Liberals being Pro-Choice :/

philologos

Moral universalism has been defended by many irrespective of belief system. Personally, I don't buy the idea that all moral systems are equally valid. Often people find out what is right and wrong by experience. We were all given a conscience which was intended to be our moral guide. Guilt is an instrument to tell us that something isn't quite right. It's true that we can warp our moral compass and ultimately suppress it.

You claim that there is an issue with different people saying different things are right. My answer is sure, but they can't all be true. Moral relativism is an expression of postmodernism. Or the claim that there isn't a truth. What is being advocated is that there isn't an ultimate source of good and evil. I don't believe that is so. There are many things which are objectively wrong.

I think we're talking past each other because:
1. People think that morality is bound by thought.
2. People think that morality is mind-independent and as a result isn't bound to what we think, culture, religion etc.

I fall into camp 2. You fall into camp 1.

If 1 is true then it is based on our opinion of what is right and wrong which is flawed based on what I said earlier.

If it is 2, the arguments are irrelevant because ultimately there is a single moral standard which we will be accountable to whether we like it or not. This is independent of you or me.

K-9

philologos wrote: »

Moral universalism has been defended by many irrespective of belief system.

Yeah, because it suits people who adhere to it. Even different religions can come to agree that each others true word is true and let bygones be bygones! It suits everybody. Moral relativism at its best! So even Moral universalists can agree to disagree when it suits!

Personally, I don't buy the idea that all moral systems are equally valid.

Of course you don't. You wouldn't believe in your own moral system otherwise!

Often people find out what is right and wrong by experience. We were all given a conscience which was intended to be our moral guide.

Indeed. What a bible or other religious text tells us can be changed and added to with experience.

Guilt is an instrument to tell us that something isn't quite right. It's true that we can warp our moral compass and ultimately suppress it.

You can also acknowledge whatever moral compass you follow and combine experience, empathy and realism.

You claim that there is an issue with different people saying different things are right. My answer is sure, but they can't all be true.

Indeed. Your right may well be wrong.

Moral relativism is an expression of postmodernism.

Nope, it's been around for centuries.

Or the claim that there isn't a truth. What is being advocated is that there isn't an ultimate source of good and evil. I don't believe that is so. There are many things which are objectively wrong.

Indeed.

I think we're talking past each other because:
1. People think that morality is bound by thought.
2. People think that morality is mind-independent and as a result isn't bound to what we think, culture, religion etc.

I fall into camp 2. You fall into camp 1.

Your morality is bound to point 2. This is where moral univeralism falls down. There's a thin line between it and fundamentalism.

Mark200

philologos wrote: »

I suspect this is why Thomas Jefferson wrote this powerful line in the US Declaration of Independence:

While owning slaves.

Mickeroo

philologos wrote: »

It showed how people were willing to ignore what was right on the basis of rhetoric. There is no worse an idea than the idea that individuals devise what is right and wrong for themselves as far as I see it. This idea means that people can define whatever suits their own goals and purposes as "right" and whatever doesn't as "wrong". It doesn't matter if what is "right" hurts other people. Humans have an inherent ability to twist what is clearly wrong and make it look like what is right. Essentially good could be bad, and bad could be good. The idea that anything we want could be good, and anything we want could be bad is dangerous as a result. No moral accountability is possible in such a system.

I studied moral philosophy to quite a big extent at university. I found logical flaws in relativistic ethical systems because essentially they offer a moral free-for-all which isn't really doing morality at all.



They've constructed their own ideas of what is right and wrong in order to deny the ultimate truth about what is right and what is wrong. Particularly in respect to Mr.Incognito's point: There's nothing childish about the philosophy that good and evil are mind independent, it's been around for centuries. There's also nothing childish about reasonable disagreement.

Good and evil are beyond us. It's why I can say that human rights are inalienable. They are unalienable because they are not given by you or me, they simply are by virtue of external reality. I suspect this is why Thomas Jefferson wrote this powerful line in the US Declaration of Independence:


Another point that people have misunderstood is that they assume that because people disagree about things that there is no moral universalism. That's not a good argument - as all that moral universalism puts forward is that there is right and wrong which is independent of the mind. Ultimately, I think most people do know deep down what is right and what is wrong, but there is no stopping people from running away from the truth due to expediency.

1. Basically you're saying god gave us morals and thats that, you might be trying to hide it but that's what you're saying.

2. Quoting the US declaration of independence to try and prove your point is silly because it only applies to america thereby proving the point that people give people human rights and they can also take them away. It also says there was a creator which gave people these rights, so basically you're saying christian morals are the only right and wrong there is and anyone who doesn't follow this moral framework is only twisting what is right and wrong to their own needs as if right and wrong are two words that can only mean one thing.

There is no point trying to reason with you when you write off everything that doesn't equate to "god said this is right and this is wrong and this is the way it always/is/will be regardless of what human culure and history tells us". When you genuinely believe you have an omnicient anthropomorphic personification on your side its unlikely you'll ever admit to being wrong so I bid you adieu.

strobe

philologos wrote: »

It showed how people were willing to ignore what was right on the basis of rhetoric. There is no worse an idea than the idea that individuals devise what is right and wrong for themselves as far as I see it. This idea means that people can define whatever suits their own goals and purposes as "right" and whatever doesn't as "wrong". It doesn't matter if what is "right" hurts other people. Humans have an inherent ability to twist what is clearly wrong and make it look like what is right. Essentially good could be bad, and bad could be good. The idea that anything we want could be good, and anything we want could be bad is dangerous as a result. No moral accountability is possible in such a system.

I studied moral philosophy to quite a big extent at university. I found logical flaws in relativistic ethical systems because essentially they offer a moral free-for-all which isn't really doing morality at all.



They've constructed their own ideas of what is right and wrong in order to deny the ultimate truth about what is right and what is wrong. Particularly in respect to Mr.Incognito's point: There's nothing childish about the philosophy that good and evil are mind independent, it's been around for centuries. There's also nothing childish about reasonable disagreement.

Good and evil are beyond us. It's why I can say that human rights are inalienable. They are unalienable because they are not given by you or me, they simply are by virtue of external reality. I suspect this is why Thomas Jefferson wrote this powerful line in the US Declaration of Independence:


Another point that people have misunderstood is that they assume that because people disagree about things that there is no moral universalism. That's not a good argument - as all that moral universalism puts forward is that there is right and wrong which is independent of the mind. Ultimately, I think most people do know deep down what is right and what is wrong, but there is no stopping people from running away from the truth due to expediency.

If we take the holocaust here. A lot of Nazi's and theie supporters seemed to be genuinely convinced that the Jews were less than human when compared to Aryans. Therefore exterminating them was no different than exterminating rats or any other vermin or pest.

You don't need moral relativism or subjectivism for genocide or for anything else. You can sway peoples hearts and minds is that direction just as easily (in my opinion much much more so) by appealing to a sense of moral absolutism/objectivism.

In practical terms it makes very little difference whether people are moral relativists, nihilists or objectivist's Philo, as an objective morallity can be argued to be anything whatsoever. I can be an absolutist moral objectivist and believe that kidnapping children and burning them alive is not morally wrong just as easily as I can do as a moral relativist. I also feel I could motivate others far far far more effectively and successfully to join me in my child burning shenanigans by appealing to an objective moral basis for it rather than saying 'well, it's just something I personally get a kick out of doing. I don't believe it's wrong, no. My reasons for thinking that are based on nothing objective though. Wanna try it?' to someone.

Muslims have blown up school buses and Christians have waged bloody war while being moral objectivists.

You really want to go down the road of not wanting to repeat humanities worst atrocities? I put it to you that moral objectivists had a guiding a hand in just as many as relativists or nihilists etc had.

Your own objective morality (well, version 1.0 of it) meant mothers dragged their crying, screaming, pleading young teenage daughters outside their homes and threw them to their knees to be pelted to death by rocks by their neighbours...

Now speaking only for myself here of course, I'm not a moral objectivist and there is zero chance in hell I would have allowed that to happen to my daughter, never mind played a part in it. It was moral objectivist parents, following God's own moral objectivism, who could only have done such a thing.

Objectivism is neither positive or negative man, it depends entirely on the particular flavour. Just like relativism.

Mr. Incognito

philologos wrote: »

It showed how people were willing to ignore what was right on the basis of rhetoric. There is no worse an idea than the idea that individuals devise what is right and wrong for themselves as far as I see it. This idea means that people can define whatever suits their own goals and purposes as "right" and whatever doesn't as "wrong". It doesn't matter if what is "right" hurts other people. Humans have an inherent ability to twist what is clearly wrong and make it look like what is right. Essentially good could be bad, and bad could be good. The idea that anything we want could be good, and anything we want could be bad is dangerous as a result. No moral accountability is possible in such a system.

I studied moral philosophy to quite a big extent at university. I found logical flaws in relativistic ethical systems because essentially they offer a moral free-for-all which isn't really doing morality at all.



They've constructed their own ideas of what is right and wrong in order to deny the ultimate truth about what is right and what is wrong. Particularly in respect to Mr.Incognito's point: There's nothing childish about the philosophy that good and evil are mind independent, it's been around for centuries. There's also nothing childish about reasonable disagreement.

Good and evil are beyond us. It's why I can say that human rights are inalienable. They are unalienable because they are not given by you or me, they simply are by virtue of external reality. I suspect this is why Thomas Jefferson wrote this powerful line in the US Declaration of Independence:


Another point that people have misunderstood is that they assume that because people disagree about things that there is no moral universalism. That's not a good argument - as all that moral universalism puts forward is that there is right and wrong which is independent of the mind. Ultimately, I think most people do know deep down what is right and what is wrong, but there is no stopping people from running away from the truth due to expediency.

I love the internet.

My favourite is when people post links they have not read.

Basically what your moral realism boils down to is that I believe a thing to be classified as wrong independently of subjectivity and will treat it thus.

Only problem with that is wrong is subjective and it is a house of cards that comes tumbling down.

You are mixing emotional topics- morality with scientific methodology.

Theology is a branch of this.

It take an unproven statement. i.e God exists and expands it. Presuming God exists does God like cornflakes.

Moral universalism makes the same mistake. X is Moral. This statement is not subjective and cannot accept scientific analysis any more than the first statement,

Abortion is the same. Right or wrong are your subjective opinions on the matter.

Its amazing how theologists seek to adopt scientific analysis to prop up their nonsense and reject it when simple rules of scientific proofs show that there is no God.

philologos

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I love the internet.

My favourite is when people post links they have not read.

Basically what your moral realism boils down to is that I believe a thing to be classified as wrong independently of subjectivity and will treat it thus.

Only problem with that is wrong is subjective and it is a house of cards that comes tumbling down.

You are mixing emotional topics- morality with scientific methodology.

Theology is a branch of this.

It take an unproven statement. i.e God exists and expands it. Presuming God exists does God like cornflakes.

Moral universalism makes the same mistake. X is Moral. This statement is not subjective and cannot accept scientific analysis any more than the first statement,

Abortion is the same. Right or wrong are your subjective opinions on the matter.

Its amazing how theologists seek to adopt scientific analysis to prop up their nonsense and reject it when simple rules of scientific proofs show that there is no God.

I've read the link. I subscribe to moral universalism.

You claim that wrong is subjective. I don't see any reason to believe it is so given how humans respond to moral problems. Humans don't claim that they been subjectively wronged, they claim that they have been objectively wrong and seek resolution for it. People's moral systems don't work on a relative basis. If they did they would be forced to accept that the others moral system was equally valid to them, and that wrong could have actually been "good for them" and leave it aside.

People don't work like this though, and for good reason. Every human being appeals to objective morality in one form or another if they are honest enough to admit it.

There's no emotion involved in that. It's simple reasoning. Not only is moral relativism unworkable, it doesn't even seem to be grounded in reality.

As for your claim that scientific proofs show there is no God, that couldn't be any more wrong. Unless you're willing to show this is the case, I think any rational person should take that with a pinch of salt.

strobe wrote: »

In practical terms it makes very little difference whether people are moral relativists, nihilists or objectivist's Philo, as an objective morallity can be argued to be anything whatsoever. I can be an absolutist moral objectivist and believe that kidnapping children and burning them alive is not morally wrong just as easily as I can do as a moral relativist.

This argument is poor strobe. Just because one can argue that X is something doesn't necessarily mean that X is something.

You're still assuming that it is mind-dependent when moral universalism is based on the idea that there is a source of morality out there that is free from the constraints of my mind and yours.

It is true much in the other way that other statements of fact are true. In that morality is a reality, it isn't a contrived thought. Even if I claimed that the universal source of morality was X, I admit fully that I could be wrong. Ultimately though, even if I was wrong, universal morality would nonetheless exist.

Mickeroo: I've told you systematically in terms of the reasoning as to why I disagree with it. I was taught about moral relativism at school not in those terms but during class as to how morality comes from different sources. I didn't quite buy it then, and I outright reject it as an idea now for the above reasons.

I don't believe right and wrong is up to whoever to decide. I believe that there is truth about morality just as there is truth about whatever else is the case about in the universe.

strobe

philologos wrote: »

Just because one can argue that X is something doesn't necessarily mean that X is something.

You're still assuming that it is mind-dependent when moral universalism is based on the idea that there is a source of morality out there that is free from the constraints of my mind and yours.

It is true much in the other way that other statements of fact are true. In that morality is a reality, it isn't a contrived thought. Even if I claimed that the universal source of morality was X, I admit fully that I could be wrong. Ultimately though, even if I was wrong, universal morality would nonetheless exist.

Your contention was that 'moral relativism was responsible for the greatest atrocities of mankind' or words to that effect. I'd like you to back that up by demonstrating to me how a moral objectivist would not murder me but a moral relativist would. How a genocidal maniac could have been a moral relativist but could not possibly have been a moral objectivist.

