I accidentally became a doomer.

[Old Things]

From what read from you is that it is permissible to override the beliefs of others in society because of an underlying moral code that should be universal for everyone. We can start from here, you can correct and clarify your position before we continue.

You know my position at this point as I've said it about 3 times so far. The fetus is a human. It is alive. So my position is that we should not kill humans if they are innocent.

I'm not equating abortion to murder (although many people who are Pro-Life who consider themselves abolitionists would). I don't think a mother and doctor who have an abortion should be criminalized the same amount as a murderer should.

Look, we both believe a fetus is alive. So what justification should there be for killing an innocent human? I know the arguments. I've debated this many times. The best argument is that the fetus is not a person yet so that is why it is okay to kill it even though it is alive. But the problem is no one knows when the fetus turns into a person. At 8 weeks? At 12? At 15? No one has a clear answer to this. So due to the ambiguity of the situation, the lowest common denominator is when it is alive. And even the personhood argument fails because if we say it's not a person until some certain time then does that mean people can kill the elderly with dementia or mentally handicapped because they don't fit the definition of person since they are not conscious?

It's not about "forcing people against their will." That literally does not matter because we have lots of laws about forcing people to behave a certain way. Don't steal things. Don't murder people. There are all sorts of laws that we make that force a person to do or not do a certain behavior so it literally cannot be used as an argument.

The issue to me is about life and death. So if you want to make headway in convincing me we should allow abortions, then you are going to have to show me that a fetus is not alive. And I've looked at the information and the overwhelming majority of scientists believe life begins at conception. At conception the fetus has all the DNA it will ever have for its entire life. It develops in the womb based on the DNA it has.

If I'm going to extend an olive branch to you so we can at least understand the fundamental point we disagree, I would simply ask you what exceptions can there be for killing an innocent human? The only exception I can think of is for the health or life of the mother. Not because the Baby will have a disease or illness (like Down Syndrome), not because it would be tighter for the mother financially. Not because they don't have a solid relationship with their partner.

I see the fetus as a human. Full stop. And an innocent one at that. Whether we should have the death penalty for murderers is a completely separate issue because they are not innocent (not like I actually have a firm stance on capital punishment anyways). I have not once in this whole conversation appealed to my beliefs as a Christian on why I am Pro-Life. Yes, I think a fetus is made in the image of God like all humans, but I have not appealed to my faith at all for why I am Pro-Life. It is simply because the fetus is a tiny human that is alive.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Okay, I've understood your position.

Having understood it, I can raise several objections that might snag at the phrase and the denotation of phrase 'the fetus is a human'.

First off, a human fetus is a human fetus. I think when we say that it is human, we are not saying that a human fetus is an adult human, or an essense of humanness, but that it is exactly a human fetus. The extending of the species prefix to fetus does not suddenly mean it has the same value as an adult human or a human infant. The esssense of humanness doesn't grant the object of it's social value or its 'sacredness' either, but rather, I would argue that a value of a human or (value of anything for that matter) is something that is consensually agreed upon through a social contract, not through mere association via humanity. This however means that, if there is enough social consensus that the fetus is something of value and must be protected, then yes, it would be granted the same value that adult human or adolescent human or human infant would have.

You have also argued that a fetus has a different DNA than the mother or the father- but to this I would reply: but in reality, isn't DNA is a mixed combination of the two? Are they really two seperate essenses just because the DNA is different? Take the argument of the clone as an inverse: if you clone someone, is that person the same as the original because its DNA is the same? Or are they different persons because they occupy different cognitive realities and that they both have seperate agencies onto themselves?

In short: the origin of value and whether DNA constitutues personhood.

Another contension I would bring is the matter of custody. In the legal world parents have legal custody or legal ownership of their child and in some respects, parents have the right to mold whatever belief or traits into the child as they see fit. As the child matures, the less ownship the parents have over the child, because once it reaches a certain maturity, its cognition and sense of agency is at the level and potentiality of the parent. In essense, the more mature the child becomes as time passes, custody of the child, in legal framework, is diminished.

Right now there is no legal framework or consensus that a fetus is under a type of special custody of the parent, but I would argue that because it is not mature, but rather a fetus, its development into a mature infant in the womb is in whim of the parent.

In short: like a parent has a certain custody over their child, parents also have a certain 'custody' over the fetus; though not legally deliniated.

I think the logical argument of whether a person has personhood, in regards to handicapped persons is a bit rough around the edges, because as I see it, once a human has matured, it has exahusted its potentiality- it has a certain value towards ourselves because it is an adult human. Same with being a child.

But we don't say, I was a fetus once, as if we being a fetus was something that occupies our cognitive memories or realities. I mean while it's biologically true, having been a fetus isn't within our humanities as a type of human experience. In fact, we have no idea what it means to be a fetus. While we can write about being mentally impaired (via measurement of IQ) or having memory impairment (Memento is a good movie for that), there's no quaila wherein we can experience being a 'fetus'. In fact, I would assume that experience itself is an impossbility because of biological realities, because a fetus is literally just a fetus. An impaired person has the biological capability, just that the function is in disorder.


For me, I think the strongest argument for being against abortion is that abortion is essensially inflicting a sense of cognitive dissonace unto yourself. I'd imagine that if you carried the baby, there is a sense of ownership and affection for it. But your rational side tells you that you cannot raise it, or that it would grow up in an unsupported enviornment. Perhaps a sense of career for yourself would be jeapordized. It would be an offense to say that the mother did not have a sense of intimacy or affection for the child as it was in the womb. In essense, you sin against yourself and the infant. Or in less emotionally charged words, you made a terrible mistake.

But whether you believe the worth of a fetus is the same as a human being, and whether you believe that value will become an obvious standard in the years to come, there still is the reality that that conviciton is not necessarily shared right now by everyone who relates themselves to the issue. That mere plurality of beliefs should stop anyone from imposing any kind of partisan judgement into law. And that's where I essentially draw the line. The law should preserve order and dignity within society, not cause chaos or deepen divides. If anything, there needs to be much more consensus building before any side's law goes into the law books. I mean, do you support actually making it into law, or are you simply agreeing with the logical premises you've set out for yourself?

 

[Black Rose]

In essense, the more mature the child becomes as time passes, custody of the child, in legal framework, is diminished.

Personhood is not the same for everyone. To me, if a child is 6 months old we should not dissect it for parts. We should not do so no matter what "Stage" of development it is at. Babies can be born 3 months premature for example and still live to adulthood. What matters is that any human life is a life that becomes human not that they need a certain IQ score or a law degree or anything that makes it possible to say we can dissect any biological thing because it is not fully human i.e. a six-month-old falls under this category. What you are saying is that we can legally dissect six-month-olds if the mother wants to because it is not fully human and she has given permission.

I would argue that because it is not mature, but rather a fetus, its development into a mature infant in the womb is in whim of the parent.

Yes, this is because the mother can take drugs to kill the infant before it matures but it is still human. The mother can commit suicide or be eaten by a lion or tiger or any predator. But the fact remains that as long as the woman has no outer influence she will conceive a child or die naturally and that means if anyone interferes i.e. a doctor reaches into her then the doctor is interfering not the mother. So when do we give responsibility to the mother? A person can be charged with two murder counts if they kill a pregnant woman so that is interference. We do not in America allow you to sell your organs for money. It is an illegal activity so I think that when it comes to abortion we should not allow organizations to interfere with for-profit motives when it comes to these matters.

If anything, there needs to be much more consensus building before any side's law goes into the law books. I mean, do you support actually making it into law, or are you simply agreeing with the logical premises you've set out for yourself?

Abortion in America is mostly done by organizations that were founded to eliminate black people. So far they may be getting what they want. I am not against mothers taking drugs. I am against interference from outside sources. So you have "doctors" who only do abortions. As you said the practical thing to do is to let states decide because society as a whole cannot agree but the president is that in my opinion interference from outside forces should not be allowed. We cannot ban all abortion "methods" but we can say that people reaching into other people is wrong. That is not the same as saying a mother has no autonomy over her body. We can ban people from reaching into the bodies of others for many reasons. Killing can be one of them. Taking organs to sell them can be one of them. It is a matter of whether or not we decide to help people after a child is born that matters because if the reason a child is killed before birth is mostly about not being able to care for it then that is a false crisis because of adoption homes. And there are also welfare checks. I simply think that you cannot say when a child is subhuman before or after birth. And there should be no outside interference.

 

[Old Things]

The extending of the species prefix to fetus does not suddenly mean it has the same value as an adult human or a human infant.

Says society. I disagree with society and am trying to get society to see things the same way I do. Now what?

In short: the origin of value and whether DNA constitutues personhood.

If something is valuable based on how functional it is then that is utilitarianism and I will have no part of that.

In essense, the more mature the child becomes as time passes, custody of the child, in legal framework, is diminished.

Yeah? So you can kill your two-year-old son because he is dependent on you?

Right now there is no legal framework or consensus that a fetus is under a type of special custody of the parent, but I would argue that because it is not mature, but rather a fetus, its development into a mature infant in the womb is in whim of the parent.

A mentally handicap person's brain is not developed. Now what?

In short: like a parent has a certain custody over their child, parents also have a certain 'custody' over the fetus; though not legally deliniated.

You don't kill your child because it is not mature. If you can kill it at 8 months you can kill it on its 1 year birthday. No difference.

it has a certain value towards ourselves because it is an adult human. Same with being a child.

On the one hand you are saying that the fetus is not mature. But a child is not mature either, so this doesn't work.

In fact, I would assume that experience itself is an impossbility because of biological realities, because a fetus is literally just a fetus. An impaired person has the biological capability, just that the function is in disorder.

Doesn't matter, quite frankly. A person in a coma does not have qualia either but we don't just kill them because they are useless to society.

that conviciton is not necessarily shared right now

Correct. And I'm trying to change that. But you seem to take an anti-change stance since you don't allow for the perception of society to change.

That mere plurality of beliefs should stop anyone from imposing any kind of partisan judgement into law.

