• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Honor killing in Pakistan

Skeptic Ginger said:
No, because not everyone sees abortion as baby killing.
Click to expand...

They don't? I suppose it makes it easier to deal with. Still, doesn't matter how they justify it, are they still not taking the life of their child?

So abortion is obviously morally right then, if having an abortion is not the actions of someone mentally defective?

I wonder why abortion is such a hugely emotive and volatile subject, if it's morally right? Those arguing against it must be mentally defective.
 
Last edited:
SatansMaleVoiceChoir said:
They don't? I suppose it makes it easier to deal with. Still, doesn't matter how they justify it, are they still not taking the life of their child?

So abortion is obviously morally right then, if having an abortion is not the actions of someone mentally defective?

I wonder why abortion is such a hugely emotive and volatile subject, if it's morally right? Those arguing against it must be mentally defective.
Click to expand...

Obviously, once we decide a fetus is a human being, terminating its existence is murder. However, since most abortions happen in the first trimester and the synapses of the brain don't connect up until the sixth month, I would have to say that most abortions are not murder. Among the arguments of those opposing abortion, the majority seem to think that a fertilized ovum - a single cell - is a human being. While that might not qualify as mentally defective, it's sure as hell stupid.

I might also add that this has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of honor killing.
 
TimCallahan said:
Obviously, once we decide a fetus is a human being, terminating its existence is murder. However, since most abortions happen in the first trimester and the synapses of the brain don't connect up until the sixth month, I would have to say that most abortions are not murder. Among the arguments of those opposing abortion, the majority seem to think that a fertilized ovum - a single cell - is a human being. While that might not qualify as mentally defective, it's sure as hell stupid.

I might also add that this has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of honor killing.
Click to expand...

It does, however, have to do with the idea that morality can be scientifically worked out, to the extent that we can judge different cultures according to some kind of objective standard. The idea of the objective standard is a fallacy.
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir said:
They don't? I suppose it makes it easier to deal with. Still, doesn't matter how they justify it, are they still not taking the life of their child?
Click to expand...
If you believe everyone sees a fertilized ovum as a baby, I can see why you have difficulty comprehending the rest of my comments.
 
westprog said:
It does, however, have to do with the idea that morality can be scientifically worked out, to the extent that we can judge different cultures according to some kind of objective standard. The idea of the objective standard is a fallacy.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Skeptic Ginger said:
If you believe everyone sees a fertilized ovum as a baby, I can see why you have difficulty comprehending the rest of my comments.
Click to expand...

And if you believe that everyone who has differing moral standards from some non-existent Western 'objective standard' is mentally defective in some way, then I could see how you would have difficulty at life. That was kind of my whole point.

By the way, I don't believe that everyone sees a fertilized ovum as a baby - and I'm not sure many others do, but many, many people do see it as a life, and a baby in potentia.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Two more citations for the thread readers to consider:
Click to expand...

Oooh ! I can quote-mine too:

Laboratory experimentation and field observation showed that behavior could develop without learning but also that conditioning paradigms could powerfully mold behavior. The progress of genetics and neurobiology has led to the modern synthesis that neural development, and hence behavior, results from the interdependent action of both heredity and environment.
Click to expand...
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
No, because not everyone sees abortion as baby killing.
Click to expand...

Not everyone sees honor killing as wrong, either.

SatansMaleVoiceChoir said:
I wonder why abortion is such a hugely emotive and volatile subject, if it's morally right? Those arguing against it must be mentally defective.
Click to expand...
Skeptic Ginger said:
If you believe everyone sees a fertilized ovum as a baby, I can see why you have difficulty comprehending the rest of my comments.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: So you agree they're defective, then.
 
westprog said:
It does, however, have to do with the idea that morality can be scientifically worked out, to the extent that we can judge different cultures according to some kind of objective standard. The idea of the objective standard is a fallacy.
Click to expand...

Do you really need this to tell you it's wrong for parents to murder their 15 year-old daughter because she was looking at boys? aren't some things obvious, such as that it's basically right to help people and wrong to harm them?
 
TimCallahan said:
Do you really need this to tell you it's wrong for parents to murder their 15 year-old daughter because she was looking at boys? aren't some things obvious, such as that it's basically right to help people and wrong to harm them?
Click to expand...

Belz... said:
Well obviously not, or some people wouldn't do it like it's the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

How does the fact someone did it "like it's the right thing to do" mean it's obviously OK? I'm pretty sure some serial killers believe they are doing the right thing.
 
Last edited:
TimCallahan said:
Do you really need this to tell you it's wrong for parents to murder their 15 year-old daughter because she was looking at boys? aren't some things obvious, such as that it's basically right to help people and wrong to harm them?
Click to expand...

Tim, I think that cultures that practice 'honor killings" consider women to be a special class of chattel, and not human beings.

Perhaps the proponents of this point of view would compare it to a situation where the parents in a Western city decide to put down the family dog because it snapped at the three year old, even though the three year old was being cruel and the pet was justifiably provoked. ETA: Just like the difference in status between the three-year-old child and the family pet explains why they are treated so differently, likewise the difference in status between the son and daughter in an 'honor killing' society explains why they are treated so differently. /end ETA

---

This has become a very long thread so I'll just make a few more comments to refresh anyone's memory who is interested in my opinions:

* Not all types of behavior are worthy of respect or protection, even if it's associated with a culture.

* It's OK to try to influence people to change behaviors that affect people's dignity, self-respect, and rights to life, liberty, and safety.


* In regard to the nature/nuture impact on human ethics ...