Explain to me why a moral objectivist wouldn't murder ten thousand children for kicks and giggles.

Support the assertion that histories greatest atrocities were the actions of moral relativists but not moral objectivists.

yutta

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Maybe when you kick the bible bashing agenda to one side. However I am not aware of having any liberal agendas or any such notions you want to invent and assign to me. I am merely giving my opinions on THIS topic and THIS topic only. If you want to start hiding behind labels, then so be it.

FYI, nowhere have I "bashed the bible" in this thread. If you want to exclude the religious dimension (for reasons only known to you) of this discussion, then that's fine with me.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You can do what labelling you like. It wont make it true. The fact remains that being pro an option does not mean you want people to take that option. No matter what labelling or name calling you hide behind.

Evidently, you don't like the term "pro-abortion"? Well tough.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am also pro people being able to have heart bypass. That does not mean I WANT anyone to have a heart bypass. I would much prefer people eat healthily and exercise and never need one.

If you're pro death penalty, you're not "pro-choice". Pro death penalty is a far more semantically accurate description.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Similarly I want people to have access to abortion. I would prefer people do all that is required to mean they never need one however. No amount of hiding behind linguistic tricks or labels will change that, no matter how much you try.....

I don't. This discussion isn't about convenient labels, it's about life and death - right and wrong.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ah! So you agree its NOT a human life then. It is a POTENTIAL one. My point exactly!

A potential life in the sense that it relies on an another human until aged about five or six. Then the child can fend for itself.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You can not be X and be potentially X at the same time. You either are a human life or you are not. IF you concede its only a POTENTIAL human life then you have conceded that it is not a human life. QED. You just made my point for me.

You have presented just two hypothetical scenarios. I'm saying that a foetus has the potential for life. It has undergone a miraculous, unexplainable transformation from the moment of conception. This is new human life. To deny the obvious is disingenuous.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes it is a potential human life. I never denied that. The point however is that it is not one yet. That is all my point was and I am so glad you now agree.

Ok, so you believe it's a potential human life. As is a third trimester child by your definition of what "potential" human life is. By the way, third trimester babies are not necessarily dependent on their mother's womb for survival and therefore they must have a special designation beyond "potential" life.

Lollipops23

yutta wrote: »

Ok, so you believe it's a potential human life. As is a third trimester child by your definition of what "potential" human life is. By the way, third trimester babies are not necessarily dependent on their mother's womb for survival and therefore they must have a special designation beyond "potential" life.

Quick question, and my apologies if you've already answered this earlier on, but do you agree with contraception? Or the morning after pill?

Mickeroo

yutta wrote: »

You have presented just two hypothetical scenarios. I'm saying that a foetus has the potential for life. It has undergone a miraculous, unexplainable transformation from the moment of conception. This is new human life. To deny the obvious is disingenuous.

I still can't get my head around how you think one of the most fundamental and well documented/studied biological processes there is is unexplained or miraculous. Literally every life form on the planet goes through this "miraculous" process to some extent....

Lollipops23

Mickeroo wrote: »

I still can't get my head around how you think one of the most fundamental and well documented/studied biological processes there is is unexplained or miraculous. Literally every life form on the planet goes through this "miraculous" process to some extent....

Sure it's not electricity that makes my light bulb work, it's tiny elves wiggling their arses to until they glow!

yutta

strobe wrote: »

Your contention was that 'moral relativism was responsible for the greatest atrocities of mankind' or words to that effect. I'd like you to back that up by demonstrating to me how a moral objectivist would not murder me but a moral relativist would. How a genocidal maniac could have been a moral relativist but could not possibly have been a moral objectivist.

Explain to me why a moral objectivist wouldn't murder ten thousand children for kicks and giggles.

Support the assertion that histories greatest atrocities were the actions of moral relativists but not moral objectivists.

The implications of moral relativism are stark. Nothing is objectively true and nothing is objectively false, therefore we rely on the opinion of the day to decide whether something is right or wrong. There is no right, no wrong, just opinion. If abortion is deemed ok, then it's morally ok. If the death penalty is deemed ok, then it's morally ok. If gay marriage is deemed ok, then it's morally ok. What else could be deemed ok? Is the voter always informed enough to make a decision on a complex moral matter?

My opinion is that legislators should be informed by the best philosophers, theologians, historians and relevant experts so as to make the right decisions.

yutta

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Quick question, and my apologies if you've already answered this earlier on, but do you agree with contraception? Or the morning after pill?

I adopt the Catholic position on these matters, so you should know the answer.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

There is no worse an idea than the idea that individuals devise what is right and wrong for themselves as far as I see it.

Yet that "idea" is not one being espoused. People like myself are not saying we each decide for ourselves. But that we decide it together, as a species, rationally.

The "idea" you are knocking down above therefore is little more than a straw man and bears little resemblance to what people like myself actually say.

Further, merely pointing out imperfections in such a system... and no one is claiming it to be perfect.... in no way constitutes evidence for your "perfect" and wholly imagined objective morality set by your equally wholly imagined "god".

Simply suggesting that the system you are claiming exists is perfect and objective, does not make it real. Pointing out the system we do have here in the real world is NOT perfect does not negate it nor change the fact it is the best we have. Wanting it to be perfect is no reason to get rid of it.

philologos wrote: »

They've constructed their own ideas of what is right and wrong in order to deny the ultimate truth about what is right and what is wrong.

One can not deny what is not there. You have not evidenced even once that there is an "ultimate truth" in morality. Not once. Ever. You simply declare there is then run.

"Right and wrong" and "good and evil" are not "beyond us". They are merely labels we use to label desirable and undesirable actions based on the moral opinions we have formed together as a species.

yutta

Mickeroo wrote: »

I still can't get my head around how you think one of the most fundamental and well documented/studied biological processes there is is unexplained or miraculous. Literally every life form on the planet goes through this "miraculous" process to some extent....

It may be well documented/studies - but why? Because something of great interest goes on at this moment. We still do not know the precise mechanism that breaths new life into a clump of cells.

yutta

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yet that "idea" is not one being espoused. People like myself are not saying we each decide for ourselves. But that we decide it together, as a species, rationally.

In my experience, "rationally" is an atheist key-word for excluding religious and theological reasoning.

Who's to say that the population at large are qualified to make complex moral decisions? Democratic tyranny is what you espouse.

Mickeroo

yutta wrote: »

The implications of moral relativism are stark. Nothing is objectively true and nothing is objectively false, therefore we rely on the opinion of the day to decide whether something is right or wrong. There is no right, no wrong, just opinion. If abortion is deemed ok, then it's morally ok. If the death penalty is deemed ok, then it's morally ok. If gay marriage is deemed ok, then it's morally ok. What else could be deemed ok?

All those things you have mentioned are deemed morally ok by the majority of western society at least, apart from maybe the death penalty, but there are many societies that would deem the death penalty morally justified. Get this, there's even states within the country of the US that have different laws when it comes to things like the death penalty and gay marriage and even within those states there are large groups of people who think they are morally wrong and morally right. :eek:

nozzferrahhtoo

yutta wrote: »

FYI, nowhere have I "bashed the bible" in this thread.

