WHAT WOULD KANT SAY ABOUT ABORTION ?

[-1-]

classy blank verse

That is actually the easiest form of poetry.

Here, I did this in a matter of seconds:

Ode to Odie, the ODSP O.D.








Ode to Old Ogden









Ode Miniscule Cantata






.

[Dachshund]

]

Abortion, and I hate to disagree with you, IS a moral struggle.

Most innate ethical values are genetically passed on, originally with one goal in mind: to preserve the individual, or if that can't be done, then to preserve the likelyhood for offsprings to reach age of sexual maturity. Morality extends beyond that: to behave such a way as to maximize the potential proliferation of one's own DNA, or similar; first you save you children, then your siblings, then your cousins, then your distant cousins, then members of your community, then the human race, then all living creatures. In this order.

So yes, abortion IS a moral issue if you look at it that way.

Therefore the individual would like the fetus to survive, and reach a sexually reproductive age in well-being.

However, there are times when realizations occur, that no matter what, the person can't bring the fetus to reproductive age. In these instances, abortion is the ethical way to continue: to free up resources for survival for those who can carry the DNA or closely similar ones to the individual's, on to future generations

Therefore if the fetus is for sure going to be challenged, incapable, incapacitated, or dead within a few years, it is morally acceptable to abort it.

If the predictable SOCIAL climate of the individual is bleak, such as the mother being dirt poor, or emotionally/physically / intellectually incapable, but otherwise healthy, abortion is also commendable.

If a woman is pregnant and carrying the child inside her full term would - for whatever medical reason - result in her experiencing severe (life-threatening) physical harm or death, then abortion is justifiable. Animals in the wild spontaneously abort foetuses they are carrying for precisely the same reasons - it is a natural, automatic process.

I object to your use of the word "commendable" in the phrase "abortion is also commendable". Abortion is never "commendable", it is always a tragedy.
The deaths of 19 -year- old US combat soldiers in Vietnam were not commendable, they were, likewise, tragedies.

In the case of women who have a mild or more pronounced degree of an Intellectual Deficit Disorder (IDD) (i.e; what was formerly called "Mental Retardation") like, say, Down syndrome, in my opinion, they should be sterilised, so that it is not possible for them to become pregnant in the first place. To continue. Where a woman is living in adverse socioeconomic circumstances, such as dire poverty and all that it entails in terms of inadequate means to raise a physically and mentally healthy child, my first point is that, surely, becoming pregnant under such adverse circumstances represents the height of stupidity/irresponsibility. I mean, we are forever hearing about families in third world nations (like one of the many "banana republics" Africa or war-torn Middle Eastern countries having 5 or 6 children and my first thought is why would a couple living in one of these places? Why would a male and a female living in a country with a devastated economy, poor (or non-existent) educational and healthcare provision, food shortages, a paucity of potable water, sky-high unemployment, chronic political turmoil (of the violent type) with only a rude hut or shanty, decide to breed 5 or 6 offspring. In all likelihood their children will be condemned to a life of acute privation, misery and suffering ? In short , I am at a complete loss when it comes to fathoming the possible reasons/ justifications for couples living in such circumstances planning to have large families? It seems to me either a case of low IQ or appalling ignorance? In my opinion if they are unable to bring children into the world in a safe, healthy environment, women OUGHT not be allowed to have children, and the law should be amended to ensure this. Despite all of this I must point out that this kind of scenario does not, however, justify abortion. It does not justify it because while the odds are against it, it IS ALWAYS POSSIBLE that children born into these kind of grim, profoundly disadvantaged circumstances may somehow overcome the hardships of their predicament and grow up to become fulfilled, successful, productive adults. Fate is a curious thing, - 1 -,there's is no accounting for it ( or "outrageous fortune"), and we none of us are gifted with an ability to read the future.

You say that: "... if the foetus is going to be challenged, incapable, incapacitated or dead within a few years, it is morally acceptable to abort it." I disagree many individuals who are challenged or incapacitated (mentally or physically) can lead very meaningful,fulfilling lives. The "Power Olympics" highlights this every years. Human beings are vulnerable, but they can also be extraordinary tough and show tremendous moral courage in striving to overcome the impediments that fate has burdened them with and affirm their own lives. One of my heroes was the late Professor Stephen Hawking, he was a man afflicted with genetic motor neurone disease. Can you imaging how it must have felt for a young man to experience the irreversible, progressive loss of ALL ability to move and talk; to be reduced to an immobile sack of flesh and blood and bones in a wheel chair 24/7 ? One could not blame him if he had decided to take his own life, but he refused to give in. In his mind he travelled into the cosmos to unravel the mysteries of the universe and in so doing made an outstanding set of contributions to the field of astrophysics/cosmology that inspired many of his peers and added, to the sum of human scientific knowledge. What drove him? What motivated him to defy the tremendous limitation that beset him and keep striving to find meaning in his life? Nietzsche called it "The Will to Power." But this is not a post about Nietzschian morality, my question rather, is do you think that Hawking should have been aborted if at the time his mother was pregnant with him (today's) genetic screening technology was available and it indicated to her that Hawking would be afflicted with motor neurone disease ? With regard to a foetus that medical experts advise will be dead in a few years, unless those few years are years during which the child will experience extreme pain or some other kind of insupportable medical/psychiatric torment abortion is not justified. What is important about life is not its length, but whether one experiences joy and positive meaning and exercises "The Will to Power" while they are alive. Better to live 6 years of joy and exuberance and laughter than 80 miserable, lacklustre years of "existence" of a dismal life stripped of vibrancy and fun and exhilaration of pursuing genuine meaning. You say that a foetus who will be born "incapable" should also be aborted. I'm afraid the term incapable is too broad and vague for me to pass comment. I mean, incapable in what respect/s?

You also mention that if the mother is "emotionally" distressed that can also be a grounds for allowing the abortion of a healthy foetus. You need to be be very careful here. I am going to presume that you are using the term "emotional" as a generalised synonym for "psychiatric." My view is that if a pregnant woman has a severe psychiatric disorder such as Borderline Personality, a substance use disorder like alcoholic or opiate addiction, a serious chronic psychosis like schizophrenia, accurately diagnosed psychopathy, treatment resistant psychotic depression, a sexual paraphilia, severe Bipolar Affective Disorder, Dementia etc then the child should be taken off the mother at birth and placed in care, NOT aborted. One again, I would ask why it is that a woman with a serious psychiatric disorder would intentionally allow herself to become pregnant? It seems to me the height of stupidity/irresponsibility/selfishness (note in most types of severe psychiatric disorder rational cognition is still pretty much intact, intact enough at least to realise that bringing a child up with say a heroin addiction or a severe Personality Disorder or chronic major depression is something that they really OUGHT not do). A child who is taken of a woman who has some kind of long-term, chronic psychiatric disorder with a poor prognosis may very well grow up to lead a fulfilling and successful, meaningful life. I have absolutely no doubt what soever that this has been the case in many instances.

Finally let me ask you for your honest answer to a simple question . It concern the abortion industry in the US. A group called "Planned Parenthood is on of the many abortion providers in the American abortion industry. "Planned Parenthood perform 300,000 abortions every year (FACT) IN MOST CASES foetuses are surgically aborted in the 5th week or later of pregnancy. At the 5th week of pregnancy one can hear the heart beat of the foetus. Repeat, the foetuses HEART IS BEATING. How do you feel about that little living thing being sliced up into pieces by a surgeon's scalpel. How do you feel when you think about this and envisage it in your mind's eye. If you FEEL a distinct sensation of negative affect, then you can regard that as a clear, indubitable, confirmation of the fact that it is morally wrong. I'll tell you how I feel... horrified/sorrowful/angry, profoundly depressed/sickened. Murder is too banal and legalistic term to describe what is happening. Evil, I think, is much closer to the mark.

And do you know the remarkable thing about the US abortion industry ? It was women - the gentle, compassionate, empathetic, soft-hearted, caring, nurturative gender that yelled and protested and demonstrated and agitated until they successfully got abortion legalised on demand in the US. And who was it that stirred these women up to begin with? Why none other than America's cadre of militant, radical Left-wing feminists, some of the most crazy human beings on planet Earth I am taking here about ratbags like: Gloria Steinem; frothing-at-the-mouth nut jobs like Germaine Greer (Germaine, BTW, thought publishing a nude photo shoot of herself at the age of 55+ in a popular magazine was a hip, edgy thing to do; all it achieved, however, was to afflict every male who saw it with a distressing case of chronic erectile dysfunction, the disgustingly vulgar, ugly, fat, unspeakably offensive and dumb - as - dog - shit, slag, Andrea Dworkin. (YUKO !!:( "The Red Stockings" a group of loony, US, Marxist Feminists that even the former Soviet Union would find beyond the pale, and so on and on.

I hope you're pleased with what you've achieved - but if you want my opinion, what happens in the plush, "Yes, we take Am-Ex" madam", air-conditioned wards of the American abortion industry's slaughter houses, you know, cutting the arms and legs and heads off unborn babies because when a foetus is dismembered with a knife, the pieces can be pulled out of the mother's cervix easier, seems to me to make incinerating 6 million Jews seem like a Teddy Bear picnic in comparison.

Regards


Dachshund

[vegetariantaxidermy]

As for Kant, if he was a christian/hypocrite then he would publicly decry abortion for others, while privately partaking of it when it suited him.

It would have been very difficult for Kant to have an abortion done. He was a male.

This is the first time I've been called a White Supremacist. I bet you say that to all the boys.

I wasn't calling you one. I was calling the white supremacist a white supremacist. And males can certainly benefit from abortions and have regularly partaken of the service when it conveniences them.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

]

Abortion, and I hate to disagree with you, IS a moral struggle.

Most innate ethical values are genetically passed on, originally with one goal in mind: to preserve the individual, or if that can't be done, then to preserve the likelyhood for offsprings to reach age of sexual maturity. Morality extends beyond that: to behave such a way as to maximize the potential proliferation of one's own DNA, or similar; first you save you children, then your siblings, then your cousins, then your distant cousins, then members of your community, then the human race, then all living creatures. In this order.

So yes, abortion IS a moral issue if you look at it that way.

Therefore the individual would like the fetus to survive, and reach a sexually reproductive age in well-being.

However, there are times when realizations occur, that no matter what, the person can't bring the fetus to reproductive age. In these instances, abortion is the ethical way to continue: to free up resources for survival for those who can carry the DNA or closely similar ones to the individual's, on to future generations

Therefore if the fetus is for sure going to be challenged, incapable, incapacitated, or dead within a few years, it is morally acceptable to abort it.

If the predictable SOCIAL climate of the individual is bleak, such as the mother being dirt poor, or emotionally/physically / intellectually incapable, but otherwise healthy, abortion is also commendable.

If a woman is pregnant and carrying the child inside her full term would - for whatever medical reason - result in her experiencing severe (life-threatening) physical harm or death, then abortion is justifiable. Animals in the wild spontaneously abort foetuses they are carrying for precisely the same reasons - it is a natural, automatic process.

I object to your use of the word "commendable" in the phrase "abortion is also commendable". Abortion is never "commendable", it is always a tragedy.
The deaths of 19 -year- old US combat soldiers in Vietnam were not commendable, they were, likewise, tragedies.

In the case of women who have a mild or more pronounced degree of an Intellectual Deficit Disorder (IDD) (i.e; what was formerly called "Mental Retardation") like, say, Down syndrome, in my opinion, they should be sterilised, so that it is not possible for them to become pregnant in the first place. To continue. Where a woman is living in adverse socioeconomic circumstances, such as dire poverty and all that it entails in terms of inadequate means to raise a physically and mentally healthy child, my first point is that, surely, becoming pregnant under such adverse circumstances represents the height of stupidity/irresponsibility. I mean, we are forever hearing about families in third world nations (like one of the many "banana republics" Africa or war-torn Middle Eastern countries having 5 or 6 children and my first thought is why would a couple living in one of these places? Why would a male and a female living in a country with a devastated economy, poor (or non-existent) educational and healthcare provision, food shortages, a paucity of potable water, sky-high unemployment, chronic political turmoil (of the violent type) with only a rude hut or shanty, decide to breed 5 or 6 offspring. In all likelihood their children will be condemned to a life of acute privation, misery and suffering ? In short , I am at a complete loss when it comes to fathoming the possible reasons/ justifications for couples living in such circumstances planning to have large families? It seems to me either a case of low IQ or appalling ignorance? In my opinion if they are unable to bring children into the world in a safe, healthy environment, women OUGHT not be allowed to have children, and the law should be amended to ensure this. Despite all of this I must point out that this kind of scenario does not, however, justify abortion. It does not justify it because while the odds are against it, it IS ALWAYS POSSIBLE that children born into these kind of grim, profoundly disadvantaged circumstances may somehow overcome the hardships of their predicament and grow up to become fulfilled, successful, productive adults. Fate is a curious thing, - 1 -,there's is no accounting for it ( or "outrageous fortune"), and we none of us are gifted with an ability to read the future.

You say that: "... if the foetus is going to be challenged, incapable, incapacitated or dead within a few years, it is morally acceptable to abort it." I disagree many individuals who are challenged or incapacitated (mentally or physically) can lead very meaningful,fulfilling lives. The "Power Olympics" highlights this every years. Human beings are vulnerable, but they can also be extraordinary tough and show tremendous moral courage in striving to overcome the impediments that fate has burdened them with and affirm their own lives. One of my heroes was the late Professor Stephen Hawking, he was a man afflicted with genetic motor neurone disease. Can you imaging how it must have felt for a young man to experience the irreversible, progressive loss of ALL ability to move and talk; to be reduced to an immobile sack of flesh and blood and bones in a wheel chair 24/7 ? One could not blame him if he had decided to take his own life, but he refused to give in. In his mind he travelled into the cosmos to unravel the mysteries of the universe and in so doing made an outstanding set of contributions to the field of astrophysics/cosmology that inspired many of his peers and added, to the sum of human scientific knowledge. What drove him? What motivated him to defy the tremendous limitation that beset him and keep striving to find meaning in his life? Nietzsche called it "The Will to Power." But this is not a post about Nietzschian morality, my question rather, is do you think that Hawking should have been aborted if at the time his mother was pregnant with him (today's) genetic screening technology was available and it indicated to her that Hawking would be afflicted with motor neurone disease ? With regard to a foetus that medical experts advise will be dead in a few years, unless those few years are years during which the child will experience extreme pain or some other kind of insupportable medical/psychiatric torment abortion is not justified. What is important about life is not its length, but whether one experiences joy and positive meaning and exercises "The Will to Power" while they are alive. Better to live 6 years of joy and exuberance and laughter than 80 miserable, lacklustre years of "existence" of a dismal life stripped of vibrancy and fun and exhilaration of pursuing genuine meaning. You say that a foetus who will be born "incapable" should also be aborted. I'm afraid the term incapable is too broad and vague for me to pass comment. I mean, incapable in what respect/s?

