Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

[seeds]

At what point do we become seeds, seeds?

Like I said to henry, at "birth."

Sorry, I missed that.

We need for that final and special "light" to come on in our minds at the moment of birth for the "seed" to become officially formed.

The challenge is in trying to understand what the "seed" is actually a seed of.

Even Christ said that in order to enter into the kingdom of God, one must experience 2 births.

The first one "of water" (as in birthed [alive] from the amniotic water of the human womb). And the second birth is "of the spirit" (as in birthed from the body and into true reality).

Abortion circumvents the first step in that 2-step process.

I see your dilemma. It's a wonderful theory, seeds. It might even be true.

Thank you, Will, that is very kind of you to say.

How have your book sales been doing?...







https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... i=89978449
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

What makes the one court the eliminator of the ruling of the other? You'd need a principle that transcends both, in order to say that the ICJ was "more just" than the Judenrein laws. And from where would you get that all-transcending principle? You don't believe any such thing can exist.

What is critical here is pragmatism,

"Pragmatism" tells us nothing. A "pragmatic" case can be made for either option.

The supposed all-transcending principle you are arguing for is from a divine authority which is a fiction and an illusion.

No, I did not stipulate you had to get it from God...if you have a different source for such a transcending principle, go ahead and name it, instead. If you don't have a principle higher than the courts, then you've got no way to arbitrate between the Nazis pragmatics and the ICJ's pragmatics.

What we need is to cultivate and develop the natural universal moral standard;

Sure: but which one?

'the killing of humans by humans is not permissible period!'

You'll have to say why we should believe it. Because lots of people want to kill. If you can't make a case for a moral standard that all can recognize as condemning them, then your "standard" is not only arbitrary but actually just a power play.

that is inherent and innate in all human beings,

It's not, actually. If it were, people would never kill. But as you already noted, Islamists do. So do Nazis. So do Communists -- more than anybody. So do abortionists, and advocates of euthanasia, and warmongers of all kinds, and psychopaths...

You can see that your "answer" won't work.

Pragmatism means the empirical reductions of humans-killing-humans which can be tested with a morality-proper system without coercion not threat.

I have already explained above, the natural universal principle of morality [no killing of humans] is innate and inherent in ALL humans where it is inactive, weak or dormant in the majority of humans at present.

On the subject of dormancy and inactiveness of human potentials, note, e.g.
-puberty which are DNA-hardwired in ALL and expressed appx around 10 year old.
-intelligence DNA-hardwired in the prefrontal cortex and expressed slowly into adulthood.

the other is the potential for morality-proper
e.g. 'the moral oughtnotness to kill humans' which exists physically in the brain of all humans.
which is an evolutionary latecomer and expressed very slowly which is evident.

That there are humans who kill humans since the past to the present is not because there is no moral potential of "moral oughtnotness to kill humans" within the brain of all humans.
It is just that it is inactive, weak or dormant in the majority of humans at present.

That the majority of humans do not go about killing humans is because their physical "moral oughtnotness to kill humans" [neural inhibitors] is reasonable active to inhibit the natural "oughtness to kill" [neural activators] which is present in all humans.

Just like the oughtness to breathe in all humans, there are the two opposing physical oughtness, i.e.
1. the oughtness to kill - critical & necessary to kill for food and self-defense
2. the oughtnotness to kill humans - to modulate 1 to kill non-humans only for food, etc.

Analogy:
The innate 'oughtness to kill' neural-algorithm like a forceful river system that often flood the villages down stream.
The innate 'oughtnotness to kill humans' is a system of dams to control the river flow to avoid the terrible floods.

As I had stated, the innate 'oughtnotness to kill humans' exists as a potential in all humans but they are not active in the majority, thus unable to fully inhibit the killing impulses in some humans to kill humans for various reasons.

Thus morality-proper [not theistic morality] is to develop 'a system of inhibitors [dams]' which is effective to modulate to ensure the 'oughtness to kill' is not directed at humans in the future.

There is no need for theistic threats of hell to inhibit humans from killing. This is merely fire-fighting and not solving the problem at the root cause.

[Dubious]

There is no such thing as "doomed." We all choose what we get.

Without necessarily in each case having to quote complete posts, do you think you could ever at least quote in complete sentences?

I'll quote anything worth commenting on. Rhetoric, repetitions, babble, illogic, or personal insults...no, I won't bother to include such detritus.

It's beyond ironic that you're so concerned with preventing abortions while at the same time not finding anything wrong with committing those to hell because they neglected to give Jesus his due in belief levies.

They choose what they choose. They accept the consequences of their choice. So will you, whether you want to or not. That's justice. There isn't a thing to complain about in that. It's perfectly fair. You will have whatever it is you have chosen...an eternity with God, or an eternity without God.

Don't whine. It's not adult. Accept responsibility for what you do. And if you don't like where you're going, change it.

