Abortion and the Religious Right

[okinrus]

How else are you going to define "human being" other than by biology? You want to define "human being = thing with a soul", but you admit that it is impossible to detect a soul. There is no objective test you can perform to find out if something has a soul, so by your definition rocks might be human beings, for all we know.

As of yet, you've given know real reason why we should not act like animals.

In your last post, you were claiming that abortion is not a religious matter. But here you are making a religious argument. Which is it? Are you against abortion only on religious grounds, or can you actually make a case for why abortion is wrong?

No, I'm not against abortion on religious grounds. I'm against abortion because it is murder, though I am against murder on religious grounds.

What does the bible say, then?

Read or search the bible? I would suspect that just about all non-biased interpretations of the OT and NT would come to the conclusion that abortion is wrong.

The physical definition of the term "human being" is perfectly straightforward, and not at all inconsitent. If something has a human genetic code, it is a human being. But that, in itself, is not enough to give a foetus a right to live which overrides that of the mother, as I have said previously.

Ok, then, the the biological definition that clearly considers the fetus a human being is good enough. You have not explained why the fetus does not deserve the right to live for 6 more months but we somehow do? What is it about us that makes us deserve to live?

 

[James R]

okinrus:

As of yet, you've given know real reason why we should not act like animals.

We <b>are</b> animals. What is it about animals that you don't like?

No, I'm not against abortion on religious grounds. I'm against abortion because it is murder, though I am against murder on religious grounds.

It all comes down to the same thing, doesn't it? For you, it's a religious issue.

Read or search the bible? I would suspect that just about all non-biased interpretations of the OT and NT would come to the conclusion that abortion is wrong.

In fact, the bible never specifically mentions abortion.

Ok, then, the the biological definition that clearly considers the fetus a human being is good enough. You have not explained why the fetus does not deserve the right to live for 6 more months but we somehow do? What is it about us that makes us deserve to live?

Our level of consciousness. Our ability to feel pain. Our autonomous existence.

You are arguing that it is wrong to kill a foetus simply because it belongs to the species Homo sapiens. This is not a moral argument. What is special about being human? Arguing that it is ok to kill animals, but not humans, is like arguing that it is acceptable to kill white people but not black people. Of course, you say that all humans have souls, just because they happen to be members of the species Homo sapiens. Yet you have no evidence of that. So, your argument is arbitrary and speciesist.

 

[Bells]

Okinrus

After having read your replies in this thread and also in a few of the other threads which deal with this issue, I'd like to ask you one question.

If a woman is pregnant and the pregnancy is a danger to the mother's life and she is told the only way for her to survive is to have an abortion, would you say that in such a case, it would be ok for her to have the abortion or would you still see it as a murderous act?

 

[okinrus]

If a woman is pregnant and the pregnancy is a danger to the mother's life and she is told the only way for her to survive is to have an abortion, would you say that in such a case, it would be ok for her to have the abortion or would you still see it as a murderous act?

No, it is not murder because the abortion is to save her life.

 

[okinrus]

We are animals. What is it about animals that you don't like?

If we are animals, then how come murdering someone is wrong but killing animal is not.

It all comes down to the same thing, doesn't it? For you, it's a religious issue.

Belief in the existense of the soul is belief in the supernatural, not religion.

In fact, the bible never specifically mentions abortion.

The early Christians who <a href="http://www.bible.ca/H-Abortion.htm">wrote</a> about abortion all said it was wrong. The Apocalypse of Peter seems to be quoting from a Zoraster source of the punishment in hell that I can no longer find, so it's not the most accurate source. Though, the <a href="http://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd15sbe.htm#section2a">Vendidad</a> also says that abortion is wrong.

Our level of consciousness. Our ability to feel pain. Our autonomous existence.

How do you determine whether the fetus can feel pain and is conscious when it's uncertain what the exact mechanisms of consciousness are? There is no other test for consciousness than asking the fetus, which is impossible because the fetus does not speak.

