Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League

Obliq

J C wrote: »

How can you say that you 'are for truth' ... when you believe that all truth is subjective?
Of course truth can be objectively determined (and this isn't some religious belief on my part) ... its the very basis of the western justice system that the truth of every matter can be objectively determined ... given sufficient reliable evidence.

Truth is more often subjective than not. It depends on the holder of the question really. Truth is not always determined by law/justice, but is most often determined by us - all through our lives, from the playground to the grave. Think of the child who glares at another and shouts at her. A person who seeks the more objective truth than " that child is an unkind person", might find out that the child had something happen that affected them and caused them to be unkind and would say " that child is being unkind because they feel bad about what happened to them". That is more truthful. But the "subjective" answer is the one that is not examined as thoroughly as possible.
We can never be completely objective though, so that is why I say all truth is subjective.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&ved=0CGMQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fplato.stanford.edu%2Fentries%2Fmoral-dilemmas%2F&ei=BoV0UMPzN9SAhQfhvoGgAg&usg=AFQjCNE-s-Kredx8bt-_IpUb5SlaQy-IEg&sig2=GS79Wcx9_dVcgvMdDxdueA

" In Book I of Plato's Republic, Cephalus defines ‘justice’ as speaking the truth and paying one's debts. Socrates quickly refutes this account by suggesting that it would be wrong to repay certain debts—for example, to return a borrowed weapon to a friend who is not in his right mind. Socrates' point is not that repaying debts is without moral import; rather, he wants to show that it is not always right to repay one's debts, at least not exactly when the one to whom the debt is owed demands repayment. What we have here is a conflict between two moral norms: repaying one's debts and protecting others from harm. And in this case, Socrates maintains that protecting others from harm is the norm that takes priority.

Nearly twenty-four centuries later, Jean-Paul Sartre described a moral conflict the resolution of which was, to many, less obvious than the resolution to the Platonic conflict. Sartre [1957] tells of a student whose brother had been killed in the German offensive of 1940. The student wanted to avenge his brother and to fight forces that he regarded as evil. But the student's mother was living with him, and he was her one consolation in life. The student believed that he had conflicting obligations. Sartre describes him as being torn between two kinds of morality: one of limited scope but certain efficacy, personal devotion to his mother; the other of much wider scope but uncertain efficacy, attempting to contribute to the defeat of an unjust aggressor.

While the examples from Plato and Sartre are the ones most commonly cited, it should be clear that there are many others. If a person makes conflicting promises, she faces a moral conflict. Physicians and families who believe that human life should not be deliberately shortened and that unpreventable pain should not be tolerated face a conflict in deciding whether to withdraw life support from a dying patient."

Just something to think about.

J C

Sin City wrote: »

This is why the bible and religion should be seperated from law .


Arguments tend to loose credibility when they have , " Well the bible says this so........."

It all depends which verses of the Bible are being used ... and for what purpose.

Sin City wrote: »

By all means argue for pro life, I do ,but leave relgious ideals out of it. ( I know this is the Christian forum btw)

I agree that logic as well as religious principles can be used to argue for unborn Humans to not be arbitrarily killed.

However, the problem is that practically every Secularist isn't pro-life ... for whatever reason ... so they make the self-serving claim that only religious arguments support the pro-life position ... when logic and objective truth also supports it.

Obliq

J C wrote: »

However, the problem is that practically every Secularist isn't pro-life ... for whatever reason ... so they claim that only religious arguments support the pro-life position ... when logic and objective truth also supports it.

Not in my opinion, by any stretch. I do not agree that logic and "objective" truth (and I have just shown you my opinion on that) supports the pro-life/anti-choice argument any more than the pro-life/pro-choice argument. I do not claim that only religious arguments support the anti choice position, and I never have. That is a misrepresentation of MY views. Perhaps I am not the "practically every Secularist" you meant.

Fanny Cradock

marienbad wrote: »

Fanny , are you not being just as arbitrary in deciding that life begins at conception?

No, I don't think so. Human life begins when an egg is fertilised. The resultant zygote is genetically distinct from either mother or the father and can thus be said to be a unique human life-form. This distinction is uncontentious even amongst pro-abortionists. So the question isn't when human life begins, nor it hasn't been for some time. Rather, the goalpost have been shifted to asking when personhood begins.

muppeteer wrote: »

Singer and others would also put plenty of stock behind our sapience and our ability to reason and shape our own future desires as separating us from cats.

...we can understand what does and does not have the properties of consciousness/sapience even without knowing the minute detail necessary to be able to recreate/simulate it ourselves.

And this is exactly why someone like Singer approves of infanticide. Newborns are not sapient, they know nothing of the world, they can not reason, they have no desires beyond some rudimentary needs - .e.g. too hot, too cold, hungry - and they do not possess the same levels of conciousness that an adult cat can be said to have.

As for potential, the child certainly has more than an adult cat, but then so does a 10 week old human foetus or a zygote.

muppeteer wrote: »

It's interesting you think Singers views are consistent and logical within his world view. Would you think that if your own world view were to change, i.e. from a god created reality with god given morals to a materialistic amoral universe, would you see yourself as being forced into views such as Singers?

I do think that his view on this matter is consistent. Evidently so do others. I also happen to think his views are false and damnable.

Moral indignation aside, I don't know how to answer your question. This is simply because I am not now, nor ever have been, in the situation you describe. But if you want an answer, I think that I would still largely oppose abortion (and certainly oppose views like Singer's) but this would be based upon my preferences. And I think would still oppose infanticide even if I acknowledged that I was being inconsistent with the world I thought I occupied.