The "choices" as you claim them to be are bloody stupid. Can god really be as stupid as you present IT to be! As illogical, and morally defunct as so many specimens of humanity have proven themselves to be, must you also demonstrate that god is no better? God to you is a reflection of nothing more than your own presumptions. Indeed, god comes across more as a reflection of you, which is the reason IT appears as a pure aberration regarding morality, logic and downright decency.

..an eternity with god! Yeah right! Only feasible to those who believe their insanity makes that kind of transcendence possible, that is, into an emergence that can no-longer define itself as even existing. By immodestly applying the word eternity as the only term appropriate to it, such as you seek to close the gap between what is timeless and time relative. It begs the question, who are you or anyone deemed to merit such a new beginning, an infinitesimal followed by eternity, based on the few paltry years sojourned here on earth all by pure chance but nevertheless received into heaven because they believed in Jesus. What's more pathetic or appears more irrational than someone who plants himself in a belief, unable to move in any direction from that point! Most who have roots remain mobile while snivelers like you constantly complain about ad homs and insults when challenged directly! Ever wonder why you're so often labelled a coward? It's no-longer simply a gratuitous insult, it's inherent in your character.

It's not unnatural for a child to believe such things but for adults to still retain would be like living in a demented mirage because they believe that Jesus as a god figure defined by scripture, was making those promises. Believe that a book is holy, and every absurdity in it is likewise sanctioned.

Perhaps that explains why idiots are happy more often than the rest of us! Jesus, however, was as much subject to annihilation as those he was crucified with, whose mortality ensured the same fate as ALL who came before and after him.

[Harbal]

You will have whatever it is you have chosen...an eternity with God, or an eternity without God.

I'll have mine without God, please, and a side order of oblivion.

Oblivion's not an option, of course. But you if you ask for the first thing, you will receive it.

An eternity without God seems like a good deal to me.

[Immanuel Can]

What is critical here is pragmatism,

"Pragmatism" tells us nothing. A "pragmatic" case can be made for either option.

The supposed all-transcending principle you are arguing for is from a divine authority which is a fiction and an illusion.

No, I did not stipulate you had to get it from God...if you have a different source for such a transcending principle, go ahead and name it, instead. If you don't have a principle higher than the courts, then you've got no way to arbitrate between the Nazis pragmatics and the ICJ's pragmatics.

What we need is to cultivate and develop the natural universal moral standard;

Sure: but which one?

'the killing of humans by humans is not permissible period!'

You'll have to say why we should believe it. Because lots of people want to kill. If you can't make a case for a moral standard that all can recognize as condemning them, then your "standard" is not only arbitrary but actually just a power play.

that is inherent and innate in all human beings,

It's not, actually. If it were, people would never kill. But as you already noted, Islamists do. So do Nazis. So do Communists -- more than anybody. So do abortionists, and advocates of euthanasia, and warmongers of all kinds, and psychopaths...

You can see that your "answer" won't work.

Pragmatism means the empirical reductions of humans-killing-humans which can be tested with a morality-proper system without coercion not threat.

No, the definition of pragmatism is as follows:

"Pragmatism is a philosophical movement that includes those who claim that an ideology or proposition is true if it works satisfactorily, that the meaning of a proposition is to be found in the practical consequences of accepting it, and that unpractical ideas are to be rejected"

https://iep.utm.edu/pragmati/

...the natural universal principle of morality [no killing of humans] is innate and inherent in ALL humans...

So is the propensity to hate, kill, cause wars, etc. You still need the larger, transcendent moral system to be able to judge whether killing or non-killing is the "right" choice, since both are clearly instinctual within human nature.

You don't have one, apparently.

[Immanuel Can]

Without necessarily in each case having to quote complete posts, do you think you could ever at least quote in complete sentences?

I'll quote anything worth commenting on. Rhetoric, repetitions, babble, illogic, or personal insults...no, I won't bother to include such detritus.

It's beyond ironic that you're so concerned with preventing abortions while at the same time not finding anything wrong with committing those to hell because they neglected to give Jesus his due in belief levies.

They choose what they choose. They accept the consequences of their choice. So will you, whether you want to or not. That's justice. There isn't a thing to complain about in that. It's perfectly fair. You will have whatever it is you have chosen...an eternity with God, or an eternity without God.

Don't whine. It's not adult. Accept responsibility for what you do. And if you don't like where you're going, change it.

The "choices" as you claim them to be are bloody stupid.

Not at all. They are the same as every choice you have with every human being. You can be friends with another person, or you can choose to be their enemy. You can choose to enter a relationship with him/her, or not to do so.

The freedom's totally yours; so is the responsibility. You get whatever you ask for.

And what you choose displays what you really are, too. And that's as true for me as it is for you. So it's perfectly fair. There are no favourites being played here.

Live with it. Die with it. Accept the consequences, because they're coming. But stop whining. Only children complain about the consequences of their freedom.

