How Hitler Won the War (and no one knew)

Sep 30, 2008 17:37

Last week in my medicine class my professor, Dr. John Patrick, spoke about abortion and in his bluntly British way pointed out to us that the concept of genetic screening came straight out of the Nazi handbook. This link was easy enough for any of us to see, but the truth had simply never occurred to me, for I had never bothered to think about it. ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 6

anonymous September 30 2008, 23:27:16 UTC
How many "saved" babies have you adopted? How many "saved" babies need to grow up in neglectful and abusive situations to make you happy that abortion was not an option? The world has a hard time treating the existing population with respect and providing adequate living situations, what have you done to improve on this?

If you want to do something meaningful for a baby stop the genital mutilation of baby boys and girls by the stupid and the people who call themselves religious.

Reply

hillsideheather October 1 2008, 00:59:34 UTC
I have not adopted a single one, but as I'm young and not supporting myself yet, hopefully one day I either will be working with orphaned children or adopt one or more myself. To start with, I have been touched greatly by this issue; I have a heart for these children and that's the beginning. As small and insignificant as I am, if I can change the life of one child I would consider myself greatly blessed ( ... )

Reply


smithra October 2 2008, 03:58:59 UTC
At a talk at NCSU, Orson Scott Card said something along the lines of "No reasonable person is in favor of war." He went on to give reasons why he found the war in Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever we were at that point necessary and just. Obviously, the pro-choice people can pick no such moral high ground, but I still think that people who fail to ban abortion do so because they don't find it their job to legislate morality rather than being pro-abortion ( ... )

Reply

hillsideheather October 7 2008, 21:48:44 UTC
If it is not their job to legislate morality, what exactly is their job? I think the only other thing they could do would be to legislate to further their own interests, which does not lead to democracy.

Reply

smithra October 16 2008, 04:27:03 UTC
Their self-interest is to vote in a way that allows them to get reelected next term. The way to do that is to vote in a way those who elected you like, independent of your personal convictions. That's the heart of a representational democracy.

The job of the legislature is largely just to protect the well-being and property rights of citizens. They do other stuff too, obviously, but their primary purpose is just to formalize and maintain the status quo.

As far as drawing legislative inspiration directly from moral & religious convictions, well a theocracy is all well and good when you get to pick the religion, but pretty damn oppressive otherwise. It's that whole religious freedom thing we're so proud of. It kind of loses its shine if we say "you can believe whatever you want, but legally you're required to follow the practices of X religion."

Let me invert your question:
If it is the job of the Senate to make what is moral legal and what is immoral illegal, what is the purpose of the Church?

Reply

hillsideheather October 20 2008, 11:34:44 UTC
Is not well-being directly attached to morality though? If there are no objective morals, what should we then use to guide our laws protecting well-being? Fairness, honesty, justice, loyalty, modesty are just a few universal morals. It seems to me that the term 'well-being' simply means to be with these morals in practice rather than their opposites. Our applications of these morals will change as we fail or succeed to bring humanity up to the universal moral law, but if we attempt to change the universal moral law, we are simply fooling ourselves in attempting to bring morality to meet us and becoming animal-like in chasing after whichever desire we imagine will bring us pleasure ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up