Heartland

DarkAngel wrote:

Motz wrote:Abortion is between mother, baby and father.

And how would you get the baby's opinion on abortion Motz?

To clarify, interest in this case means well being, not desire. What I basically mean is weigh up the potential quality of life for the baby versus the loss of quality of life on the part of the mother and father (yes, it's cold and over-simplified, but it's the basic premise). It's a horrible linear programming exercise. In short, don't let ulterior motives, be they religious, political or otherwise, get in the way of the wellbeing of those who it will affect directly.

9while9 wrote:

sultan2075 wrote:Putting on the professor hat for a moment, the actual, age-old justification for a Christian prohibition on abortion stems from the synthesis of Aristotelian teleology and Christian thought that one finds in St. Thomas Aquinas. The sola scriptura argument is, as you point out, problematic at best--but it wouldn't have been accepted until after the Protestant reformation anyhow, since the Catholics were always busy mucking about in moldly old pagan books (like the works of Plato and Aristotle). If it's to be a serious argument in opposition to abortion, it's ultimately an Aristotelian/Thomist argument; i.e. final causality, natural law and an entirely different cosmology from what we have today. The issue is much deeper than the screaming lunatics on either side care to admit; there are serious thinkers trying to work it out, but let's face it--who wants to consider teleology, natural law, potency and act, etc, when you can scream "Baby-killer!" and "Keep your laws off my body!" "Think cogently about biologial teleology, potency and act!" doesn't have the same ring to it. Doesn't fit on a bumper sticker either.

edit: punctuation is neat

You see this is why I like Heartland,
occasionally unpredictable and thought provoking posts raise up.

Aye, good here, isn't it?

sultan2075 is right to point out (and I hadn't considered) that the Roman Catholic relies rather on church tradition and Papal authority than sola scriptura. I'm that used to reading the arguments of fundamentalists and Bible-literalists that I forget that the RCC looks at things rather differently. But of course the fundamentalists come from a Protestant tradition, which (obviously) rejects Papal authority and does tend to rely on the Bible.

As an aside, it's sometimes fun to watch the knots that Biblical inerrantists can tie themselves in when asked to resolve some of the more blatant Biblical contradictions.

On the matter of biological teleology, it's impossible to demonstrate that any such thing exists. The argument from design in nature has been dead and buried since Darwin, and the Catholic Church knows that (even if some of the fundamentalists I mention above don't) which pretty much pulls the Thomist rug out from under their position. (Please excuse the mangled metaphor!)

Dark wrote:

Motz wrote:Abortion is between mother, baby and father.

There can be no morally justified outside interest.

Don't forget doctors, if they find that if the mother goes through with it, her health/life is at risk.

Doctors should only intervene in the interest of the patient, not to satisfy their own ulterior motives. They should act as an agent of the parents, not as a seperate entity with its own goals (i.e. Achieving some NHS target for reduced abortion rates or whatever). Abortion is about the parents and baby, not a national snapshot. Attempting to deal with it in national terms shows a blatant disregard for the wellbeing of those in the individual cases

Incidentally, is there any legal precedent where a father has successfully sued to keep or abort a baby? Just something I've always wondered about and never known

Motz wrote:
Incidentally, is there any legal precedent where a father has successfully sued to keep or abort a baby? Just something I've always wondered about and never known

As far as I am aware it has been tried, but the final say so is always with the mother. The father has very few legal rights during pregnancy.

streamline wrote:

Motz wrote:
Incidentally, is there any legal precedent where a father has successfully sued to keep or abort a baby? Just something I've always wondered about and never known

As far as I am aware it has been tried, but the final say so is always with the mother. The father has very few legal rights during pregnancy.

Thank God for that. I wouldnt be here otherwise.

Generally I'm not in favour of abortion while I think it would be totally unjust to ban it. If a woman's been attacked for instance then of course she should have the right to an abortion. On the other hand I think it's saying alot about the nature of society if abortions are taking place due to financial pressures. Regardless if it's got to the stage, surely something's gone wrong. I suppose I'm not as left-wing socially as I am economically.

Driven wrote:Generally I'm not in favour of abortion while I think it would be totally unjust to ban it. If a woman's been attacked for instance then of course she should have the right to an abortion. On the other hand I think it's saying alot about the nature of society if abortions are taking place due to financial pressures. Regardless if it's got to the stage, surely something's gone wrong. I suppose I'm not as left-wing socially as I am economically.

You sound pretty level headed to me........

markfiend wrote:sultan2075 is right to point out (and I hadn't considered) that the Roman Catholic relies rather on church tradition and Papal authority than sola scriptura. I'm that used to reading the arguments of fundamentalists and Bible-literalists that I forget that the RCC looks at things rather differently. But of course the fundamentalists come from a Protestant tradition, which (obviously) rejects Papal authority and does tend to rely on the Bible.

Everyone is a "moderator" wouldn't you say (I can't help it - it is a good metaphor.) The fundamentalists, the Bishops, the Darwinists, the lemmings.......... and do you know what all these people have in common? They like to tell everyone else how to think and what to do. Strange how that is.

markfiend wrote:As an aside, it's sometimes fun to watch the knots that Biblical inerrantists can tie themselves in when asked to resolve some of the more blatant Biblical contradictions.

What's twisted is asking any inerantist to resolve anything as they cannot see beyond the print they are reading - if they can actually read. But to sit with a Biblical Scholar, perhaps even a Catholic like C.S. Lewis, one might choose a personal faith.

markfiend wrote:On the matter of biological teleology, it's impossible to demonstrate that any such thing exists. The argument from design in nature has been dead and buried since Darwin, and the Catholic Church knows that (even if some of the fundamentalists I mention above don't) which pretty much pulls the Thomist rug out from under their position. (Please excuse the mangled metaphor!)

Choose is now the word of the day. Because like it or not, people are going to choose. Technically we are mammals and yet we are also vitalistic, creative, highly intelligent and naturally designed with free will so that we decide to believe - on our own. Perhaps our Creator already knows that.

I must admit I'm confused; the way you're using "Darwinist" makes it sound like there's a "Church of Darwin" or something -- or does believing in gravity make someone a Newtonist? (Or maybe an Einsteinist?)

Arguing with biblical scholars -- at least believers -- is one of the most futile pursuits there is. I'm never going to be able to persuade a religious person that their mythology is just that; mythology.

I must admit to being quite a fan of B. S. Lewis's Trilemma as a piece of (unintentional) comedy. Liar / lunatic / Lord completely ignores several possibilities: Misunderstood / misquoted / mistaken...

People don't "choose" to believe. They're brought up in religions, and once indoctrinated, there's an immense amount of social pressure to stay inside "the fold". It takes a lot of effort, honest inquiry, and (though I say so myself) strength of character to deconvert.

markfiend wrote: People don't "choose" to believe. They're brought up in religions, and once indoctrinated, there's an immense amount of social pressure to stay inside "the fold". It takes a lot of effort, honest inquiry, and (though I say so myself) strength of character to deconvert.

Oftentimes children are not given the freedom they deserve. To attempt to control a child's mind or anyone's mind is cruel. But, I am referring to us grown-ups. Did you choose not to believe? Then at this point you could choose to believe as well. Your free will is most obvious to me.

markfiend wrote:On the matter of biological teleology, it's impossible to demonstrate that any such thing exists. The argument from design in nature has been dead and buried since Darwin, and the Catholic Church knows that (even if some of the fundamentalists I mention above don't) which pretty much pulls the Thomist rug out from under their position. (Please excuse the mangled metaphor!)