I think that nature gives most people the intellectual capability to understand the concept of 'fairness' even without specific training and that it also may even give people the inclination to be 'fair' if they happen to be in a comfortable place with plenty of resources, but that nuture determines whether or not people decide to apply it and to whom.
 
Last edited:
Can I first point out that hurling accusations around about being “mentally deficient” is really not a sensible way of advancing an argument. There are many people out there with whom I disagree (sometimes face to face for that matter) but – provided they don’t want to insist on converting me (or anyone else) to their belief set with the aid of an axe or bonfire – they are welcome to get on with it.

I haven’t read all of this thread, but it does seem to me to boil down to a fairly simple disagreement: when does a fertilised ovum become a “human being”. Is it at the point of conception, or is it at some arbitrary time later? I say “arbitrary”, because that is what it is. You may justify your argument by all manner of decision points – when brain synapses connect, when it is capable of independent existence (but remember, advances in medical knowledge can change this) – but it is essentially a matter of opinion.

I write, incidentally, as someone whose mother said to their ex-wife “If abortion had been available, I wouldn’t have had him”. Bit scary that.

I'm not looking for sympathy – just setting the record straight.

BTW, I'm not opposed to abortion. There are a significant number of people in my life who would have improved humanity's lot if it had happened to them.
 
Last edited:
Paul W said:
Can I first point out that hurling accusations around about being “mentally deficient” is really not a sensible way of advancing an argument. There are many people out there with whom I disagree (sometimes face to face for that matter) but – provided they don’t want to convert me (or anyone else) to their belief set with the aid of an axe or bonfire – they are welcome to get on with it.

I haven’t read all of this thread, but it does seem to me to boil down to a fairly simple disagreement: when does a fertilised ovum become a “human being”. Is it at the point of conception, or is it at some arbitrary time later? I say “arbitrary”, because that is what it is. You may justify your argument by all manner of decision points – when brain synapses connect, when it is capable of independent existence (but remember, advances in medical knowledge can change this) – but it is essentially a matter of opinion.

I write, incidentally, as someone whose mother said to their ex-wife “If abortion had been available, I wouldn’t have had him”. Bit scary that.

I'm not looking for sympathy – just setting the record straight.

BTW, I'm not opposed to abortion. There are a significant number of people in my life who would have improved humanity's lot if it had happened to them.
Click to expand...

Actually, this thread was, at least initially, about honor killing. Hopefully, it still is.
 
Paul W said:
Can I first point out that hurling accusations around about being “mentally deficient” is really not a sensible way of advancing an argument. ...
Click to expand...
Especially when it's a straw man and isn't a correct interpretation of what I said.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Especially when it's a straw man and isn't a correct interpretation of what I said.
Click to expand...

No it's not is it? What you actually said was:

The majority of evolved human brains. In case you hadn't noticed, morality is a function of the human brain and it evolved so that most of us are born with certain preset values. Some people have defective moral sections of their brains just as some people have no joy and we diagnose that as a mental illness. In fact, people with specific kinds of brain damage demonstrate what happens when the moral part of one's brain is damaged.
Click to expand...

'Deficient' would suggest these people are missing something mentally, whereas you're simply suggesting they are mentally defective, or have localised brain damage.

Well that's completely different!
 
Kaylee said:
Tim, I think that cultures that practice 'honor killings" consider women to be a special class of chattel, and not human beings.
Click to expand...

They do it to men as well:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2010/08/2010816171115397111.html

I'm not saying that suggests treatment of women in these cultures is therefore equal to that of men, but that this at least demonstrates that 'Honour Killings' are not some sort of excuse to kill women just because 'they can'. When honour is at stake, the men will get it as well...

Kaylee said:
Perhaps the proponents of this point of view would compare it to a situation where the parents in a Western city decide to put down the family dog because it snapped at the three year old, even though the three year old was being cruel and the pet was justifiably provoked. ETA: Just like the difference in status between the three-year-old child and the family pet explains why they are treated so differently, likewise the difference in status between the son and daughter in an 'honor killing' society explains why they are treated so differently. /end ETA
Click to expand...

It's true, men have a higher position in their society, but as pointed out - not when family honour is at stake, apparently.

Kaylee said:
This has become a very long thread so I'll just make a few more comments to refresh anyone's memory who is interested in my opinions:

* Not all types of behavior are worthy of respect or protection, even if it's associated with a culture.
Click to expand...

What you mean is, if we in the West don't feel a behaviour or tradition sits comfortably with our moral values and standards, it doesn't matter what those doing it think - it is fair game for us to change.

Kaylee said:
* It's OK to try to influence people to change behaviors that affect people's dignity, self-respect, and rights to life, liberty, and safety.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. Who says it is?

It's OK to try and help those who request help, as long as you're careful about how you provide that help.

Kaylee said:
* In regard to the nature/nuture impact on human ethics ...

I think that nature gives most people the intellectual capability to understand the concept of 'fairness' even without specific training and that it also may even give people the inclination to be 'fair' if they happen to be in a comfortable place with plenty of resources, but that nuture determines whether or not people decide to apply it and to whom.
Click to expand...

Again, using the example of Feral children because they provide the perfect example, having been brought up outside human influence; they have no concept of 'fairness' when it comes to food - I haven't time to dig out a quote or link, but there are many examples of reports of Feral children refusing to share food, and snapping at/attacking those who try and take their food. Without cultural influence, their sense of fairness extends only to themselves and their own well-being.

Yes, we have the intellectual capacity to learn to be fair, but it is a concept we need to be taught.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom