Atheism - Paradox

[djeter]

This is a great thread btw. When I get around to writing an abortion article I’m going to use (or try to figure out which to use) stats here.

In the meantime something to celebrate:

“Caritas Christi Health Care, the financially challenged Catholic hospital system founded by the Archdiocese of Boston, is abruptly ending its joint venture with a Missouri-based health insurer at the insistence of Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley, who has decided that the relationship represented too much of an entanglement between Catholic hospitals and abortion providers.”

more here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/06/28/wonderful-news/

DJ

 

[jam070406]

what you’re doing here is the common fallacy of ad hom attacks to divert away from the logic of my position. Moreover, you’re making baseless assumptions about what my reaction might be if I suddenly discovered that I impregnated a woman. I can assure you abortion would be the furthest thing from my mind (not that I even feel like I owe anyone an explanation for what my potential conduct would be if a hypothetical situation like an unplanned pregnancy arises, but I’ll give it anyway since I know a common tactic in Catholic debate technique seems to be personal attacks and besmirching the character of any proponent of opposing ideas).

Frankly it’s quite sad if you ask me.

Oh please.
I struck a chord eh? I’m just stating the obvious and I didn’t mean to single you out in particular, I’m sorry I apologize, but for someone that claims to be a free thinker you toe the typical atheist party line.
You’re just upset because you know I’m right on this! It’s common sense. It’s amazing that people that follow a “myth” can see this but those that claim to be so enlightened choose to ignore such common sense.

 

[josie_L]

Jam keeps trying to argue that pro-choice people make their arguments because they want to justify what their consciences tell them is murder. He/She seems to think that my pro-choice stance is a rationalization that I came up with just in case I ever happen to need an abortion.

Besides being factually wrong, his argument about our motivations has nothing to do with whether an unborn child is a human person with a right to life from the moment of conception. It is only relevant to the atheist-bashing that plagued this thread several pages back.

I still don’t understand why you worded your sentence the way you did. Furthermore, why do you say you are discerning Catholicism, do you think you can become a Catholic if you’re pro-choice? And what is a human person? And this is not atheist bashing it is pro-choice bashing.

 

[Eleve]

This thread is really worthless today, by the way. If either of you pulls another variation on “I must be right because my words upset you so much!” you’re both going on my ignore list faster than you can say “Ad hominem self-righteousness.”

If you’re offending people with your arguments, it’s not a sign that you’re cutting people open with the Sword of the Truth (as if this would be commendable to begin with), and it’s not a sign that you’re slaying the childish superstitions of the religious. It just shows that you have poor rhetorical skills.

 

[jam070406]

Jam keeps trying to argue that pro-choice people make their arguments because they want to justify what their consciences tell them is murder. He/She seems to think that my pro-choice stance is a rationalization that I came up with just in case I ever happen to need an abortion.

Besides being factually wrong, his argument about our motivations has nothing to do with whether an unborn child is a human person with a right to life from the moment of conception. It is only relevant to the atheist-bashing that plagued this thread several pages back.

It’s pretty simple Eleve,
I could figure this out when I was a young, dumb teenager.
Hmmm, if I have sex with a girl there is a chance she could get pregnant and have a BABY.
What are my options, become a dad (whether I am there for the child or not) or…
end the life of the child, with abortion, before it can even be born.

Sorry if your conscience is completely dead to this. I’ll pray for you.

It has everything to do with the discussion because those which hold to religious views (that atheists want to eliminate) are the only ones that can see this logically, apparantly.
Heaven forbid you’d wanna buck the trend and appear to be on the side of the religious!

 

[josie_L]

This is a great thread btw. When I get around to writing an abortion article I’m going to use (or try to figure out which to use) stats here.

In the meantime something to celebrate:

“Caritas Christi Health Care, the financially challenged Catholic hospital system founded by the Archdiocese of Boston, is abruptly ending its joint venture with a Missouri-based health insurer at the insistence of Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley, who has decided that the relationship represented too much of an entanglement between Catholic hospitals and abortion providers.”

more here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/06/28/wonderful-news/

DJ

I’ll make it easy for you, use mine. But if you want to use Humble’s as a means to show how out of touch with reality some stats are. Go ahead.

