I could have died with my first pregnancy- toxemia, a brace to tip my womb forward. A very dumb husband. Seven years later I had my second son and fell in delirious love with him. Was separated half the time with husband #2. Had to fight to have my last two children- I had been in highschool with my ob/gyn- and he knew I had health and relationship problems galore- I won. His head nurse guided me through. Suddenly the father discovered the advantage grandchildren might bring him regarding his parents- this after he sent a banker friend to announce he would send $25. a month for child support- if the child lived. He was a misplaced Nazi.//The children saved me- taught me everything worth keeping in life. Viva Motherhood!
On Jul 4, 3:35 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think we will find the sort of common ground you're looking > for, Alan. You want agreement on intrinsically immoral acts, I do not > accept this category of thinking. It is not acts that are immoral, > rather those that carry them out. And this implies that we must always > look at the actors and the specific situation. > > Slavery was accepted throughout most societies throughout recorded > history up to the 19th. Century C.E. as part of the natural order. > Paul of Tarsus sent the runaway slave Onesimus, who had become a > Christian, back to his master, Philemon, with an accompanying letter. > > Let us take an even more extreme example; genocide. We would agree > that, generally, genocide is morally reprehensible. I would go so far > as to claim that in the sense which I outlined in my initial post it > falls under a moral norm which condemns it. But is genocide an > intrinsically immoral act, in every circumstance? > > Join me, if you will, on a small journey into science fiction. > Somewhere out there in our galaxy, there exists a carnivorous, > intelligent race, which has a drastically simple law-of-the-jungle > view of life; eat or be eaten. They have developed an advanced > technology which allows them to travel between the stars and an > extremely powerful and sophisticated military capacity. Their reaction > on encountering other intelligent races is to wage devasting war on > them, reducing the survivors of the races defeated to cattle-slaves, > kept living and bred solely for the purpose of nutrition. They react > to contacts from other races - including attempts to communicate - in > only one way; sudden, complete, aggressive warfare. One day, they > encounter humanity, which at that stage has itself become an > interstellar polity. The first, disastrous contacts lead to the > conquest/destruction of a number of human-settled panets. Billions die > (millions of these through being eaten). > > Having geared up for war, humanity is faced with a simple, horrifying > choice - fighting these aliens to complete destruction/genocide, or > being completely destroyed itself, thus leaving these monsters free to > continue to destroy intelligent beings throughout the galaxy. Under > such circumstances, the concept of genocide as an intrinsically evil > act becomes deeply questionable. > > The idea isn't from me, but from the authors David Weber and Steve > White in the two sf novels, "In Death Ground", and "The Shiva > Option".http://www.amazon.com/Death-Ground-David-Weber/dp/0671877798/ref=sr_1...http://www.amazon.com/Shiva-Option-David-Weber/dp/074347144X/ref=pd_s... > > The title of the second volume describes the terrible moral question > which humanity and its allies have to face. > > Francis > > On 4 Jul., 20:10, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Thanks for clarifying. I now understand that yours is not an argument > > from premises to conclusions but an “ insight that moral decisions are > > inevitably situational.”. This insight is by no means self-evident. > > How would you demonstrate it to a skeptic such as myself? For if > > abortion is not an example of an intrinsically immoral act, nothing > > is. > > > If you disagree, I am happy seek common ground, and substitute some > > example that you and I might agree is an intrinsically immoral act. > > How about chattel slavery? > > > On Jul 4, 9:35 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Alan, even in your short post, you managed to misrepresent my train of > > > thinking twice - and that immediately after quoting it! > > > > Firstly, you ask why the dispute over abortion led me to "conclude" > > > that moral decisions are situational. If you read the short sentence > > > you quoted more carefully you will see that I actually said that "the > > > abortion question > > > underlines for me the insight that moral decisions are inevitably > > > situational." This is a method of arguing which offers an example to > > > illustrate a more general point, not a logical progression from a > > > particular argument to a more general conclusion. > > > > You repeat this in your final paragraph, but add a "therefore", also > > > not present in the original text. > > > > I went on to point out that I am well aware of the fact that my way of > > > thinking is not congenial to those such as you (if my understanding of > > > you as someone taking a basically scholastic-Thomistic position is > > > correct) who argue from a natural law standpoint. My experience over a > > > number of years in a traditional Thomistic intellectual environment is > > > that Kant has always been seen as the most