Originally posted by twhiteheadOf course there is a distinction between legal and moral norms, but that distinction is irrelevant to the point I was making with my question. If you think otherwise, then simply recast the question in terms of explicit moral norms (i.e., does the raped woman seeking an abortion commit as egregious a moral wrong as a woman seeking to murder a black man?). I would not fund a charity that seeks to kill black people for the obvious reasons, even if they did allow for earmarked donations. Consider just how vicious the motivations would have to be for such a charity. Consider how bizarre their view of persons and that which undergirds attributions of value to their lives. Such a charity would literally be insane. What assurance could I possibly have that any money I would give would do good, and what paucity of alternative charities would there have to be to make this charity a reasonable choice?
He has a good point. The sanction is not a legal one but a moral one and it is not important whether they are of the same level. He is pointing out that if you fund a charity that is doing something you disagree with for whatever reason you appear to be hypocritical.
Why would you not fund a charity that has a program that seeks to kill black people? Why ...[text shortened]... t I am pro choice myself but I think the Catholic church has a right to decide what it supports.
Originally posted by bbarrIf you think otherwise, then simply recast the question in terms of explicit moral norms (i.e., does the raped woman seeking an abortion commit as egregious a moral wrong as a woman seeking to murder a black man?).
Of course there is a distinction between legal and moral norms, but that distinction is irrelevant to the point I was making with my question. If you think otherwise, then simply recast the question in terms of explicit moral norms (i.e., does the raped woman seeking an abortion commit as egregious a moral wrong as a woman seeking to murder a black man?). I ...[text shortened]... aucity of alternative charities would there have to be to make this charity a reasonable choice?
Objectively (i.e. without consideration of particular circumstances), yes.
In a comparison of two particular cases, however, the moral culpability may be more, less or about the same for the raped woman depending on the particulars of those cases.
Originally posted by shavixmirAlmost makes me want to go grab my checkbook...
From the BBC:
[i]The Vatican has urged all Catholics to stop donating money to Amnesty International, accusing the human rights group of promoting abortion.
The Vatican also said it was suspending all financial aid to Amnesty over what it said was the group's recent change of policy on the issue.
Amnesty said it was not promoting abortion as a univ ...[text shortened]... ly stand humans up to a certain degree before that I feel they need a lesson teaching.
Originally posted by lucifershammerHow you equate a fully sentient man with a microscopic ball of undifferentiated cells and afford them equal rights, I will never understand. Such stupidity could only come from a man, who by definition has no real understanding of the abortion issue. Men are just frustrated because abortion is one of the very few things women still have control over. In your world, even God is male, so women having control over anything is just unthinkable.
[b]If you think otherwise, then simply recast the question in terms of explicit moral norms (i.e., does the raped woman seeking an abortion commit as egregious a moral wrong as a woman seeking to murder a black man?).
Objectively (i.e. without consideration of particular circumstances), yes.
In a comparison of two particular cases, however, ...[text shortened]... be more, less or about the same for the raped woman depending on the particulars of those cases.[/b]
Originally posted by whiterose[Mind-reader alert!]
How you equate a fully sentient man with a microscopic ball of undifferentiated cells and afford them equal rights, I will never understand. Such stupidity could only come from a man, who by definition has no real understanding of the abortion issue. Men are just frustrated because abortion is one of the very few things women still have control over. In your world, even God is male, so women having control over anything is just unthinkable.
How do you equate a fully sentient man with a 2 hour-old infant and afford them equal rights?
The rest of your post is just radical feminist plonk.
Originally posted by whiteroseas lucifershammer pointed out a 2 hour-old infant is accorded equal rights to a fully sentient man so the real comparison might be an ebryo 2 hours before birth or an embryo 2 hours after birth. Killing one is an abortion, killing the other is murder.
How you equate a fully sentient man with a microscopic ball of undifferentiated cells and afford them equal rights, I will never understand. Such stupidity could only come from a man, who by definition has no real understanding of the abortion issue. Men are just frustrated because abortion is one of the very few things women still have control over. In your world, even God is male, so women having control over anything is just unthinkable.
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmir" ..... But the group said that women had a right to choose, particularly in cases of rape or incest."[/i]
From the BBC:
[i]The Vatican has urged all Catholics to stop donating money to Amnesty International, accusing the human rights group of promoting abortion.
The Vatican also said it was suspending all financial aid to Amnesty over what it said was the group's recent change of policy on the issue.
Amnesty said it was not promoting abortion as a univ ly stand humans up to a certain degree before that I feel they need a lesson teaching.
Please notice the nuance.
"Amnesty said it was not promoting abortion as a universal right."
Well, that is a remarkable statement indeed.
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmir[/i] By the way .... you forgot to mention the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition and the Galileo case.
From the BBC:
[i]The Vatican has urged all Catholics to stop donating money to Amnesty International, accusing the human rights group of promoting abortion.
The Vatican also said it was suspending all financial aid to Amnesty over what it said was the group's recent change of policy on the issue.
Amnesty said it was not promoting abortion as a univ ly stand humans up to a certain degree before that I feel they need a lesson teaching.
Originally posted by shavixmirBe careful what you wish for. Have you not read Revelation?
Perhaps a great flood, but preferably a big bang.
I guess I'm a little like God myself. I can only stand humans up to a certain degree before that I feel they need a lesson teaching.[/b]
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, killing an infant 2 hours before birth is murder as that infant has the same sentient capacities as one which is two hours old. Both of these are considered murder under current law, at least where I live. A just conceived single celled zygote, however, does not have the same sentient capacities (or any sentient capacity, for that matter) and therefore should not be afforded equal rights.
as lucifershammer pointed out a 2 hour-old infant is accorded equal rights to a fully sentient man so the real comparison might be an ebryo 2 hours before birth or an embryo 2 hours after birth. Killing one is an abortion, killing the other is murder.