Mississippi challenges Roe VS Wade, loves God

[natty dread]

And btw, Fire Knight is owning this thread right now with his clear, thoughtful responses and willingness to learn

Lol, no.

It's amazing how people can spin anything in their head to support their own opinions and viewpoints. You agree with FK so of course you rationalize it to yourself that "everyone else is just trolling while he is the only smart one here".

[john9blue]

And btw, Fire Knight is owning this thread right now with his clear, thoughtful responses and willingness to learn

Lol, no.

It's amazing how people can spin anything in their head to support their own opinions and viewpoints. You agree with FK so of course you rationalize it to yourself that "everyone else is just trolling while he is the only smart one here".

aren't fallacies so much easier to spot when the other side is committing them?

you're on a roll with that, by the way:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=158053&p=3481485#p3481437

[PLAYER57832]

Except, in this case there is a valid biological and medical reason to say that a first trimester fetus is just not the same as a born, living human.

have you ever told us what this reason is, exactly? sorry if i'm making you repeat yourself.

Yes.
A first trimester fetus
1. Does not have most of the characteristics needed to be human. It has no real brain, only has a heartbeat near the end of the trimester, etc.
2. Is literally a part of the mother until birth. EVERY birth endangers a mother's life, even in the best of circumstances. Even if her life is not at risk, she risks very serious complications, damage, health effects. Most women do this willingly, but there is no other circumstances where anyone would even try to justify forcing someone to risk their life for another, particularly not when the life of that other is so tenuous.

3. The potential for a live healthy child is only around 30%. The potential that the child will even be born alive at all is around 50%. One in 3 pregancies simply ends in the first trimester. BUT, those figures are low because they do not take into account the numerous cases where a women does not go to a doctor. Also, when the "natural" death rate is mentioned, often any surgical abortion is removed from the data. Even when it isn't, situations like a doctor taking an ectopic prenancy early and such are excluded. Statistics reported range all over the place for the above reasons. However, the figures I cite are the most consistantly reported in the most objective fashion.

4. The potential for FUTURE children, after a safe abortion is high, except when there are medical reasons why pregancies fail. This is one of those statistics that gets highly distorted by those wanting abortion made illegal. For example, a woman who has an abortion because of a ectopic pregnancy is more likely to have an ectopic pregancy in the future. Similarly, the chance of certain very serious genetic issues is increased after one occurance. Also, they tend to confuse unsafe abortion rates with safe rates, which is really abyssmal, because they are actually contributing to the unsafe rate by their lobbying and pressure on doctors not to do abortions or get training for abortions.

5. The idea that you can save the child and not the mother almost never exists. When it does, it is in conjunction with the birth of a viable child. NO doctor in the US will tkill a healthy child who is viable to save the mother, they will do their best to save both. If they cannot, then they save the one they can, which is the mother. Again, these statistics get distorted by the anti-abortionists. Some of the highest statistics actually include cases where a child dies in a failed attempt to save it.

6... there are more, particularly when it comes to first term abortions

One big irony is that many people will allow exceptions for medical cause, when a child is very seriously injured. However, you simply cannot know that in the first trimester. If you talk to women, you find that many times they will say that they "just knew" there was "something wrong". This is one of those things that is just impossible to quantify, but it is also one of the reasons why this must be a privacy issue.

Father's rights? Again... within the first trimester, there is no way to determine who that father might be. Again, this is yet another reason why it must be entirely up to the mother and her doctor, clergy if she wishes.

There are more reasons, but I have to go now.

[PLAYER57832]

...this thread had a winner? nobody proved anything. "winner" my ass.

The challenge to Roe vs Wade was defeated. That was the title of the thread, that was what we were discussing. It was defeated. Am I missing something?

What was this thread about if not Mississippi challenging Roe vs Wade and those people who opposed that challenge winning?

That was just one court case, one ruling. This issue is definitely not over.

Groups have been challenging Roe Vs Wade for years, and have no intention to back off. They don't even care if they actually win. They see any delay, any limits placed on women seeking a safe abortion to be a "victory". Due to their actions, there are many areas where women plain do not have reasonable access to early term abortions. In many areas, there is a dirth of doctors even familiar with the procedure should it prove necessary to save a woman's life.

[natty dread]

And btw, Fire Knight is owning this thread right now with his clear, thoughtful responses and willingness to learn

Lol, no.

It's amazing how people can spin anything in their head to support their own opinions and viewpoints. You agree with FK so of course you rationalize it to yourself that "everyone else is just trolling while he is the only smart one here".

aren't fallacies so much easier to spot when the other side is committing them?

you're on a roll with that, by the way:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=158053&p=3481485#p3481437

I'm sorry John, I know I haven't paid much attention to you lately, but I'm a busy man. However, this stalking behaviour of yours is starting to get kinda creepy. If you keep this up, I won't send you an xmas card...

Anyhow, it's so cute that you think the world is divided into "sides". Thump that chest, wave that flag, keep the outsiders away and stop those meanies from filthying your mind with their arguments and weird opinions that are different from yours!

[The Fire Knight]

To natty_dread:

Who gets to define what is evil?

Well, that is kind of a loaded question. It assumes that whoever decides what is evil is correct. Everyone for himself must "decide" what is evil, but that does not necessarily mean that they are correct. In the end, God is good, and things not of God are bad. But I'm guessing you would disagree.

You assert that abortion is bad, then you use hitler as a comparison because hitler did bad things. Then you justify using hitler as a comparison because you think abortion is bad.

I assert that legalized abortion is bad because it is the legalized murder of a specific segment of the population. I then assert that Hitler is bad because he legalized and sanctioned the murder of a specific segment of the population. The comparison is easy and obvious.

See, you haven't shown yet that abortion is murder. That's just your opinion, based on your personal moral values, which are not universal. So you can't use your assertion that "abortion is murder" as an argument against abortion. That's just going around in circles.

As you are defining it, "abortion is murder" is not the real debate. I would argue that abortion is murder, but the real argument here is whether or not abortion is killing. Whether or not abortion kills humans. Why is this? Because, once again, we have the right to life in America. You have the ability (or should have; there are many issues that still have to be fought over) to do any you want in this country up till the point where you infringe upon the basic natural rights of others. The choice to abort is not a right in this country specifically for this reason, because it infringes upon the right of the baby to live.

So, making the brief argument once again that "abortion kills humans". There seem to be several things that must be true in order to make this statement true.

1. embryos and fetuses must be alive (you can't kill something dead)
2. Abortion must kill the embryos and fetuses
3. Embryos and fetuses must be human

These are all pretty obvious, but argue away if you would like. Again, this site is pretty good with arguing this. http://swordandspirit.com/library/proli ... fetus.html

Now back to my personal values... the only personal moral value that I have is the value of human life. However, this is not just my personal moral value. This is one of the values that was the cornerstone of the founding of America. It is an inalienable right, and can't be taken away.

According to whom? If everyone in the world thinks something is acceptable, then it is, for all practical purposes. There may be some who disagree, and they may even have a stronger case for their opinion, but as long as they're in the minority, what can they do? Apart from trying to convince the majority to change their mind, of course.

Again, everything you say is true, except for the fact that you think that whoever is the most powerful decides morality, and that it is always correct until they loose their power. But God is the ultimate judge. Which I suppose makes you even more right, b/c he is the most powerful . Of course, we've reached a dead end as far as this is concerned b/c of fundamental world view differences, which I have no interest in trying to argue with you right now (the existence of God).

You didn't, but the way you frame your arguments implies it. You only see every issue from the viewpoint of your own morality

Not true. I can see things from the perspectives of others, and I hope you can too. It is a valuable skill. But again, just b/c differences exist does not mean that the world is composed of extreme and mainstream as opposed to right and wrong.

Making fun of someone, well... that's too vague a definition. It depends entirely on the context and intentions. Sometimes it's ok, sometimes not ok. You'll have to be more specific on this one.

