Reflections From a Murky Pond

I have posted before about the ethics of reciprocity – the “Golden Rule” – as have others that I know online, which is not surprising since this Golden Rule seems fundamental to almost all ethical thought, philosophies, and religions.

The question arises though of whether we’ve all failed to fully grasp and internalize both sides of this ethical equation.

Have we focused too much upon the primary action and not enough upon the reciprocal reaction? Have we also failed to recognize that it functions much as an engine, a natural law that we’ve placed too many “higher order” considerations upon?

Any of the variations of, “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” may serve well as admonishment or exhortation to right behavior by people, but we seem to fail to connect it with, “As you sow, so shall you reap,” which common sense tell us must be the reciprocating side of this ethical equation.

The greatest problem this schism causes is the cognitive dissonance it causes is in those cases where the primary action was a negative or harmful one.  This causes both internal conflict and hampers effective mitigation of the negative or harmful effects of the primary actor’s actions.

If the theory of Reciprocal Ethics is true than it must be true in all its parts or be claimed false. Therefor, natural law would require that negative actions lead to similarly negative responses as a normal course of events and to break this cycle requires conscious decision to engage in an unnatural course of response which might very well, due to its unnaturalness, be misunderstood as weakness, vulnerability or surrender of the point in contention by the original actor.

Some few in the course of history have understood this, though with mixed results.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.

— Mahatma Gandhi (Disputed)

Gandhi, through his cult of personality and abetted by the nature and proclivities of the two cultures involved and the greater scope of world events, succeeded in breaking the natural laws of reciprocity and doing so in a manner that achieved his victory, India’s Independence from Britain.

Somewhere somebody must have some sense. Men must see that force begets force, hate begets hate, toughness begets toughness. And it is all a descending spiral, ultimately ending in destruction for all and everybody. Somebody must have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate and the chain of evil in the universe. And you do that by love.

— Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

MLK seemed to understand the basic equation of reciprocity but did not seem to understand that sense was not what was called for, since sense would lead people to follow the natural order of action and reciprocation. As can be seen by the largely unalleviated and unabated levels of racial angst and hatred among the Black population in America, despite the legal and pragmatic success of the Civil Rights Movement, Dr. King was largely unsuccessful in his prescription.

One has to accept the basic nature of the reciprocal engine that is the foundation of Reciprocal Ethics and fully understand the difficulties involved in convincing people to behave otherwise.

It’s generally considered important for parents to start educating their children in the ways of the world and accepted social mores as soon as possible. Teaching these life lesson well and early gives them the best head start in growing up to be a successful part of their society.

Of course, while children are adaptable and normally learn easily, the overall outcome is more dependent upon the curriculum than anything else… 😉

Americans raised up a joyful noise unto the heavens and celebrated the extermination of the vermin, Osama bin Laden. This instantly caused varying degrees of concern and outrage from certain segments of the population within the border of America. The detractors seem to fall into two categories: fairly hardcore Christians and the Liberals.

Give the Christians the respect that they’re due for trying to adhere to religious principles that are, at this moment, utterly at odds with normative behavior. Don’t let them guilt you into feeling anything less than fierce joy at Osama bin Laden’s destruction though.

As for the Liberals, take note of them so that you can know them later, then ignore them and their complaints. Those complaints are solely based upon their fear of the American people, a fear not without cause since they for years worked to prevent our retribution being enacted upon the filth who attacked us and those that supported them.

It’s OK, rejoice for now. Remember though that there are many vermin left to be exterminated. This is not the end; it is only the end of the beginning.

In the past decade huge advances have been made in the field of transgenic research, the study of transferring genes from one species to another. What was once limited to a small number of crops has expanded out into a broad spectrum of animals as well.

Transgenic Marmoset Expressing green fluorescent protein (GFP)

To date the highest order of animal that scientists will admit to having genetically modified by the inclusion of completely foreign genetic material is the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus).  The marmoset is a primate though and the changes they’ve made since 2009 have been genetically stable so there’s little in the way of technological hurdles left for them.

