tags: beliefs, Republican, politics
You might find yourself agreeing with this list (how could you not?), and possibly adding a few more of your own points to it after you've had a chance to read it. Of course, it wasn't always like this, as one commenter pointed out. But the Republican party has been hijacked by the same evil liars who hijack truth, freedom and everything else we hold dear in this country.
- Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
- Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
- Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
- The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iran.
- A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can be trusted to make decisions affecting all mankind without any government or public regulation.
- The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
- If condoms are kept out of schools, teens won't have sex.
- A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
- Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.
- Tobacco's link to cancer and global warming are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
- A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for an unjustified war where many thousands die is solid defense policy.
- Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
- The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.
- Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.
- High gas prices were Bill Clinton's fault, now they are the fault of the free market.
Categories
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Disclaimer: This series of posts is not an endorsement of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Rather, we are paying attention to Hillary because she has gone farther than any other candidate thus far in injecting science policy issues into the presidential race--and promising, if elected, to…
Here's what the mayor of Salt Lake City, UT said yesterday. You would think he's one of those Northeast liberal elitist, latte-drinkin' types...
Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Jackson:
A patriot is a person who loves his or her country.
Who among you loves your country so much that you have come here…
The Washington Post digs in an finds interesting parallels:
Sen. Barack Obama offers himself as a post-partisan uniter who will solve the country's problems by reaching across the aisle and beyond the framework of liberal and conservative labels he rejects as useless and outdated.
But as Obama…
I wonder if he really believes this? If so, he dementia is
worse than I
thought:
href="http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/bush_never_really_thought_abou.html">Bush:
'Never really thought about' war
Posted by Mark Silva on
October 5, 2007
President Bush, interviewed…
Nice work.
And I commend you for controlling your rage long enough to put this together. Me, I'd have been giving off steam after the first three or four, and then the monitor would fog up.
What the fuck does any of this have to do with science?
For the record, I am a conservative atheist who is generally republican than democrat (i'd be libertarian if the party was worth a dime). As a microbiologist and zoololgist, I'm surprised by point 5, which I'm guessing is your support of "pro-choice". I believe a woman (and all people) have a right to their own body, but abortion involves the body of an unborn fetus. A human life that is growing inside her. It's sick to think you may be more worried about animals than humans.
High gas prices are largely the result of oil refineries not able to put out enough supply. Why do we not have more oil refineries in america? Ask your friendly neighborhood tree-hugging liberal why we haven't build a new oil refinery in what? 30 years?
Thank you, oh thank you, GrrlScientist, for calling it like it is. I'm disgusted with the GOP and this administration in particular for all of the reasons you mentioned and more.
Note to the poster named "Me": Since you are anti-choice, you must be for adoption. Good. So how many adopted children do you have? How many of them were born to drug-addicted mothers? How many of them are handicapped? I've worked in hospital ERs and seen them all. Too many pro-lifers are in a righteous snit about abortion but turn their backs once the fetuses are born...until that child is of military age.
Funny how conservatives somehow think embryonic stem cell research is wrong. They always seem to want to equate an egg cell, electrically stimulated to divide, as a person, when at least some should know we don't reproduce that way. Maybe we should ask them to name one person ever born from parthenogenesis. Or, more politely, we might ask who in their family they are willing to watch die of some horrible disease like Parkinsons while they maintain their position.
And to think I thought it was impossible for any person with brains enough to operate a keyboard to be anti-choice/pro-life (I'll "balance" it with both) without having some kind of Christian, reason-deadening background. Just when you think you've seen it all.
To 'Me', I ask the age-old hypothetical: burning building with a container of 1,000 embryos and a screaming baby, only time to save one, go!
Now try it again with 1,000 and an adorable puppy.
This thought experiment should make you realize that life isn't binary.
Jeffk: I take it you've never encountered the amazing Ian Spedding, then. (Yes, that thread really is 304 comments long) O.o
I don't understand it either. One thing that I've noticed is that anti-choice atheists have a few things in common:
1) Their positions are invariably based in whole or in part on fallacious equivocation between "human" meaning "person" and "human" meaning "Homo sapiens."
2) In most cases, a point central to their argument is an incoherent, internally inconsistent definition of what constitutes a "human being", which they define as a status that applies to adult human beings and embryos but not to fresh corpses, tumors, or the ball of random tissues that resulted from some severe genetic abnormality and shared a uterus with my daughter, despite their inability to produce any coherent criteria that both born, living humans and first trimester embryos meet that tumors, fresh corpses, and my daughter's "twin" do not.
3) I have yet to meet one who wasn't male or who gave me the slightest reason to believe that he would still have the same view if there was any possibility that he personally would ever face an unintended pregnancy.
4) They manifest an appalling lack of empathy for women, especially pregnant women, and are clearly grossly ignorant of the physical hardships inherent in all pregnancies and the psychological and financial hardships inherent in unintended pregnancies, as evidenced by their use of words like "inconvenience" to describe them.
5) They typically have a disdainful view of sexually active people, especially women, that is almost impossible to explain except as either a relic of a fundamentalist upbringing or barely-concealed jealousy. When this is pointed out they angrily deny it, display a singular lack of the interest in what elements of their phrasing create this impression that would be expected if they sincerely didn't feel that way and didn't want to be misunderstood, and make little to no change in the tone of their statements.
6) They often seem to sincerely believe that all unintended pregnancies are due to irresponsibility; in other words, that contraceptive *failure* is a myth. When the inaccuracy of this is pointed out, they, like creationists being corrected about the actual state of the fossil record, typically downplay the mistake, move on, and then repeat it in the next argument (the same is true of many elements of the positions many of them take, but most pointedly and consistently true for this one).
7) Many have an irritating habit of violating Godwin's law, explicitly or implicitly, by forming emotionally charged but inexcusably illogical analogies to Nazi eugenics, eugenics in general, or "dystopias."
I'm still working on a theoretical framework that explains these observations adequately, though. Any thoughts? (Or additional observations?)
That's a great analysis.
In particular, I think the "relic of fundamentalist upbringing" is important, although I think it's almost more just a rubbing off of a religious culture - Christianity has so permeated the way we think that even many atheists, and certainly not wishy-washy agnostic types - can distance themselves from its influence.
I think I know some people who are close to what you're describing. They're atheists, in a sense, but they have almost a religious adherence to unregulated capitalism, "personal responsibility", and generally most of the talking points of the right. I think they tend to be males who think religion is nutty, but are much more scared of being associated with liberals, who they perceive as unmasculine.
Here's one to add:
#16 Loyalty is more important than competence. (Or, Loyalty is a moral value. Competence? What's that?)
jeffk,
A burning building with one mother in labor to deliver her baby, and another woman with a doctor awaiting to perform a partial birth abortion. There's only time to save one. Go!
Write On,
To demand that a person, such as "Me", who is pro-life adopt a child in order to validate his/her stance, is about as ludicrous as demanding that a pro-choice person never have a child, only abortions.
"Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
This point of what it takes to be a Republican is absurd. Any Christian would instantly know that Jesus doesn't hate homosexuals, nor Hillary Clinton.
I vote the Republican ticket because I am a conservative, and of the two parties, the Republican party is the one party that comes closest to representing my political views and I don't hate homosexuals nor Hillary Clinton.
Disagreeing with Hillary's political views doesn't equate to hatred of her as a person.
Disagreeing morally with the homosexual lifestyle, yet supporing their right to live their lives as they wish in our free, pluralistic society doesn't equal hatred for homosexuals.
There are homosexuals who vote the Republican ticket. So, this doesn't really make any sense.
This is idiotic. jeffk's hypothetical demonstrates that deep down we don't ascribe personhood to embryos, despite rhetoric to the contrary from elements in the anti-abortion movement (more properly, the anti-embryonic stem cell research wing of that movement).
Yours shows what? That, all things being equal, an about-to-be-born baby plus a person has more value than just a person? Has anyone ever claimed otherwise?
The thing about abortion is that it's going to happen anyway, banned or not; always has done. Making it illegal and driving it underground will merely lead to many deaths from back-street abortions.
If the anti-abortionists really wanted to end it, they would certainly be very much in favour of sex education and contraceptive availability, and be willing to provide full economic support for those women who did have accidents, as it were. But that's pretty much the opposite of what we see.