Not if we are talking about life and death. I don't care how many people believe in something. If it is wrong then it is wrong. Nazi Germany believed in killing Jews. It was socially acceptable. That does not make it right.

 

[scorpiomover]

Yeah pretty much true.

But people rarely talk about beliefs. Like normal people see journalism and politics as a function of society that actual does solve problems.

That's because they seek their information from the news and thus from what journalists and politicians say, who claim (of course) that they have great value, because they claim that they are the people who get things done. So it's pure authoritarianism.

So even trans people act like political activist when we know that Trump nor Hillary will ever solve anything like racism, or women rights or trans population minority problems.

Yes. But it will get more awareness of trans rights. People have become more aware of the rights of people like African-Americans, women and LGBTQIA, and are now getting jobs that pay much better. So it seems that those who pump awareness of their group, get paid better.

So I think a lot of conflated issues with politics and societal issues processed by media, but what Zizek says is true, we actually don't talk people to people.
And when we do its you and me on this forum. Which is precisely what Zizek means.
Social discourse is missing. Even Jordan Peterson pointed this out.
There is no societal cohesion, just divisive nature of todays media. Which will always be divisive because its easy to mock people on TV and rescue them and make everyone believe the world revolves around news articles.

The newspapers were also divisive in the past. Hence why the local newspaper used to be called "the Daily Rag", no matter what newspaper it was.

But in the past, people used to meet at church or in the pub, and chat about things in private conversations, where people could be honest.

I read on Wiki that the Frankfurt School sought to change attitudes by changing social structures, i.e. by dismantling all forms of social structures that were not under the control of the left-wing. The article has been changed since then.

But it seems to be consistent with the disappearance of working mens' clubs, communities, and public houses, where people used to meet and talk without Big Brother watching.

Since then, the only places where people seem to meet, are places like online.

But online sites have rules. The rules we have in most online sites are easily changed. But they so happen to be not like the rules of real life, and rather the types of rules that would discourage the very types of social discourse that you and Zizek refer to.

There's no need for these crazy rules. We can make sites reasonable. But if we did so, then you and everyone else could have real conversations, and thus would not be under the thumb of the Frankfurt School's successors.

 

[scorpiomover]

Personhood is not the same for everyone. To me, if a child is 6 months old we should not dissect it for parts. We should not do so no matter what "Stage" of development it is at. Babies can be born 3 months premature for example and still live to adulthood. What matters is that any human life is a life that becomes human not that they need a certain IQ score or a law degree or anything that makes it possible to say we can dissect any biological thing because it is not fully human i.e. a six-month-old falls under this category. What you are saying is that we can legally dissect six-month-olds if the mother wants to because it is not fully human and she has given permission.

So you believe that we should not dissect 6-month-olds?

What about 5-month-olds? Would you dissect them? Would you approve of other people dissecting 5-month-olds?

 

[ZenRaiden]

So it's pure authoritarianism.

But I also realized that anyone who does not rely on news and journalism can have great deal of information that will give them edge over anyone who uses media.
Which kind of makes it easy for me to be smarter than even the smartest people.
As long as the smartest people still spend their time watching news, and media.

Yes. But it will get more awareness of trans rights. People have become more aware of the rights of people like African-Americans, women and LGBTQIA, and are now getting jobs that pay much better. So it seems that those who pump awareness of their group, get paid better.

Yes, but I wonder if this awareness is only as good as long as people take it seriously.
Ergo whether is something society will remain generally capable of working with or it will be something that will just stir the pot and not really make society at peace.
Because stirring the pot is hard, but if the stirring never results in what you want, its like those many movements that seem to be going well and then they just evaporate and nothing gets done. Or whatever remains slides into less ideal version of it.

The newspapers were also divisive in the past. Hence why the local newspaper used to be called "the Daily Rag", no matter what newspaper it was.

Yeah lol, not surprised they call it that. What really made me think that dividing groups of people seemed a common theme in all periods of time, but the noble people had a habit and discipline to stick together, even in cases such as war, it was common for noble people to keep ties friendly. A lot of times this is not shown in TV, not even historical movies.
I noticed a similar theme in Jewish culture where although there are cults and sects of various types that don't necessarily get along there is that type of familiarity.
Of course there are also subcultures and such.

But in the past, people used to meet at church or in the pub, and chat about things in private conversations, where people could be honest.

Honestly I often wonder if holding a conversation with people today even makes sense. Like you need to train this. Even the two of us talking, we have done this for so long, that we know how to do it.
When I see people talking there seems to be universal themes in it.
There also seems to be this common quality to it and regular repeat of the same according to how well trained people are.
Hence dividing people also meaning that what people get out of talking is less visible in short term, until they train for long and become adept at it.
We tend to take social structures for granted, as we are born into them.
But we don't think of them as something changeable.

There's no need for these crazy rules. We can make sites reasonable. But if we did so, then you and everyone else could have real conversations, and thus would not be under the thumb of the Frankfurt School's successors.

Yes, but no one is stopping people from community.
I noticed this individuation of people is very common and funny.
People tend to meet at places where talking is impossible and conversations these days between people have a usual nonsense vibe.

I don't think this is doing of just Frankfurt school even if that is their agenda.

 

[Black Rose]

Personhood is not the same for everyone. To me, if a child is 6 months old we should not dissect it for parts. We should not do so no matter what "Stage" of development it is at. Babies can be born 3 months premature for example and still live to adulthood. What matters is that any human life is a life that becomes human not that they need a certain IQ score or a law degree or anything that makes it possible to say we can dissect any biological thing because it is not fully human i.e. a six-month-old falls under this category. What you are saying is that we can legally dissect six-month-olds if the mother wants to because it is not fully human and she has given permission.

So you believe that we should not dissect 6-month-olds?

What about 5-month-olds? Would you dissect them? Would you approve of other people dissecting 5-month-olds?

Why are you trying to entrap me?

It is not cool that you are trying to entrap me.

 

[onesteptwostep]

The extending of the species prefix to fetus does not suddenly mean it has the same value as an adult human or a human infant.

Says society. I disagree with society and am trying to get society to see things the same way I do. Now what?

In short: the origin of value and whether DNA constitutues personhood.

If something is valuable based on how functional it is then that is utilitarianism and I will have no part of that.

In essense, the more mature the child becomes as time passes, custody of the child, in legal framework, is diminished.

Yeah? So you can kill your two-year-old son because he is dependent on you?

Right now there is no legal framework or consensus that a fetus is under a type of special custody of the parent, but I would argue that because it is not mature, but rather a fetus, its development into a mature infant in the womb is in whim of the parent.

A mentally handicap person's brain is not developed. Now what?

In short: like a parent has a certain custody over their child, parents also have a certain 'custody' over the fetus; though not legally deliniated.

You don't kill your child because it is not mature. If you can kill it at 8 months you can kill it on its 1 year birthday. No difference.

it has a certain value towards ourselves because it is an adult human. Same with being a child.

On the one hand you are saying that the fetus is not mature. But a child is not mature either, so this doesn't work.

In fact, I would assume that experience itself is an impossbility because of biological realities, because a fetus is literally just a fetus. An impaired person has the biological capability, just that the function is in disorder.

Doesn't matter, quite frankly. A person in a coma does not have qualia either but we don't just kill them because they are useless to society.

that conviciton is not necessarily shared right now

Correct. And I'm trying to change that. But you seem to take an anti-change stance since you don't allow for the perception of society to change.

That mere plurality of beliefs should stop anyone from imposing any kind of partisan judgement into law.

Not if we are talking about life and death. I don't care how many people believe in something. If it is wrong then it is wrong. Nazi Germany believed in killing Jews. It was socially acceptable. That does not make it right.

Having a certain consensus about something is much different than utilitarianism. Having censensus means you have a certain sense of morality towards an issue, thereby having enough agreement as to how society at large should move forward with the thing.

Also you seem to be selectively replying to posts without digesting the entire point of the arguments I'm making. There's a bunch of replies you've given which are answered in the post itself.

"Correct. And I'm trying to change that. But you seem to take an anti-change stance since you don't allow for the perception of society to change."

I think for some people within society, there is a certain perception of value towards a fetus that isn't necessarily shared by you. Frankly, I'm not convinced by your arguments that the fetus shares the same value as people who are born, though I can believe it one way or the other.

There's this one thing however: I think if enough kids are indoctrinated by the idea that fetuses are actually "human", I can definitely see how society can 'change' its perception on the issue as time passes. However from the issue of rights, I think it's premature to dictate this notion by law, given the plurality.

My attitude towards cultural issues is that it must be anchored by economics for it to work. Slavery, for example, was undone because there was an economic replacement via the industrial revolution. Same with women's rights: because advancements technology alleviated the women's need for labor in the family, it allowed them to seek new freedoms. I think for this day and age, there is definately an economic backdrop where one does not have to go through abortion to seek the other freedoms in life, but I think in order for that to work, you'd have to have a strong economic incentive to show that having a child at a disadvantaged situation will not necessarily impede with one's own pursuit of happiness. But because there isn't a strong enough economic backdrop wherein all pregnant women are given aid, that choice shouldn't be left up to the state, it should be left to the ones who are experiencing the pregnancy.

It's possible that I'm bias towards one way because I grew up with Roe vs Wade, but ultimately I think abortion just depends on whether life is better if a child is born or not. This is the kind of scenario I'm talking about: let's say a couple in a gulag in North Korea gets pregnant. From all things considered, it seems like the couple will face death several months from now, and that from all things considered, the North Korean guards probably will not take care of the baby like it was their own. Would you fault the couple for inducing a miscarrige if they choose to do so? In this scenario, whether you believe in a certain universal doesn't change the outcome, that the baby will face certain death. Now, was the act by the couple a type of mercy or a kind of murder? The morality of the situation, if you believe that doing away with the fetus is killing a human, means that the act was immoral. But you might suggest that this is no different than killing a baby after if it was born. If the baby was born, the couple intentionally had the baby because they had hope, however ridiculous it was, that the baby would survive. However, again, would you fault the parents for choosing one way or the other?

This is the reason why I don't necessarily fault people who had abortion, even if I find it distasteful. The morality of the act is ultimately dubious and the act of it is not necessarily something that is in the realm of universality.

So in short, in that scenario, is that a type of mercy or an act of murder? Or is it both? By your standards, does this act erase any sense of mercy?

 

[Old Things]

The extending of the species prefix to fetus does not suddenly mean it has the same value as an adult human or a human infant.

Says society. I disagree with society and am trying to get society to see things the same way I do. Now what?

In short: the origin of value and whether DNA constitutues personhood.

If something is valuable based on how functional it is then that is utilitarianism and I will have no part of that.

In essense, the more mature the child becomes as time passes, custody of the child, in legal framework, is diminished.

Yeah? So you can kill your two-year-old son because he is dependent on you?

Right now there is no legal framework or consensus that a fetus is under a type of special custody of the parent, but I would argue that because it is not mature, but rather a fetus, its development into a mature infant in the womb is in whim of the parent.

A mentally handicap person's brain is not developed. Now what?

In short: like a parent has a certain custody over their child, parents also have a certain 'custody' over the fetus; though not legally deliniated.

You don't kill your child because it is not mature. If you can kill it at 8 months you can kill it on its 1 year birthday. No difference.

it has a certain value towards ourselves because it is an adult human. Same with being a child.

On the one hand you are saying that the fetus is not mature. But a child is not mature either, so this doesn't work.

In fact, I would assume that experience itself is an impossbility because of biological realities, because a fetus is literally just a fetus. An impaired person has the biological capability, just that the function is in disorder.

Doesn't matter, quite frankly. A person in a coma does not have qualia either but we don't just kill them because they are useless to society.

that conviciton is not necessarily shared right now

Correct. And I'm trying to change that. But you seem to take an anti-change stance since you don't allow for the perception of society to change.

That mere plurality of beliefs should stop anyone from imposing any kind of partisan judgement into law.

Not if we are talking about life and death. I don't care how many people believe in something. If it is wrong then it is wrong. Nazi Germany believed in killing Jews. It was socially acceptable. That does not make it right.

Having a certain consensus about something is much different than utilitarianism. Having censensus means you have a certain sense of morality towards an issue, thereby having enough agreement as to how society at large should move forward with the thing.

Also you seem to be selectively replying to posts without digesting the entire point of the arguments I'm making. There's a bunch of replies you've given which are answered in the post itself.

"Correct. And I'm trying to change that. But you seem to take an anti-change stance since you don't allow for the perception of society to change."

I think for some people within society, there is a certain perception of value towards a fetus that isn't necessarily shared by you. Frankly, I'm not convinced by your arguments that the fetus shares the same value as people who are born, though I can believe it one way or the other.

There's this one thing however: I think if enough kids are indoctrinated by the idea that fetuses are actually "human", I can definitely see how society can 'change' its perception on the issue as time passes. However from the issue of rights, I think it's premature to dictate this notion by law, given the plurality.

My attitude towards cultural issues is that it must be anchored by economics for it to work. Slavery, for example, was undone because there was an economic replacement via the industrial revolution. Same with women's rights: because advancements technology alleviated the women's need for labor in the family, it allowed them to seek new freedoms. I think for this day and age, there is definately an economic backdrop where one does not have to go through abortion to seek the other freedoms in life, but I think in order for that to work, you'd have to have a strong economic incentive to show that having a child at a disadvantaged situation will not necessarily impede with one's own pursuit of happiness. But because there isn't a strong enough economic backdrop wherein all pregnant women are given aid, that choice shouldn't be left up to the state, it should be left to the ones who are experiencing the pregnancy.

It's possible that I'm bias towards one way because I grew up with Roe vs Wade, but ultimately I think abortion just depends on whether life is better if a child is born or not. This is the kind of scenario I'm talking about: let's say a couple in a gulag in North Korea gets pregnant. From all things considered, it seems like the couple will face death several months from now, and that from all things considered, the North Korean guards probably will not take care of the baby like it was their own. Would you fault the couple for inducing a miscarrige if they choose to do so? In this scenario, whether you believe in a certain universal doesn't change the outcome, that the baby will face certain death. Now, was the act by the couple a type of mercy or a kind of murder? The morality of the situation, if you believe that doing away with the fetus is killing a human, means that the act was immoral. But you might suggest that this is no different than killing a baby after if it was born. If the baby was born, the couple intentionally had the baby because they had hope, however ridiculous it was, that the baby would survive. However, again, would you fault the parents for choosing one way or the other?

This is the reason why I don't necessarily fault people who had abortion, even if I find it distasteful. The morality of the act is ultimately dubious and the act of it is not necessarily something that is in the realm of universality.

So in short, in that scenario, is that a type of mercy or an act of murder? Or is it both? By your standards, does this act erase any sense of mercy?

I don't care what the rest of the population thinks. It was completely acceptable to kill Jews in Nazi concentration camps. That does not mean it was right. And the Nazis had their reasons. Reasons do not matter when it comes to murdering another person. There are some times when killing is acceptable, but the vast majority of the time it is not. Right and wrong are not decided based on what is popular or you can theoretically justify a lot of bizarre and evil things like cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I don't care what the rest of the population thinks. It was completely acceptable to kill Jews in Nazi concentration camps. That does not mean it was right. And the Nazis had their reasons. Reasons do not matter when it comes to murdering another person. There are some times when killing is acceptable, but the vast majority of the time it is not. Right and wrong are not decided based on what is popular or you can theoretically justify a lot of bizarre and evil things like cruel and unusual punishment.

As long as we are operating from stance of "life is sacred", this stance is rightfully true.

The thing is when I study human psychology, the way humans function. I think most mothers that do abortions are actually not giving termination of pregnancy much thoughts. There are also mothers that do not want kids at all. Like none.
Yet they do want sex.
The thing I see when a mother is pregnant, is 18 year commitment of resources and time and love for a child. A child that will be frail and completely dependent on a mother. Even stress during pregnancy causes some major health issues to mothers.
Mothers are not even taught to manage stress, during pregnancies, yet fetus imbued in stress hormones has higher incidence of disease, many of which include things like auto immune disease. The fact that many mothers today actually birth sick kids, and the trend is rising is absolute long term problem, both in human terms and economic terms.
Mothers also have to content with the fact they are going to give painful birth to a kid that can kill them during the birth. Kind of blatantly ignored by people, but while pain is something we have to accept, the mother is putting her life at absolute risk here.
Also the fact that even well prepared parents tend to be stressed out when having kids. The level of strain on a well prepared mother is huge. Let alone a mother that has issues of here own.
Taking good care of a kid is absolutely essential for its development.
The number of neglected kids today is massive.
I was born to well to do family, both my parents did their best, and they still managed to accidentally screw me over for life.
And they were parents that actually loved me and did their absolute best. Parents who were high in consciousness.

I spent like 5 minutes in school listening to a woman explain how to put on a condom, and the amount of time children get exposed to facts of birth and life and how to manage a family, is nul, zero, nada, zilch.

So as long as all this is the norm, and by 0 education I studied in states on a prestigious high school top 100 in the states. It was not some ghetto shit bin.

Then tell me why are we even surprised women end up in abortion clinics confused they have a child they cannot take care of.

I aint talking morality here. I am talking straight simple facts.

We have a modern world where kids at puberty and later on get zero instructions, even from school, and family and society.

We live in a world where we teach people to learn only whats in front of them.
Very rarely do grown ups even bring up issues of birth, sex, marriage, etc.
SO what most people know is "assumptions" from observations.
Yes its everyone's responsibility to take life seriously.

Unfortunately teaching people about morality, while teaching no responsibility is like teaching a driver to run on red light.

You cannot be moral if you do not even have a considerations or intents to begin with.
Kind of like we do not reprimand savages from jungles that they do not uphold democracy.

This modern society is painfully uneducated.
But of course in English class we mindlessly spent time learning things like what mingle or superfluous means. Which is cool, but completely trivial knowledge and useless for 90 percent of the class. I could have just picked up a dictionary and learned those words anyway.

This is not just US problem though. This is world wide problem. I spent some time in various schools.
People are taught the same useless bull for life, in every modern nation.
And they pay for it, not with abortions or sex, but basically by having zero skills, when it comes to anything practical.

 

[Old Things]

I don't care what the rest of the population thinks. It was completely acceptable to kill Jews in Nazi concentration camps. That does not mean it was right. And the Nazis had their reasons. Reasons do not matter when it comes to murdering another person. There are some times when killing is acceptable, but the vast majority of the time it is not. Right and wrong are not decided based on what is popular or you can theoretically justify a lot of bizarre and evil things like cruel and unusual punishment.

As long as we are operating from stance of "life is sacred", this stance is rightfully true.

The thing is when I study human psychology, the way humans function. I think most mothers that do abortions are actually not giving termination of pregnancy much thoughts. There are also mothers that do not want kids at all. Like none.
Yet they do want sex.
The thing I see when a mother is pregnant, is 18 year commitment of resources and time and love for a child. A child that will be frail and completely dependent on a mother. Even stress during pregnancy causes some major health issues to mothers.
Mothers are not even taught to manage stress, during pregnancies, yet fetus imbued in stress hormones has higher incidence of disease, many of which include things like auto immune disease. The fact that many mothers today actually birth sick kids, and the trend is rising is absolute long term problem, both in human terms and economic terms.
Mothers also have to content with the fact they are going to give painful birth to a kid that can kill them during the birth. Kind of blatantly ignored by people, but while pain is something we have to accept, the mother is putting her life at absolute risk here.
Also the fact that even well prepared parents tend to be stressed out when having kids. The level of strain on a well prepared mother is huge. Let alone a mother that has issues of here own.
Taking good care of a kid is absolutely essential for its development.
The number of neglected kids today is massive.
I was born to well to do family, both my parents did their best, and they still managed to accidentally screw me over for life.
And they were parents that actually loved me and did their absolute best. Parents who were high in consciousness.

I spent like 5 minutes in school listening to a woman explain how to put on a condom, and the amount of time children get exposed to facts of birth and life and how to manage a family, is nul, zero, nada, zilch.

So as long as all this is the norm, and by 0 education I studied in states on a prestigious high school top 100 in the states. It was not some ghetto shit bin.

Then tell me why are we even surprised women end up in abortion clinics confused they have a child they cannot take care of.

I aint talking morality here. I am talking straight simple facts.

We have a modern world where kids at puberty and later on get zero instructions, even from school, and family and society.

We live in a world where we teach people to learn only whats in front of them.
Very rarely do grown ups even bring up issues of birth, sex, marriage, etc.
SO what most people know is "assumptions" from observations.
Yes its everyone's responsibility to take life seriously.

Unfortunately teaching people about morality, while teaching no responsibility is like teaching a driver to run on red light.

You cannot be moral if you do not even have a considerations or intents to begin with.
Kind of like we do not reprimand savages from jungles that they do not uphold democracy.

This modern society is painfully uneducated.
But of course in English class we mindlessly spent time learning things like what mingle or superfluous means. Which is cool, but completely trivial knowledge and useless for 90 percent of the class. I could have just picked up a dictionary and learned those words anyway.

This is not just US problem though. This is world wide problem. I spent some time in various schools.
People are taught the same useless bull for life, in every modern nation.
And they pay for it, not with abortions or sex, but basically by having zero skills, when it comes to anything practical.

I don't think education is a substitute for doing what is morally right. Much of what you say is true and things could certainly be better for education, but that ends with a slippery slope because at what point will we be educated enough to do the right thing morally? I would answer that question with never. Sometimes you just have to do the right thing even if it is difficult. In fact, I would argue that it is more virtuous if you do the right thing when it is difficult than when it is easy. There is nothing easy about "Love your enemies" no matter how much education you have.

 

[Black Rose]

God allows people to do bad things,
The question is when should the government get involved?
How and to what extent should people be doing right now?

 

[Old Things]

God allows people to do bad things,
The question is when should the government get involved?
How and to what extent should people be doing right now?

AK, you are right, in what you say. These are good questions. To be sure, civil law is not synonymous with morality. But governments should at least try and make laws that uphold good morality. If there was no moral good or bad in an absolute sense, then it would just be up to what politicians think is good and bad and we would make laws based solely on that. But if you believe in objective morality, then that changes the whole conversation.

 

[onesteptwostep]

The extending of the species prefix to fetus does not suddenly mean it has the same value as an adult human or a human infant.

Says society. I disagree with society and am trying to get society to see things the same way I do. Now what?

In short: the origin of value and whether DNA constitutues personhood.

If something is valuable based on how functional it is then that is utilitarianism and I will have no part of that.

In essense, the more mature the child becomes as time passes, custody of the child, in legal framework, is diminished.

Yeah? So you can kill your two-year-old son because he is dependent on you?

Right now there is no legal framework or consensus that a fetus is under a type of special custody of the parent, but I would argue that because it is not mature, but rather a fetus, its development into a mature infant in the womb is in whim of the parent.

A mentally handicap person's brain is not developed. Now what?

In short: like a parent has a certain custody over their child, parents also have a certain 'custody' over the fetus; though not legally deliniated.

You don't kill your child because it is not mature. If you can kill it at 8 months you can kill it on its 1 year birthday. No difference.

it has a certain value towards ourselves because it is an adult human. Same with being a child.

On the one hand you are saying that the fetus is not mature. But a child is not mature either, so this doesn't work.

In fact, I would assume that experience itself is an impossbility because of biological realities, because a fetus is literally just a fetus. An impaired person has the biological capability, just that the function is in disorder.

Doesn't matter, quite frankly. A person in a coma does not have qualia either but we don't just kill them because they are useless to society.

that conviciton is not necessarily shared right now

Correct. And I'm trying to change that. But you seem to take an anti-change stance since you don't allow for the perception of society to change.

That mere plurality of beliefs should stop anyone from imposing any kind of partisan judgement into law.

Not if we are talking about life and death. I don't care how many people believe in something. If it is wrong then it is wrong. Nazi Germany believed in killing Jews. It was socially acceptable. That does not make it right.

Having a certain consensus about something is much different than utilitarianism. Having censensus means you have a certain sense of morality towards an issue, thereby having enough agreement as to how society at large should move forward with the thing.

Also you seem to be selectively replying to posts without digesting the entire point of the arguments I'm making. There's a bunch of replies you've given which are answered in the post itself.

"Correct. And I'm trying to change that. But you seem to take an anti-change stance since you don't allow for the perception of society to change."

I think for some people within society, there is a certain perception of value towards a fetus that isn't necessarily shared by you. Frankly, I'm not convinced by your arguments that the fetus shares the same value as people who are born, though I can believe it one way or the other.

There's this one thing however: I think if enough kids are indoctrinated by the idea that fetuses are actually "human", I can definitely see how society can 'change' its perception on the issue as time passes. However from the issue of rights, I think it's premature to dictate this notion by law, given the plurality.

My attitude towards cultural issues is that it must be anchored by economics for it to work. Slavery, for example, was undone because there was an economic replacement via the industrial revolution. Same with women's rights: because advancements technology alleviated the women's need for labor in the family, it allowed them to seek new freedoms. I think for this day and age, there is definately an economic backdrop where one does not have to go through abortion to seek the other freedoms in life, but I think in order for that to work, you'd have to have a strong economic incentive to show that having a child at a disadvantaged situation will not necessarily impede with one's own pursuit of happiness. But because there isn't a strong enough economic backdrop wherein all pregnant women are given aid, that choice shouldn't be left up to the state, it should be left to the ones who are experiencing the pregnancy.

It's possible that I'm bias towards one way because I grew up with Roe vs Wade, but ultimately I think abortion just depends on whether life is better if a child is born or not. This is the kind of scenario I'm talking about: let's say a couple in a gulag in North Korea gets pregnant. From all things considered, it seems like the couple will face death several months from now, and that from all things considered, the North Korean guards probably will not take care of the baby like it was their own. Would you fault the couple for inducing a miscarrige if they choose to do so? In this scenario, whether you believe in a certain universal doesn't change the outcome, that the baby will face certain death. Now, was the act by the couple a type of mercy or a kind of murder? The morality of the situation, if you believe that doing away with the fetus is killing a human, means that the act was immoral. But you might suggest that this is no different than killing a baby after if it was born. If the baby was born, the couple intentionally had the baby because they had hope, however ridiculous it was, that the baby would survive. However, again, would you fault the parents for choosing one way or the other?

This is the reason why I don't necessarily fault people who had abortion, even if I find it distasteful. The morality of the act is ultimately dubious and the act of it is not necessarily something that is in the realm of universality.

So in short, in that scenario, is that a type of mercy or an act of murder? Or is it both? By your standards, does this act erase any sense of mercy?

I don't care what the rest of the population thinks. It was completely acceptable to kill Jews in Nazi concentration camps. That does not mean it was right. And the Nazis had their reasons. Reasons do not matter when it comes to murdering another person. There are some times when killing is acceptable, but the vast majority of the time it is not. Right and wrong are not decided based on what is popular or you can theoretically justify a lot of bizarre and evil things like cruel and unusual punishment.

I thought we were past equivalenting abortion to murder.

If you think abortion is the same as the holocaust you obviously are willing to abort your empathy to do so.

Either way I think you're too emotionally invested in this for us to have a rational conversation about it. Well, at least I want it to be a conversation, it seems your side isn't to persuade minds, its to dig in to your position and lash out with buts.

There's a lot more we can talk about on this issue, from family development to cultural leanings, even to the American presidential election, but I'm afraid with how you're approaching the topic, especially to others who have a different opinion, it seems pursuing it would be unfruitful.

I don't fault people for having taken sides on this issue, but I'm pretty strict when it comes to conduct when in pursuit of reciprocal understanding. My meta-ethic and theological position on this is that, whether we believe or take stance on an issue one way or the other, we treat one another like a brother and friend, because our morality when it comes to defining our morality is a moral question in itself. To me, I think that's what God's more interested in, not that we took a particular side on a moral dilemma and fought courageously for it. Like the bible says, God is the one who wins my battles, and it is He who will avenge. Peace!

 

[Old Things]

I thought we were past equivalenting abortion to murder.

I didn't. And I completely answered your questions, too. I just did so by looking at general principles rather than your specific examples.

Yes, I will not change my mind on this. I gave my take: sometimes killing is acceptable. But the vast majority of the time it is not. And terminating a pregnancy is killing (but perhaps not equatable to murder).

As I said, which you seem to not understand, is that the Nazis had their reasons for killing the Jews. They did what they did with a perverted view of how to help humanity. We look back on that and think, "How could they possibly justify this?" And that's why I today am one of the people saying that about abortion today. During Nazi Germany, the population did not believe it was wrong to discriminate against the Jewish people. They had no problem with it because it was justified with reasons. Pro-Choice people have reasons as well. I have my reasons for being Pro-Life. As I said, reasons don't matter much when it is used to justify killing an innocent human. And killing for what reason? Because it is difficult to raise a child? That is not something I think is justified.

Let me put it this way: Let's say someone agrees with having abortions up until birth. So 5 minutes before the baby comes out it is alright to kill it. But then 5 minutes after it is out of the mother it is not okay to kill it. Why? What possible reason could there be for that? That is what I call a grave injustice. It is because the baby is dependent on the mother by being in the womb? Then the baby is dependent just as much on the mother 5 minutes after it is birthed it's just in a different location.

