2nd day in a row: NYT on BornAliveTruth.org
Yesterday the New York Times covered BornAliveTruth.org for the 2nd day in a row, this time on its blog:
Battles over abortion rights can often seem Orwellian, but never more so than in the competition for the Catholic vote in this presidential election….
The traditional movement seeking to end abortion rights is not standing down either. A group called BornAliveTruth.org is spending more than $350,000 to run a commercial in OH and NM featuring an abortion survivor and accusing Mr. Obama of voting against a measure to protect the lives of fetuses that somehow live through the procedure. (The Obama campaign disputes the characterization of the vote, which took place in the IL legislature.)
Yes, we must always make sure to include Obama’s disproven disclaimer.
And I’m not sure what “Orwellian” means in the context of that first sentence. Perhaps someone can explain.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
At least they’ve stopped accusing Gianna of making the whole thing up.
I’m still waiting for somebody to do a background story on Fast Eddie. Sean Hannity, maybe? Because the NYT ain’t gonna do it.
Sixty five bucks launches a 400 word press release, which can show a link to a full article.
Christian newswire. How about that, Christina?
Jill,
I think it well worth mentioning that the group known as 40daysforlife and several other pro-life organizations will be conducting from Wednesday, September 24 to Sunday, November 2, a 40 Days for Life campaign 177 cities in 47 states, commencing the largest and longest coordinated pro-life mobilization in history. If interested in participating, go to the 40daysforlife.com website to GET INVOLVED in your area! Now is the time to stand up for life.
Thanks for all you do, Jill!
Orwellian: Something that is true, but hurts my feelings so much that I want to dis it a little.
In the context of the article, I think that “Orwellian” could be a reference to doublethink:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
Both sides in the abortion debate accuse each other of doublethink. Liberals accuse conservative pro-lifers of doublethink because we are also generally (though not always) in favor of a strong defense and capital punishment. Also, we are usually opposed to the massive government social programs that “prove” (to a liberal) that one cares about people. So liberals claim that we’re only pro-life until the moment of birth, and then we are either callous or downright evil.
On the other hand, conservatives accuse liberals of doublethink because they are so concerned about relatively few casualties in Iraq, yet they couldn’t care less about 40-50 million dead children.
Personally, I don’t think that either side is guilty of doublethink. The crucial point which is so often missed is that both sides have radically-different understandings of abortion. Most (though not all) pro-choicers are still stuck in the mire of ignorance and believe that an unborn child is not fully human. “Just a clump of cells, insensate non-viable tissue, potential life….” You know the usual claims. If you don’t believe that unborn children are human, then there is no doublethink required to be both anti-war and pro-choice.
If we want to win this struggle for unborn children we must do several things.
First, we must reach all religious (and nonreligious) people with the message that Barack Obama and most Democratic Party politicians support unlimited killing of unborn children.
Second, we must turn around the Black and Hispanic communities and get them to vote Republican. This is absolutely critical. Without minority voters, the Democratic Party cannot win, Republicans would dominate and we would have a solidly pro-life Congress and President. If we are to win, we must get minority voters to realize that the Democratic Party goes totally against their Christian moral values and its economic and social policies do enormous damage to their communities.
Third, we must convince the Republican Party to fight back on the economy and point out that a very large percentage of our problems have been caused by Democratic economic policies. These include the mortgage and credit crisis, the high price of oil and other goods caused by their refusal to allow new drilling and as a result, the slowing economy and higher unemployment. The Republican Party must convince people that Democratic policies are harmful to almost everyone and the only way to improve our society is to sweep the Democratic Party out of power in Congress and keep them out of the White House.
If we do this, we can elect a pro-life Republican Congress and pass legislation to stop the killing of unborn children.
i got this in my inbox this morning. glenn beck did an interview about born alive yesterday. he is inerviewing freddoso who makes mention of his interview with jill!
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/15318/
You are not going to convince those of us who are in the lower class that the Democrats are the cause of the injustice…
You are fooling yourselves..
I have watched as the Bush/Cheney Adminstration has assisted our lower class minority population to back peddle.. I have watched the state I live in..(west VA).. become more and more racist…
I have watched the poverty of our country be ignored.
It is a known fact that the Republican Party consists of a perspective that does not feel obligated to help the poor— Look at the policies for Medicaid, public housing asssitance.. any type of assistance with the poor.
Yes.. their are alot of charitable rich Republicans, but until our government can decide it actually is the country’s responsiblity to help people..well.. You are at a loss..
Obviously you are not a poor minority.
so you may want to go live in the community and see what it is like.
Personally, I don’t think that either side is guilty of doublethink.
Good, Naaman – agreed.
…..
The crucial point which is so often missed is that both sides have radically-different understandings of abortion.
I’m not sure that “understandings” is the right word. Both sides don’t make the same assumptions, anyway, nor share all the same valuations.
…..
Most (though not all) pro-choicers are still stuck in the mire of ignorance and believe that an unborn child is not fully human.
If there is “ignorance,” it’s pretending it’s as simple as that. If you merely mean having human DNA, for example, then no, that’s not the issue. “Fully human” can imply more than that though; it can include things which develop later on, after conception, things which make us more than just one species on earth, etc.
…..
“Just a clump of cells, insensate non-viable tissue, potential life….” You know the usual claims.
Well, to a stage in gestation, there really is “a clump of cells” there. And indeed, insensate and non-viable apply, though nobody told you that’s all there is to the debate.
…..
If you don’t believe that unborn children are human, then there is no doublethink required to be both anti-war and pro-choice.
If there is any “doublethink” going on, a little of it is pretending that “child” somehow necessarily applies in this argument, when it doesn’t – it’s up for argument. Is the fertilized egg a “child”? Is the embedded zygote a “child”? Pretty far-fetched, IMO, and that’s just what it is, a matter of opinion – there, “child” or not.
i do not think that a pro-life person that believes in capital punishment could be accused of “doublethink.” i personally believe that innocent life should be protected. a baby inutero or newly born is innocent. a murderer is NOT innocent and his punishment should fit the crime.
Joe: Without minority voters, the Democratic Party cannot win, Republicans would dominate and we would have a solidly pro-life Congress and President.
The Republicans stand to lose House and Senate seats this time around, no surprise since a sitting President’s party often suffers losses, and 8 years of Bush Jr. has really hurt Republicans.
Even should McCain win, his picks, if any, for the Supreme Court may surprise people, just as the Reagan -appointed Court decided on Roe versus Wade.
Becky, I agree – just because a person is against abortion and “pro-life” in the debate over abortion, it in no way means they “have” to be against capital punishment.
Orwellian: Something that is true, but hurts my feelings so much that I want to dis it a little.
Ha! Doyle, great post….I think. ; )
Hey Becky, thanks for the tip. Am going to hunt down that Glen Beck video.
Thanks all for explanation of “Orwellian.”
christina,
maybe i missed something, but who is fast eddie? i googled it but all i got were car shops? i am kinda new here, sorry!
“We got us a horserace,” Volume IV:
Support for McCain has waned a bit as more has come out about Palin.
Average of polls as of today, Sept. 18, Obama with a small lead.
“maybe i missed something, but who is fast eddie?”
Wasn’t that a TV show on Fox that got canceled after like 4 episodes?
Doug says “If there is any “doublethink” going on, a little of it is pretending that “child” somehow necessarily applies in this argument, when it doesn’t – it’s up for argument. Is the fertilized egg a “child”? Is the embedded zygote a “child”? Pretty far-fetched, IMO, and that’s just what it is, a matter of opinion – there, “child” or not.”
Doug, I’ve said this about a million and one times, but apparantly it needs repeating.
Child: . A person between birth and puberty.
2.
a. An unborn infant; a fetus.
b. An infant; a baby.
3. One who is childish or immature.
4. A son or daughter; an offspring.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003
As you can see, “fetus” is an acceptable definition of “child”. However, most of us use the also acceptable definition of “offspring”. There is no argument that my children have been my offspring since their moments of conception. There’s nothing orwellian about basic biology.
“Fast Eddie” that Christina is referring to is Edward C. Allred. The abortionist who tried to kill Gianna Jessen. He failed.
Lauren, the fetus has not “sprung off” and it doesn’t make basic sense to call fetuses “offspring.” Basically, I’d say your kids became your offspring when they were born, but sure – you may see it differently. When did they “spring off” of you?
On “child” – the primary definition is right there in what you posted – “between birth and puberty.” Again, I’m not saying it’s somehow “absolutely” or externally incorrect to say the unborn are “children,” since it lies in the eye of the beholder, but to pretend the unborn necessarily are is indeed wrong, at least as wrong as flat-out declaring they are not.
Thank God he failed!!!!! :)
I took the use of “Orwellian” to just mean “creepily controlling.” A lot of people just use the word to reference the culturally-absorbed themes of 1984 and Animal Farm — control, deceit, propaganda, corruption of power, etc.
I’m guessing that pro-choicers would typically view the abortion debate as Orwellian because from their perspective it’s about the government wanting to control what a human being does with her body; and the pro-lifers would typically view it as Orwellian because from their perspective it views humans as expendable for ideological or pragmatic reasons. Both sides often feel like they’re in a society where lies are being proclaimed as truth, etc.
It could also be referring to the tendency of either side to demonize their opponent. Which carries the implication of the demonization being encouraged for the purpose of garnering support for a specific political candidate or party. The other party is not merely wrong, but evil; etc.
Awesome post, Alexandra.
Doug complained:
If you merely mean having human DNA, for example, then no, that’s not the issue. “Fully human” can imply more than that though; it can include things which develop later on, after conception, things which make us more than just one species on earth, etc.
Here’s the problem, Doug. Humanity is either a matter of functionality or ontology. In other words, what makes us human is either something that we are (ontology) or something that we do (functionality). By your words, you seem to believe that humanity is a matter of functionality.
The chief problems with a functional view of humanity are twofold:
1. Where do you draw the line between human and non-human? Why?
2. If functionality makes us human, then having more functionality should make us more human. In other words, a functional view of humanity is incompatible with a belief in basic equality.
As an example of these two problems, let’s take one popular argument for a functional view of humanity: mental capacity. According to this view, unborn children aren’t human because they don’t have the same level of mental development that born people have. They are “insensate,” “mindless,” or what have you. Therefore, they aren’t human.
But wait, where do you draw the line? An unborn child in the later phases of pregnancy may well have the same level of mental development as a born preemie. Frankly, most newborns don’t display any great mental powers. Why is it acceptable to snuff out a late-term fetus, but infanticide is not cool? (Obama gains points for consistency here, even as he demonstrates his lack of conscience.) And what about people with profound mental disabilities? If we can prove that they don’t meet our qualifications, may we kill them too?
The mental-development argument for a functional view of humanity is even more troubling when considered in the light of equality. If mental development makes us human, then those people who are more intelligent should have more rights than others. Ben Stein’s vote should count for more than Ben Affleck’s vote. ;)
In contrast, pro-lifers hold an ontological view of humanity. In other words, we believe that our humanity is a part of our existence. Most of us link humanity to human DNA. If your DNA is human, then you are human. Functional differences don’t matter, because humanity is wired into our very genetic code.
okay, okay,now i know who you are talking about!
thanks carla! :)
You are very welcome, becky!
oh my God, this guy is still practicing medicine (is that what you call it?). i thought this guy would have lost his license by now!
Battles over abortion rights can often seem Orwellian, but never more so than in the competition for the Catholic vote in this presidential election….
It’s Pelosi and Biden, using Orwellian doublespeak to get Catholics to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.
The NYT article after Jill’s oh so convenient ellipsis:
“I’m a mother of three children and I am pro-life,” the commercial’s narrator says. “John McCain, it’s not enough to say you’re pro-life. Actions speak louder than words. You voted against one of the largest support programs for pregnant women. You voted against health care for our children. And you voted for a war that has killed thousands of Americans. Senator McCain, when will you start defending all human life, without exception?”
Matthew 25, a new liberal Christian political action committee, is running a series of radio commercials across the Midwest featuring Doug Kmiec, a Catholic legal scholar and former Reagan administration official arguing that Senator Barack Obama’s agenda would be more consonant with the totality of church teachings about the dignity of life.
And a three-year-old grass roots group Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, with an annual budget of about $2 million, has dispatched six paid organizers to spread a similar message and distribute a voter guide that contrasts the candidates on a series of “life” issues, including abortion, war and health care. The Alliance’s sponsors include the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, the Franciscan Mission Service, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, and the Maryknoll and Sisters of Mercy nuns.
Now that’s Orwellian – just ignore that which doesn’t support your position. In reality, it seems like there are a lot of REAL, thinking Catholics that support Obama. My respect for Catholicism has just risen, and for Jill Stanek…
The more serious problem for Joe Biden at this point is not the loss of his credibility as a Catholic, but as a person of conscience. When you say on national television that you agree with your Church that abortion is murder, but that you intend to support legislation that keeps abortion fully available, you leave voters wondering why you would support a right to what you consider to be murder.
Biden blew it.
phylo;
Cardinal George does not call out Catholics in Alliance by name, but he has previously banned their deceptive material from parishes in his diocese.
“The unborn child, who is alive and is a member of the human family, cannot defend himself or herself. Good law defends the defenseless. Our present laws permit unborn children to be privately killed. Laws that place unborn children outside the protection of law destroy both the children killed and the common good, which is the controlling principle of Catholic social teaching. One cannot favor the legal status quo on abortion and also be working for the common good.”
The tactics employed by Catholics in Alliance are not surprising given their birth from within the Democratic Party and strong ties to pro-choice Catholic politicians.
Executive Director and Co-founder of Catholics in Alliance, Alexia Kelley, served as religious outreach coordinator for John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign.
From what I’ve read by Phylosopher, including his last comment (9:34 a.m.), I wouldn’t want his respect. I’d consider myself on dangerous ground if I had his respect.
Doug,
As one “clump of cells” to another, don’t you think it’s terrible how we are discriminated against by those other “clumps of cells”?
Here’s the problem with the false moral equivalence that pro-choice Catholics & the Religious Left want to assert:
People of good moral character can disagree about how we should best help the poor, protect our country from those who want to harm us, or care for the sick.
People of good moral character cannot disagree about whether or not we should affirm the killing of innocent children.
It is absolutely true that Jesus told us to care for the poor, the sick, orphans, and widows. In fact, all of Scripture — Old Testament & New — speaks with a united voice on the necessity of caring for these marginalized groups of people. However, God does not tell us how to do it. Liberals want big honkin’ government bureaucracies to care for them. Conservatives think that government screws up nearly everything it does, so we want private charities and/or local governments to help those who need it. I have an opinion about which alternative is better (of course), but I can recognize that there is legitimate ground for Christians on both sides.
The same point is true for war. All Christians should hate war, but Scripture is also clear that there is a legitimate set of circumstances under which the State can use deadly force. Did the Iraq War meet that standard? Maybe, maybe not. Again, there is room for disagreement among Christians on this topic.
There is no legitimate reason for a Christian to support the killing of innocent children. A Christian who remains ignorant of the unborn child’s true status — who believes the “clump of cells” nonsense — could maintain a pro-choice position out of ignorance. However, once he or she comes into possession of the facts, then the case should be clear. Scripture never condones the deliberate shedding of innocent blood. An informed Christian must be pro-life.
Well Naamaan,
you’ve misrepresented Obama’s argument yet again. There are restrictions on late term abortions – and they are done primarily to save the life or health of the mother -or in the case of a non-viable fetus – some parents want to spend a precious few minutes with a living child, not a corpse.
And Obama has said that he would support restrictions on late term abortions. with the exceptions above.
Naamaan , why must you lie so much?
And to further call you out on the lies – both Ms. Jessen’s and Jill’s:
From an interview in RelevantMagazine.com
Strang: Based on emails we received, another issue of deep importance to our readers is a candidate’s stance on abortion. We largely know your platform, but there seems to be some real confusion about your position on third-trimester and partial-birth abortions. Can you clarify your stance for us?
Obama: I absolutely can, so please don’t believe the emails. I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.
The other email rumor that’s been floating around is that somehow I’m unwilling to see doctors offer life-saving care to children who were born as a result of an induced abortion. That’s just false. There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the “Born Alive” bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill. The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn’t think it was going to pass constitutional muster.
Ever since that time, emails have been sent out suggesting that, somehow, I would be in favor of letting an infant die in a hospital because of this particular vote. That’s not a fair characterization, and that’s not an honest characterization. It defies common sense to think that a hospital wouldn’t provide life-saving treatment to an infant that was alive and had a chance of survival.
From what I’ve read by Phylosopher, including his last comment (9:34 a.m.), I wouldn’t want his respect. I’d consider myself on dangerous ground if I had his respect.
Posted by: Jon at September 18, 2008 10:10 AM
No worries for you there, Jon.
(responding in kind) Naamaan whined: “But wait, where do you draw the line? An unborn child in the later phases of pregnancy may well have the same level of mental development as a born preemie. Frankly, most newborns don’t display any great mental powers. Why is it acceptable to snuff out a late-term fetus, but infanticide is not cool? (Obama gains points for consistency here, even as he demonstrates his lack of conscience.) And what about people with profound mental disabilities? If we can prove that they don’t meet our qualifications, may we kill them too?”
AS always, Naamaan – you don’t understand the issue. Later stage abortion are regulated. and Obama supports that regulation.
So your point was?
phylo:
After all this time you still believe Obama its telling the truth about his voting record?
Phyl:
Doe v Bolton blew away all possibility of reasonable restrictions on late-term abortions. The “health” exception is so broad that nearly any reason can qualify. And if there’s no obvious choice, a woman can always claim that the pregnancy would threaten her emotional health, and who can say that it doesn’t?
Obama can claim to support restrictions on late-term abortions, but they’d never survive without a change in the Court. And Obama has promised to oppose that sort of change. Do you really think that Obama would appoint judges who would actually restrict abortion? So any “support” that he’s offered is merely a sham.
I don’t lie. I’m merely better-informed than you.
NO, Naamaan
You and Janet are merely fixated in your belief that Dems are bad and Rethugs are good.
Can’t you read Naamaan?
Obama stated: “Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.”
There will be a change on SCOTUS – and I would trust Obama much more to appoint a thinking individual who can understand nuance and carefully craft a just law than I would someone who chooses as a VP someone who appointed people to positions because she sat at the same cafeteria table with them in high school – or worse yet that person herself.
You argument is based on the concept of a member of SCOTUS being so hidebound by ideology that no argument or considerations of justice will sway them…which come to think of it, is the Rethuglican view of what a judge should be. Better-informed – no. Better indoctrinated – yep, you win.
Phyl:
I see that you brought up Obama’s claim that he opposed the bill because another law was in place and because the bill was a threat to Roe.
The bill was not a threat to Roe in that it provided a specific point to protect abortion rights.
The previous law in place had loop holes and if I remember correctly was not upheld by a judge prior to the bill Obama voted against. Regardless, what would be the harm in voting for a bill that specifically helped these children?
Doug,
Offspring is defined as the progeny of a person. Progeny is defined as derived from another. Clearly a zygote is a child because it is an offspring which is defined as the progeny of person, which means it is derived from a person. You are spliting hairs, I can do the same. We know that on definition of child is the result of two parents combining DNA. Whether or not you think that combination of DNA deserves rights is another argument.
Tina: “It is a known fact that the Republican Party consists of a perspective that does not feel obligated to help the poor— Look at the policies for Medicaid, public housing asssitance.. any type of assistance with the poor.
Yes.. their are alot of charitable rich Republicans, but until our government can decide it actually is the country’s responsiblity to help people..well.. You are at a loss.. ”
Who says it is the country’s responsibility to help people? You claim so wildly that we arent poor minorities. I will say that I am not a minority, but I have lived several years under the poverty line. I didnt complain to anyone that they needed to “help me.” I did receive Pell grants and other assistance, but I did not by ANY means feel it was obligated to me. This is the lazy attitude that is destroying our country.
When I worked my manual labor job I saw people who needed work come in and quit because it was “too hard.” We hired 5 people every week, but people kept quiting. I am not saying that UPS is a perfect sampling of the every day “poor” person, but I do know that very few people there were willing to work for their money. I made 1300 a month working there, married and with a baby. It was hard. I wont lie, there were times when we couldnt afford to pay bills or buy groceries. I didnt blame anyone else for it though. I am sick of hearing people blame the government because they dont have money. The government screwed up bad with the Fannie Mae/etc situation, dont get me wrong. However the government doesnt “owe” us a free check because were “poor.” America is about pulling yourself up from your bootstraps. The government is there to back you up in case all else fails, but it isnt there to scratch your back and rub your feet.
Phylo,
NO, Naamaan
You and Janet are merely fixated in your belief that Dems are bad and Rethugs are good.
No, not all Dems. I’m talking specifically about Obamalama.
“The government is there to back you up in case all else fails, but it isnt there to scratch your back and rub your feet.”
No one is saying anything different than that.
Doug,
To equivocate about the meaning of the word “child” as a means to justify abortion is in itself inexcusable. To be dishonest in doing so is beyond human decency.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Main Entry: child 1 : an unborn or recently born person http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/child
MSN Encarta Dictionary: child [ (plural chil·dren noun 5. unborn baby
http://dictionary.msn.com/
Information Please: child -n., 8. a human fetus. http://www.infoplease.com/
American Heritage Dictionary: Child: 2. a. An unborn infant; a fetus. IDIOMS: with child Pregnant. http://www.bartleby.com/61/
Wordsmyth: The educational dictionary: Phrases: with child http://www.wordsmyth.net
Webster’s Revised Unabriged Dictionary: Child: To be with child, to be pregnant. — the immediate progeny of human parents http://humanities.uchicago.edu/forms_unrest/webster.form.html
Here’s a little something I think we can all enjoy!
http://www.peteyandpetunia.com/VoteHere/VoteHere.htm
Oh, my link didn’t work. I’m using a MAC now. Anyone know how to link with one? I’ve never used one before.
Oh well, copy and paste, you won’t be sorry!
