Environmentalism and Abortion

[Raz]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

My answers are interspersed with raz's previous post.

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.

Really? I suppose the extent of your knowledge of the American Indian only extends to the atrocities visited upon them by white people. Stealing was not considered a crime among many of them, polygamy was rampant and females certainly had few rights.
I suppose the Headhunters of the Amazon Basin did quite well in establishing "laws" among themselves. Likewise the cannibals. In New Guinea there was once a tribe who valued deception and treachery as the highest achievement - the particulars of which are detailed in the story "The Peace Child".


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.

What would you consider immoral, Jim? (Other than Christians attempting to influence society through its laws.)

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?

I described the biological inception of human life and presented photographs of the actual slaughter of tiny human beings. You only consider them a "ball of cells" and declare that they are not human beings - until born. Despite the fact that this "ball of cells" has a heartbeat, a blood type often different than that of the human female carrying them, a unique set of fingerprints at five weeks, and measurable electrical activity in the brainstem at ten weeks.
All very convenient; a sibling to the opinion of Roger Tanney in Dred Scott - just declare them to be non-human or sub-human and then we can do with them as we please. What a despicable sense of "values".

One doesn't have to be a Christian to acknowledge the humanity of the preborn since there are atheists who agree with me. http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

By the way, Jim, how do we know that you are human? You're really just a "ball of cells", are you not? Judging from some of your posts you don't put a high value on human beings in general - except some vague idea of preserving the "incredible phenomina of life" as you put it, even though in one comment you said that seeing humans wiped out and allowing other species to continue might be actually be preferable.

http://itulip.com/forums/showthread....231#post125231

“…Actually the best answer that I can imagine that would not be incriminating to anyone except maybe "God" would be a worldwide virus that attacked and killed most people on the planet over aged 55. That would open up a lot of jobs, take most of us with Medicare and Social Security off the dole or off the hands of their progeny who support those of old age in other countries, allow what is left of congress to continue its present course, and allow those of you who are younger not to have to deal with any serious (or at least less serious) hardships until the planet succeeds in again achieving its present status. Alternatively the younger could just start killing us oldsters. Figure out a way to shoot one every day for a year or so--enough youngsters doing that would rid a lot of the problem. Just remember a lot of us here in Texas pack "iron," even some old ladies I know do.”

Yes indeed, we need to prevent those ignorant Christians from influencing our laws and depend upon enlightened atheists to decide such things. Explaining why you are wrong is futile since you acknowledge no moral absolutes. But I do have a question for you: If you have the courage of your convictions as stated above, then why don't you lead by example, turn a gun on yourself, and not be a "weasel" as you implied of Ron Paul?

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?

A fine display of disingenuousness. And of course you "get it". You add "regression" to the term "ignorant" and now want to claim that no disparagement was intended. You act as though this is the first post of yours that I've ever read!
My skin it just fine. But after spending quite some time looking over your posts from prior discussions I cannot say the same for my stomach. If you were honest you would admit that you despise Christianity, and not attempt to present yourself as the all-tolerant individual you claim to be.

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.

What is your knowledge of "Christianity", Jim? What level of study have you invested in Judaism (the parent), Ecclesiastical History, Apologetics, Trinitarian Theology, etc.? Or do you just assume that "science" has disproved any and all aspects of intelligent design leaving only willful ignoramuses and superstitous bible-thumpers to be theists?

There are some rather powerful former atheists out there, you know. Like Antony Flew. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

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.


So if there is ONE believing Christain anywhere who accomplishes anything substantial because of a theological motivation then that subtracts from what humans can accomplish by their own diligence and sacrifice? :confused:

The Christian Faith is mystical in a very real sense, but it is not magical.
One can obey God or not, and Baptism doesn't convey some special ability to avoid discouragement, weariness, depression or any of the other infirmities common to mankind.

And I don't think any laws anywhere on this earth should have a foundation other than the Judaeo-Christian, but I would never try to "force" them upon a society. Yet you would deny me the right to influence public policy and the enactment of law because my world and life views are Christian. Majority rule is just fine with you as long as the majority doesn't happen to agree with me.

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 Jim Crow laws enacted after Reconstruction were a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, said amendment having been proposed by elected representatives of the American people AND ratified by other elected representatives of the people in their State Legislatures.

Ron Paul is in fact outspoken in his opposition to procured abortion and is also outspoken in his support of Constututional government. Such government in fact does confer the issue upon the States; it was taken from them by an activist Court which looked for a supposed right of "privacy" in the Constitution. (While Griswold itself was reasonable it was later used to a very bad effect.)
Ron Paul does not believe that either the President of the United States or the Supreme Court has the power to write laws.
He's not a "weasel" in any sense of the term. But I suppose you didn't mean to insult him and this is just further proof of how "thin-skinned" I am. :rolleyes:

Dr. Paul has provided unmercenary care as a physician and in his career has shown consistent integrity. The Church has shown compassion for untold millions throughout the Earth by establishing and funding hospitals, orphanages, schools, hospices, etc. She has fed the hungry, clothed the naked, and sought protection for the disabled and dispossesed.

What have you done? Where are all the charities established by atheists?
(Government mandates don't count; money extracted by force is not charity.)

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?

And I really dislike foul-mouthed, disingenuous old curmudgeons who won't admit their world views. You are a veritable poster child for utilitarianism and dialectical materialism. Look it up, check it out, and then you tell me how I wrongly described your views.


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.

You won't acknowledge the humanity of the preborn so of course they are "victimless" to you.
Prostitution is victimless? You really are a piece of work.

Unchecked population growth is NOT a victimless behavior.

You remind me of what someone once said of Malthus: there is only one human too many on the earth, and that's Malthus.
(In case you haven't observed, Malthus thought technical progress had peaked, and he was wrong.)

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?

Arguing this issue with someone like you is a complete waste of time. You accept no moral absolutes and reject anything that displeases your ideas unless it can be proven to your satisfaction. By the way, since you say we can't be certain when life actually begins, shouldn't we ere on the side of caution?

The only difference between you at the present and you when you were within your mother's womb are (a) time and (b) nutrition.
No woman ever gave birth to a frog so you were not a tadpole inside her womb. You were human then and you are human now.
Your blood type hasn't changed, your fingerprints haven't changed, et cetera , et cetera, et cetera.
What has changed is your ability to defend yourself: you can now while you couldn't back then.
And having no compassion for those being slaughtered means that despite all of your protests, you are not a person of goodwill.

I'm weary of talking to you, Jim, and I wouldn't have expended all this effort but for the edification of others who might read your posts on this subject. But from now on they're on their own - I don't see any further purpose in disputation with someone who will not see.

PS. You might want to spend $3.00 to listen to this. It's scientific research, not "Christian Propaganda".

https://store.peoplespharmacy.com/71...31-09-mp3.html

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Nickerson My answers are interspersed with raz's previous post.

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.

Really? I suppose the extent of your knowledge of the American Indian only extends to the atrocities visited upon them by white people. Stealing was not considered a crime among many of them, polygamy was rampant and females certainly had few rights.
I suppose the Headhunters of the Amazon Basin did quite well in establishing "laws" among themselves. Likewise the cannibals. In New Guinea there was once a tribe who valued deception and treachery as the highest achievement - the particulars of which are detailed in the story "The Peace Child".

JN responses in Green. raz, those all are primitive societies Despite whatever you, or those earlier Americans thought of the Indian's morality, was to largely exterminate them the right thing to do? I think not, but then I wasn't alive back then.

I think Sweden and likely the Scandinavian countries today are examples of a mostly godless societies, and to my abilities to recognize they are not bad places for people to live and work and die.

The US by some counts is largely a "Christian society," but we have no shortage of thievery here either overt stealing or so-called white collar crime. Here in some sectors "deception and treachery" also seem highly valued by some of society and too that seems quite lucrative.

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.

What would you consider immoral, Jim? (Other than Christians attempting to influence society through its laws.)

I consider acts and practices that deprive others of their lives, healthiness, and possessions as wrong. I don't consider a human morula, embryo, or fetus to about three months a human, or an entity that exists through some "divine" intervention anymore than I consider those stages in a dog, or cat some act of the divine. I look around at the world's supply of the human organism and there are too many living non-productive lives with little to no chance of that changing because there are no opportunities for likely healthy survival and becoming productive in any even meager degree, and the rest of the world is not suddenly going to become charitable and concerned enough to change those prospects. When those people die, life goes on, and when Lincoln, Kennedy, MLK, and whoever else was great and might have changed some things for the better, life still goes on as it will when you and I die. Human life in this world today as I see it is cheap. I don't think anyone should just go out and start killing the humans to reduce their numbers, but at some point it seems to me that something must control the population. Just as most of us upon dying from whatever will not long be missed, those potential humans that get aborted will never be missed. Women should have the right to decide what they wish to do with whatever ends up growing in their uteruses. It is an individual decision, not a societal one, and not one for lawmakers to decide based on whatever, if anything, determines their concept of morality. To me the answer is so simple, your girlfriend does not believe in abortion, then she shouldn't have one. My girl friend does and I do, she should have the opportunity if some other less invasive method was not used or did not work to prevent a pregnancy.

I was actually comforted the other day to run across the Worldometer http://www.worldometers.info/ that showed 45M abortions have occurred this year in the world. (I have no idea as to the correctness of that number) but if it kept 45 million more humans from further stretching/depleting the earth's resources, I think it is wonderful.

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?

I described the biological inception of human life and presented photographs of the actual slaughter of tiny human beings. You only consider them a "ball of cells" and declare that they are not human beings - until born. Despite the fact that this "ball of cells" has a heartbeat, a blood type often different than that of the human female carrying them, a unique set of fingerprints at five weeks, and measurable electrical activity in the brainstem at ten weeks.
All very convenient; a sibling to the opinion of Roger Tanney in Dred Scott - just declare them to be non-human or sub-human and then we can do with them as we please. What a despicable sense of "values".

One doesn't have to be a Christian to acknowledge the humanity of the preborn since there are atheists who agree with me. http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html This entire issue of sacredness of human life is not resolvable based on who believes what, nor what is the background of the believers. As far as sacredness, that could be true if there were truly a supreme being, but all notions of supreme beings are faith-based. What one chooses to place faith in might if reality were known be a misplaced effort or thought process.

By the way, Jim, how do we know that you are human? You're really just a "ball of cells", are you not? No I think when I got spat out at the end of a full term pregnancy, I qualified as one human. Judging from some of your posts you don't put a high value on human beings in general - except some vague idea of preserving the "incredible phenomena of life" as you put it, even though in one comment you said that seeing humans wiped out and allowing other species to continue might be actually be preferable.

There are some good people at least from what I can perceive. If one considers that Earth is truly a perhaps statistical anomaly, which it may or may not be given what is not known of the universe, and that life is an incredible phenomenon (I subscribe to both those ideas), then based on my millisecond of observation based on geological time, I really believe that humans represent the greatest danger to continuation of all life forms on the planet. Some collision with a giant meteor could change that, but barring interruption of the present course, man is the Earth's worst enemy and the answer to the problems we face isn't more humans, and certainly not the production of more humans based on any groups concept of morality. Human life all totaled is cheap.

http://itulip.com/forums/showthread....231#post125231

“…Actually the best answer that I can imagine that would not be incriminating to anyone except maybe "God" would be a worldwide virus that attacked and killed most people on the planet over aged 55. That would open up a lot of jobs, take most of us with Medicare and Social Security off the dole or off the hands of their progeny who support those of old age in other countries, allow what is left of congress to continue its present course, and allow those of you who are younger not to have to deal with any serious (or at least less serious) hardships until the planet succeeds in again achieving its present status. Alternatively the younger could just start killing us oldsters. Figure out a way to shoot one every day for a year or so--enough youngsters doing that would rid a lot of the problem. Just remember a lot of us here in Texas pack "iron," even some old ladies I know do.”

Yes indeed, we need to prevent those ignorant Christians from influencing our laws and depend upon enlightened atheists to decide such things. Explaining why you are wrong is futile since you acknowledge no moral absolutes. But I do have a question for you: If you have the courage of your convictions as stated above, then why don't you lead by example, turn a gun on yourself, and not be a "weasel" as you implied of Ron Paul?

I am unaware of any political group of atheist/agnostics that have attempted in the United States to influence the legislation on abortion rights, euthanasia, stem cell research, homosexual marriage or unions, homosexual life choices (if it is a choice), legalization of prostitution, or less draconian penalties for some forms of currently illicit drugs. To me those issues are issues of individual choice, known in some circles as freedoms.

I think Paul on the abortion issue is a weasel/hypocrite, but that is just my opinion.

I've a loved one right now dying from colon cancer. She professes to be a Christian. She also says she believes if humans are humane enough to euthanize their sick pets, shoot injured horses that can't be saved, then why in the world can we humans not be recipients of that same humanity? None of us know what will lead to our individual deaths. We can only hope that we might get to go out in some manner that is most acceptable to us--though for an individual what are the chances that that wish will come to pass. For myself, when or if I were to contract some fatal illnesses if I am mentally and physically capable then I will commit suicide, best bet currently is carbon monoxide asphyxiation. I dread only not having an opportunity to end my life when I see fit. And I do not relish the notion of some asshole with a gun or car just coming upon me and ending my life.