"Me": "High gas prices are largely the result of oil refineries not able to put out enough supply. Why do we not have more oil refineries in america? Ask your friendly neighborhood tree-hugging liberal why we haven't build a new oil refinery in what? 30 years?"
What's especially impressive is how those darn American treehuggers have also stopped new refinery development in Mexico, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and most of the rest of the world.
If this nonsense were true the oil majors would simply build the refineries outside the US and import petrol rather than crude.
I have always wondered abou the pro-life (uhum...) people and their views. If they ascribe fully human standard to a a bunch of cells without any nervous system, organs etc, why do they not ascrive those same standards to the dead? We can easily keep most people's heart going in hospital for ages after the brain has stopped working. So we should?
You can't pick and choose science. You can't say I am all for science in this field but when it comes to this bit over here I am going to take a religious stance and ignore science. You loose all credibility.
New refineries have been built in Europe & Saudi Arabia and the USA does import petrol (gasoline) from those countries. Building refineries in Nigeria is a waste of time, they don't even maintain the ones thay have and actually import petrol.
One problem that the USofA has is the multiplicity of standards http://cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/06jun/RL31361.pdf there are proposals to harmonise but at present you have at least 18 different standards plus the boutique petrols.
What formulation should be produced externally and then imported?
Outside the USofA, MTBE is commonly added but in many US states it is banned so that petrol can't be imported into the USofA.
Standardise your petrol and then, perhaps, investment will be made in new refineries, assuming the locals allow it. It would also help if so many of your states weren't NIMBYs.
Did you know, your goverment has a 54 cent/USgal tax on imported fuel-ethanol from Brazil (no it wasn't imposed by Bush) strange when you claim to want alternative fuels.
By the bye, I pay approx 15 cents per litre for petrol :o)
Every year I go to a horror festival called Dead By Dawn here in Edinburgh and, for some unexplained reason, every time on the Saturday morning as I approach the cinema I have to pass a line of pro-lifers strung out along Princes Street waving their banners. Quite amusing really as everyone either ignores or openly mocks them and they all seem perfectly miserable.
Occassionally I'll engage them with the usual "it's just a bundle of cells", women's rights and general safety arguments and get met either by blank stares, outright lies/propaganda or religious claptrap.
And Clay - your burning building trick doesn't work seeing as there's a slight difference between a woman about to give birth and jar full of embryos. Silly boy.
Of course people can pick and choose, what an odd idea to say that they can't, they do it all the time. Also, in whose eyes do they lose credibility? If that of their opponents I'm sure that they would find it hard to care less.
It isn't a religious stance to ignore science, it is a stance even athiests who prefer woo to tested medication take. Also, not all opponents of abortion on demand are religious. Those who don't have a religious background have belief sets/philosophies that set high value on human life.
Very few of those who oppose abortion on demand, oppose it absolutely or say that it is from conception that it is banned.
Abortion will always be a highly emotive issue, it is a moral not a scientific question (science may inform but never decides moral or political decisions, science isn't a holy writ or at least it shouldn't be treated as such).
You might say that you have a rational arguement, but that arguement will be predicated on your unfounded beliefs (we all have unfounded beliefs, things held to be true as being obvious) and so is no more or less rational than anyone elses, though you may be able to articuate it better.
You would probably say religion shouldn't come into it, that is a silly concept. Everyones viewpoint is formed based on their belief set, for some that includes religion for a minority it doesn't.
There have also been comments about survivability & dependance; based on that arguement can the mother kill the child after it is born? It is still dependant and will not survive without assistance, when does the mother forgo ownership? Should the time be set based on how pre-mature a baby has to be to be unsavable by medical science?
Then you have the fun of deciding if we (society) should expend money to try and save pre-mature babies whose mothers don't want them or should we just chuck them in the furnace.
An annoyance I have is saying (as the law does) that the father has no rights but has duties (whatever happened to "No taxation without representation").
If the mother wants an abortion and the father doesn't his wishes are ignored (you may say this is righteous and just); if it is just why then is it just to force the father to pay child support when the reverse situation holds?
Seems to me that people pick a time between 0 & birth) and then rationalise their choice afterwards. They also then add things to avoid any real restrictions, such as it has a 25% chance of being disabled so aborting it is OK (this doesn't actually improve human genetic diversity) which is strange given all the legislation inacted to try and reduce discrimination against the disabled.
It will be interesting to see what happens in China in the next couple of decades. The one child policy, along with abortion on demand, led to the preferntial abortion of females so there is an imbalance between the sexes estimated at 100 million in the next generation.
I think I've gotten so used to this I can pare it down to a few sentences for you, Chris.
Do you like hamburgers? Because a cow is more "living" in any measure you or I can come up with, be it intelligence, independence, ability to feel pain... the list goes on and on. And millions upon millions of Americans not only never think twice, but go to the trouble of mocking those who do. The only argument left against abortion, is that humans are special, that they have a soul or some such thing, and that's a religious argument, and shown fallacious by simply explaining why religion is logically incoherent - an easy trick for any unindoctrinated 6-year-old.
Of course people can pick and choose
Of course they can, it's just stupid to. Inconsistency makes reasonable argument, and therefore reasonable collective decision-making, terribly difficult for no reason other than a failing on the part of the inconsistent person.
it is a stance even athiests who prefer woo to tested medication take. I'll just file that in with religion, it's basically the same thing. I don't prefer woo medication.
You might say that you have a rational arguement, but that arguement will be predicated on your unfounded beliefs (we all have unfounded beliefs, things held to be true as being obvious) and so is no more or less rational than anyone elses, though you may be able to articuate it better.
This sort of relativism leads you down a very steep slippery slope that basically ends with nobody acomplishing anything. Sure we have to start somewhere. So where's a more reasonable place to start - "let's all argue over the meaning of some silly-ass book", or "let's try to maximize the net happiness for everyone as best we can" (for one non-religious example called Utilitarianism).
There have also been comments about survivability & dependance
I think these arguments are bad as a be-all, end-all, but are useful to demonstrate the incomplete nature of a fetus as compared to a baby, as well as the experience of having a life-sucking creature growing inside you.
if it is just why then is it just to force the father to pay child support when the reverse situation holds?
I actually agree with you here but this is completely beside the point.
Seems to me that people pick a time
Birth is the only non-arbitrary time between conception and baby. It's worth pointing out that if abortion wasn't stigmatized the way it is, late-term abortions would never be necessary anyways.
discrimination against the disabled
This is invalid because you can't discriminate against something you can abort. It doesn't know the difference.
preferntial abortion of females
This is unfortunate. It is a problem. It is ALSO beside the point. And for the record, could you imagine the alternative? It would be a world those aborted feti wouldn't want to live in, trust me.
It isn't a religious stance to ignore science, it is a stance even athiests who prefer woo to tested medication take.
OK, so we simply change the terminology and ignore your relativist leanings. It's an irrational stance. There you go, woo and religion covered in one fell swoop.
No, 'fraid not. What is your rationality based on? What are your pre-suppositions?
The relativity, if that is the correct term, of peoples definition of what is rational comes from their belief sets.
I do believe in general relativity, as a working hypothesis, don't you?
Though my main point was to point out that picking and choosing what science to believe is a choice made by both some theists and some atheists. Not why they make the choice.
Did you just compare general relativity to religious belief?
OK, my religious belief is that I'm always right. By your own arguments, that's just as valid as anything you or I could possibly say, so I guess we're done now.
It's a perfectly valid point that both atheists and non-atheists sometimes pick and choose science. Whenever they do it, it's a failing. No doubt you're nit-picking this orthogonal point because you got schooled in every other regard.
Not so. I don't equate a human with a cow.
I am biased that way, it isn't even an un-scientific viewpoint.
You may have faith in your arguement, however society is a collective and others have every right (in a democracy) to disagree with your opinion. To claim that they are inconsistent, unreasonable or failing is to miss an obvious point; they may honestly disagree with you on grounds they find totally consistent and rational and think of you what you think of them.
Then you missed the point of the comment.
I was simply pointing out that people may disagree with you without being religious.
Some religious people may agree with you (especially about early abortions), some atheists may disagree with your beliefs.
Religious belief isn't a definitive indicator on how someone views abortion.
It is the world you live in, even utilitarianism is just words written in a book.
Oh, depending on who gets to decide, Utilitarianism would make the worst excesses of the Inquisition pale into insignificance IMHO.
A life sucking creature?
