Yet Another Example of Christian Hypocracy

MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Yet Another Example of Christian Hypocracy

Why is it that many conservative Christians think this way - they say "life is sacred" to support ther being against abortion and ending life support (taking the life a human who never developed consciousness or one who did and lost it permanantly -  often someone who specifically said they didn't want to live that way) but then are pro-death penalty and against giving any kind of help to humans who are conscious and in a bad situation - ie welfare, universal health care, etc. Why do they care so much about fetuses and the brain dead?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Sir Valiant for...
Theist
Sir Valiant for Truth's picture
Posts: 156
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
...Or possibly we think that

...Or possibly we think that some crimes are so serious that the right to life should be repealed.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Related are the right-wing

Related are the right-wing ones who say the poor should stop having children but don't want to provide birth control or abortion. People will have sex - nothing you do will stop it. I'd rather see more abortion than see more kids born in bad situations, more costs, etc. Abortion is actually a good thing.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


HeyZeusCreaseToe
Superfan
HeyZeusCreaseToe's picture
Posts: 675
Joined: 2008-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Interesting question

I recently have read George Lakoff's(UC Berkely linguistic proffesor and progressive) book Whose Freedom? which talks about the very issues you speak about here. He has broken much of it down to strict father vs. nurturing parent upbringings. The basic premise being that most religious households are patriarchys that involved the father as an authoritarian with control over the majority if not all of the families decisions. This links up quite well with the view of an absolute moralist view of the world with God(the Christian God) being used as the template. Its really a fascinating read and I would suggest reading it. I can't reiterate all of his points here, but this Wiki paraphrasing helps:

"Lakoff argues that the differences in opinions between liberals and conservatives follow from the fact that they subscribe with different strength to two different metaphors about the relationship of the state to its citizens. Both, he claims, see governance through metaphors of the family. Conservatives would subscribe more strongly and more often to a model that he calls the "strict father model" and has a family structured around a strong, dominant "father" (government), and assumes that the "children" (citizens) need to be disciplined to be made into responsible "adults" (financially and morally responsible beings). Once the "children" are "adults", though, the "father" should not interfere with their lives: the government should stay out of the business of those in society who have proved their responsibility. In contrast, Lakoff argues that liberals place more support in a model of the family, which he calls the "nurturant parent model", based on "nurturant values", where both "mothers" and "fathers" work to keep the essentially good "children" away from "corrupting influences" (pollution, social injustice, poverty, etc.). Lakoff says that most people have a blend of both metaphors applied at different times, and that political speech works primarily by invoking these metaphors and urging the subscription of one over the other.[4]

Lakoff further argues that one of the reasons liberals have had difficulty since the 1980s is that they have not been as aware of their own guiding metaphors, and have too often accepted conservative terminology framed in a way to promote the strict father metaphor. Lakoff insists that liberals must cease using terms like partial birth abortion and tax relief because they are manufactured specifically to allow the possibilities of only certain types of opinions. Tax relief for example, implies explicitly that taxes are an affliction, something someone would want "relief" from. To use the terms of another metaphoric worldview, Lakoff insists, is to unconsciously support it. Liberals must support linguistic think tanks in the same way that conservatives do if they are going to succeed in appealing to those in the country who share their metaphors."

Frames like unborn children and murder of the innocents create the idea that every single union of sperm and egg is a perfect creation of God that cannot be torn asunder by human means. I think the prescriptions for upholding life in the beginning and destroying life through the legal system are quite heavily influenced by the bible. Justice is an important theme in the book, and most times when someone has done something unjust they are killed for it. Ideas that state an ultimate punishment(death) is off the table, are not reflected in this ethical system, because the tit for tat judicial philosophy has created many of the foundations of their legal attitudes. The thinking goes that, if there is not an adequate punishment as to instill discipline and deter criminal/immoral acts then the system breaks down. It is circular reasoning that always needs to point back to an absolute moral code.

I would consider myself a progressive(pro-choice, for gay rights), but have mixed emotions regarding the death penalty. I think the two main arguments against it that leave me on the fence are:

1. We have put innocent men to death numerous times for crimes they did not commit. If there is a chance that we kill a small minority of innocent people while applying mortal justice to the guilty, does that justify their death?

2. (this one is the simple one)We show people that killing is wrong by killing them, kind of hypocritical.

 

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda


j_day* (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Related

MattShizzle wrote:

Related are the right-wing ones who say the poor should stop having children but don't want to provide birth control or abortion. People will have sex - nothing you do will stop it. I'd rather see more abortion than see more kids born in bad situations, more costs, etc. Abortion is actually a good thing.

Why don't you take a trip to find children in bad situations and ask them if they would rather be alive or wish that their parents had aborted them.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Sir Valiant for Truth

Sir Valiant for Truth wrote:

...Or possibly we think that some crimes are so serious that the right to life should be repealed.

This kind of talk just gets messier and messier and inserting God into it never solves it.

Start with:

And then who's right is it, to repeal someone's right to life?

Then you say either:

God's alone. And you're trapped because you just intimated that it was your right.

or you can say in order to cover your arse there:

It's the right of any person to kill another, provided circumstances.

