Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act (Page 7)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
Author Topic: Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
- " Is a pregnancy "punishment" to be endured by an unwilling mother for consensual sex? "...

No, but it is a predictable consequence.

Pregnancy is also predictable consequence of rape, regardless of what Paleolithic congressmen may say. And yet most of us would make allowance for some abortion rights for raped women. My point here is simply that "predictable" =/= justifiable.

The fact that I think that predictable is a bad argument, does not mean that I don't think that you could not come up with a better rebuttal to the rather deficient argument that pregnancy should be construed as a punishment.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Peraonhood is -> person who dis.

Webster Wept.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,

- "Pregnancy is also predictable consequence of rape... '...

True, but D.W.'s context was:

- "This is where our disagreement of *consensual sex* being the act of volunteering becomes critical. "

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As a guiding principle; engaging in voluntary actions that have acknowledged consequences (good and bad) is a pretty good description of how the world does, and should, work. I cannot think of a better standard for all human endeavor.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree. that is much better put.

You can't just leave that out of the moral formulation.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Which is ultimately why I think the question of personhood is essential to this. Pregnancy is only an "acknowledged consequence" of sex if you are unable for some reason to prevent or alleviate those consequences, in the same way that a fractured skull is only a consequence of playing football if you can't wear a helmet. And if you don't think a fetus is a person, reversing that "consequence" is no less moral than performing surgery to wire someone's skull back together, thus sparing them the consequences of their decision to run downfield carrying a ball. No one worries that the individual skull fragments are being destroyed in this process, because we don't consider them independent persons (although if they reproduced, apparently noel would).
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Which is ultimately why I think the question of personhood is essential to this. Pregnancy is only an "acknowledged consequence" of sex if you are unable for some reason to prevent or alleviate those consequences
Just to be clear, are you using “personhood” as a triggering event for the granting of rights, or is it a descriptor for one who has been granted rights? One I find essential. The other I will concede matters to the majority of people who take interest in this issue.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I believe that "personhood" is one requirement for the possession of rights. As such, all those who have rights are people.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To me the question remains largely unchanged. It just places me in a slightly more amoral box…

If you establish that a fetus, at a specific point of development, is worthy of “personhood” and the rights which accompany that label, does the question of termination of pregnancy essentially answer itself? Is it now illegal because it denies the right of this new “person” to live?

I get that the "when" of granting personhood is still a big deal if you accept this. I don't agree with it even being a factor.

[ March 12, 2013, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Is it now illegal because it denies the right of this new “person” to live?
I think it has to, yes. Insofar as any rights can be considered "native" rights, the right to the sanctity of your own life has to be primary. There are very few circumstances in which we would revoke that right, and I don't think most of the arguments for abortion -- the physical health of the mother excepted, as then we're bringing the continued life of a second entity into the mix -- rise to that standard.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
See this is the confusing part.
If you could not abort a pregnancy which would result in the death of “a person” then my conclusion would be not to grant personhood until the fetus can exist apart from the mother. So “personhood” to me becomes a line we set (or at least I would set) based upon a desired outcome.

If I value the mother’s right to do with her body what she wills more than I value the right of the fetus to live I am, by your definition, denying personhood to the fetus.

It just seems very circular to me.

[ March 12, 2013, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you could not abort a pregnancy which would result in the death of “a person” then my conclusion would be not to grant personhood until the fetus can exist apart from the mother.
That's only a sensible approach if you believe that access to abortion is so important that it trumps all the other salient ethical questions, as far as I can tell.

quote:
If I value the mother’s right to do with her body what she wills more than I value the right of the fetus to live I am, by your definition, denying personhood to the fetus.
Not necessarily. You could also be saying that the fetus is a person, but for some reason the mother's right to choose whether or not to support another form of life with her body is more important than another person's right to live within her body. This is where Joshua's "responsibility" (or "blame," depending on to whom you're speaking) argument comes in, since choosing between the two competing rights of two individuals is going to involve some other form of moral calculus.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You could also be saying that the fetus is a person, but for some reason the mother's right to choose whether or not to support another form of life with her body is more important than another person's right to live within her body.
That is pretty much what I'd say.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
quote:
You could also be saying that the fetus is a person, but for some reason the mother's right to choose whether or not to support another form of life with her body is more important than another person's right to live within her body.
That is pretty much what I'd say.
In my parlance, that position makes us *genuine* pro-choicers, as opposed to the dehumanizers, those that justify abortion by denying personhood to the fetus.

Although I'd phrase it slightly different:

I would qualify "more important to the law" rather than just "more important generally. I see abortion rights as a matter of limited government. I simply don't trust government to tell a woman when she must menstruate. In terms of absolute right or wrong, if such exists, an elective abortion may be an atrocity. But that's between the woman, her conscience, and her higher power. It's just as wrong for a Chinese person to knife another Chinese person in Guaodong, as for an American to knife another American in Lawrence, Kansas, but the latter falls under jurisdiction of American law, while the former does not.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
quote:
You could also be saying that the fetus is a person, but for some reason the mother's right to choose whether or not to support another form of life with her body is more important than another person's right to live within her body.
That is pretty much what I'd say.
So would I at least legally if not morally.

Or what Pete wrote. Good lord, I am agreeing with Pete again. [Wink]

[ March 12, 2013, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
quote:
You could also be saying that the fetus is a person, but for some reason the mother's right to choose whether or not to support another form of life with her body is more important than another person's right to live within her body.
That is pretty much what I'd say.
So would I at least legally if not morally.

Or what Pete wrote. Good lord, I am agreeing with Pete again. [Wink]

other than matters of religious and scriptural interpretation, and for the massive [Big Grin] issue of whether same sex couples should get legal sanction and protection through SSMs (your position) or through SSUs (my position), you and I tend to have common political views. It's interesting how our narrow areas of disagreement have created such heat. [Big Grin]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
The rape case is the outlier. The fetus is not responsible for the actions of the rapist. A lot of pro choice people use this not only as a trap but we are genuinely curious how this can be an exception. The only conclusion I personally reach when I see this exception being granted is as a political calculation.

See my post on the first page. A component of my calculation is that the woman willfully engaged in a behavior that could give rise to life. As a result, she is responsible for the consequences. If that factor is missing, then I think the weight swings toward protecting the mother's interests over the child's.
Is the issue really the woman's willfullness? If you remove the malice of the rapist, and create a situation where a woman through circumstances beyond her control (but not because of some wrongful intentional act of another person) becomes pregnant, should she allowed to abort? say her OB-GYN was negligent when he gave her a pap smear, and forgot to change his gloves after administrating artificial insemination to his previous patient. She wasn't raped, but didn't have sex. Should she be allowed to abort?

I'm not trying to set a trap for you. Like you, I do strongly feel that rape does create a particular exceptional situation with regard to abortion. To be frank, I'm not sure how I would answer my own question. I'm not sure how much of the feeling is based on a lack of "willfulness" on the woman's part, as opposed to the outrage of rape itself.

When the dehumanizers have pelted me with the question about the rape exception, I've always thought that they were gloating sadists ... but one should rise to the occasion and attempt to articulate the principle for which one stands. The best answer I can come up with is that abortion involves a balancing act between the rights of the woman and the rights of the fetus, and that forcing a woman to bear her rapist's child, is a greater imposition, that tips the scales. It's like the difference between asking, is it OK to inflict an hour of pain on one innocent individual in order to save the life of another innocent, versus, is it OK to subject one innocent individual to ten years of torture in order to save the life of another innocent. One might very well say yes to the first, and no to the second. Didn't Aris pose a set of ethical questions to that effect?

[ March 12, 2013, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd have to advise the woman to go with artificial insemination during alien abduction to get a waiver. It seems just as plausible...

Probably as many documented (though not substantiated) claims. [Wink]

[ March 12, 2013, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thank you, DW, but your Alien abduction artsim hypo clearly falls within the rape exception, and as such fails to reach the same ethical dillemma as my sloppy pap smear hypo. [Big Grin]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What if it was an accident? I mean we have no idea what type of regulations the aliens are supposed to follow.

Sorry, I'll be quiet now. [Razz]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
- "... and as such fails to reach the same ethical dillemma as my sloppy pap smear hypo. "...

All moral accountability attaches to reasonably anticipated consequences.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
See noel agrees. Go hang out with aliens and it's reasonable to assume you're gona be implanted.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
- "Go hang out with aliens and it's reasonable to assume you're gona be implanted. "...

Hanging out with aliens is high risk behavior, visits to the gynecologist... much less so. [Wink]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
- "... and as such fails to reach the same ethical dillemma as my sloppy pap smear hypo. "...

All moral accountability attaches to reasonably anticipated consequences.

Objection #1: you left out an essential element that you had previously acknowledged.

Moral accountability attaches to reasonably anticipated consequences OF VOLUNTARY ACTIONS. You seem to think that goes without saying in the context of this argument but it doesn't. (Name that movie: "how to avoid being a victim of a violent crime: First, avoid being black or hispanic.") Please don't leave it out.

Objection #2: If that was a response to my specific ethical question, it was too oblique. Please clarify.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
- "Go hang out with aliens and it's reasonable to assume you're gona be implanted. "...

Hanging out with aliens is high risk behavior, visits to the gynecologist... much less so. [Wink]

*That* was a masterful distinction. Sincere Kudos. [Cool]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OTOH I think I disagree that risk, even willing risk, is the determining factor. Willing Risk does not always amount to FAULT. A woman who goes on a religious mission to South Africa is willfully engaging in a high risk behavior. Given the legal and social climate, it is dangerously likely that she will be raped if she serves in certain areas which are also in great need. So I propose that it's fault, rather than willing engaging in a risky behavior, that we should be considering.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
- "Willing Risk does not always amount to FAULT. "...

