Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

[Harbal]

You misunderstood what was for.

Not surprising.

Anyway...

It doesn't matter, henry; it's not as if I find it rewarding when I do understand you.

[henry quirk]

it's not as if I find it rewarding when I do understand you.

You never have.

[Harbal]

it's not as if I find it rewarding when I do understand you.

You never have.

Mebbe not.

[seeds]

Not so fast there.

As I mentioned in a prior post...

IC has actually argued with me that it is plausible that humans who died as infants and toddlers may indeed be sent to Hell because God omnisciently "knew" they would have done something worthy of Hell had they lived into adulthood on earth.

Then, not so fast. Why all the spillt tears over the fetuses then?

What, or more accurately, who are you talking about?

It's a victimless crime in the sense that they were going to suffer eternal hell. And now they will, suffer eternal hell.

Your point makes no sense to me. Please clarify.

And what the heck is God doing sending evil fetuses into the wombs of women?

Don't ask me, ask IC, because to me, it is pure nonsense.

Now, to be fair, he didn't mention anything about aborted fetuses, however if certain people (I'm guessing IC) believe that personhood is established at conception, then, logically, the same harsh judgment would apply to aborted souls.

People here in this life, find ways to justify the evil of despots. I suppose it's only natural they find ways to justify their monstrous versions of deities also. Apologists for evil on the spiritual plane.

Agreed.
_______

[accelafine]

Well fuck off then. It's none of your fucking business.

I'll speak my mind where I like, when I like, on whatever subject I like.

Mebbe, if you ladies can't bear criticism, you ought not take to the public sphere, crowing about how you rubbed out your kids.

It's nuthin' to be proud about.

Never seen anyone do that, Henry hypo, who likes to crow about how he would 'rub out' anyone who took as much as a toothpick off him.
How many kids do you 'rub out' every time you whack off you pathetic little dweeb. How about keeping your own snout out of other people's 'freedoms', since your favourite thing is crowing about your own.

[henry quirk]

Your rhetoric needs work.

[accelafine]

I'm sure my point is as clear as it needs to be.

[henry quirk]

I'm sure *my point is as clear as it needs to be.

*I wanna kill babies.

[accelafine]

*I wanna kill babies.

Glad you finatlly grasped the obvious, and don't forget to add 'plus women because I'm a misogynistic, hypocritical wanker'.

[henry quirk]

U 2

[Iwannaplato]

What, or more accurately, who are you talking about?

Oh, well, for example, IC and similar demiurge apologists.

It's a victimless crime in the sense that they were going to suffer eternal hell. And now they will, suffer eternal hell.

Your point makes no sense to me. Please clarify.

OK, if God knew these babies were going to hell, then killing them early in the womb does nothing really. There were going to suffer eternity regardless. And if they are good fetuses then they'll get to heaven faster. I see no victims in this.

And what the heck is God doing sending evil fetuses into the wombs of women?

Don't ask me, ask IC, because to me, it is pure nonsense.

I know. I got it that you were critical.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no need for a "larger, transcendent moral system to be able to judge whether killing or non-killing is the "right" choice, .. ."

Sure there is. Think about it: if you have any two systems that claim to be "moral systems," you have to be able to choose between them. How are you going to do that? The only way you can is by invoking some kind of "higher moral system" that is capable of telling you.

So, for example, if the two systems are Communism and Democracy, how do you know which to prefer, which to support, which to implement?

The only way you can choose one is to have in your mind some axiom that differentiates the two in some important way, such as "The right political system is going to be the one that allows maximal freedom for the individual," or "The right political system will be the one that is most obedient to the collective good, as conceived by the Party."

But from where are you going to get that higher, decisive axiom? Which axiom are you morally obligated to follow, since they rationalize opposite choices?

Now you surely see the problem: to choose among moral options always relies on a higher axiom, some principle that transcends both of the alternatives, and allows judgment of them. But how do you derive such an axiom, since anything you suggest is going to be controversial?

The current moral systems we have at present are useful to some degrees but not highly effective, in that we still have 200,000 homicides per year and other acts of evil.

One of the most useful and optimal moral system at present is the Christian Moral System.

Wait, though.

"Useful"? How are we to define what the regnant moral system (the transcendent basis of deciding between different alternatives, as above) should be? To what goals should it be "useful"?

I accept that the Christian moral system might be "useful," of course, and even that it might be, as you say, "optimal." Of course I do. But I'm not prepared to assert that irrationally or arbitrarily, even if, as the case is, it gives me the easy "win." I would rather know what you think makes that, or any other particular moral system, the right one, the "one ring to rule them all," so to speak.

So on what basis do you judge the Christian moral system to be "optimal"? Again, where's the meta-system that defines "optimal"?

Since humans are evolving to be more rational with higher degree of critical thinking and along with the trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge, AI and technology, the way forward is a secular rational moral system [no -ve religious baggage] that can be tested to bring the acts of evil down in the future.

There are many problems with this. One is that we are not apparently evolving morally at all. There's no historical evidence for the suggestion that we are better or more special than people were thousands of years ago. In fact, our technologies and whatnot only seem to increase the scope of the evil we enact: it may have been possible for primitive warriors to kill hundreds or thousands with swords; but they never gassed anyone. They didn't have the option of carpet-bombing. They didn't place landmines that will killl children and farmers for the next century. But we, we can wipe out a whole planet with the push of a few buttons. So how is our technology making us morally "more evolved"?

But more than that: you still need a meta-system to show that "secularism," not "Christianity" is the legitimate and right basis for interpreting and arbitrating between competing and contradicting views of morality.

This is the secular rational moral system I am proposing for the future, e.g. incorporating,
"Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!" as a standard and guide, while utilizing all our efforts [knowledge and technology] to reduce the number of abortion gradually to say 1000 per year in a future time.

Sorry...that makes no sense. If abortion is murder, it has to stop now. There is no "phase out" for a truly wicked act. Either it can be done as often as we want, with impunity, or it is undeserving of being done, ever. Logically and morally, that's the limit.

But what we still need is for you to supply the over-arching, all-deciding, transcendent moral framework that justifies your banning abortion, or stopping war, or doing welfare programs, or giving to charities...all of it has to be justified by way of some overarching meta-system.

What is it?

[Immanuel Can]

The question is not what I think, but what is true. But I'm sure you realize that

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention. I thought I had made it abundantly clear that whatever the truth is, the perceptions it presents us can be interpreted in different ways. The question is not what is true, it very much is what you think. What on Earth makes you think that a centuries old book is a better source for how the world and we came to be than contemporary science? What sort of person can believe that the sin deserving of the most cruel punishment imaginable, is not believing that same book? Who in their right mind would think a justice system based on human sacrifice is a good idea? I think the clue is in the question.

I've often wondered about the aborted fetus. Presumably...

I don't presume. I admit I don't know.

There are several possible answers, of course. I have one or two I like better than others.

The Bible does not explicitly tell us, because it's not even necessary for us to know. Fetuses should NOT be aborted; it's murder. That's already covered in the 10 Commandments, and with priority. And we know, from many, many Scriptures, that God is just and does not harm the innocent, or lose any souls that rightfully belong to Him. So we can rest in that certainty, knowing that whatever God does is guaranteed to be reflective of his essential righteousness and mercy. But none of that should obscure the fact that we don't know for sure. We can conjecture, speculate, wish, reason...but we don't have conclusive details on that.

I want to be perfectly honest with that, Will, Iwanna...and stop where our genuine knowledge does. I'm not going to invent an answer for you, because I can't tell you for sure. That's the bottom line.

[Iwannaplato]

IC, I find it so distasteful to deal with someone as disingenuous and smug as you. There are other peopIe who manage to communicate with you even if they have simiIar reactions to you. More power to them. I'm sure you'II interpret this in a seIf-serving way, as if your self-serving explanation is the onIy possibIe one. In any case, you did that Iast time.

[Immanuel Can]

A depiction of utopia for the resident zygote-worshipping (but child-hating) males:

This is actually a Hogarth, I believe. It's called "Gin Lane," as I recall...and depicts the effects of drunkenness in Industrial Revolution England not the lack of abortions.

In fact, the way we are supposed to feel about the baby-killer in the picture, the woman who is so drunk she's dropped her child, is not favourable...