And you've contradicted the Ten commandments being absolute Law, according to which, nobody has any right to kill.

So which is it going to be?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
j_day* wrote:Why don't you

j_day* wrote:
Why don't you take a trip to find children in bad situations and ask them if they would rather be alive or wish that their parents had aborted them.
As someone who works with children in really bad situations, I think you would be far more surprised at the answers than Matt would.

Sad as that is.

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Life is only as sacred

As you want it to be, I have seen this world, traveled to many parts of it (all except the Antarctica and I am planning to make that travel) and it all comes down to how much a human life is worth, and who's life your talking about, between religious and cultural hatred, well let me tell ya, your life might be important/sacred to you, but not necessarily to the next person. That's the thing, and with 7 billion people, I think a few less lives on this planet wouldn't be a bad thing, after all, we are ok, we are already struggling to feed the world, forget a billion more people. As much as we like to believe life is sacred, if it is so sacred, why aren't these people that believe life is so damn sacred go to places where life is being taken away from others? Darfur comes to mind, oh how about Somalia, Tibet, Kashmir, Zimbabwe, or any other country in which religious hatred or cultural hatred causes others to kill because they believe that a person of opposite religious beliefs or cultural birth is less sacred? Of course not because that would mean they would have to open their eyes to the ugly ugly world.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Sir Valiant for

Eloise wrote:

Sir Valiant for Truth wrote:

...Or possibly we think that some crimes are so serious that the right to life should be repealed.

This kind of talk just gets messier and messier and inserting God into it never solves it.

Start with:

And then who's right is it, to repeal someone's right to life?

Then you say either:

God's alone. And you're trapped because you just intimated that it was your right.

or you can say in order to cover your arse there:

It's the right of any person to kill another, provided circumstances.

And you've contradicted the Ten commandments being absolute Law, according to which, nobody has any right to kill.

So which is it going to be?

 

As been shown the ten commandments only work if your talking about a specific group, for the jews it worked like this, thou shalt not kill, meaning thou shalt not kill another jew. However Gentiles and well anyone else that was against them was fair game. The commandments really only work in that setting, thou shalt not kill another christian, etc, etc, etc.


albedo_00
albedo_00's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Why do

MattShizzle wrote:

Why do they care so much about fetuses and the brain dead?

Because they care about their intellectual peers. A fetuses' brain is not fully developed and a brain dead person, well, he's a brain dead person (no offense to either, just to pro-lifers).

But all jokes aside, while I think that a lot of the pro-lifers actually believe in the so-called sanctity of life (despite the hypocritical contradictions you mentioned), It has become more of a political "non-issue" as Bill Maher would put it, a political correctness artifice in order to draw attention to yourself and your political stand by accusing your opponent of taking an immoral position.

Oh, and j_day*, while I don't work with kids, I have a considerable number of colleagues who do work with children, kids who have been through just entirely too much, and from what they tell me, I can corroborate that JillSwift is right, you would be the one who gets surprised by their answers.

But hey, god loves children, doesn't he?

Lenore, The Cute Little Dead Girl. Twice as good as Jesus.


j_day* (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:j_day*

JillSwift wrote:

j_day* wrote:
Why don't you take a trip to find children in bad situations and ask them if they would rather be alive or wish that their parents had aborted them.
As someone who works with children in really bad situations, I think you would be far more surprised at the answers than Matt would.

Sad as that is.

 

What do you do?


j_day* (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
albedo_00 wrote:MattShizzle

albedo_00 wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:

Why do they care so much about fetuses and the brain dead?

Because they care about their intellectual peers. A fetuses' brain is not fully developed and a brain dead person, well, he's a brain dead person (no offense to either, just to pro-lifers).

But all jokes aside, while I think that a lot of the pro-lifers actually believe in the so-called sanctity of life (despite the hypocritical contradictions you mentioned), It has become more of a political "non-issue" as Bill Maher would put it, a political correctness artifice in order to draw attention to yourself and your political stand by accusing your opponent of taking an immoral position.

Oh, and j_day*, while I don't work with kids, I have a considerable number of colleagues who do work with children, kids who have been through just entirely too much, and from what they tell me, I can corroborate that JillSwift is right, you would be the one who gets surprised by their answers.

But hey, god loves children, doesn't he?

There are four differences between a fetus and a newborn:

1. Size- ask yourself, is someone 4 feet tall less human than someone 7 feet tall?

2. Level of Development- ask yourself, is a girl who's 7 years old less human than a girl who is 15 years old? It's a scientific fact that 15 year olds are far more developed than 7 year olds. Does that make the more developed one more human?

3. Environment- ask yourself, are you less human at work vs. at your house, or at your house vs. at the store? Does your environment change who you are?

4. Dependency- ask yourself, is someone who is less independent less of a human than a person who is more dependent? Is a person who relies on medication, such as insulin for diabetes, less human than someone who can function without outside assistance?

If you answered no to all those questions, then it isn't right to kill a fetus because it is smaller than an infant, it is less developed than an infant, it is in a different environment than an infant, an it is more dependent than an infant. It's no more right to kill a person who is shorter, younger, in a different environment or more dependent than it is to kill a fetus.