Neither does the fetus seems to me to have an atunomous existense separate from the mother, because the mother does not feel the pain that would otherwise be felt of having her tissue ripped apart. The ability to feel pain is present in all animals. Is killing morally acceptable when pain killers are used? Not to my knowledge.

 

[Bells]

No, it is not murder because the abortion is to save her life.

Then please explain how you could have stated this then:

You have not explained why the fetus does not deserve the right to live for 6 more months but we somehow do? What is it about us that makes us deserve to live?

Based on your reasoning, what gives the mother the right to live above that of the baby? Why not just preserve the mother and allow her to deliver the child, thereby not killing the baby?

You've been saying that you are against abortion because it's murder, yet you see no problems in murdering the baby if it is to save the life of the mother. Is that not hypocritical?

Explain to me the difference in a sick woman choosing to terminate her pregnancy and a woman who's not sick doing so. Explain to me how you can only constitute it to be murder in one instance yet not murder in another instance. Both women are choosing to abort their child. Both have a choice of doing so and not doing so. Only difference is that one is sick and the other is not. If the sick woman can stay alive through her pregnancy and deliver a healthy baby, why should she abort it to preserve her own life? What makes her life so special over that of the child? Why do you think she has the right to abort that child but no other woman should have that same right?

What about a young girl who finds herself pregnant and knows that her life will end if she has that baby since she'll be kicked out of home and school and everyone in her life will abandon her. Why do you think her having an abortion is murder, yet a sick woman can have an abortion and not have you see it as murder. Shouldn't the young girl be allowed to preserve her life as she knows it just as much as the sick woman can preserve her life by having the abortion?

 

[okinrus]

Bells, you never qualified your position properly.

Based on your reasoning, what gives the mother the right to live above that of the baby? Why not just preserve the mother and allow her to deliver the child, thereby not killing the baby?

Is the fetus going to die anyways, or would the fetus otherwise live if the mother did not abort? The case that the fetus would otherwise live if the mother did not abort is rare due to modern science.

You've been saying that you are against abortion because it's murder, yet you see no problems in murdering the baby if it is to save the life of the mother. Is that not hypocritical?

No, I would think it is similar to self-defense. I did not say that I have no problems with it, only that it was not murder.

Explain to me the difference in a sick woman choosing to terminate her pregnancy and a woman who's not sick doing so. Explain to me how you can only constitute it to be murder in one instance yet not murder in another instance.

Rationale and intent.

What about a young girl who finds herself pregnant and knows that her life will end if she has that baby since she'll be kicked out of home and school and everyone in her life will abandon her.

Obviously, this is not the fault of abortion. Frankly, anyone who would leave her due to her having a pregnancy is not a true friend anyhow.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

M*W: You said, "Belief in the existense of the soul is belief in the supernatural, not religion." Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the soul is supernatural, aren't you saying you believe in New Age phenomena? How do you know the soul is supernatural?

Regarding abortion, do you believe that the soul of the fetus dies along with the body? The soul is eternal. There is no death to the soul. The soul is not harmed in anyway as a result of an abortion. Only the body dies. There is no loss to the soul.
---------
The early Christians who <a href="http://www.bible.ca/H-Abortion.htm">wrote</a> about abortion all said it was wrong. The Apocalypse of Peter seems to be quoting from a Zoraster source of the punishment in hell that I can no longer find, so it's not the most accurate source. Though, the <a href="http://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd15sbe.htm#section2a">Vendidad</a> also says that abortion is wrong.
----------
M*W: Abortion is neither right nor wrong. How do you feel about tonsillectomies, appendectomies, cholecystectomies, etc.? They're neither right nor wrong. The tonsils, appendix, and gall bladder cannot live on their own with their host system.
----------
How do you determine whether the fetus can feel pain and is conscious when it's uncertain what the exact mechanisms of consciousness are?
----------
M*W: Because the nervous system is not fully developed, the fetus would not feel pain. It is not a thinking, breathing entity. It's a cluster of cells that have not developed into a human being. It is just human tissue with no soul.
----------
There is no other test for consciousness than asking the fetus, which is impossible because the fetus does not speak.