 

[jam070406]

This thread is really worthless today, by the way. If either of you pulls another variation on “I must be right because my words upset you so much!” you’re both going on my ignore list faster than you can say “Ad hominem self-righteousness.”

If you’re offending people with your arguments, it’s not a sign that you’re cutting people open with the Sword of the Truth (as if this would be commendable to begin with), and it’s not a sign that you’re slaying the childish superstitions of the religious. It just shows that you have poor rhetorical skills.

It’s truth Eleve, don’t run away. Deal with it!

 

[josie_L]

This thread is really worthless today, by the way. If either of you pulls another variation on “I must be right because my words upset you so much!” you’re both going on my ignore list faster than you can say “Ad hominem self-righteousness.”

If you’re offending people with your arguments, it’s not a sign that you’re cutting people open with the Sword of the Truth (as if this would be commendable to begin with), and it’s not a sign that you’re slaying the childish superstitions of the religious. It just shows that you have poor rhetorical skills.

Put me on your ignore list, better yet flag my post and report me to the mods.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

The ad hom attacks are unfortunate. They forget this doesn’t have to be exclusively a religious issue. Abortion is obviously a tough choice for anyone & I’m sure it carries psychological ramifications throughout a woman’s life (if she has to make such an unfortunate choice). On that basis alone it’s perfectly logical to say it’s undesirable.

That said do we define as illegal every undesirable thing that exists? The first inquiry is obviously whether or not the thing at issue is undesirable for society at large. The second question must then be can the government prevent the conduct. If the government can prevent the conduct, then we ask at what cost. If the cost outweighs the benefits we say it’s not worth it. There are some things so imminently harmful that no matter the cost we must protect society against it, like murder or rape. However, abortion is not imminently harmful and past history shows us government regulation can’t prevent it anyway.

So I look at this issue from a pragmatic perspective; yet (unfortunately) the pro-life folks here have refused to even take on my arguments (which are, objectively speaking, perfectly logical).

Will anyone answer the question … do they really believe the government can prevent abortion by merely overturning Roe v. Wade? With the availability of an abortion pill does anyone really believe abortion can ever be prevented or even reduced through force of law? We can’t stop heroin, crack, or meth from reaching our streets (much more harmful than the abortion pill) – so what leads anyone to believe a law against abortion will have any impact whatsoever? Therefore, why should I vote to have my tax money wasted on such a fruitless endeavor?

 

[jam070406]

again … it’s a typical ad hom tactic that logically speaking dilutes his credibility more and more each time he does it. Why would anyone make assumptions about the personal character of anyone when they have absolutely no basis to make such assumptions. It seems to me the only reason why anyone would do this (and continue to dig themselves in a deeper hole) is because they’re out of ammo.

At least Josie is trying to use statistics (albeit she’s been unconvincing so far, from my standpoint anyway). They forget this isn’t necessarily a religious issue; nor does it need to be. Abortion is obviously a tough choice for anyone & I’m sure it carries psychological ramifications throughout a woman’s life (if she has to make such an unfortunate choice). On that basis alone it’s perfectly logical to say it’s undesirable.

That said do we define as illegal every undesirable thing that exists? The first inquiry is obviously whether or not the thing at issue is undesirable for society at large. The second question must then be can the government prevent the conduct. If the government can prevent the conduct, then we ask at what cost. If the cost outweighs the benefits we say it’s not worth it. There are some things so imminently harmful that no matter the cost we must protect society against it, like murder or rape. However, abortion is not imminently harmful and past history shows us government regulation can’t prevent it anyway.

So I look at this issue from a pragmatic perspective; yet (unfortunately) the pro-life folks here have refused to even take on my arguments (which are, objectively speaking, perfectly logical).

