legislating morality

  • Thread starter Thread starter z0wb13
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
so as a taoist, am i inherently immoral? does this explain my love of bar-be-que ;p
The point is that all morality derives itself from religion. Those religious codes of law and morals have become such a part of society that now all societies have them. Your religious beliefs don’t make you immoral because your society has systemized that morality through law and a communal sense of good.

Further, you can be moral without believing in morality from God, just as one can be studious while not attending school.
 
I think that the state should finance a guild of assassins or at least make one legal. The Guild, or the guilds, will be allowed to kill a certain amount of people every year as long as they also take care of ‘‘freelance workers’’ and kill them, preferably a very gruesome death. It is impossible to make murder disappear altogether anyway so why don’t we just take control of the business? ‘‘Freelance workers’’ will probably continue to exist but there will be less of them since they are afraid of the Guild or the guilds. This will make it possible for us to limit the murders in society and make them fewer than before which means there will be more people who are able to stay alive. Assuming that this theory will work, I think we should make something like this since ‘‘the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few’’ and everyone who disagrees are just trying to force their own morality on me based on their religion, culture, ideology, their own ideas etc.
 
Really? This whole thread made my head hurt a little.

Abortion is a human issue, not a religious issue. Do you know, when you seek the most primitive societies left on our planet they cannot fathom the idea of deliberately killing a child in the womb. You know why? Because it is a basic human instinct to protect new life, not kill it.

Certain moral truths transcend religion. I would wager that the majority of societies on earth today recognize that sexualizing children is morally wrong, murder is wrong, theft is wrong… If a child in the womb is indeed a human being (which, I believe, science HAS proved)… then killing that child IS murder. Therefore, abortion IS murder… therefore it falls under the category of basic human moral principle that abortion should not be acceptable.

Arguing that if we make abortion illegal that people will have to turn to dangerous means to get an abortion is a stupid argument. Raping a baby is illegal. Men who choose to try and rape babies go through extraordinarily dangerous and abhorrent methods to do so… we don’t make this legal just because of that.

Certain drugs are illegal. People go through hell to get those drugs… that doesn’t mean we should make them legal.

Murder is illegal. People go through extraordinary means to hide their crimes, sometimes at the detriment of all of society… we don’t make murder legal.

As to gay marriage. This is a societal issue that should be plainly obvious. Families are not made from men and men or women and women. Families, and thus society, is made from men and women joining together and having babies. Period. Gay marriage runs contrary to this and therefore runs contrary to the good of society.

If gay couples wish to be together so badly why can’t they have a civil union of their own? Separate from an age old ‘institution’ that has always been defined as ‘man and woman’. Why change that? Why not give them their own union? 🤷
 
says you. my eyes and brains and religious beliefs don’t see it the same as you. i believe that your life begins when you take your first breath. when i look at a fertilized egg at the moment of conception, i don’t see a person, or a baby, or even much potential for either. i just don’t see it.

that’s what my intractable religious belief is.
Is that really a religious belief? Is it even a personal belief - could you actually look at a newborn the moment before he takes his first breath and not see a human? Can you really believe that inhaling is what gives us our humanity? It seems more likely that you see the illogic of choosing an arbitrary event or time between conception and first breath to say that humanity has somehow popped into the fetus and so have chosen a short time after birth to believe we become human.

I do understand, of course, that it’s easier to attach emotionally to someone who ‘looks’ more human, but a newly-conceived person is logically just as much a person as a three-year-old or a ninety-year-old or a person so horribly disfigured that he barely ’ looks’ human anymore.
Have you considered what sorts of things have gone in human history when we decide some people aren’t as human as the rest of us? Maybe they’re ratlike and can be sent to extermination camps, or they’re only 2/3 of a person and can be enslaved and brutalized? But it was okay because “they’re not like me - they look way different and are not as human as I am.”
 
I mean that reinforcing the part without fixing the whole leaves nothing but broken pieces. If we allow the suffering of the life we saved are we not causing suffering?

If a person is dying very slowly and they ask you to kill them because they can not even do that themselves, are you a sinner for doing so?
Have you ever read Joanthan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” for solving the problem of starving Irishmen? He seems to be thinking along the same lines as you are.
 
Is that really a religious belief?
absolutely. i will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you plainly don’t understand. but it is my profound religious belief that life begins when a baby takes its first breath.
Is it even a personal belief?
sometimes it’s hard to read a person’s tone on a web board. i’m not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but if you read what i said, then i stated rather explicitly that it is a personal and religious belief.
could you actually look at a newborn the moment before he takes his first breath and not see a human?
again, this is my religious belief. i don’t understand how you can look at the world and see any kind of afterlife. i just can’t. i don’t understand how bad things could happen to good people if a benevolent force looked after the universe.

i guess that one could draw a parallel between God and the tao. but the tao isn’t benevolent, or interested in humans. it’s not a consciousness, so it can’t be interested one way or another. so the tao doesn’t have to be worshiped, it is indifferent to praise.

anyway, there are a lot of differences, so i hope that this helps to bridge the gulf between our beliefs. but to reiterate, yes, i have actual religious beliefs, and they are exactly as valid as your own.
 
I don’t think we have a right to be forcing Catholic beliefs on everyone else… At the same time the government should have no right to force other beliefs on Catholic…

America is a melting pot… What’s immoral for a Catholic could be okay for a Reform Jew or Protestant.,.

We have no right to force being pro-life (although the government needs to stop forcing abortion on Catholics) on let’s say a unitarian universalist who is pro-choice…

Just like we can’t force a gay man to stop having sex… We don’t have to allow gay rights in our churches or organizations… But we can’t force them to stop having sex or hanging out at a gay bar…

Stuff like this happens in this country… However there is also the problem of the government forcing all this on Catholics…
 
Have you ever read Joanthan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” for solving the problem of starving Irishmen? He seems to be thinking along the same lines as you are.
Passive aggression does not help find knowledge.
And anyone that wants thousands of unwanted children to be born where there is no support for caring for them, does not have the interests of life in mind.
 
here you compare apples to oranges.
No I don’t. If abortion is supposed to work (it doesn’t but let’s pretend it does) then the children need to be taken care of, the chances the mother will be a proper mother are low, so where is the support?
 
absolutely. i will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you plainly don’t understand. but it is my profound religious belief that life begins when a baby takes its first breath.
Really? So it is ok for you to do an abortion just one week before a woman is giving brith to a child? That opinion is rather unusual view.
I don’t think we have a right to be forcing Catholic beliefs on everyone else… At the same time the government should have no right to force other beliefs on Catholic…

America is a melting pot… What’s immoral for a Catholic could be okay for a Reform Jew or Protestant.,.

We have no right to force being pro-life (although the government needs to stop forcing abortion on Catholics) on let’s say a unitarian universalist who is pro-choice…

Just like we can’t force a gay man to stop having sex… We don’t have to allow gay rights in our churches or organizations… But we can’t force them to stop having sex or hanging out at a gay bar…

Stuff like this happens in this country… However there is also the problem of the government forcing all this on Catholics…
I agree that we can’t force Catholic values on people but we can definitely make abortion illegal, if the majority of the people thinks that is right and it becomes illegal in a democratic way. I say that because while it surely is a Catholic value that abortion is wrong you don’t have to be a Catholic or even be religious in any way to think so. The question is not about religion, it is about whether humans have the right to live or not and also when the unborn life becomes a human. In a way, the abortion issue is just about the interpretation of the belief that all humans have a right to live. And I think that the people who are pro-choice understand why a person who are pro-life can’t compromise and why they will try to make abortion illegal if they can. Because, assuming that they are not racists, they would do the same thing if someone wanted to exterminate all Native Americans. The racists probably also thinks that the non-racists stands in their way because of the non-racists own personal opinions. They can however think that we are stupid, if thats what they want.
 
Really? So it is ok for you to do an abortion just one week before a woman is giving brith to a child? That opinion is rather unusual view.

