I find it interesting that some people can claim to be pro-life, yet are also pro-gun and advocate the use of deadly force for self-defence.
How can one say that an unborn, speculative life is more valuable than one of a living person? Is one person’s life more valuable than another's? Is the possibility that you could harm or kill an innnocent bystander outweigh your own life?
Additionally, this position puts the value of property higher than that of a human life. Is $40 dollars (or whatever you have in your pocket) worth more than a human life?
If you believe in life, shouldn't non-lethal options be your first choice, rather than your
last.
In most religions there is something called the rule of reciprocity, which is also called the Golden Rule in Christianity. The Golden Rule is arguably the most essential basis for the modern concept of human rights, in which each individual has a right to just treatment, and a reciprocal responsibility to ensure justice for others. The main point of the Golden Rule is that a person attempting to live by this rule treats all people with the same consideration as he would expect to receive, not just members of his or her in-group. The “golden rule” is exemplified in many Christian stories, in particular the Parable of the Good Samaritan. One point that gets missed is that the Samaritans is that the Jews and Samaritans didn’t get along, yet the Samaritan was the only person who helped the traveller.
The rule of reciprocity is tied into the concept of the Sanctity of Life. You are to treat others as you would have them treat you.
Additionally, the sanctity of life is a concept that one believes in. It is, in other words, a moral conviction.
It is a moral conviction about how human beings are to be perceived and treated. Belief in the sanctity of life prescribes a certain way of looking at the world, in particular its human inhabitants (with implications for its non-human inhabitants—a subject for another article). This perception then leads to behavioral implications related to how human beings are to be treated. Moral conviction leads to perception and flows into behavior. Notice that in constructing my understanding of the sanctity of life in this way I am emphasizing worldview dimensions first (convictions), character qualities next (perceptions), and behavioral prescriptions last. I think this is actually how the moral life works.
Another thing to note about this definition is its universality. Rightly understood, the sanctity of life is among the broadest and most inclusive understandings possible of our moral obligations to other human beings.
All human beings are included (each and every human being), at all stages of existence, with every quality of experience, reflecting every type of human diversity, and encompassing every possible quality of relationship to the person who does the perceiving. What all are included in is a vision of their immeasurable worth and inviolable dignity. This means that each of these human beings has a value that transcends all human capacity to count or measure, which confers upon them an elevated status that must not be dishonored or degraded.
This breathtaking and exalted vision of the worth and dignity of human beings is what we mean, or ought to mean, when we speak of the sanctity of life. It is a moral conviction that continually challenges our efforts to weaken it. Yet weaken it we do, whether purposefully or unintentionally. Most often we weaken it when we chafe against the implications of its universality—its vision of the weak, the enemy, the disabled, the stranger, the sinner, the poor, the ex-friend, the racial other, or whoever else we find it difficult to include within the community of the truly human.
Every effort to point out someone else’s violations of life’s sanctity implicitly requires us to examine our own fidelity to this exalted and demanding moral norm. This may be why the language of life’s sanctity has perhaps faded from public debate to some extent. Anti-abortion advocates who argued for the sanctity of (unborn) human life were met by anti-poverty advocates who argued for the sanctity of (born but poor) human life. Thoughtful moral theorists recognized that this was precisely right, and that a true understanding of life’s sanctity required a both/and rather than an either/or approach. But this hardly fits the culture wars paradigm. The sanctity of life is not so helpful as a political cudgel after all, which may mean its real value is as a bracing statement of human moral obligation.
Thus one has to admit that being pro-gun with its emphasis on deadly force and shooting first asking questions later is a violation of another's right to life. Work should be made to address the causes of crime rather than to punish or kill someone. Remember the exhortation to love the sinner, but hate the sin.
How can you say choose life, when you would kill another for $40?
See also:
Christianity, The Golden Rule, and Social Justice
Laci the Dog Topics: Right to Life
Isaiah 58
Versions of the Golden Rule in 21 world religions
Am I My Brother's Keeper? | Daily Devotion from Genesis 4:9-16 | RayStedman.org
The Bible on the Poor or, Why God is a liberal
God Calls Us To Show Mercy and Compassion to Our Fellow Man
How Greed Destroys America
Brown, Richard Maxwell No Duty to Retreat: Violence and Values in American History and Society, ISBN: 978-0195045109
Laci - you make some interesting points. I would like your opinion on whether or not an unborn child is
ReplyDelete1. human
2. alive
3. a distinct, genetically unique, body separate from but attached to the mother
Based on your opinion(s), why is the unborn child not afford the same respect for life you outlined in your post?
Separate from the questions on the unborn, do you think it is right for someone to defend their own life to the point of killing another person if that person is trying to kill them?
Jim, do you know what a miscarriage is? They are called spontaneous abortions.