J C

Obliq wrote: »

Truth is more often subjective than not. It depends on the holder of the question really. Truth is not always determined by law/justice, but is most often determined by us - all through our lives, from the playground to the grave. Think of the child who glares at another and shouts at her. A person who seeks the more objective truth than " that child is an unkind person", might find out that the child had something happen that affected them and caused them to be unkind and would say " that child is being unkind because they feel bad about what happened to them". That is more truthful. But the "subjective" answer is the one that is not examined as thoroughly as possible.

The way to objectively establish the truth is to listen to both sides of the argument ... and examine the evidence presented to support each side of the case. The truth then usually becomes obvious.

Obliq wrote: »

We can never be completely objective though, so that is why I say all truth is subjective.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&ved=0CGMQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fplato.stanford.edu%2Fentries%2Fmoral-dilemmas%2F&ei=BoV0UMPzN9SAhQfhvoGgAg&usg=AFQjCNE-s-Kredx8bt-_IpUb5SlaQy-IEg&sig2=GS79Wcx9_dVcgvMdDxdueA

I used to think that people could be objective ... when presented with incontovertible evidence ... but all that changed when I started to debate with Evolutionists!!!!:)

Obliq wrote: »

" In Book I of Plato's Republic, Cephalus defines ‘justice’ as speaking the truth and paying one's debts. Socrates quickly refutes this account by suggesting that it would be wrong to repay certain debts—for example, to return a borrowed weapon to a friend who is not in his right mind. Socrates' point is not that repaying debts is without moral import; rather, he wants to show that it is not always right to repay one's debts, at least not exactly when the one to whom the debt is owed demands repayment. What we have here is a conflict between two moral norms: repaying one's debts and protecting others from harm. And in this case, Socrates maintains that protecting others from harm is the norm that takes priority.

Sounds like a few homeowners could do with the services of Socrates to help them negotiate with their mortgage lenders!!!:D

Obliq wrote: »

Nearly twenty-four centuries later, Jean-Paul Sartre described a moral conflict the resolution of which was, to many, less obvious than the resolution to the Platonic conflict. Sartre [1957] tells of a student whose brother had been killed in the German offensive of 1940. The student wanted to avenge his brother and to fight forces that he regarded as evil. But the student's mother was living with him, and he was her one consolation in life. The student believed that he had conflicting obligations. Sartre describes him as being torn between two kinds of morality: one of limited scope but certain efficacy, personal devotion to his mother; the other of much wider scope but uncertain efficacy, attempting to contribute to the defeat of an unjust aggressor.

While this may be an example of a moral dilemma ... it doesn't suggest that the truth of the matter cannot be established.
It also sounds like the student is using the mantra of the coward "let me at them ... hold me back"!!!!

Obliq wrote: »

While the examples from Plato and Sartre are the ones most commonly cited, it should be clear that there are many others. If a person makes conflicting promises, she faces a moral conflict. Physicians and families who believe that human life should not be deliberately shortened and that unpreventable pain should not be tolerated face a conflict in deciding whether to withdraw life support from a dying patient."

This dilemma is quite easy to resolve ... provide pain relief ... (even if it shotens life) ... but don't deliberately kill the patient by providing levels of analgesia beyond the levels required to relieve an acceptable level of the pain.

Obliq

J C wrote: »

The way to objectively establish the truth is to listen to both sides of the argument ... and examine the evidence presented to support each side of the case. The truth then usually becomes obvious.

I used to think that people could be objective ... when presented with incontovertible evidence ... but all that changed when I started to debate with Evolutionists!!!!:)


Sounds like a few homeowners could do with the services of Socrates to help them negotiate with their mortgage lenders!!!:D

While this may be an example of a moral dilemma ... it doesn't suggest that the truth of the matter cannot be established.
It also sounds like the student is using the mantra of the coward "let me at them ... hold me back"!!!!


This dilemma is quite easy to resolve ... provide pain relief ... (even if it shotens life) ... but don't deliberately kill the patient by providing levels of analgesia beyond the levels required to relieve an acceptable level of the pain.

I am happy for you that you are so convinced of your beliefs that the truth is often so clear. I do not have that luxury, as I invariably examine both sides of an argument and never convince myself that I am the only "right" person in it. If you take my point.

J C

Obliq wrote: »

I am happy for you that you are so convinced of your beliefs that the truth is often so clear. I do not have that luxury, as I invariably examine both sides of an argument and never convince myself that I am the only "right" person in it. If you take my point.

As a matter of interest, do you think that you could determine a verdict, if you were on a jury and the evidence was comprehensively presented by both sides?
If you are unable to do so ... and this is somehow tied into your Atheism ... I can see solictors all over the country being very interested in whether potential jurors believe in God ... or not ... depending on the facts of the case being tried ... and whether they want a verdict or not.

marienbad

Fanny- but not all Christians thing as you do - is that not correct ? So where the line is drawn is still arbitrary . The goal post has'nt really shifted , it is just a discussion on potential and actual , and different belief systems advocate a specific stage - you at conception , catholics at a much earlier stage and some on the pro-choice side much later.

So why priviledge your opinon ( and mine ) over others ? Though I happen to agree with you I don't feel right in telling anyone else what they should think, much less put it into law. That is why I am pro choice.

Obliq

J C wrote: »

As a matter of interest, do you think that you could determine a verdict, if you were on a jury and the evidence was comprehensively presented by both sides?
If you are unable to do so ... and this is somehow tied into your Atheism ... I can see solictors all over the country being very interested in whether potential jurors believe in God ... or not ... depending on the facts of the case being tried ... and whether they want a verdict or not.

They already do tie in religious belief to jurors, but I would not swear on the bible, I would give an affirmation. I think I've already made it clear that I would take in as much information as possible and question the evidence in as much detail from both sides as I possibly could. Seeing as I would not be the only juror though (thankfully) it is clear that judgement is not left up to just one person and I would obviously argue for as much fairness as possible, given the evidence. Wouldn't you?

How did you arrive at thinking doing my duty as a juror would be precluded by my atheism? I have shown how I would be a less subjective person than those tied into one way of thinking. I should ask you the same question, but tied into your belief.

J C

Obliq wrote: »

They already do tie in religious belief to jurors, but I would not swear on the bible, I would give an affirmation. I think I've already made it clear that I would take in as much information as possible and question the evidence in as much detail from both sides as I possibly could. Seeing as I would not be the only juror though (thankfully) it is clear that judgement is not left up to just one person and I would obviously argue for as much fairness as possible, given the evidence. Wouldn't you?

How did you arrive at thinking doing my duty as a juror would be precluded by my atheism? I have shown how I would be a less subjective person than those tied into one way of thinking. I should ask you the same question, but tied into your belief.

I would give an affirmation myself as I don't believe in swearing!!!:)
... and I don't believe that Secular Authorities should be using a Sacred Book for any purpose ... rendering onto Caesar the things of Caesar and to God the things of God ... and all that.


I don't think you would be precluded from jury duty ... if as you said, you don't believe that truth can be objectively determined ... and you follow through on that belief by refusing to reach a verdict ... you might be in demand for jury service ... where it was in the interest of the accused to have a 'hung' jury ... rather than a verdict of 'guilty' being brought in.:)

Fanny Cradock

marienbad wrote: »

So why priviledge your opinon ( and mine ) over others ? Though I happen to agree with you I don't feel right in telling anyone else what they should think, much less put it into law. That is why I am pro choice.

Could you please explain your thought process to me? I don't understand it.

Being pro-abortion is not a neutral position. The law is not neutral.

Obliq

J C wrote: »

I don't think you would be precluded from jury duty ... if as you said, you don't believe that truth can be determined ... and you follow through on that belief by refusing to reach a verdict ... you might be in demand for jury service ... where it was in the interest of the accused to have a 'hung' jury ... rather than a verdict of 'guilty' being brought in.:)

Holy underpants, you are something JC!:rolleyes: I did not say that truth cannot be determined (to the satisfaction of the law/justice), I said that it is always subjective. As a result, I believe that more heads are better than one, ie. A JURY. So I clearly would be as valuable on any jury as a person with a very fixed idea of right and wrong (for example, the 10 commandments as per the bible). My notions of right and wrong are not archetypes, they are not fixed -they are according to circumstance, in my view. And before you jump on that, I don't believe that makes me any more "right" about right/wrong than anyone else. IT IS SUBJECTIVE.

marienbad

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Could you please explain your thought process to me? I don't understand it.

Being pro-abortion is not a neutral position. The law is not neutral.

I did'nt say I was pro-abortion ,I said I was pro-choice - there is a difference .

And by the way I have yet to meet anyone -Christian muslim atheist agnostic - who is pro-abortion.

J C

Obliq wrote: »

Holy underpants, you are something JC!:rolleyes: I did not say that truth cannot be determined (to the satisfaction of the law/justice), I said that it is always subjective. As a result, I believe that more heads are better than one, ie. A JURY. So I clearly would be as valuable on any jury as a person with a very fixed idea of right and wrong (for example, the 10 commandments as per the bible). My notions of right and wrong are not archetypes, they are not fixed -they are according to circumstance, in my view. And before you jump on that, I don't believe that makes me any more "right" about right/wrong than anyone else. IT IS SUBJECTIVE.

But jurors aren't asked to determine the right/wrong of the issue ... they are asked if the accused is guilty of an offence defined by law ... or not.
To do this they must determine the objective truth of the matter i.e. did the accused do it or not ... with 'it' being the offence defined by the law.:)

Obliq

J C wrote: »

If you are unable to do so ... and this is somehow tied into your Atheism ... I can see solictors all over the country being very interested in whether potential jurors believe in God ... or not ... depending on the facts of the case being tried ... and whether they want a verdict or not.

Going back to this, I'm offended that you suggest belief in God is the basis for an acceptable verdict. And before you infer it, no, it was not suggested that I could not come to my own truth, just that I believe that my own version of truth is subjective (in other words, it would be a measure of how I take up the evidence, as opposed to you)

Obliq

J C wrote: »

But jurors aren't asked to determine the right/wrong of the issue ... they are asked if the accused is guilty of an offence defined by law ... or not.
To do this they must determine the objective truth of the matter i.e. did the accused do it or not ... with 'it' being the offence defined by the law.:)

Just answered that. And if you weren't nit-picking, you'd not have bothered going here. It's plain and obvious from my initial statement about truth being subjective.

J C

marienbad wrote: »

I did'nt say I was pro-abortion ,I said I was pro-choice - there is a difference .

And by the way I have yet to meet anyone -Christian muslim atheist agnostic - who is pro-abortion.

You're playing with words ... the 'choice' you are 'pro' is abortion ... so you are pro-abortion for all practical purposes, whether you deny it or not.

... and Fanny is correct that a Human Being objectively starts life at fertilisation.
... and the moral 'wriggle room' is claimed by the pro-choice lobby by changing the goalposts to the cognitive ability of the foetus ... which has no real moral legitimacy.
... and sets up the possibility of all kinds of post-birth potential horrors (by allowing the killing of Humans on the basis of reduced cognitive ability).

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

Fanny , are you not being just as arbitrary in deciding that life begins at conception ? And if you want to be consistent as you say with Singer ,then surly the Catholic Church position is the only position to adopt if you are pro life ? Why start with conception ? Why not further back in the chain - thus excluding contraception ,masturbation and in fact any sex not directed at procreation ?

Anywhere you draw the line is arbitary is it not ?

It's not arbitrary if it is based on objective biological reality. Fanny Craddock's position is. Your position is not.

If this comes down to the nature of ethics. Then for the atheist or the agnostic, the concession must be that every moral decision is arbitrary. It is entirely at the whim of the individual to decide what is good and what is evil. Now, from a Christian point of view. God has declared from the beginning of Creation how best to live in His creation.

We're always going to be at logger heads if that is how you understand morality.

Obliq wrote: »

I am, quite frankly, amazed that you don't uphold the "word of god" in such matters JC. You seemingly believe in creationism and it's definition according to the bible? There are many instances in the bible where IN GOD'S NAME child killing and killing of fetus's in the womb are recounted.

I believe in the Bible as the inspired and infallible word of God. I think you, and the authors of the Skeptics Annotated Bible have taken a few passages out of context (as per usual on that site).

I generally find that people who tend to quote from the Skeptics Annotated Bible unquestioningly without using their own personal reading to inform their views aren't willing to listen. I'd encourage you to consider whether or not you really want to listen to us, and more important whether or not you really want to listen to God, and consider His word by yourself rather than trusting a biased, slanted, dishonest, and disingenuous website to do the work for you.

Obliq wrote: »

"God's law sometimes requires the execution (by burning to death) of pregnant women.

Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. -- Genesis 38:24"

God did not require this. You need to read the whole chapter to understand. What happened is that Judah, took his daughter in law as a prostitute. The Bible shows us the nature of sin, in order to show us an example of what not to do. We learn from mistakes that people make in the Bible. Judah is a perfect example. Judah when finding out that his daughter in law had fallen pregnant in this way demanded this punishment, until he realised that he himself was guilty also. Let's look at Genesis 38 more closely:

Genesis 38:6-29 wrote:

[6] And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. [7] But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and the LORD put him to death. [8] Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother's wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” [9] But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. [10] And what he did was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and he put him to death also. [11] Then Judah said to Tamar his daughter-in-law, “Remain a widow in your father's house, till Shelah my son grows up”—for he feared that he would die, like his brothers. So Tamar went and remained in her father's house.
[12] In the course of time the wife of Judah, Shua's daughter, died. When Judah was comforted, he went up to Timnah to his sheepshearers, he and his friend Hirah the Adullamite. [13] And when Tamar was told, “Your father-in-law is going up to Timnah to shear his sheep,” [14] she took off her widow's garments and covered herself with a veil, wrapping herself up, and sat at the entrance to Enaim, which is on the road to Timnah. For she saw that Shelah was grown up, and she had not been given to him in marriage. [15] When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face. [16] He turned to her at the roadside and said, “Come, let me come in to you,” for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law. She said, “What will you give me, that you may come in to me?” [17] He answered, “I will send you a young goat from the flock.” And she said, “If you give me a pledge, until you send it—” [18] He said, “What pledge shall I give you?” She replied, “Your signet and your cord and your staff that is in your hand.” So he gave them to her and went in to her, and she conceived by him. [19] Then she arose and went away, and taking off her veil she put on the garments of her widowhood.
[20] When Judah sent the young goat by his friend the Adullamite to take back the pledge from the woman's hand, he did not find her. [21] And he asked the men of the place, “Where is the cult prostitute who was at Enaim at the roadside?” And they said, “No cult prostitute has been here.” [22] So he returned to Judah and said, “I have not found her. Also, the men of the place said, ‘No cult prostitute has been here.’” [23] And Judah replied, “Let her keep the things as her own, or we shall be laughed at. You see, I sent this young goat, and you did not find her.”
[24] About three months later Judah was told, “Tamar your daughter-in-law has been immoral. Moreover, she is pregnant by immorality.” And Judah said, “Bring her out, and let her be burned.” [25] As she was being brought out, she sent word to her father-in-law, “By the man to whom these belong, I am pregnant.” And she said, “Please identify whose these are, the signet and the cord and the staff.” [26] Then Judah identified them and said, “She is more righteous than I, since I did not give her to my son Shelah.” And he did not know her again.

Obliq wrote: »

"The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old.

And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. -- Leviticus 27:6

The passage does not say that the Bible places no value on any child less than a month old. There are other passages in Scripture that contradict this. In this case Skeptics Annotated Bible are making an assumption by the fact that it is absent in this passage. That's a bad reading of Scripture.

There are many reasons why Moses might have done this. A potential being that infant mortality was probably quite high in the desert? No?

Obliq wrote: »

Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons.

Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16"

See above.

Obliq wrote: »

This is taken from http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html
where there are more biblical quotes on the subject of women with child being killed in the name of god.

If these things are actually said in the bible (and I haven't read it all, so I'm prepared to believe that they aren't), how can you simultaneously credit the bible's account of creation with these quotes?

Please go and do your own reading. I hope that you will actually give the Bible a fair hearing rather than doing this again.

I'm honestly disappointed that you're not even interested in listening to us as we've listened to you. Are you interested in discussing or are you going to just tell us what you think?

J C

Obliq wrote: »

Going back to this, I'm offended that you suggest belief in God is the basis for an acceptable verdict. And before you infer it, no, it was not suggested that I could not come to my own truth, just that I believe that my own version of truth is subjective (in other words, it would be a measure of how I take up the evidence, as opposed to you)

I never said that belief in God is the basis for an acceptable verdict.

The point is that jury members are expected to determine the objective truth objectively ... and you are saying that you (and your fellow atheists) can only do so subjectively.
I'm taking your word on this ... and reaching an objective verdict ... based on your own confession!!!:)

Obliq

J C wrote: »

I never said that belief in God is the basis for an acceptable verdict.

