Kevorkian Papers and the Culture of Death

"Well, let's take what people think is a dignified death. Christ was that a dignified death? Do you think it's dignified to hang from wood with nails through your hands and feet bleeding, hang for three or four days slowly dying, with people jabbing spears into your side, and people jeering you? Do you think that's dignified? Not by a long shot. Had Christ died in my van with people around Him who loved Him, the way it was, it would be far more dignified. In my rusty van."

Jack Kevorkian - National Press Club - July 29, 1996


http://www.kevork.org/

Originally posted by ivanhoe
"Well, let's take what people think is a dignified death. Christ was that a dignified death? Do you think it's dignified to hang from wood with nails through your hands and feet bleeding, hang for three or four days slowly dying, with people jabbing spears into your side, and people jeering you? Do you think that's dignified? Not by a long shot. Had Chri ...[text shortened]... n."

Jack Kevorkian - National Press Club - July 29, 1996


http://www.kevork.org/

Originally posted by ivanhoe
"Well, let's take what people think is a dignified death. Christ was that a dignified death? Do you think it's dignified to hang from wood with nails through your hands and feet bleeding, hang for three or four days slowly dying, with people jabbing spears into your side, and people jeering you? Do you think that's dignified? Not by a long shot. Had Chri ...[text shortened]... n."

Jack Kevorkian - National Press Club - July 29, 1996


http://www.kevork.org/

"….Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death.

The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected…Certainly this has required placing relative values on human lives and the impact of the physician in this decision process has been considerable.

One may anticipate further development of these roles as the problems of birth control and birth selection are extended inevitably to death selection and death control whether by the individual or by society…"

Originally posted by ivanhoe

"….Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uteri ...[text shortened]... ded inevitably to death selection and death control whether by the individual or by society…"

Originally posted by ivanhoe
"….Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, ... "

Isn't this exactly what you are doing bbar ?

" .....One may anticipate further development of these roles as the problems of birth control and birth selection are extended inevitably to death selection and d ...[text shortened]... y society…"

Isn't that what will be the result of the present developements in bioethics ?

Originally posted by bbarr
No, I have never claimed that abortion isn't an instance of killing. I do think that abortion isn't an instance of killing a person, at least in the early stages of a pregnancy. This is something of which you should be aware, given our ea ...[text shortened]... lved in killing. So, your own actions are instances of killing.

Originally posted by bbarr
No, I have never claimed that abortion isn't an instance of killing. I do think that abortion isn't an instance of killing a person, at least in the early stages of a pregnancy. This is something of which you should be aware, given our earlier conversation in one of the euthanasia threads and the recent discussion in the abortion thread. Every time you ta ...[text shortened]... ustry that is essentially involved in killing. So, your own actions are instances of killing.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Bbarr: "Every time you take an antibiotic, or eat your vegetables, you are either directly engaged in or supporting an industry that is essentially involved in killing. So, your own actions are instances of killing."

Do you really believe this ? Semantic gymnastics, that's what it is. Some people love it.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Bbarr: "Every time you take an antibiotic, or eat your vegetables, you are either directly engaged in or supporting an industry that is essentially involved in killing. So, your own actions are instances of killing."

Do you really believe this ? Semantic gymnastics, that's what it is. Some people love it.

Originally posted by bbarr
Ivanhoe, you should know by now that calling an argument 'semantic (sic) gymnastics" is merely just an ad hominem fallacy. Let's traffic in arguments, not name calling.

You want to say that an abortion is an instance of killing. Fine. I reply that taking antibiotics, etc. are also instances of killing. This is beyond dispute. You, however, want to c ...[text shortened]... cy, or trying to refute the argument through providing a counter-argument. The choice is yours.

Ivanhoe, I think you are practicing "hostile reading" when reading Bbarr's posts; I've seen nothing here that would suggest that Bbar is considering his own view as the only rational one, yet that seems to be how you're reading it. I'm suggesting that you're not giving Bbarr's posts the benefit of the doubt.

Look at it again, from Bbarr's post:

"You want to say that an abortion is an instance of killing. Fine. I reply that taking antibiotics, etc. are also instances of killing. This is beyond dispute. You, however, want to claim that the killing done in abortion is morally wrong. That means you'll have to come up with some property or set of properties a thing must have if the killing of it is to be considered morally wrong.

If you fail to do this, then I really can't take your view intellectually seriously, as it would imply that all killing is wrong, even when the killing is brought about by taking antibiotics."

What Bbar is arguing here is that in order for your position to be inteligeable and consistent, in order for it to be such that it is reasonable to ask other people to consider it, you must distinguish what makes killing in abortion morally wrong in your view, as opposed to the kinds of killings that you have no moral objection to - i.e. the killing of viruses and bacteria. Now what he's asking is hardly unreasonable or "tyrannical", and if you give it a little thought, you'll find that it shouldn't even prove difficult at all for you to provide an answer!

After all, all that is required is for you to point out something important that distinguishes a human zygote from other forms of simple life in such a way as to demand a different treatment.

From reading your posts, I get the picture that you don't trust that your views have resonable basis, and thus are reluctant to look for them in an argument, preferring to argue against the very process of asking for reasonable basis for moral views. This makes you miss possible reasonable replies even when they are clearly available.

While I don't usually argue for cases I don't entirely agree with, a better answer to Bbarr's post would have been, for example, that a human zygote possesses the potential to develop into an sentient beeing, while a virus or bacteria does not, and this difference makes fetuses in early development different enough from simple lifeforms to demand special protection. This would be one consistent and defensible view.

Alternatively, you could say that you believe that humans have souls that are created at conception, and that might come to harm or suffering as a result of killing the zygote. This too would be a consistent view, and I'm sure reasonable within your world view.

Your objections to the demands of reasonability, you accusations of a sort of a "totalitarian" way in which people that disagree with you on these matters argue their point don't work, for the simple reason that there are many consistent positions, each reasonable within a certain world view, and thus it would be unreasonable for someone to argue that his position is the only reasonable one. Applying reason on real-world problems doesn't lead to single absolutely correct views, but rather merely weeds out the unreasonable answers. Thus if your view is "true" in some sense, it is also reasonable. If you can't defend it by exposing that reasoning, then that is surely not the failing of those that ask for the reasoning. What is beeing argued is the reasonable requirement that if you are to ask others to believe as you do, you should at least demonstrate how your position is internally consistent, and reasonable within your worldview.

In the case of abortion, from the point of view of the Christian wordlview, I should think that the task isn't that difficult.

-Jarno

I'm not calling one of your arguments semantic gymnastics. I'm calling your whole way of reasoning semantic or word gymnastics.

And this isn’t merely an ad hominem fallacy? I present arguments for my views, if the very act of presenting arguments is to engage in word gymnastics, then although you start with different premises, you also engage in word gymnastics.

You've stated that you acknowledge the limitations of Reason and Logic. You do NOT.

Well, when you use the terms Reason and Logic, with capital letters and all, I get confused as to what it is to which you are referring. I acknowledge that certain forms of reasoning are limited. For instance, you’ll never be able to deduce what will happen in the future based solely on the course of past experience. That would require inductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning. Also, inductive reasoning can’t show itself to be reasonable, because that would be circular. Also, deductive reasoning can’t prove itself necessarily truth-preserving, for any step in such a proof would itself require an application of a deductive rule of inference, and hence the whole proof would be circular. What such a proof can show is merely that if deductive inferences is ever truth preserving, then it is always or necessarily truth preserving. In fact, this is a general rule about inferences of any sort: No form of inference can show itself to be a good form of inference. But notice that you also make inferences according to certain rules. You make inferences of the sort: “If God forbids X, then X ought not be done”, and “Killing humans is wrong, fetuses are humans, so killing fetuses is wrong”, and so on. These inferences themselves will require the same justification you require of my inferences, and so if you impugn reasoning itself, you undermine your own position. Additionally, the very raising of an objection to the use of reasoning and logic requires the use of reasoning and logic. If you think reasoning and logic are flawed, then why should I pay attention to your claim that they are flawed, given that you have to employ reasoning and logic to even raise such an objection? For better or worse, we are stuck with reasoning and logic, and we can’t coherently raise global doubts about their efficacy, for such global doubts themselves are only meaningful if the reasoning and logic used to raise those doubts was sound. So, your position in this matter is self-refuting.

You present your ideas as being the truth.

No, I present my beliefs as being true, but everyone does that. If you believe that P, you believe that P is true. So whenever anyone presents a belief, they present that belief as true, just in virtue of it being a belief. So, again, when you tell us what you believe, you do just what I do. What I don’t do is merely insist on the truth of my beliefs. I present arguments in their favor, and I am open to counter-arguments aimed to show that my beliefs are false. This is what a good debate consists in.

That is an attitude you criticise in others.

This is false. I criticize those who are so wedded to their beliefs that they see them as impervious to argument.

If you do acknowledge the limitations of Reason and Logic, then please clarify what you think these limitations are, especially in relation to Love. Reading your posts this must be a piece of cake for you.

Well, the first part of this question I’ve addressed above. As to the second part, I don’t really understand what it is you are asking. If you clarify what you have in mind I’ll be more than happy to answer.

The choice is mine as you have stated so correctly. My choice is to GIVE every human being the Right to Live from the very moment he or she comes into existance, meaning at the moment of conception.

Rights aren’t something you give to people, Ivanhoe. Rights are things all persons (not all human organisms) have, regardless of your choices.

Your reasoning is objective as you have claimed. That means that everybody is obliged to accept your logical reasoning or else he is being irrational and not to be taken seriously. THAT bbarr is your way of forcing people to accept your ways of reasoning and your ideas. The reasoning in itself shows the forcing nature of the Culture of Death ideology. In the end it will take away peoples choices. You are doing this not only to the unborn, they will not be able to make any choices at all, but you also want to take away MY choice of giving, out of love, the Right to Live to ALL human beings. Therefore the essence of the Culture of Death is dictatorship and not freedom. This is the biggest lie in this ideology. It only gives the illusion of freedom of choice. It presents people the ILLUSION that we can determine by sheer reasoning alone what is morally wrong and what is morally right. That also is a misconception and a lie. I know that I cannot prove that this is a misconception. You know that too. Because proof is a forcing way to get people to accept things. I CANNOT force people to accept these concepts, the same way I cannot force people to accept love as a way to deal with ALL human beings. There is no proof for that either. Love as you know is free and transcends Reason. We need both.

Blah, blah, blah, Culture of Death, blah. As to the last part, I don’t know what you mean when you use the term ‘Reason’. I understand particular forms of reasoning, inductive, deductive, abductive, etc. But these aren’t in conflict with our ability to love one another. Indeed, our ability to reason helps us form and maintain nourishing personal relationships.

You Bbarr want it the other way around. You want Reason to surpass Love. It will prove to be a disaster. I cannot prove that. Reality alone can prove this.

This claim is completely meaningless, as far as I can tell. Since I don’t think there is such a thing as Reason, but merely different forms of reasoning as stated above, I don’t think it makes sense to talk of Reason surpassing Love. Additionally, I don’t know what you mean when you use the term Love, although I know what it means to be in love, to fall in love, to love passionately, to love as a friend, etc. But as I said above, I don’t see how our ability to engage in forms of reasoning will interfere with our capacity to love one another.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
I'm not calling one of your arguments semantic gymnastics. I'm calling your whole way of reasoning semantic or word gymnastics.

You've stated that you acknowledge the limitations of Reason and Logic. You do NOT. Your whole reasoning and your attitude in debates are witnesses to that. You present your ideas as being the truth. That is an attitude you cr ...[text shortened]... It will prove to be a disaster. I cannot prove that. Reality alone can prove this.

Originally posted by LittleBear
Please resign, ivanhoe. Your personal attacks against bbarr are a total nonsense. If you are trying to make him appear as the bad guy of the movie, the only thing you are getting is to put yourself in a ridiculous position. bbar has a formal preparation that cannot be beaten. Since my early days into the knowledge engineering profession, I have not seen ...[text shortened]... ast time too that I'll put my paw 🙂 into this debate.

Regards
Michael (aka LittleBear)