[Immanuel Can]

I'll have mine without God, please, and a side order of oblivion.

Oblivion's not an option, of course. But you if you ask for the first thing, you will receive it.

An eternity without God seems like a good deal to me.

Then it's what you get. The last thing I'd do is deprive you of the right to choose whatever it is you believe you want.

[Harbal]

Oblivion's not an option, of course. But you if you ask for the first thing, you will receive it.

An eternity without God seems like a good deal to me.

Then it's what you get. The last thing I'd do is deprive you of the right to choose whatever it is you believe you want.

If you think you know what happens -if anything- after you die, you are fooling yourself. Nobody still living knows.

There are countless different religious beliefs about what happens after death, and no doubt all those who hold them think they just happen to be the ones that have got it right. You are just one among many.

[Immanuel Can]

An eternity without God seems like a good deal to me.

Then it's what you get. The last thing I'd do is deprive you of the right to choose whatever it is you believe you want.

If you think you know what happens -if anything- after you die, you are fooling yourself. Nobody still living knows.

But God knows. And if He tells us, then we have a choice to listen, or to turn away. And I would never deprive you of a choice which God Himself has guaranteed to you.

If you want to talk about genuine "rights," one of the highest ones is "the right to freedom of conscience." You must do as your conscience tells you to do, and dispose of your own life as you see fit. That's your responsibility, and your freedom. And then your choice comes with its own natural consequences. That's just reality: there's no point in wishing it were otherwise. When people choose, what they choose has consequences -- logically, morally and ultimately.

So you say you have chosen. I may lament your choice, but it's the last thing I'd ever dream of taking away from you.

[Will Bouwman]

How have your book sales been doing?...

Thanks for asking. I've taken those ones down, as it happens. I've spent the last few years completely revamping the narrative so that it's flows better and is easier to follow. The graphics are a lot better too. I'm off to New Zealand and Samoa for a month, so I won't publish it until I get back. Meanwhile, you can check it out here: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html

[Will Bouwman]

God to you is a reflection of nothing more than your own presumptions. Indeed, god comes across more as a reflection of you, which is the reason IT appears as a pure aberration regarding morality, logic and downright decency.

Indeed. If you want to know the character of a god, look no further than it's creator. As Xenophanes said, two and a half millennia back:
But mortals suppose gods are born,
Wear their own clothes and have a voice and body.
The Ethiopians say that their gods are flat-nosed and black,
While Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.
Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,
And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods
Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each would shape
Bodies of gods in the likeness, each of their own kind.

The god of the Bible is catholic, because in effect it was designed by committee.

[Harbal]

Then it's what you get. The last thing I'd do is deprive you of the right to choose whatever it is you believe you want.

If you think you know what happens -if anything- after you die, you are fooling yourself. Nobody still living knows.

But God knows. And if He tells us, then we have a choice to listen, or to turn away.

That's religion; this place is for philosophy, or at least some kind of rational dialogue.

If you want to talk about genuine "rights," one of the highest ones is "the right to freedom of conscience." You must do as your conscience tells you to do, and dispose of your own life as you see fit. That's your responsibility, and your freedom. And then your choice comes with its own natural consequences. That's just reality: there's no point in wishing it were otherwise. When people choose, what they choose has consequences -- logically, morally and ultimately.

I'm neither wishing anything, nor complaining about the consequences of my choices.

So you say you have chosen. I may lament your choice, but it's the last thing I'd ever dream of taking away from you.

I've chosen to take no notice of your religious nonsense, certainly.

[Immanuel Can]

If you think you know what happens -if anything- after you die, you are fooling yourself. Nobody still living knows.

But God knows. And if He tells us, then we have a choice to listen, or to turn away.

That's religion; this place is for philosophy, or at least some kind of rational dialogue.

That's just how it is. Philosophy deals with the truth. If it doesn't, it's not wisdom-loving, not "philo-sophia." You can't dismiss the truth by trying to call it "religious" -- at least, not without accepting the consequences of your choice.

But you say you do, so I can say no more.

[Alexiev]

Live with it. Die with it. Accept the consequences, because they're coming. But stop whining. Only children complain about the consequences of their freedom.

As usual, your choice of words is flawed. Just as fetuses are neither babies nor teenagers, punishments are not "conequences".

Modern schools abrogate their responsibilities by claiming punishments are "consequences". But the consequence of tardiness is that the tardy student may disrupt the class or miss some gem of knowledge. Detention is a punishment decreed by the teacher or administrator.

Is God abrogating His responsibility for hell? If He rules, isn't hell more akin to a punishment than a consequence? How are children (or IC) going to learn proper word usage if we allow such misrepresentation?

[Immanuel Can]

Live with it. Die with it. Accept the consequences, because they're coming. But stop whining. Only children complain about the consequences of their freedom.

As usual, your choice of words is flawed.

No, it's precise.