Abortion is murder

MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Abortion is murder

Saying that an abortion is the equivalent of murdering an actual person is very, very irrational. By the way, to Christians, the Bible actually says life begins at birth.

http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php

But seriously, a fetus is not a person, especially very early - as Sam Harris pointed out, a blastocyst actually has fewer cells than are present in the brain of a fly. Why are christians only concerned with life when it is either a fetus or brain dead? Maybe they only like people of similar intelligence to them.

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


triften
atheist
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Quote:

StMichael wrote:

Quote:
Actually, I think you'll find that there are a great many atheists running hospitals and the like. They're just doing it for profit.

Then it is not charity. I doubt there is any good and convincing reason to run a charitable organization outside of faith. There is just no incentive. For profit hospitals turn away people who don't have insurance. For-profit institutions are not founded to help the poorest of the poor, but people who have the means to help themselves. Charity cannot exist in that context.

Just a side note on hospitals: Only about 15% of hotpitals in the U.S. are religious and not one single U.S. hospital (religious or otherwise) has ever been founded without state funding. Yes, that's money from the secular government. There are very few hospitals that are truely "for-profit" (investor owned.)

StMichael wrote:

Quote:
There is no question that theists are far more into charitable causes than atheists. That might be simply due to a lack of organization on the part of the atheists -- we don't see the need to get together once a week, so there aren't as many opportunities to say "Hey, why don't we all pitch in and help so-and-so?"

Because there is no such incentive available to an atheist. You can't agree first on any moral premises. Then, you lack any good reason outside of vague self-interest to do any thing. Then, you also lack the incentive beyond that to care for those who offer no benefit to society or who cannot help society (read: poor and elderly, retarded, ect.). I'm not saying it to insult you. I just think there is no incentive (or, at least, a good one) in atheism for the vast charitable aid that Christianity is obligated by faith to give. Which is why atheists are not very often found in purely altruistic ventures.

I have to call foul on this claim. You appear to be claiming that an atheist has no reason to help others. WRONG! We are social creatures capable of empathy and as such we can empathize with others. Treating others kindly cultivates a society of peace and understanding.

I also call a foul on you for claiming that those who recieve charity cannot help society.

---

Additionally, I help others by choice not obligation. Your motives for charity seem rather suspect. Is the only reason you help others is because a all-powerful god commands it? I'm beginning to think so based on your statements about saying these people cannot help society.

(If you haven't found atheists in altruistic ventures it might be because you aren't looking hard enough. We may be doing it more to help out than to earn Brownie points for a god.)

-Triften


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I already gave my reasons

I already gave my reasons for why I believe that no real and cogent reason exists for a pure atheist to commit to charity. Charity in the Christian sense cannot exist in an atheistic mindset. I see helping fellow man and doing good, but total self-sacrifice is beyond it.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Kirbert
Kirbert's picture
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Charity

Quote:
Your motives for charity seem rather suspect. Is the only reason you help others is because a all-powerful god commands it?

The reason he helps others is to help spread the power and influence of the Catholic Church -- although it's doubtful he realizes that.

"Charity" is vastly overrated. The Church teaches that it is good to give to others less fortunate and teaches us to feel good about doing it. But all it accomplishes 99% of the time is wastes the giver's time and money and imprisons the recipient in an ever-tightening spiral of dependence -- upon the Catholic Church.

You see, I'm not just saying that the Catholic Charity or whatever this particular organization is called is a scam to build power and influence for the church. I'm saying that the entire idea of charity is a scam to build power and influence for the church. Keep them ignorant, encourage them to breed more ignorance, and keep them dependent on handouts.

-- Kirbert


Kirbert
Kirbert's picture
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Self-Sacrifice

Quote:
I already gave my reasons for why I believe that no real and cogent reason exists for a pure atheist to commit to charity. Charity in the Christian sense cannot exist in an atheistic mindset. I see helping fellow man and doing good, but total self-sacrifice is beyond it.

Although I could argue minor points there, I have to say that the main disagreement we'd have here is whether or not all you say is a good thing!

-- Kirbert


Kirbert
Kirbert's picture
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
War, Charity, etc.

Quote:
It was not unlawful to kill in self-defense or warfare.

"Unlawful"? Are we using legal arguments all of a sudden?

Self-defense I totally agree with, legally, morally, any other way you wanna look at it. Warfare is much more questionable. In warfare that is self-defense, yes, but how about warfare to acquire land and/or resources? Or to evict people of the wrong faith from land that was "promised by God"?

Quote:
The death of the enemy is not the primary aim. The cessation of warfare is the end.

If that were the case, would it not make more sense to simply assassinate the leaders of the country you're at war with? Can you explain why, here in the US, it is illegal to assassinate the leaders of another country, war or not?

Quote:
This is the same in self-defense. You don't directly intend to kill the offender.

Speak for yourself. If attacked, I will most certainly endeavor to kill my attacker, for at least three reasons: 1) Because if I don't, he'll show up in court with some sleazebag attorney claiming a completely different story, that I attacked him, he was just an innocent bystander. 2) Because if I don't, he may come back and attack me again, and I may not be ready next time; and 3) As long as I have the opportunity, I'd like to do society the favor of ridding it of this POS once and for all.

Quote:
Vietnam was most certainly not a religious war.

Oh, please. The entire reason there was conflict in Vietnam to begin with was because the French tried to convert the "natives" into Catholicism. When it looked like the French were going to lose control, the US Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, a practicing Catholic and receiving guidance from Pope Pius XII by way of Cardinal Spellman, insisted that the US provide aid and later military assistance. Still later, when the assistance clearly wasn't working, our president, one John F. Kennedy -- another Catholic and again receiving guidance from Cardinal Spellman -- greatly increased the US involvement primarily as a means to protect the 10% of the Vietnamese population that was Catholic, knowing that if they lost, the Catholics would be badly treated for being so weak-minded as to accept such an absurd belief system. Throughout the Vietnam war, the US backed one corrupt Catholic leader after another in South Vietnam, despite the fact that Vietnam (N and S) was only 10% Catholic and that it was well-known to all -- even the American soldiers in the trenches -- that none of these crooks would ever win an election there if one were held.

Of course, the war couldn't be sold to the American people as being an effort to protect Catholic savages, so it was sold as a necessary effort to protect the spread of Communism via "the domino effect" -- although everybody in a position of leadership in this country could readily see that was hogwash, the Vietnamese were an independent people and hated the Chinese (still do!) and would never fall in line with them on anything. Ho Chi Minh himself had come to Paris in the early 50's and asked the US for assistance in ridding his homeland of French domination, but the US declined because the French were our allies!

But even stopping the spread of Communism was largely sold as a religious objective, since the Communists had rejected religion as "the opiate of the masses".

So, please, don't try to convince me that Vietnam wasn't a religious war. You and your church might be able to convince the ignorant that you weren't involved, but I'm not ignorant on that point.

Quote:
From "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few," Hilter used this to infer that it was correct to massacre the Jews. The Jews were argued to contribute nothing to human society and to merely act as a parasitical race that fed off the Aryan peoples. The Jews were thus less than refuse and all their property was confiscated by the state - back into the hands of those the Jews "stole" it from.

Largely true. He did all this with the blessing of the Vatican, too.

Quote:
I see no reason why your reasoning could not follow the same path.

If Hitler's claims had been true, he might have been justified in his war. But it wasn't true that the Jews contributed nothing, and it wasn't true that they were stealing anything. This was another example of lies to cover up a religious war, a war to eradicate a religion other than one's own.

Quote:
How pride is an adequate justification for any action.

Maybe that's because you don't have any. But for those of us who think for ourselves, stand up for ourselves, and give ourselves credit for the things we accomplish rather than deflecting the credit to our invisible friend, pride is a very powerful motivator.

Quote:
And, how to temper pride.

There's no need to temper pride.

Quote:
Maybe Aryan pride in the nation calls for the death of all other people.

And maybe Christian pride means being a "man of faith". Both are equally bad, and both illustrate the importance of shame in a civilized society. Whenever someone expresses an unacceptable opinion or does an unacceptable act, he should be publicly denounced for it. It should be made very clear that nobody admires him for such thoughts or actions, but rather is repulsed by it. In Japan, this applies to his family to a lesser extent, as they are held responsible for letting their relative get this far off track.

Here in the US, we don't use shame at all. Everybody is encouraged to be proud of who they are, even if they are misfits and losers -- or theists. Sooner or later, that's got to change.

Quote:
Or, maybe my pride is so great that it doesn't matter what other people think or say;

Yes, you might take it upon yourself to force your ideas on others.

Quote:
I gain nothing from honor in society and nothing from moral actions.

Actually, yes, you do. Honorable people usually do quite well in our society, while dishonorable people generally do less well. It would be better if we could provide even more distinction there, make the rewards for being honorable greater and the results of being unethical even more punishing, but we are constantly being thwarted in such efforts by politicians and Christians.

Quote:
I will then ale, whore, and bludgeon my way to the top in this life, damned be the consequences.

The aling and whoring sound like fun! The bludgeoning will only land you in jail or a grave, though.

Quote:
So right answers in moral truth are based merely on civilization's benefit?

That is correct.

Quote:
What if it is to the Rawandan's benefit to commit genocide against the nextdoor peoples?

That would be one society's gain and another's loss. To civilization as a whole, it could be either good or bad or neutral, depending on whether the world would be better off without the nextdoor people.

Quote:
Or, what is the moral choice for a Huttu living in the Tuttsi village?

He might wanna move! Smile

I'm not entirely clear on why those two tribes hate each other so much, but it's entirely possible they are both justified. And it's entirely possible that, when two tribes hate each other that much for whatever reason, the best thing the rest of civilization can do is let them duke it out.

Hey, or we could do what the US usually does: side with the weaker side in the conflict -- whoever it is, regardless of any ethics or morals whatsoever -- and provide just enough military assistance to make it a fair fight! That way the conflict goes on forever and a maximum number of people on both sides get killed. While we sit at home and our military industries collect the profits, and perhaps we let a few individuals stupid enough to volunteer go over there and get themselves killed. Yeah, that's the morally righteous thing to do!

Quote:
Quote:
Actually, I think you'll find that there are a great many atheists running hospitals and the like. They're just doing it for profit.

Then it is not charity.

Never said it was.

Quote:
I doubt there is any good and convincing reason to run a charitable organization outside of faith.

There would certainly be a lot fewer reasons to run a charitable organization without faith. Which would be a good thing. I suspect that, if all the religious claptrap in the world today were to suddenly dry up and disappear, there would still be some charitable organizations -- but nowhere near as many. Presently there are few or no atheist charitable organizations because there is zero need for one.

Quote:
For-profit institutions are not founded to help the poorest of the poor, but people who have the means to help themselves.

Everybody has the means to help themselves, with the possible exceptions of the mentally or physically disabled. And those are the only people that would likely be served by atheist charity if no one else stepped up.

Quote:
there is no such incentive available to an atheist. You can't agree first on any moral premises.

Incorrect. We can't agree on your moral premises, because they are based on superstitious nonsense. But ethical premises we can agree on, and would easily if we could get the superstitious blathering out of the way.

Quote:
you lack any good reason outside of vague self-interest to do any thing.

Largely true. Remember that basis for ethics? "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"? That means that, for civilization to succeed and prosper, infrastructure must be established that rewards behavior that helps society and punishes behavior that is harmful to society. Hence, individuals will do good things out of self-interest -- and there's nothing vague about it. And since it is in everybody's self-interest for their society to succeed and prosper, they will support the establishment of such infrastructure.

Expecting individuals to do good things for altruistic reasons is what socialism is all about. We saw it fail in the Soviet Union. The most successful socialist societies are the ones that learn how to adopt capitalism to some extent to encourage people to work for their own self-interest.

IOW, self-interest works. Up to now, nothing else has ever worked nearly as well, and it's not clear anything else ever will.

Quote:
Quote:
I don't participate in charitable causes because nearly every one of them is gravely detrimental to society as well as to the individuals they purport to "help".

I see no such reason to assume this.

I'm not presuming it; I know it for a fact, I've watched it happen with my own eyes.

Quote:
How is "every [charity] gravely detrimental to society?"

Nearly every. Quote properly, please.

Most charities take such great pride in giving money and resources to the "needy" that they don't even pay any attention to whether or not they're actually helping those needy improve their station in life. People who should be working to change their situation instead are encouraged to keep doing what they've been doing and continue to accept support from the charity. In many cases, they make a living out of it. In fact, in many cases they deliberately choose the lifestyle!

Quote:
Also, doesn't that include the large number of secular charities that exist without religious affiliation?

They might exist without religious affiliation, but they don't exist without religious influence. It's religion that teaches giving without qualification rather than encouraging success, and a great many people in our society today -- including those who don't consider themselves Christians -- have bought into this idea.

I have nothing against charities that truly do help people help themselves. But they are rare. There are some individuals who accept charity and manage to use it to help improve their own station in life, but -- ooooh, you're not gonna like reading this -- that's because they have too much pride to go on accepting charity indefinitely.

Quote:
Aren't you trying to have your cake and eat it too? Atheism can lead to charity, but all charity is detrimental to society.

Not what I said, and you know it.

Quote:
I have no idea what you mean by "enabling."

Gee, read a book on psychology or watch Dr. Phil or something!

Quote:
Religious charitable organizations, for example the Missionaries of Charity houses, have no benefit to the sisters who run it.

They don't? Where do they get the food they eat?

Quote:
...they own no property.

My dad and I had a good laugh over that one once. Basically properties such as church buildings are owned by the church rather than the individuals who provided the money and labor to build them, resulting in ever-increasing property holdings by the church and poverty for their followers. Great work if you can get it! And they have the gall and audacity to call us atheists immoral!

-- Kirbert


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The reason he helps

Quote:
The reason he helps others is to help spread the power and influence of the Catholic Church -- although it's doubtful he realizes that.

Except that it doesn't. There is no goal or objective to spread the power and influence of the Catholic Church. The way we do that in the influence section would be evangelization, which is a totally seperate enterprise (and even then, "power" or "influence" is a relative term - the Catholic Church has no desire for power over anyone).

Quote:
"Charity" is vastly overrated. The Church teaches that it is good to give to others less fortunate and teaches us to feel good about doing it. But all it accomplishes 99% of the time is wastes the giver's time and money and imprisons the recipient in an ever-tightening spiral of dependence -- upon the Catholic Church.

I see no reason that it does so. Charity is around to help people get on their feet again, in most cases. In others, you CAN'T help someone get back on their feet because they have nothing to produce at all. For example, the old and elderly who just need care. Society has no reason to care for them. Or the severely retarded and handicapped. They cannot contribute to society. The only organization that can care for them is a pure charity.

Quote:
I'm saying that the entire idea of charity is a scam to build power and influence for the church. Keep them ignorant, encourage them to breed more ignorance, and keep them dependent on handouts.

The Catholic Church does nothing of the sort. You need to cite specific examples if you want to claim this. I can cite hundreds of examples of how this is wrong. Just one is the fact that the Catholic Church often engages in education, especially for those who could not often find one elsewhere. No ignorance being fostered.

Quote:

Self-defense I totally agree with, legally, morally, any other way you wanna look at it. Warfare is much more questionable. In warfare that is self-defense, yes, but how about warfare to acquire land and/or resources? Or to evict people of the wrong faith from land that was "promised by God"?

I never claimed that warfare can be just to take over other lands.

Quote:

If that were the case, would it not make more sense to simply assassinate the leaders of the country you're at war with? Can you explain why, here in the US, it is illegal to assassinate the leaders of another country, war or not?

First, I am not defending US law, just the principle of just war.
Second, we have and do try to assasinate bad leaders, if we think that will bring the conflict to resolution.
Third, sometimes, it is very difficult to assasinate leaders and the nation itself will find such an even more open act of war and increase their attacks. Not necessarily always a good plan.

Quote:
Speak for yourself. If attacked, I will most certainly endeavor to kill my attacker, for at least three reasons: 1) Because if I don't, he'll show up in court with some sleazebag attorney claiming a completely different story, that I attacked him, he was just an innocent bystander. 2) Because if I don't, he may come back and attack me again, and I may not be ready next time;

These are circumstances where I would believe that you could act in order to use whatever means necessary to repel his attack and to even kill him, if the case so warranted.

Quote:

and 3) As long as I have the opportunity, I'd like to do society the favor of ridding it of this POS once and for all.

However, this is not so good a reason. Law enforcement has legitimate authority to punish criminals and to decide whether they are a menace to society. You are now beyond your rights if this is a reason to kill the attacker.

Quote:
Oh, please. The entire reason there was conflict in Vietnam to begin with was because the French tried to convert the "natives" into Catholicism.

Nonsense.

Quote:

When it looked like the French were going to lose control, the US Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, a practicing Catholic and receiving guidance from Pope Pius XII by way of Cardinal Spellman, insisted that the US provide aid and later military assistance.

This is heresay. John Dulles is not representative of the entire Catholic Church just because he was Catholic. Just in general, however, I don't necessarily see a problem with why we cannot grant another nation aid.

Quote:
Still later, when the assistance clearly wasn't working, our president, one John F. Kennedy -- another Catholic and again receiving guidance from Cardinal Spellman -- greatly increased the US involvement primarily as a means to protect the 10% of the Vietnamese population that was Catholic, knowing that if they lost, the Catholics would be badly treated for being so weak-minded as to accept such an absurd belief system. Throughout the Vietnam war, the US backed one corrupt Catholic leader after another in South Vietnam, despite the fact that Vietnam (N and S) was only 10% Catholic and that it was well-known to all -- even the American soldiers in the trenches -- that none of these crooks would ever win an election there if one were held.

Are you crazy? This is just rampant consiracy theories. Prove it.

Quote:
He did all this with the blessing of the Vatican, too.

He did not. The Vatican was acting to protect the Jews the moment this came to light.

Quote:
If Hitler's claims had been true, he might have been justified in his war. But it wasn't true that the Jews contributed nothing, and it wasn't true that they were stealing anything. This was another example of lies to cover up a religious war, a war to eradicate a religion other than one's own.

Again, more conspiracy theories. You need to go read some real history before you make more claims of this sort.
Further, countenancing that genocide was correct is not my opinion of moral action.

Quote:
Maybe that's because you don't have any. But for those of us who think for ourselves, stand up for ourselves, and give ourselves credit for the things we accomplish rather than deflecting the credit to our invisible friend, pride is a very powerful motivator.

It has nothing to do with God. Pride just can't be a good motivator, because "pride" means different things, as I say below.

Quote:

There's no need to temper pride.

OK, so I am more important than everyone else and can blow up the world if I so choose. I can run over old ladies in the street if it pleases me. Wonderful moral system.

Quote:
And maybe Christian pride means being a "man of faith".

I don't see how you get this conclusion.

Quote:
Both are equally bad, and both illustrate the importance of shame in a civilized society. Whenever someone expresses an unacceptable opinion or does an unacceptable act, he should be publicly denounced for it. It should be made very clear that nobody admires him for such thoughts or actions, but rather is repulsed by it. In Japan, this applies to his family to a lesser extent, as they are held responsible for letting their relative get this far off track.

Honor, not pride. Different ideas. However, honor is not a good motivator for the same reasons. What is honorable and what is not? Honor is merely the designation of society to good and bad acts. What decides whether or not it is good or bad?

Quote:

Here in the US, we don't use shame at all. Everybody is encouraged to be proud of who they are, even if they are misfits and losers -- or theists. Sooner or later, that's got to change.

