Started By
Message

re: POST-BIRTH ABORTIONS

Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:25 pm to
Posted by FT
REDACTED
Member since Oct 2003
26925 posts
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:25 pm to
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 by genro
Member since Nov 2011
61788 posts
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:27 pm to
quote:

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.

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.

I'm not saying, I'm just saying.

LINK
Posted by genro
Member since Nov 2011
61788 posts
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:28 pm to
quote:

I'd mention that saying that one set or morals is better than another is itself admitting a universal morality.
No, I'm admitting to being a biased human and making a judgment. I did this on the first page.
Posted by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
112467 posts
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:29 pm to
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 by MrTide33
Member since Nov 2012
4351 posts
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:36 pm to
Peter Singer has been brought up I believe. Lots of talk on moral relativity.
Posted by LordoftheManor
Member since Jul 2006
8371 posts
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:39 pm to
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 by genro
Member since Nov 2011
61788 posts
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:40 pm to
Infanticide without Abrahamic religious influence:
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 by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
112467 posts
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:41 pm to
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 by MrTide33
Member since Nov 2012
4351 posts
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:42 pm to
quote:

Zach


Singer is a shining example of the problems with utilitarianism.
Posted by LordoftheManor
Member since Jul 2006
8371 posts
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:43 pm to
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 by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
112467 posts
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:46 pm to
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 by genro
Member since Nov 2011
61788 posts
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:48 pm to
quote:

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?
Right. I agree.

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 by FT
REDACTED
Member since Oct 2003
26925 posts
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:49 pm to
quote:

No, I'm admitting to being a biased human and making a judgment. I did this on the first page.
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.
Posted by LordoftheManor
Member since Jul 2006
8371 posts
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:54 pm to
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 by FT
REDACTED
Member since Oct 2003
26925 posts
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:56 pm to
quote:

My stated position is morality is obviously relative, and thus doesn't objectively exist.
This isn't true at all, either. Beauty is relative, but beauty does 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 by genro
Member since Nov 2011
61788 posts
Posted on 10/29/14 at 3:59 pm to
quote:

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?".
Chocolate looks like poop. I bet it grossed people out at first.
quote:

There is some basic morality, in the same way that there is some basic beauty.

It's a beautiful theory. I can't accept it on faith.
Posted by genro
Member since Nov 2011
61788 posts
Posted on 10/29/14 at 4:00 pm to
quote:

You've built a standard that it is "better" that we don't eat each other than if we do. Why is that?
My personal opinion.
Posted by LordoftheManor
Member since Jul 2006
8371 posts
Posted on 10/29/14 at 4:01 pm to
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 by SpidermanTUba
my house
Member since May 2004
36128 posts
Posted on 10/29/14 at 4:02 pm to

Wow - 8 pages on a made up non-story.


Pretty typical for tigerdroppings.
Posted by genro
Member since Nov 2011
61788 posts
Posted on 10/29/14 at 4:03 pm to
quote:

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.
I'm not one of those. I believe in the immaterial and intangible, and I'm not an atheist.
first pageprev pagePage 8 of 11Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram