God said he gave us all a conscience, & therefore know in our hearts when we do wrong.

Happy_Killbot

No

MayCaesar

I do not know about that... When I hear a Christian message, I only get the feeling that someone is role-playing a fantasy character. Which I love! We need more role-players and actors; most people are way too serious, with "no fun allowed" mentality.

Christian role-playing is getting a bit old though. Why not play something more unusual? A Japanese samurai, or a Drow Priestess from Forgotten Realms, or Achilles from the Greek mythology? Why does it always have to be the same serious guy in a robe? A bit more diversity would be welcome.

As for the whole "we know in our hearts" thing, well, our hearts do not have any capacity to accumulate knowledge; they are just pushing blood through our bodies. Maybe hearts of religious people are different, containing small chips in them storing data in an NTFS format? We must dissect them to learn more!

We_are_accountable

@MayCaesar

All you have to do is look at the moral values of non believers. This says it all!

With their vote, non believers support killing innocent unborn babies for mere convenience, even viable babies!
Non believers have no problem with one night hook ups, promisuous lifestyles that spread Aids and other diseases, taking chances of getting pregnant and then aborting the baby, fathers abandoning their children, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, broken families, etc., etc.
According to you, it's no one's fault! You call them simple mistakes that we all make. This is how little you care about irresponsible lifestyles.

You are this anything goes amoral person who looks the other way at all the harm caused from immorality. To people such as you, morals are a dirty word.

This says it all about the differences between Christians and non believers.  It tells me that there is a God because if there were not, we would all have similar basic moral values when it comes to harming other's through our selfish choices.

Why do non believers sacrifice their own children for sake of self and convenience?

MayCaesar

@We_are_accountable

I was not talking about whose "fault" anything is; I was talking about your claim that people know in their hearts when they do wrong. For someone labelling everything you disagree with as fallacy, you certainly have a hard time responding to what people have actually said, do you not?

Morals are not a dirty word to me. It just amuses me when someone claims moral superiority based on having read some ancient book, is all.

Plaffelvohfen

@We_are_accountable

Non-believers are not of your church and therefore according to Paul (1 Cor.5 (11-13) are not your concern...

You're like a North Korean propaganda agent telling an american in the US that he's immoral because he does not follow the Party's ideology and does not adulate the Dear Leader...  

Dee

@We_are_accountable

***** This says it all about the differences between Christians and non believers.  It tells me that there is a God because if there were not, we would all have similar basic moral values when it comes to harming other's through our selfish choices.

We_are_accountable

@MayCaesar

Why do you try to say that an acient book is why Christians are pro life? We are prolife because God gives wisdom and a moral conscience to Christians. God's values are instilled in Christians, and that moral code is what speaks to our hearts in matters of humanity.

You did not answer the question why non believers lack the humanity to be pro life. If there is no God, we should all share similar values through so called evolutionary design.

Why do non believers care so little about moral responsibility, and the harm caused from irresponsibility.

We_are_accountable

@Plaffelvohfen

As always, you refuse to address all the examples I give to the non believer's lack of concern for all the irresponsibility destroying our family unit. Why do you care so little for our children and the broken homes they live in.

I could not care less how you live your life, as long as you don't kill innocent babies or abandon our children, expecting tax payers and case workers to bail out all the dead beat fathers.

Why don't you shame these dead beat fathers? Why don't you care for our children?

We_are_accountable

@Dee

As usual, deflect the fact that the Left refuses to shame immoral and irresonsible behavior. I live in the North, and there are just as many broken families. Non believers also live in the South. Millions of people are Christian in name only and could not care less what God says about immorality.

You never answer the question why Chrisrtians are the main group of people speaking out on behalf of innocent unborn lives. Why is the South more Pro life? 

MayCaesar

@We_are_accountable

I have never said that the ancient book is the reason all Christians are anti-abortion. That said, the argument you in particular made here comes back to that book. Without the book you would not even think god exists, let along infuses you with some morals.

No; we should not all share similar values. We are all individuals, with different genetics, uprisings, cultures, experiences, etc. And this does not depend on the existence or non-existence of god; that is just an observable fact.
What does it mean "to lack humanity to be pro life"? This sentence makes no sense.

Happy_Killbot

I really hate it how the pro-life crowd tries to play the morality card with their position, because it still implies giving up bodily autonomy, which in any other context they would consider grossly immoral. There is nothing morally superior about the pro-life position over the pro-choice position, I have said it before and I will say it again, both are morally corrupt.