Will anyone answer the question … do they really believe the government can prevent abortion by merely overturning Roe v. Wade? With the availability of an abortion pill does anyone really believe abortion can ever be prevented or even reduced? We can’t stop heroin, crack, or meth from reaching our streets (much more harmful than the abortion pill) – so what leads anyone to believe a law against abortion will have any impact whatsoever? Therefore, why should I vote to have my tax money wasted on such a fruitless endeavor?

And you’re getting upset because you don’t wanna concede to the TRUTH. Sorry if that upsets you.
I’m not attacking you, but dude, open your eyes. You’re smarter then to just tow the typical atheist b.s.

 

[Eleve]

I still don’t understand why you worded your sentence the way you did. Furthermore, why do you say you are discerning Catholicism, do you think you can become a Catholic if you’re pro-choice? And what is a human person? And this is not atheist bashing it is pro-choice bashing.

Jam is presenting pro-choice arguments as a rationalization around our true moral beliefs.

I stated previously that if I agreed with the Church’s moral teaching I’d sign up for RCIA immediately. Our differences on abortion are one of the main things holding me back.

I would say that a human person is a human body that has reached the conscious state of development, but I am not particularly committed to this definition.

As most atheists are pro-choice, any insults directed at pro-choice people necessarily affects atheists. Especially in this thread, where the two atheists most involved in the discussion are pro-choice.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

And you’re getting upset because you don’t wanna concede to the TRUTH. Sorry if that upsets you.
I’m not attacking you, but dude, open your eyes. You’re smarter then to just tow the typical atheist b.s.

I mean it’s not that I’m angry (even though you’re trying your best to lower me to anger); I’m just a little frustrated. You’re so caught up in this frenzy you will never consider reasoned and logical arguments … so why should I give any weight to your opinions and statements?

BTW I actually did edit out some of my more rash statements regarding your ad hom attacks on my personal character (which were very unfortunate). For an older guy you’re really not acting very mature here … and while that may be a statement on your personal demeanor, it’s one I make with a perfectly rational basis.

 

[Eleve]

Put me on your ignore list, better yet flag my post and report me to the mods.

I wasn’t speaking to you. Your posts don’t annoy me.

And now I see that certain other posts will no longer be my concern.

 

[josie_L]

The ad hom attacks are unfortunate. They forget this isn’t necessarily a religious issue; nor does it need to be. Abortion is obviously a tough choice for anyone & I’m sure it carries psychological ramifications throughout a woman’s life (if she has to make such an unfortunate choice). On that basis alone it’s perfectly logical to say it’s undesirable.

That said do we define as illegal every undesirable thing that exists? The first inquiry is obviously whether or not the thing at issue is undesirable for society at large. The second question must then be can the government prevent the conduct. If the government can prevent the conduct, then we ask at what cost. If the cost outweighs the benefits we say it’s not worth it. There are some things so imminently harmful that no matter the cost we must protect society against it, like murder or rape. However, abortion is not imminently harmful and past history shows us government regulation can’t prevent it anyway.

So I look at this issue from a pragmatic perspective; yet (unfortunately) the pro-life folks here have refused to even take on my arguments (which are, objectively speaking, perfectly logical).

Will anyone answer the question … do they really believe the government can prevent abortion by merely overturning Roe v. Wade? With the availability of an abortion pill does anyone really believe abortion can ever be prevented or even reduced through force of law? We can’t stop heroin, crack, or meth from reaching our streets (much more harmful than the abortion pill) – so what leads anyone to believe a law against abortion will have any impact whatsoever? Therefore, why should I vote to have my tax money wasted on such a fruitless endeavor?

Francis I’ve been using objective data of which you choose to ignore. But you are somewhat correct in stating that the gov’t can’t prevent abortion per se even if overturns Roe v. Wade. But it will reduce its numbers. At least less than the million we have now. I believe people need to come to the conclusion that abortion is wrong on their own. However, why should that stop me from trying to show you that abortion is wrong? I’m not trying to make myself out better than you, I just wish that you could see how abortion is not necessary, and furthermore, that the legalization of abortion with Roe vs. Wade didn’t make things better but worse. We have triple the amounts of abortions we did since 1973. Can this be a good thing? And why furthermore have the amounts gone up so high?