Doug,
To equivocate about the meaning of the word “child” as a means to justify abortion is in itself inexcusable. To be dishonest in doing so is beyond human decency.”
I don’t agree. A fetus at two weeks may be “human” but it’s dishonest to use the word “child.”
Hal,
Not according to the dictionary. Look at what he posted. Child is justifiably defined as a fetus in several definitions. You may think that is not correct, but to call it dishonest is incredibly mistaken.
Kristen,
Just be sure to include the part ahead of “www.” when you copy and paste the web address. This should work. Funny!
http://www.peteyandpetunia.com/VoteHere/VoteHere.htm
Hey Hal,
You wrote:
A fetus at two weeks may be “human” but it’s dishonest to use the word “child.”
May be human? If the fetus in a pregnant woman’s uterus is not ‘human’, then to what species does the fetus belong?
Just ask any pregnant woman to describe the contents of her womb and see how many use the clinical term embryo or fetus.
Only a pregnant woman considering an abortion would call her child, her baby, an embryo or a fetus.
Ask any woman or man who have lost a prenatal child through spontaneous miscariage if the embryo/fetus was human and/or a child.
Ask your own mom if she ever referred to you as an embryo or fetus while you were still in utero.
The use of the term zygote, embyo, and fetus with out identifying the species is a calculated attempt to de-humanize the intended victim.
Now some people may do so without thinking, but the persons who willfully and skillfully promulgate this propaganda do so with premeditated intent. It is manipulation and deception.
Posted by: Janet at September 18, 2008 5:20 PM
Thanks Janet! I didn’t even notice that. I can’t get used to the copy/paste on a MAC.
“If you merely mean having human DNA, for example, then no, that’s not the issue. “Fully human” can imply more than that though; it can include things which develop later on, after conception, things which make us more than just one species on earth, etc.”
Naaman: Here’s the problem, Doug. Humanity is either a matter of functionality or ontology. In other words, what makes us human is either something that we are (ontology) or something that we do (functionality). By your words, you seem to believe that humanity is a matter of functionality.
I certainly see both sides, and was noting that the usage of “humanity” etc., can have different meanings. “Having humanity” often implies much more than merely having human DNA.
Yes, the unborn are often not sensate, and “mindless” as you mentioned that view being on the part of some people, but of course I don’t say the unborn are “not human,” per se.
…..
Frankly, most newborns don’t display any great mental powers. Why is it acceptable to snuff out a late-term fetus, but infanticide is not cool?
Depends on what you mean by “late-term.” There’s not much support for third-trimester elective abortions, in the first place. There’s even less for killing born infants, and then the fact of being inside the body of a person is no longer an issue.
I certainly hear you on the differences between genetic DNA and a “functional” view, and for most people there’s a cognizance of that difference and also the difference between the usages – ontological or functional, as you mentioned.
Doug, As one “clump of cells” to another, don’t you think it’s terrible how we are discriminated against by those other “clumps of cells”?
Ha! Doyle, we indeed all are “clumps” like that, in one way of looking at it.
Seriously, is the world “terrible”? We simply make distinctions of all sorts; we’re “discriminators” from the get-go.
I grant you there is much suffering in the world, but would we “wish it all away”?
Doe v Bolton blew away all possibility of reasonable restrictions on late-term abortions. The “health” exception is so broad that nearly any reason can qualify. And if there’s no obvious choice, a woman can always claim that the pregnancy would threaten her emotional health, and who can say that it doesn’t?
Naaman, the fact remains that among all abortions, third-trimester or post-viability abortions are very rare in the first place, and of those, the ones you’d point to as violating the spirit of the health exception are quite a bit rarer yet – you’d be talking about 50 or 100 or 200, something like that.
We’re down to 1 in 10,000 cases or something similar there (not far from the risk of women dying from continuing pregnancies and giving birth, by the way).
So, even if we agree that the system isn’t perfect and that some abortions likely do violate the spirit of the state restrictions (if they occur in a state with restrictions), in no way is it much of the abortion debate at all.
Oliver: Offspring is defined as the progeny of a person.
Oliver, well, sort of. From the Old English, “those who spring off someone.” Well, that’s gonna be at birth.
…..
Progeny is defined as derived from another.
Heh – it’s hardly as simple as that. The very first definition for “progeny” at dictionary.com is “one born of,” and born babies are certainly “derived from” their parents, but in no way does it necessarily work in reverse, i.e. not all that is derived from the parents will be deemed a “child” or even “progeny.”
…..
Clearly a zygote is a child because it is an offspring which is defined as the progeny of person, which means it is derived from a person.
No, there is no “clearly” as far as it either being a child or not being a child, because it’s subjective. Going with the primary definitions and the ones that make basic sense, i.e. “offspring” has already sprung off, etc., the case for the unborn not being “children” is at least as strong as the opposing argument.
…..
You are spliting hairs, I can do the same.
You’re doing a good bit of reaching, but I didn’t even do that, and I didn’t split hairs at all. Hey, it can be either way – it’s in the eye of the beholder, it’s up to the one using the term – subjective all the way. That’s all I said, and that’s true.
…..
We know that one definition of child is the result of two parents combining DNA. Whether or not you think that combination of DNA deserves rights is another argument.
Yes, rights are another argument, but while “the result of two parents’ combined DNA” is necessary for “child” to apply (at least in the biological sense we’re talking about), it by itself is not sufficient. “Necessary but not sufficient” – good concept.
Doug, To equivocate about the meaning of the word “child” as a means to justify abortion is in itself inexcusable. To be dishonest in doing so is beyond human decency.
Doyle, I wasn’t trying to justify anything, just pointing out that child/not child is a subjective thing, prior to birth, anyway. and not any meaningful part of the abortion debate. Yet we see it all the time – same for “baby/not baby.”
It’s a waste of time. It’s not a meaningful argument to state “it’s a baby/child” any more than it is to state “it’s not a baby/child.” Terminology is one thing, but the abortion debate is about our valuations and desires, etc., not really about what one’s preferred terms are.
And sure, one can say “with child” for “pregnant,” but at the same time one could say “she’s going to have a child.” Just our wacky language.
FWIW “unborn baby” is fine with me, but there too the abortion debate remains, not really touched.
http://www.peteyandpetunia.com/VoteHere/VoteHere.htm
Kristen, love it.
I saw a hilarious “Hillary and Sarah Palin” today, from SNL, and Tina Fey was BORN to play Palin!
Link to follow.
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/palin-hillary-open/656281/
Hal: I don’t agree. A fetus at two weeks may be “human” but it’s dishonest to use the word “child.”
Oliver: Hal, not according to the dictionary. Look at what he posted. Child is justifiably defined as a fetus in several definitions. You may think that is not correct, but to call it dishonest is incredibly mistaken.
The dishonesty is pretending that it has to be one way or the other. Again – there is as much or more support in dictionaries for “child” being after birth only versus as being before and after.
There is no one “correct” way – and the definitions display that – it certainly can be prior to birth and it certainly can be only after birth.
Dictionaries are descriptive – they show the way words get used, and as far as “child” it can be either way. They’re not prescriptive, and just because a secondary definition may appear to be in line with one’s viewpoint in no way means that the viewpoint is in any way necessarily correct or even as prevalent as an opposing viewpoint.
Doug: “Yes, rights are another argument, but while “the result of two parents’ combined DNA” is necessary for “child” to apply (at least in the biological sense we’re talking about), it by itself is not sufficient. “Necessary but not sufficient” – good concept.”
It is clearly sufficient. If something meets the definition, even one definition, of a word, it can be defined by that word. At the very minimum a fetus meets one of the definitions of child, therefore it is clearly a child.
You are supposing that a word must meet EVERY definition in order to be sucessfully defined by that word. Lets take an example.
Foil.
It is defined as both a type of sword and character response in literature. So does it mean that a “foil” must be both? Of course not. That is absurd. The same logic applies to the word child. At the minimum a fetus is defined in one sense as child. You can also continue to extrapolate from the other definitions to apply to the zygote/etc. Remember that word only need meet one definition, or else a word must meet all the definitions or some arbitrary number of definitions.
Your definition of offspring is limiting as well. You claim it means “to be sprung off of,” and only “to be sprung off of.” Even if we take this as the only definition, you could successfully argue that a zygote has sprung off from the parent when it becomes a different piece of human DNA. There is a period of time prior to implantation where the “clump of cells” is free floating so to speak within the space of the mother without being attached necessarily. It is “sprung off.”
If anything you are confusion sufficient factors for necessary ones. You claim that meeting one definition is not sufficient but only necessary. It is in fact the reverse, otherwise most words pose paradoxes that cannot be resolved in reality, such as foil.
But of course, you know what a child is. It is human being that is the result of two parent’s combining their DNA. This is the common sense definition, whether or not you want to ascribe rights to a child.
You are right Doug. I dont like the definition of foil that says it is a sword. So if someone refers to a certain kind of skinny sword as a foil, I will just tell them that “hey…it could also be tin foil buddy. Dont confuse the issue here.”
You are using seriously flawed logic to support your “gut” feeling that the word child does not apply to a preborn. Unfortunately you are proven wrong by several dictionaries. Instead of just admiting it, you say “well I mean, I could just disagree with one definition of course.”
Well I dont think child refers to infants either, I think child only refers to something that is strongly influenced by another.
By the way, Merriam-Webster defines offspring as “the product of the reproductive processes of an animal or plant.”
But then again, screw the dictionary if it conflicts with Doug’s definition!
” a murderer is NOT innocent”
Just curious:
what is your definition of innocent?
If a person found out that their neighbor killed someone, and killed him, would you condemn his/her action?
from Sept. 18 LifeSiteNews: “Pro-Abortion Senator Admits Pregnant Women Carry Children”
“At one point during the meeting, Boxer said, in reference to pregnant women, ‘You can talk about it any way you want, but she’s carrying a child.’ A second time she said, ‘I would just like to state the obvious. When a woman is pregnant, and I was, you’re carrying a child and if you protect the pregnant woman, you’re protecting that whole entire pregnancy.’
Boxer’s comments recognizing the presence of a child and not a mere fetus in the mother’s womb stand in marked contrast to earlier discussions in which she vehemently refused to acknowledge the personhood of a preborn baby.”
Doug
Doug: “Yes, rights are another argument, but while “the result of two parents’ combined DNA” is necessary for “child” to apply (at least in the biological sense we’re talking about), it by itself is not sufficient. “Necessary but not sufficient” – good concept.”
Oliver: It is clearly sufficient. If something meets the definition, even one definition, of a word, it can be defined by that word. At the very minimum a fetus meets one of the definitions of child, therefore it is clearly a child.
You are supposing that a word must meet EVERY definition in order to be sucessfully defined by that word.
Oliver, no, I’m not saying that. I’m saying there is at least as much support in dictionaries for limiting “child” to being after birth as there is for including the unborn.
Yes, some people do consider the fetus to be a “child.” And yes, the word can be used that way. It also can be used to mean only born human beings up to a certain age, and that’s just as correct if not more.