So pride doesn't need to be tempered, except in the US, because pride is bad because it makes theists feel proud, but theists shouldn't feel proud, but pride is the basis of morality?

Quote:
Yes, you might take it upon yourself to force your ideas on others.

So pride doesn't and does need to be restrained?

Quote:
Actually, yes, you do. Honorable people usually do quite well in our society, while dishonorable people generally do less well.

I call BS. Dishonest people cheat and steal to get their way to the top. I am not saying every successful person is like this, or even that most or many are like this. Just that many dishonest people make a darn good living for themselves. For instance, assuming your view of the Catholic Church dishonestly going for gold, why are they so successful if dishonest people lose?

Quote:

The aling and whoring sound like fun! The bludgeoning will only land you in jail or a grave, though.

But I bludgeon out of pride!

Quote:
That is correct.

So Hitler was perfectly justified.
Or is there some basis to what constitutes a good for society? In which case, it is good for another reason.

Quote:
That would be one society's gain and another's loss. To civilization as a whole, it could be either good or bad or neutral, depending on whether the world would be better off without the nextdoor people.

Countenancing genocide is a very bad thing, my friend.

Quote:
the best thing the rest of civilization can do is let them duke it out.

Totally conflicting standards of morality. Why aren't then, in your view, Arabs being stomped out by the US a good thing? If they contribute nothing to the world, maybe we'd just be better off without 'em. Just kill 'em all. Take their land and resources and rape and pillage. I see no way your moral system thus far can support these two views simultaneously.

Quote:

Everybody has the means to help themselves, with the possible exceptions of the mentally or physically disabled. And those are the only people that would likely be served by atheist charity if no one else stepped up.

I doubt atheistic charity has any reason to help them. In your own words, they don't contribute to society. Let social Darwinism work its magic!

Quote:
Incorrect. We can't agree on your moral premises, because they are based on superstitious nonsense.

Nonsense? Have I been quoting Scripture to you to support my positions? No. I have merely been showing that your views cannot suffice to create a cogent moral framework.

Quote:
And since it is in everybody's self-interest for their society to succeed and prosper, they will support the establishment of such infrastructure.

People don't act that way. Read your own statement below.

Quote:
Expecting individuals to do good things for altruistic reasons is what socialism is all about....

Not altruism. The good of the whole is greater than the good of the few was the great tagline of Socialism since its inception.

Quote:
I'm not presuming it; I know it for a fact, I've watched it happen with my own eyes.

One or two instances is not proof.

Quote:
Most charities take such great pride in giving money and resources to the "needy" that they don't even pay any attention to whether or not they're actually helping those needy improve their station in life.
Yeah! Let's burn down the old folks homes! They are stealing prunes that could have been given to poor children in Africa! Or, kill the Jews! They are stealking from the Volk!

Quote:
People who should be working to change their situation instead are encouraged to keep doing what they've been doing and continue to accept support from the charity. In many cases, they make a living out of it. In fact, in many cases they deliberately choose the lifestyle!

The abuses of the few doesn't mean that charity is evil.

Quote:
Where do they get the food they eat?

Donations.

Quote:
My dad and I had a good laugh over that one once. Basically properties such as church buildings are owned by the church rather than the individuals who provided the money and labor to build them, resulting in ever-increasing property holdings by the church and poverty for their followers. Great work if you can get it! And they have the gall and audacity to call us atheists immoral!

The Missionaries do not own anything. Period. Their order might own the building, but nobody directly owns anything. They have no material comforts in their homes. They sleep on mats. They eat very little. They devote their entire lives to help others. I see no problem there at all. In fact, this would be the perfect solution to the need of the poor. And they do "enable" others to work. They help those who can work to get working again. They mainly care for those who are terminally ill, retarded, or in such straits that they cannot give benefit to society - the poorest of the poor.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Kirbert
Kirbert's picture
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Various

These messages are getting too long. I'll see if I can break this reply up into several pieces to make things more manageable.

Quote:
There is no goal or objective to spread the power and influence of the Catholic Church. The way we do that in the influence section would be evangelization, which is a totally seperate enterprise (and even then, "power" or "influence" is a relative term - the Catholic Church has no desire for power over anyone...

OK, if you say so.

Quote:
Charity is around to help people get on their feet again, in most cases.

Whether or not that is the stated objective, I dunno. What I do know is that charities in general don't achieve that objective in any but a tiny percentage of cases, and for the most part don't appear to care that they rarely achieve that objective. They generally don't have any sort of feedback system to verify whether or not the people they have provided charity to have actually turned their lives around and become productive citizens, and they generally don't have any mechanism by which they can review and alter their policies in order to have a better outcome on more of their recipients. For the most part, the battle cry is "Give till it hurts!" followed by "Give more!"

Quote:
In others, you CAN'T help someone get back on their feet because they have nothing to produce at all. For example, the old and elderly who just need care.

An excellent example of enabling. Everybody should prepare for their own retirement; this is simple responsibility. But when charities are caring for those who didn't -- and continue providing for those who didn't -- the result is that those of us who did prepare for our own retirements start to look like fools. And a couple of generations down the pike, nobody is preparing for their own retirement. And retirees are fully dependent upon charities -- and the church -- for their support. Once again, the entire purpose of the charity has been achieved: to funnel more money and influence through the church.

Quote:
The Catholic Church does nothing of the sort. You need to cite specific examples if you want to claim this.

Gee, I think I just did!

Quote:
I can cite hundreds of examples of how this is wrong.

Uhhhh, no, you can't.

Quote:
Just one is the fact that the Catholic Church often engages in education, especially for those who could not often find one elsewhere.

I attended a Catholic school myself. And I suppose I wasn't supposed to notice the hour per day of Bible study?

Quote:
No ignorance being fostered.

Just what do you think Bible study is?

Ah, a good place to stop and move on to another message.

-- Kirbert


Kirbert
Kirbert's picture
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
2nd Response - again

Apparently my second response got lost in the ether, so I'm having to rewrite it.

Quote:
I never claimed that warfare can be just to take over other lands.

Very good. Other than in self-defense, which we already agreed on, when else would warfare be justified?

Quote:
Quote:
As long as I have the opportunity, I'd like to do society the favor of ridding it of this POS once and for all.

However, this is not so good a reason. Law enforcement has legitimate authority to punish criminals and to decide whether they are a menace to society. You are now beyond your rights if this is a reason to kill the attacker.

I'd still do it just the same, for the first two reasons as well as I can get away with it. Plus because our system of justice expends a great deal of resources on scum, and has a poor record of actually punishing said scum. A jury of total strangers would have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that this guy was scum, but I have firsthand knowledge: he just attacked me!

OK, off to a third message.

-- Kirbert


Kirbert
Kirbert's picture
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Vietnam

Quote:
Quote:
The entire reason there was conflict in Vietnam to begin with was because the French tried to convert the "natives" into Catholicism.

Nonsense.

I understand you have a problem with reality that conflicts with things you've been told by people you choose to trust. You might want to check a history book on that one, though.

Quote:
John Dulles is not representative of the entire Catholic Church just because he was Catholic.

True. But that doesn't alter the fact that he was counselled by Cardinal Spellman to help those poor helpless Catholics in Vietnam, and that he acted on that advice.

Quote:
Just in general, however, I don't necessarily see a problem with why we cannot grant another nation aid.

We are getting back to the question of when warfare is justified. In the case of Vietnam, we spent many years and many thousands of American lives fighting against the people trying to free their country from religious oppression. Was that justified?

Quote:
Quote:
Throughout the Vietnam war, the US backed one corrupt Catholic leader after another in South Vietnam, despite the fact that Vietnam (N and S) was only 10% Catholic and that it was well-known to all -- even the American soldiers in the trenches -- that none of these crooks would ever win an election there if one were held.

Are you crazy? This is just rampant consiracy theories. Prove it.

Interesting. As far as backing one corrupt Catholic leader after another, you can look it up. As far as the American soldiers knowing that they wouldn't have won a popular election, I suggest you ask a soldier who was there.

Back in the states, nobody knew there were any Bhuddists in Vietnam until some monks started setting fire to themselves in Saigon streets. The first reaction of the American public was "I didn't know there were any Bhuddists there! Oh, well, who cares about a few crazy monks setting themselves on fire?" When it was finally reported that Vietnam was 90% Bhuddist, there was general dismay that we were not told sooner.

Quote:
Quote:
did all this with the blessing of the Vatican, too.

He did not. The Vatican was acting to protect the Jews the moment this came to light.

Wow, that indoctrination runs deep. You might want to know that, just within the past few years, your pope publicly apologized for their part in the destruction of the Jews during WWII. I guess that wasn't reported in the pulpit.

Quote:
You need to go read some real history before you make more claims of this sort.

Gee, does that mean I need to read the Bible? Because I have been reading real history.

Quote:
Further, countenancing that genocide was correct is not my opinion of moral action.

I suppose genocide is never called for; converting to Christianity is vastly preferable.

Another good place for a switch to another message.

-- Kirbert


Kirbert
Kirbert's picture
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Quote: There's no

Quote:
Quote:
There's no need to temper pride.

OK, so I am more important than everyone else and can blow up the world if I so choose. I can run over old ladies in the street if it pleases me.

Well, if that's what fills you with pride, you're the kinda guy that deserves the electric chair.

Quote:
Quote:
And maybe Christian pride means being a "man of faith".

I don't see how you get this conclusion.

It's easy. Every time you see a Christian trying to pay another Christian a complement, he describes him as a "man of faith." That's how you instill a sense of pride. It works, too; lots of people are very proud of being referred to as a "man of faith" even though it quite literally means "believes in ghosts" or "terrified of unseen monsters".

Quote:
Honor, not pride. Different ideas.

Not really. One is how others see you, the other is how you see yourself. The only time they differ is in cases of self-delusion. Atheists are not known for self-delusion.

