tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post6391165760635138587..comments2024-03-19T09:21:34.428-04:00Comments on the daily howler: Supplemental: Candidate Clinton, talking the Bible!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-12296719085276779362015-06-06T17:22:26.922-04:002015-06-06T17:22:26.922-04:00If you recognize the problem with killing people w...If you recognize the problem with killing people whose potential level of consciousness is limited you are making my point for recognizing that a fetus also should not be killed in most cases. And if it is a fetus whose potential can be assumed to be likely to not be limited by diseases you specify (the vast majority of fetuses who are killed), the point is even stronger. The onus is on me to justify killing a deer, which I could do, inadequately according to some animal rights advocates, by proclaiming an exceptionality of humanity because it's human. This might unfairly victimize some other animals but it at least protects all humans from destruction on certain bases we would both recognize as "wrong" regardless of how manifest their potential is or even could be. It would be hard to argue a human with a flatlined brain with no hope of any potential for improvement must be regarded as deserving of rights. But even thought grappling over that question takes place, fetuses are well in the clear. <br /><br />On birth control, the individuality of the fetus or embryo for its distinct, individual DNA has not yet occurred before conception and there is no existence of human life, which everyone from Pete Singer to the Pope agree begins at conception. <br /><br />I agree there are political ramifications for the pro-life position. But being of any particular political persuasion does not preclude holding or defending pro life position. <br /><br />It's hard to argue that progressive or liberal ideals do not <i> require</i> the position that abortion is wrong when committed for certain reasons we would not permit as reasons for killing a born human, and is unjustifiable in the vast majority of cases in the US, and that efforts to neutralize it as a moral or ethical question are wrong. A progressive or liberal has even more reason to hold these views than do conservatives whose religious beliefs hold that every fetus goes straight to Heaven.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-88888016608022229592015-06-06T10:43:59.458-04:002015-06-06T10:43:59.458-04:00If it's consistency you want, I don't thin...If it's consistency you want, I don't think you will get it. Your own rationale that humans, including fetuses, have intrinsic value (a term which I think is quite subjective) seems to be ruled out for animals because of their "limited potential for a certain level of consciousness." The same could be said for a lot of humans, e.g, severely retardation or advanced dementia (neither of which categories would I advocate should be killed). What about the morning after pill, where it isn't even known whether conception occurred? Is that immoral, when you are talking about some microscopic cells? What about birth control itself, which prevents potential humans from being born? You have to draw the line somewhere, and I think your way will cause greater human suffering, among other potential harms) than the alternative. The whole anti-abortion movement has the effect of enhancing politically anti-human right wing politicians.AC/MAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-66439856328441884602015-06-05T12:29:14.920-04:002015-06-05T12:29:14.920-04:00Do human beings have any intrinsic value? Some gr...Do human beings have any intrinsic value? Some groups have argued that other groups do not, offer rational support for their argument, and then proceed with a clear conscience with whatever atrocity they had in mind. The idea that human beings are intrinsically valuable is equally objective to any other moral truth. It would be founded the same way as any other proposition in a humanistic code. Through the application of certain premises we can logically preclude certain actions as moral or ethical. If you consider your own codes, you would say you "know" that genocide is wrong. There are arguments about why or how you know and how it is sourced in neurobiology, and how it can be considered objective, or close enough. Whether inarguably objective, the premises one accepts and applies rationally regarding the treatment of human beings inform "right and wrong." <br /><br />You would have to apply them to killing deer for sport, but the fact that the deer has limited potential for a certain level of consciousness or that as a humanist you do not see a reason for the general proposition that humans must be considered exceptionally important because of their membership in the species, might be factors in distinguishing it from the human. If you apply your premises to a fetus, there will be another example of a human being with a similar temporal status who isn't a fetus but whose execution must be opposed according to the humanist definition of "right and wrong." Simply declaring the fetus "not human enough" or leaning the term "fetus" and declaration "fetuses aren't protected" will not allow for consistency. The answer to "Where do you get your source of morality" frequently refers to moral intuition, the example of a parent looking at his child and asking himself whether he believes it would have been morally acceptable to kill the child at 4 months gestation, and finding the answer one of the easiest moral questions of any. Not because he subjectively knows the child now, but because he recognizes that never matter, but that the child had intrinsic value as a human individual then regardless of anyone's subjective experience of him. He would have deserved the same chance anyone else had, and not have deserved to be killed only because he could not control his rate of development. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-90278225075833483912015-06-05T08:36:09.887-04:002015-06-05T08:36:09.887-04:00