serious opponent. This is > > > why Bernard Lonergan's version of transcendental Thomism has always > > > been regarded with such suspicion by those who regard themselves as > > > orthodox Thomists - too much Kantian influence (apart from the fact > > > that Lonergan was a Jesuit and many Dominican scholastics see > > > themselves as having a divine call to preserve the purity of thomistic > > > thought; Jesuits and Dominicans never agree :-)). > > > > "An intrinsically > > > immoral act is one that is not situational, and can /never/ be > > > justified. Procured abortion is offered as an instance." > > > Could you elaborate on this assertion? Or, put more colloquially, "sez > > > who?" > > > > Francis > > > > On 4 Jul., 17:55, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > "In the area of thinking about morality, the abortion question > > > > underlines for me the insight that moral decisions are inevitably > > > > situational (which does not mean relativist)." > > > > > I suppose we should start with term clarifications. An intrinsically > > > > immoral act is one that is not situational, and can /never/ be > > > > justified. Procured abortion is offered as an instance. > > > > > Why would the dispute over abortion lead one to conclude "moral > > > > decisions are situational"? I just don't follow this -- I tried to > > > > reverse-engineer the reasoning. It seems to go like this. > > > > > We disagree about X. > > > > Therefore, X is situational. > > > > > It just doesn't follow. From the /fact/ of disagreement, what > > > > follows? If I am misstating your argument, please lay it out. What > > > > leads one to conclude "therefore moral decisions are inevitably > > > > situational". Inevitably situational? That sounds pretty absolute! > > > > > On Jul 4, 7:55 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > The abortion "hand grenade" has been fizzing around on the "What is > > > > > Evil?" thread for a while now - I think Alan W. threw it in > > > > > originally, so let's cordon it off in its own thread, shall we? At the > > > > > same time, I'll try to put it into a wider context here, in the hope > > > > > that it might even exemplarily give rise to a wider discussion. > > > > > Reluctantly - because I am a man and I feel that we men should take a > > > > > very subordinate role in this discussion, as we don't get pregnant > > > > > and - literally - don't get left holding the baby. > > > > > > In an ideal world, abortion would hardly be necessary. Young people > > > > > would be universally and adequately educated in sexual issues before > > > > > reaching puberty, reliable means of contraception would be universally > > > > > easily available, sexual violence (i.e. rape) would be non-existent, > > > > > young people reaching fertility would develop in an environment where > > > > > they could discover, experiment with, learn to deal with, cherish and > > > > > enjoy their sexuality in the knowledge of the possible consequences > > > > > and take responsible reproductive decisions in this context. Children > > > > > would be born into a society which really cherished them and provided > > > > > for circumstances in which they could develop and thrive as human > > > > > beings, and their mothers (and fathers) would receive all the support > > > > > neccessary to provide a loving and secure environment for their > > > > > children. > > > > > > We do not live in such a world. Daily, thousands of women discover > > > > > that they are pregnant, although they have not wished to be so and do > > > > > not - for many different reasons - feel that they can take on the > > > > > responsibility of caring for a child. Some carry through with the > > > > > preganancy and do a magnificent job of rearing the unplanned child. > > > > > Some carry through with the pregnancy and make a complete mess of > > > > > rearing the child, damaging its life and their own enormously in the > > > > > process. Some terminate the pregnancy. > > > > > > This is never an easy decision and none of the women I know who have > > > > > terminated pregnancies have taken it lightly. They all pay a high > > > > > price for it, for a few, a price with which they have great problems > > > > > dealing, even years later. The last things any woman faced with this > > > > > fateful decision needs (whichever way the decision goes) are attitudes > > > > > of condemnation, legal barriers, people who claim to know better > > > > > taking over their lives, etc. And emotionally loaded slogans like > > > > > "baby murder" are completely inappropriate - as are attacks on those > > > > > who choose to aid them, should they decide to terminate the pregnancy. > > > > > > Legally prohibiting abortion solves nothing. I can cite as a > > > > > particularly apt example my own homeland, Ireland. Abortion is illegal > > > > > in Ireland - the country is, in the view of those who support this > > > > > position, "pro-life." All it means is that many women with sufficient > > > > > social competence and financial means who have an unwanted pregnancy > > > > > travel to the UK and obtain an abortion there (the estimates are > > > > > thousands yearly). Those without these advantages - as a rule, the > > > > > ones least equipped to provide an adequate environment for a new > > > > > member of the human race - carry the pregnancy to term > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