My response to you was not emotionally charged. It is a topic I am passionate about because in my mind it is a matter of life and death. So I don't think you have really understood the gravity of what the situation is in my eyes. You don't think it is a matter of life and death even though you agree that the fetus is alive. I think once it is a human that is alive there are very few reasons to kill it. And that is literally what it is is killing the fetus. So you agree that it is killing but have no problem with a mother killing it because it makes the mother's life more difficult? We cannot use that as a valid excuse to kill it. Doing the right thing almost always comes with a cost. Difficulty is literally baked into the idea of doing the morally right thing. If it was not difficult then it is not virtuous. We all applaud people who stood up to corruption and did the right thing when things were difficult. But somehow taking the easy way out by killing your fetus is considered acceptable. There's no virtue in taking the easy way out.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Sometimes you just have to do the right thing even if it is difficult.

This is what a lot of times Fi people do. This is off topic comment, but you argued your cases as an INTJ. However I still believe you could be INTP, because you made up your mind thinking a lot and you believe there is absolute truth without siding with practicality. Ergo you believe a moral choice supersedes any practical considerations, because you believe moral good is not something we can negotiate.
Simply said you believe it is what it is, and externalities don't change morality.

Ergo you believe mothers should take a proverbial bullet for the child, because once the child exists its part of this world and ergo has life.

I would argue one thing above all, that indeed morality can become a slippery slope, but moral responsibility is not against black or white thinking.
Ergo moral responsibility is not equal to morals.
You can for instance act morally superior to what your moral code is with moral responsibility. Hence how we learn to be better than previously.
But I think arguing against you when we both dug in our heels is pointless, because ultimately your premise is correct, as long as we don't account for or allow any external factors to change the statement: Life is sacred, we inevitably are destined to have a child whatever decision.

 

[Old Things]

Sometimes you just have to do the right thing even if it is difficult.

This is what a lot of times Fi people do. This is off topic comment, but you argued your cases as an INTJ. However I still believe you could be INTP, because you made up your mind thinking a lot and you believe there is absolute truth without siding with practicality. Ergo you believe a moral choice supersedes any practical considerations, because you believe moral good is not something we can negotiate.
Simply said you believe it is what it is, and externalities don't change morality.

Ergo you believe mothers should take a proverbial bullet for the child, because once the child exists its part of this world and ergo has life.

I would argue one thing above all, that indeed morality can become a slippery slope, but moral responsibility is not against black or white thinking.
Ergo moral responsibility is not equal to morals.
You can for instance act morally superior to what your moral code is with moral responsibility. Hence how we learn to be better than previously.
But I think arguing against you when we both dug in our heels is pointless, because ultimately your premise is correct, as long as we don't account for or allow any external factors to change the statement: Life is sacred, we inevitably are destined to have a child whatever decision.

One thing to note: I am not against any and all abortions. If it is the case that it would save the mother's life, I would be fine with it. But at that point, it becomes a medical procedure and not an elective abortion for any reason (which is the common Pro-Choice position even sometimes up to the birth of the child which I think is completely and utterly unjustified).

 

[ZenRaiden]

One thing to note: I am not against any and all abortions. If it is the case that it would save the mother's life, I would be fine with it. But at that point, it becomes a medical procedure and not an elective abortion for any reason (which is the common Pro-Choice position even sometimes up to the birth of the child which I think is completely and utterly unjustified).

Noted. But you do have a hard position, where you don't want slipper slopes.
Which means we have to assume doctors know what they are doing or even care that the choices they make are correct.
That assumptions comes with how good the doctor is.
But as long as life is saved or preserved I assume you are pro abortion, that is ergo the decision is not jeopardizing mother or baby, unless there is 0 choice to save one or the other.
Is that correct?

 

[Old Things]

One thing to note: I am not against any and all abortions. If it is the case that it would save the mother's life, I would be fine with it. But at that point, it becomes a medical procedure and not an elective abortion for any reason (which is the common Pro-Choice position even sometimes up to the birth of the child which I think is completely and utterly unjustified).

Noted. But you do have a hard position, where you don't want slipper slopes.
Which means we have to assume doctors know what they are doing or even care that the choices they make are correct.
That assumptions comes with how good the doctor is.
But as long as life is saved or preserved I assume you are pro abortion, that is ergo the decision is not jeopardizing mother or baby, unless there is 0 choice to save one or the other.
Is that correct?

That is more or less correct. What I am against, mainly, is elective abortions where a woman can terminate the pregnancy for any reason up until the moment of birth especially as I would consider aborting a baby that is close to 9 months in the womb to be basically murder (and evil) unless it is to save the life of the mother.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Nope, claiming that people having abortions have "no problems" with it mischaracterizes their intention and motive, strengthening my claim that you are lacking empathy. What you believe and what people actually go through are very much different things. I think there's a need to think deeper and more intentfully for what women go through if they choose abortion.

Also I'm perplexed as to why you're bringing up 3rd trimester abortion, I thought you were well versed on the issue? Almost all US states as far as I know bans 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions. There's a very small time frame were women are able to check if they're pregnant then to choose to have the baby or not.

Edit: having checked wiki I was mistaken, it seems like the medium is at around 5 months, so during the middle of the second trimester. A bit too far in for my own tastes because I would expect the pregnant women to have made a decision within the first 3 months, but I guess there's some kind of rationale behind it.

 

[Old Things]

Nope, claiming that people having abortions have "no problems" with it mischaracterizes their intention and motive, strengthening my claim that you are lacking empathy. What you believe and what people actually go through are very much different things. I think there's a need to think deeper and more intentfully for what women go through if they choose abortion.

Also I'm perplexed as to why you're bringing up 3rd trimester abortion, I thought you were well versed on the issue? Almost all US states as far as I know bans 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions. There's a very small time frame were women are able to check if they're pregnant then to choose to have the baby or not.

I have made zero claims about how women feel about their abortions. I have written on my blog that I understand that many women who have an abortion regret it. I am not ignorant of this. My position in this thread has not even touched on the emotional angles of the practice of abortion in one way or another. Are you aware many women do not feel guilt for having an abortion? In fact in studies that have been done checking up on women 5 years later, the majority have said they think having an abortion was the right decision. That does not cover whether this will last life long. I have left the emotions of the mother completely out of the equation on purpose because emotions do not decide what is morally right or wrong.

My point in highlighting 3rd-trimester abortions is how evil it is. I am aware that the majority of Americans are against such things, but many politicians on the left are for such things. In this way, the politicians are not in sync with the rest of the population. President Biden, who is Catholic is fine with 3rd-trimester abortions even though that is something that goes strongly against the Catholic Church since Catholics are against any forms of birth control whatsoever. Most Americans could not tell you what the anatomy of the fetus is at the level they would say abortion is permissible. In other words, they have no idea what the fetus is like at the point they are fine with killing it. If you actually look up the development of a fetus and when it develops a heart, or eyes or internal organs and such it makes it a lot more difficult to be Pro-Choice.

 

[Black Rose]

Why do women have abortions? If it was wrong and they know it was wrong then why? They feel they need to because they lack of resources(teen mothers) and a stable environment (father abandonment?). It is not an easy decision to make. So what is it that society needs to do? If society does nothing then nothing will happen. A problem with any position is that it solves nothing. Poverty is the main cause of death for children worldwide so we should help poor people get resources.

 

[ZenRaiden]

emotions do not decide what is morally right or wrong.

Now that is dangerous thing to say. Reason can justify many things.

 

[Old Things]

emotions do not decide what is morally right or wrong.

Now that is dangerous thing to say. Reason can justify many things.

I do not know if you believe in God or not (even though I know you are not a Christian). I think a good rundown of my argument for morality is something like this:

 

[ZenRaiden]

I do not know if you believe in God or not (even though I know you are not a Christian). I think a good rundown of my argument for morality is something like this:

Ah philosophy, the whinny bitch for the logical mind.
Now seriously, I did some time in philosophical mind.
Dwelling on that I learned one thing above all.
No matter how logical you get as long as the premise or the assumption is wrong all the logic in the world will lead to wrong assumptions.
We tend to forget that logic is domain of analysis.

Here are some baseline flaws I found in the video.
Atheist believe x..... which is wrong. Atheist means with out god. The video automatically assumes being atheist implies belief in evolution. Which is true for people like Dawkins. Not true for most atheist though. Most atheist don't give a hoot about DNA. They don't even know what is.

It also implies that without God we cannot arrive at objective truth.
Which means God makes everyone who does not believe in him automatically stupid.
Which we know is not true. If something is objectively true, its true regardless of what we think, who we are, what we believe, what we do, how we dress, what gender or period we live in.

Right now I could be objectively right, and atheist. I may not even recognize I am right. But as long as I am objectively right, as something objective is always true.

First of all how did I decide that violence or killing babies is wrong????
I though it was wrong long before I even knew God exists? So do I need a God or understand a complicated belief system to know that killing someone for trivial reasons is bad? Absofuckinglutely not.

We are born with sense of right and wrong. Some of us have better sense of right and wrong, and some less.

One thing the video has right though is that there needs to be a fixed point to any reasoning. Not just moral, but any type of reasoning.
Literally we cannot function as beings if we don't have a fixated frame of reference.

I leave it at this, because I doubt Christianity has stranglehold on absolute objective truth.

I think we humans are too petty and narrowminded to be this smart, and that goes for any religion in my understanding and science included.

I think we humans do have a objective way of being better.
But I don't think we humans have the ability to be absolute in any sense of moral or right. We are simply too limited.
In my book God is God, and he is above all things.
I do not judge a belief system, as I am too stupid to understand the intricate scale and balance of a belief system.

But at the bottom of the shit pile reasoning is narrow scope of human existence.

We humans cannot reason about everything. Our minds are way too small for that.

 

[Old Things]

Atheist believe x..... which is wrong. Atheist means with out god. The video automatically assumes being atheist implies belief in evolution. Which is true for people like Dawkins. Not true for most atheist though. Most atheist don't give a hoot about DNA. They don't even know what is.

That's interesting. Every atheist I have ever come across that has said something about it believes in evolution (as does the person who is responsible for the video, Dr. Bill Craig). So the video is not an argument against evolution. The video is an argument that humans are not just like every other animal, but are unique since certain moral absolutes exist for humans that do not exist for animals.

