My body my choice , abortions , vaccines, end of life?

[Runenight201]

Norm MacDonald had the perfect insight for this. He always talks about Atheists picking the god they don't want to believe in. Why does the creator have to be "like the Abrahamic god?" Just because there isn't a man up in the clouds doesn't mean there isn't a creator. There are many other religious and spiritual texts out there, and many other religious and spiritual beliefs.

Welp, you are redefining words. Atheist means you don't believe in ANY gods. They say 0%. Agnostic means you aren't sure. That could be anywhere from 0.0000001% to 99.9999999%. I guess you could take the lowest level agnostics and call them atheists, but there are a lot the probably genuinely don't know.

And what "objective evidence" are you possibly looking at?

Just discovered some better insight into this. So by agnostic Im claiming that I do not have certain knowledge of something. There could be a god or not, but no god (at least abrahmic, and the reason why most people think of the abrahmic god when the word god is uttered is because it is dominant perception of god in todays world, and the one that was forced onto my belief system as a child) has ever revealed their presence to me in any sensible way, thus I take the position of an agnostic atheist, where I believe there to be no god, even if I can’t prove it because I’ve never personally seen any evidence for it and the fact that there are about thousands of religions all claiming different gnostic relations to the supernatural or metaphysical leads me to believe that religiosity is a human trait but not necessarily one that is an accurate reflection of reality. We just have to go to different cultures around the world to see how different people form their frameworks of the metaphysical and how different they are to Christian or Muslim or Buddhist etc… frameworks to understand this.

Most humans live for symbolic immortality because the idea of being finite scares the living hell out of most people and we need some way to psychologically reassure us that we will in fact continue existing in some manner, and so we conjure up ideas of the afterlife, legacies, dynasties, offspring, neutrino seas, etc… so that we can Rest In Peace on our final day.

So yea…I won’t let any metaphysical belief about souls influence my view on abortion. I believe there to be very valid cases where it is morally correct to abort a child, including my hypothetical I listed above, even though people will disagree. But that’s fine, that’s why we vote and have laws and discussions to understand each other. Less people are going to be against abortions in the cases of rape or physical well-being to the mother, the more controversial ones are certainly the “lifestyle” ones that @Perry Staltic is going on about.

 

[InChristAlone]

Just discovered some better insight into this. So by agnostic Im claiming that I do not have certain knowledge of something. There could be a god or not, but no god (at least abrahmic, and the reason why most people think of the abrahmic god when the word god is uttered is because it is dominant perception of god in todays world, and the one that was forced onto my belief system as a child) has ever revealed their presence to me in any sensible way, thus I take the position of an agnostic atheist, where I believe there to be no god, even if I can’t prove it because I’ve never personally seen any evidence for it and the fact that there are about thousands of religions all claiming different gnostic relations to the supernatural or metaphysical leads me to believe that religiosity is a human trait but not necessarily one that is an accurate reflection of reality. We just have to go to different cultures around the world to see how different people form their frameworks of the metaphysical and how different they are to Christian or Muslim or Buddhist etc… frameworks to understand this.

Most humans live for symbolic immortality because the idea of being finite scares the living hell out of most people and we need some way to psychologically reassure us that we will in fact continue existing in some manner, and so we conjure up ideas of the afterlife, legacies, dynasties, offspring, neutrino seas, etc… so that we can Rest In Peace on our final day.

So yea…I won’t let any metaphysical belief about souls influence my view on abortion. I believe there to be very valid cases where it is morally correct to abort a child, including my hypothetical I listed above, even though people will disagree. But that’s fine, that’s why we vote and have laws and discussions to understand each other. Less people are going to be against abortions in the cases of rape or physical well-being to the mother, the more controversial ones are certainly the “lifestyle” ones that @Perry Staltic is going on about.

So do you believe truth is subjective? That we cannot know something?

Why kill the child for the sins of the father? The child has nothing to do with the sin they could be loved just the same as it is still a child of the Mother.

 

[nomoreketones]

I believe my body my choice on all of those.

Some people on this forum pick and choose.

I strongly agree. Bodily autonomy a very important principle and it needs to be applied universally and consistently. That means no government has the moral right to force people to be vaccinated. That means no government has the moral right to prohibit abortion.

 

[Runenight201]

So do you believe truth is subjective? That we cannot know something?

Why kill the child for the sins of the father? The child has nothing to do with the sin they could be loved just the same as it is still a child of the Mother.

That’s not my decision to make it’d be the mother who’s forced to take the baby to term (in the case of rape). I’d be perfectly ok with her terminating that. Im sure there are some feel good stories of a woman coming to love her bastard, but I bet there’s even more where that child becomes a daily PTSD of her trauma

I believe there is an objective truth, but that not everything is objective. It’s very clear that in moral, ethical, metaphysical, and ideological realms there is plenty of subjectivity.

 

[InChristAlone]

That’s not my decision to make it’d be the mother who’s forced to take the baby to term (in the case of rape). I’d be perfectly ok with her terminating that. Im sure there are some feel good stories of a woman coming to love her bastard, but I bet there’s even more where that child becomes a daily PTSD of her trauma

I believe there is an objective truth, but that not everything is objective. It’s very clear that in moral, ethical, metaphysical, and ideological realms there is plenty of subjectivity.

If morality is subjective then you have no right to say Hitler was wrong. It was his truth.

 

[Runenight201]

If morality is subjective then you have no right to say Hitler was wrong. It was his truth.

Uh sure I do. Morality is culturally defined and my culture don’t agree with him.

 

[InChristAlone]

Uh sure I do. Morality is culturally defined and my culture don’t agree with him.

Well yes you can disagree but to impose your morality onto him would be claiming your morality is superior to his. See that's what's wrong with subjective morality. If we can decide based on culture what's morally right and what's morally wrong then there is no objective standard. A culture could believe gang rape isn't a sin. Does that mean they are right? No because there IS an objective morality.

 

[Jonk]

If morality is subjective then you have no right to say Hitler was wrong. It was his truth.

This was kind of how I first came to believe in the existence of God. If we can say that a moral or immoral act in a certain scenario was right or wrong it does not matter if you can make up another scenario with that act where it would be of another moral value. If we go to the extreme of child sexual abuse, you could(?) make up a ficticious scenario on another planet or whatever, where that act would be permissible, but it would not change the fact that it was objectively wrong in the scenario where it actually occured. That's at least how I could wrap my head around that obective morality exists, sorry if that's an overly dark example.

 

[Runenight201]

Well yes you can disagree but to impose your morality onto him would be claiming your morality is superior to his. See that's what's wrong with subjective morality. If we can decide based on culture what's morally right and what's morally wrong then there is no objective standard. A culture could believe gang rape isn't a sin. Does that mean they are right? No because there IS an objective morality.

Im going to read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris and then get back to you.

 

[InChristAlone]

Im going to read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris and then get back to you.

Sam Harris believes science can be the moral authority. So he's forming another religion. The religion of science. Because you can't answer moral questions without objectivity, so in his mind this is what answers those questions.

 

[Sitaruîm]

Well yes you can disagree but to impose your morality onto him would be claiming your morality is superior to his. See that's what's wrong with subjective morality. If we can decide based on culture what's morally right and what's morally wrong then there is no objective standard. A culture could believe gang rape isn't a sin. Does that mean they are right? No because there IS an objective morality.

There is no objective morality, customs vary greatly worldwide and this can be interpreted as natural variance in the moral code of different human groups. I'm with @Runenight201 on this one, truth is objective but morality evolves

 

[InChristAlone]

There is no objective morality, customs vary greatly worldwide and this can be interpreted as natural variance in the moral code of different human groups. I'm with @Runenight201 on this one, truth is objective but morality evolves

He didn't actually say that. He just didn't think it has any objectivity, that it depends on the culture. But if he likes Sam Harris then he believes in more objective morals because like I said you can't argue that it's subjective without affirming that for Nazi Germany their moral truth was that Jews needed to be exterminated.

 

[InChristAlone]

This was kind of how I first came to believe in the existence of God. If we can say that a moral or immoral act in a certain scenario was right or wrong it does not matter if you can make up another scenario with that act where it would be of another moral value. If we go to the extreme of child sexual abuse, you could(?) make up a ficticious scenario on another planet or whatever, where that act would be permissible, but it would not change the fact that it was objectively wrong in the scenario where it actually occured. That's at least how I could wrap my head around that obective morality exists, sorry if that's an overly dark example.