I agree that we can’t force Catholic values on people but we can definitely make abortion illegal, if the majority of the people thinks that is right and it becomes illegal in a democratic way. I say that because while it surely is a Catholic value that abortion is wrong you don’t have to be a Catholic or even be religious in any way to think so. The question is not about religion, it is about whether humans have the right to live or not and also when the unborn life becomes a human. In a way, the abortion issue is just about the interpretation of the belief that all humans have a right to live. And I think that the people who are pro-choice understand why a person who are pro-life can’t compromise and why they will try to make abortion illegal if they can. Because, assuming that they are not racists, they would do the same thing if someone wanted to exterminate all Native Americans. The racists probably also thinks that the non-racists stands in their way because of the non-racists own personal opinions. They can however think that we are stupid, if thats what they want.
If someone I know is going to get an abortion; I can disagree with her and beg her not to get one… But at the end of the day i have no right to stop her on… It’s not my child and it’s currently legal… Short of a constitutional amendment on abortion it will remain legal sadly…
 
Really? So it is ok for you to do an abortion just one week before a woman is giving brith to a child?
stop putting words in my mouth. that would never happen. that is a straw man argument, and if that’s not obvious to everyone else on the boards, then you need to look up “straw man argument” on wikipedia.
that opinion is rather unusual view
that’s not my opinion at all. it’s not even close to my opinion. if you can’t understand this, then feel free to ask me questions. but what you are doing really is arguing with yourself. because the “opinions” that you ascribe to me are your own, as are your criticisms of them. like a snake eating its tail.
The question is not about religion, it is about whether humans have the right to live or not and also when the unborn life becomes a human.
so when exactly does the unborn life become a human? like i said, it is my firm religious belief that life begins when you take your first breath. things like breath, wind and lightness are very important to taoists.

i know that this is true, the truth, because i believe it;p but when does andromedus think that life begins? how can we know it?
And I think that the people who are pro-choice understand why a person who are pro-life can’t compromise and why they will try to make abortion illegal if they can.
so you must understand that i can’t move an inch from my position. so what would andromedus do next, now that you have reached an impasse?
 
If someone I know is going to get an abortion; I can disagree with her and beg her not to get one… But at the end of the day i have no right to stop her on… It’s not my child and it’s currently legal… Short of a constitutional amendment on abortion it will remain legal sadly…
Yes, of course as long as it is legal you can’t do anything but trying to convince people, but if it is decided in a democratic way that abortion should be illegal then you also force people. I thought you meant even that would be wrong. Now its seems like thats not the case, or did I misunderstand your post?
stop putting words in my mouth. that would never happen. that is a straw man argument, and if that’s not obvious to everyone else on the boards, then you need to look up “straw man argument” on wikipedia.

that’s not my opinion at all. it’s not even close to my opinion. if you can’t understand this, then feel free to ask me questions. but what you are doing really is arguing with yourself. because the “opinions” that you ascribe to me are your own, as are your criticisms of them. like a snake eating its tail.
It would perhaps never happen but I don’t see how that is relevant at all since I was asking about whether you thought an abortion one week before a woman is giving birth to a child is acceptable or not. I am sorry that I implied that you thought it was acceptable if you don’t, I am rather relieved if thats the case actually.
so when exactly does the unborn life become a human? like i said, it is my firm religious belief that life begins when you take your first breath. things like breath, wind and lightness are very important to taoists.
Ok, but then I wonder, what is the human before its first breath? I mean, there is no huge difference between the moment a person is born and the moment before that happens and when do you think an abortion is acceptable? If it ever is? It is quite easy to assume that you think an abortion is ok until the last moment since you say that a human becomes human with the first breath, but you reacted strongly against that assumption so it seems like you don’t think an abortion that late is acceptable. However, when you wrote ‘‘become human’’ did you mean that the life becomes fully human or something like it?
i know that this is true, the truth, because i believe it;p but when does andromedus think that life begins? how can we know it?
so you must understand that i can’t move an inch from my position. so what would andromedus do next, now that you have reached an impasse?
Its hard for me to say exactly when it becomes a life, but I think it is early and therefore I don’t want someone to do an abortion for the same reason that you don’t close your eyes and fire a gun just because it might not kill someone. Well, if you don’t move an inch from your position and I don’t either then its up to the majority of the people to decide whether it should be illegal or not. So I can only try to convince people.
 
I don’t think we have a right to be forcing Catholic beliefs on everyone else… At the same time the government should have no right to force other beliefs on Catholic…

America is a melting pot… What’s immoral for a Catholic could be okay for a Reform Jew or Protestant.,.

