Abortion and 19th Century Science

[Libertarian666]

But how is rational self-interest, or respect for the rights of others in conflict with the Golden Rule? I don't see that either.

In the case of people who like to be treated badly.

For instance...My office is next a woman with an Obama poster up (swear to God). She has told me she loves authority, rules, the government etc. She said if one kid has two cookies and the other kid has none she thinks its our duty to take from one and give to the other. (swear to God).

This is her mentality and how she likes things......

She thinks the government is the parent and we are all kids and our money is our cookie(s). She likes to be treated like a child who is told what to do by her father Obama and she insists that we all be treated that way.

That's why the "golden rule" to me is not fully consistent with respect for the rights of others. She doesn't have a moral code. She justifies the means by pointing to the ends, like many do, and what she likes (communisim basically) she insists is good for everyone else.

The "golden rule" is subjective. For you and me I think it's fine. There are plenty of people though I don't want treating me the way they like to be treated.

Moda mentioned masochists which is extreme but I think illustrates the point that personal preference as a basis for a moral code or code of behavior is insufficient.

It's actually not possible to follow the Golden Rule if you think that some people should rule others, as by definition rulers won't accept the same treatment from subjects that they dish out, or they wouldn't be rulers. The Golden Rule is compatible only with freedom.

[Kshartle]

It's actually not possible to follow the Golden Rule if you think that some people should rule others, as by definition rulers won't accept the same treatment from subjects that they dish out, or they wouldn't be rulers. The Golden Rule is compatible only with freedom.

That makes logical sense. I might re-think it here.

[Mountaineer]

Here's an interesting article on Roe v. Wade:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/201 ... ml?start=1

Interesting.  I had not heard that before.  Isn't it fascinating how law gets made?  Similar to making sausage - the end result may have apeal to some, but the process of making it can be very disgusting.  In the case of Roe vs. Wade, it seems the end result was more like scrapple than filet.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrapple

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

For instance...My office is next a woman with an Obama poster up (swear to God). She has told me she loves authority, rules, the government etc. She said if one kid has two cookies and the other kid has none she thinks its our duty to take from one and give to the other. (swear to God).

This is her mentality and how she likes thinks......

  I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I can't help thinking that your boss is trying to torture you.

Hah, they are busy with their own situations so I think it's probably God torturing me for being an Atheist.

I'm not a coincidence  theorist

[Gosso]

  I like that!

Me too.  Have either of you read the Screwtape Letters?  Good insightful read.

.... Mountaineer

Yeah, that's a great book.  It was an entertaining read, but also really made me look at things differently.

It has been over a year and a half for me, so I need to dust it off and read it again.

And just to be clear I would consider Lewis's work to be a pussycat (Lewis would likely call it a worm) compared to the four gospels.  Gotta get through the "easy" stuff first.

I was thinking more about Fight Club and how Tyler Durden seems to be based off of a very dark/twisted Christ-like figure.  Watch the movie trailer (HERE) and tell me if I'm crazy or not.  He makes soap to wash away the sins.  Turns weak men into strong men.  Fights against the Pharisees and consumerism.  Tells people to not talk about him, but word still gets out.  Although the real Christ is also meek and humble, so it isn't a perfect match.

[Mountaineer]

Me too.  Have either of you read the Screwtape Letters?  Good insightful read.

.... Mountaineer

Yeah, that's a great book.  It was an entertaining read, but also really made me look at things differently.

It has been over a year and a half for me, so I need to dust it off and read it again.

And just to be clear I would consider Lewis's work to be a pussycat (Lewis would likely call it a worm) compared to the four gospels.  Gotta get through the "easy" stuff first.

I was thinking more about Fight Club and how Tyler Durden seems to be based off of a very dark/twisted Christ-like figure.  Watch the movie trailer (HERE) and tell me if I'm crazy or not.  He makes soap to wash away the sins.  Turns weak men into strong men.  Fights against the Pharisees and consumerism.  Tells people to not talk about him, but word still gets out.  Although the real Christ is also meek and humble, so it isn't a perfect match.

Fight Club II coming to the big screen just around the corner.    However, I'm not sure I'd say that Christ himself was meek.  http://lcmssermons.com/index.php?sn=2050

... Mountaineer

[Gosso]

Fight Club II coming to the big screen just around the corner.    However, I'm not sure I'd say that Christ himself was meek.  http://lcmssermons.com/index.php?sn=2050

... Mountaineer

I agree, it is difficult to really pin down the character of Christ.  I have much to learn still.

[Kshartle]

I don't think you're a very good atheist, Kshartle.  From what I've read in your posts, your views regarding morality don't seem to square with an atheist viewpoint.  (And of course coming from me, you can take that as a compliment). 

I like the "coincidence theorist" term, by the way.

Appreciate it. I am not a good athiest because I don't worship the state. Or maybe I am an athiest and they are really statists professing to be athiests?

I think morality can be rationaly proven with logic and that good and bad, right and wrong really exist. Whether this was written into the universe by some other intelligent life/being I can't be certain of. I think the definitions/meaning of those terms make it clear that they do exist as a consequnece of what human beings are. (self controlling and responsible for our actions as a result of that control and our ability to judge our actions against a moral standard).

We've gone over this stuff at length though and I don't have the strength to re-hash it all at the moment. I'm sure we will at some point. That's a prediction you can bet on.

[Pointedstick]

Appreciate it. I am not a good athiest because I don't worship the state. Or maybe I am an athiest and they are really statists professing to be athiests?

I think morality can be rationaly proven with logic and that good and bad, right and wrong really exist. Whether this was written into the universe by some other intelligent life/being I can't be certain of. I think the definitions/meaning of those terms make it clear that they do exist as a consequnece of what human beings are. (self controlling and responsible for our actions as a result of that control).

We've gone over this stuff at length though and I don't have the strength to re-hash it all at the moment. I'm sure we will at some point. That's a prediction you can bet on.

So you have faith that morality can be proven with logic and reason?

[Kshartle]

Appreciate it. I am not a good athiest because I don't worship the state. Or maybe I am an athiest and they are really statists professing to be athiests?

I think morality can be rationaly proven with logic and that good and bad, right and wrong really exist. Whether this was written into the universe by some other intelligent life/being I can't be certain of. I think the definitions/meaning of those terms make it clear that they do exist as a consequnece of what human beings are. (self controlling and responsible for our actions as a result of that control).

We've gone over this stuff at length though and I don't have the strength to re-hash it all at the moment. I'm sure we will at some point. That's a prediction you can bet on.

So you have faith that morality can be proven with logic and reason?

Yes, the same faith that I'm typing this message to another person and not a gremlin living inside the magic box on my desk

[Pointedstick]

Yes, the same faith that I'm typing this message to another person and not a gremlin living inside the magic box on my desk

How do you know I'm not the gremlin? I daresay you have faith that you're talking to another human!

[Kshartle]

Yes, the same faith that I'm typing this message to another person and not a gremlin living inside the magic box on my desk

How do you know I'm not the gremlin? I daresay you have faith that you're talking to another human!

Yes but my faith is waining.........

[dualstow]

This is potentially offensive - likely even, if you're a believer. However, if you are an infidel and pro-choice and you like Sarah, this is good for a laugh:

Sarah Silverman is visited by Jesus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahdR6aHQvMQ

[Pointedstick]

Though not a believer, I have to say I find Sarah Silverman to be arrogant and nasty.

Then again I find all political humor to be arrogant and nasty, and mostly used as a socially-acceptable way to express hatred toward other people, which is something I find distasteful and try to avoid myself (though I don't always succeed; it's hard).

[dualstow]

Though not a believer, I have to say I find Sarah Silverman to be arrogant and nasty.
...

Really! I know a lot of people who don't care for her and find her obnoxious, which I guess she is, but I have never heard arrogant used in the same breath with her name. (shrug). Ah well, I guess she's not for everyone.

[Gosso]

A Culture of Life

Imagine that today’s March changed the mind of one or two justices and as a result the Court were to overturn its 1973 holding as poorly reasoned and wrongly decided (both true). This would have the effect of allowing states once again to set up their own laws governing abortion. Some states would quickly enact a series of prohibitions or limitations, from outright banning of abortion to severe restrictions on its practice. Other states, one supposes, including some of the most populous such as California and New York, would almost certainly maintain near-limitless permission to abort children. It’s quite possible that the number of abortions would be reduced as the practice was outright banned or severely restricted in some parts of the country, but it’s also likely that those with means would simply travel where abortion would be legal, and even possible that the pro-choice movement would provide funding to pregnant women of limited means. One certainly can’t predict in advance what would happen, but it’s at least conceivable that as long as some states permitted abortion on demand, that the number of abortions would hardly drop.

On the other hand, imagine that seven (or even just four) justices remained convinced that Roe v. Wade should remain the law of the land, but that American people’s view of abortion was transformed—that it came to be widely accepted that abortion was simply wrong, that it came to be widely held that it was the taking of an innocent human life, the brutal murder of the weakest and most needy among us. Abortion would remain officially legal but increasingly unpracticed—indeed, unthinkable as something a civilized person would do.