Quote:
What is honorable and what is not? Honor is merely the designation of society to good and bad acts. What decides whether or not it is good or bad?

Society.

Quote:
Quote:
Here in the US, we don't use shame at all. Everybody is encouraged to be proud of who they are, even if they are misfits and losers -- or theists. Sooner or later, that's got to change.

So pride doesn't need to be tempered, except in the US, because pride is bad because it makes theists feel proud, but theists shouldn't feel proud, but pride is the basis of morality?

Pride never needs to be tempered, but society should foster pride in individuals for doing positive things and shame in individuals for doing harmful things. People who are honest, productive, and upstanding should be recognized and made to feel proud. Meanwhile, those who mooch off others, commit crimes, or believe in superstitions should be ashamed.

Will that solve all our problems? I dunno. But I bet it would solve a great many of them. I'd certainly love to give it a try.

Time to switch to another message.

-- Kirbert


Kirbert
Kirbert's picture
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Quote: the best

Quote:
Quote:
the best thing the rest of civilization can do is let them duke it out.

Totally conflicting standards of morality. Why aren't then, in your view, Arabs being stomped out by the US a good thing?

Did I say that would be a bad thing? Gee, I don't recall saying that.

Just the same, I wouldn't support such a policy. For one thing, I don't consider Americans much better than Arabs. They both cling to an outmoded belief in superstition. The best thing you can say about the Americans is that they generally don't take their religious nonsense as seriously.

I would hope that both can be enlightened. Once their religions are recognized for the nonsense than they are, Americans and Arabs alike could live together in peace. It is the only bone of contention between them.

As far as letting differing groups duke it out, I think history will show that it's almost always a mistake to interfere.

Quote:
For instance, assuming your view of the Catholic Church dishonestly going for gold, why are they so successful if dishonest people lose?

Good point! Most shamefully, somehow they even convinced the US Gov't to let them slide by without paying any taxes!

Quote:
Or is there some basis to what constitutes a good for society?

Yes. Read my lips: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Quote:
Countenancing genocide is a very bad thing, my friend.

No, it's not. Countenancing genocide where it is not justified would be a very bad thing. I personally am all in favor of genocide against mosquitoes; mankind should unite to wipe them off the planet.

I'd be willing to listen to arguments for genocide against the Taliban, too. As far as I can tell, this group of people is a scourge upon mankind, and I'm not convinced that they are redeemable.

Quote:
Have I been quoting Scripture to you to support my positions? No. I have merely been showing that your views cannot suffice to create a cogent moral framework.

Actually, you haven't been showing me much of anything. You keep saying you don't see how my views can suffice to create a cogent moral framework, but you haven't presented much in the way of argument to support that contention. Meanwhile, I know for a fact my views can create a cogent moral framework because I'm living it.

Quote:
Quote:
And since it is in everybody's self-interest for their society to succeed and prosper, they will support the establishment of such infrastructure.

People don't act that way. Read your own statement below.

 

Quote:
Expecting individuals to do good things for altruistic reasons is what socialism is all about....

Not altruism. The good of the whole is greater than the good of the few was the great tagline of Socialism since its inception.

You have clearly confused two different points I was making. People will support the institution of policies that enable their society to succeed and prosper, for purely selfish reasons. They will not labor to benefit others with no benefit to themselves. There's a difference. Socialism doesn't work, capitalism works, but neither involves allowing unethical behavior to flourish.

Quote:
One or two instances is not proof.

There are several hundred instances in my city alone.

Quote:
The abuses of the few doesn't mean that charity is evil.

True enough. But when the abuses are rampant and the charity does nothing to stem the abuse other than to solicit good citizens for more contributions, then, yes, the charity is evil. In most cases I have observed, charities do far more harm to society than good. That would be a good definition of evil, IMHO.

Quote:
Quote:
Where do they get the food they eat?

Donations.

And how many donations would they get if they weren't doing this charity work?

Quote:
They have no material comforts in their homes. They sleep on mats. They eat very little. They devote their entire lives to help others. I see no problem there at all. In fact, this would be the perfect solution to the need of the poor.

The perfect solution to the need of the poor would be to build factories for them to get jobs. I don't see how having no material possessions helps the poor in any way.

Quote:
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom...

That's an oxymoron.

-- Kirbert


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I'll get to this tomorrow or

I'll get to this tomorrow or the next day. Sorry about this.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Kirbert wrote: Everybody

Kirbert wrote:

Everybody has the means to help themselves, with the possible exceptions of the mentally or physically disabled. And those are the only people that would likely be served by atheist charity if no one else stepped up.

would you help a mentally or physically disabled person if they did not have a means to help themselves?  for example, in your ideal world, would you expect to be prosecuted for running over a physically/mentally disabled person if they weren't really doing that much for society? would a justice system in that world be based on how much a particular victim has contributed to society?


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Ultimately I am asking

Ultimately I am asking Kirbert, morals may be good to set up a society, but what is it about society that is worth preserving in the first place?

what's society good for? 


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
To St. Michael I have a


To St. Michael I have a similar question: what exactly about an individual's human life and free will is worth preserving in the first place? isn't life just a bit of a waste of time, a distraction, if all souls will be returning to where they came from, minus the unfortunate ones who are going to hell?

 

what's the point of this intermediary on planet earth if we all know the conclusion? People in the world whom have been judged by society to be in the wrong have actually used this kind reasoning to kill their own children, even to have abortions. they see the intermediary as being irrelevant, if not painful. they think they are making the moral decision by cutting out the intermediary. how do you explain to them that life itself is important and they're wrong for sending their children straight to heaven? 


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Also, I'm confused with your

Also, I'm confused with your comments differentiating lives involved with abortion as opposed to lives involved in war.

you seem to take a moral stance in preserving the lives of fetuses/babies but not in the innocent lives of Iraqis (who could have been saved).

You even go as far as saying that it's ok to assassinate government leaders. This seems to be a strategic, practical stance rather than a moral one in your moral framework. If thou shalt not kill means thou shalt not kill then you can have only one moral stance. Even self-defense is an act of violence for self preservation--a strategic stance, not a moral one in the context of Christianity; in this respect Jesus seems to be consistent although bible experts can prove me wrong. he said turn the other cheek, right?

In general I am surprised that you're distancing your self from the human lives in Iraq as though they're distinct from the persons in human fetuses in say, the U.S.  What about the fetuses that are being destroyed in Iraq?


Kirbert
Kirbert's picture
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Quote: Kirbert

Quote:
Quote:
Kirbert wrote: Everybody has the means to help themselves, with the possible exceptions of the mentally or physically disabled. And those are the only people that would likely be served by atheist charity if no one else stepped up.

would you help a mentally or physically disabled person if they did not have a means to help themselves?

Yes, although in many cases there are still people who need to be held accountable. For example, parents who insist on getting drunk or taking cocaine while pregnant. But the disabled person himself -- presuming he's not disabled as a result of his own actions -- shouldn't be held accountable for it.

Quote:
for example, in your ideal world, would you expect to be prosecuted for running over a physically/mentally disabled person if they weren't really doing that much for society?

That is an interesting question. Offhand, I would answer "Certainly!" because the obvious presumption is that you don't know whether or not he was doing anything for society, and if you did, it's still not your decision to make. However, I'm wondering if you were presuming that, somehow, while driving my car, I did know all about this guy and his contributions to society and decided to deliberately mow him down.

To take this line of questioning to its eventual extreme: Would I have prosecuted Jack Kevorkian? No, I would not, and I consider it a shameful reflection on our society that this compassionate man spent many years in an American jail.

Quote:
would a justice system in that world be based on how much a particular victim has contributed to society?

Actually, the issue would be how much they will contribute to society, not how much they already have. And yes, it would be a factor, but only in civil lawsuits -- which I think uses a similar scheme today, although to estimate the value of an individual to his family and dependents rather than to society as a whole.

Remember, we're talking about death, here, and everybody dies. Just because you don't get murdered doesn't mean you're going to live forever. When you're talking about the harms associated with murder, there are two: the fact that you have wasted resources belonging to society, and the fact that you have caused a conscious, self-aware person to die at a time other than he would have wished if you had asked him.

Hence, I would not have prosecuted Jack Kevorkian. Hedid ask his victims and they were OK with it. And they were all certainly well beyond any hope of contributing to society. No harm, no foul.

-- Kirbert


SilkyShrew
Rational VIP!
SilkyShrew's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:

StMichael wrote:

You miss the point entirely. The point is not that some are children and some aren't. The point is that, assuming there is debate without a clear definition of when life begins, we must assume that a person is a person from conception onwards. Otherwise, we commit murder by intentionally killing something that could be one.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

We have a clear definition of when life began ... it began billions of years ago. There is no point between that time and now in which what contributed to your life, my life, the lives of our peers, the lives of an egg or a sperm or the life of a fetus in which there was a stop of life and then a start to create one of them. By this I am referring to the scientific definition of life - the most concrete definition that we have.

StMichael wrote:

First, me believing personhood starts at conception has no influence on why you ought to believe it. The reason you ought to believe it is in the reason I gave. You still haven't addressed it.

Actually, they did.

Quote:
Second, a menstrating female does not kill anyone directly if she is discharging unfertilized eggs. If she had concieved a child and then menstrated, she would also not be guilty of murder, any more than a woman is guilty of murder if she has a miscarriage. Involuntary actions are not moral actions. A man who masturbates is not a serial killer, because he does not kill a human being (under ordinary circumstances) when he masturbates. His emission of sperm does not kill a human being; no child was concieved. His crime falls under a different moral category.

And what moral catagory is that? It seems to me that there is more of a rational case towards discouraging masturbation being immoral than masturbation being immoral. In fact, based on rational ideas and logic, it is the case that thinking masturbation is immoral is extremely irrational. Indeed, discouraging masturbation is both immoral and irrational unless there is a medical reason for a person not to do it.

