Should Abortion be Allowed?

[m_elect]

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

Let's see how well you stand up to your own judgements. Do you think stealing is wrong? Do you faithfully give your employer 100% effort for your pay? If you are honest you can see by your own actions you disqualify yourself by contradiction.

Athiests typically agree that morals are evolved sociological behaviors. All behaviors are morally neutral because there is no objective standard(moral absolute given by a creator). Hitler danced to his own DNA. If you are a good athiest, a devout athiest you have to agree with moral neutrality.

Listen to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ-aqnDHqqA&feature=related

 

[MarkK]

How do we know God is moral? Because God says so? Because you, m_elect, say so? God stood by while 800,000 Rwandans were killed. God is alleged to be almighty, so he could have done something, but he didn't. How is that moral? God's inaction violates my moral code, so maybe God is moral, but then he is not almightly. He can't be both in my world.

I think morality arises from empathy, and the link we make between not wanting to be harmed and not wanting to do harm. We deem theft immoral because we don't wish to be stolen from. So we don't steal, we don't lie, and we forgive each other. We value cooperative behaviour, and our tribe is thereby stronger than other tribes and nature selects our social form. In the long run what is deemed moral will be decided by what is most profitable for the greatest number of people, and this will invariably be improvisations on themes of kindness, love, and common decency. Morality is what you get when natural selection meets democracy, and they have a few drinks, and so on...

 

[Brianwarnock]

How do we know God is moral? Because God says so? Because you, m_elect, say so? God stood by while 800,000 Rwandans were killed. God is alleged to be almighty, so he could have done something, but he didn't. How is that moral? God's inaction violates my moral code, so maybe God is moral, but then he is not almightly. He can't be both in my world.

...

The problem with this argument is your example as the religious will say that the deaths were result of man's actions and God does not interfere with those, however this almighty all merciful loving father also does not interfere with flood ,droughts etc all out of the hands of man. Go figure.
Islam's idea that god is a master is more viable as masters can be right bas erm so and so's

Brian

 

[Galaxiom]

Athiests typically agree that morals are evolved sociological behaviors. All behaviors are morally neutral because there is no objective standard(moral absolute given by a creator). Hitler danced to his own DNA. If you are a good athiest, a devout athiest you have to agree with moral neutrality.

What utter rubbish. The argument that atheists cannot have morals is often repeated but completely ridiculous. It comes from an irrational, narrow-minded perspective driven by a ignorant doctrine that insists morality requires religion. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Your "god-given" moral code is nothing more than the bigoted, misogynistic musings of arrogant, stone age goat herders who imagined their every thought was specially delivered to them by a mysterious "creator" that only they could hear. Today they would rightly be considered mentally ill.

Moreover, far from being an irrefutable guide to good living, the supposed morality in the Bible includes, by any objective analysis, a hideous treatise that exalts the worst of prejudice and malice seen in humanity.

Those who lend their support to the Bible and worship its hideous deity are content to justify objectively immoral acts such as genocide. I will no more respect these beliefs than I would any other fascist philosophy.

 

[oumahexi]

If you recognize suffering, it is nonsensical to call it something other than evil. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnR3WPjfLzI&feature=related

I do recognise suffering, I call it natural. Have you ever given birth? No? Believe me, lots of women suffer trauma during childbirth, there is a reason it is called labour, but the outcome is such a joy, so was that suffering or nature at work?

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. [/QUOTE]

I do see, what I term to be good, in this world, yet who exactly am I to define these things? A robber shoots a cop and gets away, that has to be good for the robber, but bad for the cop.

I think that man has distorted the image of God so that it becomes personal to man, it is not, in my opion, it is nothing more than nature at work. Nature, in turn, sees no good or evil only experiences, it does not categorise.

 

[oumahexi]

What are you complaining about?

I have no idea what I was complaining about, I didn't realise I was actually complaining, I thought I was simply airing my opinion. Please do tell me what I was complaining about.

 

[Galaxiom]

I do recognise suffering, I call it natural. Have you ever given birth? No? Believe me, lots of women suffer trauma during childbirth, there is a reason it is called labour, but the outcome is such a joy, so was that suffering or nature at work?

The wonderous giver of absolute morality has already explained this in his exalted book.

All women are to suffer increased pain in childbirth as a punishment for Eve's transgression in leading Adam into the sin of eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Genesis 3:16)

God took a particular dislike to women. He only punishes the children for the "sins of the fathers" to the third and fourth generations. (Exodus 34:7)

Nice to know my granddaughter will be spared the punishment for the sins of my great grandfathers. Too bad she will still be paying for Eve's disobedience.

 

[m_elect]

I have no idea what I was complaining about, I didn't realise I was actually complaining, I thought I was simply airing my opinion. Please do tell me what I was complaining about.

It was in regards to the point that you think unneccessary suffering should be avoided. No problem. The point is way past.

 

[m_elect]

What utter rubbish. The argument that atheists cannot have morals is often repeated but completely ridiculous. It comes from an irrational, narrow-minded perspective driven by a ignorant doctrine that insists morality requires religion. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The point is that if an objective moral standard does not exist, then all morals are neutral and none is better than any other.

 

[PNGBill]

The point is that if an objective moral standard does not exist, then all morals are neutral and none is better than any other.

This idea, while it may be arguably true, that is all it has going for it.
The leaders of a country sometimes argue that voters can not know enough about a subject therefore we can ignore their vote in the count.
Just because it can't be measured doesn't mean it does not exist.
Women couldn't vote once because they were incapble of reasonable thinking yet they got the vote.
Everyone has Limits and if we call that a moral standard, then so be it.
Stalin had limits and so did Hitler. Luckily most of us live in a country lead by people with limits set a little different to those two.