The bible and the Christian religion says nothing whatsoever as to if abortion should be permissible, it is once again a failure as a moral teaching. You can use the bible to make an argument in support of abortion just as easily as one that is opposed to it, because the language is vague and the subject matter doesn't contain anything written for modern times.

Some humility would therefore be a relief.

Only technological progress can offer a solution to this dilemma, as technology is the only thing that can free us from the bondage of our biology.

If there is any flaw in this reasoning, please tell me what it is, because I can't find anything myself.

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

I would say that the flaw here is that you avoid addressing the issue by "outsourcing" it into the future: "Technology can solve this dilemma". While could be true, it is like saying, "Lung cancer is a problem. Technology in the future will rid us of it", which means absolutely nothing to the lung cancer victims living right now and seeking a way out.

I do not see anything inherently morally corrupt about the pro-abortion position. For that matter, a position being or not being morally corrupt depends not on what this position is, but what axiomatic structure it is based on. Moral corruption arises when a person gives up on their ideals for the sake of convenience and assumes a position that contradicts their fundamental values in exchange for some gain. Both pro-abortion and anti-abortion positions may or may not be morally corrupt, depending on the reasoning behind them.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar So are you are telling me that there is no moral framework or world view under which abortion would be considered immoral?

The real problem here is not that the problem is being outsourced to the future, it is that we could have solved it already, but by taking a stance either for or against it, we eliminate the need to develop a robust solution. If 30 years ago work had started to develop a male-equivalent birth control, we most likely wouldn't even be having this discussion because abortion just wouldn't be a big enough issue for people to devote their time and resources to it. The point here is that nothing will happen unless we start something today.

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

No, rather, I am saying that there are moral frameworks under which abortion is considered immoral, and there are moral frameworks under which abortion is considered moral - and neither of those frameworks is inherently superior.

I do not think taking either stance prevents a technological solution from being developed. For that matter, this debate has been going on for decades with no resolution, so you could say that we are not taking a stance either for or against it as a society. In my view, it would be nice to take one stance on the societal scale and stick with it; it is not such a big deal, and, whether abortions are outlawed or not, the vast majority of people, by taking basic precautions, can avoid having to deal with this matter. But that would create other issues; for example, it would homogenize the society when it comes to the abortion topic, which, due to the lack of significant debate on this issue, would dull people's critical thinking, which could have a ripple effect and affect the discussion of many other issues.

There is a good rule of thumb for such cases: if there is significant controversy on whether something should be banned or not, then it should not be banned. Not everyone agrees with it, but it is in the spirit of a free nation such as the US.

We_are_accountable

@Happy_Killbot

Try replacing the abortion issue with slavery, and then give me the same garbage about how being prolife is playing the morality card and moral superiority.

The Bible also says little about slavery, yet Christians know that slavery is an immoral treatment of Black people, just as abortion is a barbaric act towards innocent lives.

You can not simply say that abortions is not immoral to excuse the fact that you support it. It is immoral. It is barbaric, and for you to support it proves my point about Christians and non christians.

MayCaesar

@We_are_accountable ;

How come then that slavery existed in the Christian world for the vast majority of its history, in the US having been abolished merely a bit over 1.5 centuries ago? If Christians knew "in their heart" that slavery was wrong, then they would have risen up against it around 500 AD, not around 1800 AD.

Even based on your narrative alone, I have to conclude that there is no such thing as "knowing something in one's heart" automatically. You have to have developed some personal system of values to be able to make such judgments as "doing X is wrong" or "doing Y is noble".

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar So if there are those who would argue that abortion is immoral, then there will always be individuals who will not allow it. Similarly, there will be individuals who will consider that it must be allowed.

If we pick one side, we violate the individual autonomy of those who find that position to be reprehensible. Therefore, taking a stance as a society can not occur until the problem has actually been solved, in this case the solution is to decouple sex and childbirth.

Suppose there is a hypothetical society which has the practice of killing the terminally ill or the severely injured. At some point, this practice might be called into question, and debates will erupt as a result over if this practice should be conserved. The euthanasia crowd might argue that it wrong to let people suffer, but the terminal care crowd might say that it is wrong to kill someone because they will never get another chance at life, and there is a small chance they will recover.

Can there be any solution to this debate if only these two positions get a seat at the table?

I don't think so. Only by effectively eliminating disease can the above scenario be solved, thus only technological progress can solve the problem.

As it stands right now, the abortion stance in the US is little better than a coin flip. However the prospect of creating new contraceptives rarely gets discussed. If there was greater public support, then I am sure that some company would have already out forth the effort into creating them, but many have been hesitant because pregnancy has always been seen as a woman's issue, despite being only half of the problem.

We_are_accountable

@MayCaesar

Gee, how do non Christians know that killing each other is wrong? How did you come by your personal system of values to conclude that murdering each other was wrong? Without a book to base your beliefs, why do we have anti murder laws?

Maybe you can grasp how we might know in our heart when something is morally wrong.

Happy_Killbot

We_are_accountable said:

@Happy_Killbot

Try replacing the abortion issue with slavery, and then give me the same garbage about how being prolife is playing the morality card and moral superiority.

The Bible also says little about slavery, yet Christians know that slavery is an immoral treatment of Black people, just as abortion is a barbaric act towards innocent lives.

You can not simply say that abortions is not immoral to excuse the fact that you support it. It is immoral. It is barbaric, and for you to support it proves my point about Christians and non christians.

@We_are_accountable

I will actually gladly do this. The reason slavery is no longer relevant is because of the industrial revolution. I have done the math before, and if you adjust for inflation the cost of a slave in the pre-civil war south was about enough to buy a modern tractor. Needless to say, one farmer with a tractor can do the work of 30 slaves, so it seems to be the more economic solution.

Technology is very much responsible for winning that war.

Also just to nitpick, I am not saying that abortion is not immoral, I explicitly say that it is! Abortion is immoral. I agree!

I couldn't help but notice you marked my response as fallacy, but you fail to categorize which fallacy it is. Would you consider it to be moral to knowingly mark something as a fallacy when you know there is none, as this would demonstrate a lack of integrity? Or is there a fallacy and it just slipped your mind to mention it?

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

Well, the solution on a societal scale will always make someone unhappy - however, every nation has some basic values outlined in the Constitution or another foundational document, or deeply entrenched in the culture to the point where it does not need to be stated explicitly. No matter what people's views on a particular subject are, when it comes to the law, the spirit of the law must be dictated by the fundamental values. In this particular case, bodily autonomy is one of the most fundamental rights Western societies define, and violating it in the name of anything would be quite wrong.

Me stating it, of course, does not make other people automatically agree with it - however, I think, this is the approach we should take, regardless of people's individual views on the subject. I also do not like anything; for example, I reeeeally do not like cigarettes and consider them one of the worst products one can possibly buy - however, I would be against outlawing or restricting cigarette sales and consumption, because, again, it runs contrary to the idea of bodily autonomy.

That is true that solving the problem on the technological side would eliminate the debate and remove the moral dilemma from consideration altogether. However, there will always be some moral dilemmas that have not yet been covered by technology; even more so, as technology evolves and new opportunities arise in our lives, new moral dilemmas will arise as well (for example, there is a lot of debate nowadays on whether it is okay to watch pornography; something that did not exist several centuries ago). I believe something more fundamental should be discussed here. Not the abortion matter, not the gun laws matter, not the marijuana distribution matter, but something more basic: what do we value as a society the most and what implications, however much we might dislike them, does it have? Then we should go with those implications, no matter how they make us feel.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar Except that in the specific situation with abortion, bodily autonomy has to be violated if you consider the fetus to be a person.

Technically, if we wanted to do abortion right, none of this "make her watch videos about the procedure and listen to the heartbeat" , we would make the unwilling mothers file a legal claim against the fetus for violating the mother's body, and then 2-3 years later it could finally go to court. For all legal intents and purposes, this is how it should work if we thought about it in the way you suggest, which hardly solves the problem, more of an anti-solution if you ask me, as bureaucracy often is.

While It would definitely be beneficial for individuals to consider their own values and then try and think rationally about them, I don't think this would be constructive for society if those values were rigid. Societies adapt and evolve over time, and with those changes new social changes emerge. On top of this, I don't think it is possible or in any way meaningful to try and come to any sort of consensus on what values should be had, except maybe as an exploration to show how some values are ridiculous, for example if you value family then you might want to consider the family the basic unit of sovereignty, which implies punishment for crimes committed by one's relatives.