True, situations matter, and even if every situation you give me I say it's wrong to make fun of someone, the possibility still remains that there might be one where it is ok. Then again, you would still have to come up with one to disprove me if I made that blanket statement. But I can't be specific on that one b/c after thinking briefly I can't think of any where it would be ok.

As for why? I want other people to respect my boundaries, ie. I don't want other people to do things to me against my will, so it would be illogical (and hypocritical) to do those things to other people. If I want everyone to respect other people's boundaries (generally... let's not get into self-defence or such that are obvious exceptions) then, rationally thinking, it's impossible to achieve that unless I also adhere to those principles myself.

Haha. Hurray for Jesus. Even though I'm pretty sure you reject Christianity, you still can't get all of its worldview out of your system. love your neighbor as yourself anyone? It's there, in a watered down version. If there is no God, even if on a macro scale it makes sense for society and government to promote a sort of "love your neighbor as yourself" rule, on a micro and individual level this breaks down. Morality is an individual thing, not something of society. On a micro scale (individually) it can even be beneficial according by some standards if you don't follow this rule of thumb, for example economically with stealing. Good for society to be against if they value money, but bad for individuals to follow this rule if they value money. I would argue that if there is no God, the general micro rule of thumb is similar to what Nietzsche said, that humans exist to increase their power. Now sure, perhaps the best way to accomplish this in many instances is to love your neighbor as yourself, (help someone out on hw gives you friendship and the chance that they might do the same) but it would fit under the larger umbrella of Nietzsche's philosophy. I would argue that you won't be able to find a basic reason to love your neighbor as yourself and to "adhere to those principles" if you do not believe in God. If you still do believe that the best philosophy for you is to "love your neighbor as yourself", then I would argue that this is the result of socialization and the situation's you have been through in life. If you then recognize that, you are faced with two choices.

1. You can throw of that "slave morality" that is holding you back, and rationally get rid of morality in your life except when it suits your own purposes.
2. Or you can take a closer look at Christianity. You may automatically discount this, but I would hope you wouldn't just give it a cursory dismissal as bs. Firstly b/c it is a very important issue. If Christianity is true, you are really missing out in life. And secondly, b/c however much you may want to straw man me into whatever suits your fancy, I am actually a very intelligent real person who believes in God and Christianity. Since we are both limited to the experiences that we have had, there is undoubtedly something that you have not experienced which might change your opinion on things. But if you do not want to learn, and only seek to disprove everything thrown at you, then you will succeed, b/c you can not be forced into belief. Thinking critically does not mean only looking for flaws in what others say, it also means trying to understand and empathize with the beliefs of others, b/c only then can you objectively make an informed decision. You must not value being right, but discovering the truth.

[john9blue]

Anyhow, it's so cute that you think the world is divided into "sides". Thump that chest, wave that flag, keep the outsiders away and stop those meanies from filthying your mind with their arguments and weird opinions that are different from yours!

I CALLED IT

i KNEW you would claim to not be on a "side" when i used that word.

you probably don't believe me, but i totally called it.

and where do you get that stuff about waving a flag and keeping outsiders away? please answer, i'm very curious. i know you're not a big fan of providing evidence for your claims, but you said it with such conviction that i'm sure you had a particular post of mine in mind.

[natty dread]

Well, that is kind of a loaded question. It assumes that whoever decides what is evil is correct. Everyone for himself must "decide" what is evil, but that does not necessarily mean that they are correct. In the end, God is good, and things not of God are bad. But I'm guessing you would disagree.

So in the end, god defines what is evil? But since no one knows if god is real, and since god doesn't directly tell us what is evil and what is not... don't even mention the bible, there's so many interpretations of every single thing in it that as a universal moral guide it's practically useless... and then we get to different religions, with different views on what god is and what he/she wants from us...

So basically, there's no such thing as evil. Because something that you consider evil, someone else will consider just and good. There's no ultimate authority to decide which of you is right. So once again goes back to majority opinion.

Let's say you hypothetically kill someone. You think you have a good reason for it, you're justified in doing it, but someone else sees it in another way and calls you a murderer. Which of you is right? The law decides, and laws are theoretically made to adhere to the majority opinion. The circumstances and context of the killing will be taken in account, and if the majority of people think it was justified for you to kill in that situation, then you will not be guilty of murder.

I assert that legalized abortion is bad because it is the legalized murder of a specific segment of the population. I then assert that Hitler is bad because he legalized and sanctioned the murder of a specific segment of the population. The comparison is easy and obvious.

Exactly. You assert that abortion is murder, but that's just your opinion and there's no evidence that your view is the correct one. So you can't make the comparison. It's an emotional argument that has no basis in fact.

As you are defining it, "abortion is murder" is not the real debate. I would argue that abortion is murder, but the real argument here is whether or not abortion is killing. Whether or not abortion kills humans. Why is this? Because, once again, we have the right to life in America. You have the ability (or should have; there are many issues that still have to be fought over) to do any you want in this country up till the point where you infringe upon the basic natural rights of others. The choice to abort is not a right in this country specifically for this reason, because it infringes upon the right of the baby to live.

But killing is not universally wrong. There are situations where it's justified to kill. So simply saying "abortion is killing" is a null argument.

So, making the brief argument once again that "abortion kills humans". There seem to be several things that must be true in order to make this statement true.

1. embryos and fetuses must be alive (you can't kill something dead)
2. Abortion must kill the embryos and fetuses
3. Embryos and fetuses must be human

How do you define "alive"? There's no universally agreed definition on what constitutes "alive". Are viruses "alive"? Are individual cells "alive"?

And how do you define a "human"? Why should an embryo be defined as a human being? There's no rational, objective reason for doing so.

Now back to my personal values... the only personal moral value that I have is the value of human life. However, this is not just my personal moral value. This is one of the values that was the cornerstone of the founding of America. It is an inalienable right, and can't be taken away.

Yeah, I pretty much don't give a crap about the cornerstones of America, or any other country for that matter. Traditions are useful only as long as they serve a useful purpose. When they become counterproductive, they should be discarded.

I also value human life very much, but I can also see that everything is not black and white. The world does not work that way. There's always context and circumstances and sometimes there are no perfect solutions. When you start blindly applying your moral values to every situation without considering the circumstances, you become an extremist, and that never ends well.

Not true. I can see things from the perspectives of others, and I hope you can too. It is a valuable skill. But again, just b/c differences exist does not mean that the world is composed of extreme and mainstream as opposed to right and wrong.

The fact that you think there are some kind of absolute values for "right" and "wrong" shows that you really don't see things from others' perspectives. What is right for you is wrong for someone else.

There is no absolute source of morality, and everyone has different values. When you claim your own morals to be absolute, you're basically refusing to see from other people's view.

Haha. Hurray for Jesus. Even though I'm pretty sure you reject Christianity, you still can't get all of its worldview out of your system.

My worldview has nothing to do with christianity. You're pretty arrogant if you think that christianity has some kind of monopoly for the ideas I have presented. It doesn't.

love your neighbor as yourself anyone? It's there, in a watered down version.

Which is not something unique to christianity. It is a core belief of countless belief systems, and the fact that you think it's somehow exclusively inherent to christianity shows an extremely narrow worldview.

If there is no God, even if on a macro scale it makes sense for society and government to promote a sort of "love your neighbor as yourself" rule, on a micro and individual level this breaks down. Morality is an individual thing, not something of society. On a micro scale (individually) it can even be beneficial according by some standards if you don't follow this rule of thumb, for example economically with stealing. Good for society to be against if they value money, but bad for individuals to follow this rule if they value money.

So why is it that religious and non-religious people steal just as much? Your argument doesn't make sense. You can't simplify human behaviour into some kind of binary do/don't mechanism. There are always multiple factors to be considered. It may be "beneficial" for you to steal (in one aspect), but humans are not automatons, we don't make cold, logical calculations on what produces the highest benefit with the lowest cost. Humans are capable of acting as a group, we are very social animals.

And god is entirely unnecessary to this equation. If you want to talk about benefit, there is more benefit in maintaining trust and respect to your fellow humans, than there is to gaining a short-term benefit by betraying them.

I would argue that if there is no God, the general micro rule of thumb is similar to what Nietzsche said, that humans exist to increase their power. Now sure, perhaps the best way to accomplish this in many instances is to love your neighbor as yourself, (help someone out on hw gives you friendship and the chance that they might do the same) but it would fit under the larger umbrella of Nietzsche's philosophy.

Nietzsche's philosophies are largely outdated. We have discovered so much more about human behavior since then. We don't exist to increase our "power", there's no general "purpose of existence" that would fit every single human. Human behaviour is infinitely more complex. However... if you need some kind of generalization, then how about this: we are social animals. Primarily, we seek the companionship and acceptance of our fellow humans. For most people, this is infinitely more important than seeking personal power, regardless of their religions.

I would argue that you won't be able to find a basic reason to love your neighbor as yourself and to "adhere to those principles" if you do not believe in God.

This is a load of bullshit, and again shows the arrogance of your religion.

A basic reason is cooperation. It's a mutually beneficial agreement between me and other people, sort of a truce. A social contract. I agree not to do shitty things to them, and they agree likewise. God is again unnecessary for this.

Another thing is empathy. Our species has the ability to empathize with others, and for most of us, seeing other people get hurt causes us to feel empathy for them. This is not something that comes from any religion, it is something inherent to being a human being.

If you still do believe that the best philosophy for you is to "love your neighbor as yourself", then I would argue that this is the result of socialization and the situation's you have been through in life.

As opposed to... what? All of our values are a result of our experience and our own reasoning. It's the same with your religion. You have been taught the religion you believe in, perhaps by your parents, or perhaps you came to it by another route; either way, it's a result of your life experiences. So basically, what you consider to be "following the will of god" is just your own ideals, you're just using god to validate them.

If you then recognize that, you are faced with two choices.

1. You can throw of that "slave morality" that is holding you back, and rationally get rid of morality in your life except when it suits your own purposes.
2. Or you can take a closer look at Christianity.

Nopes, false dichotomy. I've already explained why so I'll only say this:

The fact that you think that christianity is the only source of true morals is extremely arrogant and narrow-minded. What about other religions? What about societies who have never heard of christianity? Are those full of immoral people? Your argument breaks down if you think about it rationally.

Have you ever considered that maybe all of this is just an easy justification? You want to think that without your faith, you wouldn't have any reason to adhere to any moral values. Maybe you use it to find a purpose for your religious practice. Maybe you subconsciously see the inherent irrationality in your religion, but use this excuse to avoid cognitive dissonance... You convince yourself that there can be no morality, that you couldn't have morality without adhering to your religion. Or maybe it's the priests of your church that have convinced you of this. I don't know, I may be totally wrong about this, I don't presume to know you based on a few posts on an internet forum. However, perhaps it's something you should honestly consider.

If Christianity is true, you are really missing out in life.

If christianity is false, you're wasting your time believing in it. And missing out in life, since you could be doing fun and useful things instead of practicing it.

Thinking critically does not mean only looking for flaws in what others say, it also means trying to understand and empathize with the beliefs of others

Thinking critically means questioning everything and coming to your own conclusions based on your own reasoning. Religion asks me to take their word for it, to blindly trust and follow some ancient dogma. The two are rarely compatible.

[Aradhus]

Anyhow, it's so cute that you think the world is divided into "sides". Thump that chest, wave that flag, keep the outsiders away and stop those meanies from filthying your mind with their arguments and weird opinions that are different from yours!

I CALLED IT

i KNEW you would claim to not be on a "side" when i used that word.

you probably don't believe me, but i totally called it.

To be fair bro, Nostradamus could've called that one.