I agree with this sort of legality: if one is pregnant, then they have to consider the child and, thusly, cannot use drugs; and that absolutely should be criminal if they do. — Bob Ross

Right, but my question is not whether it's immoral for pregnant women to not eat right/smoke/drink, but whether you think it should be illegal for them to do so.

:up:

I agree with this sort of legality: if one is pregnant, then they have to consider the child and, thusly, cannot use drugs; and that absolutely should be criminal if they do. — Bob Ross

What about drinking? Would you make it a crime for a pregnant woman to drink at all? Should it be a crime for a pregnant woman to eat too much junkfood? Smoke the occasional cigarette?

My example is absolutely analogous to the principle of which chiknsld explained in their post about people having a right to make their own decisions about their bodies; and, in turn, is going to be analogous to abortion for my conversation with them insofar as I think my example demonstrates an example where that principle is clearly false, which breaks it.

Then you are making a trivial point. If the survival of the world depended on a person pressing a button, should they be legally compelled to press it and give up some autonomy rights? Yes, but so what? What does your example about swimming and ear infections have to do with abortion? Yes, sometimes autonomy rights get overridden. In the case of abortion...

I never claimed that they were equivalent to abortion, but, rather, that they are analogous. You seem to think, and correct me if I am wrong, that for something to be analogous it must be equivalent.

My example is absolutely analogous to the principle of which chiknsld explained in their post about people having a right to make their own decisions about their bodies; and, in turn, is going to be analogous to abortion for my conversation with them insofar as I think my example demonstrates an example where that principle is clearly false, which breaks it. — Bob Ross

For something to be analogous, it has to be in the same ballpark. Winning $5 on a scratcher is not analogous to winning a billion dollar Powerball jackpot, although they both involve winning money from state lotteries. But this is a semantics issue. Your analogy/example/comparison fails because you are equating, to at least some degree, being forced to go in a poor and risk an ear infection to being forced to carry a baby to term and give birth to it. Come up with a better analogy.

Most of what you said, with all due respect, is completely irrelevant and demonstrates a misunderstanding of hypothetical situations. It simply does not matter how frequent the situation occurs in reality: that’s why it is called a hypothetical. — Bob Ross

Your hypothetical is a rare one-off event of being forced to save a drowning person. This will not happen for the vast vast majority of people. There's not going to be a gradual erosion of freedom from these events because they happen so infrequently. Abortions, on the other hand, happen all the time. Reproductive rights are always in play. A chipping away at an abortion right could easily lead to further erosions of women's reproductive/bodily autonomy rights until they're forced to walk around in burqas. As long as men are in power, this remains a valid concern.

I see. I haven't been following the thread that closely.

180 said women should have abortion on demand even in the third trimester, and that it is basically slavery to give the fetus any consideration other than that it can be terminated at will. — ToothyMaw

I don't see how that's slavery. Slaves did not live inside the bodies of others. The fact that the woman is carrying the fetus raises all sorts of unique issues. Should the state interfere in the doctor-patient relationship between the woman and her doctor? I hold that relationship to be pretty sacrosanct. I don't want government interfering in that unless they have a very good reason. Does the fetus's right to life trump the bodily autonomy rights of the woman? Again, I hold autonomy rights in high regard. If a fetus trumps a woman's rights in certain cases, will that create a slippery slope where the woman's rights are eventually trumped in all cases? Men still run the world and I don't trust men on this issue.

I thought Roe vs Wade was a good compromise: the woman starts off with full rights, and as the fetus develops, the state has more and more of an interest in protecting it.

Also: is a 9-month fetus a full fledged person? If you have to save a fetus vs. a ten year old child, which would you save? The ten year old, right?

If the woman’s bodily autonomy totally overrides the rights of the fetus then why isn’t she allowed to drink alcohol while pregnant? — ToothyMaw

Currently, no states criminalize alcohol use during pregnancy per se, nor do the CDC recommendations suggest that states do so.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4937126/

I don't think anyone is saying women have no responsibilities regarding the fetus.

Let's say there's just me and a little kid at a pool (and I don't know this kid)(no lifeguards: nothing other than us two). I am dangling my feet in the water and the kid starts drowning in the deep end. I am the only one around that could save this little kid, but I don't want to risk getting an ear infection and since this matter (i.e., the potential ear infection) pertains to my body I think that I have the right to not consent to saving this kid. — Bob Ross

As I pointed out before, this is disanalogous to abortion. Forcing a woman to give birth is much more onerous than a momentary dip in the pool and the risk an ear infection. A better analogy would be suppose we create artificial wombs such that a woman could have a fetus transferred to the artificial womb with very little time, effort, and risk to herself. Does she have a moral obligation to do so rather than have an abortion? Should she be forced to do so?

Also, being forced to save a drowning person is a very rare situation. It doesn't carry with it the baggage of what women have been forced to put up with throughout history. I am very leery, for very good reasons, of chipping away at the hard fought bodily autonomy rights woman have secured. If you give men an inch over women, they will try and take a mile.

I think it's obvious it was a threat.

Oh no, his feelings. Poor guy. — NOS4A2

Is it possible he felt threatened because Trump threatened him?

The notion that Trump is pressuring Reffensperger to “find” votes is just another hoax. — NOS4A2

Raffensperger said he felt threatened by Trump.

I think what is key in this dilemma is who the worker owes more loyalty: his family or the miner's trade union (another kind of family) — javi2541997

It could also be convictions. My loyalty to my family would trump the union, but I've been a union president and head negotiator, so I would have a real tough time crossing a picket line, even in the situation in the OP.

How long has the worker been with the union? Has the union treated him well? Does it feel like a family to him? Has it only been two weeks since he was hired?

Has the union made reasonable demands? Is it possible for the company to meet those demands?

My position is that unions and co-workers are owed some loyalty, but not complete loyalty, and workers are under no obligation to go down with sinking ships. Your family, otoh, is owed complete loyalty, except in rare Unabomber-type situations. I couldn't answer this based on the description given.

Can the guy on strike get a temporary job outside the field he's in?

Why can't the wife work?

I suspect that many people don't want to lower their standard of living despite the fact that there is evidence/consensus of anthropogenic climate change. — Agree-to-Disagree

I think they would if they felt everyone was doing it collectively, but we would need a strong world government to make that happen.

I don't know whether he is a rapist or not. But surely your past and present presidents were capable of other terrible things if not worse than rape. — Hailey

Any man is capable of terrible things. Woman are too, but not nearly to the extent men are. Let's put women in charge for awhile, shall we, and see how they do? What do you say?

Except if you understand these parables you will understand that "the master" is the God of Israel, and therefore the violence is not only approved but it is also a foretelling (or at the very least, a severe warning about what may happen). — Leontiskos

Oh. Well, the god of the old testament is incredibly violent, so that's that's to be expected.

Except if you understand these parables you will understand that "the master" is the God of Israel, and therefore the violence is not only approved but it is also a foretelling (or at the very least, a severe warning about what may happen). — Leontiskos

Jesus was talking to people who lived in a violent world. He couldn't come across as a total pussy. He had to meet them where they were at, to some extent.

There is nothing in the text to support your thesis that this event indicates a failure or moment of weakness on Jesus' part. On the contrary. — Leontiskos

Why not? Jesus had his moment of doubt. Why not his moment of anger?

Pacifists don't talk this way. — Leontiskos

But they do talk this way:

"Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

"If a soldier forces you to walk with him one mile, go with him two. Give to anyone who asks you for something. Don't refuse to give to anyone who wants to borrow from you."

"Then said Jesus unto him, “Put up again thy sword into his place, for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."

"“Do not resist an evil person.”"

So what's a Christian to do? How do you reconcile that with the other stuff? What do you think Jesus was really saying here? I think these bolded passages trump the violent imagery and parables.

So then you think it is moral to threaten to do things that you believe to be immoral, which is a difficult thing to maintain. — Leontiskos

Not at all. I don't think it's immoral to threaten Russia with nukes. I think it would be immoral to destroy their country if they launch against us. The threat itself produces a positive outcome. I also don't think wearing a sword is a threat. Someone could take it that way, but that's on them.

It seems to me that at the very least Jesus was a deeply complex figure, and that simple interpretations therefore cannot stand. — Leontiskos

It's also possible his core message was non-violence and some of the other stuff was lost in translation or just made up. Did Jesus actually whip the money-changers? Did he maybe knock over a table and the story got embellished?

I'm not Christian. The anti-violence stuff has the ring of truth to me. A lot of the other stuff was probably made up or garbled from what Jesus originally said. There are pacifist Christians who could do a better job of arguing it than me.

But if you are familiar with the four canonical gospels then you must be aware of when Jesus instructed his disciples to sell their cloaks to buy swords (Luke 22:36); — Leontiskos

What does Jesus say when the sword is actually used?
"Those who live by the sword die by the sword."
A pacifist could go around armed, presumably to scare off attackers. They just won't actually use the weapon on someone.

" or when Jesus made a whip out of cords to drive the money changers out of the Temple (John 2:15-17)"

Yes, Jesus has a temper tantrum and tosses some money-changers out. That doesn't negate all his other teachings on non-violence. That's the human side of him coming out.

; or when Jesus foretells that, "the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour that he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and put him with the unfaithful" (Luke 12:46, NRSV);

"But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers."

More "live by the sword die by the sword". If you beat people, you'll come to a violent end.

or when Jesus, speaking about a grievous sinner, says, "it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea."

Jesus is using the imagery of a particularly nasty death to make a point.

I find that those who make such claims have almost invariably never read the New Testament. — Leontiskos

Also: plenty of Christians who worship the Bible and read all of it religiously (no pun intended) have come to the same conclusion I have and preach pacifism.

The four gospels.

Serious question for you: have you ever read the New Testament in its entirety? I find that those who make such claims have almost invariably never read the New Testament. — Leontiskos

No, I only pay attention to Jesus's teachings. The rest is crap.

If it is enough for a jury, the jury is biased. — Mikie

Can you imagine what the conservative reaction is going to be when Trump is convicted by a black jury in Atlanta?

More no, than yes. We certainly dream or hallucinate our realities. But freewill is real. So the ability to create change anywhere is a matter of awareness.

Anything is possible, and you're both The Architect and Neo from The Matrix trilogy. — Bret Bernhoft

I'm an idealist too, but I don't think it works as an explanation unless there is an overarching mind/minds keeping all this from being absolute chaos. How do two minds every agree on an aspect of reality unless there's some coordination of their thoughts going on? Why am I limited in what I can do in this reality? When I occasionally lucid dream, sometimes I can fly, but I can't when I'm awake. Some limiting factor that I'm not aware of prevents this. I think a lot is going on behind the scenes and whether it's our higher selves or we're part of a collective of minds or aspects of a powerful one-mind, whatever is pulling the strings might as well be god.

More simply, reality is mind/mental. — Bret Bernhoft

Do you think this is all a dream?

So when is violence justified? What exceptions did Jesus give to "turn the other cheek"? Where did Jesus say, "I want you to be nice...until it's time to not be nice."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8aNfg0LBgQ&ab_channel=MGM

"Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you."

Is it possible to interpret that in some way that allows you to kill someone attacking you? It seems pretty straightforward to me, especially combined with other pacifist passages.

Given the oceans of blood the Romans spilled after they adopted Christianity, I'm surprised that non-violent stuff even made it in the Bible. Maybe by then it was too late to take it out.

I also believe it is right and just to defend yourself or another from an attacker, and a war may be justly waged. — NotAristotle

How does that square with the following:
"Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."


"But I tell you, do not resist an evil person."


“But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them."

It seems obvious to me that Jesus has anticipated the self-defense/just-war question:
What if someone attacks me?
Do not resist evil
What if they attack my kids?
Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you
What if my country is at war?
All who draw the sword will die by the sword

I don't know how you can read Jesus's teachings as anything other than total pacifism. He couldn't have been any clearer on the subject.

Should we fight when faced with an evil enemy like Micheal or should we do as christ did and lay down our lives for the ones we love because we are taught by him to love our enemies? — Average

Jesus is pretty clear on that. Put your trust in God. Let your enemies do what they will. Don't resist them. Forgive them, no matter what they do. This existence on Earth is nothing compared to what lies ahead in Heaven.

That's my reading of it anyway.

BiV scenarios are implausible because mindless matter cannot produce minds. You can't get consciousness from non-conscious stuff. In support of this assertion is the continued failure of science to come up with a solution for the mind-body problem.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-25-year-old-bet-about-consciousness-has-finally-been-settled/

Scientists will keep losing these bets. Eventually, people will abandon the metaphysical assumption that matter exists. Idealism is true. BiV problem solved!

So there has [ETA: never] been any nation that has not used taxes to fund militaries. Why is that? What's your theory? Mine is you can't fund militaries without taxes, not for a nation of any significant size. It's not doable without taxes.

War bonds, donations, money-printing, slavery, conscription, economic revenue and other methods besides taxation have been used by governments to fund militaries. — NOS4A2

Those methods have been used ON TOP of taxation.

I’m not sure. Is the absence of something an argument against something, in your eyes? — NOS4A2

Yes. The absence of a non-tax funded military for a sizeable nation suggests it's not doable. Why do you think it's never been done?

Voluntarily paid for by those who purchase the services, sure. — NOS4A2

Has there ever in history (or now) been any decently sized country that has run their military that way?