P.S. porn is anything but a new phenomena
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_erotic_depictions

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

Not any more than you violate bodily autonomy of a criminal that is trying to kill you by violently defending yourself: there is the concept of collision of rights, in which case the individual violating the other individual's rights first loses protection of their comparable rights. In our case, even if the fetus is to be considered a person, it is violating the mother's right of bodily autonomy if she does not consent to it, while the mother initially is not violating anything - hence, the mother has the right to defend herself, which in this case means removing the fetus from the body. I do not see any issue here.

A claim does not really need to be filed here, just like, when someone is pointing a gun at you, you do not need to fill any paperwork to be able to legally take your gun and shoot them - and requiring such an action would be bizarre. The mother can remove the fetus, and then, if someone has something to say about it, they can file a lawsuit against her - which she will almost certainly win in a court respecting the US Constitution above the individual laws that might, in principle, conflict with it.

How societies come to the consensuses they do is a huge topic in itself. But generally, over time, different approaches are tried, and some approaches are deemed ineffective. For example, in Estonia people, as a consequence of centuries of socialist, fascist and feudal experiments, came to the conclusion that a democracy and human rights similar to those found in older Western democracies are best. There can be a lot of debate on the more specific issues and details of implementation, but on these basic premises almost every Estonian agrees to a large degree.
I think the reason some societies stay relatively "barbaric" and do not implement the policies that have been shown to work in other countries very efficiently is two-fold: lack of experience in a large enough set of policies, and descent into a local minimum (meaning a society employs an approach that seems to work better than other close approaches, but pretty poorly compared to more different approaches - however, the "distance" between their approach and those different approaches is too large, and they do not feel comfortable jumping this far into the unknown).

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar You can only shoot someone if they are an immediate threat to your life, that would not apply in the vast majority of abortion cases. A lot of states have castle laws which allow you to do this, but it isn't recommended unless it is necessary. In any case, it would be immoral to shoot someone in your home  just because they were there, even if they are an unwelcome invader. If someone was in your home just because, who wasn't a threat to you in any way, you can call the cops and they can forcefully remove that person, but that still comes with paperwork.

Since abortions would therefore be considered a legal matter, the law would have to be involved and doing this should still require some kind of legal claim if we take this to it's logical extreme.

I think there are much deeper reasons that a society would stay "barbaric" as you say, one of the primary drivers of hegemony is resource scarcity or lack of resource diversity. It is easier to have an autocracy when there is only a single resource to be controlled, vs having a wide diversity which tends to favor oligarchy or democracy. This is why despite all the knowledge and technology being readily available, many countries have not industrialized. I also believe that this is part of the reason that the authoritarian pull we have seen in recent years is playing out, because more and more resources are being concentrated into fewer hands, effectively driving the hegemony that results in authoritarianism. This is one of the reasons I do not lean so far right in terms of markets, because although I think that a free market is a superior way to distribute resources, I don't think it has long term stability as it currently exists, specifically because it tends to produce too much concentration of wealth and power.

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

It obviously depends on the legal system, but, like you specified, there are castle laws in many states; some states also have "stand your ground" laws. These laws are all based on the principle of bodily autonomy - that not only cannot people kill you without your permission, but they cannot even deal any noticeable amount of damage to you or your property without your permission. In general, if someone is in your house, you order them to leave and they refuse to do so, then you can take progressively harsher measures to force them out, the last resort being use of lethal force.

I am not aware of any methods of getting the fetus to leave one's body, other than to remove them by force, so here we bypass all the intermediate steps and arrive at the last resort - use of lethal force - instantly. When the technology develops some, perhaps we will be able to extract fetuses without killing them, put them in incubators and have them grow up just fine - but, as of now, this is not the case.

I am not sure if resources have anything to do with the societal barbarisms; there are plenty of cases when societies having extreme abundance and diversity of resources stayed undeveloped and barbaric. In fact, I have this toy theory (which is likely a gross simplification of reality, but nonetheless it is based on some logic) that the scarcer the resources in society are, the more incentive it has to go out of its way to implement a very effective economical and social system - which is why we see areas with warm climate and abundance of resources, such as Africa and Latin America, fall apart, while areas with cold and harsh climate and relatively (historically, not necessarily nowadays) scarce resources, such as Europe, North America and Australia, thrive.
I think it has more to do with the fact that some societies are incentivized to work actively on their systems, while other societies have a comfortable local minimum where they can stay in relative stability, but with few prospects. Everything else seems to derive from that. Would Taiwan prosper as much as it does now without being constantly threatened by the mainland China and needing some cardinal measures to defend against those threats? I do not think so; had Taiwan been Chinese, it would do as poorly as the rest of China, most likely. Same goes for South Korea needing to protect itself against North Korea and China; same goes for Israel threatened pretty much by the entire Middle East; same goes for Japan that was completely destroyed in a devastating war and had to rethink its system... This seems to be the determining factor: some societies are pushed for excellence by the poor circumstances they find themselves in, while other societies can stay where they currently are without any significant harm (at least, not an obvious one).

In fact, same goes for individual lives as well. You see that the biggest achievers in the world are almost exclusively ones that were either somehow severely handicapped at some point in life, or by the nature of their personality were never satisfied with what they had, not for a moment. Few achievers had everything they wanted throughout the whole life and still kept working on having more; there was little reason for them to.

Plaffelvohfen

We_are_accountable said:

@Plaffelvohfen

As always, you refuse to address all the examples I give to the non believer's lack of concern for all the irresponsibility destroying our family unit. 

All your examples stem from a religious point of view to which I do not adhere at all...

I completely reject the idea of a revealed theistic God... I am not a christian... Christian laws, dogmas, morals, etc, do not apply to me or to any other non-christian individual...

My family's rules and traditions don't apply in your house right?  Well yours don't apply in mine either... 

So when you start with statements like : God (whatever) and therefore (whatever), it's like you are speaking a tribal dialect that is not meant for me... 

Why don't you care for our children?

1: I'm an antinatalist... 2: You are the one creating them (those poor abandoned babies who inconveniently cost tax payer money) by opposing abortion, deal with it, pay up like a man and stop whining... Or support abortion rights and save money.

Dee

@We_are_accountable

***** You never answer the question why Chrisrtians are the main group of people speaking out on behalf of innocent unborn lives.

I’ve answered that several times and you still want the reason , the reason is because they’re interfering busybodies who think they hold the high moral ground and can deny women their rights all based on an adherence to a book of called the Bible which approves of owning people as property 

 ****Why is the South more Pro life? 

Because they’re brainwashed?

We_are_accountable

@Happy_Killbot

You are pro abortion and labeled me a moralist for speaking out on a baby's right to life! Why do I waste my time debating you when you constantly refuse to address your own words?

If speaking out against killing babies, or slavery, makes us moralists, then God Bless every moralist in this nation!

We_are_accountable

@Dee

I forgot why I ignored your anti Christian bigotry. Thanks for reminding me fool.

IGNORE

Happy_Killbot

@We_are_accountable Honestly I don't know why I talk to you either, since you are clearly not interested in expanding your sphere of knowledge and thinking.

Has it ever occurred to you that from a certain point of view that disallowing abortion could be considered completely immoral?

If not, then why have you not tried to think about things this way?

We_are_accountable

The only possible instance of abortion being rationalized as being moral would be for life of mother, WHICH IS NOT DISPUTED BY MOST PROLIFE PEOPLE! Again you try to deflect your's and the Democrat Party's barbaric support for all abortions for any reason!

MayCaesar

We_are_accountable said:

@MayCaesar

Gee, how do non Christians know that killing each other is wrong? How did you come by your personal system of values to conclude that murdering each other was wrong? Without a book to base your beliefs, why do we have anti murder laws?

Maybe you can grasp how we might know in our heart when something is morally wrong.

To me personally not killing other people has to do with stability, as well as with my deep respect for human beings and a peaceful nature - coined ultimately in the amazing concept of "human rights". Not everyone thinks that killing is wrong, and a lot of your Christian predecessors murdered left and right with no remorse, slaughtering entire nations sometimes. The god whispered something in their hearts when they were drunk and they misinterpreted what they heard, maybe?

As far as I can tell, I do not know anything in my heart; I know a lot of things in my brain, but my heart is just pumping blood through my body and I cannot insert a USB device in it and extract some moral information from it.

Dee

@We_are_accountable

***** I forgot why I ignored your anti Christian bigotry.

 You would forget your wife’s own name only it’s tattooed on her butt so you can adddress her when you’re giving her the “pork soldier”

 ***Thanks for reminding me I’m a fool.

You’re welcome “Christian “ 

Dee

@We_are_accountable

***** I forgot why I ignored your anti Christian bigotry.

 You would forget your wife’s own name only it’s tattooed on her butt so you can adddress her when you’re giving her the “pork soldier”

 ***Thanks for reminding me I’m a fool.

You’re welcome “Christian “