Oh well. A baby is dependant on its parent(s) or society for a long time. In fact I think we are all dependent one upon another. So we all take life from others.
I was simply pinting out an inconsistancy in the law which is supported by many who are pro-abortion.
I agree with you that early abortions would reduce the number of late-term abortions.
Sort of obvious.
All times are arbitary, unless you are saying the mother owns the baby until it leaves her body. Or is it after contractions have started?
So you are claiming that a baby cannot feel pain or react until it leaves the mothers body?
I was pointing out that a low probability of a baby being disabled is grounds for abortion whilst once born the law actively defends their rights. It was mentioned in relationship to what some consider valid reasons for abortion.
The alternative would ahve been not to abort because of gender. If this hadn't happened then the problem wouldn't exist.
Why should I trust you?
No.
Well you did say that everyone who differed with your views about abortion wasn't being rational :o) Sort of implied that you believe yourself correct. Bye.
We partially agree on something.
I don't understand this statement, "...schooled in every other regard".
Please elucidate, I always understood schooling and education generally, to be good things.
Not so. I don't equate a human with a cow.
I am biased that way, it isn't even an un-scientific viewpoint.
I'll repeat: if humans are special, that's a religiously motivated viewpoint and is easily dismissed.
I am not claiming that people don't have a right to disagree with me. Your way of seeing the world is so relativistic that arguing is basically pointless. "Oh, well, they just think that non-whites are the minions of satan, so who are we to argue?" I am calling them WRONG for being "inconsistent, unreasonable or failing is to miss an obvious point", and if I can show why they are being such, then I am CORRECT. This is easy if you're dealing with people that think the world is being carried around on the back of a turtle or whatever religious people think these days.
Utilitarianism was an arbitrary example I used to show that we can have philosophical basises that are not theologically motivated. It is imperfect, but the difference is that we can discuss it, change it, or use something else - things that the pious person is incapable of, thus rendering them a crutch to civilized society.
All times are arbitary to a point, but if we're forced to make a choice, which we are, then birth stands out as being an obvious place to start.
I agree with you that early abortions would reduce the number of late-term abortions.
Sort of obvious.
Clearly. You're ignoring the next sentence where I claimed that if there wasn't stigma associated with it, then there would be more early ones.
So you are claiming that a baby cannot feel pain or react until it leaves the mothers body?
Nope. I'm saying that the pain that will be felt is absolutely minescule to the pain that will be felt by countless others should its unwanted existence continue. We make these sacrifices all the time for things as small as a tasty dinner.
The alternative would ahve been not to abort because of gender. If this hadn't happened then the problem wouldn't exist. Right. We could, however, abort NOT on the basis of gender. But this is still a complete aside to the matter at hand.
Well you did say that everyone who differed with your views about abortion wasn't being rational
I believe this to be the case but clearly I'm willing to discuss it.
I don't understand this statement, "...schooled in every other regard". I was being snarky and claiming that you were avoiding the more relevent points because you didn't know how to respond to them. But you did.
"This is idiotic. jeffk's hypothetical demonstrates that deep down we don't ascribe personhood to embryos, despite rhetoric to the contrary from elements in the anti-abortion movement (more properly, the anti-embryonic stem cell research wing of that movement).
Yours shows what?
Davis, my hypothetical situation is no more idiotic than jeffk's. Both of them are impossible situations to resolve. I just bumped up the stakes a bit to see whom a pro-abortion person would save. The mother trying to deliver her baby, or the mother trying to kill hers.
Deep down, you don't ascribe personhood to embryo's. I don't share that view. Embryos and babies are just at different developmental stages of life. Left alone, the embryo will develop into a baby, unless nature decides otherwise.
"And Clay - your burning building trick doesn't work seeing as there's a slight difference between a woman about to give birth and jar full of embryos."
PaulA, of course there is a slight difference between the baby that the woman is about to give birth to and a jar full of embryos. They are at different stages of life, silly boy.
Not so. I don't equate a human with a cow.
I am biased that way, it isn't even an un-scientific viewpoint.
I'll repeat: if humans are special, that's a religiously motivated viewpoint and is easily dismissed.
I am not claiming that people don't have a right to disagree with me. Your way of seeing the world is so relativistic that arguing is basically pointless. "Oh, well, they just think that non-whites are the minions of satan, so who are we to argue?" I am calling them WRONG for being "inconsistent, unreasonable or failing is to miss an obvious point", and if I can show why they are being such, then I am CORRECT. This is easy if you're dealing with people that think the world is being carried around on the back of a turtle or whatever religious people think these days.
Utilitarianism was an arbitrary example I used to show that we can have philosophical basises that are not theologically motivated. It is imperfect, but the difference is that we can discuss it, change it, or use something else - things that the pious person is incapable of, thus rendering them a crutch to civilized society.
All times are arbitary to a point, but if we're forced to make a choice, which we are, then birth stands out as being an obvious place to start.
I agree with you that early abortions would reduce the number of late-term abortions.
Sort of obvious.
Clearly. You're ignoring the next sentence where I claimed that if there wasn't stigma associated with it, then there would be more early ones.
So you are claiming that a baby cannot feel pain or react until it leaves the mothers body?
Nope. I'm saying that the pain that will be felt is absolutely minescule to the pain that will be felt by countless others should its unwanted existence continue. We make these sacrifices all the time for things as small as a tasty dinner.
The alternative would ahve been not to abort because of gender. If this hadn't happened then the problem wouldn't exist. Right. We could, however, abort NOT on the basis of gender. But this is still a complete aside to the matter at hand.
Well you did say that everyone who differed with your views about abortion wasn't being rational
I believe this to be the case but clearly I'm willing to discuss it.
I don't understand this statement, "...schooled in every other regard". I was being snarky and claiming that you were avoiding the more relevent points because you didn't know how to respond to them. But you did.
You're telling me you'd have to seriously think about whether you'd save the baby or the embryos in jeffk's hypothetical? I hope I'm misinterpreting you.
I really, really hope you're not trying to claim we'd save the former because deep down we all think the latter is a bad person. Anyone making that claim is (a) wrong (I elucidated why I'd choose the former in my previous post), and (b) an asshole. And if that's not your claim, then I can't see at all what your point is.
#6: "Maybe we should ask them [conservatives] to name one person ever born from parthenogenesis."
Too easy. They would answer "Jesus Christ".
"You're telling me you'd have to seriously think about whether you'd save the baby or the embryos in jeffk's hypothetical? I hope I'm misinterpreting you."
I'm not saying I would have to seriously think about which one to save. If I were ever in this higly improbable situation, of course, I'd grab the baby. But, using highly unlikely scenarios doesn't really prove anything.
Just because I would in, Jeff's scenario, rescue the baby and not the embryo's doesn't really negate my belief in the value of embryo's.
"The mother trying to deliver her baby, or the mother trying to kill hers. I just bumped up the stakes a bit to see whom a pro-abortion person would save."
"I really, really hope you're not trying to claim we'd save the former because deep down we all think the latter is a bad person."
Not claiming that at all. I asked it to see if a pro-choice person would choose to save the latter because, her right to choose abortion was so important to the pro-choice person that she must be saved and allowed to have that abortion.
And if that sounds ridiculous to you, it should. My scenario is just as ridiculous as jeffk's. In both scenarios you are only allowed to choose one to save, when for me, in both scenarios I would prefer to save all of them.
All fantasy hypothetical scenarios do is provide a diversion from the real arguments that need to be made.
Just because I would in, Jeff's scenario, rescue the baby and not the embryo's doesn't really negate my belief in the value of embryo's.
How do you figure? What's wrong with using a hypothetical situation to make an agrument? The situation, and your response, demonstrate my point absolutely perfectly: That there's no binary when it comes to the meaning of "living".
"The situation, and your response, demonstrate my point absolutely perfectly: That there's no binary when it comes to the meaning of "living"."
I don't agree with your conclusion. Your hypothetical situation did not change my opinion regarding the fetuses and their being "living" human beings.
Well, I guess we can get semantical. Clearly whatever word you use to describe them, they're different than a baby. Living human tissue for sure. "Being" is much more abstract.
It's not really a matter of semantics at all. It's a matter of the worth you ascribe to living things. If you use the "a fetus is not a baby" (I presume you mean born baby, since a fetus is a baby that is developing towards being ready for birth) then I can see why you then give worth and meaning to the baby that is finally born, and regard the baby that is developing in the womb as expendable.
I come from the position that once human living cells have begun to start developing towards the birth of a baby, then that is where worth and value is ascribed to that living being.
That's pretty crazy. There's been no response to my assertions about the necessity of belief in a soul to distinguish a fetus, or "un-born baby", or whatever the hell you want to call it, from things we eat all the time. Just claim after claim of "I give it worth".
"That's pretty crazy."
No more crazy than your side of the controversy.
"There's been no response to my assertions about the necessity of belief in a soul to distinguish a fetus, or "un-born baby", or whatever the hell you want to call it, from things we eat all the time."
I don't recall you making that assertion in any of your comments to me, so I'm hearing that for the first time.
I don't believe it is possible to even begin to address that issue. There is no way to be able to ascertain whether or not a soul is present from the beginning and grows and develops along with the body, or if it is implanted at the begininning or at some other time.
Only God would know the answer to that. And in case you don't believe in God, then, I doubt that you would believe in a soul either, so it would be an innane point.
"Just claim after claim of "I give it worth"."
Oh, I'm not claiming to give it worth. I give it worth.
Only God would know the answer to that. And in case you don't believe in God, then, I doubt that you would believe in a soul either, so it would be an innane point.
The purpose of this whole thing for me to was to show that being pro-life requires a God belief. Having succeeded, I suppose we can move on.
"The purpose of this whole thing for me to was to show that being pro-life requires a God belief. Having succeeded, I suppose we can move on."
jeffk,
We can move on if you'd like. But, it doesn't follow that you have to believe in God to be pro-life. Just like there are homosexuals who are conservative in their values, African Americans who are conservative in their values, there are more than likely also atheists who are conservative in their values.
Or are you laboring under the delusion that only the Religious Right are conservatives and no one else is?
"Standardise your petrol and then, perhaps, investment will be made in new refineries, assuming the locals allow it. It would also help if so many of your states weren't NIMBYs.
Did you know, your goverment has a 54 cent/USgal tax on imported fuel-ethanol from Brazil (no it wasn't imposed by Bush) strange when you claim to want alternative fuels.
By the bye, I pay approx 15 cents per litre for petrol :o)"
Not "my" government Chris. I'm Australian.
Meaning if I DID own a car I'd be paying a little over US$1.00 per litre. (Yjay's US$5.00 per gallon folks.)
I used to follow the oil industry pretty closely for work-related reasons but stopped a couple of years back when I changed jobs.
I think you'll find most countries have now eliminated MTBE.
"ExxonMobil has publicly stated that it will build no new refineries, presumably because the crude supplies needed may not be available from OPEC producers."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5827/980b
We can move on if you'd like.
I (genuninely) appreciate the offer, but I was really more curious about pro-life atheists.
I humbly apologise for the unintended slur on your good name :o)
Being still in the industry I am suprised about the comment on MTBE, I'll have to check into it else I will be stuck in a dying industry. Though as we are presently expanding the MTBE plant it may just be dying in some countries.
----------------
To jeffk; I'll happily continue the discussion once I've cogitated your comments.
Just one quick question for jeffk; when you ask about pro-life atheists do you restrict atheist to those who don't believe in god(s) or is it those you would class as religious. If the second group, how do you define religious?
" (genuninely) appreciate the offer, but I was really more curious about pro-life atheists."
I'm not sure how I can help you with that. I am not an atheist myself.
Askyroth wrote:
4) They manifest an appalling lack of empathy for women, especially pregnant women, and are clearly grossly ignorant of the physical hardships inherent in all pregnancies and the psychological and financial hardships inherent in unintended pregnancies, as evidenced by their use of words like "inconvenience" to describe them.
I am 8 month pregnant. It was a child I wanted.
Even so, and with a pregnancy that is going pretty well, it is very hard on many days, and it is never completely easy. I cannot begin to imagine how hard it is when the baby is not wanted.
I was pro-Choice before... Now I am even more ready to fight for the right of all women not to have to go through this if they choose not to. Whatever their reasons. Contraception education is the best thing to do, but the choice must remain open even afterwards.
What, pray tell does that exactly mean? What is such a "lifestyle" and how does it differ from a "life"? It's just an attempt to demean a group of people by lumping them together and attempting to identify them as a single, despised unit. Is there a heterosexual "lifestyle"?
"Me": "High gas prices are largely the result of oil refineries not able to put out enough supply. Why do we not have more oil refineries in america? Ask your friendly neighborhood tree-hugging liberal why we haven't build a new oil refinery in what? 30 years?"
this is one of the lamer talking points. oil companies scream this to mislead the masses into another tree-hugger hating frenzy, when the refineries are intentionally not functioning at capacity. there is really no need for new refineries. they are under-producing... on purpose. read some Bobby Kennedy, another Kennedy American hero.
Incidentally, how the hell does someone come to "disagree morally" with homosexuality without a mindless adherence to religious doctrine driving the "disagreement?" Let's hear your reasoning.
Azkyroth,
I wouldn't call it "mindless adherance to religious doctrine", but yeah, it was from a religious perspective that I said that.
Failure to repudiate a doctrine which condemns, vilifies, and demands the aggressive opposition of feelings experienced, and personal decisions made, by consenting adults that make them happy and harm no one, especially when those decisions are motivated by love, can reasonably be construed as mindless. Or sadistic, but I'm trying to be generous.
"Failure to repudiate a doctrine which condemns, vilifies, and demands the aggressive opposition of feelings experienced, and personal decisions made, by consenting adults that make them happy and harm no one, especially when those decisions are motivated by love, can reasonably be construed as mindless. Or sadistic, but I'm trying to be generous."
Azkyroth,
Did you pay attention to the full quote of what I said regarding homosexuality? Or did you just cherry pick part of what I said?
Here is the whole quote:
"Disagreeing morally with the homosexual lifestyle, yet supporing their right to live their lives as they wish in our free, pluralistic society doesn't equal hatred for homosexuals."
There is no condemnation, villification, or demands for aggresive or violent oppostion of the homosexual's feelings to be found anywhere in my statement.
In fact, to the contrary, my statement affirms my belief that they are to be allowed to live as they choose in our pluralistic society. I would never support a theocracy that tried to usurp our government's power and impose it's own moral laws on our citizens.
So, I'm a little lost here as to what your problem is.
You can shout it from the mountain tops, that won't make it so.
I'll say for the first time, your comment is not backed by any logic. For humans other humans are special and differ from other animals, in evolutionary terms this is part of our survival strategy; we support our immediate kith & kin and humans have extended this to create larger aggregates such as nation states.
Human does not equal cow, duck does not equal cow. They are not the same things therefore they are not equal; unless you wish to invoke some immaterial moral reason why they are.
Religion does not come into it, unless you are claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with you is religious.
If by relativist you mean that I am not an absolutist (its formal meaning) then yes I am. If you are claiming that I am wishy washy then you are just being silly.
I wasn't commenting, as you well know, about right & wrong (morals); my comment was against your claim of being rational and everyone who disagrees with you being irrational.
You are a tad absolutist in that regard.
Arguing against peoples belief set is perfectly valid and everyone does it at some time, but you can't claim that it is irrational unless you can show logical inconsistency within their belief set. Right & wrong are different things.
I suspect that social utilitarianism underlies a lot of your thoughts, the cow analogy and the equating humans and animals is often associated with some Princeton professor (can't remember his name, starts with an "S" I think) of ethics who preaches social utilitarianism, though like many preachers he is a hypocrite.
So you would throw away all the learning and start again? Anarchy rules OK :o)
You don't know what a pious person can or cannot do. As they are as human as you why do you believe that they are any less intelligent than you and/or incapable of modifying their thoughts?
I'm guessing that you didn't mean the comment about religion "being a crutch to civilized society". A crutch is a support and/or bulwark, so your comment says that civilization is supported by/upon religion.
If you did mean this then you are probably correct, but why then would you imply that it was something bad, all societies (civil and otherwise) are based upon law and the law derives from morals/ethics held in common by the people of the society.
In most societies these morals have religious underpinnings; one can discuss which came first, morals or religion, but the major religious groups have reinforced their societies' structures and helped them survive.
But this is somewhat askew from abortion, so I'll just say that you shouldn't let your disdain for those who don't agree with you blind you to the fact that other viewpoints aren't necessarily incorrect.
It is one place to start from, doesn't mean that it is the finish point.
I didn't ignore it, I didn't see it as adding anything of value.
Please note; I stand with Saints Augustine & Aquinas and with Aristotle in my views about abortion (though not for the same reasons and not about timing). Not with the Dali Lama or the present RC Pope.
You might find it surprising to read what the two saints wrote about abortion. Then again, all religious/pious people are stupid in your view, so why waste your time.
Countless others? Well I suppose it depends on high you can count or do you mean that you don't know how many?
You do appear to have a fixation about animals (PETAist?).
I am an omnivore, I eat animals and vegetables, I am an omnivore because that is how humans evolved. I have no moral/ethical qualms about eating animals.
This doesn't mean that I have no objections to causing pain to animals, it also doesn't mean that I would always save a human in preference to an animal or even a plant.
Hardly an aside; if abortion is allowed what are the criteria for choice? Should there be any?
I'll happily let this slide if you wish; but why do you believe that your belief set/worldview, upon which your rational arguments depend, is correct?
I guessed that it was meant to be an insult, I just don't understand why it is meant to be so. Is schooling somehow wrong or bad?
As you haven't answered my query as to what you mean by atheist, I'll just use the dictionary definition.
You asked for one Atheist (someone who doesn't believe in god(s)) who opposes abortion in principle, well the Dali Lama is one.
Buddhism is also an example of an ethical/philosophical system designed in opposition to the then social norms.
On relativism:
The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep.
The sheep thank the shepherd for maintaining their liberty, while the wolf denounces him as the destroyer of liberty.
Hmm. Apparently I did misread, and owe you an apology for connecting you and your personal position with those whom my statements do accurately describe. :/
Azkyroth,
No problem.
Ok, I know I'm just stirring the pot here, and I apologise in advance. But I'm going to echo Azkyroth's earlier question because I am interested in the answer.
Why and how would one oppose homosexuality on "moral" grounds without it being religiously motivated? What "moral" stance has it that homosexuality is inherently wrong, which is not specifically based in the explicit precepts and mores of a religion?
Clay wrote:
To demand that a person, such as "Me", who is pro-life adopt a child in order to validate his/her stance, is about as ludicrous as demanding that a pro-choice person never have a child, only abortions.
The difference is that pro-life supports who would use the government would eliminate the option of an abortion for everyone. Those of us who are pro-choice don't demand that every pregnancy end in an abortion.
People gladly affix the "pro-life" label to themselves, yet they don't seem to care about the life they fought for so hard once it's been born.
They are not the same things therefore they are not equal; unless you wish to invoke some immaterial moral reason why they are.
The burden of proof is on you on this one, not me. We know very well from a scientific perspective the capability of various animals of experiencing pain, their level of intelligence and sentience - certainly we don't know everything, but plenty enough to compare them in every meaningful way to a human fetus (or even, uncomfortably enough, to a human infant). To diverge from this takes motivation, not the other way around. We're animals.
some Princeton professor (can't remember his name, starts with an "S" I think) of ethics who preaches social utilitarianism, though like many preachers he is a hypocrite.
Peter Singer. I do agree with him on a lot, though not everything. And I don't know that preachers are in much a place to talk about hypocrites.
Countless others? Well I suppose it depends on high you can count or do you mean that you don't know how many?
The influence of a child, particularily and unwanted one, on the rest of the world is most certainly difficult to count. But it's large, for sure. Consider just for starters the limited resources they consume. The lives that are disrupted caring for them (grandparents, perhaps).
You do appear to have a fixation about animals (PETAist?).
I'm not a member of PETA, and in fact eat meat, although I try to stick to free-range/organic, sustainable meat - if such a thing exists. I recognize, and largely agree with, the ethical stance of vegetarians though I'm not there yet myself. But the reason I bring it up is perspective - I find this particular hypocracy makes clear just how irrational pro-life stances are.
Hardly an aside; if abortion is allowed what are the criteria for choice? Should there be any?
Nobody's claiming this is an invalid question - no doubt it's fertile ground for many pages of debate. But to make this worthwhile I'd rather keep things a bit more streamlined.
A crutch is a support and/or bulwark, so your comment says that civilization is supported by/upon religion.
Read it this way: a support for the lame or injured. A person of full physical capability doesn't need crutches; a person of full mental capability doesn't need religion.
Bachalon said:
"People gladly affix the "pro-life" label to themselves, yet they don't seem to care about the life they fought for so hard once it's been born."
Where did you get that notion? What do you mean by it?
Surely you aren't suggesting that people who hold the pro-life position need to periodically check in on each and every baby that has not been aborted to see if their parents are treating them right. Or, ensuring that they have been adopted. Or, seeing if the adopted parents are treating the child(ren) right?
jeffk,
You said:
"A person of full physical capability doesn't need crutches; a person of full mental capability doesn't need religion."
That's a rather biggoted statement.
You are implying that highly rational people can't be religious.
That's simply not true.
"Where did you get that notion? What do you mean by it?"
I get that notion from talking with my Christian friends, from listening to the news, reading books I don't agree with. The pro-life people struggle mightily to establish themselves as the only moral authority on this issue, but actions do speak louder than words. They are pro-life to a point, or do you deny this?
I see proudly pro-life Christians gleefully celebrate the execution of criminals, disregard any sort of push for socialized medicine to help with prevention. The fact is that most of them do only care about protecting a "child" until it is born, then they slough any responsibility for their actions in getting the child there. Pro-life indeed.
"Surely you aren't suggesting that people who hold the pro-life position need to periodically check in on each and every baby that has not been aborted to see if their parents are treating them right. Or, ensuring that they have been adopted. Or, seeing if the adopted parents are treating the child(ren) right?"
It would certainly behoove the movement to be more consistent with it's values. If you're going to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want, that she doesn't want to carry physically, emotionally, or financially, it would help your case if you were willing to at least contribute some money towards it's care when the kid is here. Otherwise you appear as nothing more than a controlling, uncaring bastard.
"The pro-life people struggle mightily to establish themselves as the only moral authority on this issue, but actions do speak louder than words. They are pro-life to a point, or do you deny this?"
The only moral authority on the issue? I doubt that. I don't know who your "Christian friends" are, but they are hardly representative of all Christians.
I wonder if your "Christian friends" know that you speak poorly of them on the Internet. What class of friend does that?
Pro-life to a point? If you mean that because they don't adopt every child not aborted, or provide financial assistance to the mother personnally then you are just being absurd.
First off, adoption agencies have no shortage on people wishing to adopt a child. Secondly, many Christians do donate money to charitable organization who exist to help unwed mothers with their pregnancies.
" see proudly pro-life Christians gleefully celebrate the execution of criminals..."
Any Christian who gleefuly celbrates the execution of a criminal is either not really a Christian, or is one living in sin and is seriously deluded. An authentic Christian never celebrates the execution of a criminal. They might agree with the punishment, but they certainly don't rejoice in the death of the criminal. The only understandable rejoicing would come from the victim of the criminal's family. But even then, that is not the high road position to take.
"...disregard any sort of push for socialized medicine to help with prevention."
Oh, I see where you are going with this. If a Christian doesn't support your liberal socialist programs then that means they don't care. Wrong answer. To be fair, people who are Christians come from all political backgrounds. Some are conservative politically and others are liberal.
So, just like your "Christian friends", those "Christians that gleefully celebrate the execution of a criminal" and those that don't support a socialist medicine program are hardly representative of all Christians.
By the way, "pro-life" is a position on the abortion issue, that is where it originated from. Trying to extend it to include pro-life for criminals is erroneous.
"It would certainly behoove the movement to be more consistent with it's values. If you're going to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want, that she doesn't want to carry physically, emotionally, or financially, it would help your case if you were willing to at least contribute some money towards it's care when the kid is here."
There are already Christian charitable organizations who do care for the mother and attend to her financial needs, emotional needs, etc. Maybe you weren't aware of this?
Based on your negative attitude toward Christians, I don't think a Christian could ever go far enough for you. I suspect that we will all just continue being uncaring bastards in your eyes. And that's too bad.
There's alot more about Christians and Christianity that it would beehove you to learn about, that is, if you want the full picture.
It's perfectly reasonable to conclude that if a person is going to force someone else to have a child, against that other person's will, then they are implicitly taking responsibility for ensuring that that child will be properly cared for. The fact that the overwhelming majority of the anti-choice also oppose expansion of government welfare services needed to provide the children they would force others to have with a decent quality of living is telling. Their motives have nothing to do with compassion and everything to do with a desire to control women and to punish people, especially women, for having sex.
If that's really true, then what's this I keep hearing about an overcrowded, underfunded foster care system?
It's also a misnomer, because it is about as accurate a description of their motives and intentions as Orwell's "Ministry of Love." It's a propoganda term, not an honest sentiment.
There are also a great number of Christians who recognize that women are human beings and have intelligence and function beyond breeding, which seems to be hotly contested by a sizable proportion of the anti-choice movement and to in fact be the root of their position. Even if you don't personally believe that, why would you put yourself in that kind of company?
News flash: Predictions based on the theory of evolution are proved correct (for about the billionth time); different animals utilise the same systems in similar ways. In related news physicists have discovered that copper cables are used to transmit electrical signals (analog & digital) in petrochemical plants & computers, they were not surprised to discover that the same cables could also transmit electrical power.
A scientific perspective? As opposed to what, a human perspective?
I've another news flash for you; all scientists are humans.
So, irrespective of what you write, the perspective is human (possibly based on the results of scientific experiments), this is the only perspective there is until ET arrives.
You say that it is "...plenty enough to compare..", this is a human judgement call. Science informs and can say what physical effects will result in other effects but as to sentience, is there even an agreed definition.
The burden of proof is not on me.
If you were proposing a scientific hypothesis (which you aren't) then the burden falls on the proposer to make falsifiable predictions and show that these predictions are, at least, as good as the existing hypothesis and hopefully to make testable predictions that differ from the existing hypothesis and then compare the results.
As you haven't done this I'ld propse that you aren't doing science (methodological naturalism).
In mathematics "1" does not equal "not 1".
Science does not say that all animals are the same, in fact (apart from identical siblings) it says that they are all different.
Lions are not Gazelles, Wolves are not Elks, even humans are not all the same. However we cannot differentiate between electrons so electrons are all the same.
It is fairly simple, if things are not the same they are not equal.
You are not making a scientific proposal, you are stating a moral concept and wish to impose your morality on others (this isn't a condemnation just an hypothesis based on your writing, it is falsifiable if you assert that you don't want people to agree with you).
You are using equal in the same sense as in, Humans are equal before the law. This is not a scientific statement (it isn't even true as a legal statement as there are exceptions based on the idea of justice) it is a general policy statement (statement of intent) based on societies morals.
I wrote that Singer is a hypocrite. He is also a preacher, he preaches on behalf of the ethics he has helped develop.
He proposes a system of ethics for others to obey and then doesn't follow it himself. Do as I say, not as I do seems to be his personal philosophy. Religious preachers who stray are, strangely, lesser hypocrites; at least they didn't invent the ethics they ignore.
This is, of course, an aside: I just wished to clarify, as you appeared to misunderstand what I wrote.
Why is it large or even negative? In general humans add to the wealth of a society during their lives. Granted there are initial costs but I would guess that the overall cost to society isn't always negative.
But you have moved from the number of people affected to monetary cost.
So, by your lights; is a child from a poor family of less value than one from a rich family because it will consume less or should the rich family breed less because their children will consume more?
Using your money based ethics one should argue that anyone who isn't judged (who does the judging, what are the rules?) to be adding value to society, or at least breaking even, is superfluous.
It isn't hypocritical nor irrational.
Humans are omnivores, is it hypocritical or irrational to follow our nature and eat meat?
You may find it immoral and think that vegetarians are somehow more moral than others, that is your choice. However isn't it more rational to accept what we are?
I understand that you believe that your viewpoint is correct; but I still haven't seen any valid reasoning why you keep on calling those who disagree with you irrational. Your writing or saying it doesn't make it so.
Worthwhile for whom? Though thinking about it your criteria for choice would probably be dollars & cents.
Well, if you wanted it read that way perhaps that is what you should have written?
How do you justify the claim that a person who is religious has any lesser mental capacity compared to say yourself?
Even hydrocephalics aren't necessarily of any lesser mental capacity than other human (there is some interesting research on hydrocephalics with high IQs) and they have measurably less grey matter.
On the need for crutches, all societies rely on laws to maintain order and freedom in an equitable balance.
Laws are derived from the morals (ethics if you prefer the term) held by that society, changing these morals and/or the law derived from them often will lead to a less stable society (people won't be able to plan very well if laws can change all the time).
So these morals/ethics are societies crutch. Doesn't matter how you create them all societies have to have laws and so all societies that wish to be stable and have a chance of lasting need crutches.
These societal requirements also apply at the kith & kin and neighbour level, we require rules on how individuals engage one with another when law does not judge; so individuals also need crutches, if only to grease the wheels of social interaction.
"It's perfectly reasonable to conclude that if a person is going to force someone else to have a child, against that other person's will, then they are implicitly taking responsibility for ensuring that that child will be properly cared for."
Azkyroth, this is an interesting take, so I would guess the whole extra requirements that you would place upon pro-life people opens up a new playing field. If you can make such demands upon people who hold to the pro-life position, then, the same can come back in your direction.
Pro-life adherants can then fling the following back at pro-choice adherants:
It's perfectly reasonable to conclude that if a pro-choice person is going to argue in defense of a woman's right to terminate the life of her child for mere convenience (i.e. reproductive rights to her own body), that the pro-choice person be expected to provide the finacial resources to ensure that every poor woman who wants an abortion, (or, who is talked into one by her boyfriend,) in their local proximity, gets the abortion they want, whenever they want it, all financed through the pro-choice person's purse.
To be fair, I'm not asking pro-choice people to provide financial resources to the rich. A rich woman who wants to copulate like a rabbit, and then abort every accidental pregnancy, has her own financial resources at her disposal, and so is exempt from the pro-choice person's help.
Of course, the absurdity of all of these extra requirements posed by each side of the debate upon the other would soon render the whole debate to be inane.
Since, neither side could comply with the other's ridiculous requirements, both sides would be unable to maintain their sincerity in their postion resulting in the ridiculous situation where there weren't in existence any serious pro-choice believers nor any pro-life believers.
But, all of that is irrelevant.
Let me provide an example. I am vehemently against the crime of rape. I believe with all of my fiber that rape is wrong and is an atrocity, (the same way I feel about abortion), but, just because I don't march down to the Police Academy tomorrow and enlist doesn't make my belief that rape is wrong any less valid or real to me.
The same is true about my belief that abortion is wrong. I no more need to adopt every child rescued from abortion, than you need to finance every woman around you who desires an abortion, in order for us to hold firmly to the postions that we hold on the matter.
"Even if you don't personally believe that, why would you put yourself in that kind of company?"
If we all let "bad apples" dictate our course of action, we would never take a stand in the first place.
The reprobate who bombs an abortion clinic, killing the doctor, nurses, and women inside, shares one belief with me: abortion is wrong. We don't, however, share the same solution to the problem. He thinks he has done the right thing. I find him to be a criminal guilty of murder, and deserving justice served against him for his crime.
"The fact that the overwhelming majority of the anti-choice also oppose expansion of government welfare services needed to provide the children they would force others to have with a decent quality of living is telling. Their motives have nothing to do with compassion..."
In my scant 44 years of living, I have yet to see any good ever coming from LBJ's "Great Society" welfare program. It never elevated the poor, instead it kept them with their hands held out waiting at the beck and call of the now more powerful government to throw crumbs at them.
The Welfare State produced, also, a generation of lazy people rushing ahead of the actual poor to take the food out of their mouths. These people grew up thinking that it was ok to release a bit of their liberty and acquiese to a government who was in turn growing more and more powerful, and able then to encroach more into their lives, all for a free hand out.
Mind you, the hand out never really elevated the recipient's economical status at all. It was always just enough to keep them right where they were. God save, the actual poor, who were crowded out of the process.
So, just because a pro-life person doesn't accept your liberal socialist welfare program, doesn't necessarily make them not compassionate. In fact, the reverse is the case. A socialist hand out is a bad thing. A hand up is what is required. Socialism never provides that. It depends upond the laziness of the recipient to continue supoorting the socialist government at hand irregardless of the trade of the recipient's independance from the ever encroaching power of the socialist government's nanny state.
"There are also a great number of Christians who recognize that women are human beings and have intelligence and function beyond breeding, which seems to be hotly contested by a sizable proportion of the anti-choice movement and to in fact be the root of their position."
You've got me on this one. I've never heard a pro-life person denigrate women in the fashion that you are suggesting. I certainly don't. Jesus didn't. So, I have no idea of what class of person you are talking about. I can, with assurance, tell you that authentic Christians don't.
They would have no precedence. Since, their founder, Jesus of Nazereth, broke the social mores of his day by talking with women in public and associating with them by allowing them to follow him.
Lions are not Gazelles, Wolves are not Elks, even humans are not all the same.
This is just getting silly. Clearly I'm not claiming all animals are the "same". I'm only claiming that we are an animal. Your claim is essentially that we have a "soul" of some kind, and it is THAT claim that puts the burden of proof on you, since we have no reason to believe that any other animal has a soul, or that we are not an animal. The science I speak of is that we're part of evolutionary theory just like every other animal - mosquitos to rhinos to those creepy deep-sea fish - and while we're *different* that them, in that we're obviously a different animal, to think that we're special somehow is what takes a leap of faith.
He proposes a system of ethics for others to obey and then doesn't follow it himself.
This begs an example.
Humans are omnivores, is it hypocritical or irrational to follow our nature and eat meat?
The fact that we have evolved an advanced capacity for reason saddles us with a greater ethical burden than just doing "what's natural". Every time someone engages in adultery they're doing "what's natural", but I suspect both their partner and the Christian majority would have a problem with that.
Well, if you wanted it read that way perhaps that is what you should have written?
The analogy was incredibly obvious. I don't know how you came up with the idea that needing a crutch was a good thing.
You claimed equality.
Please show me any mention of a soul in my writings in this thread. I can't recollect making such a comment, please correct me if I'm wrong in this regard.
Of course humans are special (in the sense of being very different from other animals); they give a fig about other animals and the environment even when cost analysis would say it was detrimental to the individual.
I would point out, I only claimed that we weren't equal to other animals.
You also claim, in your post (copy below), that humans have a higher ethical burden; if we aren't "special" why should this be the case?
I happily admitted that we are animals, you claiming I haven't is simply a false statement.
If you actually read what I wrote, you might have noticed that I have made no faith based claims.
The closest to faith based claims have been yours: you claimed equality with humans for other animals, you implied that you are rational and everyone who doesn't agree with you is irrational.
"...Even Singer cannot live up to all of his own standards. When his mother could no longer speak or think due to advanced Alzheimer's disease -- rendering her a "nonperson" by his own criterion -- he spent large sums to keep her alive. While he says he gives 20 percent of his income to charity, he admits he lives on far more money than the standards set in his books..."
http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=17661
I would add that he says a couple with a family in the USA should live on, at most, 30000 US dollars/year.
Singer earns at least 100,000 US dollars per year from Princeton (no idea what his wife earns, don't care either), also has money from a trust fund and speaking engagements and owns two houses.
Even if we only count what he gets from Princeton and he gives away 20% he is keeping more than twice as much as he says others should live on.
So he is a little shy of practicing what he preaches.
And I should care what the Christian majority have an issue with? Why should I care?
There are non-religious arguments against adultery, mostly based on hurting/angering your partner and leading to a less stable homelife for your progeny.
Why do we have a greater ethical burden, even assuming (which I don't) that other animals have any ethical burden?
Even if we do, you haven't made a case that eating animals is wrong, you've simply made a claim (based on your faith in your personal ethical system).
I didn't write that crutches are good.
I wrote that every society has a crutch (ethical/moral system, however arrived at). Simply for cohesion, if nothing else. Give me a counter example of a culture without codes of conduct that has survived for any length of time if you wish to argue that I am wrong.
We're getting bogged down in meaningless semantics. There are ways in which we are special (which we have agreed on), but the point stands that if you agree we are animals, then it doesn't follow that abortion is wrong but killing or causing the suffering of other intelligent animals is not wrong. You keep saying we're not the same. Here's the crux of the issue as I see it: specifically, in what way is a human fetus different than a typical livestock animal that makes it significantly more wrong to kill the fetus?. You have repeatedly claimed that we're just 'not the same', and to a certain extent this is obviously true, but in WHAT WAY are we not the same, that matters?
you claimed equality with humans for other animals I will apologize for any confusion caused but my claim is exactly and only that we are animals, which is not a faith-based claim.
Peter Singer, it appears, is a hypocrite in some ways. It doesn't make him wrong, although I'm sorry to hear that. Having said that, if everyone gave 20% of their income to charity, things would make some major changes for the better.
And I should care what the Christian majority have an issue with? Why should I care?
As a member of that majority?
There are non-religious arguments against adultery
Right. So there are non-religious arguments against "behaving naturally", which was my point. So then it's conceivable that there also exist non-religious arguments against eating meat, despite its being natural. I'm hesitant to create yet another fork in the road, but just the huge decrease in the use of limited resources by not eating meat is an example of one of those arguments.
Give me a counter example of a culture without codes of conduct
You're just being slippery. We were arguing over the semantics of "crutch", and then somehow you invent the claim that I think cultures don't have codes of conduct. That's ridiculous. Certainly they do, and I never made any claim otherwise.
Why would you assume that?
I never mentioned religion except in response to your comments on it or on religious people.
I admit to being a Christian in the same sense that Singer is a Jew; it is my cultural background.
I am an Agnostic.
I'll respond to the rest of your epistle later as I am off to bed.
My apologies; I thought you were American and here, "not an atheist" and "Christian" are almost always the same thing.
jeffk said:
"My apologies; I thought you were American and here, "not an atheist" and "Christian" are almost always the same thing."
No, jeffk. You are mistaken. We have agnostics in America. I know, I used to be one for a brief time in my earlier life.
Why did you even assume that I wasn't an atheist?
I could have been a buddhist or a spinozan pantheist.
I'ld guess that even some social utilitarianists don't agree with abortion on demand anyplace anytime (read Brave New World for hints as to why a social utilitarian might oppose abortion on demand).
Because someone doesn't believe in God(s) it doesn't mean that they agree with abortion.
Oh well. I haven't forgotten about the other stuff, just a bit busy today.
I've split up the post as it is getting rather long. Drop whichever sections you feel aren't relevant or stick it all back together if you wish.
No I don't think I am being slippery.
I was fairly specific. A crutch is a support for whoever/whatever needs it.
My claim is that all societies have codes of conduct and the civil and private level; all societies need these codes just so people can get along together and so society can function.
These codes of conduct are sometimes enforced by the society using law (tempered with justice on occasion), sometimes the codes are unwritten.
I claim that these codes of conduct are based on the moral/ethical rules held in common by that society, irrespective of how the moral/ethical rules are decided upon. I really can't see any other way of creating laws that will result in a tolerable and lasting society without agreed moral/ethical codes.
One of the problems I see today is people being impolite (politeness is not a weakness, it is the grease of social intercourse) and rude simply for effect and to antagonise others. But that is by the by.
By saying that religion was a crutch you, as you later clarified, claimed that it was a bad thing. I was simply arguing that all societies need a crutch.
I don't believe in the possibility of all people being perfectible (take whatever meaning you like for what a perfect person is) . Therefore, codes of conduct, laws, and so the underpinning provided by the crutch of morals/ethics will always be required. People will always have divergent views on things.
No matter, if you believe in a perfect society (implies a society composed of perfect people) feel free to do so. Even in such a case I bet that there would be disagreements and codes defining what was acceptable and what wasn't.
I've split up the post as it is getting rather long. Drop whichever sections you feel aren't relevant or stick it all back together if you wish.
Is that the similar to being "pregnant in someways" :o) ?
Rather like lying, hypocrisy in one thing taints whatever else the person says.
I wonder if you would be so forgiving of the persons faith and/or teachings if the person being a hypocrite was a religious leader?
As for his giving 20% to charity, depends somewhat on what the charities are.
If he is giving 20% of his salary to the "foundation for promoting the thoughts and concepts of Peter Singer" or faux-charities such as PETA or ones supporting "enforced Euthanasia for those considered unfit by Peter Singer" or other charities espousing his views then it won't be of any great benefit, except possibly to enhance his earnings from speaking engagements.
