Originally Posted by pinski

EH - I hope you can see that, while you think you leave people to make their own choices, you have already decided (by the language you use to describe those choices) which is the "good" one and which the "bad." In your own words, people have the "choice" of whether "to live" (i.e., do what you think they should do), or merely to "exist" (i.e. do what they may think is best for them).
AP – Hitler, a single individual, who weighted 150 pounds in his shiny shoes, had freedom of choice, also.
He thought that the choices he made were the best for him and his nation.
If he had such “ noble” intentions, why then, our granddads have stopped him?
Why are some of us still, today, very mad at him?
Was Hitler misunderstood?

Originally Posted by The Evangelical Humanist

If we consider abortion, I think we will agree that the pro-life side sees a “fully human person” in the fetus, the embryo, the blastocyst, and even the newly-fertilized egg. (I think Catholics might go even further back – remember Monty Python and “Every sperm is sacred...”) The pro-choice side, on the other hand, sees the right of a woman to have control over her own body, in which they include the fetus, which is completely dependent on her.

So the disagreement isn’t over whether it is right or wrong to “kill the baby,” but rather about when it is, in fact, a baby. I think both sides probably agree that from the point they recognize it as a baby rather than a thing, it is wrong to terminate it (although sometimes justified, perhaps). We agree on the morality, but not the facts that inform the morality.

For the record, I agree completely that a fetus which has the potential to survive outside the mother’s womb is a human person, and therefore deserving of protection. Partial-birth abortions in the third trimester seem to me to be wrong, except in very, very rare circumstances where the mother’s life is at imminent risk, and no other options are available. (This is still in a sense “wrong” but justifiable, like killing in war.) However, in the first trimester, or before the fetus has developed a central nervous system and the capacity, therefore, to experience pain, I wonder if it really can be described as a “fully human person.” And this, I think, is how the issue might eventually be resolved. Not through denying all abortions or allowing all abortions, but by agreeing at what point we will define the developing entity as a fully human person.

Originally Posted by pinski

Angeleyes, that is how I see it.
Your spirit starts its function from the moment of touching down a Matter. Strive for Absolute is settled from the moment when that single, the healthiest, the most powerful in his love spermatozoid of your father was kindly accepted by the love loving egg of your mother and your “Temple” was created.

Originally Posted by pinski

EH - We are talking about the right of mentally competent,
AP - EH, mental capacity is a very tricky thing, subjective thing, I would say. Where do we start to count?

Originally Posted by pinski

Ask.

A.P.

Originally Posted by pinski

EH - Redefining every word that is a puzzle to us doesn't ever resolve anything. If someone throws acid in my face and scars and blinds me for life, you can call that act "evil," "illness" or "potatoes," but changing the name will change neither the act nor its consequences.
AP - I believe it will change.
For usually,
people change words
when they want to change meaning.
Think about it.
When you hear, "Evil" you feel fear
(without going too deep),
when you hear, "Illness",
you feel compassion.

EH - There are many dictionary definitions for evil, but the one that most fits my personal viewpoint is: "That which is destructive, corruptive or fallible, whether from natural circumstances, or by human ignorance, error, or design."
AP - But what are those reasons
which provoke, "destructive, corruptive or fallible, whether from natural circumstances, or by human ignorance, error, or design"?
Do you think
that somehow
they may be connected
to that Negative Germ
which causes Human Illness
which expresses itself
in destructive to Self
and people around Illness?

EH - As a general rule, "illness" is taken to mean sickness of either body or mind.
AP - Exactly. See, I have not said anything new. So, lets try to not forget that "general rue". To me, it makes perfect sense.

EH - Now, in my view this definition does not cover the "fallible" definition of "evil," although illness is often an evil by my definition. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, "illness" is not a matter of design.
AP - How about,
"Illness" is a scientific name for "Evil"?
Thus, we can turn Evil
from a Scary, Disgusting Monster
to a Sick, Starving for cure Patient,
from Hate to Love.

EH - For you to claim that everything evil is an illness thus excuses deliberate evil.
AP - But don't you think
that those "excuses",
are a demonstration of Illness themselves
right from the very moment
when they were attempted to play any role in Objective Reality of Life?
Manipulation is illness
and this sick desire to manipulate
comes directly from Untamed Ego.

EH -We should never punish the rapist, the gangster making millions selling drugs to children, the thief who steals an old woman's purse. No, they are not evil, they are ill, and we should send them to a nice hospital where we can cure them of their illness.

AP - Yes, you are absolutely right.
We "should", you say,
I will say, "We must not punish,
we have to stop exercising even an Idea of Punishment.
It is good time
for some of us
to start withdrawal of this adapted by human ignorance idea of "punishment".
Good time, indeed, to start.
Yes, put them in the nicest hospitals possible,
show them that we do care for them,
that they are here not to be punished,
but to be cured
and trust me,
we will see a huge difference in the crime rate.
I am confident.
Punishment, fear, hate violance... violence breeds violence... and nothing ever change toward the better?
Come on, EH, think "humanism".

EH - Believe me, I will never accept that the drug dealer is acting from illness.
AP - you never know
till you are on another side,
with them,
in the cages,
waiting for letters of love....
I have been there, EH,
that is another reason,
why it is easier for me
to jump in their shoes.

EH - He acts from a desire to get as much money as he can, without regard to the consequences on others.
AP - Uncontrollable Primitive Instinct of Instant Gratification,
abnormal for normal mind,
don't you think?

Cold hearts cannot possibly feel for others feelings.
And why are those hearts cold?
Is it normal to make
even conscious choice
to suppress life of your feelings
in order to hurt another order of life?

EH - And I will never accept that the person who attempts to force a moral choice on another person is acting from illness, either.
AP - "Force",
how do you define this word, my brother?
I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing here.
For I believe,
it is very easy to confuse
Force of Passion with Force of Pushing,
especially,
when it is comfortable to do so for blind defenders of "Old Morals".

to be continued,

A.P.