It’s just a subjective deal. Even after birth – when there’s no disagreement about whether “child” and “baby” apply, when do those terms stop being reasonable? Where do we draw the line for saying, “baby no longer” and “child no longer”? It’s a subjective thing.
…..
I am always the child of my parents, even as an adult. And my little sister will always be the baby of the family.
You are right Doug. I dont like the definition of foil that says it is a sword. So if someone refers to a certain kind of skinny sword as a foil, I will just tell them that “hey…it could also be tin foil buddy. Dont confuse the issue here.”
That’s not the argument, though, Oliver.
“Foil” as a type of rapier, or a thin sheet of metal, etc., and zygote-embryo-fetus are much more defined and classified. “Fetus,” for example, is medically and biologically correct. Subjective things like “child” and “baby” are not that way.
…..
You are using seriously flawed logic to support your “gut” feeling that the word child does not apply to a preborn. Unfortunately you are proven wrong by several dictionaries. Instead of just admiting it, you say “well I mean, I could just disagree with one definition of course.”
Nope, didn’t say “does not apply.” The point is that it can apply, or not – it’s up to whoever is using the term. It’s in the eye of the beholder. It’s not a matter of science or biology, etc., as with “fetus” etc.
If my gut feeling is part of this, then it’d be that “offspring” obviously came from being born, and that originally it was the literal “springing-off” that occurs at birth.
By the way, Merriam-Webster defines offspring as “the product of the reproductive processes of an animal or plant.”
And there’s nothing there that directly says or implies “before birth.” If we say that children are born (for the sake of argument), then the “product of the reproductinve processes” is plenty well satisfied.
I grant you that language can change over time, but at most there’s the connection that goes something like this – “offspring means children, and some people think that the unborn are children.” From that, can we actually logically say that the unborn are “offspring”? At the least, I’d say it’s “facts not in evidence” or using a premise that’s not agreed to – that the unborn are “children.”
My favorite example of language changing is with “moot.” It’s come to mean something of no practical significance or relevance, something not worth worrying about or disussing.
Yet it also means “open to discussion or debate,” and a “moot” used to be a discussion, debate, argument, etc.
Maybe I shouldn’t argue. Maybe the word child has a subjective use depending on its context. What’s your point, Doug? Do you truly believe that a woman has the authority to kill the fetus that she and her husband have begun together? Do you believe that she has the authority to kill the fetus? Why does she have this authority? Why does only she have this authority? Why can she only kill her fetus and not her infant? On what do you base your morality? Or is it, in fact, immorality? What is your religion? Perhaps you’ve said before, but I don’t remember.
I am always the child of my parents, even as an adult. And my little sister will always be the baby of the family.
Jon, I hear ya, and I was thinking along those lines too. Yes, you’re always going to be the child of your mom & dad, but at some stage didn’t you also stop being a child? And your sister really isn’t a baby anymore, is she? Different usages of the words.
correction to my comment 12:10: Do you truly believe that a woman has the authority to kill the fetus that she and her husband have begun together? Do you believe that she has the authority to kill her illegitimate fetus?
Maybe I shouldn’t argue.
No, Jon, you should.
…..
Maybe the word child has a subjective use depending on its context.
Sometimes, sometimes not. You’re always your parents’ child (not subjective). At some point you stopped being a child, though. There’s the subjective part – just when was that? Same as for when you started being one.
…..
What’s your point, Doug?
That “child” does not necessarily apply in this argument, as I first said in this thread. It may be used by some, but it’s not a meaningful argument here to state “is a child” or “is not a child.”
…..
Do you truly believe that a woman has the authority to kill the fetus that she and her husband have begun together? Do you believe that she has the authority to kill the fetus? Why does she have this authority? Why does only she have this authority?
I believe it is right that the woman has that authority, to a point in gestation. It’s in her body, not in her husband’s body, thus she’s the one, not he nor is anybody else.
…..
Why can she only kill her fetus and not her infant?
Because that “can” you mention comes from society’s dictates, and society says that birth means rights are there. I’m fine with the restrictions most states have on post-viability abortions, and after birth it’s not a matter of the baby being inside the body of the woman, so what argument could be put forth to the effect that she should be allowed to legally kill the born infant? In my opinion there’s nothing close to the argument re bodily autonomy when the woman is pregnant.
There’s nothing that says it *has* to be that way, either. The law could be different, and I’m not saying it’s impossible that personhood would be attributed to the unborn. Very unlikely, IMO, but not impossible.
…..
On what do you base your morality?
For the abortion argument, it’s a case of weighing the desire for the unborn life to continue versus the desire for the woman to be able to decide for herself. I would rather see women keep the freedom they have, rather than abortion be banned or restricted prior to viability.
I know there are abortions and miscarriages every day. Some are very sad situations. Some women who have abortions make the wrong choice, and they end up regretting it, on balance. I don’t see this as nearly a good enough reason to take away women’s freedom in the matter.
I don’t think that we, as a society, have to have every pregnancy conntinued, especially against the will of the pregnant woman. I see the suffering that would result from banning abortion, for example, as greater than what exists now with legal abortion as we have it.
…..
What is your religion? Perhaps you’ve said before, but I don’t remember.
I’m agnostic, Jon. I don’t know if there are sentient, self-aware gods or not, or “a God,” or if there are any “higher” beings than us earthly humans in the first place. And of course I also see that it cannot be proven that there aren’t any.
Do you believe that she has the authority to kill her illegitimate fetus?
Jon, I’m not really sure what you mean, there. To me, the parents being married or not doesn’t matter here – either way I’m for the woman being allowed to end the pregnancy to viability.
Other than that, what, if anything, do you mean by “illegitimate”?
In general, I’m not saying that “abortion is good.” On its own, I’d rather see pregnancies continued rather than ended. I think it’s better to have legal abortion, though, rather than forbid the woman an abortion when she wants one.
Practically, you don’t believe in God, Doug. You don’t believe in the God of the Bible. He has made clear that human life is special from start to finish. If you truly don’t know, then you would be hesitant about offending Him. I don’t believe that you have seriously considered Pascal’s wager, either.
As an agnostic, you have nothing on which to base your morality. As a secular humanist, you base it on “society’s dictates,” which change from generation to generation. Your morality is really quite amoral because right and wrong are not objective. You can only observe; you can’t prescribe. After all, prolifers are increasingly an influential part of society and helping to set its dictates.
Doug said, “I believe it is right that the woman has that authority [to kill her fetus], to a point in gestation. It’s in her body, not in her husband’s body, thus she’s the one, not he nor is anybody else.”
So, what? The fetus is in her body, but he put it there. The egg is nothing until the sperm enters it. Conception happened upon his initiative. He should have greater ownership. She merely acted in obedience. She received and obediently responds. And when the fetus becomes an infant, she gives it back to him, to be given his name (at least traditionally, for the greater part of society’s dictates in the history of the world).
Do you believe that she has the authority to kill her illegitimate fetus?
I can quickly explain, Doug. I wanted to say illegitimate child, but wanted to avoid using the word child since you don’t seem to like its application to a human embryo or a human fetus. I’m sure you are acquainted with the concept of the illegimate child or bastard. It’s a word that has its basis not only in Christian morality but in the morality of many societies that recognize the institution of marriage.
Practically, you don’t believe in God, Doug. You don’t believe in the God of the Bible. He has made clear that human life is special from start to finish. If you truly don’t know, then you would be hesitant about offending Him. I don’t believe that you have seriously considered Pascal’s wager, either.
Heh, Jon – you’re the one who hasn’t considered Pascal’s Wager. The fallacies are easy to spot.
Actually, the Bible is silent on abortion. Any all-knowing God realizes just how many miscarriages and abortions occur. The biblical God was not for every unborn life continuing, and there is nothing that logically says that any all-knowing, all-powerful God would want every pregnancy to necessarily be continued now, especially if it would be against the will of the pregnant woman.
…..
As an agnostic, you have nothing on which to base your morality.
Wrong – I base it on my desires, just as you do, regardless of what you might ascribe it to.
…..
As a secular humanist, you base it on “society’s dictates,” which change from generation to generation.
Wrong again – maybe I agree with society’s position on a thing, maybe I don’t.
…..
Doug said, “I believe it is right that the woman has that authority [to kill her fetus], to a point in gestation. It’s in her body, not in her husband’s body, thus she’s the one, not he nor is anybody else.”
So, what? The fetus is in her body, but he put it there. The egg is nothing until the sperm enters it. Conception happened upon his initiative. He should have greater ownership. She merely acted in obedience. She received and obediently responds. And when the fetus becomes an infant, she gives it back to him, to be given his name (at least traditionally, for the greater part of society’s dictates in the history of the world).
“Greater” ownership? “She received and obediently responds.” Holy Mackeral, Andy!
Seriously, it’s in her body, so she gets the say. If it was in his body, he’d get the say.
Do you believe that she has the authority to kill her illegitimate fetus?
I can quickly explain, Doug. I wanted to say illegitimate child, but wanted to avoid using the word child since you don’t seem to like its application to a human embryo or a human fetus.
:: laughing :: No problem, Jon, and please – feel free to say “unborn child” if you want. For my part, I think “unborn baby” is fine – yes, there’s a similar argument as with “child” but it’s well-understood, regardless.
…..
I’m sure you are acquainted with the concept of the illegimate child or bastard. It’s a word that has its basis not only in Christian morality but in the morality of many societies that recognize the institution of marriage.
Yeah, mos’ def.’
Anyway, to me it doesn’t matter whether she was married or not, is married or not, here – to viability I say it should be up to her.
I should add that the reason that I brought the illegitimate child into the picture was that he is part of the picture, especially in contemporary America. My preceding question was, “Do you truly believe that a woman has the authority to kill the fetus that she and her husband have begun together?” Of course, you can argue that she may not have begun the fetus with her husband. But she was supposed to only submit to her husband, so the fetus is illegitimate. She and the father sinned.
Christian morality presupposes planned parenthood: there is a wedding, marking the beginning of a marriage between the groom and bride. They may sleep together, and when they frequently do so, they normally beget children. Marriage and the family was God’s plan.
http://www.tvparty.com/vault3/flintbig2.ram
Barney and Fred have a smoke.
Wrong – I base it on my desires, just as you do, regardless of what you might ascribe it to.
…..
Posted by: Doug at September 19, 2008 1:21 PM
The dude Doug, speaks and writes for Jon again.
Trapped inside his dogma, Doug, again twist and turns “your words” into “his words” and “your definitions” into “his definitions”.
Tell us Doug, is reason based on desire? And if it is, then what philosophy would that be ascribed to?
In the classic Western definition of desire, what is a person that fails to control desire, such as murder?
Do you stand by the truth of your statement that Jon bases his decisions/actions on desire?
The egg is nothing until the sperm enters it. Conception happened upon his initiative. He should have greater ownership. She merely acted in obedience. She received and obediently responds. And when the fetus becomes an infant, she gives it back to him, to be given his name
Woah. I’d say that ideally both the man and woman have equal initiative in fertilizing an egg, to begin. And I would say neither should have “greater” “ownership.” The interpretation of pregnancy as a woman obediently receiving and growing a baby until it’s ready to be “given back” to its “owner” is interesting to say the least, though.
above post by yllas
Any all-knowing God realizes just how many miscarriages and abortions occur.
