That's funny- a family joke since son#1 has never really adapted to the shock of brothers and a sister. And once the hospital heard my howl they put me out like a light! Those were the days when women stayed in the hospital for 10 days-2 weeks after giving birth. My room- mate was married to a cop and had her fifth child- setting her hair in curlers- while I felt I had been run over by a truck. It got so much easier and wonderful as I became educated about pregnancy for I had to learn by myself. The only bargain I really struck with God was to give me healthy children- and He did.
On Jul 4, 10:03 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > Sounded like the Wraith from Stargate:Atlantis for a while there. > Same basic premise. I think you are right, Fran. Acts in themselves > can't be immoral but one must look at motivations. Much is excusable > when personal survival is the prime directive. I assume in these > novels diplomats were dispatched and a blood stained missive came back > much along the lines of "send more emissaries, meat eaters preferred." > If a regime change wouldn't work then complete genocide would be > necessary. > > I remember when my wife was pregnant I was in awe of the process. I > waited on her hand and foot and never loved her as much before or > since. It was cool to read to the 'fetus' and put my head on her > tummy and listen and feel the kicks and it was all really amazing. > However, at the time, the wife was my main concern. If there had been > a problem it would have been "take no chances, abort the baby." I > knew my wife, I loved her. I hadn't met my son; he was an idea not a > person to me yet. All that has changed, of course. > > I remember some fanciful discussion of what would we do if we found > out he wasn't our real son but there was a mix up at the hospital and > we got sent home with the wrong kid. It took no thinking on my part > at all for me to not want to give up the person I'd learned to love. > I'd want to get my biological child as well but if I was forced to > make a choice I'd keep the one I had. It was incomprehensible to me > that my wife didn't agree. I put it down to the fact that she'd want > the baby she carried for 9 months over the one she didn't. Too bad, > no trade. > > dj > > > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
