To: Greg or e who wrote (16646 ) 6/14/2001 5:08:40 PM From: Solon Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 82486 Haven't you heard? Never say never, Because saying never is "absolutely" never allowed!!!!!!! Are these just words? Do they have any contact with the real world? buncombe As well, I find the rest of your post to be buncombe, although mainly I just find it to incoherent and unintelligible. Moving on to...At least he's not pretending that reason is the central consideration as you try to Mackie distinguishes between objective values (which he doesn't believe in), and objective value judgements (which he does). I consider the value judgement to be both subjective and objective, with the valuing relating to feeling, and the judgement being reason. To speak of morality without acknowledging a subjective bias is to make the concept meaningless. Of course, one rcognizes that as long as there is energy anywhere in the universe and thus change, then absolute objectivity is an ephemeral concept.Watching you defend abortion, while railing against unjust killing, is just about enough to make my skin crawl. I've never defended abortions. I've defended a woman's right to her own body. That does not mean the right to her body if she wears a veil, or the right to her body if she does't walk it outside of a certain area, or a right to her body provided it is strictly obedient to the whims, caprices, and desires of others. What it means is: the right to her body. You will never understand that the foetus is her body, and you will never understand that she has always had the right to it. You will never understand that the moral question of abortion is an individual value judgement--not a social one. A woman may starve herself to death if she chooses. She may jump off a bridge, she may step in front of a deer. If you put a finger on her or threaten to, she may defend her life and person. Her existence is not a social priviledge like driving a car. It is all she has. It is all you have. The social role is a policy question with regards to funding, social responsiility, etc. It is not to tie her down and cut her open to proclaim: "This--is OURS."You are right about TM not being innocent though. His execution was just, don't you think Many people did not think so. They did not feel they had hurt him enough. Many felt he had cheated them out of their payback by not suffering enough. TM considered it to be the best of all possible choices, so it is not for me to say that justice was not done. I did not require him to suffer anymore to fulfill my sense of payback. There were some who thought there should be some form of overt and visible torture, and for some of them that idea of payback remains alive. As is the case with most of the killings that happen every day, many of those who lose loved ones will never be free of their pain. And of course, Nature takes away our loved ones every single day, doesn't it. You cannot hurt nature back. You can only mumble empty words--and search for your own senseless cancer. If I was to spend each and every day seeking to cause or to witness pain in all the humans who kill one another on a daily basis, I would be unable to pursue my self imposed duties as a citizen or my objectives for happiness and peace. It is important for me not to personalize all the pain that was, that is, and that will ever be. For me to cause enough pain to equal that much pain --well, that would be a rather grandiose conception. We have a justice system for that...