You also mention that if the mother is "emotionally" distressed that can also be a grounds for allowing the abortion of a healthy foetus. You need to be be very careful here. I am going to presume that you are using the term "emotional" as a generalised synonym for "psychiatric." My view is that if a pregnant woman has a severe psychiatric disorder such as Borderline Personality, a substance use disorder like alcoholic or opiate addiction, a serious chronic psychosis like schizophrenia, accurately diagnosed psychopathy, treatment resistant psychotic depression, a sexual paraphilia, severe Bipolar Affective Disorder, Dementia etc then the child should be taken off the mother at birth and placed in care, NOT aborted. One again, I would ask why it is that a woman with a serious psychiatric disorder would intentionally allow herself to become pregnant? It seems to me the height of stupidity/irresponsibility/selfishness (note in most types of severe psychiatric disorder rational cognition is still pretty much intact, intact enough at least to realise that bringing a child up with say a heroin addiction or a severe Personality Disorder or chronic major depression is something that they really OUGHT not do). A child who is taken of a woman who has some kind of long-term, chronic psychiatric disorder with a poor prognosis may very well grow up to lead a fulfilling and successful, meaningful life. I have absolutely no doubt what soever that this has been the case in many instances.

Finally let me ask you for your honest answer to a simple question . It concern the abortion industry in the US. A group called "Planned Parenthood is on of the many abortion providers in the American abortion industry. "Planned Parenthood perform 300,000 abortions every year (FACT) IN MOST CASES foetuses are surgically aborted in the 5th week or later of pregnancy. At the 5th week of pregnancy one can hear the heart beat of the foetus. Repeat, the foetuses HEART IS BEATING. How do you feel about that little living thing being sliced up into pieces by a surgeon's scalpel. How do you feel when you think about this and envisage it in your mind's eye. If you FEEL a distinct sensation of negative affect, then you can regard that as a clear, indubitable, confirmation of the fact that it is morally wrong. I'll tell you how I feel... horrified/sorrowful/angry, profoundly depressed/sickened. Murder is too banal and legalistic term to describe what is happening. Evil, I think, is much closer to the mark.

And do you know the remarkable thing about the US abortion industry ? It was women - the gentle, compassionate, empathetic, soft-hearted, caring, nurturative gender that yelled and protested and demonstrated and agitated until they successfully got abortion legalised on demand in the US. And who was it that stirred these women up to begin with? Why none other than America's cadre of militant, radical Left-wing feminists, some of the most crazy human beings on planet Earth I am taking here about ratbags like: Gloria Steinem; frothing-at-the-mouth nut jobs like Germaine Greer (Germaine, BTW, thought publishing a nude photo shoot of herself at the age of 55+ in a popular magazine was a hip, edgy thing to do; all it achieved, however, was to afflict every male who saw it with a distressing case of chronic erectile dysfunction, the disgustingly vulgar, ugly, fat, unspeakably offensive and dumb - as - dog - shit, slag, Andrea Dworkin. (YUKO !!:( "The Red Stockings" a group of loony, US, Marxist Feminists that even the former Soviet Union would find beyond the pale, and so on and on.

I hope you're pleased with what you've achieved - but if you want my opinion, what happens in the plush, "Yes, we take Am-Ex" madam", air-conditioned wards of the American abortion industry's slaughter houses, you know, cutting the arms and legs and heads off unborn babies because when a foetus is dismembered with a knife, the pieces can be pulled out of the mother's cervix easier, seems to me to make incinerating 6 million Jews seem like a Teddy Bear picnic in comparison.

Regards


Dachshund

Oh fuck off. Women don't have to 'justify' it to you or anyone else.

[Gary Childress]

ABORTION AND THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE


I know that Kantian morality has its critics, but nonetheless I think it can still be interesting to apply KANT's ethical theory to some of the controversial moral questions we are struggling with today in the West. The opinion of the greatest of the Enlightenment's thinkers/ethical theorists should surely be worth something?

Kant believed that moral laws could be derived purely from human reason, and that all immoral (bad) behaviour is unreasonable and irrational.

One of Kant's best known moral notions is called the Categorical Imperative, and when it is applied to the question of abortion, the results are interesting.

The Categorical Imperative is basically a law of morality that ALL humans MUST obey. Kant's first formulation of the Categorical Imperative is as follows...


"Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law."


Kant believed that ALL moral duties/obligations could be derived from this.