The point is that jury members are expected to determine the objective truth objectively ... and you are saying that you (and your fellow atheists) can only do so subjectively.
I'm taking your word on this ... and reaching an objective verdict ... based on your own confession!!!:)

No buddy, I only speak for myself. If I was to be called for jury duty, I would say that.

J C

Obliq wrote: »

No buddy,

Buddy ??? ... and I subjectively thought that we were getting along very well ... but then there was all the objective evidence that we weren't!!!!:)

Obliq wrote: »

I only speak for myself. If I was to be called for jury duty, I would say that.

Fair enough ... but nearly every other Atheist is pro-abortion ... based on subjective reasons.

marienbad

J C wrote: »

You're playing with words ... the 'choice' you are 'pro' is abortion ... so you are pro-abortion for all practical purposes, whether you deny it or not.

... and Fanny is correct that a Human Being objectively starts life at fertilisation.
... and the moral 'wriggle room' is claimed by the pro-choice lobby by changing the goalposts to the cognitive ability of the foetus ... which has no real moral legitimacy.
... and sets up the possibility of all kinds of post-birth potential horrors (by allowing killing on the basis of reduced cognitive ability).

Saying something is objectively right cuts no ice with me . That being the case the rest of your reply is just your opinion . I will think for myself and stick with my own view, thank you very much.

Obliq

philologos wrote: »

I believe in the Bible as the inspired and infallible word of God. I think you, and the authors of the Skeptics Annotated Bible have taken a few passages out of context (as per usual on that site).

You are accusing me of taking passages out of context when you have, in fact, taken my post out of context in the whole discussion over the last few days that I have had with JC. I personally have found it interesting and informative. I am also informed by your assumptions about me.

I generally find that people who tend to quote from the Skeptics Annotated Bible unquestioningly without using their own personal reading to inform their views aren't willing to listen. I'd encourage you to consider whether or not you really want to listen to us, and more important whether or not you really want to listen to God, and consider His word by yourself rather than trusting a biased, slanted, dishonest, and disingenuous website to do the work for you.

Unquestioningly? Please read my last sentence in that post. Also, please read my next post. I question everything. That is the one leading factor in my personality that brings me to atheism.

Please go and do your own reading. I hope that you will actually give the Bible a fair hearing rather than doing this again.

I'm honestly disappointed that you're not even interested in listening to us as we've listened to you. Are you interested in discussing or are you going to just tell us what you think?

Please go and do your own reading, just a little further on down the thread, where I am sure you will see that a) I am giving the bible a fair hearing, and b) I am interested in discussing. Please tell me if you are just going to tell me what you think, without being interested in listening to me? I am honestly disappointed that you have jumped to conclusions about me where so many others in this forum have not (and I thank them for that).

J C

marienbad wrote: »

Saying something is objectively right cuts no ice with me . That being the case the rest of your reply is just your opinion . I will think for myself and stick with my own view, thank you very much.

... so do you believe that killing Humans on the basis of cognitive ability is morally/ethically correct?

Obliq

J C wrote: »

Buddy ??? ... and I subjectively thought that we were getting along very well ... but then there was all the objective evidence that we weren't!!!!:)


Fair enough ... but nearly every other Atheist is pro-abortion ... based on subjective reasons.

We are all subjective. Can't be otherwise, as we live in our individual lives. And I meant buddy in it's friendly sense, honestly I am honest. Subjectively And I am sure there are anti-choice atheists - but I don't know any, I'll admit.

J C

Obliq wrote: »

You are accusing me of taking passages out of context when you have, in fact, taken my post out of context in the whole discussion over the last few days that I have had with JC. I personally have found it interesting and informative.

... and I enjoyed it too ... pity we fell out in the last few posts!!!:eek::)

Obliq wrote: »

Unquestioningly? Please read my last sentence in that post. Also, please read my next post. I question everything. That is the one leading factor in my personality that brings me to atheism.

Yes, Atheists seem to question everything ... except the most questionable proposition of all ... that there is no God and everything spontaneously generated itself ... through a combination of time and blind chance!!!:)

Obliq wrote: »

Please go and do your own reading, just a little further on down the thread, where I am sure you will see that a) I am giving the bible a fair hearing, and b) I am interested in discussing. Please tell me if you are just going to tell me what you think, without being interested in listening to me? I am honestly disappointed that you have jumped to conclusions about me where so many others in this forum have not (and I thank them for that).

Phil ... Obliq is correct here ... go back and read her posts.

marienbad

J C wrote: »

... so do you believe that killing Humans on the basis of cognitive ability is morally/ethically correct?

No I don't believe so , but if enough people did and made it the law of the land the I would find myself in a right pickle. Happily that is unlikely to happen .

Euthanasia on the other hand for those senile old goats .......

philologos

It's not so much an assumption. By and large from my experience on boards.ie - if one uses The Skeptics Annotated Bible as a serious source, you're generally not much interested in listening to what the other side has to actually contribute. If you use The Skeptics Annotated Bible as an alternative to personally reading the Bible for yourself, you have given deference to their assumptions about the Bible without questioning them.

On examining the passages that they even quote on this issue, we see that they are not referring to abortion, and indeed aren't even saying what they want them to say. Genesis 38 is actually pointing out Judah's sin in respect to Tamar. That passage makes it clear if you read a few verses further. This is what I call out of context quotation. The other passages, don't say anything about the humanity of a one month old child or a foetus. It's an assumption that has been applied in an unwarranted manner to the passage.

I don't think you are giving the Bible a fair hearing if you support or use a dishonest source like that in your post. I long for the day where we could have a decent discussion about what God has revealed to us with respect and what God has done through His Son Jesus for mankind. The crux of the issue.