This, without even considering its use on humans, opens the door to some “interesting” possibilities. 😉

Transgenesis 1:24 ( New Atheists Bible )

I’m approaching this with a little humor, and not all of it ill-natured, because there is a definite potential benefit from creating transgenic organisms. Even the “sports,” which history tells us will be some of the first commercial applications, have the possibility of bringing people a lot of wonder and joy.

There’s, however, just so very much that could go wrong because scientists often ask, “Can we…” but rarely ask, “Should we…” and we really know very little about the interactions between genes or how transgenic creatures would affect the biosphere as whole.

I’m not even going to go into the nightmares this will cause when, not if, we start doing it with humans. Too many of the scenarios that instantly come to my mind are too deplorable and too plausible.

Gina M. D’Andrea Weatherup of Stony Brook, NY, the Community Affairs and Advocacy Manager for Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic firmly believes that abortion is an intrinsically good thing as opposed to even thinking of it as a lesser of possible evils.

By her own pride-filled admission she’s not even limiting this, as many do, to cases of rape or endangerment to life of the mother.

No; this infanticidal monster is talking about abortion on demand for the sake of women’s convenience being a good thing, a moral choice!

Abortion has value. It is not just the lesser of two evils, but abortion can be a good, moral decision, in and of itself. And I am not talking about cases of rape or life endangerment. I’m talking about everyday women – you, maybe, or your mom, friend, sister, wife, girlfriend, roommate – who simply know that they do not want to be pregnant, and do not want to parent this child, at this time.

The one in three women in America who decide that abortion is right for them deserve to be recognized as people, as full moral agents, and not to be treated like children to need to be taught right from wrong. Women deserve easy access to high-quality, affordable abortion care, without waiting periods, and without biased counseling.

Until abortion is recognized as having value in and of itself, we’re going to continue to battle the Mike Pences, Chris Smiths, and Scott Roeders of the world.

— Gina M. D’Andrea Weatherup

There is one portion of this creature’s drivel that can actually agree with, that the women seeking abortions should not be treated like children who need to be taught Right from Wrong. They are, in fact, full moral agents, are fully culpable for their choices and actions, should be recognized as such by Americans, and deserve to reap the full consequences of those choices and actions.

Gina D’Andrea Weatherup Thinks This Is a Good, Moral Choice

I firmly believe and advocate that, while creatures like this Gina M. D’Andrea Weatherup are allowed to walk free among people of America and promulgate this infanticidal ideology that killing unborn babies is a good thing, our nation needs more people like Mike Pence, Chris Smith, and Scott Roeder. It especially needs more heroic martyrs such as Mr. Roeder who sacrificed himself in order save countless babies from Late-Term Abortion aka Partial-Birth Abortion.

Don’t get me wrong; I have some pity for the girls and women who have either chosen or been coerced by Planned Parenthood’s “Counselors” into choosing to abort their children as a horrible, but still lesser, evil. I don’t even have a strong hatred for Planned Parenthood as a whole; the bulk of their services being necessary gynecological care for poor women.

Things like this Gina M. D’Andrea Weatherup, however, do not deserve pity, compassion, or mercy from anyone and should not be considered just as valid targets, but as primary targets in Americans’ battle for the unborn.

~*~

I can’t help wonder if, while in their nice, shady backyard watching their cute little daughter play, Gina and her husband, Chris – I’m assuming that they’re married since she appended his surname to her own – discuss when to have that talk with her. You know, the one about “the birds and the bees, and the D & C’s.” 😉

I also wonder if they’ve preformulated an answer in case their daughter ever asks, “How many of my brothers or sisters did you kill, mommy?”

~*~

But she is, in a twisted sort of way, right. Abortion has value. Gina and Chris’ house looks like it probably cost around 500K and abortion and her depraved manner of advocating for it helped pay for it.