We have no right to force being pro-life (although the government needs to stop forcing abortion on Catholics) on let’s say a unitarian universalist who is pro-choice…

Just like we can’t force a gay man to stop having sex… We don’t have to allow gay rights in our churches or organizations… But we can’t force them to stop having sex or hanging out at a gay bar…

Stuff like this happens in this country… However there is also the problem of the government forcing all this on Catholics…
I’m sorry, but this stance is, in my opinion, the tragic flaw of ‘pro-choice Catholics’. It isn’t about pushing your beliefs on others. It is the belief that human life begins at the moment of conception - when sperm and egg join to create a separate human being, with human DNA; a live organism that has a heartbeat (more on this below). Catholics, and scientists, recognize this as a human being. Therefore, the killing of that human being is murder. Since not only our religion (and pretty much all religions), but pretty much all societies and codes of law also, recognize murder as wrong, we must stand against abortion. Follow the thread - it was documented that one of the ideas of the pro-choice movement and the push for legalized abortion back in the 60s and 70s was to try and convince people that a fetus is not a human. Sadly, this seems to have actually worked.

Concerning the heartbeat, anyone trained in CPR, or who ever watched a medical drama, should know that ‘clinical death’ is when someone does not have a heartbeat. Therefore, according to the medical community, you are still ‘alive’ without the ability to breath. It is only when your heart stops are you ‘clinically dead’. Now, because of things like CPR and defibrillators, you can try and revive someone who is ‘clinically dead’, but the distinction remains - it is the heart, not the lungs, that determines life. Why, then, the determination of a human being ignores DNA, cells, body structure, and heart rate, while only focusing on the lungs, blows my mind. It stands against so much that science has taught us, which means it must only be personal or religious beliefs, since it cannot hold in the face of scientific fact.
 
No I don’t. If abortion is supposed to work (it doesn’t but let’s pretend it does) then the children need to be taken care of, the chances the mother will be a proper mother are low, so where is the support?
How can you end suffering for the whole world, then? Your suggestion is that suffering is bad, and people ‘may not’ have a good shot in life of ‘making something’ of themselves by being properly educated and raised, so it is better that they are not even born? Congratulations, you would wipe out the whole population in the next 60 years.

And though I disagree heavily with some of his politics, what better example exists of someone coming from non-traditional upbringing to making something of himself than President Obama? Would it be better that his mother had an abortion because he may have had to go through difficult times?

Suffering is a gift from God - it serves many purposes. Read “The Problem of Pain” by C.S. Lewis and he explains it brilliantly. Speaking of Lewis, someone else who had a dificult childhood. His mother died young, he was shipped off to boarding schools where he was mistreated, and had a very difficult relationship with his father. And yet, through it all, he became one of the greatest intellectual thinkers and literary critics of the 20th century. Amazing what a little difficulty can do for one’s character…
 
If someone I know is going to get an abortion; I can disagree with her and beg her not to get one… But at the end of the day i have no right to stop her on… It’s not my child and it’s currently legal… Short of a constitutional amendment on abortion it will remain legal sadly…
That is true, you cannot physically stop someone. But you can pray for them, you can pray for an end to abortions, you can protest, call your local and national lawmakers, etc. Just because you can’t physically stop someone doesn’t mean you can’t do anything.
 
How can you end suffering for the whole world, then?
Yes that is the goal.
Your suggestion is that suffering is bad, and people ‘may not’ have a good shot in life of ‘making something’ of themselves by being properly educated and raised,
No I have never said what you are saying right here. Please use quotes.
so it is better that they are not even born? Congratulations, you would wipe out the whole population in the next 60 years.
No, it is better that those causing the suffering are stopped.
And though I disagree heavily with some of his politics, what better example exists of someone coming from non-traditional upbringing to making something of himself than President Obama? Would it be better that his mother had an abortion because he may have had to go through difficult times?
No it is a terrible example. This isn’t the thread to discuss that.
Suffering is a gift from God
Definitely not.
  • it serves many purposes. Read “The Problem of Pain” by C.S. Lewis and he explains it brilliantly. Speaking of Lewis, someone else who had a dificult childhood. His mother died young, he was shipped off to boarding schools where he was mistreated, and had a very difficult relationship with his father. And yet, through it all, he became one of the greatest intellectual thinkers and literary critics of the 20th century. Amazing what a little difficulty can do for one’s character…
I never made the argument you are arguing against here, however you could pick a case or two for every general trend that goes against it.