 

[Black Rose]

certain moral absolutes exist for humans

and others do not?

such as aliens?

an alien can have different morals than humans yet be just as morally absolute?

absolute means that it cannot be broken, so anything a human does morally it cannot be immoral. and anything immoral it cannot be done morally.

You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Genesis 50:20)

God just knows more than humans so everything bad that happens is ultimately for good.

God knows best.

So maybe abortions that happen are good for a higher purpose.

By this, I do not mean that it was not evil, but God shows people the error of their ways.

Free will questions again.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Every atheist I have ever come across

Not every atheist actually knows what the theory of evolution says.
So when they say they believe in evolution do they actual know what it stands for in science terms, or do they just believe the think they know.
Ergo I know that what mechanisms in evolution mean. But you could say you believe the moon exists, but someone could come tomorrow and say I am a scientist and we discovered the moon is made of cheese.
Same way a Christian that does not understand bible or even read it and someone who reads it have actually different beliefs.
A belief x in terms of symbols, like (EVOLUTION<CHRISTIANITY) don't necessarily represent the same symbols in reality for the people.
So real life logic does not actually work as verbal logic.
I can believe something x and yet the symbol for x means y to me and for you x stands for z. Belief structures are more complex.

The video is an argument that humans are not just like every other animal, but are unique since certain moral absolutes exist for humans that do not exist for animals.

Well yeah, because our bodies and minds are influenced and grow differently than that of other creatures.
Main reason we are separate from other animals is we have more energy and more ability to change our environments to our needs.
So we can respond better to the world and hence we have more responsibility.
Respons ability means ability to do more. Hence more need to be morally even.
As our actions have greater consequence on everything.
Animals generally don't need morals as most of what they do requires little reasoning for cause and effect. Animals are pure instinct 90 percent of the time.
Humans are 10 percent instinct and 90 percent reasoning.
But we still reason with emotions. We just cannot escape the fact we are humans.
Unlike other animals we have a unique capacity to grow and change all through out life. A 90 year old man is no where near close to what he was when he was 9. In such sense we are very unique animals indeed.

 

[Old Things]

Not every atheist actually knows what the theory of evolution says.
So when they say they believe in evolution do they actual know what it stands for in science terms, or do they just believe the think they know.

It does not require perfect knowledge of something to believe that that thing is true. What is necessary is to have sufficient evidence.

A belief x in terms of symbols, like (EVOLUTION<CHRISTIANITY) don't necessarily represent the same symbols in reality for the people.

But symbols represent ideas. And that idea is going to be the same if we take the symbol out of the equation.

I can believe something x and yet the symbol for x means y to me and for you x stands for z.

That is the problem with language. It works for us and against us. Red in Spanish is rojo. They are different words but mean exactly the same thing.

Animals generally don't need morals as most of what they do requires little reasoning for cause and effect. Animals are pure instinct 90 percent of the time.

Most of what I do is not conscious either. Articulation is very important but we cannot communicate perfectly. Same goes for reasoning.

90 year old man is no where near close to what he was when he was 9.

IDK about that. The 9-year-old is the same person as the 90-year-old. The years change and the experiences change, but the person remains the same.

 

[ZenRaiden]

It does not require perfect knowledge of something to believe that that thing is true. What is necessary is to have sufficient evidence.

Darwin did not know what DNA is true. I never implied perfect, that is what was inferred by you.

But symbols represent ideas. And that idea is going to be the same if we take the symbol out of the equation.

Sometimes yes.

Most of what I do is not conscious either. Articulation is very important but we cannot communicate perfectly. Same goes for reasoning.

True.

IDK about that. The 9-year-old is the same person as the 90-year-old. The years change and the experiences change, but the person remains the same.

Yes, if you mean personality. But with age we add and subtract things all the time.
Kind of like memory and identity. A lot of people dont realize how their identity changes. We have often have a false sense of coherent identity.
Lots of people say they dont change. The fact is some things dont change and those we tend to reinforce. But I remember when I was 8 was very different person.
Not just because I was young. I was sharper in some ways, my memory was clear, and my head was unburdens, by what burdens me now. I also had a very different idea of concept of relating to people, authority, and pretty much to the known world. In many essential ways I was an idiot. In some ways I was smarter.

If that makes sense of what I meant.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Nope, claiming that people having abortions have "no problems" with it mischaracterizes their intention and motive, strengthening my claim that you are lacking empathy. What you believe and what people actually go through are very much different things. I think there's a need to think deeper and more intentfully for what women go through if they choose abortion.

Also I'm perplexed as to why you're bringing up 3rd trimester abortion, I thought you were well versed on the issue? Almost all US states as far as I know bans 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions. There's a very small time frame were women are able to check if they're pregnant then to choose to have the baby or not.

I have made zero claims about how women feel about their abortions. I have written on my blog that I understand that many women who have an abortion regret it. I am not ignorant of this. My position in this thread has not even touched on the emotional angles of the practice of abortion in one way or another. Are you aware many women do not feel guilt for having an abortion? In fact in studies that have been done checking up on women 5 years later, the majority have said they think having an abortion was the right decision. That does not cover whether this will last life long. I have left the emotions of the mother completely out of the equation on purpose because emotions do not decide what is morally right or wrong.

My point in highlighting 3rd-trimester abortions is how evil it is. I am aware that the majority of Americans are against such things, but many politicians on the left are for such things. In this way, the politicians are not in sync with the rest of the population. President Biden, who is Catholic is fine with 3rd-trimester abortions even though that is something that goes strongly against the Catholic Church since Catholics are against any forms of birth control whatsoever. Most Americans could not tell you what the anatomy of the fetus is at the level they would say abortion is permissible. In other words, they have no idea what the fetus is like at the point they are fine with killing it. If you actually look up the development of a fetus and when it develops a heart, or eyes or internal organs and such it makes it a lot more difficult to be Pro-Choice.

Biden is for third trimester abortion? Where in the heck did you read something like this.

Uh, you've made 'no claims' but it's clear that you see women having abortions as people who have 'no problems' with it as they make their choice. It's it's the tone of your voice, don't be sly. That lack of empathy, for me, already disqualifies you from engaging from a position of good faith.

I'll reiterate since all you're going back to is your axoim: I haven't heard a good argument other than that the fetus is a human, therefore abortion is bad. There is nothing postively convincing in what you laid out your theory of personhood, most of it is negative rationality.

As for morality being decided on feelings, you obviously have not engaged with literature on morality at all. Any textbook that teaches morality talks about David Hume.

 

[Old Things]

Nope, claiming that people having abortions have "no problems" with it mischaracterizes their intention and motive, strengthening my claim that you are lacking empathy. What you believe and what people actually go through are very much different things. I think there's a need to think deeper and more intentfully for what women go through if they choose abortion.

Also I'm perplexed as to why you're bringing up 3rd trimester abortion, I thought you were well versed on the issue? Almost all US states as far as I know bans 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions. There's a very small time frame were women are able to check if they're pregnant then to choose to have the baby or not.

I have made zero claims about how women feel about their abortions. I have written on my blog that I understand that many women who have an abortion regret it. I am not ignorant of this. My position in this thread has not even touched on the emotional angles of the practice of abortion in one way or another. Are you aware many women do not feel guilt for having an abortion? In fact in studies that have been done checking up on women 5 years later, the majority have said they think having an abortion was the right decision. That does not cover whether this will last life long. I have left the emotions of the mother completely out of the equation on purpose because emotions do not decide what is morally right or wrong.

My point in highlighting 3rd-trimester abortions is how evil it is. I am aware that the majority of Americans are against such things, but many politicians on the left are for such things. In this way, the politicians are not in sync with the rest of the population. President Biden, who is Catholic is fine with 3rd-trimester abortions even though that is something that goes strongly against the Catholic Church since Catholics are against any forms of birth control whatsoever. Most Americans could not tell you what the anatomy of the fetus is at the level they would say abortion is permissible. In other words, they have no idea what the fetus is like at the point they are fine with killing it. If you actually look up the development of a fetus and when it develops a heart, or eyes or internal organs and such it makes it a lot more difficult to be Pro-Choice.

Biden is for third trimester abortion? Where in the heck did you read something like this.

Uh, you've made 'no claims' but it's clear that you see women having abortions as people who have 'no problems' with it as they make their choice. It's it's the tone of your voice, don't be sly. That lack of empathy, for me, already disqualifies you from engaging from a position of good faith.

I'll reiterate since all you're going back to is your axoim: I haven't heard a good argument other than that the fetus is a human, therefore abortion is bad. There is nothing postively convincing in what you laid out your theory of personhood, most of it is negative rationality.

As for morality being decided on feelings, you obviously have not engaged with literature on morality at all. Any textbook that teaches morality talks about David Hume.

You should really read all my posts in this thread and not only the ones addressed to you.

Yes, Biden is for 3rd Trimester abortions. Look it up if you don't believe me. He's also for trans ideology ever though that also spits in the face of his Catholic faith.

When I say "Doing good isn't good unless it is difficult," which is a paraphrase of what I have said in this thread, I am talking precisely about women having an abortion. That seems to be something you have ignored or you would not be saying I think women have no problems with giving birth and raising a child. So you have completely misrepresented me here. I know it is difficult to raise a child. I mean, duh. I'm not saying giving birth and raising a child is easy. I'm saying that there is no virtue in taking the easy way out by having an abortion. Besides, the baby has to come out one way or another. How do you suppose an aborted baby comes out? I'll tell you: By pieces. They pull the limbs off the child one at a time if it is too big to just suction out.

I don't care what moral philosophers think about morality as they make armchair judgments in their ivory tower. I wonder what these same moral philosophers think of the sermon on the mount. My guess is that they don't even pay attention to Christ even though Christ was the greatest moral philosopher who ever lived.

And my argument is that the fetus is an alive human that is innocent and we don't kill innocent humans. If you are going to disagree with my view, at least get it right.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Seems like a simple google query puts that to rest: https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check...until-birth-like-donald-trump-claimed-1536686

No I get your position, it's just you haven't demonstrated any sense of why a fetus should have the same value as human that is born. Your entire logic is tautological here.

You: a fetus is a human (value statement), and because we don't kill innocent humans, we shouldn't kill a fetus
Me: The value of a fetus is different from the value of beings who are born.
You: A fetus is a (add adjective here) human. Why don't you understand my argument?

Also, you not caring about philosophy doesn't negate the fact that theology and philosophy are incredibly interwined. I don't want to necessarily punch down, but I literally went to a seminary and can be ordained as a pastor if I want to pursue it. The amount of philosophy you have to read in a theological school is endless, I wouldn't be so rash to dismiss it.

 

[Old Things]

Me: The value of a fetus is different from the value of beings who are born.

Why?

 

[Old Things]

@onesteptwostep,

If you had to guess, what development stage would you think this is?

Eyes are present with eyelids, bones forming, fingers and toes present, sex glands taking shape.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Me: The value of a fetus is different from the value of beings who are born.

Why?

I think just from societal perceptions. If you had to choose between a fetus and a infant who was born, in a situation where you could only choose only one to live, I would think the one choosing would pick the living infant. Same with nearly all other humans who are born. Perhaps one would sacrifice oneself for a fetus to survive, but if a person were to choose between a fetus and a person, and if it were their choice alone, they would pick the one who is already born.

Why? Because they feel it would be the difficult but correct choice. Just from that, you can tell that humans in general value fetuses a bit more differently than a person who is already born.

Of course you can fault the person for choosing the person who is born over the fetus, but I think generally society would lean one way more than the other, and side with the person who had made that choice.

I think another argument could be the degree of personhood. One who is already born I think has more degrees of personhood than a fetus would have. I think in this sense, the idea of value ties in a bit too. Of course killing something which has personhood is wrong, but normally people would value a sentient being if it had more of it. Actually this is interesting because in a way because pets have personhood, because the owner gives it value, but then again we wouldn't value a pet over a fetus.

 

[Old Things]

Me: The value of a fetus is different from the value of beings who are born.

Why?

I think just from societal perceptions. If you had to choose between a fetus and a infant who was born, in a situation where you could only choose only one to live, I would think the one choosing would pick the living infant. Same with nearly all other humans who are born. Perhaps one would sacrifice oneself for a fetus to survive, but if a person were to choose between a fetus and a person, and if it were their choice alone, they would pick the one who is already born.

Why? Because they feel it would be the difficult but correct choice. Just from that, you can tell that humans in general value fetuses a bit more differently than a person who is already born.

Of course you can fault the person for choosing the person who is born over the fetus, but I think generally society would lean one way more than the other, and side with the person who had made that choice.

I think another argument could be the degree of personhood. One who is already born I think has more degrees of personhood than a fetus would have. I think in this sense, the idea of value ties in a bit too. Of course killing something which has personhood is wrong, but normally people would value a sentient being if it had more of it. Actually this is interesting because in a way because pets have personhood, because the owner gives it value, but then again we wouldn't value a pet over a fetus.

Alright, I have several problems with this. The most glaring is that you say you are a Christian but think morality is based on public opinion. News flash: Christianity's morality is supposed to be different from the world's. That is why Christians have been persecuted throughout the ages in case you didn't know. We are supposed to be the salt and light of the world. Not just like the world. This is fundamental to the Christian faith. It is not a sidebar.

Tell me on which occasion we have to choose between a 1-year-old and a fetus. Can you tell me a single time in history when that has ever happened? Moreover, if you had to choose to save your wife or two random strangers, who would you choose? Would that mean the strangers are less valuable if you chose your wife?

Again, if you want to use the argument that a fetus is not a person, then I can argue that some mentally handicapped people or person in a coma or elderly person with dementia is also not a person. So by your logic, if the caretaker wants to end their life, they should be able to do so since they do not function on the same level. This is an argument of functionality and usefulness to society. But if you are a Christian and believe every person is made in the Image of God, then everyone has equal value even if they do not have the same functionality.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Me: The value of a fetus is different from the value of beings who are born.

Why?

I think just from societal perceptions. If you had to choose between a fetus and a infant who was born, in a situation where you could only choose only one to live, I would think the one choosing would pick the living infant. Same with nearly all other humans who are born. Perhaps one would sacrifice oneself for a fetus to survive, but if a person were to choose between a fetus and a person, and if it were their choice alone, they would pick the one who is already born.

Why? Because they feel it would be the difficult but correct choice. Just from that, you can tell that humans in general value fetuses a bit more differently than a person who is already born.

Of course you can fault the person for choosing the person who is born over the fetus, but I think generally society would lean one way more than the other, and side with the person who had made that choice.

I think another argument could be the degree of personhood. One who is already born I think has more degrees of personhood than a fetus would have. I think in this sense, the idea of value ties in a bit too. Of course killing something which has personhood is wrong, but normally people would value a sentient being if it had more of it. Actually this is interesting because in a way because pets have personhood, because the owner gives it value, but then again we wouldn't value a pet over a fetus.

Alright, I have several problems with this. The most glaring is that you say you are a Christian but think morality is based on public opinion. News flash: Christianity's morality is supposed to be different from the world's. That is why Christians have been persecuted throughout the ages in case you didn't know. We are supposed to be the salt and light of the world. Not just like the world. This is fundamental to the Christian faith. It is not a sidebar.

Tell me on which occasion we have to choose between a 1-year-old and a fetus. Can you tell me a single time in history when that has ever happened? Moreover, if you had to choose to save your wife or two random strangers, who would you choose? Would that mean the strangers are less valuable if you chose your wife?

Again, if you want to use the argument that a fetus is not a person, then I can argue that some mentally handicapped people or person in a coma or elderly person with dementia is also not a person. So by your logic, if the caretaker wants to end their life, they should be able to do so since they do not function on the same level. This is an argument of functionality and usefulness to society. But if you are a Christian and believe every person is made in the Image of God, then everyone has equal value even if they do not have the same functionality.

I ultimately do not know where morality is ultimately based on, but I see how morality can stem from human sentiment (not public opinion), and that we turn that sentiment into logic with argumentation. You are misunderstanding the idea behind this moral theory. Here I'll give an example: though we morally say that killing someone is bad, we provide argumentation on why it is bad, for example, because it causes harm and pain to others. But moralists who hold David Hume's position is that, we feel it to be so because the act itself is simply disgusting, that it invokes disgust. Therefore, we begin with that sentiment and then supplement our objection to it with rationales. You can say that ultimately, theologically speaking, morality is the way it is because God has disgust for the things he doesn't like, not that there is some legal or justice framework in which that system of morality operates.

As for the hypothetical, er, yes, it's a hypothetical, and hypotheticals are used to shine a light on our perception on things. I don't see how the hypothetical you're providing relates to the one I gave. In your scenario you seem to want to highlight the influence relationship has on a perception of value, but that framework isn't the one that is being worked on in the hypothetical that I gave. Just because yours operates on a different scenario and moral situation, that doesn't negate what I've raised. I think this is what you call a red herring.

My position hasn't been that a fetus is not a person, I think to more clearly put it is that, while it has a degree of personhood, it doesn't have the same perceptive value with a human that is already born. I have also never raised the argument of the mentally hanicapped or someone who has been in a coma. You seem to be arguing with narratives here, not with me. That's a bit too much of hot air, especially in this weather.

Also if we want to take this biblically, I think the scriptures talks about birthrights more than fetuses (and I think somewhere in Judges God tells his people to rip away the baby from the womb from a certain tribe or something). I think humans have generally celebrated births more than conception up this point in history. (though with good medical care, lots of people celebrate pregnancy now). Like the slavery and women's rights progression I talked about in some posts beforehand, it could be thought that the value of fetuses could be elevated to the one who are born, because of the advancements in society. But as with all moral advancements in the history of human progress, until there's an economic backdrop, the reality of that ideal cannot take shape.

 

[Old Things]

I ultimately do not know where morality is ultimately based on, but I see how morality can stem from human sentiment (not public opinion), and that we turn that sentiment into logic with argumentation. You are misunderstanding the idea behind this moral theory. Here I'll give an example: though we morally say that killing someone is bad, we provide argumentation on why it is bad, for example, because it causes harm and pain to others. But moralists who hold David Hume's position is that, we feel it to be so because the act itself is simply disgusting, that it invokes disgust. Therefore, we begin with that sentiment and then supplement our objection to it with rationales. You can say that ultimately, theologically speaking, morality is the way it is because God has disgust for the things he doesn't like, not that there is some legal or justice framework in which that system of morality operates.

Hume was an atheist and he did not believe in miracles. He's in the same boat as Karl Marx.

As for the hypothetical, er, yes, it's a hypothetical, and hypotheticals are used to shine a light on our perception on things. I don't see how the hypothetical you're providing relates to the one I gave. In your scenario you seem to want to highlight the influence relationship has on a perception of value, but that framework isn't the one that is being worked on in the hypothetical that I gave. Just because yours operates on a different scenario and moral situation doesn't negate what I've raised. I think this is what you call a red herring.

The point of my example is that we have preferences, but our preferences are not based on right and wrong.

My position hasn't been that a fetus is not a person, I think to more clearly put it is that, while it has a degree of personhood, it doesn't have the same perceptive value with a human that is already born. I have also never raised the argument of the mentally hanicapped or someone who has been in a coma. You seem to be arguing with narratives here, not with me. That's a bit too much of hot air, especially in this weather.