If he is giving to Christian Aid or Doctors Without Borders or Oxfam or WWF or RSPB or FOE or other such charities that help save lives or the environment directly then yes, it would be of help.
I don't know who his charitable giving goes to, but I am a little bit cynical given his stated aims.
But Singer is an aside in this discussion, so if you wish we can drop him.
I've split up the post as it is getting rather long. Drop whichever sections you feel aren't relevant or stick it all back together if you wish.
My apologies.
I read your claim to be that eating meat was somehow ethically wrong in an absolute sense.
Resource allocation is a complicated matter, what is equitable, who decides etc. It may be the case that more people could be supported on a purely vegetarian diet but then we can wander into "quality of life" issues as well as the "rights of individuals".
But as you say it is an aside, so we can drop it if you wish.
I've split up the post as it is getting rather long. Drop whichever sections you feel aren't relevant or stick it all back together if you wish.
How can semantics be meaningless :o) ?
Fair enough, we'll start on what we agree on.
Humans are special - we both agree on that.
Humans are animals - we both agree on this.
(Note for any religious people reading this, calling humans animals is not derogatory. I am not denying the possibility of the ensoulment of humans)
Now I don't agree with this web of life inter-connectedness stuff that says because we are animals other animals have rights as well. Just because I drive a car doesn't mean that you drive a car nor even that you have the right or ability to drive one.
Humans have rights we grant them to ourselves, we also impose responsibilities on ourselves and we extend this to other humans because they are our kith & kin.
This kith & kin bit means that we don't deny rights to those humans who are, in some way, considered disabled or stupid; they inherit the rights simply because of their relatedness, we even grant them additional rights or reduce their responsibilities to try and ameliorate their disability.
All humans within a society inherit the rights and as they develop (age, learn etc) responsibilities should (I say should because some societies forget to do this with all members) be imposed commensurate with their abilities. So a human child has all the legal protections granted to adults, often additional protections are also given. They also commonly have some restraints imposed based on age, these are nominally protective in nature.
That is why we don't, normally, kill the physically disabled or less intelligent humans (this is especially the case when the disablement happens to a human who is disabled by an accident/event) even when it costs us to support them. "There but for the grace of God go I" being a pithy summary of the reasoning; atheists may have a similar aphorism or at least they'll have some understanding of what the religious one means.
I mentioned in my previous comments on this that I don't believe that animals, apart from humans, have moral/ethical responsibilities or duties. Humans only have them in so much as they wish to have functioning societies and so it is "enlightened self interest" or the dead hand of the market possibly.
Humans have the right to create laws to protect other animals and the environment (i.e. grant rights) but this is again based on "enlightened self interest" not an assumption of any inherent rights being possessed by the animal/environment.
Some of it may be based on the extensions humans make to include other animals within their family (I did it myself when I had pet cats); pet dogs, cats, parrots etc and because we have feelings for them. We believe that these feelings are reciprocated (perhaps they are, I hope they are). But it is an extension of the kith & kin on an individual level (owner/pet), but we still don't class them as being human (well we don't on those few occasions when we bother to think about it); we may consider them more important than other humans and pleasanter company (this is often true) but the rights given are a grant not a requirement.
So simply no, in answer to your question.
I find it hard to see any moral/ethical equivalence between a cow and an unborn human.
I would mention that I would oppose causing pain in general to any creature and oppose damaging the environment in general. But the reasoning is a bit orthogonal to equivalences twixt cows and unborn babies/fetuses.
Now if you were to ask about what it means to be human, that is another matter!!
If you trail back up this thread I did reference some philosophers whose general ideas on this I agree with.
Aristotle was not a Christian, I am not even sure if he believed in the Gods of Greece, so you'll suffer no burning of the eyes when reading him.
I also mentioned that "I don't agree with the viewpoint of the RC Church on abortion", but you diverted us elsewhere for some reason.
I will follow your last post.
Your reasoning that leads you to the conclusion, "I find it hard to see any moral/ethical equivalence between a cow and an unborn human", seems pretty obscured to me. But as I understand it, the reasoning is something like, "adults are given rights, children are given rights, and children are younger than adults, so just because feti are younger than children does not mean we should strip them of their rights". There's a slippery slope here... we're forced to start making decisions about makes one worthy of rights, and what they are. Either that, or embryos get rights, sperm get rights... where does it end? You say you don't agree with the viewpoint of the Catholic church, so what metric do you use to decide rights? I've posited several and you seem to avoid the issue. I hate to go back to my silly "burning building" example, but I feel like it makes the fact very blunt that not every shred of human dna gets the same rights. We are forced to talk about various aspects of human-ness to make decisions in regards to this issue, and you seem to be side-stepping them.
kill the physically disabled or less intelligent humans (this is especially the case when the disablement happens to a human who is disabled by an accident/event) even when it costs us to support them.
The reason we don't kill them is because a) they desire to to be killed, so it would be unethical to do so and b) they have relationships with other humans who wouldn't stand for it. We most certainly DO kill some people who are physically or mentally disabled - it's called euthenasia, and we can do it for the same reason we can ethically abort a fetus - because, made of human cells or not, they cease to meet our definition of human, and the costs of keeping them alive, or potential pain they're in, warrant this killing.
Hi jeffk,
Me obscure? It was a fairly basic materialist explanantion. Rather than your explanantion which seems to imply the existance of a universal good/bad dichotomy.
If you are an absolutist this is understandable but not very scientific.
I did , on purpose, insert the word "normally" in relationship to killing others.
I am a relativist; so I differentiate between suicide, assisted suicide and killing.
Euthanasia has emotive connotations and is often used to blur the distinction between the three things mentioned above.
I'll respond to your missive after trying to work out how to simplify it as you have interpreted it somewhat strangely.
Oh, I'm assuming that you are a materialist. If this isn't the case please tell me, not all atheists are materialist, but from your writing you appear to be or appear to wish to be..
Hardly side stepped.
You had posited a claim that, by implication, included the idea of an absolute ethical/moral system.
The only way this could be the case is if you are a platonist (believe in perfect/ideal objects outwith the natural world of which the world we perceive is but shadows) or some external authority (law giver).
I simply gave a materialistic explanation assuming that humans are animals and that we are following an evolutionary imperative.
The explanation assumes that each individual has their own belief set and that this will differ between individuals.
Concepts such as good/bad, ugly/beautiful etc differ through time and between societies. There is nothing in the nature of things that differentiates good or bad; we define the outcome we desire and whatever helps us achieve our desired outcomes we say is good. Luckily humans have managed to agree on a lot of things that the majority in many societies agree are good.
I actually stated that it is the definition of human that is important and suggest that we discuss this.
I'll assume that your excision of the word "normally" was inadvertent. Its use does, somewhat, change the meaning of what I wrote.
I did not claim that always and every time we do not kill others as you imply by using a clipped quote.
I do realise that humans are very good at killing others.
I differentiate between suicide, assisted suicide, killing and murder. The word euthanasia is somewhat emotive and normally used by people simply to blur definitions between these different actions.
Suicide: No problem top yourself if you like, but please don't make a big mess for others to clean up. If the person was within what I consider my kith & kin I would try and talk them out of it but at the end of the day it is there choice.
Assisted suicide: No problem as long as the person being topped is fit to make the decision or has previously recorded their desire to die under certain circumstances. Same caveat as before, plus they can't force by threat or law someone to help them if that person doesn't wish to.
If a person is killed against their will simply because they are an inconvenience to society then I believe that to be wrong. Claims of quality of life made by anyone else apart from the person affected are irrelevant. I would class it as murder whatever the law is. Please don't make comments about vegetative states, I take brain death to be death not a beating heart. In terms of withdrawing medication I would generally leave that upto the parents or children, those who care about the person.
No I don't think that a sperm or an egg is living, the thing to look at is when the baby becomes a baby and so has human rights.
I also don't think that it becomes human at the moment of conception, then again you know both these things as I have indicated it at least twice.
I also don't think that babies only becomes human at around 2 years of age (by 2 years of age most children have become fully aware of others as others and can see themselves in mirrors and know that what they see is a reflection of themselves).
Fair enough... when?
Oh somewhere around 23 weeks after conception, give or take.
jeffk, when you respond please do me the courtesy of answering some of the questions I have asked you.
I am not a prisoner and you are not empowered as an inquisitor.
It is remiss of you not to respond to my questions whilst I have been polite enough to respond to yours.