Did The "pro-life" Movement Permanently Change Because Of Romn

[Aloysius]

anyway don't let my post end the discussion, by all means continue the attempt if you wish, those were just my thoughts on that particular line of reasoning: it is untenable, and within stevil's own worldview there is no reason for abortion to be criminalized; it is his whole worldview that should change, one cannot bring that worldview into conformity with morality, any sort of morality would require the entire worldview to be changed.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1353119523' post='2511563']

either way, you stand as a pretty good case-in-point for those who argue that religion is necessary for true morality.
[/quote]
I have argued that in the past. Lots of people disagree with me, lots of people whom I greatly respect, but in my mind the question is far from settled.

[havok579257]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1353113023' post='2511523']
The slippery slope argument is a fair argument.
If for example a religious group were in control and decided to kill all the Jews, I would certainly be concerned if they would ever decide to kill all the atheists.

With regards to abortion, lets say the morning after pill (is that considered equivalent to abortion by Catholics?)
I'm not concerned about my mother taking the morning after pill, it is way too late for that to worry me personally.

With regards to a pregnant woman, told that she has a high chance of dying if continuing with the pregnancy, I'm not concerned that the same reasoning will be used to kill me.

With regards to aborting a disabled fetus, maybe disabled people could be concerned. I might even become disabled in the future, you never know. but of course we aren't killing people post birth just yet, will we slide down that slope? I hope so in the case of euthanasia and death penalty for repeat violent offenders, but I will oppose for disabled post born peoplehhhh
[/quote]


so essentially you only are abouot how it affects you. if blacks, Jews, Catholics, babies are murdered and accepted by societyyou don't care because you not in that group. you only care about what group of people you fit into. yeah, that so does not sound like indifferenism.

Edited November 17, 2012 by havok579257

[stevil]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1353119523' post='2511563']
I do not recognize your morality and I don't think I could convince you on your own terms, your terms are inherently amoral
[/quote]
At last someone on phatmass whom understands me, this gives me great joy.

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1353119523' post='2511563']
so I will concede that you cannot argue against abortion without first holding the basic premise that every individual human life is sacred;
[/quote]
It might be possible, I'm not sure. I'm certainly open to an argument if one exists.

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1353119523' post='2511563']
the vast majority of people would hold to some notion of that and would absolutely, if they were convinced that a fetus was an individual human life, be opposed to abortion.
[/quote]
Maybe,
When I participate in atheist forums, I try to make sure that people acknowledge the fetus as human and alive, so at least they are scientifically sound and are basing their stance off facts and are not attempting to dehumanise the fetus in order to justify killing it. I do think it comes down to education, if you are right then educated people will vote against abortion, if you are right then my efforts are helping your cause.

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1353119523' post='2511563']
people who hold to respectable philosophies are simply caught up on the question of whether a fetus is an individual human life or not,
[/quote]
I don't see how you can have a respectable philosophy that doesn't recognise a fetus as an individual human life. Its not a dog and its not a collection of humans...

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1353119523' post='2511563']
either way, you stand as a pretty good case-in-point for those who argue that religion is necessary for true morality.
[/quote]
Religion isn't morality it is legality (god's law).

[stevil]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1353120369' post='2511572']
I have argued that in the past. Lots of people disagree with me, lots of people whom I greatly respect, but in my mind the question is far from settled.
[/quote]
It is my view that the world would be a much happier, calmer and tolerant place without morality, without people forcing (oppressing) their opinions onto others.

[stevil]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1353121619' post='2511596']
so essentially you only are abouot how it affects you. if blacks, Jews, Catholics, babies are murdered and accepted by societyyou don't care because you not in that group. you only care about what group of people you fit into. yeah, that so does not sound like indifferenism.
[/quote]
Because of the slippery slope argument, I do care.
If a power decides to kill off all the Catholics, what is to stop them next deciding to kill of all the Atheists.
In such a case I would fight with the Catholics against this power. United we stand, right?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1353119523' post='2511563']
personally, I wouldn't even entertain this line of reasoning. human life is sacred, whether you believe in God or gods or spirituality at all or not, I think you ought to believe that human life is sacred. I won't entertain this logic of morality, because it is no morality at all it is nothing but radical self-interest and it is repugnant to most humans. most atheists I know would never hold to the idea that human life wasn't sacred; whether that's just a cultural construct surrounding our biological instinct for self preservation or not, it's a beaver dam good concept and it ought to be upheld by every respectable human being, the selfish calculation of whether it would harm you or the cold calculating utilitarian query of whether it might 'destabilize society', those things are not morality. without some concept of human life as sacred and inviolable and inalienable, with a bit of variation on that terminology but an acknowledgment of the basic premise, then there is no morality. I do not recognize your morality and I don't think I could convince you on your own terms, your terms are inherently amoral (if not blatantly immoral)

so I will concede that you cannot argue against abortion without first holding the basic premise that every individual human life is sacred; however you personally define sacred, the vast majority of people would hold to some notion of that and would absolutely, if they were convinced that a fetus was an individual human life, be opposed to abortion. people who hold to respectable philosophies are simply caught up on the question of whether a fetus is an individual human life or not, that's where the respectable debate goes on. if you already acknowledge the fetus as an individual human being but are okay with it being killed and don't think anyone has any business stepping in to stop it from being killed on the basis that it doesn't concern you, well bugger for you, there is no use trying to convince you of anything quite frankly, every argument would have to come down to the basic premise of life as being valuable and requiring protection... but most people are much more sensible than all that, with or without religion they tend to hold to a concept of morality that says that it should be wrong to violate any individuals right to life, the sensible battleground remains the argument as to when life begins, which we feel we've got a pretty good scientific rationale behind.

either way, you stand as a pretty good case-in-point for those who argue that religion is necessary for true morality. your constructions of morality are really not moral at all, as I said they are radical self-interest and cold utilitarianism, and human sensibility tends to rightly reject them. but good luck with all that, and God bless
[/quote]


That's just what I was going to say... 20 pages from now, and better much better.

[havok579257]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1353122997' post='2511618']
Because of the slippery slope argument, I do care.
If a power decides to kill off all the Catholics, what is to stop them next deciding to kill of all the Atheists.
In such a case I would fight with the Catholics against this power. United we stand, right?
[/quote]


although again you only care because it could affect you. you have no regard for another person so long as it does not directly effect you.

[stevil]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1353127389' post='2511643']
although again you only care because it could affect you. you have no regard for another person so long as it does not directly effect you.
[/quote]
This is also the strength of my position. I have no motivation to impose my opinions on others unless their actions impact me or my loved ones.
I will not oppress people for being gay, I will not tell small children they are sinners, I will not force people to pray or bow to my god.

I will simply let people be, I will take glory in diversification and tolerance. I will only support law and control if absolutely necessary.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1353127945' post='2511649']

This is also the strength of my position. I have no motivation to impose my opinions on others unless their actions impact me or my loved ones.
I will not oppress people for being gay, I will not tell small children they are sinners, I will not force people to pray or bow to my god.

I will simply let people be, I will take glory in diversification and tolerance. I will only support law and control if absolutely necessary.
[/quote]stevil, I'm liking you more and more. I may disagree with some of your positions, I do agree about tolerance. Like you, I don't believe in arbitrary morality or belief it is decreed by Gid such gives you the right to impose it on others.

I think humans are inherently social beings and morality is figuring out as a community how to live together to the benefit of individuals as social beings.

Selfishly, I fear the idea of inconvenient or burdensome people being demed as disposable. I've personally logiced that to conclude abortion isn't beneficial to society. However, I have to convince with reason, logic, and explain my opinion to encourage others to agree with me. I can't force my divinely inspired opinion on others, nor do I want a powerful minority forcing their opinion. I'm good with majority rule that's also considerate of minority opinion.

[stevil]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1353132695' post='2511700']
I think humans are inherently social beings and morality is figuring out as a community how to live together to the benefit of individuals as social beings.
[/quote]
People dress all sorts of things in the cloak of morality. Be it god's law, social constructs, personal opinion, emotivism etc.
I dislike the word because it is so vague. Unless the meaning of the word is elaborated, people will almost always end up talking cross purpose, thus never really understanding each other.

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1353132695' post='2511700']
However, I have to convince with reason, logic, and explain my opinion to encourage others to agree with me.
[/quote]
It is this approach, that to me means you are an amoralist. I presume you will disagree with me because it seems you don't like the term "amoral" and I don't want to tell you what labels to wear. You decide your own labels, not me.

But in the strictest sense of the term amoral means that moral statements are nonsensical. This simply means that you can't end up by saying something is right or wrong. e.g. Murder is wrong or gay sex is wrong. In amoral speak, these two statements are nonsensical as they need to be elaborated i.e. to what goal or purpose are these deemed as wrong?
From the perspective of the universe, it just doesn't care, there is no such thing as right and wrong. But from the perspective of a human living in a society they might deem murder as wrong because it endangers their own life or maybe the lives of their loved ones.

Many people don't like this approach to thinking because it is a selfish approach and they don't like the term "selfishness", thus they extend a sacredness to all humanity(either bestowed by a god or maybe as a position of a humanist). It seems to me that you take the humanist approach and classify all human life as sacred thus you are consistent in not wanting murder or abortion. I don't take the humanist approach, I'm OK with being selfish but understand it must be viewed in the long term which also takes into account the society within which I live. But (I presume) we both want people to have to explain using reason, logic etc why something ought to be illegal, we don't simply want someone to say it ought to be illegal because it is immoral. Reason alone is meaningless, we need to tie reason down to an ultimate goal. A humanist's goal could be to the benefit of each human individual. My goal has to be to the ultimate benefit of myself, if I am to be philosophically consistent.

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1353132695' post='2511700']
I can't force my divinely inspired opinion on others, nor do I want a powerful minority forcing their opinion. I'm good with majority rule that's also considerate of minority opinion.
[/quote]
From my thinking, let's say that I was against abortion, how can I justify supporting a law against it?
I cannot say that it is against a god's will because I don't believe in gods
I cannot say that it is a violation of the sacredness of humanity, because I don't believe that we are sacred
Theoretically I could say that I find it emotionally repulsive to kill unborn babies, but how does that justify me forcing my emotivism onto others?
This would be no different to a homophobe wanting to force their emotional repulsiveness to homosexuality onto others.
With my current worldview, I will not impose myself onto others unless absolutely necessary, unless myself, my loved ones or my society are at risk.

Rather than imposing by law, I find the alternative approach much better, an approach to educate and influence via discussion (without oppressing or forcing one's self on others).

[Anomaly]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1353146973' post='2511755']
People dress all sorts of things in the cloak of morality. Be it god's law, social constructs, personal opinion, emotivism etc.
I dislike the word because it is so vague. Unless the meaning of the word is elaborated, people will almost always end up talking cross purpose, thus never really understanding each other.[/quote]Humanity always seems to have difficulty communicating and has the habit of imposing definition and intent on each other..


[quote]It is this approach, that to me means you are an amoralist. I presume you will disagree with me because it seems you don't like the term "amoral" and I don't want to tell you what labels to wear. You decide your own labels, not me.[/quote]Of course I'm butt hurt you call me amoral! See above. But you are correct that I don't beleive in Objective Morality, as if there is a cosmic law that says murder is "wrong". I think that is a neccessary construct of a society. Even a pack of wolves don't arbitrarily turn on their own members. Humans are capable of much more cognitive analysis.

[quote]But in the strictest sense of the term amoral means that moral statements are nonsensical. This simply means that you can't end up by saying something is right or wrong. e.g. Murder is wrong or gay sex is wrong. In amoral speak, these two statements are nonsensical as they need to be elaborated i.e. to what goal or purpose are these deemed as wrong?
From the perspective of the universe, it just doesn't care, there is no such thing as right and wrong. But from the perspective of a human living in a society they might deem murder as wrong because it endangers their own life or maybe the lives of their loved ones.[/quote]I think your point about perspective to human society is critical. Right or wrong is easily identifiable by the vast majority of developed humans. Only in small children and persons with mental/psychological impairment is that not understood. Humans and other creatures sense justice and can be empathetic and act accordingly. Again, we trip up in how we define morality and where it comes from.

[quote]Many people don't like this approach to thinking because it is a selfish approach and they don't like the term "selfishness", thus they extend a sacredness to all humanity(either bestowed by a god or maybe as a position of a humanist). It seems to me that you take the humanist approach and classify all human life as sacred thus you are consistent in not wanting murder or abortion. I don't take the humanist approach, I'm OK with being selfish but understand it must be viewed in the long term which also takes into account the society within which I live. But (I presume) we both want people to have to explain using reason, logic etc why something ought to be illegal, we don't simply want someone to say it ought to be illegal because it is immoral. Reason alone is meaningless, we need to tie reason down to an ultimate goal. A humanist's goal could be to the benefit of each human individual. My goal has to be to the ultimate benefit of myself, if I am to be philosophically consistent.[/quote]I wouldn't quite call myself a humanist, either, but close. I think I'm simplistic and like to simplify logic and reasoning to basic principles. I get the selfish part. I have strong feelings of identifying with groups, mostly family. Selfishly, I want to protect my family members about as much as I would protect myself. My selfishness extends to my family members, so I tend to look how things affect a broader populace and larger time frame. A humanist's goal isn't just about the individual because the recoginize the necessary aspects of a community and society. Generally, Humanity is much better off as a group in a developed society, then as small primitive tribe in the Amazons. We could argue and conjecture about relative personal happiness in the two environments, but I prefer to live in the culture I and my loved ones are in.


[quote]From my thinking, let's say that I was against abortion, how can I justify supporting a law against it?
I cannot say that it is against a god's will because I don't believe in gods
I cannot say that it is a violation of the sacredness of humanity, because I don't believe that we are sacred
Theoretically I could say that I find it emotionally repulsive to kill unborn babies, but how does that justify me forcing my emotivism onto others?
This would be no different to a homophobe wanting to force their emotional repulsiveness to homosexuality onto others.
With my current worldview, I will not impose myself onto others unless absolutely necessary, unless myself, my loved ones or my society are at risk.

Rather than imposing by law, I find the alternative approach much better, an approach to educate and influence via discussion (without oppressing or forcing one's self on others).
[/quote]Yeah, that's the difficulty. Deciding when laws protect and when they oppress. When laws promote and when they discourage. I personally don't think homosexuality is of specific benefity for society as a whole. Heterosexuality is needed for procreation and the 'more normal' way family and society works. Divorce, infidelity, disrepect, unfaithfullness, and other attitudes and actions that destroy marriages, relationships, and families are more detrimental
to a stable society. Humans, like most cretures, have nurturing protective feelings and behaviors towards their young. Even elephants more their young to the middle of the herd if they sense danger.

It's that aspect of human behavior I would want to promote. For my children, my families children, etc. For human children in principle. It's my ingrained species / herd mentality? Hopefully, the body of human society can discuss the percieved harms, potential benefits, and come up with some behavioral standards that promotes the good of the herd with minimal infringment on individuals. Human society is always a mixed bag of comprimising the needs and wants of individuals, with the needs and wants of the herd. Identifying the most common principles and goals in order to prioritize and balance requires discussion, communication, participation, reason, logic, ideas, etc. Like you, I don't think there are objective morals that are "known" by certain groups with divine connections that trump the need for disccussion, reason, and possible comprimise regarding goals, principles, and how to acheive them.

[havok579257]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1353127945' post='2511649']
This is also the strength of my position. I have no motivation to impose my opinions on others unless their actions impact me or my loved ones.
I will not oppress people for being gay, I will not tell small children they are sinners, I will not force people to pray or bow to my god.

I will simply let people be, I will take glory in diversification and tolerance. I will only support law and control if absolutely necessary.
[/quote]

its not that you will simply let people be. its the fact that by your statements you have absolutely no problem with a group of people such as gay, black, babies, native americans, Jews being killed off by society as long as your guarentteed it will not effect you. your completely ok if tomorrow society decided to kill all the blacks as long as you could be guarented it would never slide down the slippery slope to effect you. this is wrong on so many statements and i am at a loss how you can not see this.

[stevil]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1353171345' post='2511834']
its not that you will simply let people be. its the fact that by your statements you have absolutely no problem with a group of people such as gay, black, babies, native americans, Jews being killed off by society as long as your guarentteed it will not effect you. your completely ok if tomorrow society decided to kill all the blacks as long as you could be guarented it would never slide down the slippery slope to effect you. this is wrong on so many statements and i am at a loss how you can not see this.
[/quote]
I am not a god. It is not my obligation to be an enforcer of some morale standard, to hold people in judgement, to dish out retribution.
Your hypothetical is only ever hypothetical, there are never any guarantees.

In WWII Germany made a pact with Russia prior to invading Poland, guaranteeing that they would not attack Russia...

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1353177744' post='2511888']

I am not a god. It is not my obligation to be an enforcer of some morale standard, to hold people in judgement, to dish out retribution.
Your hypothetical is only ever hypothetical, there are never any guarantees.

In WWII Germany made a pact with Russia prior to invading Poland, guaranteeing that they would not attack Russia...
[/quote]

You don't really deny what he said. The more you state the more it's clear you are selfish and indifferent to others so long as it doesn't effect you personally.