Quote:
Third, murder is murder regardless of context.

Um, yeah, it is a LEGAL term. The only context it is invalid in is in the context of not having laws.

Quote:
Further, if that is your definition, the Nazis never murdered a single person, neither did Mao, or Stalin.

This is true, sorta. In many cases they didn't murder, that has no bearing on the question of if what they did was moral, though. One can perform perfectly legal and still immoral acts.

Quote:
Every single action committed by a dictator with genocide in mind is entirely justified according to your logic.

No, because something being legal or illegal doesn't make it moral or immoral or justified or unjustified. Hence, while abortion has been illegal in the past, it was not, necessarily, immoral.

Quote:
Which would also mean the dissolution of the state, as there are no rules on which to base the state.

No, because the state's laws are not always based (unfortunately) on morality. Indeed, laws are generally based on concepts of certaion personal mores, concepts of freedoms, and on subjective cultural views in a given timeframe. Moral ideas and laws are not completely interdependant.

Quote:
Recognize the absurdity in your statements before you make them.

How ironic.

You realize these ideas are the same exact things that you used in chat the other day? How many times must people present to you their flaws before you stop repeating them? Others in this thread had already completely torn these things apart for you before you even mentioned them in chat!

Vessel wrote:

I lose more faith in the goodness and honesty of men daily.

Don't think that it is just men that cause problems such as these. The longer I spend in my activism, the more I realize it is other women just as much as it is men that hold us back, that are dishonest, and that are uninformed.

StMichael wrote:

Abortion is murder because it breaks the natural law and the eternal law. Murder is murder whether it breaks human laws or not, because it breaks a higher law.

You have no evidence that such a law even exists.

*skipping repetitive stuff*

Quote:
I am merely outlining the difference between positive law (the US Constitution, the traffic regulations, the laws of international treaties) versus natural law (a law/moral code that is "inherent" in human nature). The one does not necessarily reflect the other.

There's no evidence that we have an "inherent" human natural law.

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

I would just like to say, I have not read a fucking page of this thread, nor do I intend too.

I'm sure all the lame, standard arguments have been hashed out. It's not like we haven't all discussed this before.

What, you don't think people can come up with some novel ideas regarding this issue? I'm wondering if I should be offended or not ... Sad too late. Be right back ... I gotta ... get a tissue ... or something ... Sticking out tongue

Quote:
At any rate, I wanted to make a simple point. What we are debating here is when personhood begins, NOTHING else.

No, that's what you're arguing - I tend to even avoid that argument and go straight for concepts such as biological ownership of things connected to oneself, and neurological evidence for the perception and ability to process pain signals. I tend to find that when I get to people willing to discuss the meatier aspects of this debate, there are some fairly novel ideas that come up on occasion, so that it isn't always about personhood, and it isn't *always* the same arguments. Perhaps it has something to do with the way I prefer these arguments to go, I guess.

Quote:
None of us, not even the people supporting pro-choice (and let's be honest, it isn't pro-choice, it's pro-abortion) would ever support killing a full fledge person who had rights and autonomy simply via the mother's choice (life-threatening pregnecy, maybe, but that's another matter).

1 - If the debate is over pro-abortion or pro-choice can actually vary. I've been involved in debates where the debate was over if the woman should have the choice (including if she should have the choice to NOT have an abortion) and in debates where it was over if an abortion should be available and legal and in debates over if abortion is moral.

2 - I question your latter clause, as if it was a life-threatening pregnancy, then we wouldn't necesarily be talking about an autonomous being. Unless you consider a 22 year old son who wants to shoot mom the result of a life-threatening pregnancy (I'm sure there's some odd way that we can make a case for that, lol).

Quote:
And none of us, not even the pro-life people (and let's be honest, it isn't pro-life, it's anti-abortion) would tell a person she did not have authority over her own body unless they honestly thought the life of another actual person was at stake.

yeah, I can agree to that one ...

Quote:
So in that regard, we ought to be on the same page and simply asking: what the hell constitutes a PERSON. NOT A HUMAN. A human and a person are different things. A human would be a body without a head, with no mind, or even a lump of skin. A person on the other hand has rights, has voilition, lots of stuff - it's more than a lump of human DNA. So when does a human become a person? Is it at conception? The first trimester? The third? At 18? That's the question, and the ONLY important question in this argument.

However, when you go into such an argument, it ends up leading to so many things that are dependant on sometimes more abstract concepts, things that end up being either poorly or subjectively defined, etc., that it is less productive than to go by the criteria that I mentioned before. Which is why I don't like to use such arguments when I debate this issue (unless someone insists, then I end up arguing about something that I think is irrelevant). Also, I eventually came to the conclusion one day that even if someone could absolutely define, beyond any reasonable doubt, a fetus or blastocyst as a "person" that I would still be pro-choice. The reason being due to the concept of autonomy and neurological development.

Quote:
Below is a sum up of my thoughts on the subject. The only two cents I'll be contributing to this discussion, because I've had this discussion way too many times. Take it for what you will.

I wish you would come back to the discussion at least for the sake of re-assessing statements you have made or considering points others might make in regards to your stance. At least such would offer you the ability to grow and develop based on what you find.

Quote:
I dug out an old cognitive psychology book a little while ago for use in another thread and read up on the developmental studies of neonate imitation conducted by Meltzoff and Moore (1977, 1983, 1989, 1994). This research shows that the human neonate already has a complex, although still primitive consciousness. A review of the experimental data shows that, at least, the following five aspects of consciousness are functional just after birth:

I'm not sure how just after birth is relevant to matters of what is present during pregnancy. Could you elaborate on why this is relevant?

Quote:
Nany cognitive shrinks think it possible to trace these aspects of neonatal conscious experience back into very late prenatal life. Studies support the idea that the late term fetus is conscious, and that late term fetal consciousness includes, albeit in more primitive forms, and with some qualifications, all of the aspects listed above except [2b].

 
 

So there is a vague case against late-term abortions, although I think that concepts on personal rights over one's own body should still be considered. As a result, I support a woman's right to an abortion, but think that women should have the option of aborting, while allowing the fetus to live. That means, ending the pregnancy, but putting the infant, if possible, and if the infant would have the capacity to survive, in a neonatal unit of some sort. Basically, deliver early and put the infant up for adoption if it is unwanted. (I will note, though, most late term abortions are on pregnancies where the fetus is either severely defomormed, non-viable, or dead).

Quote:
Personally, I'd probably call a human that possessed the above aspects of conciousness a person, not a person with rights such as you and I would have, but still a person.

Then it sounds to me like, even for you, this debate isn't really about personhood, it is about rights.

Quote:
Rights, I think are requisite on the ability to reciprocate them, but this is beside the point of actual personhood, IMO.

I think of rights as assigned opportunities that are obtained through related laws and/or social norms. However, I will not elaborate for the sake of not hijacking this conversation.

Quote:
Now the traits I've describe do not, in fact can not manifest until VERY late in gestation. Which is why I'm OK with unrestricted abortion up until the third trimester at a minimum. I'm OK with abortion to save the mother even after that - afterall, even if I considered the fetus a person at that point, the fetus's rights cannot usurp the mother's. Still, by the third trimester, you should have made a fucking decision already.

And if there is a rational reason why the decision wasn't made? (It can and does happen, so I think that warrants asking). And if we conclude that in such a special circumstance, a woman has a right, still, to an abortion, why should she be granted one and not another? It seems to me, that restricting late-term abortions on the subjective idea of if a person should have already have made a decision might strike all too close to the position that some have over women who have repeated abortions who are said to "have already learned to abstain" or some other claim. Point being that such ideas are subjective enough that one should either be more clear, assess their stance more, or make more room.

Quote:
My two cents, well more like dollar twenty.

I hope you come back and answer my points ... please *manipulatively batting eyes*

Kirbert wrote:

The real crux of the argument is: When is it beneficial to society to protect the life of an organism? There are, after all, costs and downsides to providing such protections, so society must have compelling reasons to do so.

Actually, this is simply the parts of the argument that you consider valid. They are interesting points, but I am getting to the point where I realize that in order to truely have a well supported position, it is important to consider all arguments and why they are presented. Sometimes someone makes a point that is irrelevant, such as St. Michael's continuous reposting of his reference to a popse (which made me laugh the first time I read it, due to him posting it as if, upon reading it, we were simply to find the point valid and thus alter our position, with no consideration for anything else ever again). I think that your points are valid to consider, and that Y#5s points are valid as well - however, I also find that the stance I take and the basis for which I take my stance is more useful and practical when I am interacting with the average person. Certainly, I have other reasons for it, but that is the main reason why I present it to others most frequently.

i will say, though, your stance almost heads into territory where nihilism becomes a large focus in the debate (I've seen similar happen before) and while I can agree to some basic ideas that are related, I find them either irrelevant in the context of what should be addressed as human social issues at present. I will say that I think you are wrong on some of the points that you made, but they are also not really related to the conversation (such as the reference to scourges to society and, I assume, the death penalty) so I will refrain from commenting further now, and will return to the topic at hand. It should be sufficient to say that you don't seem to have a clear definition of what you term to be "better" or why to back your statements up.

Quote:
In the case of an unborn fetus, society hasn't contributed any time or resources at all yet. The parents may have, but if they choose to discard the results of those efforts, they probably should be permitted to do so. If brought to term, they will be expected to contribute considerably more time and resources to raise this human being to the point of adulthood.

I have to disagree with this concept, as I think that expended resources alone are poor justifications for many actions, and I think that other concepts such as known gains, present capacities to contribute, and even some perspectives on focuses on individual issues would enhance and make your stance clearer. If, for example, a fetus brought to term is severely incapacitated to the point that it does not warrant having expectations, then I think your stance does not account for such a situation - I'm sure I can imagine others, but for the sake of time, I'll just mention that one.