 

As far as the "God loving children". Do you attribute all your good actions to God? If not, why do you attribute all bad people's actions to God? If you can act independent of God, so can someone else. I bet you don't praise God when something good happens, but you have no problem blaming Him (if He exists in your mind) if something bad happens.


j_day* (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Why is it

MattShizzle wrote:

Why is it that many conservative Christians think this way - they say "life is sacred" to support ther being against abortion and ending life support (taking the life a human who never developed consciousness or one who did and lost it permanantly -  often someone who specifically said they didn't want to live that way) but then are pro-death penalty and against giving any kind of help to humans who are conscious and in a bad situation - ie welfare, universal health care, etc. Why do they care so much about fetuses and the brain dead?

I don't really know anything about you, but I was wondering if you do anything to help people. Do help at soup kitchens, give food to people, or support a child in a different country? If you do, that's great. If you don't, why sit there and point fingers at people who are doing nothing about it? You are right, there is not enough done for people in bad situations. But it's not strictly a government solution that we need. Christians, non-Christians, there are way too many people who make way more money than they need. We don't have a food shortage problem we have a food distribution problem. Every person has the right to life. But that doesn't mean that pro-life people should just take the stance, "everyone has the right to life, but the quality of life doesn't matter." That's not right either. But the solution isn't killing people.

Often times, people complain about the casualty of war. In 110 years, you know how many American casualties from war there have been? 655,325. In 35 years, you know how many abortions there have been? 48,589,993. And that's not even recent. That's years old. So for every casualty of war that people complain about, they should think about 74 babies that didn't even have a chance to live. The genocide death toll in Darfur is projected at approximately 800,000 I believe. That's 60 times less casualties than American abortions. The astonishing part too is that most people don't even think it's a problem.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
The people who were killed

The people who were killed in war were actually people, not just clusters of cells - often not even developed enough to have a brain or nervous system. I see no more of a moral dilemma in abortion than I do in swatting a fly.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Eloise

latincanuck wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Sir Valiant for Truth wrote:

...Or possibly we think that some crimes are so serious that the right to life should be repealed.

This kind of talk just gets messier and messier and inserting God into it never solves it.

Start with:

And then who's right is it, to repeal someone's right to life?

Then you say either:

God's alone. And you're trapped because you just intimated that it was your right.

or you can say in order to cover your arse there:

It's the right of any person to kill another, provided circumstances.

And you've contradicted the Ten commandments being absolute Law, according to which, nobody has any right to kill.

So which is it going to be?

 

As been shown the ten commandments only work if your talking about a specific group, for the jews it worked like this, thou shalt not kill, meaning thou shalt not kill another jew. However Gentiles and well anyone else that was against them was fair game. The commandments really only work in that setting, thou shalt not kill another christian, etc, etc, etc.

So God's law is impotent in 3 out of 4 possible circumstances? Woah. That's some sad apologetics.

Still it devolves into a mess just the same, so the right to kill is divided racially and ideologically, great. Then a Christian has the right to life in respect to another Christian, but according to God he's fair game for anyone else? Neato!

Or are we to believe that the right to kill is afforded only to a certain ideology? So, for example, abortions are fine with God as long as a Christian performs the procedure or something?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Let's leave God out of the

Let's leave God out of the question altogether and simply ask Eloise's question, "Whose right is it to repeal someone's life?"

I would propose that the right to take life rests solely with the state, and even then only within very narrow parammeters.  Specifically, the state should only be permitted to take life in defense of its populace.  This is not only the right of the state, but its obligation.  Examples of this would be wars in defense of a nation, or the execution of a criminal.  Personally, I believe that capital punishment is becoming rapidly obsolete, if it is not so already.

I think it was J_day who already pointed out that the argument from complexity is a slippery slope.  The problem essentially is determining when life begins.  I we say that it begins at conception, well, problem solved, abortion is unjust.  Should we use fetal heartbeat?  The development of a brain?  The ability to sense pain?  How about delivery from the womb?  Maybe we should go "extra-utero".  Why not say life begins with the ability to walk?  Talk?  Feed oneself?  We could well extend the time period during whic we could kill our offspring well into the early 20's and save ourselves lotsa heartbreak.  Perhaps we could do our children a favor and start paring away at the age at which they can do in their parents.  Actually, it might be very convenient to do away with restrictions against individual killing whatsoever.  Indeed, following this line of thought should actually lead us towards a far more liberal application of the death penalty.

Beyond the argument from complexity though, I would further point out that abortion has a significant impact on demographics, and the potential for serious negative economic consequences.  Many European countries are on the brink of serious social and economic problems already due to the fact that their populations are not replacing themselves.  The failure of social security and retirement programs as the number of taxpayers contributing to them dwindles, the replacement of indigenous populations by migrants, shrinking economies, etc.

All of these pitfalls simply for the sake of our current comfort.  I'm not sure it's worth it. 

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


greek goddess
Rational VIP!Science Freak
greek goddess's picture
Posts: 361
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
j_day* wrote:It's no more

j_day* wrote:

It's no more right to kill a person who is shorter, younger, in a different environment or more dependent than it is to kill a fetus.