I'm using the same kind of logic you are using and applying it to a different situation. Your argument is based on personhood. So that is the word I am dissecting. So you have to say that a very mentally handicapped person has the same degree of personhood as someone who is not very mentally handicapped. But what is that based on? What makes the mentally handicapped person have the same degree of personhood? Your argument boils down to, "Fetus small. Fetus not seen. Therefore, fetus not person as much." Otherwise, what is the actual logic that makes the fetus not as much of a person? Is it just based on sentiment? People's sentiments are wrong all the time. They are not reliable as a gauge for truth because truth is separate from sentiments. One person has a certain sentiment about one thing and another person has the exact opposite sentiments about the same exact thing. So I'm going to ask you straight up if you think any moral absolutes exist. Like, is it ever okay to torture and murder an innocent person for fun? Because if it is just based on sentiments, then some people have actually done that based on their own personal sentiments.

Also if we want to take this biblically, I think the scriptures talks about birthrights more than fetuses. I think humans have generally celebrated births more than conception up this point in history. (though with good medical care, lots of people celebrate pregnancy now). Like the slavery and women's rights progression I talked about in some posts beforehand, it could be thought that the value of fetuses could be elevated to the one who are born, because of the advancements in society. But as with all moral advancements in the history of human progress, until there's an economic backdrop, the reality of that ideal cannot take shape.

"I knit you in your mother's womb." God loved Jacob and hated Esau before they had don't anything right or wrong. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit while still in the womb. So if you want to talk about what the Bible says, I will destroy you in that argument.

And what "moral advancement" is there, really? The 20th century was the bloodiest century in human history. There is more slavery today than there has been in the history of the world. Morality does not progress; it gets recycled.

 

[Black Rose]

David Hume’s position is that, we feel it to be so because the act itself is simply disgusting, that it invokes disgust. Therefore, we begin with that sentiment and then supplement our objection to it with rationales. You can say that ultimately, theologically speaking, morality is the way it is because God has disgust for the things he doesn’t like, not that there is some legal or justice framework in which that system of morality operates.

Sin is about the impurity of evil and God IS NOT EVIL.

The body has diseases and decays and feels pain.
The evil spirit crafts and deceives and wants destruction and suffering for all.
The soul is your place next to all else. all good and all bad.

The purpose of evil is to harm others and to do so willingly because of hate, fear, and pride. God has non of this. God is pure love and that means he is joy and trust. If anything bad happens it is against LOVE.

So God must separate from evil, and if a person is evil in spirit, body, and soul they will be separate from God.

God does not want us to sin because then we will be separated from him.

If we suffer God suffers so to prevent as much suffering as possible the universe is set up a certain way to prevent as much suffering as possible.

Morality is about teaching his creation to do good things not bad. So as to harmonize the situation. Why prevent suffering if not to get morality into persons who understand what right and wrong are? God tells us what is good and what is bad to help us come closer to him. The evil persons who destroy and create as much suffering as possible must be stopped but we are the only ones who can do so by the providence God has given us. God is a mind and we as humans have minds, we understand. It is our responsibility to care for all things and not let people become evil. God is attached to all living creatures.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I ultimately do not know where morality is ultimately based on, but I see how morality can stem from human sentiment (not public opinion), and that we turn that sentiment into logic with argumentation. You are misunderstanding the idea behind this moral theory. Here I'll give an example: though we morally say that killing someone is bad, we provide argumentation on why it is bad, for example, because it causes harm and pain to others. But moralists who hold David Hume's position is that, we feel it to be so because the act itself is simply disgusting, that it invokes disgust. Therefore, we begin with that sentiment and then supplement our objection to it with rationales. You can say that ultimately, theologically speaking, morality is the way it is because God has disgust for the things he doesn't like, not that there is some legal or justice framework in which that system of morality operates.

Hume was an atheist and he did not believe in miracles. He's in the same boat as Karl Marx.

As for the hypothetical, er, yes, it's a hypothetical, and hypotheticals are used to shine a light on our perception on things. I don't see how the hypothetical you're providing relates to the one I gave. In your scenario you seem to want to highlight the influence relationship has on a perception of value, but that framework isn't the one that is being worked on in the hypothetical that I gave. Just because yours operates on a different scenario and moral situation doesn't negate what I've raised. I think this is what you call a red herring.

The point of my example is that we have preferences, but our preferences are not based on right and wrong.

My position hasn't been that a fetus is not a person, I think to more clearly put it is that, while it has a degree of personhood, it doesn't have the same perceptive value with a human that is already born. I have also never raised the argument of the mentally hanicapped or someone who has been in a coma. You seem to be arguing with narratives here, not with me. That's a bit too much of hot air, especially in this weather.

I'm using the same kind of logic you are using and applying it to a different situation. Your argument is based on personhood. So that is the word I am dissecting. So you have to say that a very mentally handicapped person has the same degree of personhood as someone who is not very mentally handicapped. But what is that based on? What makes the mentally handicapped person have the same degree of personhood? Your argument boils down to, "Fetus small. Fetus not seen. Therefore, fetus not person as much." Otherwise, what is the actual logic that makes the fetus not as much of a person? Is it just based on sentiment? People's sentiments are wrong all the time. They are not reliable as a gauge for truth because truth is separate from sentiments. One person has a certain sentiment about one thing and another person has the exact opposite sentiments about the same exact thing. So I'm going to ask you straight up if you think any moral absolutes exist. Like, is it ever okay to torture and murder an innocent person for fun? Because if it is just based on sentiments, then some people have actually done that based on their own personal sentiments.

Also if we want to take this biblically, I think the scriptures talks about birthrights more than fetuses. I think humans have generally celebrated births more than conception up this point in history. (though with good medical care, lots of people celebrate pregnancy now). Like the slavery and women's rights progression I talked about in some posts beforehand, it could be thought that the value of fetuses could be elevated to the one who are born, because of the advancements in society. But as with all moral advancements in the history of human progress, until there's an economic backdrop, the reality of that ideal cannot take shape.

"I knit you in your mother's womb." God loved Jacob and hated Esau before they had don't anything right or wrong. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit while still in the womb. So if you want to talk about what the Bible says, I will destroy you in that argument.

And what "moral advancement" is there, really? The 20th century was the bloodiest century in human history. There is more slavery today than there has been in the history of the world. Morality does not progress; it gets recycled.

I would argue that Hume was a deist, not an atheist to the level of Marx. Marx was resolutely anti-theist. Hume raised a lot of philosophical questions that advanced philosophy, and particuarly advanced English empiricism and England's apporach to rationality during that era. As the saying goes, "Hume awoke Kant from his dogmatic slumber".

I would argue in my case that in my hypothetical, it is not about preferences. You will recieve much more societal critisism, though not objectively wrong, if you had saved the fetus and condemned the person who was already born. In any case you seem to have not answered my question, which is pretty central to the point of personhood I'm arguing.

Also invoking 'truth' here is just tautological, like I've previously stated. We know your 'truth', your 'truth' is that a fetus is a human, and that we do not kill innocent humans. What we're discussing now is whether the 'human' you're talking about in this sitaution is of the same value as a human which that is born. And thus I've provided a hypothetical to showcase how that it could be not the case. Invoking 'truth' or asking 'do you believe in absolutes' doesn't further the discussion we're having, you are simply repeating the same statement, not actually engaging in civil dialogue.

Do you see why your reasonings are fallcious here?

 

[Old Things]

We know your 'truth', your 'truth' is that a fetus is a human, and that we do not kill innocent humans.

There is no such thing as "Your truth. My truth." Things are either true or false outside of the subject. That kind of idea is what Oprah believes and she is not a Christian, but a New Ager.

 

[Old Things]

@onesteptwostep,

TBH, I don't think you have any idea how indoctrinated you are in postmodern thought. You might be a Christian, but you do not operate on a Christian ethos. Your morality has a lot more in common with what the world believes than what the Bible says.

 

[Black Rose]

Do you see why your reasonings are fallcious here?

How can he (@Old Things ) see his flawed reasoning if you cannot see yours?

Are you a new ager who believes in no absolute truth like Oprah as @Old Things implies?

Please define 'truth'

edit: you seem to imply good and bad have gradients?

 

[onesteptwostep]

You humor me Old Things. If your measure of one's faith is positions on issues of morality, you've not understood what faith is. Faith exists beyond the bounds of rules of the world. In time you will regret having asked that question, but I won't take offense from it. What I worry is that you bound yourself with morality much too closely than to God. If you had been in positions of weakness, in places of deep despair, topics like morality wouldn't be issues you would struggle with. Within the purview of God, moral topics like these are exactly the kind of 'worldly' things Christ talks about. C.S. Lewis talks about this well in his Great Divorce, on the man in hell who wonders if he has won the cultural war on earth.

 

[Old Things]

You humor me Old Things. If your measure of one's faith is positions on issues of morality, you've not understood what faith is. Faith exists beyond the bounds of rules of the world. In time you will regret having asked that question, but I won't take offense from it. What I worry is that you bound yourself with morality much too closely than to God. If you had been in positions of weakness, in places of deep despair, topics like morality wouldn't be issues you would struggle with. Within the purview of God, moral topics like these are exactly the kind of 'worldly' things Christ talks about. C.S. Lewis talks about this well in his Great Divorce, on the man in hell who wonders if he has won the cultural war on earth.

My faith informs my morals, not the other way around.

And frankly, you do not know what I have been through.

 

[onesteptwostep]

You humor me Old Things. If your measure of one's faith is positions on issues of morality, you've not understood what faith is. Faith exists beyond the bounds of rules of the world. In time you will regret having asked that question, but I won't take offense from it. What I worry is that you bound yourself with morality much too closely than to God. If you had been in positions of weakness, in places of deep despair, topics like morality wouldn't be issues you would struggle with. Within the purview of God, moral topics like these are exactly the kind of 'worldly' things Christ talks about. C.S. Lewis talks about this well in his Great Divorce, on the man in hell who wonders if he has won the cultural war on earth.

My faith informs my morals, not the other way around.

And frankly, you do not know what I have been through.

Neither do you!

 

[Black Rose]

Anyone can be tortured until they cave in.

That is a reality.

 

[Old Things]

Anyone can be tortured until they cave in.

That is a reality.

Perhaps. But not Christ. He is perfect in all His ways.