|
rudatron posted:I don't think you are, to be honest. How do you know? You've never met me.
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:You never answered my question. I am a bundle of cells without consciousness, explain why i shouldn't have rights You shouldn't. If I met you in person I would beat you about the head until you died.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:How do you know? You've never met me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
rudatron posted:If you're not conscious, how did you choose an anime avatar? One morning I woke up and $5 was gone out of my account. Every day is an adventure where I have no idea what is going on around me Edit: rudatron posted:A little bit of high philosophy for you: I think, therefore I post. Pretty insightful stuff, really gets those mental cogs turning. I don't think you've ever been to GBS.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
.
buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 15:01 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
I believe abortion is murder. But like euthanasia, it can be an ethically acceptable form of murder. I would say that what gives a human's life value is its ability to experience happiness and suffering (I will refer to this as personhood). For that reason I feel that it is not only acceptable for women to have abortions, but also, in limited cases, to euthanize humans who have already been born. Specifically, I am referring to the case of anencephalic babies that VitalSigns mentioned. An anencephalic baby is certainly human, but I would say it is not a person. At the other end of life, I feel it was also ethical for Children's Hospital Oakland to refuse to continue life support once Jahi McMath was declared brain-dead. Her body was still human and capable of functions like breathing (with assistance), but her consciousness, along with Jahi the person, was lost forever. It doesn't make sense to ban abortion because a human embryo may develop into a person in the future. It is currently not a person, only a potential person, and making laws based on potentials seems incredibly risky. Should we imprison people based on what crimes they may commit in the future? Should we force people to undergo medical treatment to stay alive longer because of what they may accomplish in the future? Also, just like how a zygote may eventually be born as a baby, there is also a chance that its mother will miscarry and it will die. It may live to become the doctor that cures cancer- while we're talking about wild fantasies, it may live to become a serial killer. It seems ridiculous to mandate action, especially action proven to cause enormous suffering, based on a fatalistic certainty that a specific type of person is destined to be born. You are basically picking a single future out of an infinite amount of futures and declaring that because there's a chance it will happen that's as good as it actually happening. Note: I believe this definition of personhood could also be extended to animals in certain cases. The government of India recently issued this statement: The Minister of the Environment and Forests in India posted:Whereas cetaceans in general are highly intelligent and sensitive, and various scientists who have researched dolphin behavior have suggested that the unusually high intelligence; as compared to other animals means that dolphins should be seen as ‘non-human persons’ and as such should have their own specific rights and is morally unacceptable to keep them captive for entertainment purpose. Though they have not declared cetaceans to be persons, India has abolished the use of dolphins in theme parks. I can only agree with this action. FourLeaf fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Jul 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:Hypothetically, if you were to murder a pro-life lawmaker, do you think a court of law would accept this justification? (It won't because it's really bad.) I find this to be a really bad argument given how corrupt our legal system is. That said, if tomorrow all women were denied bodily autonomy throughout the states by Christian Fiat the lady you are replying to would not be fighting alone. Edit: Actually that's a bit confusing. If we went theocracy, would our system of justice even exist as it does now? Or would it be 1)Interpret bible how judge believes in it. 2)Stone people who don't please me. Would there even be law makers in a Theocracy in a meaningful sense? Athaalin fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Jul 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:You never answered my question. I am a bundle of cells without consciousness, explain why i shouldn't have rights There's a 2,000+ year old theological precedent which states that ensoulment begins at the moment of first breath and the Pope that started the ball rolling against it was a loving rapist. Also, divinely mandated pharmaceutical abortion is in the Old Testament.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
ErichZahn posted:There's a 2,000+ year old theological precedent which states that ensoulment begins at the moment of first breath and the Pope that started the ball rolling against it was a loving rapist. Whoa, you seem angry man, calm down. I am a fertilized egg.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:I'm pretty sure the fetus is the person stealing calcium from your bones in this scenario, not me. I drink a lot of milk and already have all the calcium I need. Nope. It's you. Your the one restraining me and preventing me from defending myself. You are morally responsible for everything the fetus does to me. It's like if I tied you down in the desert next to an ant hill. The ants that devour you aren't moral agents. They may be what physically killed or maimed you. But I, the moral agent who restrained you, am morally culpable for everything they do to you. If you in your theocracy ( which is basically you being a dictator and just adding "cause god says" to your orders, let's be honest about that ) restrain me from aborting then you are morally culpable for everything the pregnancy does to me. buttcoin smuggler posted:
If you attack me to try to stop me from getting an abortion I absolutely can defend myself from you. If tiller had killed his murderer he'd be in the clear for the same reason. buttcoin smuggler posted:
Not talking about them. Talking about you trying to enforce the lunacy you spout. Mainly driving home the point made to you again and again that you keep ignoring. It doesn't matter what a fetus is. A born person may not sustain themselves on unwilling human flesh. You may not take of my body for yourself. You may not take of my body for another. You. May. Not. Take. Of. My. Flesh. Ever. At all. gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
.
buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 15:01 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:e: nvm I'll reply later Unless its to apologize for advocating forcing me to be pregnant against my will you really needn't bother talking anymore. Pregnancy is a profound, life changing, brain re-shaping, event. I absolutely can endure it voluntarily. I have every right to change myself. But if you do it to me against my will you are, for all intents and purposes, murdering the person I am now and replacing me with someone else. You are pumping me full of mind altering chemicals and letting my brain stew in them for nine months. Literally changing my mind out from under me. If I were to propose this be done to you against your will you would call me monstrous. And you'd be right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Unless its to apologize for advocating forcing me to be pregnant against my will you really needn't bother talking anymore. I think the kind of introspection necessary for this sort of reflection is probably absent from people who ask the question "wouldn't everything be awesome if everybody had exactly my understanding of religion and morality".
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 10:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:...but definitely not one that condemns my Onanism for whacking my cock until I spill my seed for pleasure rather than doing it into a vagina or into my pyjamas while I sleep as the Good Lord intended. Onanism is pulling out, not masturbating. In Old Testement times, if your brother died you were commanded by God to knock his wife (who is now your new bonus wife) up. Onan felt weird about this. Not enough to gently caress his brother's widow, but still. Miltank posted:The secret hidden answer to the abortion question; it is immoral, but it should be legal. This. This is the proper position. The arguments against abortion all apparently boil down to body horror or redefining "killing" so that no killing technically took place. Okay. Whatever. Stigma-free access to birth control and sex education worth more than a wet paper bag will drastically reduce abortion, and if someone really can't deal with a human baby who is a human the second that egg implants, they should be able to abort the kid, who is a human being. Thinking "it wasn't human yet anyway" is not being honest with oneself. Call a spade a spade and don't be a sociopath.You need to accept the reality of your agency. Sometimes you have to make tough calls, and deciding to have an abortion is one of those.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
McAlister posted:You are pumping me full of mind altering chemicals and letting my brain stew in them for nine months. Literally changing my mind out from under me. You're underselling the length. Add the length of breastfeeding to the nine months. My wife describes the effects of prolactin as "foggy". And there are hormonal changes for the men too (not nearly as large, but large enough to notice at least I did) And don't forget the basically never sleeping again. All that said. This stuff goes way back. The Romans used to abandon unwanted children to die from exposure (threw them out with the garbage) and the Christians really didn't like that. It varies from place to place and between the different cultures but basically: Children (in some case even older children not just infants) weren't part of the household (weren't really people basically) until they were accepted (usually by the father). That's the context of this: “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” 16 And he took the children in his arms, placed his hands on them and blessed them. Eventually pressure from Christians leads to Constantine basically going "okay don't abandon them you can sell them instead". Which is not really great either. Anyway, this metaphor is very Christian and possibly inseparable from Christianity: the very least of you are accepted by (loved) and into reality like a child being accepted into the household (usually the metaphor is by the Father but it doesn't have to be). And that's in tension with this: McAlister"432085788 posted:A born person may not sustain themselves on unwilling human flesh. You may not take of my body for yourself. You may not take of my body for another. That looks very much like Libertarian non-aggression even if that's not the place it actually comes from in your argument (and there are reasons for that). So we have Christian idea that everyone, without condition, should be accepted into society expressed metaphorically in terms of God and children of God in direct tension with: "You may not take of my body for yourself. You may not take of my body for another." Both sides when they ignore the other are being idolatrous. The Christians should know better than to take a particular metaphor for our relationship with God and to make it absolute and inviolable and to try make it state law (which is why this matters to a theocracy thread.) And the other side should recognize that it doesn't matter how far it gets pushed back (even though that ends up being the public argument) that when an abortion occurs we have chosen to not accept the very least of us (how least they are doesn't matter). TLDR: Miltank posted:The secret hidden answer to the abortion question; it is immoral, but it should be legal. Personally I'd add: and immoral actions are sometimes necessary (or even inescapable) and understandable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Why is it immoral? That baby's literally coming right for you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
I don't think you guys understand what I'm saying. I look like something akin to a slime mold, and I lay on a computer keyboard randomly pressing keys.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Why is it immoral? That baby's literally coming right for you. Compare this: "You may not take of my body for yourself." to this: “Take it; this is my body.”
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Sooo you're saying that women have to emulate Jesus by repeatedly sacrificing their bodies for the sins of their fetuses? Or what. I thought that whole "take my body" thing was supposed to be a one-time deal. Why don't men have to engage in this particular form of self-sacrifice anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
.
buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 15:01 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
.
buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 15:01 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:Thanks for the detailed post. On your view, how late is too late for an abortion to be moral? Probably once they start talking you might have grown fond of them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Theocracy has blinded him to the inherent problem of theocracy. Moral absolutes exist, only the theocrats know it, and why aren't you being moral by conforming? buttcoin smuggler posted:
Those two things are the exact same thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:Morality isn't a matter of opinions. It isn't decided by committee. Whether something is morally permissible or not is a property of the act itself, and doesn't depend on how people feel about that act. The point of discussions like these is to uncover the moral truth, not generate consensus. There have been plenty of times in the past where a majority of the population endorsed immoral acts, and it was still correct to prohibit them. It's not though. Or rather, isn't it amazing that moral truth should coincide exactly with your thoughts and emotional reactions? Imagine if you didn't have the backing out your invisible sky king, then there'd be no way to back up your claims at all. It's very convenient that you and others can assert that a view of Christianity held by a minority of Christians rooted in specific regional cultures as a true pure representation of the religion, ignoring negative elements (like Paul) and asserting that this understanding would surely persist rather than becoming further twisted and encrusted with embellishments from the still very patriarchal authorities once again granted temporal power. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Jul 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Yes. Without God morality isn't real.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
.
buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Hello again friends. I'm enjoying my weekend and hope you are too. Anyway, here's my thoughts on that abortion thing. It's that, scientifically speaking, human life very clearly does begin at conception. If you were to identify, biologically, the moment at which every human life began, you would go back to the moment the sperm entered the egg and began the rapid chain of events that results in a fetus and finally a baby. This is true for you, it is true for me, it is true for every man, and it is true for every woman. To try to shift the time life "truly" begins is a sort of dishonest enterprise by nature. As for morality and God, when religious folk speak of "God" they are often referring directly to their inner sense of morality, which they identify as God. In Christian terms, it is the "holy spirit", a personality which imbues us when we become morally charged, as it were, and the voice of God rings clear in us, and we can even speak using that voice when such passion arises, as the prophets did and as Christ did. So for the religious, God is morality. The belief is that this morality is universal and can be heard by all people who are willing to sincerely listen to it, and for our sake, I certainly hope that is true. In short, everyone is capable of listening to God and his true morality, not a single person is devoid of the ability to hear God and to speak to God, I don't care how long you have been an atheist or how convinced you are that God is a fairy tale of a bearded man in the sky. And beyond all that, it's just healthier for you personally to know God, and for your social relationships to have this common ground. It allows you to know all people on a basis that is much deeper and more spiritual than just your common humanity, which in a godless universe would be only a biological accident, a happenstance of questionable fortune, a mere ape species with no inherent beauty.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Yes. Without God morality isn't real. Oh poo poo, a rabbi just told me that abortion is fine with Jehovah, but a Catholic priest just told me God condemns it. Is God going to show up and tell me which lowly mortal is correct? Because if not then I guess I have to use my monkey brain to decide after all just like any amoral atheist fiend  (Saying "God" doesn't make your morality objective, all you are saying is "God just happens to agree with all my preconceived ideas and the teachings of my minor sect of post 1878 reformed west Mississipi Baptist Assembly")
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
I'll try to keep the true voice of God in mind the next time a religious person tells me I'm a deviant sinner who should be treated like subhuman scum. If there is a true morality in everyone's soul, Christianity certainly isn't the key to it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Sedanchair, Don't forget I'm pro-choice. I'm saying sometimes immoral choices are necessary choices, but that the necessity of the choice does not change the morality of the choice. And I think the moral discussion is one part of and has a place in the discussion of what should be legal (or not) in a democracy. But there are many other parts to that discussion. And I also do not think it's moral for a women to be forced to have child she didn't choose to or doesn't want. As far as I'm concerned there is no moral side in the abortion discussion. SedanChair posted:Why don't men have to engage in this particular form of self-sacrifice anyway? This isn't an argument restricted specifically to abortion. We all make immoral choices everyday, many of out necessity, and often to protect ourselves and the people we love. Most of those choices are understandable and most of us would agree that we need to make them. And I do think men should aspire to that exact type of self-sacrifice too. Think of the shittiest person you know, or hell can conceive of, I'm talking real human excrement here. That person is deserving of that having that sacrifice made for them and is capable of choosing to make it for others. Little Blackfly posted:ignoring negative elements (like Paul) Paul is not all bad. Many of Paul's ideas are things we should take back from conservatives, they're good for going after greed selfishness and power. Edit: nvm I'll just put it in another post. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Jul 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Read 1 Cor 13 and tell me Paul is bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:I'll try to keep the true voice of God in mind the next time a religious person tells me I'm a deviant sinner who should be treated like subhuman scum. If there is a true morality in everyone's soul, Christianity certainly isn't the key to it. While it is true that you, like myself and everyone else, are a sinner, it is not true that you deserve to be treated like subhuman scum. Anyone who says that, even if they pray daily and are a regular church-goer, speaks not from God, but are deceived by Satan. God is love. He is always love.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
What an absolutely horrible idea
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:I'll try to keep the true voice of God in mind the next time a religious person tells me I'm a deviant sinner who should be treated like subhuman scum. If there is a true morality in everyone's soul, Christianity certainly isn't the key to it. No he's right, I just checked with the little Voice of God inside me and it said that vaginas and eggs aren't Papal property. Welp, sorry pro-lifers looks like God agrees with me so stop defying the Lord your God, impudent mortals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
I know Paul's not all bad. But Paul directly calls people like me degenerate sinners. You can prevaricate all you like about how early Christians would have been fine with queer people, but you know they wouldn't have been. Why should I trust Christians not to cite him again, among other passages, to oppress queer people again, especially after all it took to get (some) good Christian people to acknowledge our basic humanity in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
I brought it up in another thread. It's not in Acts (because its doesn't go well) but Paul gathered a collection from all the gentile churches to be given to Jerusalem Jewish Christians. This was a massive "gently caress you" to Rome and to selfishness and greed. It was a "All the believers were together and had everything in common" act from the Greek and gentile communities to the Jewish ones. He rolls into town and delivers it right to the temple. It gets rejected (basically yo we don't need that type of heat) and the rejection causes a shitstorm that ends up being a big deal in conjunction with a bunch of other things going on. Hell I can recite Romans 8 from memory. Little Blackfly posted:I'll try to keep the true voice of God in mind the next time a religious person tells me I'm a deviant sinner who should be treated like subhuman scum. If there is a true morality in everyone's soul, Christianity certainly isn't the key to it. "Who then is the one who condemns? No one." Paul is not the bigot they twist him into.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
It doesn't change the fact the right there in the bible is a passage by Paul telling people that the reason I'm the way I am is because I've given in to debauchery. That it exists at all will always leave room for Christians to justify their bigotry. I have no faith or belief in Christian doctrine as a guide to morality. From history and personal experience, it contains more than enough to justify hatred and bigotry. Talk to me again when the bible gets edited.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Yes. Without God morality isn't real. So you're saying that athiests cannot be moral?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:It doesn't change the fact the right there in the bible is a passage by Paul telling people that the reason I'm the way I am is because I've given in to debauchery. That it exists at all will always leave room for Christians to justify their bigotry. I have no faith or belief in Christian doctrine as a guide to morality. From history and personal experience, it contains more than enough to justify hatred and bigotry. Talk to me again when the bible gets edited. Paul is talking about a specific thing in a specific time in roman society arising out of selfishness and the absence of love (and some of the examples they like to bring aren't really even Paul). But convincing biblical literalists of that is not easy. And the bible is definitely a heavily edited (and interpreted) very human work (convincing them of that isn't easy either). But you're missing the opportunity, to turn the irony of what they are doing back at themselves. They are being hateful and selfish, they are being what Paul is criticizing. Their bigotry has this character "they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy." They miss the forest for a single tree taken out of it's context. You have love and their morality is only nominally Christian and the number of Christians who will not tolerate what they have to say is growing. VitalSigns posted:No he's right, I just checked with the little Voice of God inside me and it said that vaginas and eggs aren't Papal property. Welp, sorry pro-lifers looks like God agrees with me so stop defying the Lord your God, impudent mortals. You're being satirical but do this part: "I just checked with the little Voice of God inside me and it said that vaginas and eggs aren't Papal property." and not this part "looks like God agrees with me so stop defying the Lord your God, impudent mortals."
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
I would trust sociopaths as leadership a lot more than I would trust the clergy i've met of all religions. Many sociopaths are extremely intelligent in a way pastors are not and can make decisions that better the members of the group whereas clergy tend to be locked into a belief. I think the anarchist executions of catholic priests in Spain during their Civil War was right and needs to be done in a more comprehensive way. The church is a fascist fifth column into our daily life. Belief in God is inherently fascistic, as he is the ultimate Great Leader/Dictator figure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 22:41
|
|
