Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [existlist] Re: Characteristics of Existence

Expand Messages
  • Lorna Landry
    Matt, What sort of details should we be concerned about in regard to abortion?? I would think whether or not its deemed a human being would be a the top of the
    Message 1 of 192 , Sep 2, 2003
      Matt,

      What sort of details should we be concerned about in regard to abortion?? I would think whether or not its deemed a human being would be a the top of the list, if not the only consideration. Morality and practicial concrete examples of it, such as abortion, go hand in hand. Morality does not exist outside of these very real issues. How can you discuss morality without them and still say anything meaningful?

      Lorna


      Mattlzpf@... wrote:
      Biggie,

      Again, we were just using abortion as an example for the topic of
      morality and you've turned it into a conversation that's actually about abortion.
      Check back on all of my posts because I never discussed the details of when I
      think a fetus becomes a human being. We shouldn't be concerned with this
      detail when asking whether abortion is morally right or wrong. If you'd like to
      discuss laws and capital crime related to abortion please count me out, I'm
      not interested. I would not like to take this any further, unless we can
      discover a new way to propose a moral question.

      --MATT_C


      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
      Matt,

      You are expressing an opinion that, regardless of how one might construe the
      nature of the human fetus, it is immoral to abort it. Fine. Like everyone
      else, you are entitled to express your conviction regarding this gut wrenching
      moral quandary. But what does that have to do with demonstrating objectively that
      your own opinion is what mine or Eduard's or Mary Jo's should be? And if this
      cannot be established rationally is not situational ethics all we are left
      with respecting our individual judgements?

      Do you, in turn, also believe that aborting a human fetus is murder? In other
      words, that there should be legal consequences/sanctions for either
      performing or obtaining an abortion?

      If so, and you lived in a jurisdiction that had enacted a law making abortion
      a capital crime, would you be willing to turn in a woman you loved who had
      become pregnant [for whatever reason] and had, in turn, chosen to have an
      abortion? Would you testify for the prosecution at the trial? If she is convicted
      would you agree that, in killing an innocent human being, she should be
      sentenced to death? Or, suppose it was not a woman you loved, but a stranger who lived
      next door. Suppose you had found out she had received an abortion? Would you
      feel duty bound to turn her in? Or suppose, hypothetically, you were the one
      who who was responsible for the pregnancy? No difference?

      Because you construe the fetus as a human being [something you can never
      demonstrate objectively] you are saying that, no matter the circumstance, the act
      of aborting it is Wrong? Is that a fair assumption?

      Oh, and who gets to say what constitutes the "greater good"---you? Or is it
      something we all "just know" like Eduard seems to suggest?

      Me? Well, I share your opinion that a fetus is a human being [from
      conception] because I do not believe you can arbitrarily poke your mind into this
      seamless biological process and say "before, not human...after, human". Thus I also
      believe that abortion is the killing of a human being. But I also believe, in
      turn, that women should have the legal right to abort the fetus and I would
      hope the decision to abort is made as early into the pregnancy as possible. In
      other words, I do not construe abortion as murder.

      In fact, I would hope the approach all of us might take is 1] to make
      abortion legal 2] to limit abortion, whenever possible, to the earliest months of the
      pregnancy and 3] to work together to make abortions as rare as possible.

      Biggie


      Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

      TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





      ---------------------------------
      Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • louise
      ... to signify or represent the relationship between in my head and out in the world, postmodernism can only be understood contextually in terms of
      Message 192 of 192 , Mar 13 9:41 AM
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, George Walton <iambiguously@y...>
        wrote:
        > Eduard,
        >
        > Well, as a postmodernist might insists, "like any other word used
        to signify or represent the relationship between in my head and out
        in the world, 'postmodernism' can only be understood contextually in
        terms of particular cultures and political economies."
        >
        > In other words, postmodernism eschews all metaphysical
        contraptions---sacred or secular. They view "reality" in brackets,
        as the manner in which different people interpret different
        circumstantial contexts. Take the word "freedom" for example.
        Mordernists thinkers [usually construed as Kant to the present]
        would attempt to wrap the definition of the word around a binary
        logo-centric ontological contraption: either/or. It was believed,
        therefore, that we could define and grasp Freedom ahistorically.
        That there was an objective, universal manner in which to encompass
        it. That freedom had nothing to do with interpretation, but could
        literally be deduced a priori by The Rational Mind.
        >
        > Postmodernists and poststructuralists debunked that. For them,
        words like "freedom" and "justice" and "good" and "bad" and "right"
        and "wrong" were merely relative "situational interpretations" that
        flowed from the political, economic, social, cultural, and
        historical and interpersonal contexts around which their meaning
        evolved. For example, think of the American Revolutionary War. Think
        of how the monarchy in England grasped the meaning of those words
        above quite differently from most of the Colonists. Or think about
        the how the Colonists viewed the words quite apart from how the
        indigenous Indian tribes did. Or think about how Communists view the
        defintions apart from how capitalists do. Et Cetera.
        >
        > Similarly, right now, I am writing what I think I mean and you are
        reading what you think I'm saying. That's human communication in a
        nutshell. The Modernists, however, will insists that there is an
        objective manner in which these words can be construed. The
        postmodernists, however, never stop laughing when they hear that.
        >
        > In other words: Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
        >
        > Biggie
        >
        > eduard at home <yeoman@v...> wrote:
        > Biggie,
        >
        > What is a "postmodernist"??
        >
        > eduard
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "George Walton" <iambiguously@y...>
        > To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 8:30 AM
        > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Characteristics of Existence
        >
        >
        > > Matt,
        > >
        > > Nothing personal, but I suspect your mind is lost because
        > it doesn't really want to be found. I see that a lot in
        > venues like this.
        > >
        > > Or maybe I'm wrong. Just out of curiosity, how would you
        > differeniate Kant from Hume from Nietzsche from Wittgenstein
        > from Heidegger from Foucault respecting human moral
        > interactions?
        > >
        > > And philosophy is, of course, everywhere. A politician can
        > be completely ignorant and uneducated like the current
        > President of the United States and he is still imbued with
        > the philosophical currents that impregnate human
        > interactions historically. Again, it's like intellectual
        > ether floating all around us. It impacts always. It's just
        > that, as some existentialists and postmodernists like to
        > point out, it is not a metaphysical presence so much as a
        > contextual one.
        > >
        > > Biggie
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
        > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
        >
        > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
        > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
        Service.
        >
        >
        > ---------------------------------
        > Do you Yahoo!?
        > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.