Posted by: Doug at September 19, 2008
Who told you that Doug? Your father and mother, or yourself trying to use the mind of Clavin to square away his thoughts on God?
Doug, your comment 1:21 is inconsistent and unsubstantiated. You’re wrong on several points.
you’re the one who hasn’t considered Pascal’s Wager. The fallacies are easy to spot.
Pascal’s wager isn’t easy to refute, and from what I’ve just read on Wikipedia, it has never been soundly refuted.
Actually, the Bible is silent on abortion.
No, it isn’t. I’ve pointed out several if not many times on this site that the Bible is clear on the topic of abortion. It couldn’t be more clear. Genesis 9 is the key passage, and the sanctity of human life is all-encompassing, from conception to natural death. The Church through history has also been clear that induced abortion is wrong. You as a supposed agnostic should not pretend to know the Bible better than the Church; you’re just ignorant.
Any all-knowing God realizes just how many miscarriages and abortions occur. The biblical God was not for every unborn life continuing, and there is nothing that logically says that any all-knowing, all-powerful God would want every pregnancy to necessarily be continued now…
He’s God, Doug. He doesn’t just end the life of human feti, He also ends the lives of many infants, toddlers, boys and girls, teenagers, and adults. He has the authority to take human life.
there is nothing that logically says that any all-knowing, all-powerful God would want every pregnancy to necessarily be continued now, especially if it would be against the will of the pregnant woman.
Oh, yes, there is. Logically, God is God, not the pregnant woman. But feminism says that there is no God; the woman is God. God may decide to take human life; a woman may not.
I base [my morality] on my desires, just as you do, regardless of what you might ascribe it to.
I thought you were agnostic, Doug. You’re showing your real colours. As a true agnostic, you should say that I base my morality on what my God has said, whether or not He and His Word actually exist. He may exist.
As an agnostic, you can’t prescribe. You can only observe. You have no morality. A morality based on your own desires is no morality. Morality informs the conscience which limit desires and keeps them within bounds.
maybe I agree with society’s position on a thing, maybe I don’t.
But I had asked why a woman can kill her fetus. You replied that the “can” I mention comes from society’s dictates, and then said it didn’t have to be that way, either. You didn’t really answer my question, to give me the moral “can.” That’s because you can’t.
Seriously, it’s in her body, so she gets the say. If it was in his body, he’d get the say.
That’s not been the view of the majority of people through history, Doug. I already gave an alternate view. Your view agrees with the prevailing feminism of our dying civilization. As a secular humanist, you are agreeing with your contemporaries.
Hmmm… I didn’t mean to use your name in vain, Doug. I guess Yllas and I have the same tendency when we become riled. I’ll try to keep it in check. I can’t post anymore now, though.
Tell us Doug, when you were a little boy, being fed pre-destination, did you ever get paranoid that God knew your “thoughts in your head”, as you thought them?
Did God know your thoughts before you thought them? Before a chemical moved, and a electron made a chemical change in your mind, did God move your neurons into position so you may think a thought?
Oh well, thank God, that no one uses the old “God made be do it defence” anymore, as a aploogetic for their actions of desire in a court room.
“Wrong – I base it on my desires, just as you do, regardless of what you might ascribe it to.”
yllas: The dude Doug, speaks and writes for Jon again.
No, but it’s evident that what I said is true. Even if, for a thing at issue, we say, “God says so in the Bible…” then there is a thing we want or don’t want – again regardless of what we ascribe it to.
Any motivation can be traced to the desire behind it.
…..
Tell us Doug, is reason based on desire?
Depends on how you mean that. One answer is no, because we are self-aware, reasoning beings in the first place; it’s not a matter of desire, it’s not that without desire there could be no reasoning.
Or, it could be said that to an extent, within people is the desire for reason, the wish to reason things out, even if in a hypothetical way.
If you’re talking about specific processes, then I’d say that reason follows desire, i.e. that we begin with certain premises based on desire, and once those are set down, we can then reason away to our hearts content.
“Any all-knowing God realizes just how many miscarriages and abortions occur.”
yllas: Who told you that Doug?
Why pretend it’s in question? It’s self-evident.
…..
Your father and mother, or yourself trying to use the mind of Clavin to square away his thoughts on God?
:: laughing ::
You are so silly. (Seriously, it’s self-evident..)
However, since you mentioned the immortal Clavin….
“Women: If they’re not turning down your proposals for marriage, they’re accusing you of suspicious behavior in the women’s lingerie changing room.”
…..
Carla: ‘If the Brady Bunch crashes in the Andes who would they eat first?”
Woody: “Well probably the maid, ’cause she’s not kin.”
Cliff: “Yeah, but if they were smart they would ask her the best way to prepare herself.”
…..
“Well ya see, Norm, it’s like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That’s why you always feel smarter after a few beers.”
…..
Tell us Doug, when you were a little boy, being fed pre-destination, did you ever get paranoid that God knew your “thoughts in your head”, as you thought them?
yllas, nobody fed me pre-destination. The point is that if there is an all-knowing God (or and all-knowing anything) then we don’t have free will and are pre-destined. There is that which we conceive of as the future, and regardless of the nature of the entity that knows our future, if it is known in what we call the present then we can’t change it.
…..
Did God know your thoughts before you thought them? Before a chemical moved, and a electron made a chemical change in your mind, did God move your neurons into position so you may think a thought?
What proof of a god or gods do you see, in the first place?
…..
Oh well, thank God, that no one uses the old “God made be do it defence” anymore, as a aploogetic for their actions of desire in a court room.
Heh.
Someone fed you pre-destination Doug, who was it?
You didn’t think a thought without another person’s thought being a influence upon your thinking. Well, unless you were raised in a world of animals, such as dogs.
Did God know your thoughts before you thought them? Before a chemical moved, and a electron made a chemical change in your mind, did God move your neurons into position so you may think a thought?
What proof of a god or gods do you see, in the first place?
Your the one blathering about your version of God Dude. I have written nothing about God except to question your silly child version of God you had put in your head by someone.
Who did it, Dude? First, one reads the thoughts of another person, such as the bible, then one listens to the thoughts of another person, dude, then a person might watch the thoughts of another person by the magic of “cartoons”.
There is no self evidence of God to a child Dude Doug.
There is only pain and pleasure, which is self-evident Doug.
Tell us Doug, is reason based on desire? And if it is, then what philosophy would that be ascribed to?
In the classic Western definition of desire, what is a person that fails to control desire, such as murder?
Aw, half answers to two questions.
And if it is, then what philosophy would that be ascribed to?
Take a guess Doug, it’s a question that is testing your intelligence of Western philosophy.
Nake it Hume, or Hedonism, or Stocicism,Malthus, but let’s try and give some answer, dude.
When reason is a servant to desire, and bends reason to a desire being met, what word is ascribed to such a action? Come on Doug, you can write dude.
Jon, I didn’t see that you “used my name in vain.” Man – don’t even worry about it.
____
“you’re the one who hasn’t considered Pascal’s Wager. The fallacies are easy to spot.”
Pascal’s wager isn’t easy to refute, and from what I’ve just read on Wikipedia, it has never been soundly refuted.
Jon, it was based on some logical fallacies, as one person related them here:
Fallacy One: It assumes that there is only one god which can be believed in, the Christian one. This is not true, since there are a plethora of gods that have been believed throughout the millennia. This would have to be applied to each and every one of those gods to be true, and this would clearly be impossible, due to the clashing natures of many of the said gods.
Fallacy Two: It assumes that simply wagering on [the Christian] God will buy one entrance into Heaven. While this may be so, the Wager does not instill a belief, it instills an appearance of a belief. Since the god in question is presumed to be all-knowing, he would be able to tell a false from a true belief. Therefore, the belief from the Wager would not qualify should belief be the requirement for entrance into Heaven.
Fallacy Three: It creates a moral dilemma. You, by using this, are sending the most dedicated humanitarians, who just happen to not be Christian, to Hell, while you set a place in Heaven for those mass-murders who happen to be Christian. Since [the Christian] God is supposed to be a loving god, how then could he entertain the embodiment of hatred, yet turn away the embodiment of love?
Fallacy Four: It ignores too many alternate possibilities – some of which are addressed by existing religions, and some which are not. Some examples: A God could reward on criteria which seem meaningless to us – hair colour, taste in clothes, music etc. or A God might not be concerned with humans at all – the universe could be here for hydrogen for all we know. Or God may even reward those who don’t believe.
Fallacy Five: It assumes any person is overly fearful of death to be worried about it being a conclusion to their life.
Fallacy Six: It assumes that a belief in God is all that is needed, when many Christians would disagree and would suggest that there are “guidelines” that you should live by (and that God requires you to live by if your belief is sincere). If these guidelines require a change on your part (for example: No sex before marriage, no smoking, denying you are a homosexual, not marrying a non-Christian, etc.), then it could be argued that you have lost something if the Christian God turns out to not exist.
…..
“Actually, the Bible is silent on abortion.”
No, it isn’t. I’ve pointed out several if not many times on this site that the Bible is clear on the topic of abortion. It couldn’t be more clear. Genesis 9 is the key passage, and the sanctity of human life is all-encompassing, from conception to natural death. The Church through history has also been clear that induced abortion is wrong. You as a supposed agnostic should not pretend to know the Bible better than the Church; you’re just ignorant.
No, it’s just that you’re putting your own favored spin on things. I know the “be fruitful and multiply” deal, if that’s what you’re referring to, but it’s not unlimited – there would come a time when there’d be so many people on earth that we wouldn’t even be arguing about it. That passage is also not condemning abortion – a given person could still have plenty of kids after having an abortion – heck, they could have a lot more kids than some people who never had an abortion.
Given all the detailed laws and rules, etc., in the Mosaic law, it’s pretty hard to believe the writers of the Bible were against abortion and just somehow forgot to mention it.
……
“Any all-knowing God realizes just how many miscarriages and abortions occur. The biblical God was not for every unborn life continuing, and there is nothing that logically says that any all-knowing, all-powerful God would want every pregnancy to necessarily be continued now…”
He’s God, Doug. He doesn’t just end the life of human feti, He also ends the lives of many infants, toddlers, boys and girls, teenagers, and adults. He has the authority to take human life.
Okay, going with your belief that sure sounds right, but that doesn’t contradict what I said.
……
“there is nothing that logically says that any all-knowing, all-powerful God would want every pregnancy to necessarily be continued now, especially if it would be against the will of the pregnant woman.”
Oh, yes, there is. Logically, God is God, not the pregnant woman. But feminism says that there is no God; the woman is God. God may decide to take human life; a woman may not.
That still doesn’t speak to what I said. I disagree about feminism, but no biggie.
…..
“I base [my morality] on my desires, just as you do, regardless of what you might ascribe it to.”
I thought you were agnostic, Doug. You’re showing your real colours. As a true agnostic, you should say that I base my morality on what my God has said, whether or not He and His Word actually exist. He may exist.
It’s the same deal. “Whether or not He exists” is already covered by you believing the given thing (it’s a premise that you do). You are going with your belief, again – regardless of the existence or not of supernatural beings. Thus, though you certainly do ascribe some things to God, your desires determine things, (even as you see them being in line with what God wants).
…..
As an agnostic, you can’t prescribe. You can only observe. You have no morality. A morality based on your own desires is no morality. Morality informs the conscience which limit desires and keeps them within bounds.
I have morality just as you do. Ideas and ideals of what we want in the moral realm. Our beliefs as to what is good/bad/right/wrong there. Principles and standards that reflect those desires, again regardless of what we attribute them to.
…..
“maybe I agree with society’s position on a thing, maybe I don’t.”
But I had asked why a woman can kill her fetus. You replied that the “can” I mention comes from society’s dictates, and then said it didn’t have to be that way, either. You didn’t really answer my question, to give me the moral “can.” That’s because you can’t.
Sure I can, and I did. There are other entities you could ask about, if not society – you can have my own personal opinion, of course, the position of different groups, etc. – it will always be in the opinion of some entity. You certainly didn’t specify anything different from society.
That society says the woman can legally have an abortion to viability is what has you bummed with the situation here. What “can kill her fetus” beyond that are you asking about?
…..
“Seriously, it’s in her body, so she gets the say. If it was in his body, he’d get the say.”
That’s not been the view of the majority of people through history, Doug. I already gave an alternate view. Your view agrees with the prevailing feminism of our dying civilization. As a secular humanist, you are agreeing with your contemporaries.
I am agreeing with many contemporaries, sure. Your way sounds like the old “man owns the woman” deal, though, so I don’t think that’s too cool.
yllas: Your the one blathering about your version of God Dude.
No, the blathering is on your part. Jon and I have been having good conversation.
It’s not my version of God, it’s just being logical. Either we can alter the future or not, and if our future is already known to an entity in what we conceive of as the present then we can’t alter it.
It’s not a hard concept. It’s as easy as saying that an all-knowing god knows all the miscarriages and abortions that take place. You seemed like you wanted to question that, but it’s self-evident; if the entity knows everything, then he sho’ ’nuff knows that.
Tell us Doug, is reason based on desire? And if it is, then what philosophy would that be ascribed to?
Again, it depends on what you mean by “based.” Origin, or application, etc. As a race, we are “creatures of reason” to some extent, in the first place, just as we have desires. So, one is not necessarily “based” on the other. It can be said that reason follows desire, i.e. something has to supply some motivation.
Regardless of philosophy, motivation can be traced to desire. You can of course also say that frequently motivation can be traced to reason, but there’s still desire behind it then – there will be premises of what is wanted and unwanted.
…..
In the classic Western definition of desire, what is a person that fails to control desire, such as murder?
I don’t know whether you’re being deliberately obtuse or not. Maybe Jon is right and you’re just getting riled again. You do seem to be sliding downward into one of your childish, lame name-calling episodes.
Criminal? Sociopath? Hedonist? Sybarite? It could be said that they “fail to control” desire, but what is actually the case that some desires are winning out over others.
Among our available options, we do or try for that which we want the most, or that for which we have the least distaste.
I do believe that “Orwellian” in this context refers to advocacy of extreme government control as featured prominently in George Orwell’s book _1984_. I hardly think making abortion illegal once again to be equated to this, though. It’s hard to understand how not allowing the murder of babies,or anyone else for that matter, could be seen as controversial or overly controlling. Parts of the Patriot Act would be far more suspicious in this light than laws regulating abortion.
Among our available options, we do or try for that which we want the most, or that for which we have the least distaste.
Posted by: Doug at September 19, 2008
And that is classic Hume philosphy dude.
I’m going to feed it to you dude, it’s is considered a vice, a lack of reasoning, if desire makes reason a servant to want or pleasure. The reason for the sexual organs is reasoned to be for reproduction. Reason has no pleasure attached to it,since reason is only a thought/thinking, dude. But, since you think that desire is reason, then one understands your failure to know what vice is, or a lack of good,which a vice is, Dude. You really don’t know/did know, what the classic definition of vice is, did you Doug?
Vice is good. Pleasure is good, but it not the full good of a action.
Statement; Abortion is the final sexual act of the full goodness of sex.
There is no lack of good sex in abortion.
And dude, try as you might, making silly remarks about sex to me, reveals your lack of understanding of abortion.
You seemed like you wanted to question that, but it’s self-evident; if the entity knows everything, then he sho’ ’nuff knows that.
Posted by: Doug at September 19, 2008
Ya, I question that dude. It’s such simple thinking that makes me laugh at you dude.
You have has such a simple God of pre-destination, the self evidence of the all knowing God, that such a God is the final reason for all pre-thoughts,pre-born,pre- aborted, is poppycock. But, it does serve a pshychological purpose of making the final murderer, God and not you or me, or my thoughts even.
The dude we can blame and scapegoat are actions on, when we’re asked to give a reason for some desire to murder a innocent human being.
What a fantasy nightmare you must have had put in your head dude. Again, who did it dude? Who put such a nightmare God in your head dude? It had to be mommy and daddy first Doug.
Right, why not admit it dude?
Here Doug, Get some thinking and get that crap out o your head dude.
In the Second Book of The Republic, we find a brief but impressive remark about the relation of God and evil. Socrates is concerned about the poets, especially Homer, who picture the gods indulging in activities distinctly improper and indeed quite wrong. Socrates does not deny either the incidence of evil in the world or its attraction, but he does not want even to hint, as Homer does, that God causes or participates in evil. Socrates discusses this matter with Adeimantus. But by showing that God does not indulge in evil things, Socrates seems to limit the power of God, who, like Machiavelli’s Prince, should be able to do either good or evil, as suits His needs. Socrates, however, asks, “Then good does not cause all things; it is responsible for the things that are good; but not responsible for evil?” Adeimantus agrees to this distinction. Socrates adds, “Nor can God, since He is good, cause all things as most people say. He is responsible for a few things that happen to men, but for many he is not, for the good things we enjoy are much fewer than the evil. The former (good things) we must attribute to none else but God, but for the evil we must find some other causes, not God” (#379b-c). Such a passage surely provokes us to wonder about good and evil in their origins. On the one hand, the implied thesis, as indicated, seems to limit the power of God by denying Him causality over evil, while, on the other, it indicates that the cause of evil is not God or the good. Yet, it does not seem valid to maintain that God is “limited” if He does no evil. Rather He is freed to be good, with no taint of evil. But if the cause of evil is not directly God, it must be found to be properly located in what is not God, yet in what is capable of itself bearing responsibility. If evil were merely a necessity, it would seem, we should not be so infuriated by its very existence among us, if indeed it can properly be said to “exist.” The search for a proper “cause” of evil other than God, in any case, stands near the top of all philosophic inquiry about what is.
But, for Doug, who has such simple ideas from his mommy and daddy sticking a nigtmare God in his head, it’s better solved by being another, “sho’ enough” simple minded Calvinist, trapped with a God that murderers and pre-murders Adam and Eve, and all humanity.
This is fun, God is a murderer from the beginning, and the father of lies. Soo, who be da devil, dude? Now, here we get to Shiva/Kali and what Doug was really had pounded into his head by?????
Am I my brothers keeper? Sho’ nough, Doug ain’t, cause that brother is pre-destined to his fate of being exactly where God put him. If Doug owes anyone anything, it’s from his putting away such a nightmare God, and picking up Miss Manners to inform him of his actions worth. Afterall, doing good deeds meant nothing, then doing anything meant nothing to gettin’ some of that sho enogh heaven.
Really dude, your more formed as being raised as a product of a Eastern theoogical god, then some form of so called Christian.
above post from yllas.
“You seemed like you wanted to question that, but it’s self-evident; if the entity knows everything, then he sho’ ’nuff knows that.”
yllas: Ya, I question that dude. It’s such simple thinking that makes me laugh at you dude.
If you laugh at the truth, so be it. Yes, it really is simple, and not hard to understand.
…..
You have has such a simple God of pre-destination, the self evidence of the all knowing God, that such a God is the final reason for all pre-thoughts,pre-born,pre- aborted, is poppycock.
Again, you are getting incoherent, and not responding to what I’ve said, but to things you’ve conjured up yourself.
It is not “the self evidence of the all knowing God.” We are talking about a hypothetical here, there being no proof for gods in the first place.
Thus, there’s no “God is the final reason..” Causation is not even required for what I’ve said to be true. Just having an entity that knows everything is enough. If they know everything then they know of all the miscarriages and abortions that occur.
In the Second Book of The Republic, we find a brief but impressive remark about the relation of God and evil. Socrates is concerned about the poets, especially Homer, who picture the gods indulging in activities distinctly improper and indeed quite wrong. Socrates does not deny either the incidence of evil in the world or its attraction, but he does not want even to hint, as Homer does, that God causes or participates in evil. Socrates discusses this matter with Adeimantus. But by showing that God does not indulge in evil things, Socrates seems to limit the power of God, who, like Machiavelli’s Prince, should be able to do either good or evil, as suits His needs. Socrates, however, asks, “Then good does not cause all things; it is responsible for the things that are good; but not responsible for evil?” Adeimantus agrees to this distinction. Socrates adds, “Nor can God, since He is good, cause all things as most people say. He is responsible for a few things that happen to men, but for many he is not, for the good things we enjoy are much fewer than the evil. The former (good things) we must attribute to none else but God, but for the evil we must find some other causes, not God” (#379b-c). Such a passage surely provokes us to wonder about good and evil in their origins. On the one hand, the implied thesis, as indicated, seems to limit the power of God by denying Him causality over evil, while, on the other, it indicates that the cause of evil is not God or the good. Yet, it does not seem valid to maintain that God is “limited” if He does no evil. Rather He is freed to be good, with no taint of evil. But if the cause of evil is not directly God, it must be found to be properly located in what is not God, yet in what is capable of itself bearing responsibility. If evil were merely a necessity, it would seem, we should not be so infuriated by its very existence among us, if indeed it can properly be said to “exist.” The search for a proper “cause” of evil other than God, in any case, stands near the top of all philosophic inquiry about what is.
yllas, very interesting stuff. And nicely written, by the way.
To start out, I’d say there are going to be conflicting motivations in our world – not everybody’s gonna agree on some things, and thus we get some people saying “good” and some saying “bad.” One side will often see the other’s advocacies as “evil.”
Socrates had his opinions as to what is evil, and perhaps Homer did too there – if the “indeed quite wrong” was the way Homer portrayed things.
If Socrates wanted “one perfect God,” then isn’t that going to be a different thing from the gods Homer described, though?
I see no contradiction in the idea that an all-powerful God wouldn’t be the cause of all things, at least directly. Who knows – perhaps that God set things up to “run” and then sat back and saw what happened. God would not be “limited,” no – it’d be his own choice. The good/bad/right/wrong of the moral realm still exists in the eye of the beholder, though, and one could certainly say that both good and evil came from outside God at that point. The actions would not be the direct cause of that God, regardless of what one thought of them.
