September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« Links Mentioned on the Show | Main | Is God Anti-Gay? »

July 10, 2013

Comments

And apparently only when someone disagrees with you am I being irrational. It is too bad that you are so close minded and hateful towards others. I hope you all can eventually see that you don't get to choose morals for others...and instead concentrate on your own morals without preaching to others....

Wisdom I don't blame your wife for being shrewish.... nice way to disrespect your wife. You sound like a peach.

Are we to say, "Glad we got that all cleared up..." or ?

I like the concept of a "de facto guardian", but the set up in Wagner's article is not analogous. I don't think he makes an effective case. He may be onto something concept, but he falls short. In the violinist argument, Thompon's scenario is strongest in defending the right of the woman in the case of rape, but doesn't really make a case for the promiscuous woman, who by her own choice, causes the situation she finds herself in.
Wagner tries to eliminate the distinction of culpability; however, his scenario is does not parallel closely enough the actual sacrifice - physical, mental, and emotional - at stake for the woman. His setup seems to paint the female actor's choice as either 1- performing the simple act of giving formula to a baby for six weeks. or 2 - letting the baby die by refusing to perfoming a fairly easy - rather non-sacrifica - task on an as needed basis.

Therefore, the way I read it, he creates a false analogy and basically creates a false dilema through the process of oversimplification.

It's always interesting to me to hear pro-aborts talk about the sanctity of their (already born) bodies and how we should keep our hands off of same, while not considering whatsoever the sanctity of the baby's (unborn) body and whether we can lay hands on that or not. Is the pro-abort position really just as simple as "I can kill babies in the womb because the babies are powerless to stop me from doing so?"

Well said, WorldGoneCrazy!!

WorldGoneCrazy, maybe some proabortionists do think that way, but I don't think your sentiment actually has anything to do with this article.
Do you think that having the baby of a rapist is equivalent to feeding formula to a baby for six weeks? Because that is what is being argued.

I think "Deb" is correct in saying Wagner has greatly oversimplified the situation.

Anonymous-

Please stop trying to force your morals on me. You cannot have any idea where I'm coming from. Who are you to say that I am wrong?

@Anonymous:

I detected you were judging us when you wrote:

"It is too bad that you are so close minded and hateful towards others."

@Anonymous:

Your wrote:

"If God did not want us to have abortions available to us, then why would he allow it to work and be a possibility?"

Really,...seriously?

He allows drugs overdoses and cancers and traffic accidents, too--that doesn't mean He wants us to utilize them for death to innocent humans.

@Anonymous:

You wrote:

"You are not good people and you do not get to choose what is right and wrong;"

Didn't God give us the responsibility to live by His law? His law tells us and guides us in what is right and wrong. Murder is wrong. Killing an unborn child is murder.

The first part of your sentence sounds...like you're judging.

The way I see it, Anonymous either really and truly believes what she is saying and is under the misperception that she is actually presenting rational arguments, or he/she is a troll having a good laugh.

In the former case there is no reasoning with her. The only thing you can do is mirror her 'arguments' back to her and hope that she comes to see what a hopeless caricature of reasoning they are.

In the latter case, there is still no reasoning with him/her. That's just what he/she wants. Some sort of pathetic plea for attention. Again, simply parroting his/her 'arguments' back to him/her seems like the way to go. Yes, it's feeding the troll, but at least it takes very little effort to do so and gives him/her very little to work with.

Jack, I was responding to some previous posts by Anonymous trending toward the old "keep your rosaries off my ovaries" argument. But, yes, I do think that my comment is at least somewhat relevant here.

Your question to me is awesome, because it points out another flaw in the violinist argument. You ask me if I think that the two scenarios are equivalent. I do not think that they are identical, any more than you should feel that the violinist analogy is identical. The question is this: which analogy is closer to equivalent, neither being identical?

While you are 100% correct that Wagner's analogy is not perfect, you might fail to see that the violinist analogy is even less perfect. Neither one is identical, we must agree on that, but which analogy is closer to the truth - truth being defined as that which corresponds to reality? At least in Wagner's analogy, there is a baby in the scene after all!