ReplyDeleteBut you do ask a good question.
I am pro-choice. In that, I believe that the decision to have an abortion is one that should be made by a woman with her doctor's advice.
It is her decision and her decision only.
The concept that life begins at conception is held by a few religious people, usually Christian.
Sikhism does not define the time at which the soul enters a human foetus and so there is no official position on abortion. Even if the time was defined, it would be a personal decision and as with any important decision in our lives, we should use compassion and intelligence.
n Talmudic law, an embryo is not deemed a fully viable person (bar kayyama), but rather a being of "doubtful viability" (Niddah 44b). Hence, for instance, Jewish mourning rites do not apply to an unborn child. The status of the embryo is also indicated by its treatment as "an appendage of its mother" (ubar yerekh 'imo Hullin 58a) for such matters as ownership, maternal conversion and purity law. In even more evocative language, the Talmud states in a passage on priestly rules that the fetus "is considered to be mere water" until its 40th day.
Later Jewish authorities have differed as to how far one might go in defining the peril to the woman in order to justify abortion, and at what stage of gestation a fetus is considered having a soul, at which point one life cannot take precedence over another.
Personally, I believe that until a child is delivered alive it is neither human, alive, nor a distinct body separate from the mother.
This is an ethical belief and one in which I believe is one that is personal and should be free from government intrusion.
Additionally, as an ethical and medical decision, it is covered by the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Ethics and religion are interchangable in my opinion--even more so in a secular nation such as the United States.
In other words, If you don't like abortion--don't have one.
Thus, my belief about the sanctity and right to life is that it is more valid to say that the living have that right.
"Personally, I believe that until a child is delivered alive it is neither human, alive, nor a distinct body separate from the mother.
ReplyDeleteThis is an ethical belief and one in which I believe is one that is personal and should be free from government intrusion."
Should science be the field that determines what qualifies as human life or simply personal ethical beliefs? For instance - if an autopsy was performed on an aborted fetus, what species would the fetus be determined to belong to? Would the fetus be deemed to be the body of the mother or some other body?
Ok leaving behind the unborn issue, you did not answer my other question. If someone is in the act of trying to kill another person, is that person justified in killing their attacker while defending their own life?
Example: Man "A" is a 25 year old 6'-2" 300 lb person that is approaching Woman "B" a 72 year old woman that is 5'-0" and 125 lbs. The man is 25' away down a hallway inside the woman's house. He has a bat in his hand and has stated he intends to come over and beat the woman until she is dead. What would be the best option for this woman to save her own life?
a. have a gun
b. have a bat
c. call the police
d. attempt to run down the hallway and escape from the man
If the woman had a gun, would she be justified in shooting this man to save her own life? Why or why not?
Jim, My first question is how did this man get into the house in the first place?
ReplyDeleteShe should have bought better locks and a more solid door.
Fortunately, the woman is a former member of MI-6 and beats the attacker senseless.
Silly questions aside...
In the common law as it was understood at the time of the Constutiton, there was the doctrine that one needed to retreat before using force in self-defence.
The Duty to retreat is a specific component which sometimes appears in the defense of self-defense, and which must be addressed if the defendant is to prove that his or her conduct was justified. In those jurisdictions where the requirement exists, the burden of proof is on the defense to show that the defendant was acting reasonably.
This is often taken to mean that the defendant had first avoided conflict and secondly, had taken reasonable steps to retreat and so demonstrated an intention not to fight before eventually using force.
Some American jurisdictions require that a person retreat from an attack, and allow the use of deadly force in self defense only when retreat is not possible or when retreat poses a danger to the person under attack.
n English law the focus of the test is whether the defendant is acting reasonably in the particular situation. There is no specific requirement that a person must retreat in anticipation of an attack. Although some withdrawal would be useful evidence to prove that the defendant did not want to fight, not every defendant is able to escape. In R v Bird (1985) 1 WLR 816 the defendant was physically attacked, and reacted instinctively and immediately without having the opportunity to retreat. Had there been a delay in the response, the reaction might have appeared more revenge than self-defence. It might be different if the defendant sees an enemy approaching and decides to stand his ground. The answer may depend on where the threat is recognised. In a public place, where there are many other people present, a judgment must be made on whether an attack is imminent. As a matter of policy, no-one should be forced out of the streets because of fear, but prudence might dictate a different answer at night when the streets are empty.
A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable.
Opinions differ on what constitutes a reasonable amount of force, but in all cases, the defendant does not have the right to determine what constitutes "reasonable force" because the defendant would always maintain they acted reasonably and thus would never be guilty. The jury, as ordinary members of the community, must decide the amount of force reasonable in the circumstances of each case. It is relevant that the defendant was under pressure from imminent attack and may not have had time to make entirely rational decisions, so the test must balance the objective standard of a reasonable person by attributing some of the subjective knowledge of the defendant, including what they believed about the circumstances, even if mistaken. However, even allowing for mistakes made in a crisis, the amount of force must be proportionate and reasonable given the value of the interests being protected and the harm likely to be caused by use of force.