And yet, every day god kills more fetuses than a single abortion clinic could.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I would go with delivery.

I would go with delivery. The "slippery slope" argument is a logical fallacy by the way.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:I would go

MattShizzle wrote:
I would go with delivery.

Why?

Quote:
The "slippery slope" argument is a logical fallacy by the way.

How?

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


albedo_00
albedo_00's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
j_day* wrote:There are four

j_day* wrote:

There are four differences between a fetus and a newborn:

1. Size- ask yourself, is someone 4 feet tall less human than someone 7 feet tall?

2. Level of Development- ask yourself, is a girl who's 7 years old less human than a girl who is 15 years old? It's a scientific fact that 15 year olds are far more developed than 7 year olds. Does that make the more developed one more human?

3. Environment- ask yourself, are you less human at work vs. at your house, or at your house vs. at the store? Does your environment change who you are?

4. Dependency- ask yourself, is someone who is less independent less of a human than a person who is more dependent? Is a person who relies on medication, such as insulin for diabetes, less human than someone who can function without outside assistance?

If you answered no to all those questions, then it isn't right to kill a fetus because it is smaller than an infant, it is less developed than an infant, it is in a different environment than an infant, an it is more dependent than an infant. It's no more right to kill a person who is shorter, younger, in a different environment or more dependent than it is to kill a fetus.

No, there's another difference: a fetus (in the early stages of it's development) is just a bunch of cells which latter on will develop into a human being. But by your standarts, if these cells are to be regarded as humans and treated as such, then where do we draw the boundaries between what's a human being, and what is just a bunch of cells? Semen and ovums are also to be regarded as humans? The atoms that constitute them are also to be regarded as human?

j_day* wrote:
As far as the "God loving children". Do you attribute all your good actions to God? If not, why do you attribute all bad people's actions to God? If you can act independent of God, so can someone else. I bet you don't praise God when something good happens, but you have no problem blaming Him (if He exists in your mind) if something bad happens.

Ask yourself the following:

Did god created the universe?

Is god omniscient?

If your answer to both is yes, then god created all, knowing beforehand everything his creation was gonna suffer (including the shit he personally was gonna put us through). Now, If I put a glass just over the table, even if knowing there's a good chance it'll fall, that would make me guilty of braking the glass. With god things are worse, he knew for a fact this all was gonna happen, and still went ahead and rushed creation in 6 days. And don't give me that free will thing. There's no such thing as free will if the one who gives it to you already knows every move you're gonna make before you're even born, or in fact, if you're even gonna get a chance to be born, and abortions are just a fraction of that number, since before medical breakthroughs, infant mortality rate were much higher than today -in first world countries, at least-, so god knew which infants wouldn't even get the chance to live and accept geezus. But, let's be fair, if god is to be blamed for the shit of the world, he should also be praised for the good stuff, so here's a fun exercise for ya: count just how many "blessed" people are there in this world right now, this is, people who don't have to go hungry, or can get medical attention when needed, and have a decent roof over their heads, and then count how many people are there who can only dream about this blessings.

After considering all this, you still don't want me to pin the world's misfortune on god? Luckily for me, I don't go around blaming imaginary entities for real problems, but if the Abrahamic god does exists, he has a lot of explaining to do. And if he had any sense of decency at all, he would be so ashamed, he would kill himself (can he, or is it just another of those pesky omnipotence related contradictions?).

Lenore, The Cute Little Dead Girl. Twice as good as Jesus.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Basically delivery is the

Basically delivery is the best arbitrary point. Personally I have a hard time seeing a mother killing a baby as all that bad - nobody can convince me a baby is really a person rather than just a thing. I have no value for a potential person. Every explanation I have been given has been sentimental/emotional rather than logical.

As for slippery slope as a logical fallacy, I meant literally - it is literally listed as a logical fallacy - Here

 

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


grind119
grind119's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2008-04-15
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Basically

MattShizzle wrote:

Basically delivery is the best arbitrary point. Personally I have a hard time seeing a mother killing a baby as all that bad - nobody can convince me a baby is really a person rather than just a thing. I have no value for a potential person. Every explanation I have been given has been sentimental/emotional rather than logical.

As for slippery slope as a logical fallacy, I meant literally - it is literally listed as a logical fallacy - Here

 

so at what point does someone become a person? 1yrs 2yrs?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
It's hard to come up with an

It's hard to come up with an exact point. Certainly at the point which someone isn't completely helpless and is able to think at above a dog/cat level.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


grind119
grind119's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2008-04-15
User is offlineOffline
So a baby is born and the

So a baby is born and the mother just wants to kill it right out of the hospital, thats all right with you, survival of the fittest is your motto im guessing?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I'm definitely not a social

I'm definitely not a social darwinist -actually I'm a socialist. I think it's just a baby isn't really a person. I think you would see a lot less of that happening if there was easy access to abortion.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:It's hard

MattShizzle wrote:
It's hard to come up with an exact point. Certainly at the point which someone isn't completely helpless and is able to think at above a dog/cat level.

I don't think it is hard to come up with a point at all, Matt.

So your argument of when life begins seems to be based on mental development.  Why don't we simply extend the age at which one can be involuntarily euthanized to the mid 20's when brain develeopment is pretty much complete? 

