On 9/1/2008, Susan Cogan wrote:
> >In other words, Susan Cogan's neither opposed to abortion nor
> >immorality. In the world according to her, the only deadly
> >sin is Christianity and the only _real_ sinners are
>yeah, you are SOOOO persecuted.
Please. Don't flatter yourself.
> >"Progressives" are all for "personal autonomy" so long as
> >others exercise _their_ "personal autonomy" in ways that
> >don't violate progressive orthopraxy. The second anyone
> >exercises his "personal autonomy" in a way that offends
> >"progressive" orthodoxy and violates "progressive"
> >orthopraxy, like presuming to display the Ten Commandments,
>the government doesn't get to build monuments to specific religions.
>You can have a 10 commandment monument <<snip>>
Of course, anyone who's read the Declaration of Independence, visited
Washington D.C. and toured its monuments, the Supreme Court, etc.,
>yes, that's about right. A woman's rights over her own body is in
>direct conflict with the rights of an unborn child. I think the woman
>should always choose in favor of the child. The government can't be
>allowed to make that decision FOR HER.
Well, yet again your claims flunk the reality test.
1] "A woman's rights over her own body" demand that she exercise
those rights _responsibly_. A woman who intentionally engages in
an act that she _knows_ may result in the creation of a human
being is morally obligated to shoulder the responsibility that
the living consequence of her own free, intentional decision
wreak, unwanted or not.
2] The powerful have no _right_ to determine at will the worth of
the powerless, i.e., the powerless who are "wanted," may live and
the powerless who are "unwanted" must die.
3] The government _can_ make the decision that the unborn child's
right to live is protected. Protecting the unborn child's _right_
to live is perfectly just because an unborn child's right to live
If the act of abortion were a _good_, or morally benign, and the
government prohibited it, then it could be fairly said that the
government had overstepped its authority by proscribing abortion
- but you yourself acknowledge that abortion is immoral.
>Making it illegal will NOT reduce the number of them.
A claim that is, of course, just absurd.
>Living children have their own rights that don't conflict with the
>rights of their parents.
1] Unborn children _are_ living children.
2] Anyone who gives your assertion that "living children have their
own rights that don't conflict with the rights of their parents" a
nanosecond's thought will apprehend its profound absurdity. More
to the point, as many intellectually honest defenders of abortion-
on-demand forthrightly admit, there is no moral distinction between
murdering an unborn child and a child who has been born - because
the pro-abortion argument is predicated upon the foundational
assumption that human beings qua human beings have no _right_ to
life. Location is morally irrelevant to whether one human being has
the right to murder another, just as location is morally irrelevant
to whether spousal abuse or pedophilia, or rape is _morally_ wrong.
> >If the mother feels that her unborn child - whether an
> >embryo or days from birth - will be inconvenient and burdensome,
> >then she owns the right to cold-bloodedly murder that child, and
> >anyone who dares to protest is "irrational," "collectivist and
> >authoritarian," "totalitarian," a "theocrat," blahblahblahblah.
>anyone who wishes to force her to carry a child to term is
>irrational, collectivist and authoritarian. It's the force that makes
>the difference. Government always equals force.
Using plainly absurd ad hominem rhetoric to defend the indefensible
is irrational, isn't it?
A person who "advocates for rationality, reason, and science" would
surely acknowledge that the creation of a new, individual human
being is a _natural_ consequence of the human sexual act, that a
woman who freely and intentionally engages in sexual intercourse is
well aware that the consequence of that act may be a living human
being, and that by freely and intentionally engaging in that act
she implicitly consents to shoulder the moral obligation that the
living consequence demands.
The assertion that pro-lifers "who wish to _force_ [women] to carry
a child to term [are] irrational, collectivist, and authoritarian"
is bizarre. You might just as well assert that those who believe
that a man who has savagely murdered his parents must be punished
for his crimes are "irrational, collectivist and authoritarian" -
because, after all, the poor fellow's an orphan - a victim.
> >Now, why on earth would Susan Cogan rather a child be properly
> >cared for than die of treatable illness ONLY so long as that
> >child has seen the light of day and ONLY if that child who's
> >come into the world is _wanted_ by his mother?
>you are frothing
No, I'm not. Since you cannot explain such an incoherent assertion,
you ignore the question and insult the questioner instead, so I
guess _you_ are frothing....
>I am as opposed to abortion as you are and you know it. You are
>talking to someone else.
No, I'm "talking to" you, a person who's trying to have his cake
and eat it too.
> >"Those who support abortion rights and yet concede the moral wrong-
> >ness of abortion are either sociopaths [i.e., they willingly and
> >without conscience permit and sometimes engage in what they know to
> >be a serious moral wrong], morally untutored, or do not really
> >appreciate the logical problem of asserting that one has a moral
> >right [i.e., abortion is morally permissible) to do a moral wrong
> >(i.e., abortion is morally impermissible]." - Francis Beckwith
>Francis Beckwith is wrong.
Dr. Beckwith is right, as you've so helpfully testified to in black
> >One "cannot say that people have a right to do wrong." - Abraham
>they certainly do, legally. You can lie to your friends. That's
>wrong. Nobody can arrest you for it. You can cheat on your husband.
>That's wrong and not illegal. You can curse your neighbor's cat.
>That's wrong but not illegal.
People have no _right_ to lie and cheat, whether lies and cheating
violate criminal / civil laws or not.
> >As Susan Cogan has written,
> >"there is no other reason to do something other than it "feels good."
> >That there are a few crazies in the world that think it feels good to
> >hurt others doesn't change a thing. We'll always have a criminal
> >justice system for those people and only a tiny percentage of the
> >population will be involved in it because so few people think it
> >"feels good" to harm others. In fact nearly all people think it
> >"feels good" to be loving, kind and compassionate.
> >"If feeling good isn't the primary reason to be moral, then there is
> >NO reason to be moral."
> >"abortion is immoral but should remain legal. It's a personal moral
> >decision that the government has no right to interfere in."
> >In short, "One "can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see,
> >only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the
> >strongest or which seem to him the best ones." - Charles Darwin
>that's how everyone lives their life from Jesus to George Bush.
>People generally do what seems best to them. How could you possibly
>disagree with that?
I disagree because people don't follow those impulses and instincts
which are the strongest or which _seem_ to them the best ones,
that's why. People reason. People make judgements. People predicate
their judgements upon moral axioms. And so forth.
> >Neither Charles Darwin nor Susan Cogan understand that utilitarianism
> >and morality are NOT synonymous.
>I'm not a utilitarian. Utilitarianism doesn't have room for
>individual rights. Respect for the rights of others (even the unborn)
>is one of the foundations of morality.
The foundation of morality, a Christian precept, is respect for the
rights of _all_ others, unborn and born, "perfect" and imperfect,
weak and strong, helpless and "autonomous."
>That respect is grounded in the natural human instinct for compassion
Compassion and empathy are protean _feelings_. A person's compassion /
empathy may inspire him to an unselfish act of kindness OR to murder
in the name of empathy, like, for instance, mothers who murder their