Environmentalism and Abortion

[lurker]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

The aforementioned contraceptive resources and techniques would suffice, most likely, if there were not such powerful forces working against them. I simply cannot see how an unintended consequence should justify the termination of a human life in its earliest stages.

Are you vegetarian ? Vegan ? Do you eat factory farmed animal products ?

Intensive factory farming is akin to concentration camps for animals. These are sentient beings, and science has shown us that these creatures suffer in a similar way to humans. These creatures spend a short miserable life in tortuous conditions before being killed for our consumption. This is absolutely unnecessary, but we demand excessive and cheap animal protein.

I respect your position on abortion. Myself I'd prefer it were safe, legal and extremely rare. I don't think the government has a place in the decision, and I'm not convinced that making it illegal will lead to a happier outcome for mothers or children (you think unwanted children will be raised with love and care ?)

However I cannot understand how anyone could be anti-abortion and yet support factory farming: the institutionalized torture of sentient beings who just happen to be less intelligent than we are.

Just thought I'd throw in another shade of gray.

[Ghent12]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

First they de-humanize to justify it...

...I disagree with your view that an egg and a joined sperm represent a human...

Then they seek to equalize, or humanize, everything...

... sentient beings...

Look, I make no bones about being a humanist. I place greater value in human life than the lives of other things. Raising livestock for consumption is okay. Although I certainly think the livestock deserve some better treatment than they sometimes get (some middle ground between the harshest condition and the Kobe Beef condition would be good), I have no problem accepting a livestock system in general terms.

[Alvaro Spain]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

My attitude is probably exactly opposite yours. If there is some absolute in what is correct, then which of us is correct, and why? I think I asked something similar above and did not get an answer.

...

My opinion is that there is no more sacredness or real value to human life than there is to that of a polar bear, gorilla, or whale, etc. How much grief would you suffer if a plane with 600 humans none of whom you knew crashed vs. the grief from an airplane loaded with polar bears, gorillas or whales that crashed? Personally I would consider the death of the animals as the greatest tragedy, because we are not going to run out of humans it appears any time soon, which isn't as likely true for the non-human animals.

Believe whatever you wish, but it is a mistake to believe that what any of us think is "right" is in fact right for all of mankind and should be enforced on all mankind. NOTHING along those lines is absolute.

I like very much these words. Life might be sacred or not, but we really don't know. At most we may believe.

In my personal opinion all life is sacred, human, gorillas, whales, everything that breathes. Also IMHO human life has a greater degree of sacredness that other animal forms. A problem remains, even if there is a God (and I believe there is), what does He want? Perhaps He might want to mantain the status quo, that is, He likes the world just as it is? Perhaps He wants that things go better at a very very slow pace? And what should we do in view of His aims? Should we take His aims into account? Should we thrive for the good, knowing that He might be both "good" and "bad" alike?

As we don't know most important things, we must find a human way to legislate things such as abortion. Personally I am against unless there are important circunstances such as important danger for the mother, rape, etc.

Alvaro

[Raz]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

Yes, yes, we know: most anti-choice screeds are "somewhat emotional" which is why each woman should have a right to choose that is protected from government intervention or interferance from other people who may have a "somewhat emotional" reaction to a pregnancy that occurs in another persons life.

The reaction is NOT to a pregnancy which occurs in another persons life.
The reaction is to the cold-blooded murder of an innocent and utterly helpless human being
for the convenience of another human being.
That is the reality of procured abortion.

For those who choose not to blind themselves to what is actually occuring inside these "clinics", it is also grounded in biological reality:
spermatozoa do not reproduce; ovum do not reproduce; at the moment of conception, however, these haploid cells - one from the male and another from the female, each containing 23 pairs of chromosomes, unite to form a *new and unique* human being, often with a different blood type from the mother. So this new human is not part of her body, but a new and distinct human body with a different genome. Cell division thus begins and between 22 and 24 days a heartbeat can be detected - often before a woman even knows for certain that she's pregnant.

One of my friends is an OBGYN who came down South in the Mid-1970s to "help women" with "unwanted" pregnancies. She proudly performed abortions in an efficient and sanitized manner - until one day all of her staff had gone home and she had to clean out the suction machine. She never got over it and within two months stopped performing abortions.

Let's give the "gray area" a little black and white:









If something is so horrible that most human beings don't want to look at it,
then perhaps it should not be allowed.

[Raz]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

... even if there is a God (and I believe there is), what does He want? Perhaps He might want to mantain the status quo, that is, He likes the world just as it is? Perhaps He wants that things go better at a very very slow pace? And what should we do in view of His aims? Should we take His aims into account? Should we thrive for the good, knowing that He might be both "good" and "bad" alike?

"He has shown you, O man, what is good. What does the Lord seek from you but to do justly,
and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with the Lord your God".

Micah 5:2

"Therefore, whatever you would have men do to you, do also unto them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."

St. Matthew 7:12

"This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you: that God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all."

I John 1:5

[Alvaro Spain]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

"He has shown you, O man, what is good. What does the Lord seek from you but to do justly,
and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with the Lord your God".

Micah 5:2

"Therefore, whatever you would have men do to you, do also unto them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."

St. Matthew 7:12

"This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you: that God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all."

I John 1:5

Please don't misunderstand me. I believe that God is good and that men should strive for the good, and to love and be humble for sure, but the point is that those are my beliefs, and I cannot impose them on anybody. Besides, billions of people believe in a different religion than Christiandom, Islam or Judaism, who share many common beliefs. You have Buddhism, Hinduism, Kashmir Shaivism, Taoism, Tibbetan Buddhism among many other radically different religions to the God of the Bible. As there can be only one God, it is perhaps them who are right? (My answer: who knows?) Anybody can have faith, and faith in love is the noblest thing that I can conceive, but I believe that nobody can be sure that they have the only and exact concept of God.

Alvaro

[Raz]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

Please don't misunderstand me. I believe that God is good and that men should strive for the good, and to love and be humble for sure, but the point is that those are my beliefs, and I cannot impose them on anybody. Besides, billions of people believe in a different religion than Christiandom, Islam or Judaism, who share many common beliefs. You have Buddhism, Hinduism, Kashmir Shaivism, Taoism, Tibbetan Buddhism among many other radically different religions to the God of the Bible. As there can be only one God, it is perhaps them who are right? (My answer: who knows?) Anybody can have faith, and faith in love is the noblest thing that I can conceive, but I believe that nobody can be sure that they have the only and exact concept of God.

Alvaro

At the age of thirty I began to investigate the claims of several religions - Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity to be specific.
I was an agnostic who had been challenged by a few words in the preface of an excellent book I had been reading on the subject of Economic Geography and the history of nations from that viewpoint. That one sentence was: "Nothing that we know of which even approaches the intricacy of life has ever occured by chance".

Anyone can have "faith", but that does not mean that it's a reasonable faith, not to mention whether it's true. I spent hundreds of hours reading various texts and hours more in conversations with a Jewish Rabbi, a Methodist minister, a Messianic Jew whose writings had intrigued me, and even a telephone call and written correspondence with a Hindu Maharashi. (This was fifteen years before E-mail!)
I came to the conclusion that the Resurrection was real. Concurrent with that came the acceptance of the Incarnation.
Having accepted these things and experienced many others over a decade pertaining to the reality of this faith, I have come to believe without any hesitation that Orthodox Christianity is the Truth. There are various "truths" to be found in many places, but there is only one Truth. As in arithmetic, there is only one correct answer to a sum.

But neither I nor the Orthodox Church would ever force anyone to believe anything; a "forced" faith is no faith at all, and is completely worthless to the one so forced, not to mention the injustice upon that person and society as a whole where such things become the norm.

I posted those Scriptures for you because you reminded me of myself: unsure, somewhat confused, but having the humility to listen and not be so cocksure of things for which your knowledge is possibly superficial.
I meant no "dig" at you and certainly no offense. Your statements concerning procured abortion led me to believe that you are a person of goodwill, and I wanted to encourage you. I hope that in some small way I have.

May you have a very Merry Christmas, and may the God and Father of us all give you light and understanding in all good things.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

I like very much these words. Life might be sacred or not, but we really don't know. At most we may believe.

In my personal opinion all life is sacred, human, gorillas, whales, everything that breathes. Also IMHO human life has a greater degree of sacredness that other animal forms. A problem remains, even if there is a God (and I believe there is), what does He want? Perhaps He might want to mantain the status quo, that is, He likes the world just as it is? Perhaps He wants that things go better at a very very slow pace? And what should we do in view of His aims? Should we take His aims into account? Should we thrive for the good, knowing that He might be both "good" and "bad" alike?

As we don't know most important things, we must find a human way to legislate things such as abortion. Personally I am against unless there are important circumstances such as important danger for the mother, rape, etc.

Alvaro

Nice to hear from Madrid, Alvaro. Didn't Spain just have a referendum on whether to legalize abortion? Have been away from the news, so don't know how that turned out. Your written English is excellent, so my questioning of the word "sacred" is taken as though your first language is English, which it may in fact be. As long as "sacred" is put forth in a non-religious sense, I think it is a correct word: "entitled to reverence and respect," and "reverence" means "honor or respect felt or shown." My choice in describing all life on this planet is that it represents a truly incredible phenomenon.

And for what its worth, I don't see this incredible phenomenon of living organisms limited to just us humans, who at least as far as we know have the greatest developed intelligence--despite the way so man humans behave. Perhaps we aren't as smart as our hubris provokes many of us to believe.

I strongly agree with your noting that "we don't know most important things," but just as well it seems experience with legislation of morality (as well as so many non-moral issues) has more than any desired number of ill consequences and to me the issue of birth control and abortion is entirely a moral issue.

As already written above, I see nothing wrong with whatever is your personal opinion regarding the issue of abortion. To the contrary, I think it approaches idiocy when any of us think our beliefs should be the guide for all of mankind to the extent that something is so clear to some group that it should be legislated. "My (some group) thinking is superior to your thinking on issues of morality," that is the message of legislated morality. We Americans know of the value of life and quality of life, and morality. Hell, who killed all the American Indians? Who emancipated the slaves yet kept them under thumb or worse for another hundred or more years and maybe even now in some places?

The most interesting aspect of this discussion and others like it at times on iTulip is not whether anyone's arguments are going to change the thinking of anyone else, but that our posts display the wide variation of views and at times the certainty of the answers that some to me appear to project.

Below I noted Raz posited, regarding anything about this issue in the "gray area," his perception of "a little black and white" with his post about his friend the obstetrician. What more do we need in the way of debate? Issue is resolved. Raz wins. Bah humbug!

Looking down below your post in linear mode, I see Raz is quoting some Bible versus to you for guidance. If you need guidance, then in regard to Raz, I suggest wariness, not that either he or I should be overly concerned about what you think.

I really enjoy baiting Christians, and I'm not picking specifically on Christians except that they are mostly the type of religious with whom I have any contact. I love to ask one (especially an eighteen year old Morman neighborhood missionary, but actually any will do) "Do you know there is a god?" Nearly without fail, the first answer is "Yes" or "Of course, there is." Then I ask what is the meaning of "faith." Only those with a bit of intellect seem capable of answering that in the true sense. If one has "faith" one does not "know." So after a bit of reflection on that, these Christians will admit to me (though if I were the preacher at their church I'm not sure they would say the same thing,) that they do not "know" there is the god they worship, but correctly they say "I believe there is a god." The latter seems fine to me and as it should be, but this is just my thinking.

I once here suggested all religious belief (if sincere as opposed to perhaps a lie of a politician seeking votes) is based on fear and/or ignorance, and Raz concluded I was suggesting he was ignorant.