It is a turn of phrase and not to be taken literally. It just means you inject god and religion.. an entity for which you have not once substantiated the existence of... into a conversation where it otherwise is not welcome, useful, needed or relevant.

I am not "excluding" any religious dimension. I can not exclude what is simply not there. This is a conversation about humans and human reproduction. Fairy tales and imaginary friends have no part in it. If you could substantiate the existence of this "god" entity then we could include that dimension. Until that time however, you are just injecting fantasy into a real world discussion on an important topic.

yutta wrote: »

Evidently, you don't like the term "pro-abortion"? Well tough.

Actually in many ways I do like it. I like it because it highlights the propaganda linguistic tricks being played by people on your side of the fence who have no actual arguments to back up their position. The terms "pro-abortion" and "pro-life" are very specific emotional tricks played to try and portray those who are pro-choice as somehow promoting death.

The use of such terms says more about you than I ever could, so on many levels I am more than happy with the phrase. That does not mean I can stiffle my honesty and resist pointing out just what is wrong with them however.

If you want to use phrases like it then great, but do so under no illusions... it says more about you than it does about us that you do so. It highlights the fact that you desperately want to ignore the fact that those of us who are prochoice on the matter are also just as keen as you to reduce the number of abortions actually performed. A position the anti choice side would very much prefer people do NOT know we hold.

yutta wrote: »

it's about life and death - right and wrong.

I am well aware of what the debate is about. The issue is that aside from tossing out labels like "proabortion" and "prodeath" you have not actually offered any arguments at all to suggest the practice IS "wrong". You just declare it to be so, then hide behind labels. That might work in the short term, but in the long term people are going to start realising that all you actually have are labels and your position is baseless and devoid of any actual argument.

yutta wrote: »

I'm saying that a foetus has the potential for life. It has undergone a miraculous, unexplainable transformation from the moment of conception.

Firstly it is not un-explainable. Our knowledge of embryology is vast and contained in innumerable text books on the subject. It is complex and awe inspiring yes, but unexplained it is not.

Secondly you are just repeating my point again. It has the POTENTIAL to be something. That means it is NOT that something now. You can not be something and be potentially that something at the same time. That is the crux of my point.

Until a reason is offered to me to treat it as a human life with human rights, then I see no reason to do so. Aside from playing around with vacuous labels you have not even attempted to offer such a reason either. Nor has anyone else on the thread.

yutta wrote: »

By the way, third trimester babies are not necessarily dependent on their mother's womb for survival

I know. My position on abortion is not connected with viability in any way. Especially given viability periods change as our medical technology improves. No my position on abortion is based on other things and nothing to do with when a fetus can survive without the mother.

nozzferrahhtoo

yutta wrote: »

In my experience, "rationally" is an atheist key-word for excluding religious and theological reasoning.

Thankfully therefore your experience is not a dictate for reality. The plural of anecdote is not statistics.

That religion and theology do not fare well under the application of rational thought and reason however is another issue and is likely connected to your imagined link.

yutta wrote: »

Who's to say that the population at large are qualified to make complex moral decisions? Democratic tyranny is what you espouse.

We are a social species. "Morality" is just the list of rules and ideas we form together as a species in order to attempt to maximize the success of living together. The vast majority of us want to live together and do so successfully. We simply have to find the best ways to do that and things like morality and law are the result of those attempts.

The best resource we have for learning how to live with each other IS each other. So I would not even answer the question "Whos to say that we are qualified to make such decisions" with anything other than a question in return. Who is to say we are NOT qualified to do so. If not us, no one else is. The sky will not do it for us. The rocks. The Sea. Plant life. Animals. This is our problem and we have to deal with it ourselves.

Inventing a god for which we have no evidence, and inventing an objective moral law for which we also have no evidence is just an exercise in fantasy and does not help us here. Especially given peoples opinions of what that objective morality actually says differs just as wildly as the subjective morality such people so desperately want to put down.

Lady Chuckles

I should know better than to post anything here, but what the hay...

I'm "pro-death".

There! Let yutta have his silly term for it. I'm pro-choice/death AND I'm religious. I believe that each and everyone should do what they want and need. I'm not fond of abortions, but who is? I don't think anybody GLADLY orders an abortion. The point is that sometimes it is necessary and it should be available to those who need it. Furthermore, I don't think it's for anyone to judge those who decide to have an abortion. I'd say it's a hard decision just the way it is.

*waits for the anti-abortion people to hate me for this, and some religious people to tell me I can't be religious if I'm for abortions*

yutta

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is a turn of phrase and not to be taken literally. It just means you inject god and religion.. an entity for which you have not once substantiated the existence of... into a conversation where it otherwise is not welcome, useful, needed or relevant.

Hostility towards religious reasoning appears to be a growing phenomenon. I suspect you're a Jesus-denier and a Bible-denier too.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not "excluding" any religious dimension. I can not exclude what is simply not there. This is a conversation about humans and human reproduction. Fairy tales and imaginary friends have no part in it. If you could substantiate the existence of this "god" entity then we could include that dimension. Until that time however, you are just injecting fantasy into a real world discussion on an important topic.

First off, you should have a bit of respect for the firmly held beliefs of others. God exists. Simply look around you. The Creator of all things - heaven, earth, animals and humans. Science can only explain so much and I've yet to see science come up with a theory of everything (you'd think the way militant proponents of the scientific method go on, they had a theory of everything up their sleeve). For every scientific question out there, there is a whole myriad of questions we haven't even thought of yet. You're deluding yourself into thinking that solely science can lead us to ultimate enlightenment. The scientific method is a gift that informs us and helps us make better decisions as to how to utilise the universe for good.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Actually in many ways I do like it. I like it because it highlights the propaganda linguistic tricks being played by people on your side of the fence who have no actual arguments to back up their position. The terms "pro-abortion" and "pro-life" are very specific emotional tricks played to try and portray those who are pro-choice as somehow promoting death.

No **** Sherlock.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The use of such terms says more about you than I ever could, so on many levels I am more than happy with the phrase. That does not mean I can stiffle my honesty and resist pointing out just what is wrong with them however.

I'm glad you've finally accepted that you will continue to be branded "pro-abortion". The fact that you don't appear to like it satisfies me.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you want to use phrases like it then great, but do so under no illusions... it says more about you than it does about us that you do so. It highlights the fact that you desperately want to ignore the fact that those of us who are prochoice on the matter are also just as keen as you to reduce the number of abortions actually performed. A position the anti choice side would very much prefer people do NOT know we hold.

I doubt that very much. Those who fund pro-abortion campaigns are in the business of abortion-on-demand "services" for reasons such as "lifestyle", "money" (let's not forget we have one of the most generous social welfare systems in the world), "career" and "trauma". Do you know that more than 50% of black kids in America are aborted? Good for the global population problem you might say...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am well aware of what the debate is about. The issue is that aside from tossing out labels like "proabortion" and "prodeath" you have not actually offered any arguments at all to suggest the practice IS "wrong". You just declare it to be so, then hide behind labels. That might work in the short term, but in the long term people are going to start realising that all you actually have are labels and your position is baseless and devoid of any actual argument.

Wrong. I'm working off the very simple principle that human life begins at conception and should be protected from this moment to the moment of death. Your complex, mealy-mouthed justification for the death of innocent life won't be made any stronger by you continuing to be disingenuous in your postings. Drop the labels complex and realise that your squirming at being labeled a pro-abortionist is futile.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Firstly it is not un-explainable. Our knowledge of embryology is vast and contained in innumerable text books on the subject. It is complex and awe inspiring yes, but unexplained it is not.

How arrogant. I'm sure there is lots of knowledge built up in these unspecified "text books" and journal articles, but the precise mechanism that breaths new life into a clump of cells remains unknown.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Secondly you are just repeating my point again. It has the POTENTIAL to be something. That means it is NOT that something now. You can not be something and be potentially that something at the same time. That is the crux of my point.

You are presenting an either/or situation. I have already addressed this false assertion in my previous post.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Until a reason is offered to me to treat it as a human life with human rights, then I see no reason to do so. Aside from playing around with vacuous labels you have not even attempted to offer such a reason either. Nor has anyone else on the thread.

It ought to be treated as a human life with human rights. If you kill a pregnant mother, you should be prepared to spend twice as long in prison as you've killed two lives, not one. And rightly so.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I know. My position on abortion is not connected with viability in any way. Especially given viability periods change as our medical technology improves. No my position on abortion is based on other things and nothing to do with when a fetus can survive without the mother.

The reality of your position on abortion is the introduction of abortion-on-demand, young women being lured into the abortion industry with the public health system having to pick up the tab for psychological trauma, young men/women being deceived into participating in morally wrong acts, tarnishing their souls (sometimes irreversibly) in the process and selective abortion based on a child's skin colour, sex, presence of disabilities, etc. Hitler would be proud.

yutta

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Thankfully therefore your experience is not a dictate for reality. The plural of anecdote is not statistics.

That religion and theology do not fare well under the application of rational thought and reason however is another issue and is likely connected to your imagined link.

Religion and theology are perfectly rational. Do you know the first thing about either? I suspect you're pretty closed-minded and are set in your ways on this matter.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We are a social species. "Morality" is just the list of rules and ideas we form together as a species in order to attempt to maximize the success of living together. The vast majority of us want to live together and do so successfully. We simply have to find the best ways to do that and things like morality and law are the result of those attempts.

The best resource we have for learning how to live with each other IS each other. So I would not even answer the question "Whos to say that we are qualified to make such decisions" with anything other than a question in return. Who is to say we are NOT qualified to do so. If not us, no one else is. The sky will not do it for us. The rocks. The Sea. Plant life. Animals. This is our problem and we have to deal with it ourselves.

Inventing a god for which we have no evidence, and inventing an objective moral law for which we also have no evidence is just an exercise in fantasy and does not help us here. Especially given peoples opinions of what that objective morality actually says differs just as wildly as the subjective morality such people so desperately want to put down.

That's your life's philosophy and I respect it. What is your philosophy rooted in? I'd like to know more about it and compare it to Catholicism.

Lollipops23

yutta wrote: »

I adopt the Catholic position on these matters, so you should know the answer.

I've been quite polite to you in all my posts, the least you can do is show me the same courtesy.


Also, you don't like the MAP because it prevents life from forming before it's even conceived? Do you have a bomb shelter out your back garden for a nuclear war that may never happen? Prepare for all eventualities, like.

Lollipops23

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Also, you don't like the MAP because it prevents life from forming before it's even conceived?

Abstinence does that too

Lollipops23

bluewolf wrote: »

Abstinence does that too

Very true, but we're discussing the reality of the situation. A very very low amount of people practice abstinence.
Yutta is against contraceptipn, emergency contraception and termination. I consider that pretty unrealistic.

yutta

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Very true, but we're discussing the reality of the situation. A very very low amount of people practice abstinence.
Yutta is against contraceptipn, emergency contraception and termination. I consider that pretty unrealistic.

For the majority of the world's population, it's not.

Lollipops23

yutta wrote: »

For the majority of the world's population, it's not.

Got anything to back up what I consider a fairly wild statement? If you can prove it I'll gladly take that hit.

Lollipops23

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Very true, but we're discussing the reality of the situation. A very very low amount of people practice abstinence.
Yutta is against contraceptipn, emergency contraception and termination. I consider that pretty unrealistic.

So do I - I was arguing against them, not you
If you think "you don't like the MAP because it prevents life from forming before it's even conceived" then surely the logical conclusion is that you must have sex all the time to conceive where possible

nozzferrahhtoo

yutta wrote: »

Hostility towards religious reasoning appears to be a growing phenomenon. I suspect you're a Jesus-denier and a Bible-denier too.

You are free to imagine any hostility or bias you want to make yourself feel better about things. However my position is merely that this is an important topic of discussion and we should stick to the facts, not fantasy. If you can substantiate the existence of a god then by all means inject that god into this conversation. However given there appears to be no reasons, much less from you, to suggest there is such an entity.... let us proceed with the conversation without fantasy, imaginary friends and nonsense shall we??

You say I should have "respect" for beliefs. I do not. At all. I respect people, not beliefs. If you have a belief, that is your business not mine. If you choose to espouse unsubstantiated beliefs however then you make it my business and there is literally no reason why I should be expected to "respect" unsubstantiated claims. At all. Ever.

yutta wrote: »

God exists.

Oh well that proves that then. If you say so it MUST be true huh?

Oh no wait. I remember now. Simply saying something is true does not make it true by magic. Simply saying god exists does not mean it does. This is a thread about abortion, not god. So keep the bible bashing out of it and stick to the facts we actually have please, not ones you have just made up out of your imagination, or plagarised from someone else's.

yutta wrote: »

I'm glad you've finally accepted that you will continue to be branded "pro-abortion".

Indeed. As I said the tactics behind such labeling are clear and I am happy for you to keep using it and I am happy to continue to highlight WHY you are so desperate to keep using it. As I said it says more about you than me that you do so. Often in discussions such as this one of the best things you can do is keep the opposition talking and let them hang themselves, and your continued need to use vacuous labels in place of actual arguments does more for my side than yours and I welcome it gladly.

yutta wrote: »

I doubt that very much.

And you are welcome to, but your doubts do not change the facts and the facts are that the people espousing pro choice positions are also the same people who work hard to get sexual education into our schools, improve it, and target it at an age of child where it is actually relevant and useful. They do this in the face of opposition which, for reasons entirely opaque to me, feel that children should be kept as ignorant as possible on the subjection of sex.

They are also the same people campaigning for increased use of, and access to contraception. To have contraception more widely available and to have it in the VAT free bracket to make it more affordable.

The list goes on, but the bottom line is clear. Those wishing to have the choice of abortion are also those who wish to do everything in their power to reduce the requirement for them too. We want people to have abortions if they need them, but we want to do all we can to prevent them needing them.

I use often the analogy to heart bypass. I want anyone who needs such an operation to have access to it! I really do. But I am not "pro heart bypass" because I also want to do everything possible to stop people needing them in the first place.

Banning abortion does not stop people having them. They either travel to have them or perform them on themselves. The way to stop abortions is not to ban it, but to target the problems causing the requirement in the first place. Sex education, promiscuity, contraception and more are more valid issues to target ones attention at than the banning of abortion.

yutta wrote: »

Wrong. I'm working off the very simple principle that human life begins at conception

Well we agree your position is simple, though I would err more towards the word simplistic out of simple pedantry. But more about your position I can certainly not say. It merely is simplistic. What is so special exactly about conception? The cell is just that, a cell, with a bit of Human DNA in it. It is one step in a much longer life cycle. Why is this point so arbitrarily important compared to any other, aside from your desperate need for it to be so?

yutta wrote: »

How arrogant.

Saying something is not unexplained is arrogant now? Wow, it does not take much to get you to turn on the insult mill does it? Though I imagine if my position was so devoid of substantiation I might feel somewhat compelled to hide behind labels and insults too.

Also what is this "new life" you so desperately want explained? I am alive. My sperm is alive. It meets an egg which is also alive. Together they continue to do just what all cells do... grow, exist and divide. What exactly do you think is being "added" here and when which you feel needs explaining? Or do you not even want it explained because apparently explaining something is "arrogant" now?

yutta wrote: »

It ought to be treated as a human life with human rights.

So you keep saying. I am not asking you to reiterate your position. I know it already. I am asking WHY it "ought" to be so. You simply keep saying it should. Not why it should. Do you have any basis for the position at all or are you just going to keep dropping Hitlers name wherever you can in order to substitute for argument?

nozzferrahhtoo

yutta wrote: »

Religion and theology are perfectly rational. Do you know the first thing about either? I suspect you're pretty closed-minded and are set in your ways on this matter.

I know a hell of a lot on the subject yes, more than most theists it seems. However despite all my knowledge, study and research I am still not aware of a single iota of evidence, argument, data OR reasons to lend even a modicum of credence to the claim there is a god. If you are aware of any, please feel free to adumbrate them for me. I have been asking more qualified people than you for 18+ years now though, with no result, so do not feel too bad if you can offer nothing.

yutta wrote: »

That's your life's philosophy and I respect it. What is your philosophy rooted in? I'd like to know more about it and compare it to Catholicism.

Your question is not really specific enough, I have no idea what you are asking me. The very root of everything I do, say and think however is a simple rule that I live my life by as follows:

The world is full of millions of claims being made by millions of people, therefore in order to deal with them all: If a claim comes before me that is entirely devoid of any substantiation, arguments, data, evidence or reasons to lend it credence... dismiss that idea until such time as it does.

Put more simply for you: If there is literally no reason on offer to accept an idea, then simply do not accept it.

I would say the vast majority of anything else I do, say or think proceeds from there. So for example your god idea has literally no evidence, arguments, data or reasons on offer to substantiate it or lend it even a modicum of credence. I therefore dismiss the idea and proceed without it. The same for the idea there is an "objective morality".

Lollipops23

bluewolf wrote: »

So do I - I was arguing against them, not you
If you think "you don't like the MAP because it prevents life from forming before it's even conceived" then surely the logical conclusion is that you must have sex all the time to conceive where possible

I think Yutta believes sex should only ever be for the purpose of procreation. Sure, if that were it's only function we'd have no unwanted pregnancies and no need for contraceptives.

Unfortunately it happens to be one the most pleasant, intimate things you can do with someone (not to mention downright fun!). People are going to do it, mainly because it's the most natural and lovely things in the world. If "God" meant it to be purely for making babies it wouldn't be so much bloody fun.


On a side note, if sex weren't so much fun I'd get a hell of a lot more done.....:)

nozzferrahhtoo

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I think Yutta believes sex should only ever be for the purpose of procreation. Sure, if that were it's only function we'd have no unwanted pregnancies and no need for contraceptives.

Unfortunately it happens to be one the most pleasant, intimate things you can do with someone (not to mention downright fun!). People are going to do it, mainly because it's the most natural and lovely things in the world. If "God" meant it to be purely for making babies it wouldn't be so much bloody fun.

True, and even if you forget god for a moment and think purely in terms of biology, there is no reason to think that sex is just "for" reproduction. If it was then evolution would have long selected for a more efficient process.

Instead what is selected for is a process that fails more often than it succeeds. One must have sex a lot more often than once (statistically overall I mean, as clearly SOME people get pregnant first time) in order to get a "success" in terms of conception.

Looking at human behavior and that of many of our closer cousins in the animal kingdom, sex is "for" a lot more than just reproduction and plays a very heavy part in partner bonding and social cohesion.

Sex and sexuality for those interested in biology, psychology or both is a massively interesting area of study. It is certainly a lot more interesting than you would imagine when you listen to those who wish to portray it in the black and white terms of "sex is for babies, thats all".

Lollipops23

Interesting that as soon as I request some proof of Yutta's statements he/she goes awfully shy....

yutta

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You are free to imagine any hostility or bias you want to make yourself feel better about things. However my position is merely that this is an important topic of discussion and we should stick to the facts, not fantasy. If you can substantiate the existence of a god then by all means inject that god into this conversation. However given there appears to be no reasons, much less from you, to suggest there is such an entity.... let us proceed with the conversation without fantasy, imaginary friends and nonsense shall we??

The evidence for God is all around us. All you have to do is look up at the sky at night time and you will see his handiwork. The assertion that there is no God is off the wall. How did the earth come to be? By some spontaneous appearance of matter? And what about life? Oh wait... There's a scientific explanation for everything. Now, if only we had a brain the size of the milky way capable of understanding every mechanism of the heavens. To state that there is no God, is to deny the undeniable. The fact that you are online typing away to me right now is miraculous in itself and can be attributed to the existence of God.

You have yet to align yourself with any particular philosophy. Are you a fan of any particular authors from where you get your views? Or do you subscribe to the views of any particular organisation? I would find it very difficult that you have arrived at these nihilistic conclusions about life all on your own. There must have been a misguiding hand somewhere along the line.

Also, I assume you, being Irish, have had the benefit of a Catholic education?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You say I should have "respect" for beliefs. I do not. At all. I respect people, not beliefs. If you have a belief, that is your business not mine. If you choose to espouse unsubstantiated beliefs however then you make it my business and there is literally no reason why I should be expected to "respect" unsubstantiated claims. At all. Ever.

Fair enough. Catholicism teaches very similar - hate the sin, not the sinner. All human persons should be treated with dignity and respect.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Oh well that proves that then. If you say so it MUST be true huh?

Oh no wait. I remember now. Simply saying something is true does not make it true by magic. Simply saying god exists does not mean it does. This is a thread about abortion, not god. So keep the bible bashing out of it and stick to the facts we actually have please, not ones you have just made up out of your imagination, or plagarised from someone else's.

The logical conclusion of saying God does not exist, is one of debonair nihilism. Seeing as your lifetime divided by infinity tends to zero, you might as well top yourself now, seeing as there is no purpose to life and it tends to zero. It's not surprising that you hold opinions that the killing innocent human life is morally ok.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Indeed. As I said the tactics behind such labeling are clear and I am happy for you to keep using it and I am happy to continue to highlight WHY you are so desperate to keep using it. As I said it says more about you than me that you do so. Often in discussions such as this one of the best things you can do is keep the opposition talking and let them hang themselves, and your continued need to use vacuous labels in place of actual arguments does more for my side than yours and I welcome it gladly.

The term "pro-abortion" is semantically accurate. You're the one with the problem, not me.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And you are welcome to, but your doubts do not change the facts and the facts are that the people espousing pro choice positions are also the same people who work hard to get sexual education into our schools, improve it, and target it at an age of child where it is actually relevant and useful. They do this in the face of opposition which, for reasons entirely opaque to me, feel that children should be kept as ignorant as possible on the subjection of sex.

Here we go - point hopping. Sex education should be kept out of schools and left for the parents to decide how best to teach their children about the birds and the bees. What benefits are there to having sex education in schools please? The introduction on condoms in this country led to an explosion in STDs, not a reduction in the incidence. Now correlation may not be causation, but if you hand out free condoms to kids, they're going to try them out. I understand how liberal and liberating such acts make you feel, but it is wrong to encourage children to engage in non-procreative and self-gratuitous sexual acts.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

They are also the same people campaigning for increased use of, and access to contraception. To have contraception more widely available and to have it in the VAT free bracket to make it more affordable.

Straight out of a liberal's handbook.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The list goes on, but the bottom line is clear. Those wishing to have the choice of abortion are also those who wish to do everything in their power to reduce the requirement for them too. We want people to have abortions if they need them, but we want to do all we can to prevent them needing them.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that making contraception available lowers the incidence of abortion? In my guesstimate, more sexual activity (facilitated by prophylactics) results in more pregnancies, not the other way around.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I use often the analogy to heart bypass. I want anyone who needs such an operation to have access to it! I really do. But I am not "pro heart bypass" because I also want to do everything possible to stop people needing them in the first place.

Is there some moral issue with heart bypasses that we're not aware of?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Banning abortion does not stop people having them. They either travel to have them or perform them on themselves. The way to stop abortions is not to ban it, but to target the problems causing the requirement in the first place. Sex education, promiscuity, contraception and more are more valid issues to target ones attention at than the banning of abortion.

Abortion is illegal in this country and long may it continue. Same for gay marriage, death penalty, etc. On promiscuity: sex education and free contraception packs (aka promiscuity packs) result in increased sexual activity, not decreased.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well we agree your position is simple, though I would err more towards the word simplistic out of simple pedantry. But more about your position I can certainly not say. It merely is simplistic. What is so special exactly about conception? The cell is just that, a cell, with a bit of Human DNA in it. It is one step in a much longer life cycle. Why is this point so arbitrarily important compared to any other, aside from your desperate need for it to be so?

You should be aware the Catholic position on sex by now. It is for unitive and procreative purposes. It is not for self-gratuitous purposes. I love the way you accuse me of being simplistic, yet you describe the intricacies of human life as merely "a cell with a bit of human DNA in it". How arrogant of you to assume that the basis to life can be explained using the man-made scientific method.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Saying something is not unexplained is arrogant now? Wow, it does not take much to get you to turn on the insult mill does it? Though I imagine if my position was so devoid of substantiation I might feel somewhat compelled to hide behind labels and insults too.

It's arrogant to assume that you know exactly what's going on at the moment of conception. You don't. No scientist in the world knows how new life comes about.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Also what is this "new life" you so desperately want explained? I am alive. My sperm is alive. It meets an egg which is also alive. Together they continue to do just what all cells do... grow, exist and divide. What exactly do you think is being "added" here and when which you feel needs explaining? Or do you not even want it explained because apparently explaining something is "arrogant" now?

Off you go then. Please explain the exact mechanism for the production of new human life.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So you keep saying. I am not asking you to reiterate your position. I know it already. I am asking WHY it "ought" to be so. You simply keep saying it should. Not why it should. Do you have any basis for the position at all or are you just going to keep dropping Hitlers name wherever you can in order to substitute for argument?

It ought to continue to be treated as a human life because of the blatantly obvious: abortion is illegal in this country, we have sympathy for women who miscarry, you get harsher sentences for killing two human lives (i.e. a pregnant woman) rather than one life,

yutta

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Looking at human behavior and that of many of our closer cousins in the animal kingdom, sex is "for" a lot more than just reproduction and plays a very heavy part in partner bonding and social cohesion.

What goes on in the animal kingdom is no basis for morality amongst humans. Inter-species intercourse, anal sex, incestuous relationships amongst other things all occur naturally in nature. This doesn't make it moral.

yutta

yutta wrote: »

The evidence for God is all around us. All you have to do is look up at the sky at night time and you will see his handiwork.

"Look at the sky" is not evidence for anything other than "the sky exists". It's not evidence that aliens exist, it's not evidence that any of the deities exist.

How did the earth come to be? By some spontaneous appearance of matter? And what about life?

"I don't know so it must be god: not only must it be a god but it must be my particular version of a creator deity and not any of the countless others"

Oh wait... There's a scientific explanation for everything. Now, if only we had a brain the size of the milky way capable of understanding every mechanism of the heavens. To state that there is no God, is to deny the undeniable. The fact that you are online typing away to me right now is miraculous in itself and can be attributed to the existence of God.

The fact he's online typing means that people invented computers and the internet. Nothing more.



Really, I didn't think people actually still used argumentum ad ignorantiam.

yutta wrote: »

What goes on in the animal kingdom is no basis for morality amongst humans. Inter-species intercourse, anal sex, incestuous relationships amongst other things all occur naturally in nature. This doesn't make it moral.

Ascribing arbitrary moral justifications to it has no bearing on its function or purpose.

old hippy

"The evidence for God is all around us. All you have to do is look up at the sky at night time and you will see his handiwork"

Poppycock. How do you keep a straight face spreading your lies and flights of fancy?

There is no evidence. None.

yutta

bluewolf wrote: »

The fact he's online typing means that people invented computers and the internet. Nothing more.

Who created the "he"?

yutta

yutta wrote: »

Who created the "he"?

His parents.

Snakeblood

yutta wrote: »

Who created the "he"?

Jesus ****ing Christ.

Snakeblood

Snakeblood wrote: »

Jesus. Christ.

Are you saying noz is the grandson of god? :pac:

old hippy

"Abortion is illegal in this country and long may it continue. Same for gay marriage, death penalty, etc. On promiscuity: sex education and free contraception packs (aka promiscuity packs) result in increased sexual activity, not decreased."

Gay marriage is coming. Give it another 5 years or so.

Sexual activity has been "promiscuous" since the year dot. Without contraception being freely available and sexual education - who paid for it (often with their freedom and sanity) - women.

Evil puritanical folk like you would have us dragged back into those days of shame.

Sex is great & sexual freedom is a right. You and the rest of the Taliban will never triumph. You do know that don't you?

Mark200

yutta wrote: »

Who created the "he"?

Creating a god and putting it at the start of the chain does not answer that type of question - it simply makes the chain one 'thing' longer.

Of course, you think that (conveniently enough) your god is the exception to this rule.

I rarely see someone who is happier the more ignorant humans are.

Also, as a Computer Scientist I find it hilarious (and maybe a bit of a compliment) that you attribute the internet and computer technology to a god.

Mr. Incognito

philologos wrote: »

I've read the link. I subscribe to moral universalism.

You claim that wrong is subjective. I don't see any reason to believe it is so given how humans respond to moral problems. Humans don't claim that they been subjectively wronged, they claim that they have been objectively wrong and seek resolution for it. People's moral systems don't work on a relative basis. If they did they would be forced to accept that the others moral system was equally valid to them, and that wrong could have actually been "good for them" and leave it aside.

People don't work like this though, and for good reason. Every human being appeals to objective morality in one form or another if they are honest enough to admit it.

There's no emotion involved in that. It's simple reasoning. Not only is moral relativism unworkable, it doesn't even seem to be grounded in reality. .

Okay, Last time. After this I give up. Humans claimed they have been subjectively wrong, they claim they have been wronged by what they believe in their opinion, experience and conditioning to be wrong. Right and Wrong are not universal truths they are conditioned. A Lion doesn't feel guilty killing and eating.

You cannot go backwards and say this is wrong because I think it is therefore it must be wrong by default.

Its nonsense.

As for your claim that scientific proofs show there is no God, that couldn't be any more wrong. Unless you're willing to show this is the case, I think any rational person should take that with a pinch of salt.

Science is based on Proofs. You cannot Prove God. Thus based on scientific proofs he does not exists. That is not to say that he does not factually exist, it's just we cannot prove it so it is not science. God's existence is faith based. Once again this is someone taking a thought- I think God exists and holding it up as a scientific fact, which evidentally it is not.

I don't believe right and wrong is up to whoever to decide.

And yet you believe in God? Is that not his supposed function?

@Yutta.

When everything is God, up to God and God etc. It is a closed mind. Whatever mystery in life is God. Thus any meaningful thought is moot. I envy the comfort that may bring you but I pity your default position. I won't even engage in debate with you as it is pointless.

yutta

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Science is based on Proofs.

There's no such thing as scientific "proof".

Scanlas The 2nd

yutta wrote: »

The evidence for God is all around us. All you have to do is look up at the sky at night time and you will see his handiwork. The assertion that there is no God is off the wall. How did the earth come to be? By some spontaneous appearance of matter? And what about life? Oh wait... There's a scientific explanation for everything. Now, if only we had a brain the size of the milky way capable of understanding every mechanism of the heavens. To state that there is no God, is to deny the undeniable. The fact that you are online typing away to me right now is miraculous in itself and can be attributed to the existence of God.

You have yet to align yourself with any particular philosophy. Are you a fan of any particular authors from where you get your views? Or do you subscribe to the views of any particular organisation? I would find it very difficult that you have arrived at these nihilistic conclusions about life all on your own. There must have been a misguiding hand somewhere along the line.

Also, I assume you, being Irish, have had the benefit of a Catholic education?


Fair enough. Catholicism teaches very similar - hate the sin, not the sinner. All human persons should be treated with dignity and respect.



The logical conclusion of saying God does not exist, is one of debonair nihilism. Seeing as your lifetime divided by infinity tends to zero, you might as well top yourself now, seeing as there is no purpose to life and it tends to zero. It's not surprising that you hold opinions that the killing innocent human life is morally ok.




The term "pro-abortion" is semantically accurate. You're the one with the problem, not me.



Here we go - point hopping. Sex education should be kept out of schools and left for the parents to decide how best to teach their children about the birds and the bees. What benefits are there to having sex education in schools please? The introduction on condoms in this country led to an explosion in STDs, not a reduction in the incidence. Now correlation may not be causation, but if you hand out free condoms to kids, they're going to try them out. I understand how liberal and liberating such acts make you feel, but it is wrong to encourage children to engage in non-procreative and self-gratuitous sexual acts.



Straight out of a liberal's handbook.


Do you have any evidence to suggest that making contraception available lowers the incidence of abortion? In my guesstimate, more sexual activity (facilitated by prophylactics) results in more pregnancies, not the other way around.


Is there some moral issue with heart bypasses that we're not aware of?


Abortion is illegal in this country and long may it continue. Same for gay marriage, death penalty, etc. On promiscuity: sex education and free contraception packs (aka promiscuity packs) result in increased sexual activity, not decreased.


You should be aware the Catholic position on sex by now. It is for unitive and procreative purposes. It is not for self-gratuitous purposes. I love the way you accuse me of being simplistic, yet you describe the intricacies of human life as merely "a cell with a bit of human DNA in it". How arrogant of you to assume that the basis to life can be explained using the man-made scientific method.


It's arrogant to assume that you know exactly what's going on at the moment of conception. You don't. No scientist in the world knows how new life comes about.


Off you go then. Please explain the exact mechanism for the production of new human life.


It ought to continue to be treated as a human life because of the blatantly obvious: abortion is illegal in this country, we have sympathy for women who miscarry, you get harsher sentences for killing two human lives (i.e. a pregnant woman) rather than one life,

yutta

Mark200 wrote: »

Creating a god and putting it at the start of the chain does not answer that type of question - it simply makes the chain one 'thing' longer.

Of course, you think that (conveniently enough) your god is the exception to this rule.

I rarely see someone who is happier the more ignorant humans are.

Also, as a Computer Scientist I find it hilarious (and maybe a bit of a compliment) that you attribute the internet and computer technology to a god.

As a computer scientist with a degree from the best computer science department in the world, I can say this: God has gifted each one of us with unique talents. The Internet has come about as a direct result of God-given talents. If God didn't create Tim Berners-Lee, the Internet today might look very different indeed.

old hippy

yutta wrote: »

There's no such thing as scientific "proof".

If it came down to a duke out between you and the scientifical & medical communities; I sure know who I'd put money on.

Back in the day you'd be telling us the earth was flat :rolleyes:

old hippy

yutta wrote: »

As a computer scientist with a degree from the best computer science department in the world, I can say this: God has gifted each one of us with unique talents. The Internet has come about as a direct result of God-given talents. If God didn't create Tim Berners-Lee, the Internet today might look very different indeed.

The internet came about as a direct result of scientists larking about and getting it right, all the way back in '69, iirc.

God had sfa to do with it. Stop deluding yourself and spreading untruths.