People's Contradictory Beliefs?

[Boris Godunov]

Darius871, if one is trying to rationalize restricting abortion legally in a secular society, one has to do so from a secular basis. That means God is, for the purposes of the discussion, non-existant.

[Darius871]

I guess I have to find this other thread first.

[Ben Kenobi]

Work with me here.

"a being doesn't have the right to destroy her creation"

While there many ways in which a woman can increase her fertility, can a woman ensure that she will concieve? If God does not want her to have children, she will not.

In this sense all children are a gift from God, we are all creations of God.

In the other thread, you do not make an argument that assumes the existence of a higher power, but here you do. There are secular as well as spiritual arguments against abortion and I don't really care which you prefer.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Darius871 Sorry, your use of hyperbole threw me off. I didn't know by "chopping off parts of their genitals" you meant circumcision (which is done now for medical reasons, not 'traditional' reasons) or that "beat the living hell out of them every day" meant spanking them on occasion when they break a lamp or something. Perhaps if you had been clear...

it wasn't hyperbole you muppet- I would've called it mutilation if I was using hyperbole. The only reasons I've heard from actual parents for circumsizing their kids is so they won't get laughed at in the locker room, and because the father is Jewish. Sound traditional by me. By "beating the hell out of them every day", I meant a parent who literally does beat the hell out of their children at the slightest provocation and not something you have pulled from thin air, and those who will defend such actions.

Actually, forget all that. Maybe I should just have misinterpreted your post on purpose... so, you think all children who accidentally break property should be beaten into a bloody pulp do you? You might not have said so, but hey, I don't have to take into account your actual opinion to put words into your mouth or assume how you think.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Work with me here.

"a being doesn't have the right to destroy her creation"

While there many ways in which a woman can increase her fertility, can a woman ensure that she will concieve? If God does not want her to have children, she will not.

In this sense all children are a gift from God, we are all creations of God.

In the other thread, you do not make an argument that assumes the existence of a higher power, but here you do. There are secular as well as spiritual arguments against abortion and I don't really care which you prefer.

You're completely evading the point. Here you just said you think God has a right to destroy a sentient, living, breathing person based solely on the fact that being is his creation.

Given an argument that does not assume the existence of God, how can you then assert a woman has no right to abort her creation, the fetus? If there isn't a God in the equation, then the baby has no other creator other than the parents. Ergo, logically, they have every right to destroy it should they wish. They could, by this rationale, even kill it after birth, since it's still their creation.

Just becaused one gave life to a sentient being does not automatically give one the right to take it away.

[Ben Kenobi]

"If there isn't a God in the equation, then the baby has no other creator other than the parents."

Boris, I think is the critical point.

In the other thread, I argue that an unborn child is no different from another person, because it has the intrinsic capacity to function as a person.

That argument assumes that it is wrong to kill human beings. If I can show, given this assumption, that there is no real difference between the unborn child and the parents, then I have shown why abortion is wrong.

The creator/creation argument I give here only works assuming a higher power.

Otherwise, you are saying that a parent should be allowed to kill their children at any time they want, even if the child is 50 years old, just because they are the parents.

Any clearer, Boris?

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by obiwan18
While there many ways in which a woman can increase her fertility, can a woman ensure that she will concieve? If God does not want her to have children, she will not.

Maybe I have taken you out of context, but did God make you say that?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
"If there isn't a God in the equation, then the baby has no other creator other than the parents."

Boris, I think is the critical point.

In the other thread, I argue that an unborn child is no different from another person, because it has the intrinsic capacity to function as a person.

That argument assumes that it is wrong to kill human beings. If I can show, given this assumption, that there is no real difference between the unborn child and the parents, then I have shown why abortion is wrong.

The creator/creation argument I give here only works assuming a higher power.

Otherwise, you are saying that a parent should be allowed to kill their children at any time they want, even if the child is 50 years old, just because they are the parents.

Any clearer, Boris?

So in a universe with God, because God is an omnipotent being, he has the license to kill anything he wants on whatever whim he wants by virtue of his being the creator of that being and it being inferior to him?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Bible itself, aren't we referred to as God's Children? And doesn't it say that he made us in his image? I think, in light of that, it is just as moral for God to kill us as it is for a woman to kill her fetus. A human being is, in a universe with God, dependent on God for existence. In a universe without God, however, a fetus is dependent on its mother for existence, nothing else. In essence, the woman is the god of the fetus. Certainly, as far as a fetus is concerned, that is the case. Therefore, under your own logic, the fetus is rightfully at the mercy of its god for its existence, and therefore the mother can end the fetus as assuredly as God can end a human being.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


So in a universe with God, because God is an omnipotent being, he has the license to kill anything he wants on whatever whim he wants by virtue of his being the creator of that being and it being inferior to him?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Bible itself, aren't we referred to as God's Children? And doesn't it say that he made us in his image? I think, in light of that, it is just as moral for God to kill us as it is for a woman to kill her fetus. A human being is, in a universe with God, dependent on God for existence. In a universe without God, however, a fetus is dependent on its mother for existence, nothing else. In essence, the woman is the god of the fetus. Certainly, as far as a fetus is concerned, that is the case. Therefore, under your own logic, the fetus is rightfully at the mercy of its god for its existence, and therefore the mother can end the fetus as assuredly as God can end a human being.

dont get me wrong... i am not prolife, but according to ur example, its perfectly valid to kill babies (ones that are born) as well. So infanticide = should be legal?

[Rogan Josh]

The biggest contradiction: Atheists who believe they have free-will

And leading on from that: Atheists with moral values.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Calc II


dont get me wrong... i am not prolife, but according to ur example, its perfectly valid to kill babies (ones that are born) as well. So infanticide = should be legal?

I don't think Boris was saying a person has the right to kill anything he/she has created, he was just noting hypocrisy in what Obiwan said.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
The biggest contradiction: Atheists who believe they have free-will

[lightblue]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
The biggest contradiction: Atheists who believe they have free-will

And leading on from that: Atheists with moral values.

Hmm... Why would being an atheist (ie you do not believe in an higher power) mean that you don't have a free will. I see what you probably mean though: I do not believe that I have free-will, I know that i have.

As for the moral values, just because i do not need the threat of eternal damnation hanging above me to behave like a decent human being, does not mean that i can't be a decent human being... Anyway from a biological POV, behaving according to the moral values most of us have makes sense, as a society with said values is more likely to survive. All evolution...

[Jack the Bodiless]

Jack, if you paint a picture, or write a book, are you not also allowed to burn your own book or destroy your painting?

Such as it is with God. Why should he not suddenly destroy what he has made? Why does he put up with us at all?

Irrespective of whether you believe God was involved, it is undoubtedly true that the parents created their child (with or without God's help). The child would not exist without their act of creation, and the mother's sacrifices in choosing to undergo pregnancy. The child owes its life to the parents.

Therefore, by this argument, the parents have the right to kill the child at any time.

But, apart from the obvious implications for abortion and infanticide: the issue is whether the person deserves to die or not.

I believe that Osama Bin Laden deserves to die. Therefore I will not condemn anyone who kills him.

If some Christians believe that THEY deserve to die, then they cannot object to being killed by me (or anyone else). They supposedly deserved death, irrespective of where it comes from.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by lightblue
Hmm... Why would being an atheist (ie you do not believe in an higher power) mean that you don't have a free will. I see what you probably mean though: I do not believe that I have free-will, I know that i have.

No - that isn't what I mean. I mean that the same logic which atheists (usually) apply to the existence of God can be applied to the existence of free-will (as I have explained countless times on these boeards). Therefore it is inconsistent to believe in one and deny the existence of the other (or at least it is inconsistent to use science to motivate atheism and still believe in free-will).

As for the moral values, just because i do not need the threat of eternal damnation hanging above me to behave like a decent human being, does not mean that i can't be a decent human being... Anyway from a biological POV, behaving according to the moral values most of us have makes sense, as a society with said values is more likely to survive. All evolution...

If you have had no free-will, morality would be a bit of a sham don't you think? After all, why is a human being any more special than, say, a doorknob?

[lightblue]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
No - that isn't what I mean. I mean that the same logic which atheists (usually) apply to the existence of God can be applied to the existence of free-will (as I have explained countless times on these boeards). Therefore it is inconsistent to believe in one and deny the existence of the other (or at least it is inconsistent to use science to motivate atheism and still believe in free-will).

We might have differing opinions as to what free will entails then. To me free will is a logical follow up from being conscious of oneself. The only thing that isn't necessarily free will, though controllable are base instincts like flight or fight response.

I can choose to sit behind my computer all day, or I can choose to go outside for a run. In what form does this not entail free will? I do not believe in a Puppetmaster in the Sky who decides my life's path, therefore everything I do is and must be by my own volition. So being an atheist automatically leads to knowing that you have free will in my book.

As for why I do not believe in a Puppetmaster, it is because of the usual "no proof scenario".

If you take 2 scenarios:

1/ You believe in a God, and do not believe in free will as everything is predetermined by said God eventhough you still consciously make decisions on what to do every day.

2/ You do not believe in a God, and believe that which seems like free will, is actually free will.

(other option) You believe in a God, but do believe in free will as described in 2/. In this case your statement does not make any sense as believing or not in a God would not change the knowledge of having free will.

Which one seems the more logical to you? I can throw in Occam again, but I realise (just as you do) that discussing these things on forums isn't going to convince someone of the other way.

If you have had no free-will, morality would be a bit of a sham don't you think? After all, why is a human being any more special than, say, a doorknob?

The fact that we're alive for a start? A doorknob can't make decisions, we can. So can most higher animals (will I eat this worm, or not). From free will flows the concept of morality. I personally choose not to go around killing people at random and stealing their property. I would not do this even if laws were not in place. Hence, morality.

Again we might differ on our opinions on the exact meaning of morality.