And why particularly mental development?  Why is the development of the brain and the chemical processes it performs in support of life any different from, say, cell division,  nutrition, circulation, or respiration, or ...?  I mean they are all just biochemical processes.  Making one a criteria just because it's a more complex process just seems kinda...I dunno...what's the word....superstituous to me.  It's kinda like worshipping one rock over another because it's bigger, ya know.

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


grind119
grind119's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2008-04-15
User is offlineOffline
I agree that if there was

I agree that if there was more access to abortion there would be less killing of babies, but my question is what do you consider an abortion? According to you so far it seems its ok to kill as long as there mental develpment aint up to par with a dog/cat, do you think it is ok to kill mentally developed people then? There mental development isnt with a dog/cat, but dont you think they still have a right to live?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Totus is using the slippery

Totus is using the slippery slope fallacy again. I think if someone is in such poor mental development that as an adult they are at cat/dog level they would be better off dead - I'd certainly rather be dead than live like that. Hopefully if it wasn't due to injury they would be aborted before than. Basically a retarded man who can talk and bags groceries has the same right to life as any of us - if someone can't even control their own bodily functions, no. Who would want to live that way? Interesting totus brings up worshipping rocks - rocks actually exist. Your god doesn't. I personally see life in and of itself as utterly worthless. It's the quality of life that counts. Before you bring up my life, I have 5 suicide attempts under my belt and think my life is shit. I definitely would never have kids and pass on my physical and mental problems. I do think it would be better had I been aborted - I'd have avoided a lifetime of pain. My mom had surgery that she didn't think she could ever have kids, but here I am anyway - hey, maybe I'm the equivalent of Jesus.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
umm ok

Lets first off look at the major differences between a bunch of cells developing in the womb and anyone under the age of 20 (you know before the brain finishes developing) We shall consider that anyone under 20 has been born already (just so there is no mix up here) they can think for themselves, they can feed themselves (for the most part infants can't but we shall tackle this a bit further on), and in general are humans. Babies are the exception to the feed rule however infants once born, usually are feed by the mother and are wanted to survive to adulthood, so that they can become productive members of our society and help the species survive.

Now on to the cells or fetus in the womb of a mother in the first trimester, haven't exactly developed into a thinking, able to survive outside of the womb child. It's basically a fetus, not a baby, not a human, a fetus, that is developing into a human. It doesn't have a tongue, intestines, the eyes are fused shut, and it isn't until the end of the first trimester that has bones, working organs or anything, up until then it is developing to become a human, but really it isn't quite there yet, and even then it still cannot survive outside of the womb until at least the 28th week (and this is with some major medical help) 30 weeks is preferred for the minimum if possible. Now personally I am in favor of abortions into the first trimester and after that too bad your pregnant and having a child, but this is my opinion. Now how is a fetus, that cannot survive, that hasn't formed all it's organs, that cannot think the same as fully formed child? or a 20 year old exactly? Because your just grasping at straws really and comparing apples to oranges....yes they are fruits and grow on trees, but they are not anything alike.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
 Sigh.Slippery slope is

 Sigh.

Slippery slope is only a logical fallacy (I believe) if the argument is "don't do x because.......then z." This is not the same as using the slippery slope argument in order to suggest a difficulty in distinguishing between x and z.

 

I think toto (?) was using it in the latter sense.  He wasn't necessarily saying "don't have abortions," but point could have just easily have been "because there is no objective standard in which to distinguish x and y in terms of 'value of life,' then every position is merely a subjective one."  

 

The fact that he used the phrase "slippery slope" does not allow for a dismissal out of hand merely because the phrase also describes a logical fallacy--IMO.

 

As you have shown Matt.. the problem of distinction between life at point a and y is a difficult one.. and surely isn't one can say "this is where "life" begins"--because "life" is as nondescript as the word "god."

 

As for the argument that christians who are pro-life and pro-capitol punishment are hypocrits.. the point has already been made--but I'm pretty sure there is a clear distinction between the value of a "life" which has done nothing but "be" and one that has committed some crime, is a pretty reasonable position.

 

No religion necessary. 

 

Who has the "right" to takes someone life? Well.. unless we are arguing natural rights.. then it would be the state--from which all rights come (I believe)

 

 


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
j_day* wrote:What do you

j_day* wrote:
What do you do?
I work in a children's emergency shelter. I do behavioral profiles and program planning for kids 9-15 years old who:

  • Were taken from thier parents by CYFD
  • Were picked up off the streets by the police
  • Ran away from home to protect themselves
  • Were brought in by the parent(s) who decided they can't deal with the little brat anymore
  • Were brought in by the police after they arrested all the adults in the house

And other really bad situations.

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
 A more appropriate analogy

 A more appropriate analogy would have been: why don't you ask kids in all circumstances whether they would want (a) for another person to determine whether they are or will be in a bad situation, (b) whether they would be fine in letting that other person also make the determination about whether or not that situation would be worse for them then not living at all, and (c) whether or not to kill or let the kid live based upon their determination.

 

I take a rather non-stance on the abortion issue for the very reasons mentioned by totu.. the difficulty in actually defining "life" and "value of life" and when that "value of life" supersedes any other rights a person might have.

 

That being said, the question about whether a kid should be able to decide whether he would rather not be alive then be in a situation is wholly different than the issue of abortion in my opinion.

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:I work in a

JillSwift wrote:

I work in a children's emergency shelter. 

Holy crap. You may be my new hero. I hope you get a decent vacation every once and a while.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
j_day* wrote:There are four

j_day* wrote:

There are four differences between a fetus and a newborn:

1. Size- ask yourself, is someone 4 feet tall less human than someone 7 feet tall?

2. Level of Development- ask yourself, is a girl who's 7 years old less human than a girl who is 15 years old? It's a scientific fact that 15 year olds are far more developed than 7 year olds. Does that make the more developed one more human?

3. Environment- ask yourself, are you less human at work vs. at your house, or at your house vs. at the store? Does your environment change who you are?

4. Dependency- ask yourself, is someone who is less independent less of a human than a person who is more dependent? Is a person who relies on medication, such as insulin for diabetes, less human than someone who can function without outside assistance?

If you answered no to all those questions, then it isn't right to kill a fetus because it is smaller than an infant, it is less developed than an infant, it is in a different environment than an infant, an it is more dependent than an infant. It's no more right to kill a person who is shorter, younger, in a different environment or more dependent than it is to kill a fetus.

 

I answered yes to all 4... what does that mean?

What Would Kharn Do?


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:I answered yes to

 

Quote:
I answered yes to all 4... what does that mean?

That you're doomed........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

soul.

 


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
First, in order to clear up

First, in order to clear up the whole "slippery slope" thing, allow me to say that I, like James Madison, believe that "since the general civilzation of mankind...there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by sudden and violent usurpations."

latincanuck wrote:
Now how is a fetus, that cannot survive, that hasn't formed all it's organs, that cannot think the same as fully formed child? or a 20 year old exactly?

It's exactly the same as comparing a newborn, or a six month old, or a 12 year old to a 20 year old.  From blastocyst to 20 year old, the organism is the same thing, possessed of DNA distinctive from its parent, it is the same organism the whole time.  The classifications that human embryos go through, the stages in utero are artificial constructs imposed by science for the sake of convenience to facilitate study, the embryo remains the same thing, it never changes into something else.  Certainly, the actions it is able to perform differ greatly, as does the capabilities of an infant and an adult.  I'm not comparing apples and oranges, I'm comparing little apples to big apples, but they are all apples.

Quite simply, my argument is, since we are unable to establish a point at which life begins,  we are obligated, ethically, to err on the side of caution in order to avoid violating a fundamental human right.

 

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Totus is

MattShizzle wrote:

Totus is using the slippery slope fallacy again. I think if someone is in such poor mental development that as an adult they are at cat/dog level they would be better off dead - I'd certainly rather be dead than live like that. Hopefully if it wasn't due to injury they would be aborted before than. Basically a retarded man who can talk and bags groceries has the same right to life as any of us - if someone can't even control their own bodily functions, no. Who would want to live that way? Interesting totus brings up worshipping rocks - rocks actually exist. Your god doesn't. I personally see life in and of itself as utterly worthless. It's the quality of life that counts. Before you bring up my life, I have 5 suicide attempts under my belt and think my life is shit. I definitely would never have kids and pass on my physical and mental problems. I do think it would be better had I been aborted - I'd have avoided a lifetime of pain. My mom had surgery that she didn't think she could ever have kids, but here I am anyway - hey, maybe I'm the equivalent of Jesus.

Matt,

I believe I addressed your concerns on the slippery slope issue in the opening of my previous post. 

While I grieve for the pain you must suffer, I had no intention of bringing personal experience into this argument since the issue of abortion is obviously quite emotional.  I, too, have personal motives for my stance on the whole issue, but try to avoid arguments based solely on emotion.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:Slippery

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Slippery slope is only a logical fallacy (I believe) if the argument is "don't do x because.......then z." This is not the same as using the slippery slope argument in order to suggest a difficulty in distinguishing between x and z.

 

I think toto (?) was using it in the latter sense.  He wasn't necessarily saying "don't have abortions," but point could have just easily have been "because there is no objective standard in which to distinguish x and y in terms of 'value of life,' then every position is merely a subjective one."  

 

The fact that he used the phrase "slippery slope" does not allow for a dismissal out of hand merely because the phrase also describes a logical fallacy--IMO.

Thanks for the assist in explaing the slippery slope thing, Rhad.

What I'm trying to say is that since the definition of when life begins is so elusive and subjective, we are obligated to err on the side of caution in order to avoid violating the basic rights of another human being.  It is the same as my agrgument against capital punishment, ie that if we inadvertently execute one innocent person, that is one person too many, therefore, we should not execute criminals.

To echo your sentiment on both issues, no God is required at all.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Only reason I brought up my

Only reason I brought up my life was to counter the anticipated "Well what if you had been aborted?" response. I'm against capital punishment but don't believe that something incapable of thinking at nearly a human level, let alone something so undeveloped as to not even have a brain yet is a person - anymore than an acorn is an oak tree.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Only

MattShizzle wrote:

Only reason I brought up my life was to counter the anticipated "Well what if you had been aborted?" response. I'm against capital punishment but don't believe that something incapable of thinking at nearly a human level, let alone something so undeveloped as to not even have a brain yet is a person - anymore than an acorn is an oak tree.