Choose is now the word of the day. Because like it or not, people are going to choose. Technically we are mammals and yet we are also vitalistic, creative, highly intelligent and naturally designed with free will so that we decide to believe - on our own. Perhaps our Creator already knows that.[/quote]

Now, if you take a moment and really think this over, it could make you smile - because even though we may not agree with one another now - I make a grand point.

DarkAngel wrote:Now, if you take a moment and really think this over, it could make you smile - because even though we may not agree with one another now - I make a grand point.

I'm not trying to be obtuse; I really don't understand your point. I could not "choose to believe".

I was brought up in a nominally Christian household but we were never really church-goers. When I was in my teens, my mother had a religious experience at a time when her health was poor. Due to this, she became far more devout in her Christianity.

Now, before that time, I'd never really thought about religion, but when I was a child we had plenty of books around like "A child's first book of Bible stories", "Noah's flood for Children", that sort of thing. I also had many books, some fiction, some about dinosaurs, etc., and an education that emphasised the importance of independent thought, and investigating the evidence for myself.

Over the years, excercising my intellect and investigating the claims made by various religions (not just Christianity, I've looked into everything from Asatru to Zen Buddhism) I have found that all religions, while frequently embodying important or useful moral precepts (but almost as frequently embodying repugnant moralities) make claims that not only cannot be confirmed, but in many cases can be outright denied.

There is no ground upon which my "belief" can stand. How can I "choose to believe" in something in which I see no reason to believe?

Edit to add: If I can assume that you are a Christian, did you decide not to believe in Thor? Did you decide not to believe that "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his Prophet"? Did you decide not to believe in any of the thousands of gods that humanity has worshipped through history (and beyond)?

I just disbelieve in one more god than you.

markfiend wrote:

DarkAngel wrote:Now, if you take a moment and really think this over, it could make you smile - because even though we may not agree with one another now - I make a grand point.

I'm not trying to be obtuse; I really don't understand your point. I could not "choose to believe".

I was brought up in a nominally Christian household but we were never really church-goers. When I was in my teens, my mother had a religious experience at a time when her health was poor. Due to this, she became far more devout in her Christianity.

Now, before that time, I'd never really thought about religion, but when I was a child we had plenty of books around like "A child's first book of Bible stories", "Noah's flood for Children", that sort of thing. I also had many books, some fiction, some about dinosaurs, etc., and an education that emphasised the importance of independent thought, and investigating the evidence for myself.

Over the years, excercising my intellect and investigating the claims made by various religions (not just Christianity, I've looked into everything from Asatru to Zen Buddhism) I have found that all religions, while frequently embodying important or useful moral precepts (but almost as frequently embodying repugnant moralities) make claims that not only cannot be confirmed, but in many cases can be outright denied.

There is no ground upon which my "belief" can stand. How can I "choose to believe" in something in which I see no reason to believe?

Edit to add: If I can assume that you are a Christian, did you decide not to believe in Thor? Did you decide not to believe that "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his Prophet"? Did you decide not to believe in any of the thousands of gods that humanity has worshipped through history (and beyond)?

I just disbelieve in one more god than you.

Blasphemer! .... I mean good day Mark....

"There are more things between heaven and earth than are dreamt of by man in all his philosophy"

now heres the rub....

"The young man held a gun to the head of god
Stick this holy cow
Put the audience in action
Let the slaughtered take a bow
The old man's words, white hot knives
Slicing through warm butter
The butter is the heart
The rancid peeling soul"

9while9 wrote:"There are more things between heaven and earth than are dreamt of by man in all his philosophy"

Aye, I'm sure that's the case. But I don't go around believing them, just because they happen.

Flippant, but...

I'm sure there's a myriad of things to which we don't have explanations. But I'm quite happy to say "I don't know" rather than go around inventing non-explanations that solve a mystery by positing a larger mystery.

What is Truth? *Goes to wash hands*

My point is that your beliefs are your choice. Whether you believe in God or not - it is a choice you have made, which in your case you say you made through rational deduction. A choice. If one can choose to not believe one can choose to believe as well.