J C

Obliq wrote: »

We are all subjective. Can't be otherwise, as we live in our individual lives.

We can rise above subjectivity ... to be able to objectively assess evidence. Creation Scientists do this all the time.:)

Obliq wrote: »

And I meant buddy in it's friendly sense, honestly

Thats a relief !!!:)

Obliq wrote: »

I am honest. Subjectively And I am sure there are anti-choice atheists - but I don't know any, I'll admit.

Fair enough.

J C

marienbad wrote: »

No I don't believe so , but if enough people did and made it the law of the land the I would find myself in a right pickle. Happily that is unlikely to happen .

... so there is no basis for Abortion then ... other that where the right to life of the mother is in imminent and real danger.

marienbad wrote: »

Euthanasia on the other hand for those senile old goats .......

That's what will happen if cognitive ability becomes the benchmark to decide who can be legally killed ... and you will become an 'old goat' faster than you may think ... tempus fugit ... and all that!!!

Gumbi

I definitely think there's a religious-less pro-choice argument to be made. Probably a consequential one. Heck, I don't support an abortion FFA, a society in which one can get an abortion (early OR late term) at a whim.

I wonder are there any atheists who vehemently oppose abortions of any kind?

Obliq

philologos wrote: »

It's not so much an assumption. By and large from my experience on boards.ie - if one uses The Skeptics Annotated Bible as a serious source, you're generally not much interested in listening to what the other side has to actually contribute. If you use The Skeptics Annotated Bible as an alternative to personally reading the Bible for yourself, you have given deference to their assumptions about the Bible without questioning them.

You are certainly making assumptions about me, and that is silly because it only encourages me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall saying the Skeptics Annotated Bible is a serious source. I only found a post to it today on a social networking site, and had never seen it before. I threw it up here for discussion in context with the topic of this thread, and a very good discussion we had. Your bad, you called it wrong. Please retract.

On examining the passages that they even quote on this issue, we see that they are not referring to abortion, and indeed aren't even saying what they want them to say. Genesis 38 is actually pointing out Judah's sin in respect to Tamar. That passage makes it clear if you read a few verses further. This is what I call out of context quotation. The other passages, don't say anything about the humanity of a one month old child or a foetus. It's an assumption that has been applied in an unwarranted manner to the passage.

JC explained that very clearly thank you, in the post directly after. I accepted same in the post directly after that. Please read.

I don't think you are giving the Bible a fair hearing if you support or use a dishonest source like that in your post. I long for the day where we could have a decent discussion about what God has revealed to us with respect and what God has done through His Son Jesus for mankind. The crux of the issue.

Oh, if I only use a dishonest source? Even if I want to know what your understanding of it is, in order to further my understanding? Well, I long for the day where we could have a decent discussion about how we can all live with respect for each other, without recourse to any religion being better than any other religion or science/atheism. The crux of the issue for me is whether we can live together peacefully in spite of our beliefs.

muppeteer

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No, I don't think so. Human life begins when an egg is fertilised. The resultant zygote is genetically distinct from either mother or the father and can thus be said to be a unique human life-form. This distinction is uncontentious even amongst pro-abortionists. So the question isn't when human life begins, nor it hasn't been for some time. Rather, the goalpost have been shifted to asking when personhood begins.

The fact of unique new human life beginning at conception gives a nice well defined line. A defined line over which you have arbitrarily decided to assign personhood to human cells on one side but not the other. You placing your own personal goalposts there merely shows that you have a preference for unique genetic material as being your arbitrary definition of when a human life is a human person.
My arbitrary goalposts are placed around when that human life gains brain function.
I can honestly see the attraction in setting your goalposts over a thinner line so to speak, where sperm and egg=no person, zygote=person, rather than the continually shifting line of a developing brain. But a life being important (a person) because it is unique genetically is not a convincing argument to set the line at conception. Certainly not when there are properties which we value much more fundamentally, that define us and set us apart from all other animals such as higher brain function.

And this is exactly why someone like Singer approves of infanticide. Newborns are not sapient, they know nothing of the world, they can not reason, they have no desires beyond some rudimentary needs - .e.g. too hot, too cold, hungry - and they do not possess the same levels of conciousness that an adult cat can be said to have.

As for potential, the child certainly has more than an adult cat, but then so does a 10 week old human foetus or a zygote.



I do think that his view on this matter is consistent. Evidently so do others. I also happen to think his views are false and damnable.

Moral indignation aside, I don't know how to answer your question. This is simply because I am not now, nor ever have been, in the situation you describe. But if you want an answer, I think that I would still largely oppose abortion (and certainly oppose views like Singer's) but this would be based upon my preferences. And I think would still oppose infanticide even if I acknowledged that I was being inconsistent with the world I thought I occupied.

I wouldn't exactly say Singer would out and out support infanticide, more that it can be seen as less wrong than killing a human with full cognitive ability, memories, future desires etc. And ethically valid reasons to do so are so rare as to make his position functionally similar to many people who would see it as absolutely wrong. So you may be able to hold to your preferences and still be consistent with Singers view at the same time.


Going back to your previous post

"There is nothing in your amoral naturalistic universe that says a nervous system ought to be the dividing line between potential death by abortion and the the removal of that threat."

do you still not see how we can assign morals in an amoral universe ourselves? Using the example given?

marienbad

J C wrote: »

... so there is no basis for Abortion then ... other that where the right to life of the mother is in imminent and real danger.

That's what will happen if cognitive ability becomes the benchmark to decide who can be legally killed ... and you will become an 'old goat' faster than you may think ... tempus fugit ... and all that!!!

I don't follow your reasoning here on abortion ?

As for euthanasia - this is just the slippery slope argument - and in hindsight it can appear persuasive to the already converted - i.e if we legalise contraception then it will be homosexuality divorce abortion , and everytime we were told it would be the end of the world . But guess what the prophets of doom were wrong everytime .And this time will be no different.

philologos

Obliq wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

It's not so much an assumption. By and large from my experience on boards.ie - if one uses The Skeptics Annotated Bible as a serious source, you're generally not much interested in listening to what the other side has to actually contribute. If you use The Skeptics Annotated Bible as an alternative to personally reading the Bible for yourself, you have given deference to their assumptions about the Bible without questioning them.

You are certainly making assumptions about me, and that is silly because it only encourages me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall saying the Skeptics Annotated Bible is a serious source. I only found a post to it today on a social networking site, and had never seen it before. I threw it up here for discussion in context with the topic of this thread, and a very good discussion we had. Your bad, you called it wrong. Please retract.

I won't retract what I said. On most occasions the use of that site shows that people are not willing to listen to what people have to say. That's true in most of the cases where I've seen it. By the by it as a source is wrong on those passages.

I don't mind if it "encourages" you, but I'm going to be straight with you on this.

Oh, if I only use a dishonest source? Even if I want to know what your understanding of it is, in order to further my understanding? Well, I long for the day where we could have a decent discussion about how we can all live with respect for each other, without recourse to any religion being better than any other religion or science/atheism. The crux of the issue for me is whether we can live together peacefully in spite of our beliefs.

I've given you my thoughts on the passages already and my thoughts on the issue.

By the by I've no issue living peaceably with anyone but I will not applaud what I feel to be wrong or withhold valid criticism because of the Gospel not in spite of it.

Blinkus

ehcocmeo wrote: »

Came up on a debate the other day that Restricting abortion means imposing religious morality on others..

Just thought I would share a link to a group that is NOT religious but who also oppose abortion on a Human Rights level.

www.godlessprolifers.org

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/08/20/are-pro-life-atheist-groups-promoting-sound-science/


Its important that pro-life is not handcuffed to Religious morals.

Well, this is good to see. I'm betting if these people met Christ, they would like him. Because he would stand up for the poor children as well, as his church does.

Blinkus

Gumbi wrote: »

In context, it is a fair supposition. Typical religious claims for preventing abortion include that "life is sacred". This is your religious belief. Unless you can demonstrate it, it is meaningless to anyone else, and so it cannot be used as a reason to restrict other in imposing a law based on such belief.

I am presuming that these organisations don't base their anti-abortion beliefs on life being sacred...

You don't believe life is sacred, yet behave in a way the life of a woman is sacred, you'll even go as far defending her decision even when it's the same principle as any other crime: the weaker person is sacrificed by the stronger, out of base interests.

Of course abortion is really justified because It's about sex, the modern day Religion. It is back-up contraception after all. It's defended by pro-choicer's as well as any other Religion.

Gumbi

Blinkus wrote: »

Gumbi wrote: »

In context, it is a fair supposition. Typical religious claims for preventing abortion include that "life is sacred". This is your religious belief. Unless you can demonstrate it, it is meaningless to anyone else, and so it cannot be used as a reason to restrict other in imposing a law based on such belief.

I am presuming that these organisations don't base their anti-abortion beliefs on life being sacred...

You don't believe life is sacred, yet behave in a way the life of a woman is sacred, you'll even go as far defending her decision even when it's the same principle as any other crime: the weaker person is sacrificed by the stronger, out of base interests.

Of course abortion is really justified because It's about sex, the modern day Religion. It is back-up contraception after all. It's defended by pro-choicer's as well as any other Religion.

Not at all. I don't think any life is sacred, at least in the religious sense. I value the life of a fully grown woman more than that of a buch of cells. In early-term, cells that cannot feel pain/any emotion. Cells that do not have memories, or people upon whom they are dependant (or vice-versa).

philologos

Gumbi wrote: »

Not at all. I don't think any life is sacred, at least in the religious sense. I value the life of a fully grown woman more than that of a buch of cells. In early-term, cells that cannot feel pain/any emotion. Cells that do not have memories, or people upon whom they are dependant (or vice-versa).

We don't even have to refer to anything as sacred. Even in the common understanding of human empathy we treat humans in a certain way. As a result we tend to regard human life quite highly.

Northclare

Gumbi wrote: »

Blinkus wrote: »

Gumbi wrote: »

In context, it is a fair supposition. Typical religious claims for preventing abortion include that "life is sacred". This is your religious belief. Unless you can demonstrate it, it is meaningless to anyone else, and so it cannot be used as a reason to restrict other in imposing a law based on such belief.

I am presuming that these organisations don't base their anti-abortion beliefs on life being sacred...

You don't believe life is sacred, yet behave in a way the life of a woman is sacred, you'll even go as far defending her decision even when it's the same principle as any other crime: the weaker person is sacrificed by the stronger, out of base interests.

Of course abortion is really justified because It's about sex, the modern day Religion. It is back-up contraception after all. It's defended by pro-choicer's as well as any other Religion.

Not at all. I don't think any life is sacred, at least in the religious sense. I value the life of a fully grown woman more than that of a buch of cells. In early-term, cells that cannot feel pain/any emotion. Cells that do not have memories, or people upon whom they are dependant (or vice-versa).

Those cells you speak of have the potential to turn into a fully grown woman,they will have memories and feel pain and emotion.

You seem to have a very narrow view on life and it's potential.

Maybe I'm wrong about your view but from here it's like the which came first ?
the chicken or the egg....

When you see a mighty tree,do you see firewood or get an image of the life of that tree ?

When you see a cow,do you see liters of milk and slabs of meat ?
Or a an animal going about it's daily life....

Is your view on life more flat and superficial than spiritual and religious peoples views on life ?