Asking that question never crossed my mind.  But at least you were given the cahnce to make that determination for yourself.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Life and death

Life ends legaly, moraly and medicaly when brain function stops.

As has been pointed out, until a late stage of fetal developement, there is no brain activity, for all intents and purposes, the fetus is 'brain dead'.

It is only logical and ethical to conclude that life BEGINS at exactly the same point at which it ENDS.

 

LC >;-}>

 

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:Life ends

Louis_Cypher wrote:
Life ends legaly, moraly and medicaly when brain function stops.

Agreed.  Brain function drives most of the other processes necessary to sustain life.

Quote:
As has been pointed out, until a late stage of fetal developement, there is no brain activity, for all intents and purposes, the fetus is 'brain dead'.

I agree that for a period of time, there is no brain, hence no activity.  Yet there is an important difference between an embryo and a corpse, that is the reproduction of cells is still occuring.  This process continues of its own volition, it is powered by processes within the embryo itself, not by the processes of the mother.  In fact, science can now begin the process, and maintain it for periods of time without using a human mother. 

We consider a bacteria to be alive despite that fact that it doesn't have a brain.  What exactly is the difference between a bacteria and a fertilized ovum, that one should be considered alive and the other not? 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Who cares if it's alive or

Who cares if it's alive or not? Do you consider taking an antibiotic wrong? I see a fetus as equivalent to some other sort of parasite and therefore have no problem getting rid of it.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Actually no

It is not the same thing as a child that has been born. We can state the point in which a life can survive on it's own, outside with out the necessity of being inside it's mother or host. So yes we can quite simply make an argument of what constitutes that. You are comparing apples to oranges, and infant is fully formed and capable of surviving outside of the womb, as a 20 year old has already survived to it's 20th birthday outside of the womb, a blastocyst cannot live on it's own outside of the womb. It does not have a fully developed brain, it does not have internal organs per se, and it is not capable....and this is the important part of feeling anything, it is cells forming into a human, it is the DNA of humans (if DNA is a requirement then holy shit think of all the DNA wasted in sperm, and if you believe god created man, fuck he is an asshole for making us waste so much sperm and all that DNA in it) and it is going through a bunch of stages to get to the point of being a human infant....until that point is reached, it is not an infant, it is at best a fetus, and in the first trimester a blastocyst, which is just cells forming to the next stage, not an infant, not a child, but the a part of the process to become human. It changes from a sperm and an egg, to a cell, to multiple cells then eventually to a blastocyst, then a fetus and eventually what we call an infant. So you are incorrect, it is not the same organism....it becomes this organism that we call an infant....through a bunch of processes from a cell, and a cell is not a human being, which you are making the argument for.


j_day* (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Lets first

latincanuck wrote:

Lets first off look at the major differences between a bunch of cells developing in the womb and anyone under the age of 20 (you know before the brain finishes developing) We shall consider that anyone under 20 has been born already (just so there is no mix up here) they can think for themselves, they can feed themselves (for the most part infants can't but we shall tackle this a bit further on), and in general are humans. Babies are the exception to the feed rule however infants once born, usually are feed by the mother and are wanted to survive to adulthood, so that they can become productive members of our society and help the species survive.

Now on to the cells or fetus in the womb of a mother in the first trimester, haven't exactly developed into a thinking, able to survive outside of the womb child. It's basically a fetus, not a baby, not a human, a fetus, that is developing into a human. It doesn't have a tongue, intestines, the eyes are fused shut, and it isn't until the end of the first trimester that has bones, working organs or anything, up until then it is developing to become a human, but really it isn't quite there yet, and even then it still cannot survive outside of the womb until at least the 28th week (and this is with some major medical help) 30 weeks is preferred for the minimum if possible. Now personally I am in favor of abortions into the first trimester and after that too bad your pregnant and having a child, but this is my opinion. Now how is a fetus, that cannot survive, that hasn't formed all it's organs, that cannot think the same as fully formed child? or a 20 year old exactly? Because your just grasping at straws really and comparing apples to oranges....yes they are fruits and grow on trees, but they are not anything alike.

All people are is a bunch of cells. The only difference is how old the cells are. To say that the cells are different from humans doesn't make any sense. Once conception happens, it will turn into a human. If you are for abortion, you are for abortion, but this "not a human" argument doesn't hold up. The reason abortion is done is because you don't want a child. If it's just a bunch of cells, what's the point of getting rid of them? The point is because the cells are a future walking, talking person. Fetus is just a description word for a period of life, such as infant, child, teenager, adult, elderly etc.