Exactly, I'm glad you see that morality cannot be subjective.

 

[InChristAlone]

Also, just as a fun fact side note, before you think that humans are evolving to be more moral, it has been proven that throughout history genocide is committed by ordinary people, Nazi Germany is a good example here. And abortion is also an example of burning, scalding, murdering living human beings. So no humans are not evolving to be moral. That is why we need a savior.

 

[Jonk]

Exactly, I'm glad you see that morality cannot be subjective.

To clarify, because English isn't my first language ..I could wrap my head around it being objectively wrong before that of course. But I would like to hear the counter argument for that, if you acknowledge that a certain scenario can have a moral value, we need to pressupose objective meaning or morality. Contextual doesn't equal subjective right? I tried to have this discussion with my friends to no avail, but I've never actually heard a good counter argument.

 

[InChristAlone]

To clarify, because English isn't my first language ..I could wrap my head around it being objectively wrong before that of course. But I would like to hear the counter argument for that, if you acknowledge that a certain scenario can have a moral value, we need to pressupose objective meaning or morality. Contextual doesn't equal subjective right? I tried to have this discussion with my friends to no avail, but I've never actually heard a good counter argument.

You mean a counter argument to moral objectivity? The counter argument is usually appeal to evolving morals like back in the day they thought slavery was okay but now we know it isn't okay. That's the biggest argument I've seen. But we haven't become more morally good people. Everyone is capable of horrific sin given different circumstances say if you were born in Nazi Germany.

 

[Jonk]

You mean a counter argument to moral objectivity? The counter argument is usual appeal to evolving morals like back in the day they thought slavery was okay but now we know it isn't okay. That's the biggest argument I've seen. But we haven't become more morally good people. Everyone is capable of horrific sin given different circumstances say if you born in Nazi Germany.

Yes. Thanks. And yes that doesn't sound like a valid argument, even if we were to evolve morally, it wouldn't make the framework "evolve" from which we derive our sense of progress of that morality.

 

[InChristAlone]

Yes. Thanks. And yes that doesn't sound like a valid argument, even if we were to evolve morally, it wouldn't make the framework "evolve" from which we derive our sense of progress of that morality.

Yes. It's not like suddenly society is able to tell right from wrong. We always knew right from wrong, but sometimes it takes a while to be taught that if you keep doing the wrong thing you are going to suffer the consequences. We are being taught what it looks like to truly be righteous in God's eyes. Back thousands of years ago they were more carnal than we are now because they didn't understand the very real spiritual consequences so over time they were being taught they can't get away with their evil acts and then Jesus came along and said things like: you have been told it's a sin to commit adultery but truly I say to you if you even look at a woman with lust you have committed adultery in your heart. They thought they could get away with lust as long as they didn't have sex with her. It's like raising a child, you have to systematically teach a child that there are consequences for choosing to do evil, but they know what sin is from a pretty young age.

 

[area51puy]

So should we force this ten year old to have a baby?

How hard is this question? How come nobody can answer it?

 

[area51puy]

Uh sure I do. Morality is culturally defined and my culture don’t agree with him.

This is thing you have to realize. After 40 years of the FDR new deal and the rise of the middle class, the corporate elites and military industrial complex and the Republican politicians that serve them and needed something to stir up vote to give back power to the elites that they lost after the Great Depression. Apart of the southern strategy started by Nixon after LBJ sign the civil rights act , the gop teamed up with the evangelical pastors around the country to whip up these people on abortion rights. So the pro-lifers are so brainwashed they don’t even realize they have been played to give more power to the elites they b**** about all the time. And it’s a ******* joke when these people talk about morality because they want to save a clump of cells , but have not said nothing about the 60 years of American empire killing millions around the world and many time cheering it on when the color of skin was brown or darker. The pro lifers are useful idiots for the elites whose wars and policies have killed millions across the world. These useful idiot pro lifers are too stupid to see they are just a dumb pawn for the goals of the elites. Sad to see it on a forum like this that should be able to see past this, they only seem to see it unless it involves a Covid injection.