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?

A fine display of disingenuousness. And of course you "get it". You add "regression" to the term "ignorant" and now want to claim that no disparagement was intended. You act as though this is the first post of yours that I've ever read!
My skin it just fine. But after spending quite some time looking over your posts from prior discussions I cannot say the same for my stomach. If you were honest you would admit that you despise Christianity, and not attempt to present yourself as the all-tolerant individual you claim to be.

raz, here you are demonstrating what I take as the superficiality of your mentality. You have not the least idea about my honesty, and for you to assume you do, sort of contradicts that ole Biblical saw "Judge not that you be not judged," or do I miss-recollect that verse. I wrote above I have no qualms with your believing whatever you wish to believe theologically, but I have a great problem and an enlightened society (which we by and large do not have) should also have a problem with accepting what you and your ilk believe on faith should therefore be the law of our land. You come across to me as one who believes he KNOWS what is right for mankind based on your orthodox Christian beliefs. That to me reeks of hubris.

I am glad something I have written has created the possibility that I am a tolerant individual, though I don't think I have ever stated that here or in a conversation with anyone. I have stated what I believe.


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.

What is your knowledge of "Christianity", Jim? What level of study have you invested in Judaism (the parent), Ecclesiastical History, Apologetics, Trinitarian Theology, etc.? Or do you just assume that "science" has disproved any and all aspects of intelligent design leaving only willful ignoramuses and superstitous bible-thumpers to be theists?

raz, it strikes me that you do not even consider that you might be wrong in believing there is a god. Probably I am too simplistic in all my thinking, but "faith" is what it means. "Faith" does not mean "known fact." Whoever is or has been the greatest theologian up until now, if he happens to also believe there is a god or THE GOD, might be wrong. NO one knows. You can do all you can to know, but in the end of your study, you won't know.

I wrote earlier if you asked me prior to the very recent past if I were an atheist, I would have replied affirmatively. But really to think about it, an atheist has no more knowledge of whether or not a god exists than does a Christian, Muslim, or Hindu, if anyone wishes to engage in a moment of intellectuality I think what I am writing here is likely correct. If I had to bet and if an answer could be gathered, my bet is there is no Christian God, no Allah, no superior/supreme beings. I suppose you would believe there is. And I attribute the 2000 year or so history to theistic beliefs as based on fear and ignorance. That is how I figure it to make the most sense of what we have, and those two words were used as apt characterizations long before I ever was a morula.

FYI I was a Baptist by virtue of my mother's preference, and later a Roman Catholic by my own choice. I've read a bit about religions over the years, but don't consider it time especially well spent. Science is not going to prove or disprove a god. Science could influence how one might bet, but however one bets, no living person will ever know the answer, and my bet is no dead person will either. But the fact is I do not know the answer, nor do you or anyone you know. I am now and expect to remain an agnostic.

There are some rather powerful former atheists out there, you know. Like Antony Flew. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

Anecdotes really don't sway my thinking about most things.

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.


So if there is ONE believing Christain anywhere who accomplishes anything substantial because of a theological motivation then that subtracts from what humans can accomplish by their own diligence and sacrifice? :confused:

The Christian Faith is mystical in a very real sense, but it is not magical.
One can obey God or not, and Baptism doesn't convey some special ability to avoid discouragement, weariness, depression or any of the other infirmities common to mankind.

And I don't think any laws anywhere on this earth should have a foundation other than the Judaeo-Christian, but I would never try to "force" them upon a society. Yet you would deny me the right to influence public policy and the enactment of law because my world and life views are Christian. Majority rule is just fine with you as long as the majority doesn't happen to agree with me.

Just as long as you or Christians do not believe that what they think is correct is in fact correct for everyone because you see it as correct. Is that hard to grasp? I'm getting the sense it is very difficult to grasp.

I don't know the answer to how atheist or agnostics raise their children with regard to creating in them some sense of morality. I was raised with a Judaeo-Christian sense of morality, and for many years that was as expansive as my mind got. You, Paul, or anyone else who professes Christianity but would outlaw abortion, stem cell research etc. certainly strike me as fully attempting to force you senses of morality on society at large, in this case the USA.


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 Jim Crow laws enacted after Reconstruction were a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, said amendment having been proposed by elected representatives of the American people AND ratified by other elected representatives of the people in their State Legislatures.

Ron Paul is in fact outspoken in his opposition to procured abortion and is also outspoken in his support of Constututional government. Such government in fact does confer the issue upon the States; it was taken from them by an activist Court which looked for a supposed right of "privacy" in the Constitution. (While Griswold itself was reasonable it was later used to a very bad effect.)
Ron Paul does not believe that either the President of the United States or the Supreme Court has the power to write laws.
He's not a "weasel" in any sense of the term. But I suppose you didn't mean to insult him and this is just further proof of how "thin-skinned" I am. :rolleyes:

Dr. Paul has provided unmercenary care as a physician and in his career has shown consistent integrity. The Church has shown compassion for untold millions throughout the Earth by establishing and funding hospitals, orphanages, schools, hospices, etc. She has fed the hungry, clothed the naked, and sought protection for the disabled and dispossesed.

What have you done? Where are all the charities established by atheists?

I don't know whether Gates, Buffett, Carnegie, Sloan, Kettering, Ford, Mellon, Kellogg, etc. are/were Christians/Muslims/atheists/agnostics/Jews, but these people have given much to charity which just happened not to be controlled by some religious group as far as I know. I reject that non-theists are any less capable of good acts to man than are theists. The problem with religious schools, orphanages, I believe, is that beside general education or care to orphans is that they make every effort to brain-wash (that is the non-politically correct designation) those under tutelage and care. I don't agree with that indoctrination, but those organizations are free to do so. Apparently some believe that humans are only capable of good deeds if the reason for it is based on religion. I reject that. People are capable of good works whether or not religion has anything to do with the motivation, and people who apparently present themselves as participants in some form of theism are capable of acts against the welfare of others.

(Government mandates don't count; money extracted by force is not charity.)

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?

And I really dislike foul-mouthed, disingenuous old curmudgeons who won't admit their world views. You are a veritable poster child for utilitarianism and dialectical materialism. Look it up, check it out, and then you tell me how I wrongly described your views.

You've cursed here (on itulip) too, raz, or am I truly mistaken in thinking I recall that. To the contrary, I can't say I dislike you. Most people whom I have known personally and have had strong disagreements over other subjects of mutual interest, when I've looked at what we both believed altogether, we always shared more mutual opinions than were the number of things over which we disagreed. Perhaps there is nothing between you and me on any subject about which we would both agree, but I doubt it. Don't get to thinking I am sucking up to you, I ain't.


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.

You won't acknowledge the humanity of the preborn so of course they are "victimless" to you. Yep, stopping the development of an early stage pregnancy does not make that which is expelled from the woman's uterus a victim. I firmly believe that.
Prostitution is victimless? You really are a piece of work.

A woman or man who of her/his own accord who wishes to generate income by engaging in sexual activity is not a victim. A woman or man who is forced into prostitution is a victim. That is not even hard to figure out.


Unchecked population growth is NOT a victimless behavior.

You remind me of what someone once said of Malthus: there is only one human too many on the earth, and that's Malthus.
(In case you haven't observed, Malthus thought technical progress had peaked, and he was wrong.)

Fine to come in with these pithy quotations, but you did not and I do not believe you can dispute what I wrote above.

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?

Arguing this issue with someone like you is a complete waste of time. You accept no moral absolutes and reject anything that displeases your ideas unless it can be proven to your satisfaction. By the way, since you say we can't be certain when life actually begins, shouldn't we ere on the side of caution?

I've not stated, IIRC, that something "proven to my satisfaction" is a standard of whether I might accept something or not. I've not rejected what I perceive as your sense of morality on the abortion issue, because of some lack of proof of something. I reject it on the basis that I disagree. The loss of the right for a woman to choose what she does in her own uterus is potentially against her welfare, against the potential human's welfare, and potentially against the best welfare of mankind and the planet and all life forms.

I probably do not think there are any "moral absolutes." It is my opinion that some people should be killed for retribution of their acts. I think there are times that stealing isn't immoral to the degree it should be punished. Though the Bible doesn't condone divorce as I recall, I think divorce is a reasonable answer to ending some marriages. Certainly the Muslims don't think much about divorcing if that is what the man wants to do, and who among us will say my God is correct, and your Allah isn't. There might be a moral absolute, but someone will have to call it to my attention, and please do if you know one or some.

The only difference between you at the present and you when you were within your mother's womb are (a) time and (b) nutrition.
No woman ever gave birth to a frog so you were not a tadpole inside her womb. You were human then and you are human now.
Your blood type hasn't changed, your fingerprints haven't changed, et cetera , et cetera, et cetera.
What has changed is your ability to defend yourself: you can now while you couldn't back then.
And having no compassion for those being slaughtered means that despite all of your protests, you are not a person of goodwill.

I'm weary of talking to you, Jim, and I wouldn't have expended all this effort but for the edification of others who might read your posts on this subject. But from now on they're on their own - I don't see any further purpose in disputation with someone who will not see.

I take what you wrote as that you are weary of defending your opinion to one who, within the limits of this thread, rejects your opinion, that is in effect for you to say perhaps "My way or the highway." and to me that is the problem with the Christian segment in America who have and in all likelihood will continue to elect lying Republicans who simply have to utter the phrase "I am against abortion" to gain the vote of the Christians and then to royally fuck them over by doing nothing of value for the country as a whole, but rather continuing to suck up to the moneyed elite.

PS. You might want to spend $3.00 to listen to this. It's scientific research, not "Christian Propaganda".

https://store.peoplespharmacy.com/71...31-09-mp3.html

[jtabeb]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

Remember, the right to choose is the right to choose either of the possible outcomes. Failure to recognize that means no choice is involved.

Wow, someone who get's it.

Disclaimer, I would never want to have to make that choice, but I don't want SOMEONE ELSE to make it for me, either.

This is a question of COMPULSION, understand that, and you understand what the real issue is. (The author of the above post, get's that. My hat's off to them for doing so)

[Raz]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Nickerson My answers are interspersed with raz's previous post.

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.

Really? I suppose the extent of your knowledge of the American Indian only extends to the atrocities visited upon them by white people. Stealing was not considered a crime among many of them, polygamy was rampant and females certainly had few rights.
I suppose the Headhunters of the Amazon Basin did quite well in establishing "laws" among themselves. Likewise the cannibals. In New Guinea there was once a tribe who valued deception and treachery as the highest achievement - the particulars of which are detailed in the story "The Peace Child".

JN responses in Green. raz, those all are primitive societies Despite whatever you, or those earlier Americans thought of the Indian's morality, was to largely exterminate them the right thing to do? I think not, but then I wasn't alive back then.
You did not address a single point I raised but proceded to create a "straw man" to knock down. If I am opposed to procured abortion you have to surmise that I view the action of the US Government toward the Indians as abhorrent. We can't have a real conversation if you refuse to directly address the points I raise but avoid them by raising a completely different issue. This is one of the reasons I see no point in continueing a conversation with you; I'll reveal the other reason later.

I think Sweden and likely the Scandinavian countries today are examples of a mostly godless societies, and to my abilities to recognize they are not bad places for people to live and work and die.

The US by some counts is largely a "Christian society," but we have no shortage of thievery here either overt stealing or so-called white collar crime. Here in some sectors "deception and treachery" also seem highly valued by some of society and too that seems quite lucrative.

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.

What would you consider immoral, Jim? (Other than Christians attempting to influence society through its laws.)

I consider acts and practices that deprive others of their lives, healthiness, and possessions as wrong. I don't consider a human morula, embryo, or fetus to about three months a human, or an entity that exists through some "divine" intervention anymore than I consider those stages in a dog, or cat some act of the divine. I look around at the world's supply of the human organism and there are too many living non-productive lives with little to no chance of that changing because there are no opportunities for likely healthy survival and becoming productive in any even meager degree, and the rest of the world is not suddenly going to become charitable and concerned enough to change those prospects. When those people die, life goes on, and when Lincoln, Kennedy, MLK, and whoever else was great and might have changed some things for the better, life still goes on as it will when you and I die. Human life in this world today as I see it is cheap. I don't think anyone should just go out and start killing the humans to reduce their numbers, but at some point it seems to me that something must control the population. Just as most of us upon dying from whatever will not long be missed, those potential humans that get aborted will never be missed. Women should have the right to decide what they wish to do with whatever ends up growing in their uteruses. It is an individual decision, not a societal one, and not one for lawmakers to decide based on whatever, if anything, determines their concept of morality. To me the answer is so simple, your girlfriend does not believe in abortion, then she shouldn't have one. My girl friend does and I do, she should have the opportunity if some other less invasive method was not used or did not work to prevent a pregnancy.
As I said concerning Roger Tanney and the Dred Scott decision: declare them to be non-human or sub-human and then it doesn't matter what we do to them. Here is the other reason that further discussion of this issue between us is completely futile and a waste of time: we have world views that are totally irreconcilable. We cannot agree that the tiny little creature inside a woman's uterus is a human being, so we have no point of agreement with which to begin; we do not agree on anything, Jim. Nothing at all.

I was actually comforted the other day to run across the Worldometer http://www.worldometers.info/ that showed 45M abortions have occurred this year in the world. (I have no idea as to the correctness of that number) but if it kept 45 million more humans from further stretching/depleting the earth's resources, I think it is wonderful.
You find mass-murder a comfort. You think that human beings acting like crocodiles is wonderful. I really don't know what to say to you.

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?

I described the biological inception of human life and presented photographs of the actual slaughter of tiny human beings. You only consider them a "ball of cells" and declare that they are not human beings - until born. Despite the fact that this "ball of cells" has a heartbeat, a blood type often different than that of the human female carrying them, a unique set of fingerprints at five weeks, and measurable electrical activity in the brainstem at ten weeks.
All very convenient; a sibling to the opinion of Roger Tanney in Dred Scott - just declare them to be non-human or sub-human and then we can do with them as we please. What a despicable sense of "values".

One doesn't have to be a Christian to acknowledge the humanity of the preborn since there are atheists who agree with me. http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html This entire issue of sacredness of human life is not resolvable based on who believes what, nor what is the background of the believers. As far as sacredness, that could be true if there were truly a supreme being, but all notions of supreme beings are faith-based. What one chooses to place faith in might if reality were known be a misplaced effort or thought process. Once again you completely ignore the biological facts I raised and procede with your straw man. The hyperlink opens a website created by and maintained by atheists - who by definition reject the idea of "faith" and "sacredness".
I'm not going to continue to address your points if you make NO ATTEMPT to address mine.

By the way, Jim, how do we know that you are human? You're really just a "ball of cells", are you not? No I think when I got spat out at the end of a full term pregnancy, I qualified as one human. Judging from some of your posts you don't put a high value on human beings in general - except some vague idea of preserving the "incredible phenomena of life" as you put it, even though in one comment you said that seeing humans wiped out and allowing other species to continue might be actually be preferable. Your humanity is based upon nothing but your opinion. Not biology, faith, or anything else except perhaps perveted law that refuses to protect the defenceless and helpless. Only when you were "spat out" did you then become a human being. There is no need for me to respond any further.


There are some good people at least from what I can perceive. If one considers that Earth is truly a perhaps statistical anomaly, which it may or may not be given what is not known of the universe, and that life is an incredible phenomenon (I subscribe to both those ideas), then based on my millisecond of observation based on geological time, I really believe that humans represent the greatest danger to continuation of all life forms on the planet. Some collision with a giant meteor could change that, but barring interruption of the present course, man is the Earth's worst enemy and the answer to the problems we face isn't more humans, and certainly not the production of more humans based on any groups concept of morality. Human life all totaled is cheap. I fail to see how this addresses anything; it's just a recapitulation of your dialectical materialism world view.

http://itulip.com/forums/showthread....231#post125231

“…Actually the best answer that I can imagine that would not be incriminating to anyone except maybe "God" would be a worldwide virus that attacked and killed most people on the planet over aged 55. That would open up a lot of jobs, take most of us with Medicare and Social Security off the dole or off the hands of their progeny who support those of old age in other countries, allow what is left of congress to continue its present course, and allow those of you who are younger not to have to deal with any serious (or at least less serious) hardships until the planet succeeds in again achieving its present status. Alternatively the younger could just start killing us oldsters. Figure out a way to shoot one every day for a year or so--enough youngsters doing that would rid a lot of the problem. Just remember a lot of us here in Texas pack "iron," even some old ladies I know do.”

Yes indeed, we need to prevent those ignorant Christians from influencing our laws and depend upon enlightened atheists to decide such things. Explaining why you are wrong is futile since you acknowledge no moral absolutes. But I do have a question for you: If you have the courage of your convictions as stated above, then why don't you lead by example, turn a gun on yourself, and not be a "weasel" as you implied of Ron Paul?
You skipped right over this one. I thought you would. This is practically an admission of your weaselness and an outright example of hypocrisy.

I am unaware of any political group of atheist/agnostics that have attempted in the United States to influence the legislation on abortion rights, euthanasia, stem cell research, homosexual marriage or unions, homosexual life choices (if it is a choice), legalization of prostitution, or less draconian penalties for some forms of currently illicit drugs. To me those issues are issues of individual choice, known in some circles as freedoms. That is completely beside the point: the point being that one doesn't have to be a Christian or a religious person to see procured abortion for the murder it is.

I think Paul on the abortion issue is a weasel/hypocrite, but that is just my opinion. Then I'm a weasel/hypocrite also, because I believe in Constitutional Government for the United States, and if a majority of the people in my jurisdiction favor the legalization of child-slaughter then I can either (a) choose to continue to live in such a place, or (b) leave. But I have no right to impose my views on the electorate. Contrary to your assertions I do have the right to influence said decision by peaceful, legal means, but I don't have the right to impose my views against the clearly expressed will of the majority. In this particular instance I think your opinion not only stinks, but is illogical and hypocritical as well.

I've a loved one right now dying from colon cancer. She professes to be a Christian. She also says she believes if humans are humane enough to euthanize their sick pets, shoot injured horses that can't be saved, then why in the world can we humans not be recipients of that same humanity? None of us know what will lead to our individual deaths. We can only hope that we might get to go out in some manner that is most acceptable to us--though for an individual what are the chances that that wish will come to pass. For myself, when or if I were to contract some fatal illnesses if I am mentally and physically capable then I will commit suicide, best bet currently is carbon monoxide asphyxiation. I dread only not having an opportunity to end my life when I see fit. And I do not relish the notion of some asshole with a gun or car just coming upon me and ending my life. I'm sorry that your loved one is gravely ill. Since you raised the Christian issue I'm going to provide some Orthodox (and Catholic) perspective on her idea of euthanasia: Mankind alone among all of physical creation bears a burden of guilt before God. Being created in His image with powers of intellectual and spiritual perception, comprehension and reasoning not provided to the lesser orders of creation (apes, whales, dolphins, etc.) man is in need of repentance and returning to his Creator. Pain and suffering have a very real purpose in stripping away the facade of independence that we suppose we have and exposes us to the reality of our condition. To knowingly, willfully end one's life by suicide is a rejection of hope and a loss of faith in God and is deemed by the Church to be a grave moral disorder. However, the Orthodox never offer judgement as to the eternal placement of a human being - such belongs to God alone, for He alone knows every circumstance in which such an act took place, including the mental condition of the one who chooses to end their physical life.
I hope that your loved one changes her thinking on this matter because such a viewpoint is manifestly heretical.