What the Categorical Imperative means, in essence, is that if you want to decide whether an act is morally good, then you should be able to will that EVERYONE ELSE would act in the same way. In other words, the act must be universalisable.

So, what would Kant say to the woman who wants an abortion? He would say something like this: "Can you will that every other woman would have an abortion when she is pregnant?" If she says, "No", the abortion cannot be moral.

It seems to me that a woman who wanted to have an abortion COULD NOT will that every other woman also have an abortion when she is pregnant. Why? Because in one generation the human race would go extinct and then NOBODY could have an abortion. To will that all women have abortions would mean that NO woman could have an abortion after the current generation died off. By Kant's reasoning, this would make abortion irrational, and therefore, immoral.

Again, according to Kant, abortion would be immoral because it would be irrational to will that every pregnant woman have an abortion. The act of every pregnant woman aborting the foetus inside her would, ultimately end abortion.

Finally, this means, fundamentally, that those who support a woman's choice to have an abortion, can only support SOME women choosing abortion, not all.

Presumably and Ironically, if ALL women decided to have abortions, the pro - choice movement would have to become pro - life (??!!)

Regards


Dachshund

I was always a little unsure of how to apply Kant's categorical imperative to things. A lot of it seemed to depend upon how you set up a statement.

Suppose, for example, instead of:

"A woman having an abortion wills that all females should have abortions."

Why not change the statement to:

"A woman having an abortion wills that all females who meet criteria X, Y and Z (X, Y and Z being whatever criteria that is not universal to all pregnant females which someone could specify that would seem to justify an abortion or otherwise make it permissible) may have abortions if they wish?"

It seems to me that you could arguably universalize a statement in something like that way and be perfectly fine. Otherwise saying that a female having an abortion wills that all females have abortions, is maybe a bit like saying that a person who chooses to have heart surgery chooses for all people to have heart surgery or that a soldier who kills an enemy on the battlefield chooses for all people to be killed.

[-1-]

If a woman is pregnant and carrying the child inside her full term would - for whatever medical reason - result in her experiencing severe (life-threatening) physical harm or death, then abortion is justifiable. Animals in the wild spontaneously abort foetuses they are carrying for precisely the same reasons - it is a natural, automatic process.

I object to your use of the word "commendable" in the phrase "abortion is also commendable". Abortion is never "commendable", it is always a tragedy.
The deaths of 19 -year- old US combat soldiers in Vietnam were not commendable, they were, likewise, tragedies.

In the case of women who have a mild or more pronounced degree of an Intellectual Deficit Disorder (IDD) (i.e; what was formerly called "Mental Retardation") like, say, Down syndrome, in my opinion, they should be sterilised, so that it is not possible for them to become pregnant in the first place. To continue. Where a woman is living in adverse socioeconomic circumstances, such as dire poverty and all that it entails in terms of inadequate means to raise a physically and mentally healthy child, my first point is that, surely, becoming pregnant under such adverse circumstances represents the height of stupidity/irresponsibility. I mean, we are forever hearing about families in third world nations (like one of the many "banana republics" Africa or war-torn Middle Eastern countries having 5 or 6 children and my first thought is why would a couple living in one of these places? Why would a male and a female living in a country with a devastated economy, poor (or non-existent) educational and healthcare provision, food shortages, a paucity of potable water, sky-high unemployment, chronic political turmoil (of the violent type) with only a rude hut or shanty, decide to breed 5 or 6 offspring. In all likelihood their children will be condemned to a life of acute privation, misery and suffering ? In short , I am at a complete loss when it comes to fathoming the possible reasons/ justifications for couples living in such circumstances planning to have large families? It seems to me either a case of low IQ or appalling ignorance? In my opinion if they are unable to bring children into the world in a safe, healthy environment, women OUGHT not be allowed to have children, and the law should be amended to ensure this. Despite all of this I must point out that this kind of scenario does not, however, justify abortion. It does not justify it because while the odds are against it, it IS ALWAYS POSSIBLE that children born into these kind of grim, profoundly disadvantaged circumstances may somehow overcome the hardships of their predicament and grow up to become fulfilled, successful, productive adults. Fate is a curious thing, - 1 -,there's is no accounting for it ( or "outrageous fortune"), and we none of us are gifted with an ability to read the future.

You say that: "... if the foetus is going to be challenged, incapable, incapacitated or dead within a few years, it is morally acceptable to abort it." I disagree many individuals who are challenged or incapacitated (mentally or physically) can lead very meaningful,fulfilling lives. The "Power Olympics" highlights this every years. Human beings are vulnerable, but they can also be extraordinary tough and show tremendous moral courage in striving to overcome the impediments that fate has burdened them with and affirm their own lives. One of my heroes was the late Professor Stephen Hawking, he was a man afflicted with genetic motor neurone disease. Can you imaging how it must have felt for a young man to experience the irreversible, progressive loss of ALL ability to move and talk; to be reduced to an immobile sack of flesh and blood and bones in a wheel chair 24/7 ? One could not blame him if he had decided to take his own life, but he refused to give in. In his mind he travelled into the cosmos to unravel the mysteries of the universe and in so doing made an outstanding set of contributions to the field of astrophysics/cosmology that inspired many of his peers and added, to the sum of human scientific knowledge. What drove him? What motivated him to defy the tremendous limitation that beset him and keep striving to find meaning in his life? Nietzsche called it "The Will to Power." But this is not a post about Nietzschian morality, my question rather, is do you think that Hawking should have been aborted if at the time his mother was pregnant with him (today's) genetic screening technology was available and it indicated to her that Hawking would be afflicted with motor neurone disease ? With regard to a foetus that medical experts advise will be dead in a few years, unless those few years are years during which the child will experience extreme pain or some other kind of insupportable medical/psychiatric torment abortion is not justified. What is important about life is not its length, but whether one experiences joy and positive meaning and exercises "The Will to Power" while they are alive. Better to live 6 years of joy and exuberance and laughter than 80 miserable, lacklustre years of "existence" of a dismal life stripped of vibrancy and fun and exhilaration of pursuing genuine meaning. You say that a foetus who will be born "incapable" should also be aborted. I'm afraid the term incapable is too broad and vague for me to pass comment. I mean, incapable in what respect/s?

You also mention that if the mother is "emotionally" distressed that can also be a grounds for allowing the abortion of a healthy foetus. You need to be be very careful here. I am going to presume that you are using the term "emotional" as a generalised synonym for "psychiatric." My view is that if a pregnant woman has a severe psychiatric disorder such as Borderline Personality, a substance use disorder like alcoholic or opiate addiction, a serious chronic psychosis like schizophrenia, accurately diagnosed psychopathy, treatment resistant psychotic depression, a sexual paraphilia, severe Bipolar Affective Disorder, Dementia etc then the child should be taken off the mother at birth and placed in care, NOT aborted. One again, I would ask why it is that a woman with a serious psychiatric disorder would intentionally allow herself to become pregnant? It seems to me the height of stupidity/irresponsibility/selfishness (note in most types of severe psychiatric disorder rational cognition is still pretty much intact, intact enough at least to realise that bringing a child up with say a heroin addiction or a severe Personality Disorder or chronic major depression is something that they really OUGHT not do). A child who is taken of a woman who has some kind of long-term, chronic psychiatric disorder with a poor prognosis may very well grow up to lead a fulfilling and successful, meaningful life. I have absolutely no doubt what soever that this has been the case in many instances.

Finally let me ask you for your honest answer to a simple question . It concern the abortion industry in the US. A group called "Planned Parenthood is on of the many abortion providers in the American abortion industry. "Planned Parenthood perform 300,000 abortions every year (FACT) IN MOST CASES foetuses are surgically aborted in the 5th week or later of pregnancy. At the 5th week of pregnancy one can hear the heart beat of the foetus. Repeat, the foetuses HEART IS BEATING. How do you feel about that little living thing being sliced up into pieces by a surgeon's scalpel. How do you feel when you think about this and envisage it in your mind's eye. If you FEEL a distinct sensation of negative affect, then you can regard that as a clear, indubitable, confirmation of the fact that it is morally wrong. I'll tell you how I feel... horrified/sorrowful/angry, profoundly depressed/sickened. Murder is too banal and legalistic term to describe what is happening. Evil, I think, is much closer to the mark.

And do you know the remarkable thing about the US abortion industry ? It was women - the gentle, compassionate, empathetic, soft-hearted, caring, nurturative gender that yelled and protested and demonstrated and agitated until they successfully got abortion legalised on demand in the US. And who was it that stirred these women up to begin with? Why none other than America's cadre of militant, radical Left-wing feminists, some of the most crazy human beings on planet Earth I am taking here about ratbags like: Gloria Steinem; frothing-at-the-mouth nut jobs like Germaine Greer (Germaine, BTW, thought publishing a nude photo shoot of herself at the age of 55+ in a popular magazine was a hip, edgy thing to do; all it achieved, however, was to afflict every male who saw it with a distressing case of chronic erectile dysfunction, the disgustingly vulgar, ugly, fat, unspeakably offensive and dumb - as - dog - shit, slag, Andrea Dworkin. (YUKO !!:( "The Red Stockings" a group of loony, US, Marxist Feminists that even the former Soviet Union would find beyond the pale, and so on and on.

I hope you're pleased with what you've achieved - but if you want my opinion, what happens in the plush, "Yes, we take Am-Ex" madam", air-conditioned wards of the American abortion industry's slaughter houses, you know, cutting the arms and legs and heads off unborn babies because when a foetus is dismembered with a knife, the pieces can be pulled out of the mother's cervix easier, seems to me to make incinerating 6 million Jews seem like a Teddy Bear picnic in comparison.

Regards


Dachshund

Dachshund, you mustn't exhaust yourself.

[Dachshund]

- 1-,

Just answer the simple question I put to you, - 1 - , re experiencing the sensation of negative affect. Did you or did you not FEEL such a sensation wrt the scenario I described involving a 5 week old foetus with a beating heart ? I'm betting you did, (because I believe you are basically a reasonable, normal, sane human being) And FYI, I can assure that this "test" never fails to accurately and clearly signal what is truly immoral... Take heed of the lesson you were taught, - A LOT -, more than you can possibly imagine - depends on it.


Regards,

Dachshund.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Notice how the tiny-penised kunt ignores my responses.

[Gary Childress]

- 1-,

Just answer the simple question I put to you, - 1 - , re experiencing the sensation of negative affect. Did you or did you not FEEL such a sensation wrt the scenario I described involving a 5 week old foetus with a beating heart ? I'm betting you did, (because I believe you are basically a reasonable, normal, sane human being) And FYI, I can assure that this "test" never fails to accurately and clearly signal what is truly immoral... Take heed of the lesson you were taught, - A LOT -, more than you can possibly imagine - depends on it.


Regards,

Dachshund.

That is a salient point. However, the same can be said about almost any kind of surgery that anyone undergoes. Not a great percentage of human beings watch videos of doctors performing surgery out of a sense of fun or even curiosity. Most of us don't even like to think about surgery, especially on ourselves. Does that mean doctors performing any kind of surgery are performing a great evil? I think the answer is, "no". And if the answer is, "no", then doesn't that indicate that the mere fact that we are repulsed by something does NOT necessarily mean it is evil? I think there is more to it than simply, that which repulses us is evil.

Doesn't it ultimately come down to matters such as what is in the best interest of everyone involved and to matters such as whether a fetus has the ability to suffer and feel pain in the same way we do and whether a fetus is to be considered a full fledged human being with all the agreed upon "rights" and "entitlements" that go with being a full fledged human being?

[Dachshund]

Notice how the tiny-penised kunt ignores my responses.

Because you're just a stupid little girl from Nisland who has got very bad manners. I don't know what they taught you at Wyakickamoocow high school, but I can assure you that foul-mouthed girlies tend to get snubbed by civilised members of society like me. So if you want me to SHEAR my thoughts with you , you'll need to clean up your act (IF possible) and stop talking like the "Mongrol Mob" or some pussed , sheep-shagging yahoos loitering outside the "fush and chup" shop in Hastings after the pubs have closed on a Saturday night. Otherwise, "You're beached bro' !"


Regards

Dachshund

[Gary Childress]

Notice how the tiny-penised kunt ignores my responses.

Because you're just a stupid little girl from Nisland who has got very bad manners. I don't know what they taught you at Wyakickamoocow high school, but I can assure you that foul-mouthed girlies tend to get snubbed by civilised members of society like me. So if you want me to SHEAR my thoughts with you , you'll need to clean up your act (IF possible) and stop talking like the "Mongrol Mob" or some pussed , sheep-shagging yahoos loitering outside the "fush and chup" shop in Hastings after the pubs have closed on a Saturday night. Otherwise, "You're beached bro' !"


Regards

Dachshund

No answers to my replies?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Notice how the tiny-penised kunt ignores my responses.

Because you're just a stupid little girl from Nisland who has got very bad manners. I don't know what they taught you at Wyakickamoocow high school, but I can assure you that foul-mouthed girlies tend to get snubbed by civilised members of society like me. So if you want me to SHEAR my thoughts with you , you'll need to clean up your act (IF possible) and stop talking like the "Mongrol Mob" or some pussed , sheep-shagging yahoos loitering outside the "fush and chup" shop in Hastings after the pubs have closed on a Saturday night. Otherwise, "You're beached bro' !"


Regards

Dachshund

Stupid Aussie kunt who pretends to be English. The only reason you ignore me is because you are a gutless wonder and know you don't have a fucking leg to stand on. And what the fuck is 'Nisland'?

[Dachshund]

- 1-,

Just answer the simple question I put to you, - 1 - , re experiencing the sensation of negative affect. Did you or did you not FEEL such a sensation wrt the scenario I described involving a 5 week old foetus with a beating heart ? I'm betting you did, (because I believe you are basically a reasonable, normal, sane human being) And FYI, I can assure that this "test" never fails to accurately and clearly signal what is truly immoral... Take heed of the lesson you were taught, - A LOT -, more than you can possibly imagine - depends on it.


Regards,

Dachshund.

That is a salient point. However, the same can be said about almost any kind of surgery that anyone undergoes. Not a great percentage of human beings watch videos of doctors performing surgery out of a sense of fun or even curiosity. Most of us don't even like to think about surgery, especially on ourselves. Does that mean doctors performing any kind of surgery are performing a great evil? I think the answer is, "no". And if the answer is, "no", then doesn't that indicate that the mere fact that we are repulsed by something does NOT necessarily mean it is evil? I think there is more to it than simply, that which repulses us is evil.

Doesn't it ultimately come down to matters such as what is in the best interest of everyone involved and to matters such as whether a fetus has the ability to suffer and feel pain in the same way we do and whether a fetus is to be considered a full fledged human being with all the agreed upon "rights" and "entitlements" that go with being a full fledged human being?

When doctors/surgeons take the Hippocratic oath..."PRIMUM NON NOCERE", that is the most important promise they must make: It means "First (and foremost) do no harm." What I am referring to is NOT surgery, it is butchery. It is the crude hacking to pieces with an instrument like a scalpel of a foetus, a living thing that has a beating heart. It is, as far as I am concerned, the wilful destruction of a human life for profit. It is not merely harm that is being inflicted what is being enacted is murder. And no, it does not come down to some happy agreement about what is "in the best interests of everyone", it come down to the question of whether or not a human life is sacred. Nor is it a question of whether a 5 week old foetus can feel pain as it is being lethally dismembered. Bear in mind, BTW that Abortion Clinics in the US perform hundred of thousands of abortions every year and it is a fact that the majority of women who pay for them are at least 5 weeks pregnant.

I was trying to demonstrate an element of John Calvin's theology. Calvin believed that all men are born with an innate knowledge of what is truly morally right and wrong "Inscribed on their hearts." What he meant was that when you breach a universal moral law, you will know that what you have done (or contemplated) doing is WRONG (i.e. OUGHT/SHOULD/MUST not be done )because your heart will "tell" you. That is you will FEEL in your consciousness the sensation of negative affect. There are no words to describe in words exactly how this experience FEELS. That is, I am sure you have experienced the emotion of love for your wife and your children (if you have any ?), but even a master wordsmith like Shakespeare could not fully capture the feeling in words. He did a fantastic job trying and helped give us a better idea of what love feels like, but he could not completely "pin down" the emotion in mere words. Right? I'm no Shakespeare but I can try to give you some rough approximations of the "state of mind/psyche I'm alluding to by suggesting it is a feeling of co-mingled sorrow/tragedy/horror/despair/hopelessness/anger etc but the only way to know the feeling is to experience it for yourself. I guess that, in short, It "says" above all things NO ! NO! NO! - "WRONG ! WRONG 1 WRONG !

Why not try it for yourself...

Imagine a tiny 5 or 6 week-old foetus (in a lot of cases the foetus is considerably older), a tiny boy or girl with a beating heart being methodically torn to pieces by a surgeon's scalpel. His/her arms cut off, then legs and head so the dismembered pieces can be evacuated through the woman's cervix. You need to concentrate on envisaging the reality of this taking place. Use your imagination to be present while it is taking place. Meditate silently on the details and meaning of what is happening .

How do you FEEL as you envisage and meditate on my abortion scenario? Has your heart "spoken" to you (as Calvin would put it). Has it "told" in the language of phenomenal consciousness you that what you envisaged/meditated upon is something very WRONG - something profoundly IMMORAL. If it has, you will know. You cannot mistake the experience which I clumsily denote as the consciousness of "negative affect" And when your heart "tells" you what is the moral truth of the matter, you can trust it 100%. It never lies, it is never mistaken, and I am pretty well convinced that if you ignore it, if you flout its advice, you're are playing with spiritual fire of the most dangerous kind.

Regards


John.

[Dachshund]

Notice how the tiny-penised kunt ignores my responses.

Because you're just a stupid little girl from Nisland who has got very bad manners. I don't know what they taught you at Wyakickamoocow high school, but I can assure you that foul-mouthed girlies tend to get snubbed by civilised members of society like me. So if you want me to SHEAR my thoughts with you , you'll need to clean up your act (IF possible) and stop talking like the "Mongrol Mob" or some pussed , sheep-shagging yahoos loitering outside the "fush and chup" shop in Hastings after the pubs have closed on a Saturday night. Otherwise, "You're beached bro' !"


Regards

Dachshund

Stupid Aussie kunt who pretends to be English. The only reason you ignore me is because you are a gutless wonder and know you don't have a fucking leg to stand on. And what the fuck is 'Nisland'?

Nisland is how Kiwis say "New Zealand" (Geddit?)

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Because you're just a stupid little girl from Nisland who has got very bad manners. I don't know what they taught you at Wyakickamoocow high school, but I can assure you that foul-mouthed girlies tend to get snubbed by civilised members of society like me. So if you want me to SHEAR my thoughts with you , you'll need to clean up your act (IF possible) and stop talking like the "Mongrol Mob" or some pussed , sheep-shagging yahoos loitering outside the "fush and chup" shop in Hastings after the pubs have closed on a Saturday night. Otherwise, "You're beached bro' !"


Regards

Dachshund

Stupid Aussie kunt who pretends to be English. The only reason you ignore me is because you are a gutless wonder and know you don't have a fucking leg to stand on. And what the fuck is 'Nisland'?

Nisland is how Kiwis say "New Zealand" (Geddit?)

No. Never heard of the place.