 

[Galaxiom]

The point is that if an objective moral standard does not exist, then all morals are neutral and none is better than any other.

I disagree. Moralities can be objective to the extent that they must be consistent across diverse contexts. It is like in science. Laws that apply in one circumstance cannot be arbitrarily changed for another and still be held as universal laws.

If the genocide of the Nazi Holcaust was morally repulsive then so were the Hebrew genocides of the tribes who lived in the Promised Land before they invaded.

Religious moralities are thoroughly tainted by the prejudices of those who wrote them. If they are the directives of an absolute moral arbitrator then I don't want any part of that totalitarian regime.

 

[Adam Caramon]

The point is that if an objective moral standard does not exist, then all morals are neutral and none is better than any other.

That's quite telling. You are morally lost without someone telling you what is right or wrong. Instead of being a slave to religion, why not think for yourself? Do you think that killing is wrong? If so, is it ONLY because a book tells you so?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

This is the problem when you start dealing with the concept of absolute morality.

The point is that if an objective moral standard does not exist, then all morals are neutral and none is better than any other.

This is totally muddled thinking from someone who obviously cannot make a value judgment without looking outside of himself for divine guidance - which means the inability to think for yourself.

The point is that morals developed among primitive tribes because they decided that to live together in peace, people needed rules to be taught to the children. Like, "Don't steal from Johnny because you will just make him steal from you. Don't kill Johnny's dog because then he'll kill your dog."

Solomon's eye-for-an-eye, life-for-a-life philosophy is just the old "Do unto others" concept taken to a high level. Most of the commandments go there, too. (Do you recall that Jesus is reported to have said that the commandments could be derived from "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and "Love thy God with all thy heart" ?)

The idea of absolute morality is popular because then it is all black-and-white, no hard decisions to make, no such thing as extenuating circumstances, no need to think outside the box. Yet that is also inconsistent with forgiveness. Absolute morality cannot forgive, because if it cannot, then it isn't absolute.

Which gets back to the issue of this thread - should abortion be allowed? I still maintain that the question is way too late to do any good. If you needed to ask, the problem is already too far gone to do what you SHOULD have done, which was to prevent the situation that led up to it. Are you willing to forgive the woman who gets an abortion for making a tough decision under extreme social and economic duress?

 

[m_elect]

I disagree. Moralities can be objective to the extent that they must be consistent across diverse contexts. It is like in science. Laws that apply in one circumstance cannot be arbitrarily changed for another and still be held as universal laws.

Let's see how well your theory works. Some people here think abortion is murder. Some think it's a woman's choice. Who's right? Each claims a moral superiority over his opponent. If there is no moral law giver, how do you decide which choice is morally correct? Do you decide by majority? Do you decide by consistently held tradition? Both are laughable to be used as a basis for morals. Who says morals can't change? If they don't come from an absolute, who's to say they can't change? If you agree that it is up to each person, you've essentially neutered the moral and therefore it is nonexistent. If the moral changes over time, same thing, reduced to a personal preference. All this proves my point that if there is no moral lawgiver, morals are nothing more than personal preferences and the best minds in the athiest movement agree.

 

[m_elect]

This is totally muddled thinking from someone who obviously cannot make a value judgment without looking outside of himself for divine guidance - which means the inability to think for yourself.

My standard of morals is clearly better than yours because I refrain from insulting someone I disagree with. How can I trust that your obviously weaker morality hasn't impacted your thinking?

The point is that morals developed among primitive tribes because they decided that to live together in peace, people needed rules to be taught to the children. Like, "Don't steal from Johnny because you will just make him steal from you. Don't kill Johnny's dog because then he'll kill your dog."

This is a pleasant story but ignores the other tribe that was really hungry and ate Johnny and his dog.

If you say you got your objective standard of morality from society, then what justifies the idea that society is the proper place to obtain a standard of morality?

If you say you got your objective standard of morality from society, then which society has the right moral system when they contradict each other?

 

[jhawkins49]

For you pro-death types: It's pretty hypocritical once you're already born!

 

[MarkK]

To me the argument about the existence of an objective morality is irrelevant because all human observers are subjective. Let's say there is one big clear, unambiguous moral code. Fine, but then who will percieve it without bias? Human perception is fallible and this renders all morality subjective.

If there could be an objective morality, and it could be enforced by men, then the earth would still be flat. Think about it.

 

[Galaxiom]

If there is no moral law giver, how do you decide which choice is morally correct?

One thing for certain, no rational person would side with the twisted, sexist, contradictary version of morality as described in any of the fetid Holy Books of the Abrahamic faiths.

If you are proposing that any of these books offer an objective absolute morality then you are very deeply confused. They were written by primitive, arrogant, mysogynist men who didn't have the slightest clue about assembling a coherent subjective morality let alone an objective one.

Those who claim we should follow the moral code contained in a book are missing the fact that their version of morality is based on a subjective morality that says the books are endowed with a superior understanding, which clearly they are not.

 

[Galaxiom]

My standard of morals is clearly better than yours because I refrain from insulting someone I disagree with.

Adam's comment looks like a pertinent question to me. I note that you did not answer it though.

How can I trust that your obviously weaker morality hasn't impacted your thinking?

That seems far more of an insult. It is also arrogant and presumptious. When someone decides that a book like the Bible can provide an absolute morality then we can be quite certain that they definitely have a weak morality and it has certainly impacted on their thinking.

I invite you to expalin how the absolute morality of God works to justify the Hebrew genocide as a Holy act. To my morality 'God told us to do it' is the most pathetic expediency possible.

 

[Galaxiom]

Check out this insightful music video about where God's absolute morality has taken us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__khgIzMyaM

We will remain on this path while religion continues as the dominant paradigm.