• seer said on Dec 08, 2008....

  Carl I do respect you opinion but I think its illogical.
   
  The line has to be drawn somewhere. Currently its at a certain time in the fetus' development where it is considered a mass of tissue, as you said in numan, but I don't think in any form of democratic society we would allow post-natal abortion. People are just too squeamish to have to consider that issue. And seeing as western politicis is basically a popularity contest, if you were a politician supporting post-natal abortion, the tabloids would bang on about baby killing until I became so cynical and depressed about the situation I'd be physically sick.
   
  Studies done by British doctors have shown the fetus is more developed than what we originally thought at time of abortion and has thrown up a new issue, is the line too far?
   
  And now my philosophical angle -
   
  Devine intervention is the belief in right because there is a form of God or philosophy that is being followed, which tells you the difference (in its own eyes) the difference between right and wrong. Athiests tend to follow the social ideals of right and wrong, which are closely linked to the religious ideals of the faith of the majority in the area they are from.
   
  So is what the majority say right and what the minority say wrong? With no God there is no difference between right and wrong. So who are you to define the difference between 'murder' and 'abortion'?
   
   

• WriterCarlDobbs said on Dec 10, 2008....

  Your words are intelligent, wise and true.  Nothing can be said against them.  But if we want the moral high ground against Nazism and the Japanese medical experimentation on the Chinese (see other articles on the submect on this blog) then we must not change the subject.  We slaughtered the Indians,  The slaves were killed on demand as punishment, being non human.  We are doing what we considered to be extreme evil when other people engage in it.  We, as a society, have already condemned the practice of killing "unwanted" people by simply making the choice to do so.  We must not be hypocritical.  This is the danger.  We will one day find ourselves getting more and more liberal in our definition of what is a "human" and what is not.
       See my entries on my book "Numan".  It is a very complete argument.  In the book clones with a bit of animal genes are created and considered to be nonhuman.  Animals with human brains and intelligence are created.  And, a super human is made that looks like an ape with far more intelligence and strength.  Is that the new definition of the superior race of humans?

• seer said on Dec 12, 2008....

  Ah ha, so you think that the principles layed out in 'numan' are an extention of what will happen if we devalue life; which abortion is the start of, which will ultimately dissolve modern society into a sort of neo-nazi ideal, with the persecuted race being the young of society.
   
  Now your ethical values I cannot fault, however they do differ heavily from mine. However, your theories about the degenration of humanity through the abortion laws I think is illogical.
   
  The problem is with ethics is its very hard to pinpoint - at which point does equalitarianism become faschist, and where does liberalism become anarchy? The abortion law is a by-product of a slightly left and semi-liberal society, which encompasses most the developed Western world, not the start of a decline into the apocolyptic wasteland described in Numan.
   
  I ask you to consider this, Carl, during Victorian times, before abortion was legal and performed medically, it was done with a wire coat hanger and a bottle of bleach. Suicide, murdering and throwing babies away like rubbish was not uncommon. I believe that if abortion was banned it would still go on, but in a much more brutal way than what we have now. Perhaps, my friend, you could consider modern abortion as a 'lesser of two evils', or will you continue your blogging pro-life vigil? 

• WriterCarlDobbs said on Dec 28, 2008....

  well said, Seer.  I understand your point of view.  Howeverit is from the point of view from someone who was given a chance for life.  I must be the advocate of the ones who have not had that opportunity.  To me, they are very precious and can not be killed as the "lesser of two evils" as it is not the lesser of two evils for the child.  The lesser of two evils results in the death of a human being that is, most of the time, a matter of a decision.   A person kills her child to keep from being caught for doing something naughty, for the sake of a career, for the sake of saving money, for the sake of keeping her figure in shape.  So, since there is absolutely no limit on what a woman can choose to do, the quesiont of "lesser of two evils" is purly meaningless.  A woman can kill her kid for no reason at all except to choose to do so.  no one can even force her to come up with a logic or even asks for the reason.  "Choice" is all she needs.  Therefore your suggestion that abortion, its present form, has anything to do with that is plausible, but not at all germane to the topic since no evil has to be present for it to happen.
         Perhaps if it would save the life of the mother, that would be okay.  Perhaps if the baby were about to be born without a brain or would suffer a terrible death just after birth.  Maybe.  But you may be interested in knowing about "blue babies."   Children in the 1930's and before had congenital heart defects which kept them from giving oxygin to their tiny bodies.  They turned blue, lived for a month, then died.  This prompted the first heart surgeries.  The babies lived after that.  So it is that precious lives are saved from all sorts of things that used to make their deaths the lesser of two evils.  Today babies are born at 1 pound and still survive and become normal.  Quadruplets are born with all surviving.  So where there is a will there is a way.   What would have been considered a merciful death 60 years ago is a small problem to take care of today by performing an operation or other modern medical procedure.
         My book?  I wrote it because every nation in the world throughout time has found that killing people is the lesser of two evils.  This, then, is a free ticket that has caused all of the major slaughters.  We dropped bombs on Japan because it was the lesser of two evils.  Maybe that is okay.  But they were going to completely destroy us without even considering it the lesser of two evils.  So this propensity to take things to the extreme is always there.
        50 million have died for this reason, the lesser of two evils.  How many of them were the greater of two evils?  Half?  There is no standard, no way to tell and no one asks. 
        Therefore Numan is not a prophecy, just one logical path that this can take us.  It is a warning, not a prediction.  I can only hope that infants, babies then little chldren, the sick, the poor, the lame, the mentally challenged, the dying, aren't the next in line.  That would cheapen human life even further. 
         The genie was out of the bottle when we slaughtered the American Indian, worked the salves to death (as was the practice of few, but it did happen that some slave owners worked their slaves to death every year and replaced them every year with new ones).  We put it back into the bottle with the Emancipation Declaration.  When abortion became legal it popped right out again.
        As far as the coat hanger goes?  We don't make it safe or easy for one person to premeditate the death of another person except in this one case.  A homicide shouldn't be safe, comfortable, or convenient.  It should be so inconfenient that the woman does not have the abortion.  Society will have to adapt to the fact that children will be born like this and they must be cared for.  Society will adapt to prevent the pregnancy by prevention, education, even ethical teachings that prohibit irresponsible sex.
           Abortion is just a quick and easy way to conveniently kill someone you don't want to live.  It takes a life for any reason, good or bad, upon the choice, and choice alone, of the mother.  For this reason fathers may lose their children, sisters and brothers their sibling.  They don't have any input that is recognized by law as being relevant. 
            I hope  this helps to explain the reason for the book and the point of view.
  "They called me 'savage.'  Our tribes were slaughtered.
  They called me 'slave."  We were sold, bought and bartered.
  They said I was a 'crass infidel." A Catholic, a Jew foredoomed all to hell.
  They said I was 'Irish," we died by the masses.
  I was nonaryand. They killed us with gasses.
  Now it is "preborn" and "prochoice" they sing.
  Tell me how it's not the same thing.

Comment on "Imagine a US where rights no longer exist!"

Currently tagged	Numan Dobbs choice abortion (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously