Philosophy Now Forum

Do you know if there’s a backlog of people waiting to adopt? That would certainly help matters.

"Likewise the fetus does not have the right to harm a woman."

That's right, and that's why abortion can be rationalized as a form of self defense by the mother. The damn kid is already attacking mom's immune system not two days after his conception. Talk about a problem child with behavioral problems.

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 10:54 pm Do you know if there’s a backlog of people waiting to adopt? That would certainly help matters.

A huge backlog. Healthy infants are in desperately short supply. That's the main reason that people head off to far flung and very expensive adoption destinations, like China or Korea, to find an infant or toddler. They're just not available domestically.

We kill ours.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 12:30 am "Likewise the fetus does not have the right to harm a woman."

That's right, and that's why abortion can be rationalized as a form of self defense by the mother.

No, it can't.

The woman chooses to create the child, and the child is not an "assailant". If we imagine the a child is an "attacker," that would be a rationale not for just abortion but for universal sterilization as well. It would mean that voluntary pregancy and birth was a form of self-abuse, and children were a curse.

Content with that?

Yo this is pretty clever tho: https://www.google.com/amp/s/abc7chicag ... /12042413/

And she should also get group rate discounts on certain kinds of insurance.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 1:17 am Yo this is pretty clever tho: https://www.google.com/amp/s/abc7chicag ... /12042413/

And she should also get group rate discounts on certain kinds of insurance.

But she'd also have to pay for an extra airline ticket...and unless I'm misaken, smuggling passengers is a federal crime...

Lately I hear Canadian indignation towards the U.S. Supreme Court for its most recent rulings, in particular the one overturning Roe v. Wade.

But before we hastily misperceive our own national supreme court via its judges as being completely above mixing their personal ideology with their judgments, supposedly unlike their current U.S. counterparts, we should consider a high-court ruling here in the mid-1990s that split along gender lines.

The case involved a complaint filed by some prisoners at a male-inmate facility in regards to the institution’s allowance of female guards to invade the male inmates’ privacy; this, while female-inmate facilities disallowed male guards from invading female inmates’ privacy.

It was a seemingly no-brainer double-standard that commonsensically should not have been allowed to stand — yet it did, thanks to the five female judges outweighing the four male justices. The reasoning behind that 5-4 judgment was essentially that, disallowing female guards in the male-inmate facilities would hinder employment opportunities for female guards in a male-dominated profession.

It was a disgraceful gender-political ruling, one that corrupted what should’ve been a case of a blatant double-standard injustice for the male-inmate plaintiffs requiring immediate rectification. Indeed, I recall one metro-daily newspaper’s editorial cartoon suggesting the court’s decision was not half-assed but rather “wholly assed”.

I find it all a bit puzzling that Christians use their religion to attack abortion.

There is a perfectly good recipe for it that a priest can apply to an unfaithful woman to induce pregnancy.

This has nothing to do with the rights of the "child". It is all about men controlling women.

NUmbers

19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 12:55 pm I find it all a bit puzzling that Christians use their religion to attack abortion.

That's backward. They don't "use it " nor do they "attack." They merely follow the morals their faith prescribes in that situation.

"Thou shalt not murder" is an important principle.

So is "Thou shalt not commit adultery," even if you personally regard it as light recreation.

May I ask, how many of the Ten Commandments are you planning to ridicule, at the end of the day?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 2:52 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 12:55 pm I find it all a bit puzzling that Christians use their religion to attack abortion.

That's backward. They don't "use it " nor do they "attack." They merely follow the morals their faith prescribes in that situation.

"Thou shalt not murder" is an important principle.

So is "Thou shalt not commit adultery," even if you personally regard it as light recreation.

May I ask, how many of the Ten Commandments are you planning to ridicule, at the end of the day?

It seems like the ten commandments are statements of inevitable causation in the sense of: if they are not followed, then natural laws of physics cause the doors to slam on the apprehension of God. If not wholly correct, would you consider that this view has rational validity?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 2:52 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 12:55 pm I find it all a bit puzzling that Christians use their religion to attack abortion.

That's backward. They don't "use it " nor do they "attack." They merely follow the morals their faith prescribes in that situation.

"Thou shalt not murder" is an important principle.

So is "Thou shalt not commit adultery," even if you personally regard it as light recreation.

May I ask, how many of the Ten Commandments are you planning to ridicule, at the end of the day?

I understand Sculptor’s post to mean that, as a result of following their prescribed morals, Christians oppose abortion.