No, belief is a state, not a choice. Whether you outwardly deny or accept something has no bearing on what you actually think. Some of the things which I study in maths and physics are very awkward and I'd rather not accept them to be correct, because they're frankly a headfcuk, but after being shown a rigorous proof, I have no choice but to believe.

Motz wrote:No, belief is a state, not a choice.

Dictionary.com definition

be·lief n.
The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
act n.
The process of doing or performing something: the act of thinking.

To believe requires thought which is mental action - we choose all of our thoughts and in turn, we choose our beliefs or what to believe.

Motz wrote:Whether you outwardly deny or accept something has no bearing on what you actually think.

True and completely unrelated to your point.

Motz wrote:Some of the things which I study in maths and physics are very awkward and I'd rather not accept them to be correct, because they're frankly a headfcuk, but after being shown a rigorous proof, I have no choice but to believe.

Yet, after you were shown the proof, you chose to believe. You also choose to believe you had no choice in believing. Another choice of yours.

Choice is outward, belief is inherent.

You know full well that you cannot exhibit a choice to believe on my part, so stalemate is the best case scenario. Probably not worth discussing it further, really.

My choice is clear.

clearly pauline wasn't a fit parent, so in that regard john was right.

i believe [not to be mistaken with value ~ a deeper more traditional belief] that he was basically saying that pauline was one of the first to publically have an abortion; on the grounds of [fit for purpose] parenting that was/is probably okay [which has been mentioned elsewhere].

i thik that it's always been there and always will be it's just the level of public acceptance that alters. if this guy wants to force it back underground, then i'm sure the back street abortionists will cater for his needs quite well

DarkAngel: I'm going to leave the argument over belief; we'll agree to disagree, OK?

markfiend wrote:DarkAngel: I'm going to leave the argument over belief; we'll agree to disagree, OK?

Argument? I'm not interested in quarrels and generally choose not to participate in them.

But thoughtful discussion - you are welcome to discuss with me whenever and if ever the mood strikes. I will say I do not extend that invitation to everyone simply because they can't manage themselves.

Well, I didn't mean argument in the sense of quarrel:

an online [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/argument]dictionary[/url] wrote:argument

[...]

2. a. A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood: presented a careful argument for extraterrestrial life.

And thanks. I don't think either of us has succeeded in making the other understand where we're coming from, but the attempt is always worthwhile.

*cannot leave it lie*

Believing in god is pointless. Firstly, all religion is manmade, anyone who doesn’t a little history research can see that. Christianity stole all its stories from other myths. Secondly, all religions are illogical and lead to ignorance, regression, and ‘faith’, which is the most retarded thing I’ve ever seen, FAITH. Thirdly - this is aimed at Christianity and all other religions with a Yahweh type god - it is sick and sordid to believe in a God that leaves needless suffering to exist in the world. There is no way out of that argument. God is omnipotent and knows all, if he truly wanted to he could put an end to all evil. And don’t you dare come back at me with that “oh, but he gave us free will� s**t, that is nonsense. God puts a flamethrower to our head and says “Do as I say, but good little monkeys who question nought and I won’t burn your head off�.

Now. With the absence of religion you can still believe in a God, but it is incredibly pointless. What is the point? You cannot know if this God is real or not, you cannot know nothing about it, you cannot know what it is like, you just cannot know. Anyone who says “God talks to me� is either a liar or clearly mental or on drugs (the good kind). If there is a God, there is no point in believing in him because he has abandoned us.

I tried to condense this so I cannot get all my points across, but believe me, I could rant for hours about how much I hate religion and what religion and the people who believe in it are doing to the world.

Anyways, this was about abortion right? Ho hum . . .

nick the stripper wrote:*cannot leave it lie*

Believing in god is pointless.

The law of conservation of energy requires the existence of a divine creator.

Discuss.