Should Abortion be Allowed?

[Access_guy49]

As far as I am aware, it is illegal in the UK , but you're right, I would have them exterminated if they should appear, much the same as I would probably have an abortion if I fell pregnant after being raped. Not being raped, I'll take precautions, helps prevent any unwanted mishaps after sex.

It's illegal to kill bugs in the UK!!???
Lets say...you took reasonable precations... would you then feel abortions are a legal option?

 

[oumahexi]

It's illegal to kill bugs in the UK!!???
Lets say...you took reasonable precations... would you then feel abortions are a legal option?

No, you can kill bugs, but you can't fumigate your home
Abortions ARE legal here, whether they are moral or not is entirely up to the person seeking them out. I wouldn't if I was of age to have a child, with a partner I loved and it was his child (the only way it wouldn't be would be if I had been raped) and if the child was ok. A relative recently had the dilema of whether or not to keep a baby that was severely deformed, would never be able to feed herself and would never live past four months. In my opinion, she did the right thing, she had the pregnancy termanated. I don't believe that there is any need for unnecessary suffering. If there is a God, why would it allow us to advance to a stage that it would be displeased with? Why would it allow us to accurately predict these situations?

 

[m_elect]

If there is a God, why would it allow us to advance to a stage that it would be displeased with? Why would it allow us to accurately predict these situations?

If you recognize suffering, it is nonsensical to call it something other than evil. If you accept evil, you must accept that there is 'good'. If you accept 'good', you must accept a moral law for the basis of differentiating between good and evil. When you accept a moral law you must accept a moral law giver which is the exactly the person the athiests are trying to disprove. If there is no God, there is no moral law, there is no good, there is no evil, there is suffering. What are you complaining about? I have stolen this from Ravi Zacharias.

If you are honest about your question, please listen to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnR3WPjfLzI&feature=related

 

[Rabbie]

As the OP I would disagree with those who say that without a god there can be no moral code. My view is that I should treat other people as I would want them to treat me. This seems to me to be a recipe for a pleasant society if everyone keeps to it.

 

[Brianwarnock]

If you recognize suffering, it is nonsensical to call it something other than evil.

So my wife's suffering from her Cancer is evil? By whom? God presumably since he could cure it. Not a very nice fellow is he?

Personally I think that it is just part of life and that your whole statement looks like the result of brainwashing as it lacks logic.

Brian

 

[m_elect]

As the OP I would disagree with those who say that without a god there can be no moral code. My view is that I should treat other people as I would want them to treat me. This seems to me to be a recipe for a pleasant society if everyone keeps to it.

By observation we see that humanity has differing views of the same moral points. To which group will you assign the authority to define these points?

Do you understand that if there is no God, there can be no moral superiority?

 

[Thales750]

I haven't read any of this. But the obsessive response to it is a testimony as to why we have allowed the aristocracy to annihilate the World’s economies.

Ya'll keep arguing about the irrelevant.

 

[Brianwarnock]

By observation we see that humanity has differing views of the same moral points. To which group will you assign the authority to define these points?

Do you understand that if there is no God, there can be no moral superiority?

Why do you keep stating as a fact what is only an opinion?

Brian

 

[Brianwarnock]

I haven't read any of this. But the obsessive response to it is a testimony as to why we have allowed the aristocracy to annihilate the World’s economies.

Ya'll keep arguing about the irrelevant.

I did not know that the USA had an aristocracy.

Brian

 

[Thales750]

It's the same one you have Brian.

The World's Ultra-Rich.

 

[m_elect]

Why do you keep stating as a fact what is only an opinion?

Brian

To which point are you referring: that morality is defined regionally or that if there is no God then there is no moral superiority?

If you don't agree with my first point, try to find a homosexual in Iran. If it is the second point you deny as a fact then tell me what gives you the right to exert a moral superiority over my idea that if there is no God then there can be no morals?

 

[Brianwarnock]

To which point are you referring: that morality is defined regionally or that if there is no God then there is no moral superiority?

If you don't agree with my first point, try to find a homosexual in Iran. If it is the second point you deny as a fact then tell me what gives you the right to exert a moral superiority over my idea that if there is no God then there can be no morals?

It is surely a contradiction that morals are regional and yet defined by a God.

I am pleased to see that you accept that it is only your idea (opinion) that if there is no God there can be no morals, that is all I was saying.

Brian

 

[Brianwarnock]

It's the same one you have Brian.

The World's Ultra-Rich.

Here you have to have the correct lineage to be an aristocrat, being rich is not enough, infact an aristocrat might be poor.

Brian

 

[Thales750]

Here you have to have the correct lineage to be an aristocrat, being rich is not enough, infact an aristocrat might be poor.

Brian

Good Morning Brain,

I won’t infiltrate this thread any further. In fact I apologize for the intrusion.

I have become so obsessed with the destruction of the middle class, and the trend to enslave us, that I can’t understand anyone else not sharing that sentiment.


I just think that when we are back to the feudal system, these discussions about the nature of God and what his will on Earth is… will be all we have left.
The very fabric of our societies is unraveling, and we’re all worried about a dripping faucet.

 

[Rabbie]

By observation we see that humanity has differing views of the same moral points. To which group will you assign the authority to define these points?

Do you understand that if there is no God, there can be no moral superiority?

I don't assign the authority to any groups. That's one of my objections to organised religion - its tendency to assume it is the arbiter of moral judgments. IMO if everybody just treated everyone else as they wished to be treated then the world would be a more pleasant place.

 

[Galaxiom]

I don't assign the authority to any groups. That's one of my objections to organised religion - its tendency to assume it is the arbiter of moral judgments.

Religion not only presumes to have the authority to arbitrate but can be objectively shown to be inconsistent and deeply prejudiced in its application of its own concepts of morality.

 

[Adam Caramon]

To which point are you referring: that morality is defined regionally or that if there is no God then there is no moral superiority?

There is of course no moral superiority in the way that you're using the term. The only moral superiority comes from that which society creates and venerates.

In the beginning of the bible, it was ok to sleep with your sister. In later parts it became a sin. In early parts of the bible, it was ok to keep and trade and reprimand slaves. In later parts, they started shying away from that.

Why? Did an all-power deity deicde on a whim that the rules he created were no longer applicable? Or did maybe, just maybe, the more modern people who were rewriting and editing the bible realize that society at the time had become less and less accepting of elements in the bible? Therefore, in order to retain the faith's strangehold on the populace, they had to move the moral goal posts?

If you (or anyone) wants to be religious, you're best sticking with your "Everything happens for a reason, no one can know god's will argument". It is quite shallow, but you can still fool the simple people with it. Everytime you guys try to make headway into the educated groups, you fail miserably.

 

[m_elect]

I don't assign the authority to any groups.... IMO if everybody just treated everyone else as they wished to be treated then the world would be a more pleasant place.

See Rabbie, you have just assigned the moral authority to YOURSELF.

Even if you try to give it to 'culture' as a whole the logic is still flawed because by their relative nature cultures are untrustworthy to even establish absolutes among themselves or to give reliable absolutes.

Moral absolutes either exist because a moral law giver has established them or they do not exist at all. There can be no middle ground.

 

[Brianwarnock]

See Rabbie, you have just assigned the moral authority to YOURSELF.

.

Now I didn't read it like that , but then I'm not so convinced of my absolute authority to make definitive statements as some posters.

Brian

 

[Galaxiom]

I'm quite happy to be the absolute moral authority for my own actions.

Unfortunately the religious assume that their sense of morality is a universal truth and demand that others adopt the same beliefs. They also perceive their deity as having a sense of morality that closely matches their own personal beliefs. They assume that their personal beliefs come from the teachings of the deity but scientific research has shown it is quite the reverse. When their own beliefs shift so does their perception of their deity's morality.

This is why there are so many diverse interpretations of the moral values of the same deities and why the whole concept of a deity driven moral authority is completely ridiculous.