Quote:
It's perhaps worthy of note that, when the Bible was written and when several others of our time-honored notions of murder and protection were established, every human being was potentially a valuable addition to society.

Actually, the bible states quite the opposite. Hence, why we have references like:

Psalms 137:9 "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

Indeed, offspring of the time were often considered a burden, and were not considered of value until, at least, around the age of two. This is consistent with what we know of the culture of the time, historically, and with what we see in the the Bible and is one of the few points that the two actually agree on.

Quote:
Societies desperately needed every helping hand they could get. That is not the case today. Today every additional human being is actually a detriment to society; the world is overpopulated by a factor of at least 10 and possibly by a factor of 100 or more.

Who's deciding what the definition for over-population is? lol.

StMichael wrote:
I'm glad we have decided to just come out and openly declare our baby-killing tendencies. Now, if only you could just declare this on national television, I'd be set.

Ok, I admit, I lol'd when I read this - who else did? lol. I will say, keep in mind that you're debating several very different people, and not all are going to hold the same positions on these things.

Gauche wrote:

What if I was dying and the only thing that could save me was sex with my neighbor's wife? If my neighbor's wife wants to come over and let me throw a shot into her then that's great, that would be very generous of her. But I don't have a right to sleep with her just because that's what I need to live.

Her right to decide what goes in or comes out of her body would trump my right to live. And she wouldn't be doing me any injustice if she didn't give me what I needed.

If what you need to live is to parasitically grow in the body of another person then they can either allow you to do it or not but they are not morally obligated.

Haha! Great argument ... I'm not sure that the argument from, "I gotta fuck my neighbor to live" is going to come across to most as quite as viable as it is, though.

*I'm skipping the thread-jacking*

Can we move some of the extra topics to another thread, guys? Please ...

 


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Kirbert wrote: Everybody

Kirbert wrote:

Everybody has the means to help themselves, with the possible exceptions of the mentally or physically disabled. And those are the only people that would likely be served by atheist charity if no one else stepped up.

Quote:
would you help a mentally or physically disabled person if they did not have a means to help themselves?

Kirbert wrote:
Yes, although in many cases there are still people who need to be held accountable.
why would you help a mentally disabled person if he/she was not helping society?

Kirbert wrote:
For example, parents who insist on getting drunk or taking cocaine while pregnant. But the disabled person himself -- presuming he's not disabled as a result of his own actions -- shouldn't be held accountable for it.
OK but what does it mean to say "shouldn't be held accountable?" Where does accountability fit into your worldview why do you care about whether a disabled person is accountable for their actions if they are of no use to society? Why is it your responsibility to take care of someone who's not benefitting society?

Kirbert wrote:
Quote:
for example, in your ideal world, would you expect to be prosecuted for running over a physically/mentally disabled person if they weren't really doing that much for society?

That is an interesting question. Offhand, I would answer "Certainly!" because the obvious presumption is that you don't know whether or not he was doing anything for society, and if you did, it's still not your decision to make. However, I'm wondering if you were presuming that, somehow, while driving my car, I did know all about this guy and his contributions to society and decided to deliberately mow him down.



Say you didn't really care whether he lived or died, seeing as you knew he/she was not a benefit to society, so, you didn't follow through with your instinct to swerve because it was an efficient way to end their existence. In this case would you be prosecuted in an ideal world?


Kirbert wrote:

To take this line of questioning to its eventual extreme: Would I have prosecuted Jack Kevorkian? No, I would not, and I consider it a shameful reflection on our society that this compassionate man spent many years in an American jail.

I don't actually think this is the extreme. Actually I think the above proposition seems more extreme to me. I think Dr. Kevorkian was compassionate--I didn't know him--but I think he thought he was doing what was in the best interest of his patients. The question of whether he had the perspective to make such a decision is another issue which I also do not have access to. In any case, he was prosecuted because what he was doing was illegal, not necessarily because it was immoral.

But my actual question is, what do you mean by compassionate?

Kirbert wrote:
Quote:
would a justice system in that world be based on how much a particular victim has contributed to society?

Actually, the issue would be how much they will contribute to society, not how much they already have. And yes, it would be a factor, but only in civil lawsuits -- which I think uses a similar scheme today, although to estimate the value of an individual to his family and dependents rather than to society as a whole.

so would you be opposed to parents killing babies with extremely high iqs?


Kirbert
Kirbert's picture
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Ultimately I am

Quote:
Ultimately I am asking Kirbert, morals may be good to set up a society, but what is it about society that is worth preserving in the first place? what's society good for?

Society only exists to enable each individual to enjoy his own life as much as possible. If we lived alone, there would be no need for society, but once there are enough of us around that we all need to get along, some rules must be established for the benefit of all.

 BTW,  I was thinking about whether that "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" was enough, and I think there may be another clause needed.  Add in "Your rights stop at my nose."

--  Kirbert 


Kirbert
Kirbert's picture
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Quote: Further, if

Quote:
Quote:
Further, if that is your definition, the Nazis never murdered a single person, neither did Mao, or Stalin.

This is true, sorta. In many cases they didn't murder...

Didn't stop anybody from bringing a bunch of them up on war crimes, though! 

The current situation comes to mind.  Normally, POW's are sent home after the cessation of hostilities.  What will ever become of the terrorists at Gitmo?  Can anyone imagine them ever being set free?

Far enough off topic yet? 

--  Kirbert 

--  Kirbert 


Kirbert
Kirbert's picture
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Hey, this is getting good!

Hey, this is getting good! I'm actually having to do some thinking!

Quote:
Where does accountability fit into your worldview...

Accountability is all-important in my worldview. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that everything would be much, much simpler if people could somehow be held accountable for everything that happens. Unfortunately, there is a great deal of good old-fashioned bad luck going on. People must be held accountable for being prepared for accidents and misfortune, but there's simply no way they can be prepared for everything.

Unfortunately, our society here in the US is heading in the opposite direction, where nobody is expected to be responsible for anything. Just do whatever you want, if it all goes to $%^& somebody will bail you out.

Quote:
Why is it your responsibility to take care of someone who's not benefitting society?

It's not. Doesn't mean I wouldn't do it, though.

Quote:
Say you didn't really care whether he lived or died, seeing as you knew he/she was not a benefit to society, so, you didn't follow through with your instinct to swerve because it was an efficient way to end their existence. In this case would you be prosecuted in an ideal world?

Yes, because one of the functions of society is to protect each of us from each other. I need to be held accountable for my actions. And individuals throughout society need to know that they are protected.

Funny, as I read this question I kept thinking about the movie "Death Race 2000". A really low-budget clunker that surprisingly had a pretty good plot to it.

Quote:
But my actual question is, what do you mean by compassionate?

At this very minute, my own mother is slowly dying a very long, drawn-out death -- which everyone in the family knows she would never have wanted. In any sane society, it would be possible to help her end her suffering. But in this society, we'd risk rather lengthy jail terms for helping. I can't think of anyone more compassionate than a person willing to risk those lengthy jail terms for people he barely knew.

In this regard, we treat our dogs and cats better than we treat each other.

Quote:
so would you be opposed to parents killing babies with extremely high iqs?

Not at all. As I said, I'd be down with parents killing their newborn babies for any reason or no reason at all. I don't think it'd be pretty, and I think there are better ways to accomplish the same ends, but I don't think that particular door should be closed.

-- Kirbert


friendlyskeptic79
friendlyskeptic79's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-10-23
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I do not support

Quote:
I do not support abortion as a form of birth control, I view it as a last resort, and if it should be done, there should be a patient limit. I do support abortion in the fact that eventually aborted fetus's will be able to be used legally for embryonic stem cell research.

I agree. I'd also like to add that it's not always a religious issue. there are atheists who are against abortion-go to http://www.godlessprolifers.org  what I like about them is they support things like sex education and preventative means of cutting down abortion


peppermint
Superfan
peppermint's picture
Posts: 539
Joined: 2006-08-14
User is offlineOffline
If it's not legal, women

If it's not legal, women will either go to Europe to have it done, or almost kill themselves with a coat hanger.

It's a woman's body. The fetus is growing inside of HER. Some people suggest adoption; this doesn't make it easier. If the woman doesn't want the baby, she will most likely not give her body the nutrients and support it needs. Therefore, the baby is at risk for mental illness, birth defects, etc. We do not need any more children with defects; it's sad enough as it is.

What bothers me is, why is everyone so damned concerned with unborn children when there are children out there starving, dying, homeless, abused, etc. Those children have relations, awareness, memories, etc.

Technically, the fetus is the woman's baby. The man was needed to fertilize the egg, but it does not live and develop inside of him. I see fetuses as potential for life more than a thinking, emotional person.

*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*

"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby


QuasarX
QuasarX's picture
Posts: 242
Joined: 2007-10-04
User is offlineOffline
peppermint wrote:If it's not

peppermint wrote:

If it's not legal, women will either go to Europe to have it done, or almost kill themselves with a coat hanger.

It's a woman's body. The fetus is growing inside of HER. Some people suggest adoption; this doesn't make it easier. If the woman doesn't want the baby, she will most likely not give her body the nutrients and support it needs. Therefore, the baby is at risk for mental illness, birth defects, etc. We do not need any more children with defects; it's sad enough as it is.

What bothers me is, why is everyone so damned concerned with unborn children when there are children out there starving, dying, homeless, abused, etc. Those children have relations, awareness, memories, etc.

Technically, the fetus is the woman's baby. The man was needed to fertilize the egg, but it does not live and develop inside of him. I see fetuses as potential for life more than a thinking, emotional person.

Hmm, I mostly agree with you, but it sounds like you think the decision about whether or not the baby should be born or aborted belongs entirely to the mother.  If that's the case, then I'm curious as to what your opinion would be on government mandated child support payments from the father.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7578
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Abortion is murder like

Abortion is murder like jerking off is a holocaust.  7 million sperm on a napkin, you should be ashamed of yourself Hitler.