These are not necessarily mutually exclusive scenarios, but given a choice between the two, I’d hastily accept the latter. I wouldn’t care whether Roe v. Wade were ever overturned if America embraced a culture of life. Following such a change of heart, it would matter far less to most people whether Roe were overturned; it would seem more a period at the end of a sentence than the necessary pre-condition to a cultural transformation.
...
We live in a society which prizes autonomy and enshrines the idea of Lockean property, including Lockean self-ownership, understood as an inalienable right that gives us the right to dispose of “our persons and property as we list.”? We embrace the liberty of persons to pursue individual self-realization, increasingly to the detriment of future generations, born and unborn. We live not in a culture of life, but what Pope Francis has accurately called “a throw-away culture.”? We are all implicated in this culture—Left and Right alike. The Left, particularly when it comes to their Lockean behavior in the claim to non-negotiable ownership of their bodies; the Right, in their Lockean belief that anything in the world is theirs for use and disposal for the ends of immediate profit. Many of those marching also might have cheered when Sarah Palin chanted “Drill, baby, drill,”? implicitly claiming that we, who happen to be alive now, own the finite resources of the earth—just because we were here first. I don’t mean to suggest that there is a moral equivalency to aborting children and drilling for oil; I merely seek to point out that Americans are generally Lockeans in some form or another, and that the accompanying pervasive individualism, avarice, hedonism and presentism makes the sustenance of a comprehensive culture of life difficult if not impossible.

I fully support the latter as well.  But then turn on the TV or walk out the front door and we'll realize it is an impossible task.  It is like asking everyone to study the plays of Shakespeare, drill down into their depth and commentary on human life, and then have this impact the way that person lives their life.  It is a lovely idea, but not going to happen.  People won't change unless they want to change.  Until then we have human law to help maintain order and a civilized society.  The question is then what is a civilized society?  I think it should revolve around the moral compass (I know it won't happen, and we are currently moving in the opposite direction), others seem to think it should revolve around "if it feels good do it, as long as it doesn't appear to hurt anyone".  The latter is by far the more delicious fruit.

This is potentially offensive - likely even, if you're a believer. However, if you are an infidel and pro-choice and you like Sarah, this is good for a laugh:

Sarah Silverman is visited by Jesus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahdR6aHQvMQ

I generally like Sarah.  The video was kinda funny at the beginning (but I'm still mostly infidel myself).  I thought it was weird that her "Diva" video was directly linked to after her abortion video.  Now that is offensive!

[dualstow]

I generally like Sarah.  The video was kinda funny at the beginning (but I'm still mostly infidel myself).  I thought it was weird that her "Diva" video was directly linked to after her abortion video.  Now that is offensive!

I haven't been reading enough of your posts carefully enough. I didn't think you were an infidel.
Have not yet seen the Diva video.
Off topic: I know you're a Louis CK fan. Over the weekend I learned that he's selling his new special for five bucks on his website. It's pretty cool- DRM free with a plea not to "torrent" it (ie not to upload it to torrent sites). No middleman. Well, that's my shameless plug.

[Gosso]

I generally like Sarah.  The video was kinda funny at the beginning (but I'm still mostly infidel myself).  I thought it was weird that her "Diva" video was directly linked to after her abortion video.  Now that is offensive!

I haven't been reading enough of your posts carefully enough. I didn't think you were an infidel.
Have not yet seen the Diva video.
Off topic: I know you're a Louis CK fan. Over the weekend I learned that he's selling his new special for five bucks on his website. It's pretty cool- DRM free with a plea not to "torrent" it (ie not to upload it to torrent sites). No middleman. Well, that's my shameless plug.

I'm in the process of shedding the secular/atheist skin and putting on a Catholic/Christian skin.  It takes some getting used to.

Thanks for the heads up on Louis CK's new set.

[Lowe]

I fully support the latter as well.  But then turn on the TV or walk out the front door and we'll realize it is an impossible task.  It is like asking everyone to study the plays of Shakespeare, drill down into their depth and commentary on human life, and then have this impact the way that person lives their life.  It is a lovely idea, but not going to happen.  People won't change unless they want to change.  Until then we have human law to help maintain order and a civilized society.  The question is then what is a civilized society?  I think it should revolve around the moral compass (I know it won't happen, and we are currently moving in the opposite direction), others seem to think it should revolve around "if it feels good do it, as long as it doesn't appear to hurt anyone".  The latter is by far the more delicious fruit.