It *never* amounts to fault, anymore than winning a lottery amounts to "fault"... but I am willing to bet that a lottery winner will treat the pay-out as a direct *consequence* of the risk taken, and claim a moral right to benefit therefrom. I may find the whole scam ridiculous, but enough people disagree with me that the concept thrives virtually everywhere, and it is certain one cannot win a jackpot without purchasing the ticket.

As difficult as it is for me to imagine that a woman would serve in (or be sent to) an area that presented an explicitly high risk of rape, your hypothetical implies she has weighed that risk against benefits, and accepted aggregate consequences as an acceptable exchange for giving up personal safety.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
simplybiological
Member
Member # 1344

 - posted      Profile for simplybiological   Email simplybiological   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As difficult as it is for me to imagine that a woman would serve in (or be sent to) an area that presented an explicitly high risk of rape, your hypothetical implies she has weighed that risk against benefits, and accepted aggregate consequences as an acceptable exchange for giving up personal safety.
I take a break from looking at this thread, and now women are at fault for being raped if they go somewhere unsafe? Is that what I'm reading?

Edited to add: Ok, maybe I shouldn't have said fault given the semantic discussion, but this line of thinking is making me totally uncomfortable given that I was just reading articles about the defense strategy in the Steubenville rape trial.

[ March 12, 2013, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: simplybiological ]

Posts: 1742 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sb, i raised that example specifically to show that fault would NOT exist in that situation.

My point was to illustrate the obvious and profound world difference between fault, and risk. So no no no and obviously no, nothing like blame it all should attach to any victim of sexual violence.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Alphabet soup! Action “S” is preformed for the intent of producing result “O”. Action “S” is also known to trigger the process “P”. Action “A” is known to arrest process “P”. If the government denies access to action “A” the government is at fault for the continuation of “P”, not the person who preformed action “S” only to achieve result “O”. If the government demanded action “A” they would be at fault for the arresting of process “P”.

As soon as the government claims control over when an abortion is acceptable, criminal or necessary any outcome will be their fault. I will not let it be my fault they are given that control.


SOPA? Nah, that's already taken...

[ March 12, 2013, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
- "Willing Risk does not always amount to FAULT. "...

It *never* amounts to fault, anymore than winning a lottery amounts to "fault"... but I am willing to bet that a lottery winner will treat the pay-out as a direct *consequence* of the risk taken, and claim a moral right to benefit therefrom. I may find the whole scam ridiculous, but enough people disagree with me that the concept thrives virtually everywhere, and it is certain one cannot win a jackpot without purchasing the ticket.

As difficult as it is for me to imagine that a woman would serve in (or be sent to) an area that presented an explicitly high risk of rape, your hypothetical implies she has weighed that risk against benefits, and accepted aggregate consequences as an acceptable exchange for giving up personal safety.

When a man volunteers to go fight a war, Doesn't he put himself at risk for a cause?

Christian women during the time of the Roman Republic, Were often subject a public rape by baboons in the arena. Baboons specifically trained for that purpose. I am magine that there were people in the arena, In the audience, Who said she should have known that was the risk when she decided to become a Christian, since that sect is an enemy of Rome. I think that's the wrong way to conceive of things.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Disturbing but excelent point Pete.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
- "(When control over "X") is acceptable, criminal or necessary any outcome will be their fault. I will not let it be my fault they are given that control. "...

In general principle, is there something that differentiates this from anarchy which you are withholding in your formulation?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
- "When a man volunteers to go fight a war, Doesn't he put himself at risk for a cause? "...

Yes.

- "I think that's the wrong way to conceive of things. "...

I think you need to think further. Acceptance of Christianity came with a non-specific disclaimer that it could cost you your life. Do you want that risk to simply go away?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I will not let it be my fault they are given that control.

This, that differentiates this from that anarchy. [Smile]

quote:
Acceptance of Christianity came with a non-specific disclaimer that it could cost you your life. Do you want that risk to simply go away?
Yes. Swear I've read the intent for that somewhere in our pile of government papers...

[ March 12, 2013, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So there is *no* general principle at work here?
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
- "Yes. Swear I've read the intent for that somewhere in our pile of government papers... "...

Wrong government in all probability:

- [Matthew 24: 9]; "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and you shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. "

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So there is *no* general principle at work here?
Good question but much broader than this topic.

I do *not* vote in a way that removes an option I find valuable.

I *sometimes* vote in a way that MAY remove an option I find no value in. (Because I expect I am prone to being tricked and/or lazy as others are even though I like to think I’m not.)

I *try* to vote in a way that prevents future removal of options I may at some time find value in.


As to the verse, I'm not saying Matt was guilty of false advertising or not placing a proper warning label on his goods. I thought the question was what we wanted. [Smile]

[ March 12, 2013, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It would seem then that you have isolated an overarching principle, namely that which you find "valuable"... but to who?
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Valueable to whom? As I’m selfish, empathetic and egotistical in turn, that would be what is valuable to me, or what I believe would be valuable to me when I place myself in the circumstances of another.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1