…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
[to work around page bug]
2,941 thoughts on “Noyau (2)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
The foremost reason not the only reason. Lots of evangelicals probably don’t like to pay taxes, some probably want to dismantle the public school system, DeVos.
They are not stopping abortion, they are stopping legal ,safe abortion. They want to do to others what they don’t want others to do to them. Interfere with their beliefs.
I would think a man would have the right to protect an unborn child however the right is subservient to the right of the woman to choose whether another being uses her body for survival.
Ah, what RIGHT?
Rights, Shmights.
Good point. But mom’s rights, dad’s rights, fetus’s rights, God’s rights, society’s rights, etc., etc. That’s an awful lot of weight on something that isn’t actually real, no?
There is no safe abortion. The baby dies almost every time.
peace
He’s pointing out that sometimes the moms die too.
Double the death in those instances then.
Is limiting abortion to earlier in the pregnancy so as minimize the risk to the mother something that he would support? What about requiring an abortion provider meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers?
If not I doubt that the mothers health is his primary concern.
peace
Passing laws against rape doesn’t stop rape, it stops legal,safe rape.
peace
What word would you prefer?
It seems like a self imposed convention in order to provide boundaries.
You have it backwards, it is not the woman who is using another’s body without permission if you want to use the metaphor of rape is like abortion.
So one is more likely to preserve a life. And if you believe every life is sacred that should be a good thing.
Depends whether those limitations were science based or just a Trojan Horse.
Same answer.
If you provide evidence to that effect we might determine whether whether the mother’s health is you primary concern as well.
Let’s see what you are willing to ante up, would you support a single payer health system if it was was shown to lower the rate of infant mortality?
I suggest those who claim the right to insist all pregnancies, wanted or not, are carried to term are also under an obligation to provide decent health care and financial support.
Should Irish men get a vote in the upcoming referendum on abortion in the Republic of Ireland? Should priests?
Yes. Yes.
Well, I wouldn’t be happier if a different word was used that people suggested carried any weight in this argument.
And speaking of the argument(s), I’d like to congratulate both you and FMM for your articulate advocacy. You are both excellent spokespeople on this issue, IMO, and the groups you represent should be proud and thankful. (Rights-talk doesn’t really help either of you, I don’t think, but neither of you really seems to need it.)
I agree, Do you know of anyone who has been unable to place their unwanted children up for adoption?
So in your metaphor it’s the baby who is like the rapist?
peace
I realize that abortion is a very complicated subject with people of good will on both sides.
I expect that the absent Roe v Wade we would come up with a messy unsatisfying solution that was somewhere in the middle of the two poles of banning all abortion and abortion on demand up to and including infanticide.
The problem is that we as a society have been unable to have the hard discussion that is required. Instead we are short circuited by the courts.
And the issue festers like an open wound
peace
I think the more common metaphor involves a parasitic violinist.
I’ve been struggling with abortion for ages. Seems reasonable to me to ultimately let women decide whether to abort of not if abortion is accepted, but I’m not sure men should be left out of the debate on whether abortion is acceptable or not and in which cases.
I’m surprised that you’re critical of rights. You struck me as having a pretty generous family of criteria for ontological commitment, no? Sure, natural rights have got be nonsense, but what’s wrong with other kinds of rights?
I’ve never run into rights that are not natural rights.
Do you really think that ‘natural rights’ include the right to vote, the right to drive with a valid driver’s license, the right to sign a contract, and so on?
Well, if they are not natural they would have to be unnatural or supernatural, and I have never experienced either of those, so they must all be natural.
Kantian Naturalist,
To the extent that they’re derivative, I don’t see how they can be of much help in resolving the abortion dispute. What’s wanted is something that can be relied on. If a fetus’s “right to be brought to term” was created by the society, it can just as easily be taken away. IOW, if rights aren’t “natural” the question of whether they ought to be considered dispositive in this arena is bound to come up (and should).
If your dentist’s office does not meet the standards of an ambulatory surgical center (ASC) the by your implicit rationalizations s/he does not have their patients health as their primary concern.
the risk, and rate, of complications from tooth extraction are much higher (about double that) of having an abortion. I wonder why we don’t see legislation being passed requiring dentists to meet the ASC requirements or requiring dentists to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their office? If the legislators concern was actually the safety and health of the patients being treated this should be a top priority.
I have a simple question. Do you think women who become pregnant after being raped should be forced to carry the baby to term?
If so, how many crimes in total were committed there?
Another simple question. How long should the jail term be for women who have abortions?
It is your metaphor not mine. I think the issue is too complex to reduce it to a sound bite
Also, how many unwanted babies have you personally adopted FMM?
If only there was some all powerful entity that had within it the power to make childbirth risk free.
That’s not what “natural” in the phrase “natural rights” means. It’s about whether rights are conferred by the state or intrinsically adhere to human persons in the absence of states.
That seems on the right track. I guess I think of rights as claims made to others, on behalf of oneself or on others, to refrain from committing various kinds of moral injury, and especially morally significant bodily injury.
One concept that I think has been hugely problematic is the idea of personhood. I think it’s completely bollocksed up our thinking about what’s morally important in the case of abortion, and it’s also hamstrung all of our democratic institutions insofar as personhood is something that can granted to corporations.
I’d rather start ethical theory all over again with sustained reflection on extreme bodily moral injury (e.g. torture and rape), then widen the investigation to include humiliation, degradation, dehumanization, and other related moral injuries. I’d rather think about what kinds of suffering are important to avoid than think about what kinds of actions are necessary to perform, and about avoiding evil rather than doing good. (Likewise I’d rather focus on ignorance, esp culpable ignorance, in epistemology than on knowledge.)
If we look at primitive societies, and their practiced, perhaps that’s an indication of natural rights.
But I think that would make infanticide a natural right.
Neil Rickert,
That’s not what’s meant be “natural rights” by their exponents either.
Kantian Naturalist,
Interesting
I’m sure you’d find some way to muck that up too.
An all powerful, all knowing designer thwarted by his defective designs.
Seems an unfair criticism.
I’m curious. Do people here think that satisfaction of one’s life’s goals is what makes a life go well for someone? I.e., the guy who’s unsuccessfully been trying to write a successful novel might still have had a bad life (from his perspective) even if he was relatively happy each day of his long life, a life filled with all the the comforts, loving relationships, etc.?
And whether or not you think that aggregation of pleasures is trumped by fulfillment of life goals, I’m interested in hearing what you think makes something a “life goal.” E.g, do you have to have it for most of your life?
Thanks for any thoughts. (I take this to be peripherally relevant to the abortion question, incidentally.)
I’m pretty good at setting short term goals I think, but equally bad at setting long term goals.
If they are going to be bound by the laws of the country, they should have a say. In this case while not binding , it could determine which laws are enacted .
It is complex question , there are people of goodwill on both sides. And then there are politicians.
I disagree.
fmm offered up the rhetorical question
in order to imply that, for every unwanted child, there is a family willing to adopt.
This is utterly false (with one famous exception).
We would have had a state by state system until pressure for a comphrensive solution would have manifested itself in a federal intervention.
The voters in the State of Texas through their representatives made that non legal discussion moot. Which moved the discussion to the legal arena. The decision in Roe restored individual choice by removing state mandate.
Per the decision
“The three-judge court declared that the “freedom to choose in the matter of abortions has been accorded the status of a `fundamental’ right in every case the court had examined, and that the burden is on the defendant to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court that the infringement [by the Texas abortion laws] is necessary to support a compelling state interest.”
Then the strategy to win the hard decision became to pass laws to overturn the decision and restore government mandate. And where there are laws , there are courts. The pro life advocates are doing everything to use the courts to short circuit choice. If you are arguing against the courts and government interference ,you are on the wrong side.
Which bring us back to where this started, in order to overturn Roe, pro choice advocates are willing to be used by an unstable, immoral tool.
I would say the things that made me the most miserable in my life are not unfulfilled goals, but goals I didn’t have and later realized I should have had, if that makes any sense. IOW, regrets of missed opportunities or not doing something/enough about important stuff that I either didn’t deem so important at the time or simply failed to care as much as I should have cared.
Not sure what any of that has to do with abortion though
Do not disagree and eliminating abortion would increase the number of children who needed to be adopted. Creating a population which would include a larger percentage of children who suffered from more complex health issues. Coupled with a effort by conservatives to eliminate the health safety net, this would make find adoptive parents willing to accept the financial requirement even more difficult.
However since all people do not qualify to be adoptive parents, questioning one on the willingness to put skin in the game on that one criteria seems unfair. There are questions which would not suffer from that possible objection.
For instance, do you support and are willing to pay for increased education and availability of birth control to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies?
In the legal sense a right does a carry weight even if it carries none for philosophy.
newton,
I agree whole-heartedly. My disagreement was merely with characterizing OMagain’s rhetorical jab as “unfair”, given the way that fmm had raised adoption.
It was, perhaps, “misplaced”. The birth control / sex ed. question is a pretty surefire way of getting someone to show their colors.
[And for the honesty-impaired, there’s a follow-up question about IUDs 😉 ]
ok. But your reasoning is horrendous.
From your response it doesn’t follow at all that the criticism was unfair. Also, even if fmm isn’t willing to adopt it doesn’t follow that no one is willing nor that there are not enough people who are willing.
ETA:
Leaving aside the fairness of the question, it’s a pointless question. A red herring. Because nothing follows from it either way.
Thanks, dazz. What is it about those goals that makes you now think that it would have been good to have them earlier? More specifically, I mean, What about your life would have been better if you’d fulfilled those, rather than some other goals you now don’t care so much about?