As this applies to the rape scenario, surely we agree by now that medical science has proven beyond any doubt what we already knew intuitively: there are 2 bodies involved - the woman's body and the unborn baby's body. If I have to "keep my hands off of the woman's body," then pro-aborts have to keep their hands off of the unborn baby's body. As my wise father-in-law says "what's good for the goose is good for the gander!" :-)

The difference between the two bodies is that the woman's body has a voice attached to it, and the baby's body doesn't. Also, the woman's body is bigger and more powerful than the baby's body - by orders of magnitude actually. Those are the power differentials that I was expressing.

In the violinist analogy, the dying man is also big and has a voice, but in Wagner's analogy, the baby is small and has no voice. That's why I think it is a better analogy, but not perfect, as you correctly point out.

So yes, I do, respectfully, stand by my original comment and its at least partial relevancy to the topic at hand. Thank you for the great question, very much, because it got me thinking about the difference between "identical" and "equivalent." Your question grew me today, and for that I say "May God Bless you abundantly."

Deb, I recommend you read the paper beyond just the excerpt I quoted, because different variations of the scenario are discussed involving more distress to the woman, and the question is asked whether this changes anything morally.

Hi Josh,

What if someone besides Mary is able to help?

RonH

I hope everyone discussing this keeps in mind that the Cabin and the Violinist stories (both) assume by analogy that the fetus in question (no matter how early) has rights comparable to the violinist or the baby in the cabin. This is by no means clear.

@Elfers, you wrote:

"So if the rapist rapes your 10 year old and it will kill her, or make her likely to kill herself, you are willing to look her in the face and say I choose the baby over you? And if you are so "pro-life" I hope for all that is holy that you are leading the charge for an increase in money to be put towards social programs for AFTER the baby is born (such as food stamps, education, health care, etc.) A "baby" is not a baby until it can live outside the womb...which is not likely to happen much prior to 24 weeks (sometimes sooner but you need a fantastically great hospital) so I disagree vehemently with your definition. Good for you that you would be willing to sacrifice your body but not your "morals" to a rapist....most of us would gladly toss our "morals" and this is where we think you are crazy for thinking we have to. Your morals are your morals, mine are mine, they aren't the same and that's what makes this whole world so fantastic...we aren't meant to be the same."

After Amy just responded and explained the fact that the pro-life position does not hold to requiring that a birth mother must carry a child if her own physical life is in peril, I don't understand how you arrived at your post. You've included a definition of personhood of the child and I would be interested in your references for that. Also, you presume that a child who is carried to term as a result of rape, will become a ward of the state. In the case of that child becoming available for adoption, that is not a given. Can you give us some information?

Hi Amy,
I did read the whole article and quite honestly, it is unconvincing. In order for this sort of thing to work, the situation has to parallel the situation of a raped woman more closely. The violinist argument is closer, because it depicts a great violation and sacrifice on the part of the woman.
I agree the most with the scenario Mark put forth in the first comment.
Another way of looking at it is to discuss the right of self-defense. What are the parameters?
What is legally permissable and legally required? Not merely what is moral or recommendable to one who is Christian, but actually is legally enforceable.

Plus, add to those legal considerations, whether the rapist has parental custody rights and/or visitation rights, should the women be forced to keep the baby? In some states, the rapist has these rights, which continues to pile on sin and suffering to the women who was raped.


At the end of the day, when a woman is raped, the morning after pill should be available to her. That is the best option all around, given the circumstances. (Of course, I didn't work them all out here because of time constraints, but I should hope that folks could have some imagination as to the pain, suffering and sacrifice that should or should NOT be legally demanded in such a case). Thanks! Have a great day.

For the record, I just read the entire piece all the way through and do appreciate many of the acknowledgements and arguments.
However, again, his analysis is still unconvincing. For instance, I cannot remotely comprehend his concept of "intuitions" that tell him that it would be both morally and legally required for a woman to remain confined to a single location with a baby/child/disabled person hooked up to her body for a period of weeks or months -- just because he thinks so.

I'm sorry, but if I wake up tomorrow and some strange person is wired up to me with a threat note attached, I'm going to detach them and call 911 and get ready for work. To me, the author's intuitions are ridiculous.

Imagine that you're a man living in very comfortable accommodations and one night you find out a mentally and physically handicapped homeless woman has been living in a closet and secretly eating all of your food from your pantry and freezer while you're not paying attention.
Since it's the middle of winter and there are no shelters or other accommodation in your area for the homeless or disabled, if you kick her out of your house, she will die -either by freezing to death or of hunger. According to the line of thinking that the author is using it ought to be intuitively clear that this man is morally and legally required to allow this woman to continue to live in his closet and to allow her to freely consume his food and sustenance until the seasons change and she is able to survive out on her own.

If he did allow her to stay, that would be an incredibly gracious act. Fortunately, though, it is not the law of the land that he be required to do so.

In fact, if the homeless woman was a man instead of a woman, there are some good Christians who would "intuit" that it is acceptable in order to protect one's property and life to employ the law of self-defense.

So, how does one intuit that a woman should be held to such a different standard than the average man? Thanks.

I asked

What if someone besides Mary is able to help?
because I don't understand the the economy of obligation put forward.

Josh says Mary's obligation is limited only at the loss of her life (page 7).

I wonder how the presence of another able person changes this in Josh's mind.

Is Mary still obligated to give up (almost) everything even if the other person does nothing?

What if there are two babies and the other person does nothing?

We are all together in a big cabin where 15 million starve every year.

What excuses us from the obligation Josh places on Mary - to give up everything to help one?

Distance?

The other 14,999,999 starving babies? Why?

The fact that the other 6,999,999,999 other people aren't helping? Why?

How would saving one starving person somehow release us from saving the next and the next? Why?

The violinist scenario seems to me to be, with a little extrapolative tweaking, quite suitable as the basis for developing an argument for abolishing welfare.

Imagine that you find yourself in a room with five others. In the next room is one of their kin strapped on a life support machine. The public utility power goes out. By peddling a stationary bike hooked to an emergency generator, you can put out enough electrical power to keep the person alive.

You have of course serious interests of your own to purse and maximize. What of your own family's welfare during this period?

But ... four hours each for a couple of days maybe.

However, not all the relatives seem ready to fully cooperate ...

You can take it from there.

Deb,

I'm sorry, but if I wake up tomorrow and some strange person is wired up to me with a threat note attached, I'm going to detach them and call 911 and get ready for work.

Right. Unfortunately, that’s the way many people view abortion. It’s just not a big deal. You know, pour the Corn Flakes and “get ready for work”.

Imagine that you're a man living in very comfortable accommodations and one night you find out a mentally and physically handicapped homeless woman has been living in a closet and secretly eating all of your food from your pantry and freezer while you're not paying attention.

Since it's the middle of winter and there are no shelters or other accommodation in your area for the homeless or disabled, if you kick her out of your house, she will die -either by freezing to death or of hunger. According to the line of thinking that the author is using it ought to be intuitively clear that this man is morally and legally required to allow this woman to continue to live in his closet and to allow her to freely consume his food and sustenance until the seasons change and she is able to survive out on her own.

I'm pretty sure that you actually are barred from throwing the person out to their death given all the provisos of your case. I think you would be guilty of some form of murder or manslaughter based on a depraved indifference.

The only reason there might be a tug of intuition the other way is that we all know that your provisos almost never hold. You could, for example, almost always call the police and have the homeless person picked up.

WisdomLover: REALLY?
Please, please do give me an example of a law or case that exemplifies this assertion.
Where a homeowner has been legally required to CARE FOR any trespasser, even in the coldest and harshest of conditions, even in cases where mental or physical disability are involved.

Good luck, because I doubt that any exist! To call such a decision "intuitive", as Deb states, is to assume too much.

