Is This Only A Blob Of Cells?...

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343425515' post='2459458']
I disagree,
I feel it is government's job to ensure society doesn't become unstable. They are the glue that holds us together. We live within society, so we need some rules of cohabitation.
But on concerns of "rights" or "morality" if it doesn't endanger society, then it is outside the mandate of government, it is thus the choice of the individual. Your church becomes important in this case, they can try and work out what "rights" or "morality" is, and they can try and convince people to live a righteous life.
[/quote]


It seems to me that, provided I have understood you correctly, your position is untenable.
You are saying that only when people react violently should a law affecting society be passed, and it should be passed because the stability of society would then be threatened. You are advocating mob rule, to prevent mob rule.

You are also saying that what the majority of people (or just the people in power) will accept is alright, even if that means that millions of people are exterminated. I do not consider the slaughter of millions a stable society. Hitler may have had the support of his soldiers in the death camps, but I would not consider that a stable society. The idea that individuals are only worth the price tag others place on them is what causes harm to societies. I question how society--which is based upon individuals--can survive at all without placing some value on the individual. It seems a self-defeating position to me. Please explain your logic.

Edited July 27, 2012 by Tally Marx

[Socrates]

All I can say is that anyone who places the "stability" of "society" (however one chooses to define that) above the right of innocent persons to live has a very warped and twisted sense of priorities.

[stevil]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1343430351' post='2459475']
The disconnect is failing to recognize broader principles that have to be protected by society, for society. By your standard, most everything may be okay if it doesn't disrupt society. That's okay with just a short term perspective. The problem with that is when smaller groups of people with little power and voice are deemed too unimportant and too troublesome to be accommodated in society.
[/quote]
My outlook, which is reasonably consistent with most atheists I have talked to, is more inclusive, and more liberal than some religious positions.
Government to intervene only when society is in danger.
So for example gay people are oppressed by some religious groups, wanting gay marriage against the law, wanting gay sex against the law, in some places (some people) wanting gay people put to death (Hitler for example).
Me, I am not gay, do I care if people around me are having gay sex or gay marriage, nope, I don't care, doesn't impact me. So I have no interest to support law against gay people, actually I see laws against gay people as dangerous because oppressing these people may cause them to rebel violently. So I am in support of a minority group here, well, more precisely, I am opposed to law oppressing this minority group.
If the government wanted to put in laws against Bhuddists in my country, I would be opposed to it. I don't see it as government's place to oppress Bhuddists, these Bhuddists aren't making society dangerous, so I am opposed to this type of law. If I let government set this precedent, where they can pick on certain groups based on their own wants rather than society safety concerns, then whose to say they won't pick on me at some stage. I belong to many minority groups.

[stevil]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1343431583' post='2459480']
It seems to me that, provided I have understood you correctly, your position is untenable.
You are saying that only when people react violently should a law affecting society be passed, and it should be passed because the stability of society would then be threatened. You are advocating mob rule, to prevent mob rule.

You are also saying that what the majority of people (or just the people in power) will accept is alright, even if that means that millions of people are exterminated. I do not consider the slaughter of millions a stable society.
[/quote]
Millions of people are being slaughtered all the time, this is abortion. But it is not making society unsafe for me, therefore it is none of my business.
The decision is being made on an individual basis by the mothers, not government.

If government decide to slaughter the Jews, I will be opposed.
If they choose to slaughter one group based on arbitrary opinions then who is to say that one day they won't decide to slaughter my group.
Also, while they are trying to slaughter the Jews, no doubt the Jews will fight back and society will become dangerous, I will be caught up in it and will be forced to choose to fight on one side or the other. i would fight on the side of the Jews because they haven't shown the intent to pick on groups and slaughter them, thus I would feel safer in a society with the Jews rather than this strange and dangerous government.

Edited July 27, 2012 by stevil

[stevil]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1343432571' post='2459482']
All I can say is that anyone who places the "stability" of "society" (however one chooses to define that) above the right of innocent persons to live has a very warped and twisted sense of priorities.
[/quote]
Most people do this. Most people are in support of abortion.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343432733' post='2459484']

My outlook, which is reasonably consistent with most atheists I have talked to, is more inclusive, and more liberal than some religious positions.
Government to intervene only when society is in danger.
So for example gay people are oppressed by some religious groups, wanting gay marriage against the law, wanting gay sex against the law, in some places (some people) wanting gay people put to death (Hitler for example).
Me, I am not gay, do I care if people around me are having gay sex or gay marriage, nope, I don't care, doesn't impact me. So I have no interest to support law against gay people, actually I see laws against gay people as dangerous because oppressing these people may cause them to rebel violently. So I am in support of a minority group here, well, more precisely, I am opposed to law oppressing this minority group.
If the government wanted to put in laws against Bhuddists in my country, I would be opposed to it. I don't see it as government's place to oppress Bhuddists, these Bhuddists aren't making society dangerous, so I am opposed to this type of law. If I let government set this precedent, where they can pick on certain groups based on their own wants rather than society safety concerns, then whose to say they won't pick on me at some stage. I belong to many minority groups.
[/quote]Your positions posted here are self contradictory and intellectually dishonest because of their inconsistency for justification. Consistent would be having a principle that justifies protecting gay, Bhudist, and natal persons. Religion isn't needed for that. I find that unreasonable and unintelligent from my own atheist perpespective. It's silly when Christians or atheists choose to commit to opinions without any rationality.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

abortion saddens me terribly . I was explained it in this way that even at conception it's destiny is human, it isn't going to turn into a monkey or a tiger it is without a doubt human because it's destiny is human not animal or plant.

[Annie12]

Stevil, I think I've figured out where we differ.

I think we have different views of freedom. Pope John Paul II stated that [i][color=#0000ff]freedom is not the right to do what we want but the right to do what we ought[/color][/i]. So, from the catholic perspective, [color=#0000ff]we are fighting for our freedom[/color] and the freedom of others. True freedom consists of allowing a person to experience life to it's fullest[color=#0000ff] without allowing them to be dragged down by the negative[/color]. A person who is in prison is not truly "free". Likewise, a person weighed down by their past isn't free. So, if freedom is the right to do what we ought, then the government shouldn't let their people make harmful choices.

Just because someone down the street does something horrible which doesn't effect me, doesn't mean that it wasn't wrong. If I kill an innocent person It's wrong because its wrong. It has nothing to do with anyone else. The act I committed was inherently wrong. Likewise with abortion. A government should be shaping it's laws in a way to make people free.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

does a tree make a sound when it falls down if theres no one there to hear it ? Yes!

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='st.evil' timestamp='1343433179' post='2459485']
Millions of people are being slaughtered all the time, this is abortion. But it is not making society unsafe for me, therefore it is none of my business.
The decision is being made on an individual basis by the mothers, not government. [Contrary to all reason and consistency. -Tally]
[/quote]

I made the assertion before that the principle of "might makes right" (the idea that the value of one individual is based on another's opinion) is harmful to society. It is a principle which, if adopted in part, is certain to be applied to other situations and people; since there is no justification for the first incident, there need be none for any other.
Furthermore, there is the rather obvious fact that the unborn--as human individuals of our own flesh and blood--are part of our society. And however little their fate affects you personally, if your ideology is truly for the greater good of society, it is contradictory to declare Open Season upon all of society's citizens.

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343433179' post='2459485']
If government decide to slaughter the Jews, I will be opposed.
If they choose to slaughter one group based on arbitrary opinions then who is to say that one day they won't decide to slaughter my group.
[/quote]

What if the government withheld protection from certain people based on arbitrary opinion?
What if they decided to do this to, say, atheists, and declared an Open Season on them?
They did it to the unborn; who is to say it won't happen to you? Or religious people? Or gays? Or the disabled, elderly, and those with blue eyes?

I would question any government which protects or discards human individuals on a whim.

And once more, I present the conundrum of having mob rule to prevent mob rule, as well as the problem of protecting society by ignoring the individual (despite the fact that society is built upon individuals). This is a very serious flaw in your reasoning which you have yet to address. You claim the protection of society as the foundation of your ideology, and yet all evidence points to that ideology harming society.

Edited July 28, 2012 by Tally Marx

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1343438372' post='2459523']
Stevil, I think I've figured out where we differ.

I think we have different views of freedom.
[/quote]

No, Annie. He is saying that since abortion does not affect him personally and concretely, he simply doesn't care.
If Pro-"Lifers" came to his door with AK 47s and threatened his life, then he would care.
If we rallied in the streets and blocked his way to work, then he would care.
Maybe he would care about abortion on demand if his wife had an abortion with a pregnancy he wished to keep.
But until then, he assumes the only people abortion affects is the mother and the child, and opines they are the only ones who have a real reason to care. It is not about freedom. It's a non-argument.

(PS: that was a lovely paragraph you wrote, though; nice theology, and a very good point about the government and objective acts )

Edited July 28, 2012 by Tally Marx

[stevil]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1343436013' post='2459506']
Your positions posted here are self contradictory and intellectually dishonest because of their inconsistency for justification. Consistent would be having a principle that justifies protecting gay, Bhudist, and natal persons. Religion isn't needed for that. I find that unreasonable and unintelligent from my own atheist perpespective. It's silly when Christians or atheists choose to commit to opinions without any rationality.
[/quote]
Problem is that you haven't read what I have posted. I have been consistent.
I'm not talking about protecting gays. I am talking about opposing laws against gay marriage, or against gay sex or against gay people. The law is the problem, and certainly from a point of view as to the reasons why law is imposed. I am against law imposed based on someone's perception of morality. I feel law needs to be for protecting society.
Law against abortion does not protect society, thus I am against it. The alternative in the case of abortion is to let each mother decide rather than govenment dictate.

[stevil]

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1343438372' post='2459523']
Stevil, I think I've figured out where we differ.

I think we have different views of freedom. Pope John Paul II stated that [i][color=#0000ff]freedom is not the right to do what we want but the right to do what we ought[/color][/i].[/quote]
With regards to an atheist viewpoint who dictates "what we ought"?
Thus a definition of freedom based on "what we ought" makes no sense.

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343423599' post='2459450']
Society doesn't seem to care about the unborn baby. Life goes on for the rest of us, we are under no threat what-so-ever.
People are not taking up arms in defense of the unborn. People are not willing to risk their own lives in defense of them (besides a very, very small minority). So if there is no danger to society, then what business is it of the government?

I totally understand why some people want the unborn to live, want them to have the right to live and want government to protect them.

But I am against government imposing unnecessary laws, as a society member I need be concerned for myself. I need to support laws that benefit me (otherwise I am minding other people's business, oppressing them because I am incapable of minding my own business), this means also being in support of laws ensuring society is safe and stable. Abortion does not impact my safety or the stability of society. Therefore I take the stance that this isn't a legal issue, it is up to individual choice. A mother kills her own unborn, it is none of my business.
[/quote]

People killing innocent people doesn't effect society? Trust me, it does. A society that kills its future is a society doomed to failure. Pope John Paul II has a quote similar to this that is much more sophisticated and smart, but I quit Google searching after midnight. It's a personal moral choice.

[stevil]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1343443153' post='2459569']
What if the government withheld protection from certain people based on arbitrary opinion?
What if they decided to do this to, say, atheists, and declared an Open Season on them?
They did it to the unborn; who is to say it won't happen to you?
[/quote]
It is not open season on the unborn. The mother can decide for what-ever reason she chooses, to abort her pregnancy.
No-one else can, not the father nor anyone else in society.
So the mother has a free hunting pass when the prey is her own fetus.

How can this apply to atheists? Let our mother's shoot us, no matter what our age?

Once we are born and into society, people develop bonds with us, the like us, they love us, they marry us. These people would even fight for us or die trying. Declaring open season on atheists would be extremely dangerous to society, it would result in war. Letting mothers abort their pregnancy does not cause war. There is no impact. Society doesn't care.

If society did care, if it was likely to make society dangerous, create much conflict, create war, then I personally would be against it. I would vote for a law against abortion. I don't vote on moral grounds, I vote on survival grounds (my survival).

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1343443153' post='2459569']
I would question any government which protects or discards human individuals on a whim.
[/quote]
I question any government that looks to enforce a moral belief on individuals (on a whim)


[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1343443153' post='2459569']
And once more, I present the conundrum of having mob rule to prevent mob rule
[/quote]
I am presenting the purpose of government with regards to ensuring a stable and safe society.
One only needs to understand human nature to realise that violence is the way we react on really important issues. When we act violently, we know that we are putting our own survival at risk, therefore, generally we only act violently on items that threaten our survival. When I say "our survival" this is also often extended to others within our society. We do this because we understand that we need a certain type of society in order to survive ourselves.
A lot of people will react violently when they see a pregnant woman being assaulted. The aggressor will find themselves in turn being attacked by impartial bystanders. We do this because it matters to us and it is worth putting our own lives at risk. But when a woman walks into an abortion clinic, it is rare that impartial bystanders will act violently against the woman.
So as a society we are saying that in order to be safe we need laws against violent attacks on people, but we don't need laws against abortion.
Similar thing goes for gay marriage, it is rare that an impartial bystander will act violently against a gay couple getting married, therefore we don't need a law against it.
With theft, people (impartial bystanders) will act violently against a thief, therefore we need laws against theft.
With adultery, impartial bystanders will not act violently against an adulterer, therefore we do not need laws against it.
The husband might act violently against his wife whom has committed adultery, but an impartial bystander is likely to act violently against the husband for abusing the wife rather than against the wife for adultery.
It is human nature that dictates which laws are necessary, this is called natural law.