Posts by James Bremner
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Re: this article: http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=592291
That's an interesting article, James. What is your take on it?What is my take? That the road to hell is paved with what those doing the paving would insist are good intentions.
Those promoting eugenics thought that they were right and that they were doing the world a favor. We now look upon their work with horror.
There is some unmistakable crossover between eugenics and concepts discussed previously on this thread, such as personhood. Whether that was the intention or not, I don't know, but personhood seems to me to be a construct that achieves the dehumanization of a fetus, an unborn baby, an elderly person with problems like Alzheimer’s or an handicapped person to a point where people feel justified and comfortable whacking those we don't deem to have personhood. Not a nice place to be in my view.
A thought process that can be interpreted without twisting or stretching as justifying infanticide is just plain wrong. But I am sure the intentions were good, it is just that somewhere along the road things went horribly wrong. A thought process that arrives at such a destination should automatically be discarded. Perhaps a case of having to be very smart to be so stupid.
I read an article a while ago that compared elective abortion with slavery (elective abortion having nothing to do with the health and wellbeing of the mother or issues such as rape and incest etc.) A couple of centuries ago people thought slavery was just fine, a perfectly normal thing to do (except for a few Christian extremists, those damn Christians!!). And now we look at slavery as an abomination, a grotesque moral wrong. But perhaps with relativism increasingly prevailing, where you can get to anywhere you want to go, such moral clarity is less likely to occur.
-
Well this thread has certainly gone on for a while.
Just came across this article that is relevant to some of the concepts discussed approvingly in previous posts. You can quite quickly get onto a slippery slope into a dark, dark world.
-
I read Deborah's long post linked to a while back and recommended as a worthwhile read. Deborah said that abortion was morally permissible:
because a fetus is not a full human being, and it does not have the same moral standing as full human beings. A full human being, even quite a small one, has hopes and dreams, thoughts for the future and the past, it can conceive of itself as existing in relation to itself, in relation to other people.
I have a one week old baby son, who I very much doubt has “hopes and dreams, thoughts for the future” and most definitely cannot “conceive of itself as existing in relation to itself, in relation to other people”. According to Deborah's logic, it would be okay to abort my week old son, and okay until he is a bit older. I beg to differ, very strongly. That is just repugnant thinking, appalling. If you read some of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's musings on abortion you come away with the same impression.
How it is that in the year 2008 when we are so concerned about everyone’s and everything's rights, yet we can be so casual about ending the life of an unborn baby? It is a huge contradiction in much of prevailing modern thought. Is it the self-absorbed, narcissistic me!! me!! me!! culture that we live in? I don't know. But look at a 3-D ultrasound past the first trimester and tell me that that isn’t a baby that deserves to be cared for and protected.
But I do know that a big part of the problem (the biggest part?) are men who want to get their leg over without caring to take precautions and having no intentions of taking responsibility for their actions. For that reason alone abortion needs to be legal, but it should be earlier rather than later. Viability is just way too far along.
-
Stephen Judd wrote:
James: it seems to me that if you're prepared to acknowledge exceptions for certain causes of pregnancy, that totally undercuts any argument based on "unborn babies' rights". Accepting the notion of unborn children and their rights for the moment: if you have a right to life, how can it be contingent on how you came into being?
The effect of these exceptions, whether intended or not, is to punish women for having the wrong kind of sex, ie voluntary.
Fair point. Abortion is a very difficult subject with plenty of grey areas, any set of rules will have downsides. Either extreme, not at all or no restrictions whatsoever are wrong, so the issue will be where do you draw the line and what exceptions (if any) are allowed. -
I didn't add medical and rape/incest exceptions to my suggested solution in my previous post.
-
Here is a link to a study performed in New Zealand that finds that young women who have had abortions may suffer from increased mental health risks, which undermines the basis for most abortions performed around the world. I think 98% of abortions in NZ and about 90% in the UK are performed on the basis that it is necessary for the mental health and well being of the woman. If this research is confirmed, it will force a major rethink and rewrite or abortion laws.
http://www.chmeds.ac.nz/research/chds/view1.pdf
I think abortion right up to viability, 24 weeks, is grotesque. Killing a baby (and that is what it is at that stage) who can almost survive on its own is so wrong, it is amazing to think that in this day and age, when we are so obsessed with everyone and everything's rights, that we can’t agree that this is wrong.
My second son was born last Thursday so his ultra sounds are very fresh in my memory. With ultra sounds, and especially 3D ultra sound, we can't hide from what an abortion is. I read a description of a partial birth abortion few years ago which changed me from a pro choice position to believing that there needs to be significant limitations to protect unborn children.
I read an article (that I can't find to link to) that stated that current research into fetal pain pegged the 16th week as the time by which the fetus is sufficiently developed to feel pain. So on that basis perhaps a sensible solution would be abortion on demand, surgical or chemical (RU 486) up to 12 or 14 weeks, with counseling and support, and a discussion of alternatives such as adoption. I think in France and Portugal they have a 12 week limit of abortion.
It isn't a perfect world, so there will never be a perfect solution to this issue. Perhaps this strikes a practical balance between the rights of sufficiently developed unborn babies and the needs of women.
-
James, firstly your definition of the WaPo as the 'liberal media' when one considers how hard they banged the drum for the Iraq war is just plain odd.
Simon,
In 2002 the NYT printed a number of articles about Saddam's WMDs. Does that make the NYT a card carrying member of the vast right wing conspiracy? What is odd is any contention that the WaPo is anything other than liberal leaning.And no, I am not having an unpleasant gloat fest. Yes, absolutely, add any qualification you want to, Iraq and Afghanistan have a long way to go, lots of problems; things are far from perfect on the ground now etc. etc. But the fact is that Iraq in particular has had a pretty remarkable change of direction, from going downward to making progress and heading toward a positive future. So I guess now they question for all the virulent war opponents is does your sense of humanity outweigh your ideology and hatred of the US and Bush? If it does, you will be pleased to see the progress and hopeful for the future of Iraq and Iraqis. If not, then they will still be full of piss and vinegar and clinging to any negative information in the hope of screeching “I told you so!!”
That was a pretty amazing set of articles I linked to previously. Iraq going well, the Taliban getting whipped and Al Qaeda on the ropes. That is all just amazing, and amazingly good, no other words for it. The inescapable conclusion is that a lot of the right things have been being done for sometime. It is sad if you can’t be positive about all this news too.
-
Craig,
If my memory serves me correctly, Seblius has vetoed several bills restricting late term abortion, which is more then enough reason to be denied communion. I find it difficult to comprehend how it is that in 2008, late term abortions are carried out in a civilized society. It is just grotesque.A better question might be why she hasn't been excommunicated yet. Still, this is the Catholic Church which protected pedophile priests for decades, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
-
Deborah,
What a load of bollocks. Being screwed around on is more than grounds for divorce. If people can work it out and stay together, then good for them. But staying in a marriage when you are continuing to be screwed around on is not a good thing at all, emotionally or physically. I would have thought feminism would have been about women getting out of that kind of situation, rather than staying in it. -
Craig,
You are correct about the Republican party. They got spanked in 06 over spending, earmarks and corruption, but they don't seem to have learnt a thing. Just the other day they joined the Dems in passing a massive and bloated and in todays high agricultural prices, totally unneccessary Farm bill. With today's high gas prices pissing everyone off, they should be beating the Dems like a rented mule over the fact that the Dems have for decades prevented any expansion of drilling and production of oil in the US which would make a huge difference (and reduce the importance of the Middle East). But what are they doing on this? Nothing, absolutely nothing. It is like they want to be beaten, it is pathetic.