KWM, give us an argument as to why any rational person wouldn't wake up in such a situation (you must read the situation, though) and intuitively try to free themselves, call 911, and continue to fulfill their duties, as required?

If you follow the discussion we're not talking about abortion generally, wherein someone promiscuiously and willfully takes such a situation upon themselves.

Jack,

Why a rational person wouldn’t:

If a rational person woke up, found themselves attached to another person, and realized that if they disconnected the tube, the other person would die, this rational person could conclude that’s it is better not to disconnect the tube. The reason being - to prevent a death that’s unnecessary.

That was rational.

Jack-

Go for reading a remark before criticizing it. My comment was based on the assumption that ALL of Deb's provisos are true.

Your skepticism that there may never have been such a case may well be true. But, then, Deb's provisos have never all been true either.

In particular there are two aspects to Deb's provisos tend to skew our intuitions.

1. For starters, it is seldom utterly certain that if you send someone out into the cold, they will die.

2. Even supposing that it is certain that they will die. You can almost always summon the authorities to your aid. They will come and remove the intruder. Or, failing that, you could almost always take the person to a shelter or other facility where they could receive care. In short, there are almost always alternative ways to get the person out of your house other than throwing the person out to a certain death by freezing.

Let's consider a case where these skewing conditions don't exist.

Suppose that I'm on my boat at sea. I, foolishly, have brought nothing along that floats or could be used as a flotation device...not even an airplane seat cushion. Even my boat is made entirely out of heavier than water substances (depending totally on hull integrity to stay afloat). I do have more than enough food and water for three men on board.

I'm on a round-the-world solo sail halfway between the Tristan de Cunha archipelago and the nearest land to it. Or, at least, I thought it was a solo sail. While on shore on the main island, I was mugged by some of the farmers' sons. It turns out that I picked up a stowaway while I was recuperating at the island infirmary. The same guys that mugged me got one of the other island teenagers liquored up and hid him on my ship.

The poor kid was terrified and managed to hide from me for quite some time. But in the end, I discovered him when I was halfway to South America. Most of the ships to Tristan de Cunha come from the South Africa, not South America. So there is no other ship nearby I can put him on. And, as luck would have it, my radio is broken.

Is it legal for me to throw the stowaway overboard? Can I lock him in the hold and let him die of thirst? Can I poison him? Can I dissolve him in acid? Can I cut him to pieces with a samurai sword? Can I shoot him in the head with my flare gun?

Or do I have to care for him? At least util we reach land.

Note that I really do have no way to avoid caring for this person, at least by letting him eat my food and stay out of my way, other than the kinds of solutions I just described.

Note also that all of the alternatives to caring for my stowaway are certain death...even those that involve 'letting nature take her course'. I cannot possibly sail the 1000 or so miles I'd need to sail before he dies of thirst in my hold. And, were I to throw him overboard, even if there were a continual rain for him to drink while in the sea, it is impossible to swim all the way to South America especially without something to float on.

Now the intuition-skewing assumptions made in Deb's case are gone.

It really is the case that I have to care for this person or kill him (I do have the option of killing him by neglect).

You think I'd get to go home when the authorities meet me at the dock looking for the stowaway? Or do you think I'd face legal charges?

WisdomLover:
That's a much better case for the "intuition" argument and does address the biases inherent in the other two examples used by Wagner and Deb.

There's one thing that I would potentially change/add to the scenario to make it even closer to reality:
Instead of this:
"I was mugged by some of the farmers' sons. It turns out that I picked up a stowaway while I was recuperating at the island infirmary. The same guys that mugged me got one of the other island teenagers liquored up and hid him on my ship"

I would say this:
"I was mugged *and beaten* by some of the farmers' *field-hands*. It turns out that I picked up a stowaway while I was recuperating at the island infirmary. The same guys that mugged *and beat* me got one of *their children* liquored up and hid him on my ship"

Something to that effect. You've got to add the aspect of physical violation (I used beaten, but it could be worse) and you've also got to add that the stowaway is in essence represents your assailant indirectly (not in a way that would make him culpable, but in such a way that he at least would add to the emotional dilemma that is being faced).

So, even with a few more tweaks in parallel, I do think that there would be a moral and perhaps legal necessicity for me, as the boat captain, to do what I could to sustain the life of the child of my perpetrator until such a time that others could assist or take over.

Fair enough. Thanks.

Jack-

You've pleasantly surprised me. I half-expected you to dig in here. Sorry to pre-judge you man.

Anyway, thank-you for your kind words, and I agree with you about the tweaks to the case.

Carolyn, you made this remark:
Of course a person can be pro-life and pro-death penalty! The pro-life position simply doesn't hold to punishing the baby because of the crime, ignorance, inconvenience involved or most other reasons held out for abortion. A death penalty places proper punishment on the person who commits a crime, if it deserves such a verdict.

So are you telling me that everyone executed is, in fact guilty? You don't think innocent people are ever put to death? What is the difference between someone being innocent put to death vs a fetus, who is innocent as well, being put to death? Hundreds of people may have been put to death that were innocent. That's okay with you?

Liz-

Oh! Forsooth! Every person put to death by legal execution may have been innocent. But they weren't in fact innocent. The vast majority were guilty as sin.

Still, you don't see the difference between having a policy in place that executes people like Jeffrey Dahmer and that, once in a month of blue moons executes an innocent person and a policy whereby 1.2 million innocent children are killed each year.

How does bullet taste? Because you've not only bitten the bullet, you've chewed it up and asked for seconds.

I never said I didn't have a problem with abortions, did I? I was asking for clarification on her thought process regarding why the death penalty is okay to her.

Okay, so you think the vast majority are guilty. That's fine, and probably true. But not ALL people are guilty that are sentenced to death. But since the "majority" of them are guilty (because, you know for a fact that they are, since you know, you were there and everything), then it's okay to kill the innocent people that get thrown in there, since the majority are guilty and what, no one will notice?

Wisdom, are you against all abortions? Even in the case of rape?

I love this:

because, you know for a fact that they are, since you know, you were there and everything
So now I have to have personally researched, perhaps even have been a personal eyewitness to every murder in order for me to favor the execution of murderers.

Is it just me, or is every proponent of capital punishment in for the same 'due diligence'? 12 jurors aren't enough? Instead we need the unanimous consent of 120 million jurors. Is that it?

Then there is this:

it's okay to kill the innocent people that get thrown in there, since the majority are guilty and what, no one will notice?
Does it not occur to you that this is a common shortcoming in ALL criminal justice? If we applied your standard of not punishing people because we never really KNOW that they are guilty (as seen by the fact that some innocent people have been punished in the past), we could never punish anyone for anything in any way. Because all punishment is:
  1. Fallible...miscarriages of justice occur throughout our, and every, criminal justice system, AND
  2. Irreversible...you can no more return ten years in prison or the economic opportunities lost by the seizure of ten dollars than you can return a life. Time flows in one direction only.

Forgive me, but yours are childish objections to capital punishment.

And to equate those deaths to the 1.2 million innocent children killed each year by abortion displays a lack of moral balance.

Are you going to answer my last question?

Did you read my earlier comments?

I had already answered your question in the case of rape.

I'm opposed to abortions in the case of rape.

I do think that in the case where the mother could lose her life if the baby were carried to term, that the mother should decide whether or not to have an abortion. So I am not opposed to all abortions.

So you are in full support of birth control then, correct?

That depends, doesn't it?

Do you think the morning after pill is 'birth control'? Do you think abortion is 'birth control'? Do you think infanticide of abortion survivors is 'birth control'?

I clearly don't think that any of those are OK.

Obviously, though there are some forms of birth control that are perfectly OK.

But I suppose that now you're going say that I'm 'inconsistent' because I don't revere uncoupled sperm-egg pairs as much as embryos.

The comments to this entry are closed.