The use of deadly force should always be the last resort. If the man has a baseball bat and the woman were a self-defenc expert, then there would be no reason for her to use a firearm.
Likewise, if she had mace in her purse, that would be far more preferable to using a gun.
Non-deadly alternatives are much better than firearm in all circumstances. I have used them and find them effective.
I believe that carrying weapons should only be allowed if someone is in immediate threat of encountering deadly force.
"I believe that carrying weapons should only be allowed if someone is in immediate threat of encountering deadly force."
ReplyDeleteHow do you determine if someone is going to be in immediate threat of encountering deadly force? For instance, the recent mass shooting in Norway. Were those people in immediate threat of encountering deadly force when they left their houses that morning? What about the people killed in the pharmacy recently? Were they in immediate threat of encountering deadly force when they decided to go into that pharmacy that day?
If in your example of using mace or other non fatal defensive options ends up with the woman being killed anyway, is that a better outcome than her having used lethal force to stop her attacker? If in using her MI-6 training ends up accidentally killing the man by breaking his neck, is that a better outcome then her having shot the man with a gun?
Jim wrote:
ReplyDelete"How do you determine if someone is going to be in immediate threat of encountering deadly force? For instance, the recent mass shooting in Norway. Were those people in immediate threat of encountering deadly force when they left their houses that morning? What about the people killed in the pharmacy recently? Were they in immediate threat of encountering deadly force when they decided to go into that pharmacy that day?"
Jim, the odds of something like what happened in Norway occurring or even what happened in the pharmacy recently, or the story posted here about the Michigan barbershop are relatively rare. Our crime rate, particularly violent crime, has been going down. Those instances you used as examples are so much the exceptions to the rule for daily life for all of us as to render it ludicrous as a rationale.
You prepare for the probable, not the improbable. It is possible that a 128 foot blimp might end up in your backyard, but it is so unlikely, that there is no justification for designing your landscape gardening and your house architecture around that possibilty. That would be foolish.
Rather you structure your options so far as possible to allow yourself multiple choices in possible situations.
Or do you wear a raincoat and carry an umbrella on a sunny day when you go to the beach and the weather report indicates no chance of rain? The logical choice would be to prepare for the more likely and predictable, while making reasonable, not unreasonable, preparations for the unexpected - like a small collapsible umbrella kept permanently in your glove compartment, bag, or similar location.
You advocate for unreasonable, extreme, over reaction instead of reasonable measures. And sadly unlike the umbrella analogy, your unreasonable measures can be deadly, and not necessarily to the bad guys.
Jim, too many what ifs.
ReplyDeleteAs I said, how did the man get in the door in the first place?
If the woman used unarmed self-defence, yet killed the man because he didn't fall correctly she could use self-defence to mitigate any criminal penalties. In fact, since the unarmed force was presumably reasonable, then she would not face penalties.
Personally, I dislike the "pro-gun" use of emotion to try to hijack the argument.
As Dog Gone pointed out, the incidents you mention are extremely out of the ordinary. I live near where the flash mob attacks occured, yet I have never been a victim of flash mobs.
And quite frankly, I have dealt with rioters in the past, and I can handle rioters without the need for a firearm.
I'll admit that there are some extreme cases where a firearm is the only effective means of self-defence, but those situations are extremely rare.
And even rarer for civilians.
That is like why bother carrying a spare tire in your car. You could just keep one at home in the garage and go get it if you ever need it right? I mean how often do you have a flat tire right?
ReplyDeleteIn your rain analogy, if I get rained on I only get wet. If I end up in the middle of a mass shooting I could end up dead.
But you did not answer my question. You stated that "I believe that carrying weapons should only be allowed if someone is in immediate threat of encountering deadly force."
I asked how you determine that. Your answer seems to indicate that no one is ever in a statiscally significant threat of encountering deadly force. That seems to go against all of the crime stats that show otherwise. Can you clarify how you determine who should and who should not carry a weapon?
oops - I got crossed up as to who responded to my question.
ReplyDeleteSo Laci do you not prepare for rare events? Do you carry auto and home insurance? It is pretty rare that you would ever need these right? Also, even though you may have self defense training and be capable of beating the crap out of your attacker, that is not the case for everyone. Are they simply out of luck for not learning or not being capable of such tactics?
No, Jim; it is more like carrying one of those skinny spare tires because the usual distance one needs to travel on a spare is far less instead of a full sized tire, particularly in this day and age of cell phones and in-car systems that respond to help requests.