Am here to testify what this great spell caste...<br /><br /><br />Am here to testify what this great spell caster done for me. i never believe in spell casting, until when i was was tempted to try it. i and my husband have been having a lot of problem living together, he will always not make me happy because he have fallen in love with another lady outside our relationship, i tried my best to make sure that my husband leave this woman but the more i talk to him the more he makes me fell sad, so my marriage is now leading to divorce because he no longer gives me attention. so with all this pain and agony, i decided to contact this spell caster to see if things can work out between me and my husband again. this spell caster who was a woman told me that my husband is really under a great spell that he have been charm by some magic, so she told me that she was going to make all things normal back. she did the spell on my husband and after 5 days my husband changed completely he even apologize with the way he treated me that he was not him self, i really thank this woman her name is Dr Aluta she have bring back my husband back to me i want you all to contact her who are having any problem related to marriage issue and relationship problem she will solve it for you. her email is traditionalspellhospital@gmail.com she is a woman and she is great. wish you good time.<br />He cast spells for different purposes like<br />(1) If you want your ex back.<br />(2) if you always have bad dream<br />(3) You want to be promoted in your office.<br />(4) You want women/men to run after you.<br />(5) If you want a child.<br />(6) You want to be rich.<br />(7) You want to tie your husband/wife to be yours forever.<br />(8) If you need financial assistance.<br />(9) HIV/AIDS CURE<br />(10) is the only answer to that your problem of winning the lottery<br /> <br />Contact him today on: traditionalspellhospital@gmail.comAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11289534177301155692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-14829904990704235612015-06-05T05:17:30.422-04:002015-06-05T05:17:30.422-04:00Intrinsic value as you define it doesn't seem ...Intrinsic value as you define it doesn't seem to exist without someone attributing it to someone. Why does a foetus have intrinsic value, but a deer who is being killed for sport (sometimes maybe food) doesn't? It seems you've given this a lot of thought, but I think what you say is highly subjective, and not particularly rationalAC/MAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-53964105248940931932015-06-04T21:44:19.129-04:002015-06-04T21:44:19.129-04:00"Facts not in evidence unless your imagined a..."Facts not in evidence unless your imagined and seemingly paranoid beliefs about all others' motives and logic are considered "facts" in your world."<br /><br />Or these "facts" are formed by your religious beliefs, I'm told.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-10213906431300939072015-06-04T19:56:27.846-04:002015-06-04T19:56:27.846-04:00Intrinsic value. You imply for an individual to h...Intrinsic value. You imply for an individual to have value, someone else must assign it to him, someone who can logically then take it away simply by declaring that individual or his member group of no or negative value, (perhaps as he begins begin to consider most efficient means of extermination).<br /><br />But you’re right. If we decide the status of a fetus at 6 months gestation and exclude species and potential as a factor in that individual’s value, a duck would be more valuable than that individual, or than a temporarily comatose person, and, logically, adults more valuable than children, and persons with potential for high intelligence more valuable than those without.<br /><br />We routinely recognize potential as important. We lament the killing of a violent juvenile human being because he is at that point unformed and has the potential to change into something else, yet we countenance the killing of entirely innocent individuals who have limitless human potential but never committed any social harm other than involuntarily, temporarily inconveniencing their mother or father.<br /><br />What is ignored, because it must be, is the inconsistency of proclaiming they value a principle of the equal intrinsic value of every human, while eliminating the importance of potential for some but not others, or requiring an individual or group to be subjectively valued by others before they matter.<br /><br />One can reconcile his acceptance of abortion as unquestionably morally neutral if he selects a definition of “valuable human being” that precisely fits the status and condition the fetus would fulfill. The problem with that is easy to identify, and that position will entirely contradict other “principles” the abortion advocate would claim to hold. There are groups and movements throughout history that would never have cause to experience this kind of dissonance, but none anyone here would want to be included among.<br /><br />Abortion can be a complex question in an individual case and abortion rights a conceivably defensible position even if the human value of the fetus is acknowledged. But there is no basis in reality for believing that the vast majority of abortions that actually take place in current US society, for the reasons they take place, are anything but “wrong” or that the act does not violate the alleged ethical codes of even, maybe especially, most of those who support that legal right. Words like “fetus” and “person” only mean so much and are ultimately arbitrarily and subjectively defined, and meaningless to the ethical question. Yet “a fetus isn’t a person” or “a fetus at viability deserves protection but before then does not” constitute most of the argument from the “safe, legal, and as common as anyone wants it to be for any reason” side. Those are lousy arguments except as arbitrary legal gerrymandering devices, and completely irrelevant as ethical arguments.<br /><br />Publicly acknowledging abortion as negative, not neutral, and judging and acknowledging certain reasons for abortion as unethical, is better than what the left is furiously attempting to impose on society as the only acceptable position on the issue, in speech or in thought, namely a complete ethical comfort level with killing human beings, enforced for the purpose of eliminating any risk of hurt feelings of those who opted for it. (And it doesn’t matter whether those who do the judging can ever be pregnant, unless it also requires membership in an offending ethnic or national group to judge or criticize their elective genocide.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-12716060570022394132015-06-04T18:39:35.477-04:002015-06-04T18:39:35.477-04:00valuable to whom? I bet not to the ducks who are b...valuable to whom? I bet not to the ducks who are being shot at, who I would submit have a higher consciousness than unborn foetuses.AC / MAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-42378596994248589712015-06-04T16:44:45.931-04:002015-06-04T16:44:45.931-04:002:09 Please correct your comment. Men can have ab...2:09 Please correct your comment. Men can have abortions. Using "women" in abortion language excludes trans men.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-29982544490691790852015-06-04T16:15:00.306-04:002015-06-04T16:15:00.306-04:00It's probably one of the less useful factors i...It's probably one of the less useful factors in most elections.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-66025634131696474122015-06-04T16:06:05.551-04:002015-06-04T16:06:05.551-04:00I'm sure it is regarded as equivalent under ce...I'm sure it is regarded as equivalent under certain ethical systems. Humanism usually deals with what is moral with regard to humans foremost, and may designate human beings as exceptional by virtue of their DNA which will usually allow them to achieve a certain level of intelligence and consciousness, and all other species as less important for their lack of similar potential. Most humanists would not believe that euthanizing a dangerous dog is as bad as or worse than executing a violent human being.<br /><br />One may also select certain presently existing human traits or conditions as the basis for human exceptionality. This could allow for abortions in every case. It could also allow for killing a person of temporarily limited mental capacity or a newborn human being, where killing a 2 year old dog would be prohibited under those conditions required for protection of an individual being.<br /><br />There is logic in any of the above, but very little logic in believing abortion is not morally wrong if one believes human beings are inherently valuable and do not earn or lose their value by virtue of their presently developed level of consciousness, or cognitive and physical abilities, location, age, political power. An individual human being does not lose value by virtue of a society or his mother deciding he has none.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-12494686119065985852015-06-04T15:13:56.677-04:002015-06-04T15:13:56.677-04:00"Being anti-abortion or "pro-life" ..."Being anti-abortion or "pro-life" has nothing to do with protecting children or fetuses. It's about making sure women know they're second-class citizens."<br /><br />Facts not in evidence unless your imagined and seemingly paranoid beliefs about all others' motives and logic are considered "facts" in your world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-65304658315564215792015-06-04T14:49:56.499-04:002015-06-04T14:49:56.499-04:00"...and not true for others."
Facts not..."...and not true for others."<br /><br />Facts not in evidence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-55254177958158358762015-06-04T14:48:35.841-04:002015-06-04T14:48:35.841-04:00"...many voters do regard a candidate's p..."...many voters do regard a candidate's professed religious beliefs as important to understanding what informs their morality."<br /><br />That may be true, but it doesn't make any sense. When it comes to elections, religion is just a distraction posited by the elites.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-26279622207825050532015-06-04T14:39:34.856-04:002015-06-04T14:39:34.856-04:00The discussion is about whether Hillary Clinton...The discussion is about whether Hillary Clinton's bible bonding should have been mentioned in an article because of the fact that many voters do regard a candidate's professed religious beliefs as important to understanding what informs their morality. If the candidate has claimed the religion does inform it, the exchange with the fellow believer probably should be mentioned. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-56010114896706177502015-06-04T14:32:49.029-04:002015-06-04T14:32:49.029-04:00That's true for some who declare themselves pr...That's true for some who declare themselves pro-life, and not true for others.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-47356206716638864962015-06-04T14:17:16.175-04:002015-06-04T14:17:16.175-04:00Exceptions are made in societies for general prohi...Exceptions are made in societies for general prohibitions against killing. We normally would regard as self-evidently immoral a proposition that individuals may be killed if they are of current limited mental capacity that will almost definitely change toward their becoming conscious and developing a certain level of intelligence in time (i.e, all infants, fetuses, and children, those under anesthesia or in a coma, etc.) or are even regressing (dementia), are of limited physical capacity (Stephen Hawking), have never committed any social wrongdoing, have no political power or defense. <br /><br />All human beings were the same individuals at 4 weeks gestation and 6 months gestation and 5 years post-birth and 15 years post-birth. Only a psychopath who is beholding his child would be comfortable with the thought of having killed his child at 4 weeks gestation or believes that his children's lives only became valuable when he visually perceived them, or that before they reached a level of mental or physical capacity, his children were morally expendable by virtue of their power, temporary mental/physical capacity, and location. Moral acceptance of abortion as it occurs in the vast majority of cases now, comes with (usually unconsciously) considering the subjective experience of other people with regard to an innocent human individual (seeing, knowing or valuing him as "human"), as being a factor in an individual or group's moral right to live. We’ve seen that movie. <br /><br />Government probably shouldn't prohibit a pregnant woman from killing her child since with the exception of the draft we consider it intrusive overreach to force citizens to donate the use of their bodies or organs to ensure the survival of another, even their child negligently produced. However, it's absurd to say an abortion isn't killing her child. It is also absurdly morally inconsistent to believe there is something virtuous in not declaring abortion, the killing of human beings, “wrong” except under what are currently extremely rare circumstances. It can only be consistent for those whose moral code designates hurting feelings as a worse offense than killing innocent human beings.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-21559200862778351162015-06-04T14:13:03.747-04:002015-06-04T14:13:03.747-04:00Having a political belief because of your religion...Having a political belief because of your religion is like having a certain political belief because of the color of your hair. The color of your hair and your religion are both irrelevant to the discussion.<br /><br />BertoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-8975544239823444172015-06-04T14:09:46.166-04:002015-06-04T14:09:46.166-04:00Being anti-abortion or "pro-life" has no...Being anti-abortion or "pro-life" has nothing to do with protecting children or fetuses. It's about making sure women know they're second-class citizens.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-79747999560116167392015-06-04T13:47:15.373-04:002015-06-04T13:47:15.373-04:00Being against killing human beings has little or n...Being against killing human beings has little or nothing to do with religion. I am a pro choice secular humanist and think abortion is morally wrong in the vast majority of instances. It isn't known if Hillary's original position is based solely in her religion or based in other moral sources but it would violate her religion to endorse affirmatively eliminating rare as one of her originally accepted conditions under which abortion should take place.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-11195930112697460132015-06-04T12:32:20.587-04:002015-06-04T12:32:20.587-04:0012:15 Are you arguing that religious people are ag...12:15 Are you arguing that religious people are against killing human beings? This would be a surprise to the many (many) people who have been killed by other people in the name of religion. Is their religion "phony" too?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-2815847481571561902015-06-04T12:27:55.377-04:002015-06-04T12:27:55.377-04:00It is my understanding that it is lawful to kill h...It is my understanding that it is lawful to kill human beings in almost every society. The argument is not whether we can lawfully kill a human being, but under what circumstances is it allowable to kill another human being. Unless you want to argue that is can never be lawful for a human being to be killed, the the fact that we have a law that allows abortions under some circumstances must be accepted as a reasonable (even if not entirely acceptable) use of law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-20646969104370356172015-06-04T12:15:39.356-04:002015-06-04T12:15:39.356-04:00It's an important issue and whether Clinton ch...It's an important issue and whether Clinton changes her tune on it from her longstanding "safe legal and rare" position now that her party has decided there is nothing wrong with killing certain groups of humans, is relevant to whether her bible thumping is worth acknowledging in news articles or phony.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-67942891322160247642015-06-04T08:57:31.660-04:002015-06-04T08:57:31.660-04:00Once again, the fetus-obsessed fanatics try to hij...Once again, the fetus-obsessed fanatics try to hijack a thoughtful discussion about a serious issue. We get it. You don't like women's legal freedom of choice in reproductive health. Go away.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-21210681999523530612015-06-04T00:47:07.133-04:002015-06-04T00:47:07.133-04:00If this all confuses you, go back to school.If this all confuses you, go back to school.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com