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
QuasarX wrote:Hmm, I mostly

QuasarX wrote:

Hmm, I mostly agree with you, but it sounds like you think the decision about whether or not the baby should be born or aborted belongs entirely to the mother.  If that's the case, then I'm curious as to what your opinion would be on government mandated child support payments from the father.

I think that, in a relationship, ideally both parties would be involved in the decision. In any other case, though, the man helped create the kid and the day that men get pregnant and give birth is the day they can decide whether or not to get an abortion. He's just as responsible for the result either way.


QuasarX
QuasarX's picture
Posts: 242
Joined: 2007-10-04
User is offlineOffline
kellym78 wrote:I think that,

kellym78 wrote:

I think that, in a relationship, ideally both parties would be involved in the decision.

Agreed.

kellym78 wrote:

In any other case, though, the man helped create the kid and the day that men get pregnant and give birth is the day they can decide whether or not to get an abortion.

Fine with me, but:

kellym78 wrote:

He's just as responsible for the result either way.

If by this you mean that the man is just as responsible for whether or not a child is born as the woman, but the woman has 2 choices (whether or not to have sex and then whether or not to have an abortion) and the man only has one, can you really say that the level of responsibility for whether or not a child is born is equal?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I would agree that the man

I would agree that the man if he made clear he didn't want kids should be able to either demand an abortion or be absolved from supporting the kids if she refuses.

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


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:I would

MattShizzle wrote:

I would agree that the man if he made clear he didn't want kids should be able to either demand an abortion or be absolved from supporting the kids if she refuses.

Then he shouldn't stick his dick in her. Period. As if we women CHOSE to be responsible for gestation. It's a situation created by 2 people and if you are that adamant about never having a child or wanting to pay child support, then fuck yourself and not somebody else.

Matt--your misogyny is starting to get on my nerves. Just FYI.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
kellym78 wrote:MattShizzle

kellym78 wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:

I would agree that the man if he made clear he didn't want kids should be able to either demand an abortion or be absolved from supporting the kids if she refuses.

Then he shouldn't stick his dick in her. Period. As if we women CHOSE to be responsible for gestation. It's a situation created by 2 people and if you are that adamant about never having a child or wanting to pay child support, then fuck yourself and not somebody else.

Matt--your misogyny is starting to get on my nerves. Just FYI.

 

To me that's EXACTLY the same logic as saying if a woman doesn' want a baby she shouldn't have sex.

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


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:To me

MattShizzle wrote:

To me that's EXACTLY the same logic as saying if a woman doesn' want a baby she shouldn't have sex.

Well, Matt, I think I understand where you are coming from.  This same idea has bothered me for years.  But this is the crux of the matter.

If two people are in an intimate relationship that has the potential to cause a pregnancy then you both need to talk to one another about the various scenarios that are possible.

I personally, if I had ever impregnated a woman, I would have wanted it to be born.  Even if I had to take care of the child as a single dad.  But that's not something you bring up after she becomes pregnant.

If it has not been discussed before hand then you forfeit the right.  Pregnancy is not some easy little chore on a woman's body.

My wife knew, when we were dating, that I wanted children.  She became pregnant, we got married, we had a beautiful child together.  And then another one after that.  We have been married 5 years.

If you are dating a woman that you know doesn't want to have a child then too bad for you.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
It is definitely best if

It is definitely best if they agree - either both want or both don't want kids - if they both don't then one should if possible get a vasectomy/tubal ligation (though some asshat doctors won't tie a woman's tubes if she doesn't have kids / before she's a certain age.) The problem is when certain sick women say they don't and lie about being on the pill/having their tubes tied to "trap" a guy into getting her pregnant - either thinking that will get him to marry her or if not she can at least get support for the next 18-22 years. In that scenario she shouldn't get shit (and maybe should go to jail even.) Personally I would love to see something like out of "Brave New World" where reproduction is no longer tied to sex. This is a situation where a couple is a bad match - when one wants kids and the other doesn't.

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


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:I would

MattShizzle wrote:

I would agree that the man if he made clear he didn't want kids should be able to either demand an abortion or be absolved from supporting the kids if she refuses.

In Japan if you get a woman pregnant that you are not married  to you have no obligation to support the child and have no custody rights by default. The people must have been married within 300 days of the birth or the woman can't demand child support.

This may seem unfair to a lot of women but in my opinion it's no less fair than a system where two people may be in agreement to not have a child and use contraception, and the woman can give the man assurances that she would get an abortion if she did become pregnant. Then upon actually becoming pregnant change her mind and say to the man "I'm going to keep the baby and the state is going to ensure that you finance this decision."

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Even worse is when the kid

Even worse is when the kid isn't his. There was a case here in Pennsylvania where the mn found out later his wife was cheating on him at the time and could PROVE via DNA that the kid wasn't his - he still had to pay child support. That is unbelievably fucked up. Not only should the child support have stopped, she should of had to pay him back every cent he payed. Of course the legal system in this country is unbelievably fucked up in almost every possible way.

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


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
I think I remember the

I think I remember the case.  The problem with that case was that the man had accepted responsibility for the child for years and years and then tried to drop it.  If he had denied that he was responsible from the get go he wouldn't have had to pay shit after the DNA test cleared him.  But the kid was like 12 or something.

 

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


QuasarX
QuasarX's picture
Posts: 242
Joined: 2007-10-04
User is offlineOffline
If abortion is an option

If abortion is an option then I see a pregnancy and a birth as 2 different events because one doesn't necessarily result from the other.  If both the man and the woman are involved in making the decision that leads to the woman getting pregnant, then it's not fair to say that they're not both responsible for the pregnancy.  In the case where only 1 person was involved in making the decision (e.g. rape, and arguably when a woman chooses to use sperm donated to a sperm bank, as the woman chooses which sperm donation gets used, but the donor doesn't get to choose which woman uses it), it's not fair to hold the other party responsible for the pregnancy.  The same holds true for childbirth.  If only one party is involved in the decision, that party should bear the full responsibility for the result... if both are equally involved in the decision, then the responsibility should be equal.


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Even worse

MattShizzle wrote:

Even worse is when the kid isn't his. There was a case here in Pennsylvania where the mn found out later his wife was cheating on him at the time and could PROVE via DNA that the kid wasn't his - he still had to pay child support. That is unbelievably fucked up. Not only should the child support have stopped, she should of had to pay him back every cent he payed. Of course the legal system in this country is unbelievably fucked up in almost every possible way.

ok... i can sympathize with you placing the blame on th women who obviously knew paternity was in question all these years.  however - that doesn't change the fact that the court has to do what is in the best interests of the child. 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Why should the guy suffer? I

Why should the guy suffer? I disagree with puting the interests of the child ahead of anyone else's interests. Let her get a damn job or track down the guy she actually got pregnant from. Why not just pick people at random to have to support a baby of a single mother? That would be equally (un)fair. I do get tired of the sense of entitlement to have kids and have others pay for them that some people have. I even heard some decide to get pregnant to get more welfare ("I'm getting a raise! I'm pregnant again!" So instead of getting a job if they want more money they just spread their legs and fart out another kid???? This is why I think welfare should not go up for having more kids - they should get a pregnancy test when they start collecting - if they are they can get it for the kid(s) she's pregnant with, they get it for themselve and kids they already have, and that's it. Maybe give them a little more if they agree to free sterilization.

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


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
shelleymtjoy

shelleymtjoy wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:

Even worse is when the kid isn't his. There was a case here in Pennsylvania where the mn found out later his wife was cheating on him at the time and could PROVE via DNA that the kid wasn't his - he still had to pay child support. That is unbelievably fucked up. Not only should the child support have stopped, she should of had to pay him back every cent he payed. Of course the legal system in this country is unbelievably fucked up in almost every possible way.

ok... i can sympathize with you placing the blame on th women who obviously knew paternity was in question all these years.  however - that doesn't change the fact that the court has to do what is in the best interests of the child. 

 

if doing what's in the best interest of the child includes placing the responsibility on someone who isn't responsible then why make this specific guy pay? why not just pick some schmuck at random and place the responsibility on them? better yet why not place the responsibility on men collectively,  they could impose a "man tax" every man must pay it, and they could use the money to support the unclaimed children of women who like to sleep around.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Abortion is a good act as it

Abortion is a good act as it reduces the number of unwanted kids who will grow up to mug me and helps to reduce the number of unsupported kids who my taxes will have to cover.

Think thats a harsh basis for morality its probably the only 'natural' one. Now being selfish strangely doesnt mean its you have no interest in the welfare of others its just that you have calculated conscious or unconsciously that their welfare is in your best interest.

Society in all advanced countries has come to the conclusion that have a large number of people at the bottom (regardless of how they got there) who are extremely pissed off , hungry homeless and generally desperate is not beneficial to those who are better off.  Sure some can better themselves others tend to mug/knife me.

 

Anyway to put it in a way that christians might understand  no abortion = more crime and/or  higher taxes.

At least some of the slightly more intelligent catholics in the UK are now paying women not to have abortions someone how I doubt American christians are even that bright.

 

It may be of some interest  to some (or not) that under British Law

 

ALL abortions are considered to be self-defence!

 

The 1967 abortion states that abortion is only permitted when there  a grave risk of physical or mental injury to the woman. Its the mental injury bit that has permitted what is effectively abortion on demand.

Only pretty rare occassions when it is refused.

I believe the one example of when it can be refused is if a woman lets it known to a doctor than she wants more kids but having one in August would effect her prepaid for holiday .