Neither does the fetus seems to me to have an atunomous existense separate from the mother, "because the mother does not feel the pain that would otherwise be felt of having her tissue ripped apart." The ability to feel pain is present in all animals. Is killing morally acceptable when pain killers are used? Not to my knowledge.
----------
M*W: There is no consciousness in a fetus because the brain is not developed. It is not aware of anything. What makes you think the mother does not feel any pain? I assure you, she does. In the course of numbing the cervix, Lidocaine would be injected into the fetus numbing it as well as the cervix.

Do they give pain killers along with the lethal injection? I doubt it. How would you define "killing?" I think killing would be to take the life of a living, breathing entity. A fetus may be a clump of living tissue, but it cannot breathe on its own. Therefore, abortion is not the same as killing. Who's the killer? The mother or the abortionist? If it's so wrong, why are there laws to protect the mother and not the fetus?

Do you know what abortionists do in a late term abortions when the fetus starts breathing and crying? They whack its head on the counter crushing its skull. Late term partial abortion prevents this. Abortionists crack the fetal skull while still in utero so it can't take its first breath!

I'm NOT pro-abortion. Nobody is. Any woman who would wait past 12 weeks puts herself at greater risk. I don't even like the idea of late term abortion. It makes me sick. But until you have been on the other side of the coin, you couldn't possibly know what women go through when they have an abortion. The women I've seen come in for an abortion, they're doing the fetus a favor.

 

[okinrus]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the soul is supernatural, aren't you saying you believe in New Age phenomena? How do you know the soul is supernatural?

I use supernatural metaphorically to mean unscientific. The fact is that science alone cannot determine one's motives; where ever scientific definitions allow the denial of important moral laws, the scientific definition should rejected insofar as it pertains to morals.

Regarding abortion, do you believe that the soul of the fetus dies along with the body?

No, I believe that the fetus goes to heaven where he or she is "grows up", and then he the fetus is given a choice whether to stay in heaven or go to hell.

The soul is eternal. There is no death to the soul. The soul is not harmed in anyway as a result of an abortion.

The woman's soul or the fetus'? The woman's soul is harmed because abortion is a mortal sin.

M*W: Abortion is neither right nor wrong. How do you feel about tonsillectomies, appendectomies, cholecystectomies, etc.? They're neither right nor wrong. The tonsils, appendix, and gall bladder cannot live on their own with their host system.

Neither can someone in a coma, nor can everyone breath on their own. There are multitudes of other examples where someone's life is completely dependant on another person.

M*W: Because the nervous system is not fully developed, the fetus would not feel pain. It is not a thinking, breathing entity. It's a cluster of cells that have not developed into a human being. It is just human tissue with no soul.

You don't truly know how the nervous systems works do you? I'd surmise that the best that science has given us is that some chemicals(neurotransmitters I think) are produced in the brain which produce the sensation of pain. Needless to say, if you believe the existence of the soul, pain is part of the individual's existence, so the soul would have to react to the chemicals somehow.

Therefore, abortion is not the same as killing. Who's the killer? The mother or the abortionist? If it's so wrong, why are there laws to protect the mother and not the fetus?

Now, I'm sure you've heard of conspiracy charges. Let's see, the mother is usually guilty of the greater crime because she gave her fetus over to be killed. The abortionist, however, are paid to kill.

If it's so wrong, why are there laws to protect the mother and not the fetus?

There are so many barbaric practices that go underneath the law in this country and others that using an argument "The state says so" is bogus.

Do you know what abortionists do in a late term abortions when the fetus starts breathing and crying? They whack its head on the counter crushing its skull. Late term partial abortion prevents this. Abortionists crack the fetal skull while still in utero so it can't take its first breath!

I've heard about this. Have you've wittnessed this?

