don't believe in souls - having a soul or not does not determine justification for the taking of a human life. Sentient or not - the the taking of human life is killing. The intentional taking of the life of a non aggressive human life is murder The Bill of Rights, amendment V states, "No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . ." It doesn't mention thinking, feeling, awareness, age or the presence of a soul. whs -
You said, in a comment above, “The question of when life begins is still very much debated to this day, so some folks would say there is a difference between living humans and an unborn fetus. That is your personal belief — there is no evidence that will confirm or deny that claim, so we’ll leave it at that.”
I asked for a valid scientific source for your statement.
Some people don’t believe in souls - having a soul or not does not determine justification for the taking of a human life.
Sentient or not - the the taking of human life is killing. The intentional taking of the life of a non aggressive human life is murder
The Bill of Rights, amendment V states,
“No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .”
It doesn’t mention thinking, feeling, awareness, age or the presence of a soul.

]]>