I think some of what we write in these forums speaks for itself with regard to our intelligence and intellect, so as I recall it was he who took my statements as suggesting he was either fearful or ignorant. But his post #37 suggests something important about his beliefs--that is his recognition that he believes he has arrived at the "Truth." I surmise Raz might be 55 or so years old, and if he was an agnostic at age 30, but after his study and theological inquiry has found the truth, then to my estimate he is going backwards intellectually, and I suppose that represents some sort of ignorance.

Lukester, who readers these days may or may not recollect, in what to me was his most memorable posts (unless I dreamed he made such a post) argued quite clearly that to say one is an atheist is as non-intellectual as it is for one to state he is a Christian, a Muslim, or a Hindu (or any other theistic religions I've never known or have forgotten). A theist believes there exists the god of his faith, and the atheist believes there is no god(s). Neither can prove the correctness of his/her beliefs. Theistic religions and atheism are positions based on "faith" which is something accepted without there being proof. If one has periods of great clarity and intellectual dominance in thinking, then the only pure label with regard to existence or non-existence of a god is agnosticism. Anyone wishing to argue that point, I'd enjoy reading the argument(s).

So to finish up on Brother Raz, from down in Mississippi, it appears to me that he rather than gaining wisdom with age is going backwards in "progressing" from an "agnositic" to having sought and no less found the "Truth." To me it is those of any religious persuasion who "know" there exists their god and that what they have studied rigorously by their assessment is the "Truth." These types are especially dangerous to society and mankind when they group together to influence laws that reflect that concept of truth.

My morals suggest too much of anything is bad, and that applies to certain bacteria, pig shit, and humans who are just another form of evolutionary expansion of the incredible phenomenon of life on the planet earth. Unfortunately we humans are seemingly too often guided by belief in things that are wrong or that might not in fact even exist. Raz noted the sentence that sent him to seeking and no less finding the "Truth" "Nothing that we know of which even approaches the intricacy of life has ever occurred by chance." So the answer to that conundrum is to conjure an explanation that is faith based. That is great if one wishes to accept it, but dangerous if such faith based belief is forced onto a society. Raz made the point that he and his particular brand of Christianity would never force anyone to believe anything, etc. But that is not the same as taking some religiously based moral code and forcing it upon society as do laws that would prohibit abortion (the word "abortion" is the most important word in the Republican Party's vocabulary in that is a Pavlovian trigger for voting for anyone who precedes it with "I am against...").

I do not see abortion, or morning after pills to expel a freshly fertilized egg, or birth control pills as in any sense immoral. I do see society/religions mandating that such measures are immoral or illegal without those entities coming up with some truly viable solutions to providing a world where those unfortunate enough to be born into it have a chance for a healthy and productive life under the support and guidance of nurturing parents.

We kill dogs and cats to control the population. We kill rats and insects because of their nuisance to us, cattle, pigs, chickens, fish because we like to eat them, trees because they provide building materials and paper, but some think everything will be okay if we just keep producing more humans--the greatest biological organism that threatens the incredible phenomenon that the planet earth, so far in the little that we know of the universe, represents.

More habituating drugs are the treatment for drug addiction, more credit is the treatment for societies drowning in debt, and more humans are the answer for a lonely planet rapidly depleting its resources. I think we humans have got the answers down pat.

[Alvaro Spain]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

Looking down below your post in linear mode, I see Raz is quoting some Bible versus to you for guidance. If you need guidance, then in regard to Raz, I suggest wariness, not that either he or I should be overly concerned about what you think.


Lukester, who readers these days may or may not recollect, in what to me was his most memorable posts (unless I dreamed he made such a post) argued quite clearly that to say one is an atheist is as non-intellectual as it is for one to state he is a Christian, a Muslim, or a Hindu (or any other theistic religions I've never known or have forgotten). A theist believes there exists the god of his faith, and the atheist believes there is no god(s). Neither can prove the correctness of his/her beliefs. Theistic religions and atheism are positions based on "faith" which is something accepted without there being proof. If one has periods of great clarity and intellectual dominance in thinking, then the only pure label with regard to existence or non-existence of a god is agnosticism. Anyone wishing to argue that point, I'd enjoy reading the argument(s).

Thank you very much for your comments on my written english. My first langage is spanish, but I read a lot of english on the internet, and it is an efficient way to learn a langage.

In Spain we have abortion legalized since almost twenty years, although there is currently a move to change the legislation. Nothing has been approved as for today.

About Raz: the only thing that we really know about him is that he is a generous man. I have observed that he shares with iTulip community his resources and analysis on gold, etc. Like everybody else, he has his opinions and points of view about the world, which we might share totally, partially or not at all, but I don't believe that this is as important as his generosity.

About God and beliefs: it is true that nobody can prove the correctness of his/her beliefs. Why? Because to prove something involves logic, reasoning and so on, and if God could be "proved" then he would be "smaller" than human mind. You can only prove with logic the kind of things that submit to the laws of logic, which are really laws of our human mind, not laws of the universe. As I believe that God is way bigger than human reason, he will never be logically provable. In fact, as I trained physicist, I believe that you can only "prove" mathematical theorems. Everything else in life is "unprovable". Can you prove love, honesty, music, beauty? I understand that you are a doctor. Ten years ago I decided to become a physical therapist. I was taught (I admit that perhaps I was wrongly taught) that you cannot prove pain. Pain is defined as a complex subjective sensation. Stimulation of nociceptors is not pain. Are there many things more important for a doctor that pain? The fact that pain cannot be proved, does imply that pain does not exist, or that you should not acknowledge its importance? Similarly, the fact that God cannot be logically proved does not imply that He does not exist.

In my opinion you can know about God as you can know about pain, or love. You may (or may not) have the kind of internal or external experiences in life that lead you to believe in His existence. But, as He will remain not provable to others, you keep willy-nilly this knowledge for yourself, you don't try to impose your beliefs onto others, etc.

To try to clarify things: I believe that many people can become convinced, just by observing and reflecting on their own lives, of God's existence, but that many (most) things about God are unknowable. I also believe that it is more important for God (if He exists) that people have goodwill towards others than the fact that people believe in Him or not. I don't think He cares too much about that.

Alvaro

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

A theist believes there exists the god of his faith, and the atheist believes there is no god(s). Neither can prove the correctness of his/her beliefs.

Anyone who confuses "proof" with "faith" is either untrained in mathematics or limited in spirit. .

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

You can only prove with logic the kind of things that submit to the laws of logic, which are really laws of our human mind, not laws of the universe. As I believe that God is way bigger than human reason, he will never be logically provable.

As a "devout" Atheist, I entirely agree, except for the (minor, actually) detail that I would add that His non-existence cannot be proven either.

There is far more about this universe than fits in my petty brain. What we call matters of the spirit (faith, belief, meditation, prayer, ...) describe how we seek to understand that which is beyond simple understanding. The labels we ascribe to our faith are a pitiful shadow of what we sometimes glimpse internally, which in turn is a pitiful shadow of all that is or might be.

[Raz]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

I strongly agree with your noting that "we don't know most important things," but just as well it seems experience with legislation of morality (as well as so many non-moral issues) has more than any desired number of ill consequences and to me the issue of birth control and abortion is entirely a moral issue.

All law is the legislation of some idea of morality. Armed robbery, rape, murder, embezzelment, etc. are prohibited because society has deemd them to be wrongful behavior. That "deeming" came about because of a consensus that saw these acts as immoral in some way. As Martin Luther King said, "I cannot obtain a law to make you love me, but hopefully I can obtain a law to prevent you from lynching me".

Below I noted Raz posited, regarding anything about this issue in the "gray area," his perception of "a little black and white" with his post about his friend the obstetrician. What more do we need in the way of debate? Issue is resolved. Raz wins. Bah humbug!

I presented clear evidence as to the stark reality of procured abortion in order to focus the debate on the forgotten participant as well as the woman who found herself in an "unwanted pregnancy", not to stifle debate.
My friend was repulsed at the sight of such carnage and slaughter. You are so unmoved that you offer a "Bah humbug!".

I really enjoy baiting Christians, ...

It is truly an honor to be the recipient of your insults, Jim.

I once here suggested all religious belief (if sincere as opposed to perhaps a lie of a politician seeking votes) is based on fear and/or ignorance, and Raz concluded I was suggesting he was ignorant.

But his post #37 suggests something important about his beliefs--that is his recognition that he believes he has arrived at the "Truth." I surmise Raz might be 55 or so years old, and if he was an agnostic at age 30, but after his study and theological inquiry has found the truth, then to my estimate he is going backwards intellectually, and I suppose that represents some sort of ignorance.

Thanks for the admission. I'm glad to let those who read my posts decide the level of my "ignorance".

So to finish up on Brother Raz, from down in Mississippi, it appears to me that he rather than gaining wisdom with age is going backwards in "progressing" from an "agnositic" to having sought and no less found the "Truth." To me it is those of any religious persuasion who "know" there exists their god and that what they have studied rigorously by their assessment is the "Truth." These types are especially dangerous to society and mankind when they group together to influence laws that reflect that concept of truth.

Yes indeed. That Mother Theresa was one dangerous chick. Albert Schweitzer rudely imposed himself upon the Africans, William Wilberforce was certanly dangerous to the Slave Trade, and in one of the most cynical interferences imaginable Wilberforce established the SPCA!
I suppose only atheists and agnostics should have the right to influence the laws of the societies in which they live.
After all, they're not dangerous.

Raz made the point that he and his particular brand of Christianity would never force anyone to believe anything, etc. But that is not the same as taking some religiously based moral code and forcing it upon society as do laws that would prohibit abortion

Laws prohibiting procured abortion were imposed upon the people of the various states by their elected representatives in their legislatures. The Supreme Court of the United States imposed its social view upon the people of those states by arbitrarily striking down those statutes approved by the people through their elected representatives.
At the time Harry Blackmon wrote the opinion for Roe v. Wade procured abortion was legal in four states, and the proper Constitutional course would have been to let the people decide the matter in their respective legislatures.
The reader can judge for himself who "imposed" what.

We kill dogs and cats to control the population

. We kill rats and insects because of their nuisance to us, cattle, pigs, chickens, fish because we like to eat them, trees because they provide building materials and paper, but some think everything will be okay if we just keep producing more humans...

The Utilitarianism of your worldview based upon dialectical materialism comes through loud and clear. It was shared by Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot. The individual means nothing in comparison to the good of society or the state. My worldview sees each individual human being as unique, valuable, and worthy of protection; you see them as comparable to insects, only more intelligent.

The reader can decide whose views are a dangerous influence upon society.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

Nice post, raz. I will get back to some of your points.

In the meantime anyone, if anyone else, reading here should find the link below interesting. Despite the site's explanation of how it procures and displays its data, I have no idea as to the correctness of all it puts forth.

http://www.worldometers.info/ which I found on The Big Picture.

So far today, 8PM, the earth's population has had a net increase of 178,797, while I suspect oil likely decreased. Births were twice deaths today and for the year.

135,654 species have gone extinct this year, one that didn't was homo sapiens.

1,020,490,462 are considered undernourished in the world right now.

1,463,155,386 people have no access to safe drink water, while we in the US flush 1.6Gal away every time we take a leak in a home toilet etc, and follow each with a flush.

42 years til the end of oil. Ten times that until end of coal.

45,023,930 abortions this year.

Assuming some degree of correctness to the various meters, it seems to be a site worth bookmarking if one is interested in these sorts of things.

[jiimbergin]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

Thanks for the admission. I'm glad to let those who read my posts decide the level of my "ignorance".



Yes indeed. That Mother Theresa was one dangerous chick. Albert Schweitzer rudely imposed himself upon the Africans, William Wilberforce was certanly dangerous to the Slave Trade, and in one of the most cynical interferences imaginable Wilberforce established the SPCA!
I suppose only atheists and agnostics should have the right to influence the laws of the societies in which they live.
After all, they're not dangerous.