 

[josie_L]

Jam is presenting pro-choice arguments as a rationalization around our true moral beliefs.

I stated previously that if I agreed with the Church’s moral teaching I’d sign up for RCIA immediately. Our differences on abortion are one of the main things holding me back.

I would say that a human person is a human body that has reached the conscious state of development, but I am not particularly committed to this definition.

As most atheists are pro-choice, any insults directed at pro-choice people necessarily affects atheists. Especially in this thread, where the two atheists most involved in the discussion are pro-choice.

So you happen to be Atheists and pro-choice but even if you were Christian and pro-choice we’d be doing the same thing. So it has nothing to do with you being an atheist. And a humanperson is redundant Eleve (I don’t mean to sound condescending). And please, please read the encyclicals of the Church. Have you tried praying (does this mean you believe there’s a God) because if this is one of the few things standing in your way to signing up then you need to act pronto?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Francis I’ve been using objective data of which you choose to ignore. But you are somewhat correct in stating that the gov’t can’t prevent abortion per se even if overturns Roe v. Wade. But it will reduce its numbers. At least less than the million we have now. I believe people need to come to the conclusion that abortion is wrong on their own. However, why should that stop me from trying to show you that abortion is wrong? I’m not trying to make myself out better than you, I just wish that you could see how abortion is not necessary, and furthermore, that the legalization of abortion with Roe vs. Wade didn’t make things better but worse. We have triple the amounts of abortions we did since 1973. Can this be a good thing? And why furthermore have the amounts gone up so high?

Josie … I wasn’t addressing you??? OK at least you concede one point (maybe not even a concession … I’ll assume you always realized that the government can’t impact abortion in a significant way).

First, abortions are now less than one million per year (about 800,000). So you already have your wish of under one million annual abortions. This number is drastically reduced from even ten years ago (when abortion peaked at something like 1.3 or 1.4 million per year). So I assume efforts by pro-life groups aimed at convincing girls to adopt rather than abort have been working (or perhaps there’s been demographic shifts, increased use of contraception, or who knows).

So today we do not have triple the amount of abortions as compared to 1972 or 73, we actually have the same number of abortions (proportionately speaking). In 1972 there were about 600,000 abortions per year (nominally less to be precise). Today there are slightly more than 800,000. That roughly corresponds to our population increase since 1972 (we have about 100 million new citizens since then).

To conclude abortion numbers are roughly the same today as they were when the procedure was illegal; and we have many more ways of obtaining an abortion today (including a non-invasive pill). So why the heck anyone would focus on Roe v. Wade (which certainly will not change, even though actually Casey v. Planned Parenthood of PA is now the governing case law for abortion).

I understand this issue isn’t going away anytime soon … but it seems to me a political red herring Washington exploits to divert our attention away from more pressing matters. BTW as for the contention that abortion is wrong or at least undesirable … I’m not sure why you think I disagree with that? Have you been reading my posts

Anyway … I’m signing off for a while (I need to go out and catch a movie, or something more enjoyable than discussing abortion). So you guys can have your way with me for the next few hours

 

[josie_L]

Josie … I wasn’t addressing you??? OK at least you concede one point (maybe not even a concession … I’ll assume you always realized that the government can’t impact abortion in a significant way).

No Francis, I think if we did overturn Roe vs. Wade that we could cut abortions by more than half because the power to make abortion legal or not would rest with the states. I think we can safely say that the more conservative states will delegalize abortion while other more liberal states will keep abortion as is. I don’t think that the gov’t can prevent abortion as that would be impossible.

First, abortions are now less than one million per year (about 800,000). So you already have your wish of under one million annual abortions. This number is drastically reduced from even ten years ago (when abortion peaked at something like 1.3 or 1.4 million per year). So I assume efforts by pro-life groups aimed at convincing girls to adopt rather than abort have been working (or perhaps there’s been demographic shifts, increased use of contraception, or who knows).

No, they are not less than 800 000, didn’t you read my posts? The Guttmacher institute which is the research arm for Planned Parenthood stated 1.2 or was it 1.3 million for the year of 2005. You used a gov’t site which gave a number significantly less (the 800 000 you keep citing) for the same year which makes no sense. Personally I’ll go with Planned Parenthood on this one.

So today we do not have triple the amount of abortions as compared to 1972 or 73, we actually have the same number of abortions (proportionately speaking). In 1972 there were about 600,000 abortions per year (nominally less to be precise). Today there are slightly more than 800,000. That roughly corresponds to our population increase since 1972 (we have about 100 million new citizens since then).

Wrong again for reasons mentioned above.

To conclude abortion numbers are roughly the same today as they were when the procedure was illegal; and we have many more ways of obtaining an abortion today (including a non-invasive pill). So why the heck anyone would focus on Roe v. Wade (which certainly will not change, even though actually Casey v. Planned Parenthood of PA is now the governing case law for abortion).

No they are not the same.

I understand this issue isn’t going away anytime soon … but it seems to me a political red herring Washington exploits to divert our attention away from more pressing matters. BTW as for the contention that abortion is wrong or at least undesirable … I’m not sure why you think I disagree with that? Have you been reading my posts

Life is important Francis, it should be for all of us. Abortion is not the panacea for the social issues we are dealing with (rampant promiscuity).

P.S. Why did you say pro-life folks then (you were not refering to me)?

 

[josie_L]

what you’re doing here is the common fallacy of ad hom attacks to divert away from the logic of my position. Moreover, you’re making baseless assumptions about what my reaction might be if I suddenly discovered that I impregnated a woman. I can assure you abortion would be the furthest thing from my mind (not that I even feel like I owe anyone an explanation for what my potential conduct would be if a hypothetical situation like an unplanned pregnancy arises, but I’ll give it anyway **since I know a common tactic in Catholic debate technique seems to be personal attacks and besmirching the character of any proponent of opposing ideas). **

Frankly it’s quite sad if you ask me; and it further confirms the insincerity of claims that Christianity is a loving tolerant religion.

Francis, we don’t tolerate the sin but we should “tolerate” the sinner, i.e., hate the sin love the sinner. And I’m not directing this to you (although I believe you to be wrong) I’m just clarifying your last statement about Christianity.

P.S. How do you know that this is a common tactic amongst Catholics debating their opponent? This in and of itself sounds like a biased generalization. And please put this in perspective most people here have been kind to you (with some minor exceptions) but remember you are not always so receptive yourself.

 

[jam070406]

I mean it’s not that I’m angry (even though you’re trying your best to lower me to anger); I’m just a little frustrated. You’re so caught up in this frenzy you will never consider reasoned and logical arguments … so why should I give any weight to your opinions and statements?

BTW I actually did edit out some of my more rash statements regarding your ad hom attacks on my personal character (which were very unfortunate). For an older guy you’re really not acting very mature here … and while that may be a statement on your personal demeanor, it’s one I make with a perfectly rational basis.

I can see that the thought of killing and innocent baby in the womb upsets you. You can claim you all day long “reasoned” and “logical” arguments but the fact that this upsets you speaks volumes.

 

[Eleve]

And a humanperson is redundant Eleve (I don’t mean to sound condescending).

Depending on terminology, sure. But then we just end up with me saying that a human does not exist immediately after conception.

And please, please read the encyclicals of the Church. Have you tried praying (does this mean you believe there’s a God) because if this is one of the few things standing in your way to signing up then you need to act pronto?

I have definitely tried praying, and it’s quite possible that these discussions are part of God’s answer. Would Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae be the encyclicals that I’m looking for?