Arguing About Abortion

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

If “personhood is progressive,” as you say, then I suppose to be consistent you could not possibly take issue with an omnipotent and omniscient Person of Infinite Age declaring that “when you get to a certain age” [or certain level of personhood] you get certain rights and when you get to an infinitely older “age,” you get more.

As soon as this alleged “omnimax” someone personally comes to us and explains us the errors of our ways, we shall listen. But your word, and the words of other believers simply does not count. Sorry.

The unwritten point of your post is that the “omnimax someone” isn’t knowable unless by some explicit (i.e., “personally comes to us”) act of wonder or other.

There is an inherent problem with recognizing how and when the words of believers or the “omnimax” person actually represent the words of an “omnimax” person. Isn’t that your point?

So whether those words come from believers or the “omnimax” person, your problem would be the recognition of whether or not they represent the “higher” or “max” source they are supposed to be attributed to.

The same problem, however, exists for @Hume and his “progressive personhood.” How does anyone at any particular state of personhood know with any degree of certainty whether or not some higher or more “progressive” personhood is represented by some word or advice or moral prescription?

That is as a vexing problem for Hume, and for you, as it is for any believer.

As soon as Hume brings up something as “progressive” he has to know with certainty that some higher level of personhood is represented by that supposedly “progressive” notion. How would he know that something is “higher” or constitutes “progress” from his current vantage point?

So your attempt to portray the omnimax person as being unknowable or unrecognizable rebounds on you — or at least on Hume. You may be quite happy revelling (or wallowing) endlessly in your current state and have no need for a conception of any higher being. I can offer you no remedy if that is the case.

However, just as the existence of other thinking beings serve as models or (name removed by moderator)uts into our “closed” mindedness to spur us to intellectual and moral growth, I see no reason why the omnimax person couldn’t “feed into” our minds and trigger growth in wisdom, virtue and morality.

Hence the quote from Proverbs…

I will pour out my thoughts to you;
I will make my words known to you.

An omnimax person would have that capability, so the issue might be one of receptivity.

The question, though, is how do we recognize such promptings as coming from an omnimax person or promoting betterment? The same problem exists for you (and Hume) as it does for believers, unless you are content to remain in some static form for the remainder of your existence.

 

[HarryStotle]

An answer that ignores biological drives that are much, much, much older than religion is an answer that simply can’t be taken seriously.

Since when are “biological drives” capricious or willful (or impulse driven) rather than for legitimately biological ends?

Reproduction is a biological drive — that is the purpose for mating and sex.

Casual pleasure seeking, on its own, isn’t exactly ordered to any significant end other than satiation.

That would be like claiming there is a biological drive (i.e., hunger) to eat and the purpose for satisfying that hunger is merely to have that hunger sated. Seems odd to depict it that way, completely disconnected from eating to survive or survival being the biological drive behind hunger.

Depicting eating to live (instead of merely to be sated) as a “religious” motive that “can’t be taken seriously” rather than as the actual reality underpinning eating would be a somewhat hollow analysis.

 

[Abrosz]

I suppose someone with “omnimax” powers would know who would and does listen, and who would not — prior to coming to them and explaining what they wouldn’t listen to, in any case.

Nonsense. The “words” must be supplanted by actions. No one can disregard a baseball bat cracking one’s skull. (Not literally, of course).

It would be a child’s play to “unmask” an impostor if he would try to masquerade as God.

The unwritten point of your post is that the “omnimax someone” isn’t knowable unless by some explicit (i.e., “personally comes to us”) act of wonder or other.

This is true for everything. Evidence is the “king”.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

Besides, ‘religion’ dates back to Adam and Eve.
It wasn’t codified, but their ‘ensoulment’ made them
in the likeness and image of GOD, however, GOD
Created them, and each of us to this very day.
Secular humanists, I pray none with a full act of the human will,
can deny GOD all they want; but they cannot disprove GOD.
~
We are sentient evidenced by our authoring ‘higher’ things
like creative prose or orchestrated music.
We understand concepts such as ethics.
Refusing Divine Favor with a full act of the human will,
to form and impartially objective in our Creator’s eyes ethical view, with an unethical inner disposition; one makes a decision
not to be able to bear the All Consuming Ethical Benevolent
Humble Powerful Fire of GOD’s Holiness.
A rough physical analogy would be the repelling of the north and south
poles of a magnet. With Einstein and modern-day physics asserting
things like dimensions 90 degrees from everything;
and we can’t see past the ‘event horizon’ of the edge of the universe;
it certainly is prudent - to ask, seek, and know regarding
Creator self-evident truths.
Each of us is responsible to form ethical inner dispositions;
and are responsible for our words and actions that influence others;
who need to form theirs.
And we each go the hereafter, after last breath, and heartbeat.
~
Who is anyone to play GOD, with their power and influence over the weak,
or less informed, by a ‘truth is relative to limited human intellect,’ or ‘social trends.’
As Deitrich von Hildebrand wrote, Truth is Eternal.
There is only One Benevolent unchanging GOD, so that must be true.
Peace.