My argument is to work at both stopping the suffering and continuing the discussion about abortion and the rights of the young human being that is developing. Not to try to do one and later consider the other only maybe.
 
Yes that is the goal.

No I have never said what you are saying right here. Please use quotes.

No, it is better that those causing the suffering are stopped.

No it is a terrible example. This isn’t the thread to discuss that.

Definitely not.

I never made the argument you are arguing against here, however you could pick a case or two for every general trend that goes against it.

My argument is to work at both stopping the suffering and continuing the discussion about abortion and the rights of the young human being that is developing. Not to try to do one and later consider the other only maybe.
How do you propose to end suffering? And isn’t murder causing harm? There have been several abortionists and pro-choice advocates who, after watching the destructive and harmful video tape of an actual abortion, have become pro-life. Their testimony is that the fetus is suffering. So, ending abortions is helping to end suffering.
 
It stands against so much that science has taught us, which means it must only be personal or religious beliefs, since it cannot hold in the face of scientific fact.
i agree. but you are playing a little loose and fast with scientific facts. as much fun as watching tv is, you can’t rely on it for medical information. clinical death means cardiac arrest, when the heart stops beating, and blood flow ceases to deliver oxygen to the brain. but just because someone is clinically dead, it doesn’t mean they are permanently dead; like you mentioned, CPR may be used to revive people.

but back to my religious beliefs, i think that life ends when you take your last breath. but science doesn’t have an arbitrary line after which if a person crosses it they are considered dead. science also doesn’t teach us that life begins at any particular time. it is a religious and personal belief that life begins at conception, for instance. but science would not confirm either of our positions.

from the Guardian:
Ian Wilmut, the creator of Dolly the sheep and Britain’s latest researcher to gain a human cloning licence, will only use human embryos to research motor neurone disease until they are 14 days old. The two-week line was drawn largely because before that time, embryos have not developed what is called the primitive streak, a thickening of the embryo that eventually forms the backbone.

so i guess this is an example of a scientific opinion, but it isn’t the same as claiming that science proves life begins 2 weeks after conception.
 
If you make abortion illegal.
The children need to be fed. Education is a lifelong process. The state only gives partial help several years into a child’s life. If a mother is unfit and unwilling to foster a child to the full potential, she causes lifelong damage to the child. The solutions include allowing contraceptives and abortions, or providing full and complete guidance to the child. Somewhere in there are privacy rights and the fact that you don’t own the body of others. Does the Jesus in the bible say to love or to destroy? Bringing a life into this world and giving every opportunity of suffering from an unwilling mother is destruction.
You wanted a quote, so here it is. As a reminder, my statement was: Your suggestion is that suffering is bad, and people ‘may not’ have a good shot in life of ‘making something’ of themselves by being properly educated and raised…

So my inference is that you can’t rely on the state to educate (agreed), and if a parent is unable to ‘foster a child to full potential’ (my emphasis added), then that causes lifelong damage to the child. So I took that ‘lifelong damage’ to mean they were ‘handicapped’ from someone who was properly raised. The implication is that they will be worse off (suffer). So, by handicapping them, you are putting their value as less than others, and so your options include preventing their birth.

However, this is entirely speculating on the conditions existing before they are even conceived - your attempt to nip it in the bud, so to speak. My point was that if this were the case, someone like Obama may have met your reasoning to be aborted, or have his birth ‘prevented’ from occurring.

You finish by outright claiming that bringing a child into the world where there is suffering caused by unfit parenting is ‘destruction’. Again, the implication lies that the child is better off never being conceived/born. But let’s continue this. Looking into the news, we see about kidnappings, child abuse, sexual assault, etc. What’s to say that a child in a good home can’t experience this type of suffering? Should they, too, be prevented the chance to suffer by taking away their chance of life?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top