To insinuate that that Sculptor is planning to ridicule Holy Scripture is over the top.

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 4:57 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 2:52 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 12:55 pm I find it all a bit puzzling that Christians use their religion to attack abortion.

That's backward. They don't "use it " nor do they "attack." They merely follow the morals their faith prescribes in that situation.

"Thou shalt not murder" is an important principle.

So is "Thou shalt not commit adultery," even if you personally regard it as light recreation.

May I ask, how many of the Ten Commandments are you planning to ridicule, at the end of the day?

It seems like the ten commandments are statements of inevitable causation in the sense of: if they are not followed, then natural laws of physics cause the doors to slam on the apprehension of God. If not wholly correct, would you consider that this view has rational validity?

Well, I'm prepared to accept that Sabbath-keeping is temporary and cultural. But then, we have NT evidence that it is. It was lifted in favour of a meeting of conscience, sometimes on the first day of the week, in the practices of Christ Himself and the early church.

We have no such lifing of prohibitions against lying, bearing false witness, adultery or murder.

And everybody, it seems, forgets the very first commandment...which is never out of date, and was adamantly reiterated by every author in the NT, including Jesus Christ Himself.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 5:03 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 4:57 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 2:52 pm
That's backward. They don't "use it " nor do they "attack." They merely follow the morals their faith prescribes in that situation.

"Thou shalt not murder" is an important principle.

So is "Thou shalt not commit adultery," even if you personally regard it as light recreation.

May I ask, how many of the Ten Commandments are you planning to ridicule, at the end of the day?

It seems like the ten commandments are statements of inevitable causation in the sense of: if they are not followed, then natural laws of physics cause the doors to slam on the apprehension of God. If not wholly correct, would you consider that this view has rational validity?

Well, I'm prepared to accept that Sabbath-keeping is temporary and cultural. But then, we have NT evidence that it is. It was lifted in favour of a meeting of conscience, sometimes on the first day of the week, in the practices of Christ Himself and the early church.

We have no such lifing of prohibitions against lying, bearing false witness, adultery or murder.

And everybody, it seems, forgets the very first commandment...which is never out of date, and was adamantly reiterated by every author in the NT, including Jesus Christ Himself.

Thank you for the reply. You correctly interpreted my use of the word "wholly," to mean in keeping with Christian thought. My question also includes, and emphasizes, the effect of The Ten Commandments that describe actions, and the effects of particular actions.

Cutting to the chase, I figure that the effect of virtuous action, such as acting in accordance with The Ten Commandments, has the effect upon one's being, of apprehending the workings of God, as being the workings of God. This apprehension of naturally ordering intelligence, which is the countering force to entropy, in turn provides a clear view of reality, a clear view of cause and effect.

Because of this, following the Ten Commandments, after not following them, must also be redemption. Or at least, they must be a necessary preparation for Christian redemption. Would you consider this to be correct?

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 5:14 pm Cutting to the chase, I figure that the effect of virtuous action, such as acting in accordance with The Ten Commandments, has the effect upon one's being, of apprehending the workings of God, as being the workings of God. This apprehension of naturally ordering intelligence, which is the countering force to entropy, in turn provides a clear view of reality, a clear view of cause and effect.

I don't doubt for a second that belief in God slows moral entropy. At the same time, it doesn't stop entropy. Entropy of all kinds is a feature of our universe, because the universe has not existed forever, and in its current form, was never made to last forever.

Slowing entropy is good. Arresting it is impossible. So dealing with the fact of entropy, and setting one's clock accordingly for the future, is ultimately the right response.

Because of this, following the Ten Commandments, after not following them, must also be redemption. Or at least, they must be a necessary preparation for Christian redemption. Would you consider this to be correct?

Hmmm...

Don't get me wrong, Walker...I wouldn't argue with a karate-kicking Texas Ranger. But the Ten Commandments were never issued for either the purpose of arresting entropy or for producing redemption. There's a lot of discussion of that, especially in Paul's letters to the Romans, Ephesians and Galatians, for example. The whole Law, in fact, was not given for the purpose of teaching people what to do to earn their salvation or redeem themselves.

It was given them so they'd know they couldn't.

Now, there's a thought worth considering.

IC,

My understanding is that anti-abortionists believe that life begins at conception, while pro-abortionists disagree.

My question is do you think it matters to anti-abortionists, or to you, whether pro-abortionists agree or not?

The majority of Americans do not approve of Roe being overturned, but does their having that mindset bother you?

And can you think of a strategy that might work to change the abortionists’ opinion?