 

[HarryStotle]

It would be a child’s play to “unmask” an impostor if he would try to masquerade as God.

You have a rather high opinion of your capacities to even recognize God even if he stood beside you. Why would he be required to perform for you to prove himself?

I don’t think you understood me, in any case.

My point was that an omniscient being would know you to the core of your being; in fact, infinitely better than you know yourself.

Ergo, that omnimax being would know whether or not you were persuadable or even worth persuading and under what conditions. Perhaps persuasion requires something from you? Besides that, I would presume there would be some requirement of worthiness — sincerity, basic moral goodness, trustworthiness, virtue, and the like — on your part.

Why must the omnimax being be compelled to persuade anyone by some miraculous wonder or other rather than simple truth or pure goodness or sublime beauty?

 

[Abrosz]

You have a rather high opinion of your capacities to even recognize God even if he stood beside you.

A short conversation about a simple topic would be sufficient.

Why must the omnimax being be compelled to persuade anyone by some miraculous wonder or other rather than simple truth or pure goodness or sublime beauty?

Out of love, mayhaps? But I am not talking “willingness”, I talk about ability.

 

[Hume]

I’ve been thinking about your “preferred god" comment alongside your “personhood is progressive” thesis.

It seems to me that if personhood is “progressive” in the sense you imply then to “progress” in the realm of personhood implies that what such a person holds up as their highest value or “preferred god” is critical to the degree of progress towards personhood that any particular person will make.

I guess as a matter of self-actualization, you might be right. In a more base way, it just means that as you get older, your autonomy increases and develops. 18 was picked as a good age for many of our rights because it’s when the chicks really start to beat their wings and get out of the nest - providing for themselves and contributing to greater society. Sure, 18 is arbitrary, but the line is to be drawn somewhere.

A person that values — above their own personhood— ideas, objects or realities that are “sub-personal” will tend to become less of a person and degrade themselves in their “progress” towards personhood. I.e., they would become lesser persons BECAUSE they hold up as ideal sub-personal entities.

I would argue that you’re describing radical ideologues - a destructive force in history for sure.

Which is higher in the order of being, concepts or persons? Concepts or ideas are not living, not aware, not potentially capable of progress, but are rather stagnant, fixed and unchanging as particulars or generalities.

No idea. I have no concept of “the order of being” and how it can be objectively observed and measured.

So to have any idea as a “preferred god” would mean that a person who holds that idea as their highest value (aka "preferred god) could not possibly make progress in the terms of your “personhood is progressive.” A person who holds mere ideas — i.e., ideas such as liberty is glorious — would be stunted in the growth towards progress in personhood by the very static nature of the fixedness of the idea they hold as their “preferred god.”

If theirs is a very static god, then sure. Liberty doesn’t seem to be very static in that it’s very difficult to define. It’s not a specific “do” or “do not”.

How it relates to personhood is that in your time on the earth, the exercise of your liberty will typically bring about the development of the skills you need for individual and social survival - else you perish.

The grant of extra “badges of personhood” like voting is meant to somewhat approximate that reality.

Ergo, a theist who has as their “preferred god” a Person of Infinite Power, Infinite Knowledge and Infinite Goodness would be far more likely to make actual progress in terms of your “person is progressive” thesis.

Sure, like the absolute best government on the planet is that of The Benevolent Dictator.

There seems to be a small existential problem there, though…

 

[Rau]

This seems to make no sense Hume.

 

[Hume]

An example of the ad hominem, “That’s just your religion, man” when confronted with a non-religious argument.

That’s not an ad hominem. It’s the rejection of your argument because an underlying premise (god) appears to be unsound.

Sounds quite arbitrary, to say nothing of the fact that the rules are supposedly being made by those who have appointed themselves as the “arbiters” of the rules and powerful enough to impose them on the vulnerable.

When we segue this into law, it inevitably is. Like 18 being to voting age. Why not 17? Why not 21?

When we form collectives, “Right of Might” does become an important element of the collective. We call it “Law Enforcement” in modern parlance.

If “personhood is progressive,” as you say, then I suppose to be consistent you could not possibly take issue with an omnipotent and omniscient Person of Infinite Age declaring that “when you get to a certain age” [or certain level of personhood] you get certain rights and when you get to an infinitely older “age,” you get more.

I’d have no problem with it at all, as soon as you demonstrate such a thing exists.

Consent occurs before intercourse in our paradigm.

And I respect that. Really I do.

But then your paradigm should only be binding on those that share it. I no more want to be forced under Catholic views than you presumably want to be forced under the Muslim Sharia.

So how does the lack of cognition among bonobos justify the behaviour of higher order and supposedly “progressed” persons.

I was demonstrating that primates have sex for all sorts of reasons. As far as I can tell, we’re unique among primates in including reproduction as a deliberate aim.

I kind of thought your “progressive personhood” was something of a rationalization for a particular moral exemption — i.e., the right to terminate the life of another person — rather than a bona fide thesis.

No, the only purpose of it is that it explains why we gain rights as we age then eventually lose some of them.

These are all requirements that you made up.

No, these are behaviors exhibited by virtually all mammals for millions of years before religion even existed.

Reproduction is a biological drive

Actually, just reviewed that very thing in a psyche text not two weeks ago.

Reproduction is not a biological drive in humans. Simply the desire for sex is.

Now you’re right in that it facilitates reproduction - but it’s for much more than that. We know this because a handful of primates are virtually the only animals who have evolved to engage in coitus while facing each other.

 

[Rau]

Consent occurs before intercourse in our paradigm. Pregnancy is merely a consequence of intercourse.

That’s right. One consents to the inherent ends of what one does since the potential outcome is known. If that end is unacceptable, one would not act. If the end materializes, a new set of circumstances and options present themselves. In the case of pregnancy, abortion is an option for some.

 

[Hume]

catholicray:

Consent occurs before intercourse in our paradigm. Pregnancy is merely a consequence of intercourse.

That’s right. One consents to the inherent ends of what one does since the potential outcome is known.

We no more consent to pregnancy during sex than we consent to a car crash by getting into our car.

In both cases for the woman considering abortion, they are accidents to be avoided.

 

[Rau]

As soon as this alleged “omnimax” someone personally comes to us and explains us the errors of our ways, we shall listen. But your word, and the words of other believers simply does not count. Sorry.

Certainly there is no reason to anticipate a non-believer ought take any notice of claims about divinely given law. I agree entirely with that.

 

[Hume]

Abrosz:

As soon as this alleged “omnimax” someone personally comes to us and explains us the errors of our ways, we shall listen. But your word, and the words of other believers simply does not count. Sorry.

Certainly there is no reason to anticipate a non-believer ought take any notice of claims about divinely given law. I agree entirely with that.

I’ll double down on that.

Soon as the guy comes busting through the clouds or whatever and says “I AM THE GREAT I AM”, or whatever a god says to it’s creation, I’m on board.

At that point, it’s very observably part of the universe.

 

[Hume]

This seems to make no sense Hume.

They’re saying there’s some sort on contract we sign when we have sex. Just wanna know where it’s found is all…

 

[Hume]

Youngest is up. Dad time.

Tomorrow, fellas. Wash those hands!

 

[Rau]

They’re saying there’s some sort on contract we sign when we have sex.

I thought they were just saying people know where sex leads and to proceed is to accept the potential outcome. [Which is to say nothing of what one might do should that outcome arise!]

Or are u suggesting we’d need a written contract before we can draw that “deep” roll_eyes conclusion?

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

My heart & prayers deeply goes out to every one concerned for others.
Maybe a Good Friday related picture with help discernment.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
The population of Los Angeles county is ten million.
That is a lot of mass murder.
We need a culture of life.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

No, these are behaviors exhibited by virtually all mammals for millions of years before religion even existed.

The behavior of animals is not an argument.

We no more consent to pregnancy during sex than we consent to a car crash by getting into our car.

That doesn’t mean you are free from obligation when something happens otherwise a reckless driver can just say they didn’t consent to hitting someone.

 

[catholicray]

We no more consent to pregnancy during sex than we consent to a car crash by getting into our car.

I actually disagree with you here. We do not “actively” or for lack of more adequate wording “consciously” consent (and this is accurate of those who are not actively focused on the consequences of their free decisions).

With a slight intellect we know the probability of crashing and death and we consent to these statistics “actively” or subconsciously every time we get into our vehicle.

I have a 2007 Honda Accord that has a recall on it’s airbag with potential for death on deployment. Given my knowledge I actively give consent to die every time I drive it without repair.

Likewise only a person who is entirely and utterly ignorant of probable results of driving does not give their consent. I can acknowledge the existence of such people but I can not support litigation that protects their life because they are such a small percentage of life and protection of their life impacts the freedom and liberty of far far far more than those who would be protected.

Perhaps my brothers and sisters disagree with me here but I observe the wise saying “you can not fix stupid” as fact.

 

[catholicray]

That’s right. One consents to the inherent ends of what one does since the potential outcome is known. If that end is unacceptable, one would not act. If the end materializes, a new set of circumstances and options present themselves. In the case of pregnancy, abortion is an option for some.

Such logic falls within the realm of a convicted murderer saying he does not consent to the imprisonment of his body and being released accordingly.