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?

A fine display of disingenuousness. And of course you "get it". You add "regression" to the term "ignorant" and now want to claim that no disparagement was intended. You act as though this is the first post of yours that I've ever read!
My skin it just fine. But after spending quite some time looking over your posts from prior discussions I cannot say the same for my stomach. If you were honest you would admit that you despise Christianity, and not attempt to present yourself as the all-tolerant individual you claim to be.

raz, here you are demonstrating what I take as the superficiality of your mentality. You have not the least idea about my honesty, and for you to assume you do, sort of contradicts that ole Biblical saw "Judge not that you be not judged," or do I miss-recollect that verse. I wrote above I have no qualms with your believing whatever you wish to believe theologically, but I have a great problem and an enlightened society (which we by and large do not have) should also have a problem with accepting what you and your ilk believe on faith should therefore be the law of our land. You come across to me as one who believes he KNOWS what is right for mankind based on your orthodox Christian beliefs. That to me reeks of hubris. Every atheist and pagan that I've ever met knows two scriptures by heart: "Judge not that ye be not judged" and "He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone". While they draw them like a pistol without knowing anything concerning the context in which Christ spoke them, they are ready to quote them whenever any Christian offers an opinion, even one based on clear evidence.
You have openly stated on these forums that you hope certain people are consigned to hell; that those who share my world view should have no right to influence the laws under which we all must live; that if you are small enough and dependant enough on your mother she should have the right to kill you, yet you are going to accuse me of being judgemental?

As to the issue of helplessness and dependancy of a human being inside their mother's womb: how independant are they after they are "spat out"? How well does a one year old human being provide for and protect themselves? How about a two year old?

I am glad something I have written has created the possibility that I am a tolerant individual, though I don't think I have ever stated that here or in a conversation with anyone. I have stated what I believe. I said that you proclaimed your tolerance - I've not read where anyone else ascribed such to you. Perhaps they have and I just haven't read the words.


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.

What is your knowledge of "Christianity", Jim? What level of study have you invested in Judaism (the parent), Ecclesiastical History, Apologetics, Trinitarian Theology, etc.? Or do you just assume that "science" has disproved any and all aspects of intelligent design leaving only willful ignoramuses and superstitous bible-thumpers to be theists?

raz, it strikes me that you do not even consider that you might be wrong in believing there is a god. Probably I am too simplistic in all my thinking, but "faith" is what it means. "Faith" does not mean "known fact." Whoever is or has been the greatest theologian up until now, if he happens to also believe there is a god or THE GOD, might be wrong. NO one knows. You can do all you can to know, but in the end of your study, you won't know.

I wrote earlier if you asked me prior to the very recent past if I were an atheist, I would have replied affirmatively. But really to think about it, an atheist has no more knowledge of whether or not a god exists than does a Christian, Muslim, or Hindu, if anyone wishes to engage in a moment of intellectuality I think what I am writing here is likely correct. If I had to bet and if an answer could be gathered, my bet is there is no Christian God, no Allah, no superior/supreme beings. I suppose you would believe there is. And I attribute the 2000 year or so history to theistic beliefs as based on fear and ignorance. That is how I figure it to make the most sense of what we have, and those two words were used as apt characterizations long before I ever was a morula.

FYI I was a Baptist by virtue of my mother's preference, and later a Roman Catholic by my own choice. I've read a bit about religions over the years, but don't consider it time especially well spent. Science is not going to prove or disprove a god. Science could influence how one might bet, but however one bets, no living person will ever know the answer, and my bet is no dead person will either. But the fact is I do not know the answer, nor do you or anyone you know. I am now and expect to remain an agnostic. Once again you avoid the points or questions I raised and veer off on some vague idea of "faith" while admitting that you know very little about Christianity. This is one of the reasons I no longer want to expend the time arguing with you.

There are some rather powerful former atheists out there, you know. Like Antony Flew. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

Anecdotes really don't sway my thinking about most things.
Anecdotes? You obviously didn't bother to take the hyperlink; if you did you certainly didn't read the article. Antony Flew has been "Mr. Atheist" and a hero to all atheists for decades. He could almost be considered their "high priest" and foremost apologist. His abandonment of atheism would be equivalent to the Pope declaring himself an atheist!
This is why I cannot have a real conversation with you, Jim.

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.


So if there is ONE believing Christain anywhere who accomplishes anything substantial because of a theological motivation then that subtracts from what humans can accomplish by their own diligence and sacrifice? :confused:

The Christian Faith is mystical in a very real sense, but it is not magical.
One can obey God or not, and Baptism doesn't convey some special ability to avoid discouragement, weariness, depression or any of the other infirmities common to mankind.

And I don't think any laws anywhere on this earth should have a foundation other than the Judaeo-Christian, but I would never try to "force" them upon a society. Yet you would deny me the right to influence public policy and the enactment of law because my world and life views are Christian. Majority rule is just fine with you as long as the majority doesn't happen to agree with me.

Just as long as you or Christians do not believe that what they think is correct is in fact correct for everyone because you see it as correct. Is that hard to grasp? I'm getting the sense it is very difficult to grasp.
Okay, so why then should you be allowed to impose law upon me either? I don't accept your world view, nor do I believe it to be correct for anyone. I don't want your immorality imposed upon me, and certainly not upon the weak, defenceless and helpless.

I don't know the answer to how atheist or agnostics raise their children with regard to creating in them some sense of morality. I was raised with a Judaeo-Christian sense of morality, and for many years that was as expansive as my mind got. You, Paul, or anyone else who professes Christianity but would outlaw abortion, stem cell research etc. certainly strike me as fully attempting to force you senses of morality on society at large, in this case the USA.


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 Jim Crow laws enacted after Reconstruction were a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, said amendment having been proposed by elected representatives of the American people AND ratified by other elected representatives of the people in their State Legislatures.

Ron Paul is in fact outspoken in his opposition to procured abortion and is also outspoken in his support of Constututional government. Such government in fact does confer the issue upon the States; it was taken from them by an activist Court which looked for a supposed right of "privacy" in the Constitution. (While Griswold itself was reasonable it was later used to a very bad effect.)
Ron Paul does not believe that either the President of the United States or the Supreme Court has the power to write laws.
He's not a "weasel" in any sense of the term. But I suppose you didn't mean to insult him and this is just further proof of how "thin-skinned" I am. :rolleyes:

Dr. Paul has provided unmercenary care as a physician and in his career has shown consistent integrity. The Church has shown compassion for untold millions throughout the Earth by establishing and funding hospitals, orphanages, schools, hospices, etc. She has fed the hungry, clothed the naked, and sought protection for the disabled and dispossesed.