ReplyDeleteI believe in being prepared, but I don't carry my winter snow gear for emergencies in my car in August in Minnesota; I carry sunscreen, insect repellent, and other seasonally appropriate items.
You seem to be arguing for being prepared for sudden summer blizzards in August.
That was why I made the analogy to the blimp recently in Ohio, as a comparison to how unlikely the Norway shooting was. Yes it happened, but it was as unusual an occurrence as the blimp breaking free of tethers during a storm and ending up in the backyard of a 94 year old woman.
In your example, what if the 72 year old woman misses, or otherwise fails to stop the bad guy with her gun? What if he is high on PCP, and just keeps coming? She has stayed in a place of danger, rather than expand her options that would make the situation less hazardous.
She has chosen to use defensive violence instead of the safer option of retreat and getting help - safer for her, safer for the police, safer for everyone.
There are so many other options in the scenario you describe that are better. But because you want to believe in the false assurances of firearms to control every situation you imagine, you fail to demonstrate realistic risk evaluation.
again, asked and answered, I do prepare, but one can't prepare for all exigencies.
ReplyDeleteI am able to handle myself in big bad cities without a gun.
Following on from Dog Gone's comment about the attacker being high on PCP. Not only could he be high on PCP and keep coming, but he could wrestle the gun from the old lady.
So, your point is?
IF we are getting into false reliance upon firearms, I believe that there is a sort of belief which can be term gundamentalism, which is a belief that guns can protect you from all eventualities.
That is a false god.
"Or do you wear a raincoat and carry an umbrella on a sunny day when you go to the beach and the weather report indicates no chance of rain? The logical choice would be to prepare for the more likely and predictable, while making reasonable, not unreasonable, preparations for the unexpected - like a small collapsible umbrella kept permanently in your glove compartment, bag, or similar location."
ReplyDeleteHah I totally missed that you suggested a concealed form of defense against the rain but poo-poo the idea of using a concealed form of defense to protect your life. Thanks for the laugh.
Wow! Laci is one tough dog!
ReplyDeleteLaci: "She should have bought better locks and a more solid door."
Sounds like the "victim" is as much at fault as the bad guy. And if she hadn't been dressed so provocatively, she wouldn't have been...
Laci: "Non-deadly alternatives are much better than firearm in all circumstances. I have used them and find them effective."
Without being lurid, could you share some of your experiences? They might help members of the gun crowd learn some new alternatives to resolve these situations.
Laci: "And quite frankly, I have dealt with rioters in the past, and I can handle rioters without the need for a firearm."
Wow and Wow!! I'd venture to say that there aren't many Chicago cops who could do that without calling in a boatload of backup! I know I'd feel a lot better knowing how to do that myself. Could you please help me learn how to handle rioters?
Thanks!
No Jim, I did nothing of the kind.
ReplyDeleteWhat I suggested was a more reality based risk assessment than what you described.
If you are laughing, it is the hysterical laughter of the paranoiac.
To answer your first question, a child is a human being at the point where brain development is sufficient to register awareness and higher neurological / brain function.
ReplyDeleteBefore that, it is human tissue with a parasitic relationship to the host mother, whether that be the conceptive mother or a surrogate mother.
We do not in any way shape or form require one human being to make their body or any part of their body available to another for survival. That is why it is called blood donation, marrow donation, tissue donation, and organ donation, not something else.
Those who would make women subordinate to a zygote, morula, blastula, gastrula and nerula in the embryonic stages, or fetus in subsequent stages, force women to make that involuntary donation of their bodies, and to do so for an extended period of time, for no more legitimate reason than they are women, and therefore uniquely suited to do so.
This is not true of ANY other donors who are matches, or who might have a familial relationship, and therefore might be superior donor candidates. NO other person is REQUIRED to make that donation. So long as we do not require, much less force, any other human being to surrender their bodies, or parts thereof, to permit another person to live, it is wrong to do so to women as a separate class of people.
Neurological development around week 24 - 28 suggests this is a sufficiently developed neurological being to merit being considered a new, separate and distinct human being. And by that time, if the mother in whom this individual resides has not taken any measures to discontinue pregnancy, I think it is fair to assert there is an implied consent that should not be revoked, except to preserve the life of the mother.
I would point out to you that frozen embryos are separate, but we do not accord them full and equal legal status or ethical and moral status, because they are not sufficiently developed to merit that status.
As to being 'genetically unique' - would you then describe identical twins who carry the exact same DNA to be considered as one person, not two? There is only one set of DNA there.
Further, since it is possible to have human parthenogenisis, with laboratory assistance, and a comparable scientific process is available for men, where a skin cell can become an embryo with identical DNA to the donor, you might want to be very careful in using the concept of 'genetically unique' as a definition.
A skin graft is human tissue; that does not make it a human being. That tissue is not alive, as a separate entity, but only alive as an extension of the host that grows it.
