- 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: Is there a secular argument against abortions?
Posted on 5/4/17 at 12:32 pm to Blob Fish
Posted on 5/4/17 at 12:32 pm to Blob Fish
I think that there is a strong argument that life starts before viability and even that when you combine 2 sets of paternal DNA you have a unique "person"
So abortion would just be murder.
If you can't kill poor people after they are born you can't kill people before.
That being said I think you need to really go into Sex Es and proliferation of affordable birth control in all formsz it's a money saving expense in the end.
So abortion would just be murder.
If you can't kill poor people after they are born you can't kill people before.
That being said I think you need to really go into Sex Es and proliferation of affordable birth control in all formsz it's a money saving expense in the end.
1
Posted on 5/4/17 at 12:34 pm to FooManChoo
quote:I do think we're talking past each other a bit.
Clearly my statements aren't being understood as I anticipated so I'll change course.
I don't think we're that far apart if at all.
quote:And what I'm saying is that this is an incorrect view.
but my point is that the standard enforced is just as "right" as any other standard because subjectivity requires it to be that way.
What I'm saying is that just because an inferior idea wins the day today doesn't make it not inferior.
And, I'm saying there are ways to assess the inferiority of ideas and humans have done that on ALL fronts for all time. Not just on morality but on ALL ideas.
quote:We agree. They certainly need examination. That's what I've been talking about.
I agree with you, which is why the claims have to be examined. The authority doesn't rest with the person that is making the claim, but the claim has to be examined for people to determine its validity.
quote:I guess I already have conceded that because as I said earlier, they are in fact, the SAME standard.
And while you say that someone making a claim of objectivity due to their particular faith is no better than another standard, you have to concede that it is no worse than any other standard,
It isn't worse because it's the same. It's just humans interpreting.
quote:Well of course it's better. It's called wisdom.
...and that standard has no basis in objectivity which means "lessons learned through the centuries" isn't better or worse than any other standard, even if I were to accept your premise
Put it this way. If you took infants and then 100% isolated them from all human interaction. Then, when they were 18, you put them in an isolated society together, you'd get some truly fricked up behavior.
Behavior that might look a lot like what humans were like thousands of years ago.
But, we've learned and we APPLY what we've learned.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 12:38 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
I think that there is a strong argument that life starts before viability and even that when you combine 2 sets of paternal DNA you have a unique "person"
I think this is the wrong tack.
People use the term "viability" as if literally in some microsecond, nature bestows viability upon a fetus where none existed before.
While it might even be technically true that this happens, it doesn't happen in the same instant for any two babies. And, we have no fricking idea when that instant it. Oh, we've narrowed it down to a general zone I suppose, but even that zone is completely a function of human capabilities.
Which is another problem with using viability. It basically makes when personhood is conferred a function of how good doctors are at any given time or location.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 12:41 pm to ShortyRob
quote:The "God sticker" makes all the difference, though. You don't think it does, but it does.
What you're not getting is that those two are EXACTLY the same.
Your basis is no different than the secular basis. You just slapped a God sticker on it.
God is (supposedly) not human and is transcendent above this world and outside of it and is able to impose His will on it, including humanity. He, therefore, has the power and authority to create a moral standard to impose on humanity that all humanity is subject to or must face dire consequences after death. If this God does exist and if He has created and imposed a moral standard, then that would be an objective standard that all people are required to obey, since He would be the highest authority that all people are subject to.
That is far different than a secular view of morality which has cannot account for an objective moral standard.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 12:45 pm to FooManChoo
quote:So, two groups of humans address a moral question.
The "God sticker" makes all the difference, though. You don't think it does, but it does.
Group 1 says their conclusion is supported by God(as they........humans..........have interpreted God
Group 2 says their conclusion is supported by human interpretations..........
and you see a difference? I disagree.
quote:
God is (supposedly) not human and is transcendent above this world and outside of it and is able to impose His will on it, including humanity. He, therefore, has the power and authority to create a moral standard to impose on humanity that all humanity is subject to or must face dire consequences after death. If this God does exist and if He has created and imposed a moral standard, then that would be an objective standard that all people are required to obey, since He would be the highest authority that all people are subject to.
Even if this is all true, it changes nothing.
Because, God isn't doing the talking.
If my 9 & 7 year old are arguing while their mom and I aren't in the room and each one has a different view of what "right" is...........and one of them declares that THEIR understanding is based on what "mom said" 3 weeks ago, the two of them are STILL on equal footing because mom ain't there.
If Mom shows up and says, "yep, I said that", THEN we have a different discussion.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 12:48 pm to ShortyRob
quote:If an objective law giver gives us the law and tells us what is is, we can know that standard. Our faulty interpretation doesn't negate the validity or objectivity of the law.