Gumbi

My view of life is that it is what it is. I have more comapassion for human life because I am human and because it is intelligent life, in addition to the fact that their is a potential for (more intense) suffering.

You have an ill-defined definition of life. Do you see a potential for life in semen? Is masturbation murder because it intentionally avoids the "problem" of inpregnation.

Northclare

Gumbi wrote: »

My view of life is that it is what it is. I have more comapassion for human life because I am human and because it is intelligent life, in addition to the fact that their is a potential for (more intense) suffering.

You have an ill-defined definition of life. Do you see a potential for life in semen? Is masturbation murder because it intentionally avoids the "problem" of inpregnation.

That's your answer lol

Ill defined definition of life, ffs in English please.


Your very flat and superficial alright, telpis.

Come on you haven't answered my question about the cow and tree....

Or is the cow hiding behind the tree

marienbad

Northclare wrote: »

That's your answer lol

Ill defined definition of life, ffs in English please.


Your very flat and superficial alright, telpis.

Come on you haven't answered my question about the cow and tree....

Or is the cow hiding behind the tree

Why is it a an ill defined definition of life ? Because it dos'nt conform to a nice beginning middle and end type definition or what ?

Gumbi

marienbad wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

That's your answer lol

Ill defined definition of life, ffs in English please.


Your very flat and superficial alright, telpis.

Come on you haven't answered my question about the cow and tree....

Or is the cow hiding behind the tree

Why is it a an ill defined definition of life ? Because it dos'nt conform to a nice beginning middle and end type definition or what ?

Cancer cells are living cells. Is the eradication of these cells considered murder? Does it matter if one does so?

Northclare says that a foetus has THE POTENTIAL to be a fully grown woman with all of the emotions etc to go with that. My response was - semen has THE POTENTIAL to be the very same thing. Is masturabation, therefore, murder?

Northclare

Gumbi wrote: »

marienbad wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

That's your answer lol

Ill defined definition of life, ffs in English please.


Your very flat and superficial alright, telpis.

Come on you haven't answered my question about the cow and tree....

Or is the cow hiding behind the tree

Why is it a an ill defined definition of life ? Because it dos'nt conform to a nice beginning middle and end type definition or what ?

Cancer cells are living cells. Is the eradication of these cells considered murder? Does it matter if one does so?

Northclare says that a foetus has THE POTENTIAL to be a fully grown woman with all of the emotions etc to go with that. My response was - semen has THE POTENTIAL to be the very same thing. Is masturabation, therefore, murder?

Why compare cancer cells with the cells that are responsible for the beginning of life ?

Your not making any sense,and yet you have more empathy for human life but not the building blocks of life....

You would make a great architect alright

Gumbi

Northclare wrote: »

Gumbi wrote: »

marienbad wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

That's your answer lol

Ill defined definition of life, ffs in English please.


Your very flat and superficial alright, telpis.

Come on you haven't answered my question about the cow and tree....

Or is the cow hiding behind the tree

Why is it a an ill defined definition of life ? Because it dos'nt conform to a nice beginning middle and end type definition or what ?

Cancer cells are living cells. Is the eradication of these cells considered murder? Does it matter if one does so?

Northclare says that a foetus has THE POTENTIAL to be a fully grown woman with all of the emotions etc to go with that. My response was - semen has THE POTENTIAL to be the very same thing. Is masturabation, therefore, murder?

Why compare cancer cells with the cells that are responsible for the beginning of life ?

Your not making any sense,and yet you have more empathy for human life but not the building blocks of life....

You would make a great architect alright

Lolno. It's an analogy. You said that you disagree with abortion, as you think the murder of life that has the potential be so complex is wrong. I asked you if you felt the same way about masturbation. You ignored the question and asked me questions of you're own.

Northclare

Ok Gumbi,
I disagree with abortion if it's for emotive selfish reasons,such as interference with careers or when a woman is pushed into it by her boyfriend etc
There's always the choice of adoption.

But at the end of the day it's the individuals choice,and that's something I wouldn't interfere with.
But I'm all for life

Fanny Cradock

Gumbi wrote: »

Northclare says that a foetus has THE POTENTIAL to be a fully grown woman with all of the emotions etc to go with that. My response was - semen has THE POTENTIAL to be the very same thing.

No it doesn't. Semen has no potential by itself to be anything other than semen. You can rub your willy under the sheets all you like but you wont get a human by doing so. Now, when semen fertilises an egg ... well, I trust you get the rest.

If you are seriously arguing that semen has the potential to be a fully grown women (and on the face of it that statement is hilariously wrong) you may as well argue that the pizza slice eaten last evening by a 5 year old has the potential to be the next Einstein because the child is potentially destined for greatness. So choose carefully next time you order form the menu.

Sin City

Gumbi wrote: »

Cancer cells are living cells. Is the eradication of these cells considered murder? Does it matter if one does so?

Northclare says that a foetus has THE POTENTIAL to be a fully grown woman with all of the emotions etc to go with that. My response was - semen has THE POTENTIAL to be the very same thing. Is masturabation, therefore, murder?

Masturbation cant be murder, as semen alone does not have the potential for life, It is only when it has formed a zygot that the potential for life actually begins

Sin City

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No it doesn't. Semen has no potential by itself to be anything other than semen. You can rub your willy under the sheets all you like but you wont get a human by doing so. Now, when semen fertilises an egg ... well, I trust you get the rest.

If you are seriously arguing that semen has the potential to be a fully grown women (and on the face of it that statement is hilariously wrong) you may as well argue that the pizza slice eaten last evening by a 5 year old has the potential to be the next Einstein because the child is potentially destined for greatness. So choose carefully next time you order form the menu.

Didnt see Frannys post here when I repleid,