Perhaps you are unaware that the primary source of skin grafts are cells that are grown from human foreskins harvested during the circumcision process in hospitals. From each, approximately 4 acres of skin is produced.
Is that skin human, is it alive, is it genetically unique? Could it, under the right, optimum circumstances become a human fetus, and from therehttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080118092439.htm, a human being? (Look it up here.) Yes.
Is it a human being? NO.
Those who try to assert that personhood exists at conception are wrong, wrong for a very long laundry list of reasons.
But additionally consider this; the criteria I used, brain function, is the similar to the criteria we use to differentiate life from death, as in when someone is brain dead, and therefore it has additional merit.
Brain stem function when the rest of the brain has ceased to do so is sufficient for someone to be brain dead - not unlike Terri Schiavo.
All of which I believe answer your question why unborn children at certain earl stages of development do not have rights as human beings at all, much less as human beings who have rights which subordinate the rights of other human beings who happen to be female.
I'll take a wack at your last question in the first comment; it IS legitimate to kill another person to save your life, if you have no other options available to you, including flight from the situation. Killing another person should be the last recourse, not the first.
ReplyDeleteTo the original question: I won't shoot someone over $40. I will, however, shoot them if they convince me that I am in deadly peril from them.
ReplyDeleteYes, escape or other non-lethal responses are preferable if possible. They won't always be.
I don't know if you want that answer though since I don't have any problem with the pro-choice argument. The thought of my child being aborted turns my stomach but it's hardly my right to enforce that over another. I handle it by refraining from sex with women who don't share my views.
I believe we are in agreement, Anonymous.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "The thought of my child being aborted turns my stomach but it's hardly my right to enforce that over another. I handle it by refraining from sex with women who don't share my views."
I believe that in most circumstances women would generally share your views about aborting a child being repugnant to them.
However, it is equally true that being pregnant involuntarily is equally repugnant under some circumstances for a women, possibly even more so.
I wouldn't wish anyone to be in the position that sometimes happens of having to choose between the life of a mother, and the life involved in a voluntary pregnancy.
That is what is so heinous about the anti-abortionists point of view; they wish to force their decision about these issues on others rather than crediting them with the capacity for moral and ethical decisions.
Pregnancy, including when and where, is a choice made possible by both contraception, and by the methods we have available and continue to expand for conception through fertility research.
"All human beings are included (each and every human being), at all stages of existence, with every quality of experience, reflecting every type of human diversity, and encompassing every possible quality of relationship to the person who does the perceiving. What all are included in is a vision of their immeasurable worth and inviolable dignity. This means that each of these human beings has a value that transcends all human capacity to count or measure, which confers upon them an elevated status that must not be dishonored or degraded.
ReplyDeleteThis breathtaking and exalted vision of the worth and dignity of human beings is what we mean, or ought to mean, when we speak of the sanctity of life. It is a moral conviction that continually challenges our efforts to weaken it. Yet weaken it we do, whether purposefully or unintentionally. Most often we weaken it when we chafe against the implications of its universality—its vision of the weak, the enemy, the disabled, the stranger, the unborn, the sinner, the poor, the ex-friend, the racial other, or whoever else we find it difficult to include within the community of the truly human."
From Laci's own post he includes the unborn in those deserving humane treatment and that their life should be protected.
And now since we all agree that it is acceptable to defend your own life with lethal force, what is the issue? Why do you agree that it is acceptable to use lethal force - although it is a very rare circumstance - and then fight against the ability for people to provide that same force?
"I would point out to you that frozen embryos are separate, but we do not accord them full and equal legal status or ethical and moral status, because they are not sufficiently developed to merit that status."
ReplyDeleteThere are some institutions that argue the moral and ethical status of these frozen embryos, as well as any genetic research that would attempt to clone a human being from stem cells or otherwise.
The unborn are listed as being protected since that came from someone who was pro-life with whom I happened to agree.
ReplyDeleteBut, if unborn life is given respect, than the born are far more deserving to have their lives respected.
"Why do you agree that it is acceptable to use lethal force - although it is a very rare circumstance - and then fight against the ability for people to provide that same force?"
ReplyDeleteThese are exceptional circumstance, not the norm.
It should not be easy to acquire a firearm for use against another person--especially in the case of criminals, the insane, etc.
The gun culture has brought about laws such as the "no duty to retreat laws" which make lethal force a first option, rather than the extreme, final option.
BTW, Jim, if you are going to glom onto my use of the Unborn in the list, the more important part is:
ReplyDeleteAnti-abortion advocates who argued for the sanctity of (unborn) human life were met by anti-poverty advocates who argued for the sanctity of (born but poor) human life. Thoughtful moral theorists recognized that this was precisely right, and that a true understanding of life’s sanctity required a both/and rather than an either/or approach. But this hardly fits the culture wars paradigm. The sanctity of life is not so helpful as a political cudgel after all, which may mean its real value is as a bracing statement of human moral obligation.
"But, if unborn life is given respect, than the born are far more deserving to have their lives respected."
ReplyDeleteI think the point was that all life was to be equally respected. That is why it is acceptable to use deadly force to preserve your own life because you are respecting your life.
I agree that deadly force should be extremely rare, but it is needed and should be easy to obtain so that you can protect and respect your right to life. The problem is not in the fact that lethal force is easy to obtain. The problem is that too many people are willing and capable of mis-using that force. In order to protect and respect your own life, you need to be afforded the tools that allow you to accomplish that.
"BTW, Jim, if you are going to glom onto my use of the Unborn in the list, the more important part is:
ReplyDeleteAnti-abortion advocates who argued for the sanctity of (unborn) human life were met by anti-poverty advocates who argued for the sanctity of (born but poor) human life. Thoughtful moral theorists recognized that this was precisely right, and that a true understanding of life’s sanctity required a both/and rather than an either/or approach. But this hardly fits the culture wars paradigm. The sanctity of life is not so helpful as a political cudgel after all, which may mean its real value is as a bracing statement of human moral obligation. "
Again Laci - I agree with all of that. I expect that we have different views on how best to address the issues of poverty, but we do agree that all people deserve respect and the right to life.
Jim you make a 'which came first the chicken or the egg' argument, a kind of tautology.
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"The problem is that too many people are willing and capable of mis-using that force. In order to protect and respect your own life, you need to be afforded the tools that allow you to accomplish that."
You argue that too many people are willing and capable of mis-using deadly force.
Yet you argue that because of that, you need to have the access to those tools of deadly force, too.
No. You don't. What we need is effective passive defenses, effective law enforcement that provides adequate protection, not more people taking the law,or their defense, into their own hands. It is precisely the prevalence of firearms, the tools of deadly force, that creates the situation in the first place. Additional firearms is adding to the problem, not solving it.
There are better solutions than ready access to firearms for large numbers of people. The daily examples of gun violence demonstrate almost hourly how misused those tools are, by a wide cross section of people.
Jim wrote: "There are some institutions that argue the moral and ethical status of these frozen embryos, as well as any genetic research that would attempt to clone a human being from stem cells or otherwise."
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty familiar with the history of the bio/medical ethics of this discussion.
Those institutions to which you refer are largely religious ones, which do not make a well-grounded argument in any fact or logic, but only in emotions and blind belief.
When religion differs with medicine specifically and science generally, when it replaces some unconfirmable, unverifiable allegedly inerrent word of God, then by all means personally follow your own beliefs in your own conduct. That belief has NO business whatsoever imposed on anyone else, violating THEIR right to make moral deicisons of faith (or not faith) and conscience. And those institutions deserve precisely the criticism I itemized.
As far back as the ancient greeks it was observed that injury or amputation of a body part - say a foot or hand - did not result in that person ceasing to be that person. Injury or loss to the brain however does. Neural development and activity as a measure of the physiological basis of our essential self-awareness, sentience, self, is more demonstrable and justifiable than the religious arguments. The existence of a soul is not demonstrable; neural activity is, which takes the determination outside any one religion being imposed on others.
On that basis, NO, embryos do not merit legal, moral or ethical full person status.
My idea is women should have absolute power over their own bodies. Anything she wants for any reason. Men shouldn't even be talking about abortion.
ReplyDeleteI oppose capital punishment absolutely, no exceptions.
The use of a defensive weapon should be limited to the most extreme or life threatening situations. Retrospective judgment should be severe and scrupulous.
Well, if allathem Norwegians had been packin' that mean Mr. B. woulda never been able to kill them all.
ReplyDeleteOddly, Norway, as underarmed as it is has an intentional homicide rate that hovers around 1/100,000 whereas the well armed USA!USA!!USYAY!!! has an intentional homicide rate of around 5.5/100,000. The country of Norway has fewer murders per year than the city of Phoenix, AZ. Obviously gunz are not saving a lot of lives.
If you are willing to threaten my life in an attempt to exact, by deadly force, the $40 in my wallet then any defensive violence that results is the fault of the criminal who threatened my life.
ReplyDeleteHE initiated deadly force against me. He chose death. I would ask "Is he willing to risk his life (and mine) over MY $40?"
Again, our anonymous poster assumes that deadly force is involved.
ReplyDeleteThis situations are extremely rare.
Also, anonymous, doesn't understand that he is also endangering his life as well as the assailant.
Anonymous, you make my point for me better than I can make it myself about the stupidity of poor risk assessment by those who rely on carrying guns.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, it is stupid to kill someone or even fight with someone over $40, on so many levels, for so many reasons.
You assume perhaps that you would emerge from such a conflict, injury free and that the only harm would be what you inflicted on the threatening party. This is a foolish assumption particularly in view of how often people firing in any situation but particularly in threatening situations fail to hit what they are aiming at - even police - regardless of the range of distance involved.
Secondly, if someone is threatening you with lethal force, whether it be a firearm or a bladed weapon, they already pretty much have an advantage on you in that they have their weapon at the ready, and you do not. Getting into a shooting match in that situation implies a speed of quick draw where even the fastest recorded quick draw artists are at a disadvantage. If you are using a shoulder holster, or a waist band holster, or an ankle holster, or any form of hip holster that in some way secures your firearm rather than has the grip loose, you are at an additional disadvantage. Your risk assessment presumes that while you are bringing your firearm to bear, the other party is just standing there doing nothing in response to you moving. Reality is that they are probably not using the time to pick their nose, text message or check email. Reality is that the greater likelihood is they have more adrenaline peaking in their system than you do, affecting their response time favorably compared to yours.
So, even in the unlikely event that you DO get a shot off - a very unlikely event - the odds are that you will receive greater injuries, in both pain, but also in cost than the $40. It is a dangerous move, it is not a cost effective move, it is not a smart, effective or successful risk assessment of the situation.
Beyond this, you do not allow, in your swagger and bluster, for the possibility, even the probability that there could be more than one assailant involved, possibly one behind you, who has not presented himself (or herself, but the greater probability is male) to your attention or awareness. In this scenario, YOU don't have time to check, without it being noticeable to the threatening person, meaning you have made yourself more vulnerable, not less.
Your comment is long on macho swagger and bullshit, but sadly short on reality and smart.
To continue, Anon:
ReplyDeletePerhaps you suffer from what is sometmies termed testosterone poisoning. Testosterone has a very negative impact on risk assessment, as has been demonstratedin a wide range of judgement research, particularly in the context of accurate risk assessment.
It is true of a wide range of situations where there is the perception of threat or risk, from soldiers in combat to traders in the stock market. While I won't burden you with the more scientifically dry and challenging studies, here is one that is more accessible to the average not-a-bio-science-geek. The findings of research on the effects of testosterone levels, which fluctuate more than most men of my acquaintance are aware, is that it screws up, badly, the male ability to assess risk. When you think you are in a position of perceived dominance or success, you underestimate risk, often severely so. When you are in a position of perceived loss or vulnerability, you drastically OVERestimate threats and the risks associated with that threat.
Your comment, Anon, shows the exact pattern I described. Over-reliance on the perceived advantage of your firearm, over-reliance on your ability, undre-assessment of the risks to your course of action.
Beyond that, the reward of keeping $40 in your pocket - stupid, not a worthwhile payoff for this risk, even if you HAD correctly assessed the situation. THAT was the first thing I noticed, the clincher that you were all swagger and no sense.
Your answer demonstrates thinking with your very scared little testicles, not your brain.
Methinks Anon has read too many dime novels or seen too many Westerns.
ReplyDeleteThe good guy doesn't always get the drop on the bad guy.
Tom, simple join the British Army and do two tours of Norn Iron.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, that option is no longer open after th Good Friday Agreement.
"testosterone poisoning," I like that.
ReplyDeleteThat should be another disqualifier. i wonder if there's a test for that?
There is a simple cheek swab test used in some studies to test testosterone levels, like the neuro-economic one I cited.
ReplyDeleteSadly, because of how testosterone levels fluctuates, there is no way to test for response to threats that would work for controlling gun access.
"My idea is women should have absolute power over their own bodies. Anything she wants for any reason. Men shouldn't even be talking about abortion.
ReplyDeleteI oppose capital punishment absolutely, no exceptions."
Do you really not see the inconsistency inherent in those statements?
Did you read the post, TB?
ReplyDeleteEven more importantly, Did you understand the post and comments, TB?
o answer your first question, a child is a human being at the point where brain development is sufficient to register awareness and higher neurological / brain function.
Before that, it is human tissue with a parasitic relationship to the host mother, whether that be the conceptive mother or a surrogate mother...
Neurological development around week 24 - 28 suggests this is a sufficiently developed neurological being to merit being considered a new, separate and distinct human being. And by that time, if the mother in whom this individual resides has not taken any measures to discontinue pregnancy, I think it is fair to assert there is an implied consent that should not be revoked, except to preserve the life of the mother.
As the post point out, the belief that "life begins at Conception" is specific to certain religious groups--others disagree and call it a speculative life.
I said, that I do not consider a foetus to be a life until is is delivered as a live birth--that is it is a speculative life.
I see it more of an inconsistency to believe that a speculative life is more worthy than an actual living human being.
Is that in simple enough language for you to understand, TB?
TB wrote:"Do you really not see the inconsistency inherent in those statements?"
ReplyDeleteNo, TB, he does not; because THERE IS NO INCONSISTENCY in those statements.
A woman's body is not properly made subordinate to a zygote or the subsequent stages of development, any more than we would take your body, or parts of it, by coercion (legal or otherwise) so that someone else can live.
Tissue is not a human being, any more than a hangnail is, until it develops the neural capacity to register the same brain function we use to determine if a person is alive. That it might - or might not - subsequently develop doesn't alter that (see above about it being immoral and unethical to commandeer an unwilling woman's body for that development).
The death penalty is applied to innocent people far too often, and the inconsistency with which it is applied, particularly inequitably on the basis of race/ethnicity and economic class renders it a grossly unfair punishment, one that is not morally justified. It is far closer to an act of societal revenge than it is either a deterrent against recidivism or an appropriate punishment.
No inconsistency. And even if there were, that's my stance.
ReplyDelete"Tom, simple join the British Army and do two tours of Norn Iron."
ReplyDeleteOK, that's a start. So, is there a British Army manual that I could read? Or did you get special training for that duty?
I'm really very curious, because I would like to have a set of skills that I -- a somewhat out-of-shape but not necessarily overweight -- man could call upon that are not lethal. Signing up for a tour in the US Army is also off limits because of my age.
Thanks!
Uh yeah--read a book...
ReplyDeleteNice start, but nothing beats having people pelt you with rocks, bottles, and the odd petrol bomb in real life to steel your nerves.
You say you are too young for the military. Suggestion, start getting in shape for when you are old enough to enlist.
But one hint, if you see an angry crowd coming down the street--go the other way!
"Is $40 dollars (or whatever you have in your pocket) worth more than a human life? "
ReplyDeleteA life lived without honor is worth less than a life not lived at all. A criminal who threatens my life is worth less than anything they might want.
Also - many times robbers kill their victims after they get their loot.
"I oppose capital punishment absolutely, no exceptions."
ReplyDeleteYet you support gun control which is enforced by guns which will kill anyone who doesn't comply with your preferred prohibition?
While I know something of Laci's thoughts on this, I am not speaking for him specifically Jim, when you write:
ReplyDelete"Yet you support gun control which is enforced by guns which will kill anyone who doesn't comply with your preferred prohibition?"
That is a false characterization. What we here DO support is protection of members of society by law, not individual vigilanteism, in order to have fewer violent deaths. Gun control is enforced by law, punishments like fines or in the most extreme cases, possibly imprisonment. Any use of guns by law enforcement on behalf of society is still minimal, lawful, and less violent than your alternative. It is consistent with recognizing that we need armed trained military, not only with firearms but even more lethal force, but force which is used minimally and reactively rather than Bush-like, incorrectly pre-emptively.
It is therefore quite consistent with reasonable force of law, and more reasonable punishment rather than excessive or revengeful punishment.
Anonymous, who is so brave he doesn't even use a descriptive blognomen, wrote:
ReplyDelete"A life lived without honor is worth less than a life not lived at all. A criminal who threatens my life is worth less than anything they might want.
Also - many times robbers kill their victims after they get their loot."
You words have a lot of swagger, Jim, but no substance, they are all posturing that tries to gloss over failed risk assessment. They pretend to worthwhile values, but the values don't stand up under scrutiny.
Unless there is clear evidence that someone WILL kill you, is a real, not a Maybe/ maybe not threat, this attitude could as easily be abused to justify shooting someone walking down the street because you think they looked at you funny, and therefore challenged your precious honor.
Lethal force must always be the last alternative reluctantly used. That means you would be better off tasering your threatening person, than shooting him, or using mace.
Most of all it tells me that you are so insecure that you over react, that you think with your adrenal glands not your brain which is the wrong body part
for the job.
THAT is not honor, or courage, or reasonable.
Anonymous said, "Yet you support gun control which is enforced by guns which will kill anyone who doesn't comply with your preferred prohibition?"
ReplyDeleteYeah, man, I'm talking about sendin' them black-ops kinda guys to YOUR house to take the guns away. That's exactly what I'm talking about.
Mikeb, be careful, Anonymous may not get that you are kidding. Guys willing to kill someone for $40 don't have a lot of perspective on the world, or apparently much of a sense of humor. From what was written about Trig, they clearly don't understand satire very well either.
ReplyDeleteAnon--
ReplyDeleteA defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property.
Opinions differ on what constitutes a reasonable amount of force, but in all cases, the defendant does not have the right to determine what constitutes "reasonable force" because the defendant would always maintain they acted reasonably and thus would never be guilty.
I am not going to address the other silly comment.
Just for the record - I did not post the Anon comments above.
ReplyDelete