tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post234321572749298335..comments2023-06-15T09:13:45.467-04:00Comments on Liberty's Torch: Anesthetizing The ConscienceFrancis W. Porrettohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05862584203772592282noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-34913045605119727952013-01-27T12:46:05.338-05:002013-01-27T12:46:05.338-05:00The problem with both House and Xealot is simple.....The problem with both House and Xealot is simple... They ignore the potential moral consequences of the action. The phrase "Go slow and be wise" comes to mind. Strictly from a scientific standpoint we have no direct, observable, physical evidence for the existence of the soul. However we at one point also had no direct observable evidence for neutrons & protons. They existed anyway. Our ability to see or not, does not in any way remove or invalidate a fact. Someday one of our scientists may discover a way to observe the soul (an energy signature or other phenomena that gives it away). If or when this happens, there will be tremendous rammifications. Go slow and be wise. If there is no soul then the only people who will suffer are a few women who clearly chose of thier own free will to undergo a dangerous and illegal procedure. If however the soul is a reality (as I believe) then if we continue to allow abortions we become responsible for the murder of tens of millions. It is always better to go slow and be wise...<br />-GreyStranger34Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-78659154224541558762013-01-25T06:41:08.473-05:002013-01-25T06:41:08.473-05:00I appreciate that at least one person has explicit...I appreciate that at least one person has explicitly and accurately stated the pro-abortion position. It is an enormous relief. She has conceded the point; a fetus is human life. I hope that all pro-choicers go down this road. <br /><br />This takes us out of Orwellian news-speak and into the English language. We are talking about the same things. Sorry if I find that a happy moment. We now all agree we are talking about killing. OK, let's discuss that ...Lee Katthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05935259889421877527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-61074853347525482972013-01-24T20:05:21.816-05:002013-01-24T20:05:21.816-05:00CaveCaveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-80757009415730621912013-01-24T16:40:46.728-05:002013-01-24T16:40:46.728-05:00Xealot has the right of it: An unenforceable law w...Xealot has the right of it: An unenforceable law weakens respect for the law <i>in general,</i> which produces more strife than it can possibly quell.<br /><br />OCS students are told, early on in their curriculum, "Don't give an order that won't be obeyed." It's the same principle.<br /><br />Some aspects of abortion can be outlawed usefully: definitely third-trimester abortions, and possibly second-trimester as well. But a law that purports to ban all abortions would be asking for trouble...right up to the day when, our culture having turned back in the direction of life, we would no longer think we need such a thing.Francis W. Porrettohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05862584203772592282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-61028064869016887632013-01-24T16:31:59.641-05:002013-01-24T16:31:59.641-05:00The problem with making abortion illegal is practi...The problem with making abortion illegal is practicality. Abortion would be practiced illegally at a rate FAR outstripping rapes or murders, by orders of magnitude. It becomes an unenforceable law. Unenforceable laws are poor laws, and diminish the stature of laws that can be enforced reasonably.<br /><br />The real root of our abortion problem in America isn't the legality of it, it's a culture which is, in large measure, becoming degenerate. It's a culture that would rather kill a child than raise a family. That's the conflict that must be fought -- the culture war. In time it might be possible to win their hearts and minds, we do have the moral high ground on this one. But government fiat would only make it worse. THAT is my logic.Xealotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-81716891819262388582013-01-24T15:27:51.163-05:002013-01-24T15:27:51.163-05:00Xealot -
Francis and I have had squabbles every n...Xealot -<br /><br />Francis and I have had squabbles every now and then, although he remains a daily read. But I am completely on his page on this one.<br /><br />In so many words - what in the dickens did you just say?<br /><br />Plug in the words "rape" or "murder" and what you wrote is logical mush.<br /><br />Your want to keep something that, in your own words, is morally reprehensible, because some might do it anyway?<br /><br />Is there an emoticon for "HUH?"<br /><br />jbAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-38851310612156184022013-01-24T13:58:31.940-05:002013-01-24T13:58:31.940-05:00I partly agree, but I also partly disagree. Please...I partly agree, but I also partly disagree. Please bear with me.<br /><br />Abortion is a thorny issue, in that the Left is correct. Yet, it is also correct to say it is most often used as a way of not growing up and slutting around. Why are children thought of as punishment? Because they require the parents to be responsible. This woman would have to grow up, stop wasting her money on Gucci bags, concerts and cocktails and join the adult world.<br /><br />But that said... I still must argue that abortion should remain legal, or at the very least, be delegated to the states. I agree with you that Abortion is morally reprehensible in all but the most bizarre cases. I also think this woman's blatant disregard for human life is appalling. Yet, we can't stop abortion. It will continue, in the back alley, with the coat-hanger, with the designer drug cocktails whipped up by your local street drug dealer. And, indeed, it may wind up killing the mother, too. We will only succeed in driving the practice underground. Certainly, we shouldn't be supporting it with tax dollars. Certainly we shouldn't encourage people to do it. But can we stop them? No, we can't. So let it remain legal -- but as you say here, let us not kid ourselves as to the terrible thing that it is. We don't get a moral pass because the child is "less human." That child is no less a human than you or I. That we might have to sacrifice them to the Gods of Practicality may be an unpalatable truth... but that doesn't mean we shouldn't still recognize the practice as the Hellish thing it is.Xealotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-77084103609286961202013-01-24T11:39:41.555-05:002013-01-24T11:39:41.555-05:00I must disagree completely, Mr. House. (That would...I must disagree completely, Mr. House. (That wouldn't be <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0070Z35L4/" rel="nofollow"><b> Norman <i>Niblock</i> House </b></a> by any chance, would it?) You start from the premise that if a claimed right can be violated, it is therefore illusory. But without a conception of rights independent of human action, there can be no conception of justice, which is the maintenance of rights and the redress of their violation. We descend at once into Cthulhu's maw. Unacceptable.