- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: POST-BIRTH ABORTIONS
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:25 pm to genro
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:25 pm to genro
I'd mention that saying that one set or morals is better than another is itself admitting a universal morality. To say that one is better than another is to compare them to a third, objective standard.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:27 pm to FT
quote:This was the social Darwinism view. The white people started to notice how much "better" and "more moral" their societies were. And it fit right into evolution. Hitler looked around and noticed that the most decent, wealthiest and greatest countries at the time (Germany, England, America, France) were all largely inhabited by Germanics.
Not a lesser species. Less evolved? I could buy into that, much though it'll make everyone's heads spin.
ETA: I need to clarify the above. I was saying that they're not a lesser species at all. Humans are human, redundant as that sounds. When I said less evolved, I was referring to their society and culture, not to physical evolution.
I'm not saying, I'm just saying.
LINK
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:28 pm to FT
quote:No, I'm admitting to being a biased human and making a judgment. I did this on the first page.
I'd mention that saying that one set or morals is better than another is itself admitting a universal morality.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:29 pm to genro
This thread is too long to read. Has anyone brought up Peter Singer yet? I'm very familiar with his writings on post birth abortions.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:36 pm to Zach
Peter Singer has been brought up I believe. Lots of talk on moral relativity.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:39 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
Morality is an illusion and altruism is a fairy-tale. We are all hedonists...ie we do what feels good.
What a horrible worldview this is. Though I don't believe for a second you live your life this way.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:40 pm to Zach
Infanticide without Abrahamic religious influence:
However....
LINK
quote:
exposure of newborns was widely practiced in ancient Greece. In Greece the decision to expose a child was typically the father's, although in Sparta the decision was made by a group of elders.[31] Exposure was the preferred method of disposal, as that act in itself was not murder; moreover, the exposed child technically had a chance of being rescued by the gods or any passersby.[32] This very situation was a recurring motif in Greek mythology.[33] To notify the neighbors of a birth of a child, a woolen strip was hung over the front door to indicate a female baby and an olive branch to indicate a boy had been born. Families did not always keep their new child. After a woman had a baby, she would show it to her husband. If the husband accepted it, it would live, but if he refused it, it would die. Babies would often be rejected if they were illegitimate, unhealthy or deformed, the wrong sex, or too great a burden on the family. These babies would not be directly killed, but put in a clay pot or jar and deserted outside the front door or on the roadway. In ancient Greek religion, this practice took the responsibility away from the parents because the child would die of natural causes, for example hunger, asphyxiation or exposure to the elements.
The practice was prevalent in ancient Rome, as well. Philo was the first philosopher to speak out against it.[34] A letter from a Roman citizen to his sister, dating from 1 BCE, demonstrates the casual nature with which infanticide was often viewed:
"I am still in Alexandria. ... I beg and plead with you to take care of our little child, and as soon as we receive wages, I will send them to you. In the meantime, if (good fortune to you!) you give birth, if it is a boy, let it live; if it is a girl, expose it."[35][36]
In some periods of Roman history it was traditional for a newborn to be brought to the pater familias, the family patriarch, who would then decide whether the child was to be kept and raised, or left to die by exposure.[37] The Twelve Tables of Roman law obliged him to put to death a child that was visibly deformed. The concurrent practices of slavery and infanticide contributed to the "background noise" of the crises during the Republic.[37]
Infanticide became a capital offense in Roman law in 374 AD, but offenders were rarely if ever prosecuted.[38]
According to mythology, Romulus and Remus, twin infant sons of the war god Mars, survived near-infanticide after being tossed into the Tiber River. According to the myth, they were raised by wolves, and later founded the city of Rome.
quote:
"It was the custom of the [Teutonic] pagans, that if they wanted to kill a son or daughter, they would be killed before they had been given any food."[41] Usually children born out of wedlock were disposed that way.
In his highly influential Pre-historic Times, John Lubbock described burnt bones indicating the practice of child sacrifice in pagan Britain.[42]
quote:
The pre-Islamic Arabian society practiced infanticide as a form of "post-partum birth control".[50] Regarding the prevalence of this practice, we know it was "common enough among the pre-Islamic Arabs to be assigned a specific term, wa?d".[51] Infanticide was practiced either out of destitution (thus practiced on males and females alike), or as sacrifices to gods, or as "disappointment and fear of social disgrace felt by a father upon the birth of a daughter".[50]
quote:
Infanticide may have been practiced as human sacrifice, as part of the pagan cult of Perun. Ibn Fadlan describes sacrificial practices at the time of his trip to Kiev Rus (present day Ukraine) in 921-922 CE, and describes an incident of a woman voluntarily sacrificing her life as part of a funeral rite for a prominent leader, but makes no mention of infanticide. The Primary Chronicle, one of the most important literary sources before the 12th century, indicates that human sacrifice to idols may have been introduced by Vladimir the Great in 980 CE. The same Vladimir the Great formally converted Kiev Rus into Christianity just 8 years later, but pagan cults continued to be practiced clandestinely in remote areas as late as the 13th century.
quote:
Polar Inuit (Inughuit) killed the child by throwing him or her into the sea.[89] There is even a legend in Inuit mythology, "The Unwanted Child", where a mother throws her child into the fjord.
The Yukon and the Mahlemuit tribes of Alaska exposed the female newborns by first stuffing their mouths with grass before leaving them to die.[90] In Arctic Canada the Inuit exposed their babies on the ice and left them to die.[45]
quote:
The Handbook of North American Indians reports infanticide among the Dene Natives and those of the Mackenzie Mountains.[92][93]
quote:
In the Eastern Shoshone there was a scarcity of Indian women as a result of female infanticide.[94] For the Maidu native Americans twins were so dangerous that they not only killed them, but the mother as well.[95] In the region known today as southern Texas, the Mariame Indians practiced infanticide of females on a large scale. Wives had to be obtained from neighboring groups.[96]
quote:
Female infanticide of newborn girls was systematic in feudatory Rajputs in South Asia for illegitimate female children during the Middle Ages. According to Firishta, as soon as the illegitimate female child was born she was held "in one hand, and a knife in the other, that any person who wanted a wife might take her now, otherwise she was immediately put to death".[73] The practice of female infanticide was also common among the Kutch, Kehtri, Nagar, Bengal, Miazed, Kalowries in India inhabitants, and also among the Sindh in British India.[74]
However....
quote:
Judaism prohibits infanticide, and has for some time, dating back to at least early Common Era. Roman historians wrote about the ideas and customs of other peoples, which often diverged from their own.
quote:
Christianity rejects infanticide.
quote:
Infanticide is explicitly prohibited by the Qur'an.
LINK
This post was edited on 10/29/14 at 3:41 pm
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:41 pm to MrTide33
quote:
Peter Singer has been brought up I believe. Lots of talk on moral relativity.
The very short story... Singer says that women who are informed that their baby is going to be defected for life opt to go forth with the birth because of hormones.
After birth the hormones go away and mom says 'WTF am I stuck with for the rest of my life?' She should have the right to bring the baby back at, say one month, and have it put down.
His second major position is sum total of investment in other children. IE, if the parents must raise the severely handicapped child they are less likely to put resources into having another healthy child or putting resources into the older child who is healthy.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:42 pm to Zach
quote:
Zach
Singer is a shining example of the problems with utilitarianism.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:43 pm to genro
quote:
In other cultures, especially ones isolated, it gives even murkier. Murder is okay to appease the Gods, Murder is okay for social engineering, etc etc
It doesn't matter how other cultures view it, it still wouldn't make it true. That's the point. On a relativistic worldview there is no ground to oppose murder, rape, etc. Shoot, on what ground can you oppose someone stealing your wallet?
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:46 pm to MrTide33
quote:
Singer is a shining example of the problems with utilitarianism.
Yes. But you wouldn't want to be on a stage debating him about it. I've seen him make opponents look really stupid. He knows his stuff.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:48 pm to LordoftheManor
quote:Right. I agree.
It doesn't matter how other cultures view it, it still wouldn't make it true. That's the point. On a relativistic worldview there is no ground to oppose murder, rape, etc. Shoot, on what ground can you oppose someone stealing your wallet?
My stated position is morality is obviously relative, and thus doesn't objectively exist. But if everyone realized that, we would eat each other. So we have to subjectively decide what our path will be.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:49 pm to genro
quote:Then you're essentially saying nothing at all. You have to be using some measuring stick, or better means nothing. Chocolate is only better than vanilla because I like it more. For things that don't matter, that's sufficient.
No, I'm admitting to being a biased human and making a judgment. I did this on the first page.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:54 pm to genro
quote:
My stated position is morality is obviously relative, and thus doesn't objectively exist. But if everyone realized that, we would eat each other.
You've built a standard that it is "better" that we don't eat each other than if we do. Why is that?
FWIW I believe that morality is subjective and objective, words that I prefer to "relative" and "absolute". The act of killing isn't always wrong, while the act of sex isn't always right.
It is good for my friend to have sex with his wife. It is not good for me to have sex with my friend's wife. Subjective.
This post was edited on 10/29/14 at 4:00 pm
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:56 pm to genro
quote:This isn't true at all, either. Beauty is relative, but beauty does exist.
My stated position is morality is obviously relative, and thus doesn't objectively exist.
This is not beautiful. Someone idiot might tell you he sees beauty in all things, but if I show that picture to everyone I've ever met, they'll say "ew" or "why are you showing me dirt?".
This, however, is. If I show it to someone, they will naturally remark "Oh, that's pretty", or say something else positive.
No one is going to talk about how ugly this is, unless there is something wrong with them. Beauty exists, no matter how subjective some aspects of beauty are. The same is true of morality. There is some basic morality, in the same way that there is some basic beauty.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:59 pm to FT
quote:Chocolate looks like poop. I bet it grossed people out at first.
This is not beautiful. Someone idiot might tell you he sees beauty in all things, but if I show that picture to everyone I've ever met, they'll say "ew" or "why are you showing me dirt?".
quote:It's a beautiful theory. I can't accept it on faith.
There is some basic morality, in the same way that there is some basic beauty.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 4:00 pm to LordoftheManor
quote:My personal opinion.
You've built a standard that it is "better" that we don't eat each other than if we do. Why is that?
Posted on 10/29/14 at 4:01 pm to genro
quote:
It's a beautiful theory. I can't accept it on faith.
What makes it beautiful to you? I'd wager that is resonates with your heart.
You can't put morality in a test tube. That's what makes it "impossible" for people with an objectivistic worldview. However, you can't put objectivism itself in a test tube. You accept it on faith. Nor can you put scientism in a test tube. It's accepted on faith, closing the door on morality, beauty, etc.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 4:02 pm to KeyserSoze999
Wow - 8 pages on a made up non-story.
Pretty typical for tigerdroppings.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 4:03 pm to LordoftheManor
quote:I'm not one of those. I believe in the immaterial and intangible, and I'm not an atheist.
You can't put morality in a test tube. That's what makes it "impossible" for people with an objectivistic worldview. However, you can't put objectivism itself in a test tube. You accept it on faith. Nor can you put scientism in a test tube. It's accepted on faith, closing the door on morality, beauty, etc.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News