Human beings today treat children much better than they did in the past.  History shows humankind gets better over time, not just in his standard of living, but in his treatment of others.  There won't be any laws in a couple hundred years.  And in a hundred there won't be any gods.  No one will need either, because they won't be carrying around baskets of crazy to hide in this or that ideology.

[Kshartle]

I fully support the latter as well.  But then turn on the TV or walk out the front door and we'll realize it is an impossible task.  It is like asking everyone to study the plays of Shakespeare, drill down into their depth and commentary on human life, and then have this impact the way that person lives their life.  It is a lovely idea, but not going to happen.  People won't change unless they want to change.  Until then we have human law to help maintain order and a civilized society.  The question is then what is a civilized society?  I think it should revolve around the moral compass (I know it won't happen, and we are currently moving in the opposite direction), others seem to think it should revolve around "if it feels good do it, as long as it doesn't appear to hurt anyone".  The latter is by far the more delicious fruit.

Human beings today treat children much better than they did in the past.  History shows humankind gets better over time, not just in his standard of living, but in his treatment of others.  There won't be any laws in a couple hundred years.  And in a hundred there won't be any gods.  No one will need either, because they won't be carrying around baskets of crazy to hide in this or that ideology.

Lowe......where have you been the brazillion times I've made these predictions?

What do you mean by "humankind gets better over time, not just in his standard of living, but in his treatment of others"?

[Jan Van]

How does legal abortion make the world a better place?  And better for whom?

I'm sorry Desert, but I'm trying to extricate myself from this. No offense. I couldn't resist answering AdamA's question, but that's it. My guess is that you're already well-informed about the other side of the debate. Economics, crime, health, etc.

No problem.  Thanks for the reply. 

Like this?

Abortion and crime: who should you believe?

... let’s start by reviewing the basic facts that support the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis that legalized abortion in the 1970s explains a substantial part of the crime decline in the 1990s...

[Lowe]

@ Kshartle

Slavery is a good example.  It was widespread in ancient times.  Likewise pedophilia was more widespread, and also public executions.  Humankind is kinder and gentler now that ever before, and it's gets better every year.  We have a dark past, and a bright future.

The slow but certain death of religiosity and patriotism signals the increasing health and happiness of human beings everywhere.  Those ideologies are the symptoms of parental abandonment and abuse, and as those practices wane the symptoms do as well.

[Kshartle]

I'm sorry Desert, but I'm trying to extricate myself from this. No offense. I couldn't resist answering AdamA's question, but that's it. My guess is that you're already well-informed about the other side of the debate. Economics, crime, health, etc.

No problem.  Thanks for the reply. 

Like this?

Abortion and crime: who should you believe?

... let’s start by reviewing the basic facts that support the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis that legalized abortion in the 1970s explains a substantial part of the crime decline in the 1990s...

With this logic a 100% abortion rate would make the world wonderful

What this is really saying is children growing up in poverty and single parent families and such are more likely to engage in crime. The solution to having fewer people living in poverty is not aborting the babies of the poor. It's increasing the wealth of the world through capitalism.

This abortion = better world logic is the same logic that says the state has decreased violence. Not even close. The state has perfected violence to such a degree that no one resists.

It's crappy logic imo.

"Hey I've got a solution to black on black crime....abort all black babies". Brilliant work Donohue-Levitt. If I'm missing the critical point please tell me guys. 

That being said I'm opposed to any law banning abortion.

[Xan]

Honest question, Kshartle: what's your take on laws against murder?  Should they be repealed?

[Kshartle]

Honest question, Kshartle: what's your take on laws against murder?  Should they be repealed?

This question can't be answered with a simple yes or no....much as I would like it.

Xan I am opposed to all forms of the initiation of force of one human against another. That means no rulers. It doesn't mean no rules.

Writing a law against murder clearly doesn't prevent it as evidenced by the USA.

I suspect that writing a law against murder does enable a lot of other crimes however as a by-product. People rob, steal, commit fraud, sexual assault etc. and they know they likelihood that the victim or the victim's family or friends will not take action and they don't have to worry about the state taking their life.

The victim and their friends and family are discouraged from taking action by the state which emboldens the criminals to take action. I mean....how stupid is a law against murder? Like we really need that?

Do we need a law against rape to know it's wrong? How about stealing? Do you think those laws prevent rapes and theft?

ok money shot - I'm opposed to all laws, that includes laws against murder. It's a completely moot point because the only way it will be repealed is when the state is gone and humans will be a lot different than they are today. Only a whacky few totalatarians and their misguided followers will still be arguing that we need such nonsense at that point.