How can any human know what the standard itself is other than via subjective belief or interpretation?
quote:Well, I believe the Bible was and is the written word of God, inspired by His Spirit, and thus is as good as a direct quote from God, Himself. The Old and New Testaments are called "Testaments" because they are testimony to what God has done and said. The issue here isn't the Bible, but those that refuse to believe it.
You act like these are separate things yet, by definition, they cannot be separated.
I mean yeah. I suppose if God himself comes down and gives a speech on His views of morality, then God will be the SOURCE of morality.
Until then, all you have is what a bunch of humans say he said.
And those humans can't even AGREE!
Which humans can't agree? The human authors of the Bible or the humans who read and interpret it? That's a big distinction that needs to be addressed.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 12:55 pm to FooManChoo
It appears that you've clarified a few things I wanted to address, and I'm on my phone.
You're relying on the objectivity of certain words you believe to be true. You're correct in that if those words are true, they are objective. That still doesn't give you an objective morality.
Nope. If you have a basis, I have a basis. I argue that neither of us does. Your argument that your view has a possible objective morality and mine doesn't is simply not possible given what we know and what we're likely to ever know.
You're relying on the objectivity of certain words you believe to be true. You're correct in that if those words are true, they are objective. That still doesn't give you an objective morality.
quote:
In the end, I have a basis for a possible objective standard (which I believe is an actual objective standard) whereas those who take a strictly secular approach to morality have none and cannot have one.
Nope. If you have a basis, I have a basis. I argue that neither of us does. Your argument that your view has a possible objective morality and mine doesn't is simply not possible given what we know and what we're likely to ever know.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 12:56 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Which humans can't agree? The human authors of the Bible or the humans who read and interpret it?
I'd argue both.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 12:56 pm to FooManChoo
quote:Agreed.
If an objective law giver gives us the law and tells us what is is, we can know that standard
But, he better show up more than once every 2000 years or else his followers are the equivalent of my 9 year old declaring "mommy said". And, actually, that's being kind.
His followers are the equivalent of declaring "Joey told Molly who told Sam who told Kelly who told John who told Mary who told.........x 10,000,000 that Mommy said".
quote:Well, I mean, this is demonstrably false.
Well, I believe the Bible was and is the written word of God, inspired by His Spirit, and thus is as good as a direct quote from God, Himself.
If God spoke to those people, he didn't speak English. And, they didn't write it down immediately. And, almost everything you read in the Bible was written well after the fact. I mean, you can absolutely believe in God.......but believing that the Bible is quote worth is demonstrably false.
quote:I actually concur with a great many if not the vast majority of Biblical teachings.
The Old and New Testaments are called "Testaments" because they are testimony to what God has done and said. The issue here isn't the Bible, but those that refuse to believe it.
What you mean to say is that many don't believe God to be the source.
But, the most important thing about this thread is, you can't even get all the believers to agree.
quote:I'm referring to the humans that interpret it now, but those who wrote it are not immune from critique.
Which humans can't agree? The human authors of the Bible or the humans who read and interpret it? That's a big distinction that needs to be addressed.
Hell, let's be blunt here. The BIBLE ITSELF proves that it isn't a source for 100% objective truth. By definition, Jesus' new covenant contravened prior teachings which, by definition, means that objective truth..........changed.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 1:00 pm to ShortyRob
quote:Like I said previously, the "God sticker" makes all the difference because of the authority behind the "sticker". If God exists as revealed in the Bible, then all people are subject to His moral law and will be judged accordingly.
I believe that all humans are trying to interpret what morality is based upon centuries of experience.
What I just said is exactly equal to what you just said. Only difference is, you slapped a God sticker on it.
Centuries of experience does not make anything objective. What you're saying is that a bunch of people have held to subjective standards for morality over time and thus have determined which subjective standards "work best" (against, a subjective determination) based on certain conditions and assuming that everyone can agree that certain results are favorable and desired. Even then, not everyone agrees. So at best, you're left with subjectivity that has exists for a long time and it doesn't make it any more valid than any other standard of morality.
quote:Only if there is no alignment between the truth and the interpretation of the truth. The Bible condemns unlawful killing of others (murder). That's clear and gives many examples of what that looks like. If we align our understanding to what the Bible says about murder, we are in alignment with an objective standard against murder (assuming God exists and the Bible is true). Rejection of the Bible doesn't mean you can't believe that murder is immoral, it will just be your, subjective standard which has no universal bearing or authority over anyone else. If others believe murder is bad, then great! But if someone else believes that murder is morally acceptable, then who are we to judge him since all we've got is our own, subjective opinion?
I'm not condemning the Bible. I'm saying that as long as humans are doing the reading of it, then theirs is as "secular" an opinion of morality as anyone else's
Posted on 5/4/17 at 1:05 pm to FooManChoo
quote:Then there's no such thing as objective knowledge......on ANY subject, moral or otherwise. (I HAD TO EDIT HERE. I'M USING THE TERM OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE IN THE SENSE YOU'VE BEEN USING IT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ABOVE SENTENCE)
Centuries of experience does not make anything objective
quote:They've "tested" them. Yes.
What you're saying is that a bunch of people have held to subjective standards for morality over time and thus have determined which subjective standards "work best"
Not unlike any other area we seek knowledge in.
quote:Well of course it is.
So at best, you're left with subjectivity that has exists for a long time and it doesn't make it any more valid than any other standard of morality.
Why do we treat ideas that come close to religion as special?
You wouldn't write the sentence you wrote above for any other area of human experience. You wouldn't say, "well, yes, we've got centuries of experience on how to properly build ships to survive ocean voyages but that doesn't make our current approach any better than approaches that don't apply that experience.
quote:You do realize that this idea predates the Bible, right?
The Bible condemns unlawful killing of others (murder).
This post was edited on 5/4/17 at 1:07 pm
Posted on 5/4/17 at 1:09 pm to ShortyRob
quote:Not that we can't impose our morality, but we have no objective basis for it. It always boils down to "might makes right", or rather, those with the power to enforce their subjective standard can do so until someone stronger comes along with a different standard, and then they can and will impose their standard on everyone. It's the way of the world if you reject objectivity in morality.
I guess it's that you seem to think that absent this absolute authority, we can't impose our morality.
quote:Victory doesn't determine good and bad in an absolute sense but that's been my point all along. Morality either doesn't exist at all or it is entirely subjective. Either way, there is no objective basis for judging anyone else or any action as wrong or bad (or right or good) in that worldview if you want to be consistent.
That's just not the case. Humans compete in all spheres
Ideas are included.
Victory of a bad idea in the short term doesn't make it a good one. It simply makes it the applied one.
Ultimately, what I'm saying is that morality (and objective morality, specifically) requires an objective moral authority: God. Secularism doesn't have a God and it doesn't have an objective moral authority. Therefore, the only moral authority is yourself, and only for yourself. You aren't a moral authority over anyone else in that worldview and no one else is a moral authority over you unless they impose that upon you or unless you impose your authority on someone else. That doesn't mean it's right, but it also doesn't mean it's wrong.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 1:14 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Victory doesn't determine good and bad in an absolute sense but that's been my point all along. Morality either doesn't exist at all or it is entirely subjective. Either way, there is no objective basis for judging anyone else or any action as wrong or bad (or right or good) in that worldview if you want to be consistent.
Meh.
We're constantly looking for the "best" ways to do everything. And, there almost certainly are best ways.......best ways to hit a baseball........best ways to understand gravity........best physics.......etc etc.
While current physics may not represent the pinnacle of what physics can be, it does represent superior physics to the understanding of physics 1000 years ago.
So yes, one can say it is superior.
But, human progress isn't linear. The same goes for morality. It's not an exception to human progress; it's part of it.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 1:22 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Not that we can't impose our morality, but we have no objective basis for it.
Secularism has an objective basis that's as relevant as theism.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 1:31 pm to ShortyRob
quote:By what standard are you judging it to be be incorrect? Your own?
And what I'm saying is that this is an incorrect view.
quote:I suppose what I'm asking you is to tell me by what standard you use (or "we", collectively) to judge morality as inferior or superior? That's been my point all along. Regardless of who imposes what standard, no standard can be objectively better or worse than any other. They are just different, like flavors of ice cream.
What I'm saying is that just because an inferior idea wins the day today doesn't make it not inferior.
And, I'm saying there are ways to assess the inferiority of ideas and humans have done that on ALL fronts for all time. Not just on morality but on ALL ideas.
quote:The issue that was raised was the faith that one like myself has in the Bible as a moral authority and whether or not my faith is what supposedly makes it an authority. I was saying that my faith does not make it an authority at all but that the Bible is or is not an authority apart from what I believe about it. That's why the Bible's claims must be examined to determine if it is sufficient as a moral authority that is objective and demands all people submit to it. I'm glad you agree that it needs examination, so hopefully the response about my faith being the arbiter of truth can be put to rest as others were accusing me of adhering to.
We agree. They certainly need examination. That's what I've been talking about.
quote:My point was that you have no basis for saying it's better or worse because by your own admission, it's the same. That's been my point all along. Without an objective standard to judge by, all other standards are not better or worse; they are the same. One of my first posts in this thread was saying that it doesn't really matter what justification you give of why abortion is immoral because each person has their own standard.
I guess I already have conceded that because as I said earlier, they are in fact, the SAME standard.
It isn't worse because it's the same. It's just humans interpreting.
quote:But that's not universally true. In the west, we've had the benefit of 2,000 years of Christian ethics imposed on society. If you haven't noticed today, we are devolving (morally speaking) back to the days of ancient Rome without the beliefs in their gods. Even so, that doesn't mean what we have experienced is better or worse than what came before because, again, there is no objective standard to judge by, and what is better or worse varies from person to person. Just look at the divide between liberals and conservatives in American politics today. Which one is right and what standard are you using to determine that?