What have you done? Where are all the charities established by atheists?

I don't know whether Gates, Buffett, Carnegie, Sloan, Kettering, Ford, Mellon, Kellogg, etc. are/were Christians/Muslims/atheists/agnostics/Jews, but these people have given much to charity which just happened not to be controlled by some religious group as far as I know. I reject that non-theists are any less capable of good acts to man than are theists.I never said or implied that they weren't capable of good acts! Straw man once again. The problem with religious schools, orphanages, I believe, is that beside general education or care to orphans is that they make every effort to brain-wash (that is the non-politically correct designation) those under tutelage and care. And the atheists who teach in public schools don't attempt to foist their world view off on those under their tutelage? I don't agree with that indoctrination, but those organizations are free to do so. Apparently some believe that humans are only capable of good deeds if the reason for it is based on religion. I reject that. People are capable of good works whether or not religion has anything to do with the motivation, and people who apparently present themselves as participants in some form of theism are capable of acts against the welfare of others. Straw men. Straw men Straw men.:rolleyes:

(Government mandates don't count; money extracted by force is not charity.)

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?

And I really dislike foul-mouthed, disingenuous old curmudgeons who won't admit their world views. You are a veritable poster child for utilitarianism and dialectical materialism. Look it up, check it out, and then you tell me how I wrongly described your views.

You've cursed here (on itulip) too, raz, or am I truly mistaken in thinking I recall that. I have used the term "rat-bastard" to describe Greenspan and Paulson. I shouldn't have. But I have NEVER used the FU#K word or the SH#T word, nor any such filthy language, nor any words so considered as a pervasive habit as you seem to do in most of your posts. It detracts from ones intelligence, and you are certainly not stupid. Your problem is volitional, not simply intellectual. To the contrary, I can't say I dislike you. Most people whom I have known personally and have had strong disagreements over other subjects of mutual interest, when I've looked at what we both believed altogether, we always shared more mutual opinions than were the number of things over which we disagreed. Perhaps there is nothing between you and me on any subject about which we would both agree, but I doubt it. Don't get to thinking I am sucking up to you, I ain't. I cannot imagine you sucking up to even an ice-cream cone, much less any human being.
So far I am unable to find anything discussed between us upon which we agree. Absolutely nothing.


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.

You won't acknowledge the humanity of the preborn so of course they are "victimless" to you. Yep, stopping the development of an early stage pregnancy does not make that which is expelled from the woman's uterus a victim. I firmly believe that.
Prostitution is victimless? You really are a piece of work.

A woman or man who of her/his own accord who wishes to generate income by engaging in sexual activity is not a victim. A woman or man who is forced into prostitution is a victim. That is not even hard to figure out. Not if you ignore the volumes of evidence as to the dysfunctional effects observed in prostitutes, and their clientele as well.


Unchecked population growth is NOT a victimless behavior.
I cannot respond to a statement as perverse as this.

You remind me of what someone once said of Malthus: there is only one human too many on the earth, and that's Malthus.
(In case you haven't observed, Malthus thought technical progress had peaked, and he was wrong.)

Fine to come in with these pithy quotations, but you did not and I do not believe you can dispute what I wrote above.

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?

Arguing this issue with someone like you is a complete waste of time. You accept no moral absolutes and reject anything that displeases your ideas unless it can be proven to your satisfaction. By the way, since you say we can't be certain when life actually begins, shouldn't we ere on the side of caution?

I've not stated, IIRC, that something "proven to my satisfaction" is a standard of whether I might accept something or not. I've not rejected what I perceive as your sense of morality on the abortion issue, because of some lack of proof of something. I reject it on the basis that I disagree. Based upon what evidence - other than the idea of convenience or so-called "right" of the mother? The loss of the right for a woman to choose what she does in her own uterus is potentially against her welfare, against the potential human's welfare, and potentially against the best welfare of mankind and the planet and all life forms. Without knowing what kind of life the little human would have had you justify killing them for their own "welfare".
This is about as perverse as ones reasoning can become, in not just my opinion but in the opinion of millions of deists and others of goodwill.
Again, we agree on nothing. Zip.

I probably do not think there are any "moral absolutes." It is my opinion that some people should be killed for retribution of their acts. I think there are times that stealing isn't immoral to the degree it should be punished. Though the Bible doesn't condone divorce as I recall, I think divorce is a reasonable answer to ending some marriages. Certainly the Muslims don't think much about divorcing if that is what the man wants to do, and who among us will say my God is correct, and your Allah isn't. There might be a moral absolute, but someone will have to call it to my attention, and please do if you know one or some. The Orthodox do allow divorce as a concession to human weakness, but it is not for any reason, and not for most troubled marriages. Allah is NOT my God. He is the antithesis of the Triune God. I know dozens of moral absolutes but have no reason to believe you would accept any of them. If you can comfortably compare humans to insects and view photographic evidence of child-slaughter without effect or feeling, then why should I offer anything else to you as a "moral absolute"?



The only difference between you at the present and you when you were within your mother's womb are (a) time and (b) nutrition.
No woman ever gave birth to a frog so you were not a tadpole inside her womb. You were human then and you are human now.
Your blood type hasn't changed, your fingerprints haven't changed, et cetera , et cetera, et cetera.
What has changed is your ability to defend yourself: you can now while you couldn't back then.
And having no compassion for those being slaughtered means that despite all of your protests, you are not a person of goodwill.

I'm weary of talking to you, Jim, and I wouldn't have expended all this effort but for the edification of others who might read your posts on this subject. But from now on they're on their own - I don't see any further purpose in disputation with someone who will not see.

I take what you wrote as that you are weary of defending your opinion to one who, within the limits of this thread, rejects your opinion, that is in effect for you to say perhaps "My way or the highway." and to me that is the problem with the Christian segment in America who have and in all likelihood will continue to elect lying Republicans who simply have to utter the phrase "I am against abortion" to gain the vote of the Christians and then to royally fuck them over by doing nothing of value for the country as a whole, but rather continuing to suck up to the moneyed elite.
No, it is YOU who say "my way or the highway". Not me. I believe in Constitutional government and majority rule. I'm simply weary of trying to put a square peg into a round hole. We agree on NOTHING. Therefore we have no basis to converse since you appeal to biology in a selective manner and admit no possibility of "faith" providing answers to anything. To continue is pointless. I am absolutely certain of my position and the only way for me to agree with you is to join in your apostacy, assuming you were once instructed and confirmed in Catholicism.

PS. You might want to spend $3.00 to listen to this. It's scientific research, not "Christian Propaganda".

https://store.peoplespharmacy.com/71...31-09-mp3.html

I hope that you will spend the $2.99 and download this program.
I also hope that you will follow the continueing research of Dr. Parnia.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

raz, you seem incapable of keeping your word about continuing this "discussion," but it is good that you have continued.

Basically I don't believe most of your points which I failed to address to your satisfaction are worth addressing.

I don't think I have written, thought to myself or inferred that the issues of abortion, stem cell research, homosexuality and its ramifications of two people to form unions, euthanasia, certain types of drug use regarding currently illicit drugs, prostitution (the legality of marriage, and contracts, next-of-kin, inheritance being an exception as it applies to homosexual couples would require modification of many existing laws) should be legislated along the general lines I may think of as most appropriate or fairest.

I think there should be no laws regarding abortion, no laws regarding stem cell research, no laws preventing homosexuals from whatever protection is granted to heterosexual couples in marriage, no laws proscribing euthanasia, no laws against certain forms of drug use (if lawmakers could ever agree on "certain forms.") no laws against an individual adult volitionally selling sexual favors. Having no laws would not allow one group of society to control another in these areas, but would allow individuals to choose what they believe is appropriate for their station in life at any particular time along the way.

If I am understanding you correctly, you are as scary to me as I suppose I am to you.

I would appreciate it if you will just clarify for me the following if I am wrong.

You KNOW there exists the Christian God.

The Christian God is not the same as the Islamic Allah.

The right path for the entire world is that proposed in the scriptures of the Christian God.

Am I correct that those three statements above correctly characterize your thinking?

Your 2.99$ link does work on my computer, is it the link or my browser?

[Raz]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

raz, you seem incapable of keeping your word about continuing this "discussion," but it is good that you have continued.

Basically I don't believe most of your points which I failed to address to your satisfaction are worth addressing.

I don't think I have written, thought to myself or inferred that the issues of abortion, stem cell research, homosexuality and its ramifications of two people to form unions, euthanasia, certainly types of drug use regarding currently illicit drugs, prostitution (the legality of marriage, and contracts, next-of-kin, inheritance being an exception as it applies to homosexual couples would require modification of many existing laws) should be legislated along the general lines I may think of as most appropriate or fairest.

I think there should be no laws regarding abortion, no laws regarding stem cell research, no laws preventing homosexuals from whatever protection is granted to heterosexual couples in marriage, no laws proscribing euthanasia, no laws against certain forms of drug use (if lawmakers could ever agree on "certain forms.") no laws against an individual adult volitionally selling sexual favors. Having no laws would not allow one group of society to control another in these areas, but would allow individuals to choose what they believe is appropriate for their station in life at any particular time along the way.

If I am understanding you correctly, you are as scary to me as I suppose I am to you.

I would appreciate it if you will just clarify for me the following if I am wrong.

You KNOW there exists the Christian God.

The Christian God is not the same as the Islamic Allah.

The right path for the entire world is that proposed in the scriptures of the Christian God.

Am I correct that those three statements above correctly characterize your thinking?

Your 2.99$ link does work on my computer, is it the link or my browser?

I don't recall "giving my word" about continuing or discontinuing this "discussion".:confused:

Basically you don't accept any biological evidence unless said evidence bolsters your opinion. You won't examine it, weigh it against evidence to the contrary, or address it in any way except to say that it's your "opinion" that a little one (fetus) with a heartbeat, unique fingerprints, different bloodtype than the mother and measurable electrical impulses in their brainstem is not a human being.
I could use your opinion in that regard to deny your humanity.

If the Supreme Court of the United States declared legal the killing of retired physicians by any means - including tearing them from limb to limb or burning them to death with saline, without benefit of anesthesia or pain-killers of any kind - you might have a different opinion. Then again, reading everything you've recently written, you might not - as long as you are allowed to give yourself sufficient pain-killers before the "procedure" begins.

Now to your "three questions":

There are at least two kinds of faith: (1) blind faith, and (2) reasonable faith. Blind faith is the holding of a conclusion in spite of a huge preponderance of evidence to the contrary; or worse, in spite of no supporting evidence at all. Reasonable faith is a conclusion reached after examining all the evidence, pro and con, and deciding that the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that of the affirmative. This is the kind of faith that Edison and Einstein possesed or else they would have given up long before their various hypotheses were proven. Based upon years of examining evidence I concluded that the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth was the only reasonable conclusion that I could draw to explain a number of things, the existence of the Church for one.

Ah, but someone says, you claim the Apostles wouldn't have been willing to die for a lie, and certainly not a death by torture, but Hitler died for a lie, and many others down thru history have died for a lie. That's true.
But here's the difference: Hitler didn't know that his ideology was a lie. Had the Apostles stolen the body and hid it they would have known their claims of the Resurrection were a lie and a giant fraud. It's not reasonable to believe that they would have walked over much of the known world, embraced poverty and suffering, and finally submitted to cruel deaths when they knew it was all a lie.

If my recollection is accurate I said that I know or I'm convinced of the correctness of my decided view on human life and procured abortion. I don't recall saying that I know God exists; I think that I said was that I believe God exists based upon a reasonable faith. Feel free to go back over my posts and correct me, or just call me a weasel. I really no longer care.

The Triune God is most certainly NOT the same god as Allah.
Any Orthodox who says so is a heretic, be he a layperson or a hierarch of the Church.

This we Orthodox know and profess: God is the Lord and has revealed Himself to us; we know of no God other than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; we know of no Christ other than Him of whom the Apostles preached.

As to question number three: Yes. Definitely and absolutely the right path for every human being, without exception or qualifier, is that of following the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Knowing that "without faith it is impossible to please God" and that Christ "stands at the door and knocks", but man must open the door and invite Him in. Christ compelled no one to believe in Him, or accept Him, much less follow Him.

And neither do we Orthodox.

[Raz]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

Your 2.99$ link does work on my computer, is it the link or my browser?

I just tried it and it worked perfectly for me.
Check to see if you have a PopUp Blocker; if so you will need to press the Ctrl key before you click on the hyperlink.

I'm attaching the hyperlink again.

https://store.peoplespharmacy.com/71...31-09-mp3.html

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

Thank you, raz.

[Raz]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

Thank you, raz.

You're welcome, Jim.