Laws prohibiting procured abortion were imposed upon the people of the various states by their elected representatives in their legislatures. The Supreme Court of the United States imposed its social view upon the people of those states by arbitrarily striking down those statutes approved by the people through their elected representatives.
At the time Harry Blackmon wrote the opinion for Roe v. Wade procured abortion was legal in four states, and the proper Constitutional course would have been to let the people decide the matter in their respective legislatures.
The reader can judge for himself who "imposed" what.



The Utilitarianism of your worldview based upon dialectical materialism comes through loud and clear. It was shared by Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot. The individual means nothing in comparison to the good of society or the state. My worldview sees each individual human being as unique, valuable, and worthy of protection; you see them as comparable to insects, only more intelligent.

The reader can decide whose views are a dangerous influence upon society.

Raz, I too have gone backward (at least in Jim Nickerson's mind) since I became a true believer at the age of 38. There is no comparison of the first 38 years of my life and the past 27. The peace I feel now is beyond understanding except by those who share it with me.

Thanks for your excellent posts.

jim

[Jim Nickerson]

All law is the legislation of some idea of morality. Armed robbery, rape, murder, embezzelment, etc. are prohibited because society has deemd them to be wrongful behavior. That "deeming" came about because of a consensus that saw these acts as immoral in some way. As Martin Luther King said, "I cannot obtain a law to make you love me, but hopefully I can obtain a law to prevent you from lynching me".

JN response. In supposedly civilized societies rules/laws evolve (via legislation, dictate) because some members exercise of freedom impinges upon that of other persons or others' property. Drunk driving whether immoral or not endangers others. Speeding endangers others. Murder, robbery, rape impinges upon the rights of others. Bible didn't mention speeding or drunk driving, but had it, then perhaps their prohibitions would have been in the 10 commandments. Robbery and murder were mentioned, and thus a Bible believer could consider our laws are against the immorality of theft and murder, but even a society without Biblical influence, common good and concern for order should/would result in similar prohibitions.

In general most laws evolve because common good is encroached upon by some individuals. Speeding is not immoral. My dog shitting on the side walk is not immoral, but both are against the laws where I live.


I presented clear evidence as to the stark reality of procured abortion in order to focus the debate on the forgotten participant as well as the woman who found herself in an "unwanted pregnancy", not to stifle debate.
My friend was repulsed at the sight of such carnage and slaughter. You are so unmoved that you offer a "Bah humbug!".

Again, Bah Humbug! You presented an anecdote applied to one presumably educated person's reaction. My reaction was yes, those little bitty pictures do portray little bitty humanoids, but until they are extracted by C-section or natural birth they are not humans; they are cells, embryos and fetuses. And I am not bothered by early interruption of their development if the woman carrying them sees reason not to allow an incipient pregnancy to go to full term. It fortunately is currently the woman's decision in American as to what she wants to do with her and her male injector's cells, embryo, fetus. I've previously posed: Why does the government have any obligation with what a woman chooses to do with a ball of cells? I think the government has no obligation at all, and if you think differently, who is correct? and why? I think I asked that to Ghent12 twice, but got no answer.

I see this one way, you and others see it otherwise. Why is one of us correct and one of wrong in how we see the answer? Could we both be correct?


It is truly an honor to be the recipient of your insults, Jim.

raz, if I get pleasure or amusement baiting (i.e. that is asking them questions that should induce some reflection upon their beliefs) individuals whom I believe are Christians, why is that an insult to you? I don't get it. Are you in some manner particularly thin-skinned?



Thanks for the admission. I'm glad to let those who read my posts decide the level of my "ignorance".

To my best estimate, everyone is ignorant about something given the amount of knowledge of all things that exist today, and I suspect that if one encountered a monomath (as opposed to a polymath--which today may no longer actually exist except by relativity to others), then one with massive knowledge about a single subject will if honest admit that even with the apparent mass of what is known, still there is something unknown, thus in honesty would/should admit that even with a high level of knowledge there still exist some ignorance. There is no mistake but that I am ignorant about most things, and I have no reason to believe that you and anyone else reading here is not also ignorant about some things. You could be a genius in investing and ignorant in child-rearing, or mountain climbing, etc. So do not suggest to me that if you have made what you and anyone else reading here sees as very smart, intelligent observations on some subject that that removes you from the possibility of ignorance in regard to some other regard. That is not a personal attack upon you, but my observation/opinion from which few, if not nearly all, humans are exempt.