<br /><br />Rights need not be inalienable, but they must be <i>natural.</i> That is, they must proceed from the nature of the creature that claims them. "Inalienable" was a poor choice of words by Jefferson, one of a very few. (To be natural they must also be defensive -- they must not assert a privilege of enforcing claims on others that would violate <i>their</i> rights -- which is an implicit recognition that they <i>can</i> be violated.)<br /><br />Next, the notion that right and wrong are strictly a matter of decrees from God: If that were true, then God could decree that murder is right -- morally acceptable -- and thus <i>make</i> it right. But that would contravene the nature of Man, which is the only independent standard by which we can know God or His Will. It would put the Creator at odds with his creatures: Herbert Spencer's <i>reductio ad absurdum</i> of God-as-Devil worship.<br /><br />As for what "Christians know," you <i>are</i> aware that I'm a Catholic, aren't you? You might want to reconsider such a blanket statement in the future.<br /><br />Finally, this matter of a social-political order based on "duties before God:" God has already decreed those duties via the Ten Commandments, which were restated by His Son when He was personally present upon the Earth, and reinforced with His most memorable statement:<br /><br />"You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart, and your whole soul, and your whole mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these commandments hang all the law and the prophets."<br /><br />God's prescriptions and proscriptions are co-extensive and coterminous with Man's natural rights. A law code that violates them is itself immoral and unworthy of respect. However, the notion of an <i>explicit</i> social-political order thus based violates freedom of conscience, which renders it inherently unacceptable. More, historically it has given rise to classes of persons that arrogate the privilege of "proclaiming God's Will:" the union of Throne and Altar. That, too, is unacceptable, unless you're a Muslim, and if you are, you have no business here.<br /><br />And there the matter must rest. Oh, by the way, leave <i>quod erat demonstrandum</i> and its more common acronym to us mathematicians, would you please? Especially since your syllogisms are founded on a premise virtually no one would accept.Francis W. Porrettohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05862584203772592282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-33830047796578990222013-01-24T10:55:23.360-05:002013-01-24T10:55:23.360-05:00While I support your premise (that all human life ...While I support your premise (that all human life is sacred), I must point out that your justification (that humans have "intrinsic rights") is erroneous. In fact, humans have no rights at all, intrinsic or otherwise. "Rights" are a fiction of the Enlightenment and are not part of orthodox Christian thinking.<br /><br />A "right", by nature, must be inalienable. That is, it must by nature be something that cannot be taken away from or given away by the possessor. Once this is grasped, the fantasy of "rights" becomes obvious. <br /><br />Let's use the "right to speak freely" as an example:<br /><br />1. The ability to speak freely is a right, and as such cannot be taken away<br />2. The government (<i>inter alia</i>) can take away one's ability to speak freely<br />3. Therefore, no "right" to speak freely exists<br /><br />QED<br /><br />In like manner, there is no "right to life":<br /><br />1. Life is a right, and as such cannot be taken away<br />2. The government (<i>inter alia</i>) can take away the life of any person<br />3. Therefore, no "right" to life exists<br /><br />QED<br /><br />Sadly, there is only one "right", and that is "Might Makes Right". The person or group who hold power in any given situation determines which "rights" are enjoyed by the others in that situation. For example, the "right" to free association on private property that Americans once enjoyed was taken away by the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. Now, you can still <i>claim</i> the right of free association on private property -- by setting up a Whites-only lunch counter, say -- but if you try to <i>exercise</i> that "right" you will discover very quickly that no such "right" exists. An officer of the government will come and force you to either admit all comers or close your lunch counter. So much for that "right". You have no "right" to free association on private property because the government can take that "right" away from you, at gunpoint if necessary. Might Makes Right.<br /><br />The same applies to abortion. The people in this country have empowered the government to guarantee the ability of women to procure legal abortions. The "right to life" of a given unborn child does not exist because the government has taken it away. They can do this because most people want to live in a country where children can be legally murdered prior to birth. They can enforce this preference because the government can imprison or kill any person who disagrees with this sentiment. Might Makes Right again.<br /><br />Want to guarantee the "right" to free speech? The only way to do so is to obtain enough Might ( = guns, and the will to use them) to enforce that "right" against those who wish otherwise. Want to enforce the "right" to life of unborn children? The only way to do so is to obtain enough Might ( = guns, and the will to use them) to enforce that "right" against those who wish otherwise.<br /><br />Christians know human beings have no natural rights, Instead, we recognize our <i>duties</i> before God: to speak the truth, to defend ourselves an our families, to worship the True God, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, slake the thirst of the parched, to love our neighbors as ourselves. Unlike the phantasmic "rights" of the Enlightenment, these duties are built into the structure of the universe itself, and are ignored at our collective peril. The sooner we stop thinking in terms of Enlightenment "rights" and resume our traditional vision of a duty-based social order, the happier we will be.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09576003661386866167noreply@blogger.com