 

But for the sake of argument, let's say that at first it is just a "bunch of cells". By week five, this "bunch of cells" has a heartbeat. That means it's alive. You know when they pronounce a person dead? It's not when a person is without a fully functioning brain or body, it's when a person's heart stops beating.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
But DNA is exactly one of

But DNA is exactly one of the points I'm making here.  I can watch sperm all I want through I microscope (were I so inclined).  It will never change.  It's DNA remains the same, it stays sperm, it never goes through any changes until it dies.  The same goes for an egg.  Put them together, though, and an interesting thing happens.  The union of those cells develops DNA distinctly different from that of its parents.  Furthermore, it begins a series of cellular division and begins a progress that ultimately leads to birth.  If the embryo has human DNA, and that DNA is distinctive to that embryo, then that embryo is a human being.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Yet there it is

Sperm has human DNA, the Egg has Human DNA, yet somewhere along the line they get together....but maybe the host doesn't want it, maybe condom broke, maybe they were raped, maybe they cannot at such time and possibility care for a child, maybe they just don't want to have children at that point in time of their lives....they can and should have an abortion, which is always far better than having the child and having said child grow up with it being not wanted, for I have seen kids grow up like that, and even they have said they rather not have been born. But because of certain laws at the time or because of social pressures the mothers didn't abort, and for the most part, the kids that I did know, out 4 of them (low number I know but one is a product of rape, the other 3 the mothers didn't want them because they were young but hey gotta keep them) 3 are in jail....the 4 is a drug abuser. so yeah for society it made it all the much better.

No humans are lots of cell, but more importantly they are capable of surviving outside of the womb, in the first trimester it cannot survive outside of the womb.  In the end, the decision is made by society what it considers correct, in canada, at least in 5 provinces it is the first trimester in the rest between 60 to 90 days, none of provinces or territories are later term abortions allowed, unless it is for the health of mother and or there is some terrible defect in which the fetus will not survive at all. So yes we have made a decision as to what constitute life and a human being, in Ontario it is once it passes the 60 day mark. Argument over in this province.


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Equivocation as a lifestyle...

There seems to be some (deliberate?) confusion and no small amount of equivocation going on here...

Yes, a fetus is alive.

So is a bacteria.

So is an earthworm.

The question SHOULD be; Is it a 'person'?

Person is a legal and ethical designation. A description of a life as a seperate viable entity. If we can not reasonably describe a life as a person, then there really is no issue.

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:The question SHOULD

 

Quote:
The question SHOULD be; Is it a 'person'?

Person is a legal and ethical designation. A description of a life as a seperate viable entity. If we can not reasonably describe a life as a person, then there really is no issue.

LC >;-}>

Er.. I think this confuses the question.  The question SHOULD be; does the aborting of a fetus, which is alive, infringe upon any rights or contain any value worth protecting and if so, is that infringement outweighed by any other right that would be infringed upon if the abortion were restricted?

Heh.

The problem comes up on the issue of "rights" now.  Are there natural rights? Or are rights only what the state accepts as right?

If you are speaking from a strictly legal perspective.. then no, a fetus is not a "person" and therefore doesn't have rights (as we commonly understand them).  

That does not mean, however, that that the legal system SHOULD NOT see it as a person.  At one point slaves weren't considered "persons" (Dred Scott).

Nevertheless, that doesn't address the other question. 

Whether a fetus SHOULD be considered a person or should be granted some protection.. is the next question.

Which brings us around, kind of.

Why should a fetus be considered a person or why should any protection be granted to it that should outweigh any rights infringed by restrict an abortion?

The normative response to this question (i believe) will be entirely subjective opinion.. 

if you don't go this far, and just stick with "what is legal is what is right"--then, dred scott still stands, since it was the first to decide on the matter.

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Rights

Well that is deemed by society, for example in Ontario Canada, after 60 days the fetus has rights, unless of course for medical reasons, such as danger to the mothers health or that the fetus will not survive to term, but under that it has not rights, it's not a considered a human being, a person. As such, just like everything else that society deems ok or not ok,  it's is up to that particular society. Thankfully here we have the choice, not that it is always used appropriately.


j_day* (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Totus is

MattShizzle wrote:

Totus is using the slippery slope fallacy again. I think if someone is in such poor mental development that as an adult they are at cat/dog level they would be better off dead - I'd certainly rather be dead than live like that. Hopefully if it wasn't due to injury they would be aborted before than. Basically a retarded man who can talk and bags groceries has the same right to life as any of us - if someone can't even control their own bodily functions, no. Who would want to live that way? Interesting totus brings up worshipping rocks - rocks actually exist. Your god doesn't. I personally see life in and of itself as utterly worthless. It's the quality of life that counts. Before you bring up my life, I have 5 suicide attempts under my belt and think my life is shit. I definitely would never have kids and pass on my physical and mental problems. I do think it would be better had I been aborted - I'd have avoided a lifetime of pain. My mom had surgery that she didn't think she could ever have kids, but here I am anyway - hey, maybe I'm the equivalent of Jesus.

So let me get this straight, your mom had surgery which was supposed to make her "infertile" in a way. But you are still born. Then you attempt suicide 5 times unsuccessfully. Have you ever thought about why you're here? This might sound like a simple question, but have you ever thought about your purpose in life? Technically you have escaped death (or non-existence) 6 times. There could be a good reason why you're here. From my perspective, there's a reason why you're still alive. And no matter how bad you think your life is, there's no life bad enough that God cannot turn around.