 

[shrubby pegasus]

there is no sucj thing as a moral law

 

[Medicine*Woman]

I use supernatural metaphorically to mean unscientific. The fact is that science alone cannot determine one's motives; where ever scientific definitions allow the denial of important moral laws, the scientific definition should rejected insofar as it pertains to morals.
----------
M*W: So you don't believe the soul can be scientificallly explained? I thought the salvation of the soul was one of the big amenities of Christianity. Now you're saying that science cannot determine one's "motives." Well, of course not. What do "motives" have to do with the eternal soul? Absolutely nothing! "Motives" are a product of the human brain. Not the soul.
----------
No, I believe that the fetus goes to heaven where he or she is "grows up", and then he the fetus is given a choice whether to stay in heaven or go to hell.
----------
M*W: No, it doesn't happen this way. Human tissue that lacks viability doesn't go to heaven. Heaven is a spiritual place if it exists at all. No living or dead human tissue goes there regardless of the stage of development. The fetus is given NO choice. It's dead tissue. It has no rights. It has no morals. It goes the way of the adult corpse. It returns to Earth--a biochemical basis from whence it came.
----------
The woman's soul or the fetus'? The woman's soul is harmed because abortion is a mortal sin.
----------
M*W: I was referring to the fetal "soul." There is no such thing. The woman's soul may be harmed, sure, but not because it's a mortal sin. The woman's soul may be harmed from the negative energies of fear and grief.
----------
Neither can someone in a coma, nor can everyone breath on their own. There are multitudes of other examples where someone's life is completely dependant on another person.
----------
M*W: So, you are saying... At what point does the soul leave the body? Assuming here that the soul is made up of chemical energy. When does the chemical energy depart the human in the end-stage process of genetic decay?
----------
You don't truly know how the nervous systems works do you? I'd surmise that the best that science has given us is that some chemicals(neurotransmitters I think) are produced in the brain which produce the sensation of pain. Needless to say, if you believe the existence of the soul, pain is part of the individual's existence, so the soul would have to react to the chemicals somehow.
----------
M*W: The first thing we learn about in medical school is the nervous system. If we don't pass the nervous system, we don't continue in medical school. Neurotransmitters are produced in the brain to transfer messages from point A to point B. When there is a lack of serotonin, the messages don't get from point A to point B. They derail the message on the "track." I think you must be talking about prostaglandins. Prostaglandins are the chemicals that go through the pain receptors in the brain. If one blocks the prostaglandin receptors, one feels no pain.
----------
Now, I'm sure you've heard of conspiracy charges. Let's see, the mother is usually guilty of the greater crime because she gave her fetus over to be killed. The abortionist, however, are paid to kill.
----------
M*W: No, I've never heard of "conspiracy charges." What are they? Being paid to kill is no worse or better than giving one's fetus over to be killed. Now if you said a woman gave her child/children over to be killed, then I would say she should fry. A fetus has no more, no less right to life than a wart or mole. The fetus doesn't have a "soul." Now it might be possible that that particular fetus was destined to have a soul, but the mother chose to abort it. Still, it would have no soul. A portion of the One Spirit of God does not linger in inanimate tissue regardless of the reason it is inanimate tissue.
----------
There are so many barbaric practices that go underneath the law in this country and others that using an argument "The state says so" is bogus.
----------
M*W: Whoever said this country was in no way barbaric? We aim to be civilized, but that doesn't mean we are. Study ancient history and you will find that the most barbaric people were the Germans (early Gauls). They emigrated from Greece, Turkey, Thrace to France, later Germany, and England. These are the true barbarians.
----------
I've heard about this. Have you've wittnessed this?
----------
M*W: Fortunately, I have not witnessed this. If I were in a supervisory position (which is where I am usually), this would not take place. I have seen an almost full-term infant delivered whom we did not resuscitate. My first inclination was to resuscitate it, but the other physician in the case wouldn't allow it. The child could have lived with serious handicaps, but I would have taken responsibility for it. All I can say is that in Texas, we don't do abortions beyond the 25th week. Sometimes on ultrasound a fetus can appear to be less developed than it is, then when it's aborted, it's a full termer. I prefer to attend women who are having home births or hospital births naturally. I prefer life over death.