I will stick by my perception that all theistic religious believers are either ignorant or fearful (again I am not writing about liars who profess religious beliefs or affiliations to garner social or political acceptance). That is my opinion, take whatever offense anyone reading it wishes. Further, I think anyone is free to believe anything they wish and as for religions they are free to practice any one they choose, but that freedom for individual practice does not extend any power of religious groups to force their perception of right or wrong on those who do not share their beliefs.

Yes indeed. That Mother Theresa was one dangerous chick. Albert Schweitzer rudely imposed himself upon the Africans, William Wilberforce was certanly dangerous to the Slave Trade, and in one of the most cynical interferences imaginable Wilberforce established the SPCA!
I suppose only atheists and agnostics should have the right to influence the laws of the societies in which they live.
After all, they're not dangerous.

There are good people in history, now, and likely in the future. To suggest to me that Mother Theresa, Schweizer accomplished what they did only because of God (though you did not write that, it is implied) it subtracts from what humans can accomplish by their diligence and sacrifice. Of course, I don't think such people are dangerous or bad. I don't believe that either of those two were legislative lobbyist or political candidates running on a platform to impose their personal/religious beliefs on some population of millions. I don't know about Wilberforce and am not going to look him up just to write more words.

I don't think any laws any where on earth should be determined based on a faith-based religion, which all are, to apply to those who are not of the faith. That ain't gonna fly in Islamic theocracies, but until the US becomes a Christian theocracy, it shouldn't fly here either.

Laws prohibiting procured abortion were imposed upon the people of the various states by their elected representatives in their legislatures. The Supreme Court of the United States imposed its social view upon the people of those states by arbitrarily striking down those statutes approved by the people through their elected representatives.
At the time Harry Blackmon wrote the opinion for Roe v. Wade procured abortion was legal in four states, and the proper Constitutional course would have been to let the people decide the matter in their respective legislatures.
The reader can judge for himself who "imposed" what.

Even though we live in a democracy where the laws supposedly reflect the will of a majority, some things even desired by a majority are not legal, I suppose a good example of that is the John Crow laws that emerged after Lincoln freed the slaves. That Ron Paul cherishes life and is personally against abortion and if President would punt the issue to the States is a weasel's way out of facing the problem. To cherish life in a political spectrum in the US and not be equally concerned and active in seeking remedy of the poor quality of life in the poor areas of the world is hypocritical to me.


The Utilitarianism of your worldview based upon dialectical materialism comes through loud and clear. It was shared by Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot. The individual means nothing in comparison to the good of society or the state. My worldview sees each individual human being as unique, valuable, and worthy of protection; you see them as comparable to insects, only more intelligent.

The reader can decide whose views are a dangerous influence upon society.

I really dislike "labelers." Fuck, I am just another human being with hopefully some ability to look at problems and think about what might be answers and what keeps us from coming up with answers. Does my self-description bring to mind some applicable label?

Abortion and all forms of birth control, stem cell research, euthanasia, prostitution in adults, some forms of drug use, homosexual behavior between consenting adults are victimless "crimes" as seen by some members of society. To me they are all victimless behaviors.

Unchecked population growth is NOT a victimless behavior.

Again, I would really appreciate if you, Ghent12, or anyone will explain why what you believe about abortion is correct and what I believe is wrong. I believe the problem is for the pregnant woman to decide what to do given what she believes is best for herself and a potential new world citizen. It is not what the Roman Catholic church may think is best for her or the world, or what orthodox Christians think is best for her or the world, or what an agnostic such as myself thinks is best for her or the world. What power do any of us have to think the correct answer is what we think should be the rule of the land?

My answers are interspersed with raz's previous post.