Well of course it's better. It's called wisdom.
Put it this way. If you took infants and then 100% isolated them from all human interaction. Then, when they were 18, you put them in an isolated society together, you'd get some truly fricked up behavior.
Behavior that might look a lot like what humans were like thousands of years ago.
But, we've learned and we APPLY what we've learned.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 1:43 pm to ShortyRob
quote:I think the mistake you are making here is assuming we don't know anything about God from the Bible and that we don't know anything about His moral law, and therefore, we are just shooting in the dark, making guesses, and talking past each other (as Christians) on what the Bible says. That's not accurate. There's a subject in Christian theology and hermeneutics called perspicuity which basically says that the Bible is clear and relatively easy to understand. In other words, it's not encoded and requires special revelation or gifts to understand it. There are differences in interpretation of many things, but the basics are clear, including what God has commanded.
So, two groups of humans address a moral question.
Group 1 says their conclusion is supported by God(as they........humans..........have interpreted God
Group 2 says their conclusion is supported by human interpretations..........
and you see a difference? I disagree
quote:According to the basic tenants of Christianity, God is doing the talking due to the inspiration of Scripture.
Even if this is all true, it changes nothing.
Because, God isn't doing the talking.
quote:I know all analogies break down so I won't get petty here but one key factor is missing in order for this to be an accurate analogy: you or your wife left a note (or told them both directly before leaving the room) about what was true and then the kids started arguing about what you meant. One or the other or both might be wrong, but it doesn't change the truth of what you or your wife said, and when you come back, you can set them straight and judge them based on what you told them. That would be more accurate to the Christian view of morality and the law giver.
If my 9 & 7 year old are arguing while their mom and I aren't in the room and each one has a different view of what "right" is...........and one of them declares that THEIR understanding is based on what "mom said" 3 weeks ago, the two of them are STILL on equal footing because mom ain't there.
If Mom shows up and says, "yep, I said that", THEN we have a different discussion.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 1:53 pm to Blob Fish
quote:
Is there a secular argument against abortions?
Yes.
quote:
if you take morality out of the equation
"Secular" doesn't mean you take morality out of the equation.
Scientifically, it's plausible to think of an unborn fetus as a person. If you do, then morally, regardless of whether it's secular or religious morality, it's reasonable to think killing that person is wrong.
I don't think religious people are opposed to abortion because they are concerned about the fetus being killed. I think it's much more about repressing women sexually. If it were really about the fetus, the religious right would be much more open to social welfare programs that take care of it after it's born. The fact that they aren't betrays their true motives.
That does not change the fact that a secular argument can certainly be made that a fetus is a person and it's wrong to kill a person.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 1:54 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:If the moral code that I believe in comes from an objective source (God) and it is an authority over all humanity, then yes, the morality that I have is objective. It's not may belief in it or acceptance of it that would make it objective but it's source.
You're relying on the objectivity of certain words you believe to be true. You're correct in that if those words are true, they are objective. That still doesn't give you an objective morality.
quote:Our worldviews are different and have consequences for what we believe. My worldview accepts an objective law giver and an objective moral law. Your worldview acknowledges universal moral subjectivity. In my worldview, I have a basis for judging right and wrong as it relates to a singular, objective standard (God's moral law). In your worldview, you can only compare one subjective standard to another subjective standard and have no objective standard by which to judge the subjective ones.
Nope. If you have a basis, I have a basis. I argue that neither of us does. Your argument that your view has a possible objective morality and mine doesn't is simply not possible given what we know and what we're likely to ever know.
If you want to discuss whether or not it is possible to know if there is an objective law giver (God) and if it is possible to know Him and His moral law, then that's a different story. I'm assuming it's possible based on my understanding of philosophy and the Bible and moving on to a comparison of worldviews as they relate to morality.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 1:56 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:I get readers of the Bible not agreeing, but if the authors don't agree, we're getting into scriptural inerrancy and that's another discussion. I'll just say I disagree, but if you want to have a discussion about that, I'm game.
I'd argue both.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 1:59 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
you or your wife left a note (or told them both directly before leaving the room) about what was true and then the kids started arguing about what you meant.
There's where your argument fails. God didn't leave a note or tell anyone alive today anything directly. People wrote notes claiming God inspired them and people claimed God told them directly. That's completely different and is exactly the same as two kids claiming different versions of what Mom said three weeks ago.
And of course, nobody in this analogy is making any kind of moral choice because they are all ceding moral authority to God or Mom without making any critical moral judgments of their own, but simply trying to interpret whatever they think God or Mom said.
Page 14 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News