Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Daggah · 08-21-2003, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
Don't worry, I wasn't.

Yes, you were. Go push your twisted views elsewhere.

Mageth · 08-21-2003, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Magus55
So I guess you don't believe in absolute morality?

And, abortion actually is murder. Hence why in some states, if you kill a pregnant woman, you are charged with 2 counts of murder.

And abortion is not actually murder. Hence why in every state, if a woman has an abortion, neither the doctor nor the woman are charged with murder.

If morality is truly absolute, why only in some states can you be charged with two counts of murder? And why do many people, including myself (and SCOTUS) not consider abortion murder?

I don't know how anyone can justify abortion. A baby is a baby, whether its fully formed or not.

Obviously, because some people don't agree with your assessment. Again, what was that about morality being absolute?

Kintaro · 08-21-2003, 04:36 PM

Killing a fetus is only a crime when it is not your own.

Let's use the orchard analogy.

A manager/owner at an apple orchard comes to work one day to see that the night before someoe set his orchard ablaze. This is willful destruction of someone else's property. and should be punished.

However, say this other orchard manager/owner thinks apple profits are going to suck in the long run, but can start a berry farm, grow tons of strawberries, and sell those for a shitload. So this manager cuts all the trees, puts them in the woodchipper, burns out the tree trunks, and then plants all that is needed to start a berry farm. This is legal since this was their property to do in the first place.

Now, try to link this to abortion. The first part you get, because arson is a crime, as is killing something that could have been.

The second part does not equate to throwing aborted fetuses into woodchippers. Funny, but no. The second refers to the fact that sometimes the field (woman's uterus) doesn't want apples (i.e. forced or accidental pregnancy, rape, incest, "the condom broke", or "i'm too stupid to make my partner wear one") or that if the field is still growing apples, they might not be able to take care of it because of something affecting them now or in the future (physiological disorders and the like. Stance on such abortions: You must be demented to bring a child with a lifelong handicap into this world. It's already suffering as it is. I'm not saying for a deaf child, but say one with an undeveloped leg, severe circulatory or respiratory problems, etc...). That choice can only be made by the mother-to-be-or-not-to-be.

Any woman (or man probably in a near future) that is able to make that choice, should be left to make it on their own, and be supported regardless of that choice. to not choose something always ends up to be something your regret. I mean, look at all the children THAT caused.

Hedwig · 08-21-2003, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
So I guess you don't believe in absolute morality?

And, abortion actually is murder. Hence why in some states, if you kill a pregnant woman, you are charged with 2 counts of murder. I don't know how anyone can justify abortion. A baby is a baby, whether its fully formed or not.

Speaking as a woman who has had a miscarriage...no, it really isn't a baby. It has the potential to become one...but it isn't yet.

Edit: I know I must sound like a self-righteous broken record these days about abortion...but hell, there are a million threads currently that are discussing the same thing. I honestly get sick of this debate.

Starboy · 08-21-2003, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by B. H. Manners
Often times I have Christians tell me that if God doesn't exist, then they have no reason to hold to any moral standard or care about what they do in regards to who it hurts.

You forgot to add: Na Naaaa Na Naaaaaaa Naaaaaaa.

It is a stupid statement, which as far as can tell, proffered to offend non-believers.

Starboy

winstonjen · 08-21-2003, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy
You forgot to add: Na Naaaa Na Naaaaaaa Naaaaaaa.

It is a stupid statement, which as far as can tell, proffered to offend non-believers.

Starboy

It's fodder for FSTDT. Th�t's pretty much all.

ex-xian · 08-21-2003, 05:50 PM

Personally, I think that an objective ethics is possible even without religious trappings. I'm thinking of an amalgamation of Kant's ethics (NOT the categorical imperitive...just the kingdom of ends) and Simone de Bourvier's existentialist ethics.

Alistair MacIntyre's version of cultural relativism is also useful, IMO. Basically, a given society or culture decides what is in the best interest of the culture. Problems only arise when two cultures intersect. It seems to me that when that happens, a dialectic-type process occurs that will, eventually, work out an ethics that decides what is in the best interest of the new metaculture. I've not really fleshed this out, but I've written some essays for a couple of philosophy classes, so my prof has helped me with critiques.

Anyway, since I've deconverted about a year ago, my actions wrt morality haven't changed that much at all.

Rational BAC · 08-21-2003, 06:33 PM

So Starboy is finally back from his sojourn in non-existence---at least on this forum.

Good.

Starboy · 08-21-2003, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC
So Starboy is finally back from his sojourn in non-existence---at least on this forum.

Good.

Yup, I have been resurrected and am back on good behavior. Thanks for the welcome-back Rational.

Starboy

Sabine Grant · 08-21-2003, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
The level of morality seems to be higher among Christians though. Most atheists seem to have little problem with premarital sex, abortions, profanity, pornography, lying, etc. Obviously not all atheists find those things acceptable, and atheists may not see any moral problem with those things, but I do see a huge difference in the moral standards of atheists and Christians ( especially fundamentalist). And after reading the thread on pornography, under the morality forum, and seeing people post that they'd have no problem with parents giving children pornography is absolutely appauling.

bonsoir Magus......

Let me see.... are those particular immoral acts you mentionned worse than greed, self rigtheousness and disdain for mankind? oh I also forgot lack of compassion and the hypocrisy of claiming unconditional love when it is actualy restricted by the same christians who claim to exercise it.....

Please reflect on what I am presenting to you. Before we can allow ourselves to pass any judgement on anyone who does not follow the same standards of morality we claim to follow, let us get that giant beam out of our eye! (mainly the collective christian eye of " we are so much better than you guys"). We are so ethical..... yet we do not bat one eye when a corrupted minister convinces his congregation that it is in God's Will for him to own a 2 million dollar home or a Rolls Royce(familiar with Creflow Dollar who actualy owns two of those fancy vehicles?) or pastor Randy White (and accomplice Paula White) who boasts about his lavishing home in Tampa. (not that he intends to turn it into a homeless shelter of course!).
You see Magus it is a non christian who one Sunday stood boldly in the midst of this crowd of misguided worshipers of such a corrupted morone and exclaimed loudly " you are a liar and a fraud.... can't you people see what he is doing to you? You do not know Jesus". There it was....the overwhelming feeling of repulsion from an agnostic who happened to have more morality than a supposed anointed "man of God". That was my husband. And I love him for his ability to be a moral individual who does not bear with the exploitation of men by other men. His love for mankind makes him a more moral individual than the most pontifical self rigtheous fundamentalist.
Sorry for the rant.... I only tried to demonstrate how your stereotyping of free thinkers can back fire .......
Peace. I hope.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-21-2003, 03:53 PM	#22
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Originally posted by Magus55 So I guess you don't believe in absolute morality? And, abortion actually is murder. Hence why in some states, if you kill a pregnant woman, you are charged with 2 counts of murder. And abortion is not actually murder. Hence why in every state, if a woman has an abortion, neither the doctor nor the woman are charged with murder. If morality is truly absolute, why only in some states can you be charged with two counts of murder? And why do many people, including myself (and SCOTUS) not consider abortion murder? I don't know how anyone can justify abortion. A baby is a baby, whether its fully formed or not. Obviously, because some people don't agree with your assessment. Again, what was that about morality being absolute?

08-21-2003, 04:36 PM	#23
Kintaro Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 247	Killing a fetus is only a crime when it is not your own. Let's use the orchard analogy. A manager/owner at an apple orchard comes to work one day to see that the night before someoe set his orchard ablaze. This is willful destruction of someone else's property. and should be punished. However, say this other orchard manager/owner thinks apple profits are going to suck in the long run, but can start a berry farm, grow tons of strawberries, and sell those for a shitload. So this manager cuts all the trees, puts them in the woodchipper, burns out the tree trunks, and then plants all that is needed to start a berry farm. This is legal since this was their property to do in the first place. Now, try to link this to abortion. The first part you get, because arson is a crime, as is killing something that could have been. The second part does not equate to throwing aborted fetuses into woodchippers. Funny, but no. The second refers to the fact that sometimes the field (woman's uterus) doesn't want apples (i.e. forced or accidental pregnancy, rape, incest, "the condom broke", or "i'm too stupid to make my partner wear one") or that if the field is still growing apples, they might not be able to take care of it because of something affecting them now or in the future (physiological disorders and the like. Stance on such abortions: You must be demented to bring a child with a lifelong handicap into this world. It's already suffering as it is. I'm not saying for a deaf child, but say one with an undeveloped leg, severe circulatory or respiratory problems, etc...). That choice can only be made by the mother-to-be-or-not-to-be. Any woman (or man probably in a near future) that is able to make that choice, should be left to make it on their own, and be supported regardless of that choice. to not choose something always ends up to be something your regret. I mean, look at all the children THAT caused.

08-21-2003, 05:50 PM	#27
ex-xian Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: :noitacoL Posts: 4,679	Personally, I think that an objective ethics is possible even without religious trappings. I'm thinking of an amalgamation of Kant's ethics (NOT the categorical imperitive...just the kingdom of ends) and Simone de Bourvier's existentialist ethics. Alistair MacIntyre's version of cultural relativism is also useful, IMO. Basically, a given society or culture decides what is in the best interest of the culture. Problems only arise when two cultures intersect. It seems to me that when that happens, a dialectic-type process occurs that will, eventually, work out an ethics that decides what is in the best interest of the new metaculture. I've not really fleshed this out, but I've written some essays for a couple of philosophy classes, so my prof has helped me with critiques. Anyway, since I've deconverted about a year ago, my actions wrt morality haven't changed that much at all.

08-21-2003, 06:33 PM	#28
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	So Starboy is finally back from his sojourn in non-existence---at least on this forum. Good.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.