 

[okinrus]

M*W: So you don't believe the soul can be scientificallly explained?

Science only observes the natural world.

I thought the salvation of the soul was one of the big amenities of Christianity. Now you're saying that science cannot determine one's "motives." Well, of course not. What do "motives" have to do with the eternal soul? Absolutely nothing! "Motives" are a product of the human brain. Not the soul.

Replace "motives" with "morals"

M*W: No, it doesn't happen this way. Human tissue that lacks viability doesn't go to heaven. Heaven is a spiritual place if it exists at all. No living or dead human tissue goes there regardless of the stage of development. The fetus is given NO choice. It's dead tissue. It has no rights. It has no morals. It goes the way of the adult corpse. It returns to Earth--a biochemical basis from whence it came.

Do you have any doubt of the final resting place of the fetus? Would you risk your own life if you are wrong? For someone who does not even know if heaven exist, you seem pretty sure of who or what won't go there.

Neurotransmitters are produced in the brain to transfer messages from point A to point B. When there is a lack of serotonin, the messages don't get from point A to point B. They derail the message on the "track." I think you must be talking about prostaglandins. Prostaglandins are the chemicals that go through the pain receptors in the brain. If one blocks the prostaglandin receptors, one feels no pain.

How is pain distributed to the concience being? Is our concience one cell or multiple cells?

A portion of the One Spirit of God does not linger in inanimate tissue regardless of the reason it is inanimate tissue.

The fetus is not inanimate tissue until it is killed.

M*W: Whoever said this country was in no way barbaric? We aim to be civilized, but that doesn't mean we are. Study ancient history and you will find that the most barbaric people were the Germans (early Gauls). They emigrated from Greece, Turkey, Thrace to France, later Germany, and England. These are the true barbarians.

I don't believe the Gauls were that barbaric compared to the huns and vikings .

 

[Bells]

Bells, you never qualified your position properly.

No I believe my position was quite clear. There are many instances where the mother is told that a pregnancy could endanger her own life unless she aborts. I think you just chose to avoid the actual question.

Is the fetus going to die anyways, or would the fetus otherwise live if the mother did not abort? The case that the fetus would otherwise live if the mother did not abort is rare due to modern science.

HUH? So it's ok to abort the baby if the fetus will die anyway? Please clarify yourself here. There are many instances that the fetus is not in danger, but the mother herself is in danger if she does not abort. That was how the question was asked and I believe it was quite a distinct question. I shall try and pose the question to you using an example so that maybe this time you can understand the issue at hand.

There are women who are diagnosed with breast cancer after they have found themselves to be pregnant. Now for this woman to deliver a healthy baby, she cannot undergo the required treatment for her illness. So she is given a choice, deliver a healthy baby and not undergo the treatment and face death within a year, or abort the baby and seek the essential treatment to save her own life. If she decides to abort the baby and be treated for her cancer, is she commiting an act of murder? The question I had asked you before was this:

If a woman is pregnant and the pregnancy is a danger to the mother's life and she is told the only way for her to survive is to have an abortion, would you say that in such a case, it would be ok for her to have the abortion or would you still see it as a murderous act?

Now using the example given above, try to answer it without skirting the issue or the question itself again.

No, I would think it is similar to self-defense. I did not say that I have no problems with it, only that it was not murder.

Okinrus, you think it's not murder to save your own life by killing that of your baby if you're sick? Yet you don't afford a young girl who's trying to save her future by having an abortion the same compassion? Isn't the sick woman trying to ensure her future by aborting her child in the same way as a young girl is trying to ensure her own future by aborting her pregnancy? I find your whole argument of abortion is murder to be hypocritical because you continuously fight for the right of the child's life, but you won't fight for that baby's life if the mother is sick. If you think abortion is murder, then it should apply to all instances of abortion. You on the other hand have gone through and picked out what you think is murder and what you think is not murder. You call it self defence if the mother is ill, but I'd like to ask you this. The baby is not the cause of the mother's illness (in the case of cancer for example), so why should it be killed to preserve the mothers life under what you deem to be self defence?

