And the main reason I oppose abortion (except under dire conditions) is based on my cosmic vision of reality, and that if everyone truly understood the vast and eternal potential of what it is they are aborting, and what the gift of human life truly entails, it might change some attitudes.
_______
Huh? You "oppose abortion, except..."?
Firstly, no one is "in favor of abortion". That's like saying I'm "in favor" of everyone having open heart surgery. Rather, folks are "in favor" of open heart surgery being safe, legal and available to those who, in consultation with their health care professionals, determine that open heart surgery is in their best interest.
If you are in need of open-heart surgery, then it implies that you will probably die if you don't undergo the procedure. And in that sense, it coincides with a pregnant woman needing an abortion because it has been determined that she might die if she tries to give birth.
However, the vast majority of abortions are not life threatening (except for the fetus, of course).
So, it's a bad analogy.
LuckyR wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:30 pm
I'm assuming that since there are exceptions to your opposition, that you propose that abortion should not be illegal.
First of all, no, it should not be "illegal" (as in some kind of state or federally mandated punishment for it). And that's because I believe it's a "moral" issue and not a legal issue.
And secondly, accelafine's response and your response is precisely why in my initial post I said I was "hesitant" to offer my own feelings on the issue of abortion. And that's because to understand where I'm coming from, it requires that you understand my deeper theory of reality.
But seeing how no one here seems to give a crap about said theory, I'll simply repeat what I said earlier...
"...if everyone truly understood the vast and eternal potential of what it is they are aborting, and what the gift of human life truly entails, it might change some attitudes..."
_______
Well you're correct dying is a negative, though open heart surgery is commonly indicated for serious, but not immediately lethal conditions. But you can substitute any other medical procedure if it makes you feel better.
As to your attitude about abortion it seems to me to be pretty mainstream in the sense that it should be legal and that women should think long and hard about the long and short term implications of their decision. In addition it is your preference that circumstances be that women's negative situations that make carrying pregnancies problematic, didn't exist.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 3:50 pm
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"
Christianity is a religion, and the beliefs that go with it are religious beliefs. I didn't make that designation. I daresay religion has various functions, but describing the truth is certainly not one of them.
at least, not without accepting the consequences of your choice.
But you say you do, so I can say no more.
The consequence of my choice not to subscribe to any religion is that I don't have to believe, or pretend to believe, a load of superstitious nonsense. That is a consequence I more than willingly accept.
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.
Dubious wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 6:16 amGod 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.
Yes, I recall that quote but forgot who it was by. It's ironic that the ancients, or at least some of them, queried the existence of any actual god by relating it to human design whereas in the medieval period any such query would likely have caused another auto-da-fé in the town square. Had IC been alive at the time, I'm sure he would have been at every one of them applauding the fate of all evil atheists!
We know how most things designed by committee usually work out but the methodolgy in those days was a bit more sanguine. Getting rid of the competition was fundamental to creating a sacred text wherein every recorded absurdity is likewise considered sacred and sacrosanct. Even questioning such would be a considered a crime against the divine! Another laughable moment on the permutations of human thought.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 2:50 pm
But stop whining.
Hey! I won't be pleading with Jesus to let me in when the time comes; this, aside from the fact that no one let him in either except into the painless folds of oblivion...the way of all flesh.
Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 5:35 pm
Christianity is a religion, and the beliefs that go with it are religious beliefs. I didn't make that designation.
No, you didn't...you're right. It seems all your understanding of the matter is the received "knowledge" of your vaguely agnostic ethos, from which the term was first delivered to you. You've never questioned it, and it seems maybe you never will, it would seem.
Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 4:38 pmAs 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.
Yes, I recall that quote but forgot who it was by. It's ironic that the ancients, or at least some of them, queried the existence of any actual god by relating it to human design whereas in the medieval period any such query would likely have caused another auto-da-fé in the town square. Had IC been alive at the time, I'm sure he would have been at every one of them applauding the fate of all evil atheists!
Actually, it is more likely that he would only have been at one, because until the the very late medieval period, his non-Catholic beliefs would have been condemned as heretical. The reformation simply broke the Vatican's monopoly on interpreting the Bible, giving power back to the people to do as Xenophanes reported and once more freeing them to create a god in their own image. The Catholic church recognising this urge created enough Saints for most special interests to affiliate with. Since the reformation, if ya can't find a branch of Christianity that isn't your shoe size, all you have to do is create another one. That's all that Immanuel Can has done; he has created a Christianity in which he gets to be God.
Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 5:35 pm
Christianity is a religion, and the beliefs that go with it are religious beliefs. I didn't make that designation.
No, you didn't...you're right. It seems all your understanding of the matter is the received "knowledge" of your vaguely agnostic ethos, from which the term was first delivered to you. You've never questioned it, and it seems maybe you never will, it would seem.
I've not questioned any other religion, either; it isn't only yours that I have no interest in.
Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 5:35 pm
Christianity is a religion, and the beliefs that go with it are religious beliefs. I didn't make that designation.
No, you didn't...you're right. It seems all your understanding of the matter is the received "knowledge" of your vaguely agnostic ethos, from which the term was first delivered to you. You've never questioned it, and it seems maybe you never will, it would seem.
I've not questioned any other religion, either; it isn't only yours that I have no interest in.
I know. I don't take it personally. You wish to live and die as an agnostic, apparently. That's your choice. The last thing I'd ever try to do is to deprive you of your right of conscience.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 8:38 pm
No, you didn't...you're right. It seems all your understanding of the matter is the received "knowledge" of your vaguely agnostic ethos, from which the term was first delivered to you. You've never questioned it, and it seems maybe you never will, it would seem.
I've not questioned any other religion, either; it isn't only yours that I have no interest in.
I know. I don't take it personally. You wish to live and die as an agnostic, apparently. That's your choice. The last thing I'd ever try to do is to deprive you of your right of conscience.
I don't think conscience comes into it, or at least I don't see how it does.
I've not questioned any other religion, either; it isn't only yours that I have no interest in.
I know. I don't take it personally. You wish to live and die as an agnostic, apparently. That's your choice. The last thing I'd ever try to do is to deprive you of your right of conscience.
I don't think conscience comes into it, or at least I don't see how it does.
You have a right to live and die by what you believe to be true. That's an inalienable, God-given right. Locke knew that.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 9:17 pm
I know. I don't take it personally. You wish to live and die as an agnostic, apparently. That's your choice. The last thing I'd ever try to do is to deprive you of your right of conscience.
I don't think conscience comes into it, or at least I don't see how it does.
You have a right to live and die by what you believe to be true. That's an inalienable, God-given right. Locke knew that.
