Re: When Life Begins
- From: Bart Goddard <goddardbe@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 12 Mar 2009 19:03:53 GMT
Ray <chigarayREMOVE@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:d9gir4dbc2gha9e5jqulq7u9ebouvbgujh@xxxxxxx:
Well, you seem to be playing both ends against the middle here. If I
say I think folks should mind their own business in regards to issues
that affect me, that's bad. If I say folksshould mind their own
business on issues that don't affect me, that's bad, too?
No. Neither is "bad." The point is that there are issues
in which it's easy for one side to say "Live and let live"
but much harder for the other side. I think slavery in
the South was a good example.
Perhaps it boils down to where the rule "Live and let live"
comes in the hierarchy of you rules. I have some rules
which I think trump "live and let live." E.g., if someone
is flogging their 5-year-old into a coma, then "live and
let live" takes a backseat to "protect the helpless."
Strict adherence to "live and let live" can cause a person
to commit some heinous sins.
Even assuming "protect the helpless" is higher on your
list than "live and let live", since you think an embryo is
just a clump of cells, "protect the helpless" doesn't
assert itself. So you say "live and let live." Fine.
But the implication that I'm being unreasonable for not
"living and let live" is not fair, since, it's far harder
for me in this situation.
What about all the people, North and South, who didn't have slaves who
basically said to the abolitionists "mind your own business"?
What about them? Is their existence somehow an argument
against the abolitionists working to abolish slavery?
Yeah, it's hard to be an adult. Not every question is cut
and dried, especially moral questions. I could sin by action
or I could sin by inaction. Whether it's up to ME or not,
I'm gonna decide.
Even in issues that don't affect you? Quite the ego you've got there.
It's not a matter of ego, regardless of how big mine is.
It's a matter of me deciding morally whether I'm going to stand
by and let a child be deliberately hospitalized. If such a
thing happened in the grocery store, with a crowd of
people looking on and no one did anything, I think we'd
all be a bit pissed at that crowd.
As long as YOU don't consider it abuse, you're fine in allowing it,
Duh. How else is it supposed to work?
even defending it to others who feel it has already crossed the line
and never even stopping to ask the child if it is being abused and
wants the spanking to stop. I think we all know what the child's
response would be.
The difference I perceive between you and me is that
"mind yer own business" is a rule much higher up in your
heirarchy of rules than it is in mine. It's a nice principle,
but it should be supercede by several higher principles.
According to you.
Yes. You can tell it's "according to me" because I typed it.
Throwing blood (real or stage) on staff and/or patients is not a
peaceful protest, it is assault.
So since I said "peaceful protest", this situation isn't
relevent here.
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
.
- References:
- Re: When Life Begins
- From: Bart Goddard
- Re: When Life Begins
- From: Bart Goddard
- Re: When Life Begins
- From: Bart Goddard
- Re: When Life Begins
- From: Bart Goddard
- Re: When Life Begins
- From: Bart Goddard
- Re: When Life Begins
- Prev by Date: Re: Smoke one...
- Next by Date: Re: Tunneling
- Previous by thread: Re: When Life Begins
- Next by thread: Re: When Life Begins
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading