Sunday School

Sunday School November 13th 2022

This topic contains 117 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by  TheEncogitationer 1 week, 6 days ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 118 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #45668

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    You are seemingly talking about what choice is hypothetically better. I am talking about a) moral imposition, and b) the inescapability of consequences from decisions made by a parent regarding the fate a foetus.

    I’m talking about how it looks from the point of view of an anti-abortionist.  If I believe that it’s morally acceptable to abort a foetus, and then do so, then surely I am imposing the consequences of my morality onto it.  The fate of a foetus is not irrelevant from that point of view.  If the foetus is vulnerably at the mercy of parents, then that could make its fate all the more salient.

    #45669

    Autumn
    Participant

    I’m talking about how it looks from the point of view of an anti-abortionist.  If I believe that it’s morally acceptable to abort a foetus, and then do so, then surely I am imposing the consequences of my morality onto it.

    As. Are. They.

    It’s inescapable. This has nothing to do with which stance is correct. It has nothing to do with which is better. There isn’t a scenario where one side is imposing consequences and the other is not. Life is the most common consequence of not terminating. Whether that consequence is good or bad is circumstantial. It’s simply a universal aspect to making the decision on moral grounds regardless of whether you are pro-choice, anti-abortion, or some other shade of grey.

    #45670

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    There isn’t a scenario where one side is imposing consequences and the other is not.

    That’s true.

    #45671

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Strega,

    My point being, of course, that both not donating blood or organs and abortion are acts of individual sovereignty over one’s body, the protection of which is the sole legitimate role of government.

    #45672

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Simon,

    I’ve never understood what the lesson of that story is supposed to be. It just doesn’t seem to symbolise anything real.

    Pretty sure it means that JHVH-1 doesn’t like his greatest creations pursuing knowledge and figuring out what is Good and Evil. He just wants obedient flesh-robots without rational thought or volition. And it shows in the moralities of Abrahamic religions.

    I actually think it does satisfy the criteria for objective morality. It’s external to the minds of human beings.

    Divine Command is external to the mind of humans, but entirely the product of the whims of a non-existent Supernatural Being whose existence has to be taken on faith. Thus, Divine Command is just whims of a whimsy.

    By contrast, non-theistic moral theory states that it can only exist in the minds of humans, and in some aspects, other species too.

    Not necessarily. If one holds that Nature, specially, human nature, determines what is Good and Evil, then that doesn’t exist merely in human minds and is something objectively discoverable and demonstrable.

    #45673

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Robert,

    I don’t see the problem. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one. And if you can’t raise the child properly in the US, be assured the pro-life crowd’s work is all done as far as the baby is concerned.

    I second the motion on the right to choose to both terminate a pregnancy and to carry a pregnancy to term.

    But in all fairness also, if a person isn’t a biological parent or is a biological parent whose children have grown up or if a person hasn’t adopted or fostered a child, then that person has no forced legal or moral obligation to provide for children from birth to age 18. It’s nice, of course, if such a person gives to children’s charities or helps children in other ways, but nanny slavery is as reprehensible as forced pregnancy or forced abortion.

    #45674

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    If one holds that Nature, specially, human nature, determines what is Good and Evil, then that doesn’t exist merely in human minds and is something objectively discoverable and demonstrable.

    That’s true.  I think the structure is objective in that sense, but the details of how it is implemented are subjective/relative/plural.

    #45675

    _Robert_
    Participant

    RE:Does education ‘cure’ people of faith? The data says no.

    This has been my experience. Education is largely repetition and memorization. Some of my college mates were complete dumb asses but if they stuck at it long enough and worked hard, they could pass and become sucky engineers. 10% of the team does 90% of the real work. The remainder mostly just cause distraction, LOL.

    #45676

    Belle Rose
    Participant

    I’m pretty curious to know if there has ever been any point in human history when men have been so incredibly invested in making sure women do not abort their babies. Then again… For most of human history women just died in childbirth.

    #45677

    @_Robert_

    10% of the team does 90% of the real work. The remainder mostly just cause distraction, LOL.

    True, no matter where you are working.

    #45678

    Nobody ever reasoned themselves into believing in a god. Usually it happens over time via cultural memes and indoctrination from early childhood and it eventually appears ‘real’. Same for people who find god when they are dysfunctional or in a weak state of mind. People can only reason themselves out of it.

    #45679

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    I’m pretty curious to know if there has ever been any point in human history when men have been so incredibly invested in making sure women do not abort their babies.

    Yes, it’s framed as protection for the unborn, yet it’s always the most patriarchal factions that are most against abortion.  It’s just another way for society to control women’s sexuality.

    In “Mothers and Others”, by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, she describes how in many so-called primitive societies, women will abandon a new-born if its survival prospects are not good.  They do this before bonding with the baby, and then never want to think of or talk about it again.

    #45680

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Reg, i am sure many theists would disagree about whether anybody reasons themselves into believing.

    Given a will to believe reasoning is impaired. It is like driving drunk. I grew up in home with nothing but atheism. Was instructed to question shit. So i questioned the absence of belief and read some of the noted apologists and theologians. Found it to be incredibly weak. Tortured even. Decide first and then come up with sumthin kind of reasoning.

    #45681

    Unseen
    Participant

    I’m pretty curious to know if there has ever been any point in human history when men have been so incredibly invested in making sure women do not abort their babies. Then again… For most of human history women just died in childbirth.

    Well, men never before had to confront (a) women exercising much freedom and initiative or (b) relatively easy and safe abortion.

    During the Roe v. Wade period, a woman who discovered herself “in the family way” could just offer a plausible excuse for going out on her own, get the abortion done, and if she came home a bit under the weather, blame it food poisoning or her monthly condition.

    #45682

    Unseen
    Participant

    Reg, i am sure many theists would disagree about whether anybody reasons themselves into believing.

    Antony Flew, prominent British philosopher and onetime atheist, famously left atheism to believe in something vaguely theological.

    While theists will sometimes gleefully refer to him as “the leading atheist,” in fact, during his atheist phase he would argue against theistic arguments.

    His conversion, such as it was, was to a form of belief about halfway between Paul Tillich’s “The Ground of Being” (roughly similar to the Hindu’s Brahman) and today’s Christian churches.

    One thing is clear, he didn’t convert to Christianity, but simply felt there’s more to the universe and reality than atheism can explain.

    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 6 days ago by  Unseen.
Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 118 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.