I'm sorry, but I find your whole argument to be hypocritical. You only allow one group of women to have abortions by deeming it to be self-defence, but you refuse to accept that some other women should have the right to terminate their pregnancy and instead deem it to be an act of murder.

 

[okinrus]

There are women who are diagnosed with breast cancer after they have found themselves to be pregnant. Now for this woman to deliver a healthy baby, she cannot undergo the required treatment for her illness. So she is given a choice, deliver a healthy baby and not undergo the treatment and face death within a year, or abort the baby and seek the essential treatment to save her own life. If she decides to abort the baby and be treated for her cancer, is she commiting an act of murder?

If it can be said for certain that the mother would die without undergoing the treatment, then it is not murder.

Yet you don't afford a young girl who's trying to save her future by having an abortion the same compassion?

What is compassionate about abortion?

I find your whole argument of abortion is murder to be hypocritical because you continuously fight for the right of the child's life, but you won't fight for that baby's life if the mother is sick.

When did I say I wouldn't fight for the baby's life when the mother is sick? All I said was that when the mother was in reasonable risk of dying, then having an abortion is not on par with murder. I really don't know whether it is still wrong or not, but it does not have the same graveness of murder.

If you think abortion is murder, then it should apply to all instances of abortion.

Why? Do we say that killing is murder in all instances?

You call it self defence if the mother is ill, but I'd like to ask you this. The baby is not the cause of the mother's illness (in the case of cancer for example), so why should it be killed to preserve the mothers life under what you deem to be self defence?

The fetus is involuntarly responsible for preventing the mother from receiving treatment. If it can be proven that such treatment would otherwise save the mother's life, then the determination of whether the action is wrong consists of the two consequences: saving the mother's life and killing the fetus. They are balanced. If the mother decides not to have an abortion, she would die. On the other hand, if the mother has an abortion, she kills the fetus. Therefore, the only thing that one can do is allow the mother or doctor choose.

 

[shrubby pegasus]

okinrus your moral absolutism really scares me

 

[okinrus]

Is that absolute fear or just relative fear? Personally, I'm more afraid of the relativist since they have no well defined morals. It's not good enough to say "do whatever you shall want" when the whims of every which person is evil.

 

[shrubby pegasus]

Is that absolute fear or just relative fear? Personally, I'm more afraid of the relativist since they have no well defined morals. It's not good enough to say "do whatever you shall want" when the whims of every which person is evil.

i dont really understand your relative/absolute fear. in your absolutism you assume infallibility. you make statements claiming to know what some god wants, his requirements for morallity, etc. in reality you have no basis for such statements. you are speaking for a god, a god that is traditionally described as being too superior to understand. wars are fought and innocents are slaughetered preaching the moral absolutism you do.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Science only observes the natural world.
----------
M*W: If science can "observe" the natural world, then it sould be able to "explain" the natural world. What is observation without explanation? Nothing.
----------
Replace "motives" with "morals"
----------
M*W:: Motives and morals are not interchangeable. You can have "moral motives" or "immoral motives."
----------
Do you have any doubt of the final resting place of the fetus?
----------
M*W: If the fetus went to full term, was born unto this Earth to live and breathe, it would have a portion of the one soul (the One Spirit of God) to dwell within it.
----------
Would you risk your own life if you are wrong?
----------
M*W: I risked my own life to give birth to four healthy robust children. Abortion for me was never an issue nor an answer. If you're talking about risking my life for heaven or hell, I don't worry about that, because I believe my soul is in heaven right now. It's not something I have to wait for. It's what I make of it.
----------
For someone who does not even know if heaven exist, you seem pretty sure of who or what won't go there.
----------
M*W: Like I said above. I believe in heaven as my soul creates it right now, not later after I go into genetic decay. Heaven and hell are in the here and now. We create our own heaven or hell. I said that I didn't believe heaven or hell were a physical place. I didn't say I didn't believe in heaven or hell. I question the true location of heaven or hell.
----------
How is pain distributed to the concience being? Is our concience one cell or multiple cells?
----------
M*W: The conscious being can feel pain. Sometimes even unconscious beings can feel and respond to pain. Consciousness isn't made up of cells. Consciousness is pure energy not matter.
----------
The fetus is not inanimate tissue until it is killed.
----------
M*W: The fetus is not viable tissue even before it's killed. It's not a living, breathing human being. It's unevolved human tissue, but it's not a total human being.
----------
I don't believe the Gauls were that barbaric compared to the huns and vikings.
----------
M*W: The Franks (pre-Gaul) were barbarians from the East that settled in what is today Germany. They were called the saline Franks and ripurian franks. They settled all up and down the Rheinland. They were barbarians who raped and pillaged the earlier tribes. The Huns and Vikings were barbarians, too, but they raped and pillaged the Austrasia lands (Huns), and the Vikings raped and pillaged their way through Northunbria and on to Greenland and North America. I am more specifically interested in the civilization of the Frankish empire.

BTW, I'm really enjoying your posts these days!

 

[okinrus]

in your absolutism you assume infallibility.

I've never claimed infalliability, though I believe that what I say is true. In fact, it's you who must claim infalliability, because you must know that abortion is not wrong beyond doubt.

you make statements claiming to know what some god wants, his requirements for morallity, etc. in reality you have no basis for such statements.

I really haven't brought God into this debate. I've repeatively warned against polarizing what is an altogether non-religious issue. When asked to give my definition of human life, I give a somewhat "religious" answer to avoid lying to you. I do, however, reject the "scientific" definition because it leads to moral bankruptcy where any belief or action can be justified.

you are speaking for a god, a god that is traditionally described as being too superior to understand.

When have I said I was speaking for God? Why do you assume that what is good is far too superior to understand when we've ate of the fruit of the knowledge of good or evil?

wars are fought and innocents are slaughetered preaching the moral absolutism you do.

Moral absolutism is only dangerous when those morals have been corrupted. I believe in absolute love? Do you? I believe in absolute peace? Do you? I believe in absolute truth. Do you? Moral absolutism should not be confused with mob mentality. Belief in absolute morals should not be confused with belief in one's absolute belief in himself.

 

[shrubby pegasus]

I've never claimed infalliability, though I believe that what I say is true. In fact, it's you who must claim infalliability, because you must know that abortion is not wrong beyond doubt.


I really haven't brought God into this debate. I've repeatively warned against polarizing what is an altogether non-religious issue. When asked to give my definition of human life, I give a somewhat "religious" answer to avoid lying to you. I do, however, reject the "scientific" definition because it leads to moral bankruptcy where any belief or action can be justified.


When have I said I was speaking for God? Why do you assume that what is good is far too superior to understand when we've ate of the fruit of the knowledge of good or evil?


Moral absolutism is only dangerous when those morals have been corrupted. I believe in absolute love? Do you? I believe in absolute peace? Do you? I believe in absolute truth. Do you? Moral absolutism should not be confused with mob mentality. Belief in absolute morals should not be confused with belief in one's absolute belief in himself.

well as long as you believe you are absolutely right, all those who differ in view are absolutely wrong. your blind absolutism is so very dangerous. it allows you to make decisions based shearly on faith rather than a well thought impacted decision. you need to learn to think for yourself.

moral absolutism is always dangerous. it means that you cannot even begin to understand or even tolerate those who hold a different view. it would be immoral for you to do so. by your reasoning different cultures would have a moral olbigation not to tolerate those who are different. hence the wars and genocide that saw often occur from your moral absolutism.