On evil being a “necessity,” it’s like what I asked Doyle – yes, there’s a lot of suffering in our world, and yes, there’s a lot of evil, pretty much no matter who you ask. But, do we “wish away the world” because of that? If one’s existence is too painful, then one seeks to end it. Wanting to do away with the world is more rare, IMO.
I would not say that evil is a “necessity” in that we “require” it. I think it’s just going to be there, period, because of the differences between us and the conflicts – somebody is always going to be bumming out over this or that, and saying that evil is present.
“Among our available options, we do or try for that which we want the most, or that for which we have the least distaste.”
yllas: And that is classic Hume philosphy dude.
Hume had some good things to say, but that’s not really “philosophy” but rather the source of our motivation. We can do things, we can say things, but there’s a “why” behind it. The desire behind actions is pretty darn clear, usually.
…..
I’m going to feed it to you dude, it’s is considered a vice, a lack of reasoning, if desire makes reason a servant to want or pleasure.
Well, reason does follow desire. It’s not a “vice,” it’s that without desire there would be no motivation, not even for the mental processes of reasoning. What is the point of anything, if there is no desire for it?
……
The reason for the sexual organs is reasoned to be for reproduction.
Yes, and for other things too. They need not be used for reproduction or anything else, however – it’s up to the individual within the limitations of their control.
…..
Reason has no pleasure attached to it, since reason is only a thought/thinking, dude.
No, that’s not true – often the process of reasoning itself is pleasurable, as with puzzles, logic problems, etc. And as far as human motivation, there is a desire at the outset, then one may reason how to achieve it, and thus a conclusion is reached about what is “good,” etc. – that which leads to the desired thing.
If, for example, you only want people to have sex for reproduction, then you’re going to think that is good, and other uses are bad.
…..
But, since you think that desire is reason, then one understands your failure to know what vice is, or a lack of good,which a vice is, Dude. You really don’t know/did know, what the classic definition of vice is, did you Doug?
I didn’t say that desire is reason – once again you’re making things up. Reason occurs pursuant to desire, desire for the process of reasoning itself, desire for given occurrences, etc. The “classic definition of vice” – hey, feel free to quote it. “Absence of virtue”? Something like that? I’d say vice is the pursuit of shorter-term desires when they are in conflict with longer-term desires. I may want to go get drunk, for example, but the conflict is my health, long-term, as well as the other things which may proceed from it, things I don’t want overall. This applies for other entities, too, groups, etc.
…..
Vice is good. Pleasure is good, but it not the full good of a action.
My point is that if a thing is really to be a “vice” then it’s not going to be seen as good in the long run.
…..
Statement; Abortion is the final sexual act of the full goodness of sex.
Your opinion. I don’t see abortion as a “sexual act,” really. The actions between the sexes is over at that point.
…..
There is no lack of good sex in abortion.
Either you don’t know that, or you’re really getting out into left field.
…..
And dude, try as you might, making silly remarks about sex to me, reveals your lack of understanding of abortion.
I understand abortion better than you do, and the “sex remarks” are what you’ve said, that lets people know you’ve got some real issues about sex.
Doug, you had commented on September 19, 2008 at 3:06 PM.
You agree with Pascal that God’s existence cannot be proved. Pascal’s Wager therefore applies to you as an agnostic. I think that you have misunderstood the intent of his wager:
“Voltaire, like many other critics, misunderstood the Wager. Pascal did not offer the wager as a proof. It is merely a conclusion to his arguments against certainty that relies on the notion that reason is untrustworthy and that discerning God’s actual existence appears to be ‘a coin toss.’ If reason can be trusted on the question of God’s existence, then the wager simply does not apply.” (from Wikipedia)
———-
I know the “be fruitful and multiply” deal, if that’s what you’re referring to…
It’s not. I told you what I was referring to, Genesis 9.
I’ve pointed out several if not many times on this site that the Bible is clear on the topic of abortion. Genesis 9 is the key passage. God had made man in His image; He later allowed man to kill animals but not man. The sanctity of human life is clearly all-encompassing, from conception to natural death. The Church through history has also been clear that induced abortion is wrong.
———-
Given all the detailed laws and rules, etc., in the Mosaic law, it’s pretty hard to believe the writers of the Bible were against abortion and just somehow forgot to mention it.
I might even argue that the writers of the American Constitution were against abortion and found no need to mention it. American women didn’t want to kill their children at the time. They believed in marriage and large families. If the Israelite woman had one great longing, it was to become a mother in Israel. Recall the nature of God’s curse on the woman for her sin (Gen. 3)–and His hopeful promise to her in the curse on Satan. Recall the anguish of barren Sarah, Rachel, Hannah, and Elizabeth (and Naomi)–role models for the Israelite women. Remember every Israelites’s concern to have a descendant who would be alive at the arrival of the Messiah or who would even be that Messiah (Gen. 4). To kill one’s own child was unthinkable–except for the idolaters who offered their children to the god Molech–cited in the Bible as the epitome of depravity (Jer. 32:35; cf. Lev.20:2-5). Read Mary’s Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55). Read Psalm 113, which concludes, “He settles the barren woman in her home as a happy mother of children. Praise the LORD!”
And you also well know one detailed law in the Mosaic law, Ex. 21:22-25. There is an on-going argument over the translation of a critical Hebrew word (see Gregory Koukl’s “What Exodus 21:22 Says About Abortion”), but I will reject your references to Hammurabi. You know that historians disagree over the actual chronology and subsequent conclusions as to what influenced what. They disagree because they start from different presuppositions, i.e. they have a different faith. The historians you might reference are biased in favour of secular humanism, the current dominant religion in the West.
Infanticide was easier than abortion. If you want to kill the child, why not wait until after it’s born? Remember Pharaoh’s decree that all Israelite baby boys should be thrown into the Nile. Of course, he was also concerned about the sex of the baby. My point is the gap in technology.
———-
The biblical God was not for every unborn life continuing…
Yes, He is. Read Ezekiel 33. It is the human being’s fault that there is death. He sinned and brought on himself the curse. The human being chose death and the anti-life culture. Compare Genesis 1 with Genesis 6.
———-
…there is nothing that logically says that any all-knowing, all-powerful God would want every pregnancy to necessarily be continued now, especially if it would be against the will of the pregnant woman.
Add the adjective good to your description of God. The pregnant woman is as sinful as the rest of humanity; her will is naturally bent. If she always willed rightly, her will would harmoniously agree with God’s. God’s will be done.
Death may be natural now, but it is still abnormal. Nobody likes taxes; you know the saying. Unless a human being is morbid, he does not enjoy the contemplation of death. Death is not good. It is separation and discord, not harmony.
———-
I base [my morality] on my desires, just as you do, regardless of what you might ascribe it to.
I thought you were agnostic, Doug. You’re showing your real colours. As a true agnostic, you should say that I base my morality on what my God has said, whether or not He and His Word actually exist. He may exist.
It’s the same deal. “Whether or not He exists” is already covered by you believing the given thing (it’s a premise that you do). You are going with your belief, again – regardless of the existence or not of supernatural beings. Thus, though you certainly do ascribe some things to God, your desires determine things, (even as you see them being in line with what God wants).
You’re talking like an atheist, saying that my desire determines things. Of course I have presuppositions; so do you. As an agnostic, one of your presuppositions is that you cannot know whether there is a God; His existence cannot be proven. As a true agnostic, you should say that I base my morality on what my God has said, whether or not He and His Word actually exist. He and His morality may exist. I believe that they do exist.
I’m talking like a Christian. I believe that God exists, and I base my morality on Him. The fact that you practically act as if God does not exist makes you a hypocrite. Again, consider Pascal’s Wager.
As an agnostic, you can’t prescribe. You can only observe. You have no morality. A morality based on your own desires is no morality. Morality informs the conscience which limits desires and keeps them within bounds. You’re using circular reasoning (Judges 21:25).
I have morality just as you do. Ideas and ideals of what we want in the moral realm. Our beliefs as to what is good/bad/right/wrong there. Principles and standards that reflect those desires, again regardless of what we attribute them to.
Since your morality is relative to you, you cannot impose it on others, who have an equally valid morality based on their own desires–unless you are their god. As a consistent agnostic, you can’t prescribe for others; you can only observe. Then I may kill you if I believe such killing to be right. (I don’t.) You are logically an anarchist, and your morality is worthless.
———-
Seriously, it’s in her body, so she gets the say. If it was in his body, he’d get the say.
This expression of your morality is based on the ownership of the body, a premise that appeals to you (your desires). It is materialistic and atheistic because it doesn’t acknowledge the existence of the soul and the spiritual realm. It is individualistic and atheistic because it doesn’t acknowledge our interdependence and our dependence upon God–who might exist, according to you–He who has said that only He gets the say.
In marriage a husband and wife belong to each other. Their children are a result of their union and belong to both of them. They become one flesh, also on a cellular level. The offspring are made in their images. But Adam, the father of all people, was made in God’s image, and everybody belongs to God. According to the Heidelberg Catechism, my only comfort in life and death is that I am not my own but belong, body and soul, both in life and death, to my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ.
Like you, I believe in imposing my morality on others. For example, human zygotes are some others on which you and some feminists impose their (im-)morality. Unlike you, I have a good reason for imposing morality on others; I believe that morality is determined by God–who, according to agnostics, maybe does exist. Morality is objective.
This will maybe be my last comment on this thread. I’m spending too much time in this discussion.
Jon: You agree with Pascal that God’s existence cannot be proved. Pascal’s Wager therefore applies to you as an agnostic. I think that you have misunderstood the intent of his wager:
“Voltaire, like many other critics, misunderstood the Wager. Pascal did not offer the wager as a proof. It is merely a conclusion to his arguments against certainty that relies on the notion that reason is untrustworthy and that discerning God’s actual existence appears to be ‘a coin toss.’ If reason can be trusted on the question of God’s existence, then the wager simply does not apply.” (from Wikipedia)
Jon, I certainly understand that, and the wager was designed to imply risk to not believing in God. However, the fallacies about that are well-known, and I posted some examples.
…..
I might even argue that the writers of the American Constitution were against abortion and found no need to mention it.
Well, I’d say that’s as farfetched as with the writers of the Bible. Abortion was legal to a point in gestation under English common law, and that continued in the Colonies and the US states until the 1800’s.
…..
American women didn’t want to kill their children at the time.
Very much true, same as now, but some women did have abortions.
…..
And you also well know one detailed law in the Mosaic law, Ex. 21:22-25. There is an on-going argument over the translation of a critical Hebrew word (see Gregory Koukl’s “What Exodus 21:22 Says About Abortion”), but I will reject your references to Hammurabi. You know that historians disagree over the actual chronology and subsequent conclusions as to what influenced what. They disagree because they start from different presuppositions, i.e. they have a different faith. The historians you might reference are biased in favour of secular humanism, the current dominant religion in the West.
I don’t think it’s really a matter of what faith they have – it’s just seeing history for what it is.
The Exodus passage is ambiguous, as are some other things in the Bible.
…..
“…there is nothing that logically says that any all-knowing, all-powerful God would want every pregnancy to necessarily be continued now, especially if it would be against the will of the pregnant woman.”
Add the adjective good to your description of God. The pregnant woman is as sinful as the rest of humanity; her will is naturally bent. If she always willed rightly, her will would harmoniously agree with God’s. God’s will be done.
Death may be natural now, but it is still abnormal. Nobody likes taxes; you know the saying. Unless a human being is morbid, he does not enjoy the contemplation of death. Death is not good. It is separation and discord, not harmony.
Are we to paint that God with our adjective of “good”? I think it’s better to let the woman end the pregnancy if she wants to, to a point in gestation, so I’d say a good God would allow women the freedom they now have. And anyway, the point is that the God of the Bible isn’t necessarily going to want every pregnancy to be continued. I know that you wish they would be, but there are miscarriages that occur without conscious input from the parents, presumably only under the control of any God powerful enough to affect things. And an all-knowing God would already know who’s going to have an abortion and who’s going to have a miscarriage.
I am not saying that the death of the unborn is “good,” per se, but I see letting the woman end the pregnancy if that is what she wants as better than forcing her to continue it against her will. I don’t see us as really needing every pregnancy to go on, but I do see us as needing to let women keep the rights they now have.
…..
“I base [my morality] on my desires, just as you do, regardless of what you might ascribe it to.”
I thought you were agnostic, Doug. You’re showing your real colours. As a true agnostic, you should say that I base my morality on what my God has said, whether or not He and His Word actually exist. He may exist.
“It’s the same deal. “Whether or not He exists” is already covered by you believing the given thing (it’s a premise that you do). You are going with your belief, again – regardless of the existence or not of supernatural beings. Thus, though you certainly do ascribe some things to God, your desires determine things, (even as you see them being in line with what God wants).”
You’re talking like an atheist, saying that my desire determines things. Of course I have presuppositions; so do you. As an agnostic, one of your presuppositions is that you cannot know whether there is a God; His existence cannot be proven. As a true agnostic, you should say that I base my morality on what my God has said, whether or not He and His Word actually exist. He and His morality may exist. I believe that they do exist.
No – an atheist would be saying “there is no God.” Yes, your desire determines things, but that’s true regardless of what my religious belief (or lack thereof) is. I’m an agnostic and you base your morality on what you want, even if you claim it is what God has said, what God wants, etc. You want some things because of your beliefs, and you proceed accordingly. I’m just saying we all have the same motivation – our desires – regardless of our beliefs, attributions, what we ascribe things to, etc.
…..
As an agnostic, you can’t prescribe. You can only observe.
Not sure what you mean be “prescribe,” but I certainly can be logical and observe (as you noted).
…..
You have no morality. A morality based on your own desires is no morality. Morality informs the conscience which limits desires and keeps them within bounds. You’re using circular reasoning.
“I have morality just as you do. Ideas and ideals of what we want in the moral realm. Our beliefs as to what is good/bad/right/wrong there. Principles and standards that reflect those desires, again regardless of what we attribute them to.”
Since your morality is relative to you, you cannot impose it on others, who have an equally valid morality based on their own desires–unless you are their god.
No, there need be no “god” here. Yes, desire is relative to the individual, the group, etc., but as members of society we are basically people with things in common, and there is enough overlap in our desires for societies to be stable, to various degrees. Enough sentiment for a law, for example, it it will take effect, and that’s the “imposing it on others” you mention. That’s the way it works – nothing supernatural about it. If one is so against the dictates of society, then one can leave that society.
…..
As a consistent agnostic, you can’t prescribe for others; you can only observe. Then I may kill you if I believe such killing to be right. (I don’t.) You are logically an anarchist, and your morality is worthless.
Why do you say “I can’t presecribe”? I can prescribe just as you can, vote, etc. I’m not an anarchist, and my morality is better than yours IMO – because I’d rather let women have the freedom that they do, versus having your opinion forced upon them.
No, you can’t legally kill me, and that too has nothing to do with the supernatural – that’s just because there’s enough sentiment for the laws as we have them. It reflects our desire not to be killed as individuals, and as members of society we want the rules to favor not being killed without certain rather exceptional circumstances. You and I both want the laws against murder to apply to born people as they do. I realize we differ on the unborn and the legality of killing them, but our desire not to be killed and our desire for certain laws of our society is the same, regardless of the differences in our beliefs.
…..
“Seriously, it’s in her body, so she gets the say. If it was in his body, he’d get the say.”
This expression of your morality is based on the ownership of the body, a premise that appeals to you (your desires).
Yes, to me and to vast numbers of other people, practically everybody on earth in fact. Do people want their bodily autonomy? You bet they do.
…..
It is materialistic and atheistic because it doesn’t acknowledge the existence of the soul and the spiritual realm.
It’s not nearly so simple as that. You want your own bodily autonomy too, and your beliefs are different. In no way is it necessarily to do with “materialism” or “atheism.”
…..
It is individualistic and atheistic because it doesn’t acknowledge our interdependence and our dependence upon God–who might exist, according to you–He who has said that only He gets the say.
No, it’s agnostic – I know some people believe as you do, but there’s no proof of your beliefs in this matter. There is no proof of the “soul” or the God you mention. People left the “old world” for the “New World” in order to get away from religiously-based laws, and it’s crazy to act like we should go backwards there. You are free and welcome to your beliefs, but when you presume to legally force them on other people there’s goine to be a lot of resistance to it.
……
Like you, I believe in imposing my morality on others. For example, human zygotes are some others on which you and some feminists impose their (im-)morality.
That’s where we disagree. The unborn, to a point in gestation, are not “others” as far as being sensate, aware, etc. We are talking about thinking, feeling people here – the pregnant women, and you want to put your consideration of the unborn, which are not thinking and feeling (to a point in gestation anyway) above the women’s desires. I see your way as much more immoral.
…..
Unlike you, I have a good reason for imposing morality on others; I believe that morality is determined by God–who, according to agnostics, maybe does exist. Morality is objective.
No, as we’ve seen it’s relative to the individual, the group, etc. You can say your reason is “best” or “better” or “good,” but again, that’s a matter of opinion.
No, it’s not just a matter of opinion, Doug, just as the existence of God or Doug is not just a matter of opinion. Doug is actually more of a matter of opinion because God hasn’t infallibly spoken to me about him. I have less reason to assume that the person behind the name is really the person who I think he is. Still, I proceed with faith that Doug actually is, and on that basis I’ve had a discussion of sorts with him.
You shouldn’t have included me in your last statement. I have not seen that morality is merely relative to the individual, group, etc. In fact, I again disagree with most of what you wrote and find it to be inconsistent. “We” have not seen anything that we can build upon.
Like other supposed agnostics that I’ve met, you are not really one. You are an atheist because you arrive at the same conclusions as atheists. A real agnostic would say, “I don’t know.”
Thanks for answering my initial questions, and thanks for the discussion. Maybe we can argue elsewhere in the future, but I think that this is as much as I want to say here.
No, it’s not just a matter of opinion, Doug, just as the existence of God or Doug is not just a matter of opinion. Doug is actually more of a matter of opinion because God hasn’t infallibly spoken to me about him. I have less reason to assume that the person behind the name is really the person who I think he is. Still, I proceed with faith that Doug actually is, and on that basis I’ve had a discussion of sorts with him.
Jon, there being no proof for “God” it is indeed a matter of opinion. I grant you that there of course is no proof that “there are no gods,” etc., and I grant you that you believe as you say you do – I certainly believe that. The fact remains that in lieu of proof you are stating your opinion about God.
I like discussing things with you, and you make a good point about assumptions. Really, when we get to the bottom line, what beyond the fact of its own consciousness can an entity really be sure of? It could “wake up” later on and find that what it considered to be reality in the past was really not that way at all. But it always knew that ‘it” was, that it was conscious, that it knew of itself. So yeah – we all make all sorts of assumptions. I’ve said many times that the point where our assumptions diverge is where the debating begins.
…..
You shouldn’t have included me in your last statement. I have not seen that morality is merely relative to the individual, group, etc. In fact, I again disagree with most of what you wrote and find it to be inconsistent. “We” have not seen anything that we can build upon.
I’d say that you have your say here, concerning the moral realm, as do I, and as do many others. Your saying is your opinion, same as for me and everybody else. I hear you on the stuff to “build upon,” but again – what beyond the “I think, therefore I am” can we really be sure of?
…..
Like other supposed agnostics that I’ve met, you are not really one. You are an atheist because you arrive at the same conclusions as atheists. A real agnostic would say, “I don’t know.”
Well, I do say, “I don’t know” all the time. The lack of proof for supernatural “higher” beings than us earthly humans leads to that.
…..
Thanks for answering my initial questions, and thanks for the discussion. Maybe we can argue elsewhere in the future, but I think that this is as much as I want to say here.
Okay, Jon. If anything, if you feel it’s taking too much time, maybe we can just take one small point at a time, or just one thing, period..?
Very quickly, I think there is at least one inconsistency that you showed in your last post.
You made this statement: what beyond the “I think, therefore I am” can we really be sure of?
You followed it with this statement: I do say, “I don’t know” all the time. The lack of proof for supernatural “higher” beings than us earthly humans leads to that.
Exactly–you say, “I don’t know” with respect to the Creator, but you say, “I know” with respect to other creatures (besides yourself, us earthly humans) whose existence you are not really sure of. You are not a consistent agnostic; you think like an atheist whose denial of God or god(s) is his basic presupposition.
By the way, I don’t know if I agree with Descartes’, “I think; therefore, I am.” It sounds too much like God. From the opening chapter of the Bible–which I believe–I learn, “God spoke; therefore I am.” (God Himself simply told Moses, “I Am.”) Even you have previously argued from a different premise: “I desire, therefore I am.” (Desire need not be rational; animals have instinctive desires.)
Hmmm… the genius of Descartes’s statement is that his very statement is itself a demonstration of thought and thus seems to be proof of itself.
Yeah, Jon, a thought is proof of some entity being there to have it.
…..
You made this statement: what beyond the “I think, therefore I am” can we really be sure of?”
You followed it with this statement: I do say, “I don’t know” all the time. The lack of proof for supernatural “higher” beings than us earthly humans leads to that.
Exactly–you say, “I don’t know” with respect to the Creator, but you say, “I know” with respect to other creatures (besides yourself, us earthly humans) whose existence you are not really sure of. You are not a consistent agnostic; you think like an atheist whose denial of God or god(s) is his basic presupposition.
Not at all – I’ve noted repeatedly that I make unprovable assumptions at a very basic level – anywhere past the “I am” point, in fact. I do assume you and others are separate consciousnesses, and going with that idea then you too make unprovable assumptions.
…..
By the way, I don’t know if I agree with Descartes’, “I think; therefore, I am.” It sounds too much like God. From the opening chapter of the Bible–which I believe–I learn, “God spoke; therefore I am.” (God Himself simply told Moses, “I Am.”) Even you have previously argued from a different premise: “I desire, therefore I am.” (Desire need not be rational; animals have instinctive desires.)
No difference – if an entity thinks, it obviously is, and same if it desires.