 

 

 

 

 


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Why should

MattShizzle wrote:

Why should the guy suffer? I disagree with puting the interests of the child ahead of anyone else's interests. Let her get a damn job or track down the guy she actually got pregnant from. Why not just pick people at random to have to support a baby of a single mother? That would be equally (un)fair. I do get tired of the sense of entitlement to have kids and have others pay for them that some people have. I even heard some decide to get pregnant to get more welfare ("I'm getting a raise! I'm pregnant again!" So instead of getting a job if they want more money they just spread their legs and fart out another kid???? This is why I think welfare should not go up for having more kids - they should get a pregnancy test when they start collecting - if they are they can get it for the kid(s) she's pregnant with, they get it for themselve and kids they already have, and that's it. Maybe give them a little more if they agree to free sterilization.

*sighs*

Yeah, Matt.  All those single parents don't have jobs.  That's it.  You nailed it.

...fuck it.  I'm not going into this shit.  It's way too complicated for you to understand if you can't even grasp how to change a bicycle tire.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Why should

MattShizzle wrote:

Why should the guy suffer? I disagree with puting the interests of the child ahead of anyone else's interests. Let her get a damn job or track down the guy she actually got pregnant from. Why not just pick people at random to have to support a baby of a single mother? That would be equally (un)fair. I do get tired of the sense of entitlement to have kids and have others pay for them that some people have. I even heard some decide to get pregnant to get more welfare ("I'm getting a raise! I'm pregnant again!" So instead of getting a job if they want more money they just spread their legs and fart out another kid???? This is why I think welfare should not go up for having more kids - they should get a pregnancy test when they start collecting - if they are they can get it for the kid(s) she's pregnant with, they get it for themselve and kids they already have, and that's it. Maybe give them a little more if they agree to free sterilization.

Why should the woman have to suffer? Do we really want women having abortions SOLELY because they are afraid that the man will contest and she will get nothing? Your scenario could be reversed and a man could agree to have the child and then change his mind when it's too late and claim that he never wanted the baby and clear himself of any responsibility. It's a tough situation but the fact of the matter is that if a woman doesn't want children, she will do what she has to do. If a man doesn't want children, he should do what he has to do to ensure that it never happens. In any other case, as I said before, the day that men get pregnant and give birth is the day that they can decide. If you don't like it, meet Rosey Palm and her five sisters.

Hey Matt--have you ever had a newborn baby and been told to get off your ass and get a job? I don't think so. Furthermore, the welfare system has been reformed and women don't get increases for each child anymore and they are forced to work sometimes at the detriment of the children. This is going to increase the problems already prevalent in the urban society that you are so afraid of by creating a generation of juvenile delinquents. This attitude disgusts me. And you pretend to be a socialist. Pshaw.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Again, it's ridiculous to

Again, it's ridiculous to put it all on the man. We shouldn't be encouraging breeding so much. You know the woman only goes through the physical pregnancy for 9 months while the guy gets hit with financial hardship for 18-22 years? And again, saying the guy can just jerk off is just as stupid as saying the woman can do so and therefore shouldn't be allowed abortion. I strongly feel if the guy doesn't want a kid he should be able to say so (the woman should have the option for abortion whether he does or doesn't. With no recourse to him) If she still wants it she should face full financial responsibility. I don't think people ho can't afford to raise kids on their own should have them , and the government should pay for anyone wanting sterilization or abortion - again, with the overpopulation we have we should be discouraging not encouraging breeding. I agree with hamby that it's ridiculous to say you don't understand if you were never pregnant/married/a parent. I thing it is completely idiotic to expect us to pay every time one of these brood sows farts out another kid. I think they should tell them after too many get sterilized or go to jail. Again, if she' pregnant and he didn't want it she can either get an abortion or raise it with no help from him. I really think it's disgusting to force a guy to pay for a kid he doesn't want almost as much as I find it disgusting to force a woman to stay pregnant with a kid she doesn't want.

Seems women want all the "rights" but none of the "responsibilities."

And YES!!!!! I do want women to have abortions if they can't afford to raise the kid without the guys help.

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


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
To emphasize because of what

To emphasize because of what Kelly said:

 

I am 100% totally against letting the man decide to KEEP the baby when the woman doesn't want to. If he wants kids he should find a woman who does too. I just said if she does want it and he doesn't he should have the right to say he isn't paying. And all abortions and sterilizations should be 100% paid by the government. Also, if they both want the kid he definitely shouldn't be able to change his mind later and not pay child support.

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


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Again,

MattShizzle wrote:

Again, it's ridiculous to put it all on the man. We shouldn't be encouraging breeding so much. You know the woman only goes through the physical pregnancy for 9 months while the guy gets hit with financial hardship for 18-22 years?

And the woman doesn't suffer the same financial hardship? Child support is a percentage of the cost involved in child rearing based on income--not the totality. Reproduction is a known result of sex and a woman doesn't necessarily know how she'll feel when it's her on the operating table. She is not only going through pregnancy and childbirth, but likely also the majority of daily care AND half the cost of raising the kid. Why should he just get to opt out because it wasn't part of his plan? Fuck that. An unplanned pregnancy is exactly that--unplanned for the woman and the man. Why even bring in the liars and manipulators? You're making blanket statements here.

Quote:
And YES!!!!! I do want women to have abortions if they can't afford to raise the kid without the guys help.

According to that logic, I should have aborted all of my children. I was a stay-at-home mother and certainly couldn't have raised my three children by myself. Fortunately, most rational people realize that it takes 2 people to create a child.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I say if they both don't

I say if they both don't want the kid, obviously get rid of it. If the woman doesn't and the man does, too bad for him, get rid of it. If they both want it obviously have it. If she does and he doesn't it is insanity to make him pay. Get rid of the kid or pay for it herself - or find a Christian group or whatever to pay. If she wants to make the man pay than she has no business saying she should be able tomabort if the man wants. I am for equal rights but I'm against one gender claiming rights but expecting the other to cover her. I definitely think the guy should if he doesn't want kids say he is no longer responsible - why should only the woman have the right to abort? Yes, she has to pay if she wants the kid, but not if she doesn't. If she wants it pay for it. If she can't or wont, she should either abort or find someone willing to pay. The idea of forcing a man to pay just because he had sex with her to me is just as disgusting as forcing a woman to carry to term just because she did. If you can't afford to raise a kid abort or find someone to WILLINGLY support you.

 

Again - you don't get it both ways - that isn't fair. Either you have the right to abortion or the man can decide he doesn't want a kid and doesn't have to bay. Reverse discrimination is just as bad as regular.

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


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
kellym78 wrote: Why should

kellym78 wrote:

 Why should he just get to opt out because it wasn't part of his plan? Fuck that.

 

"Why should she get to abort jsut because having a kid wasn't part of her plan."

 

Congratulations. You use the same logic as a fundie.

 

I'm not saying he should be able to force her to abort. If she really wants a baby she should pay herself - if he opts out no visitation or whatever. Why should women have all the power? If she can't afford it, yes she has no business having a kid.

 

In my opinion women need to decide if they really want to be equal - if they do then the way I said it is how it should be. Otherwise, get back in the kitchen and shut the fuck up, beyotch!

 

** Edit

 

Again - I wish reproduction and sex could be completely separated. Until it's so This is how it should be. Why should a woman be able to abort (even assuming the adoption option is open) while a man has no choice but to pay no matter what?

 

As to your question - YES! You should have either had to abort, pay yourself or find someone else to pay. If the way I had things set up here were true, I'm certain Christian groups would set up to pay women to not abort.. If not they are even more hypocritical than we thought. I am a Socialist but don't consider reproduction a right. I think people who are alive should be supported but nobody should have to pay for anyone else to reproduce.  I actually think we should require a license and $500 fee to have kids. We should be discouraging breeding as much as possible.

 

Who cares if it takes 2 people to create a child? I'm being pretty liberal to the women that they can ALWAYS choose to abort no matter what the man wants, and if he doesn't she can raise it by herself.

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


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
By the way in my own

By the way in my own situation it's not just that I don't want to ever have to deal with a baby or spend all that money that I don't ever want to reproduce - I also don't want to force a kid to go through the physical and mental pain I've gone through my entire life. I would consider passing on my genes (despite the IQ in the 140's) to be very unethical. I would end my life right now if I could guarantee it would happen painlessly. I would do anything to keep a kid from being born going thorugh everything I did. I would have been better off aborted.

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


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: get rid

MattShizzle wrote:

 get rid of it.

Matt.  I want you to stop for a second and realize something.  You know that you have a spectrum of Autism that alienates you in a certain sense from most humans.  You know this.  A very, very important thing for all humans to come to grips with is their limitations.

This is one of your limitations, Matt.

Do you honestly think that a woman having an abortion is as simple as going to take a shit?  It's nothing, is it Matt?  Not a thing in the world.  No worse than going to the dentist.

You don't understand what you are saying.  Women are, by nature, meant to be nurturers.  For a woman to have a fetus yanked out of her womb is not some little procedure that she doesn't give a thought about ever again.

Believe me, raising a child is a heck of a lot harder than just paying a bill once a month.  And to tell the truth the vast majority of the time when a man is force to pay child support he is NOT paying even half what it costs just financially to raise that child.  And thats just the monetary cost.  There's a lot more invested in children that just dollars, Matt.

For a grown man with a BA that can't get a job or a girlfriend you need to shut up and think about your social disconnection with the rest of your species.

You are greatly simplifying this matter in your mind.  I'm telling you right now that you either are not or can not grasp the full range of the implications in this discussion.

Of course you think we should kill people if they manage to become financially successful in our society so I'm not greatly surprised at your childlike understanding on this.  If a man decides that he doesn't want to support his child then the woman either A) goes it alone completely or B) she gets the child cut out of her womb?  That's your idea of a fair deal?

P.S.  Constantly telling people your fucking IQ has the exact opposite result of what you intend it to be.  When someone mentions their IQ its a red flag saying, "I'm about to say something really fucking retarded."

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci