INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

The right to life?

Enter here to explore ethical issues and discuss the meaning and source of morality.

what motivates the pro-lifers?

The belief that life is a fundamental human right
10
37%
A fear of what happens after death
2
7%
A desire for control
15
56%
 
Total votes: 27

Message
Author
clayto
Posts: 384
Joined: July 22nd, 2007, 6:34 pm

Abortion

#21 Post by clayto » July 25th, 2007, 1:27 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Bryn wrote:I don't see anything in Clayto's post asking us to be sensitive to religionists' beliefs, I see simply a suggestion that it's a waste of time ranting about what they believe and do and that we focus instead on why they believe what they do and the inconsistencies between belief and practice.
Bryn has expressed my position well. I ask for Humanist to try to 'understand' the Catholic and other pro-life supporters not in the sense of 'empathising' but in the intellectual sense. Even for those who look upon pro-lifers only as enemies it might be expressed as 'knowing your enemy'. When Humanist show themselves to be ill-informed or 'over the top' in their reactions to the anti-abortion case it does our position significant harm, it is not the informed reasoned case we should be trying to present to the world. There are a great many people (the vast majority of pro-lifers) who are against abortion who are not examples of a 'brainwashed Nazi maniac dressed in a frock'. There are some active Humanists (some known to me personally) who are against abortion either as it is managed now or even totally. Some of them, being female do dress in frocks but are not brainwashed, Nazi or maniacs!

Anyway, I am glad to see this discussion has turned in a more reasonable direction. quote "Let's quickly look at some history. Prior to the 1860s the teaching of the RC Church was that the soul entered the foetus of a male after 40 days and a female after 80 days. At that point, there would not have been a problem with abortion like there is now." I was interested in this and would be grateful for references please?
clayto

User avatar
God
Banned
Posts: 841
Joined: July 6th, 2007, 12:23 pm

#22 Post by God » July 25th, 2007, 1:39 pm

Clayto you forgot to close the quote. You need to put

[/quote]

in after the words "inconsistencies between belief and practice. "

That'll make it work.

Hope that's OK for me to say here, folks. :redface:


{I've fixed the tags in Clayto's post, thanks - admin}

User avatar
God
Banned
Posts: 841
Joined: July 6th, 2007, 12:23 pm

Re: Abortion

#23 Post by God » July 25th, 2007, 1:56 pm

clayto wrote:
I ask for Humanist to try to 'understand' the Catholic and other pro-life supporters not in the sense of 'empathising' but in the intellectual sense. Even for those who look upon pro-lifers only as enemies it might be expressed as 'knowing your enemy'. When Humanist show themselves to be ill-informed or 'over the top' in their reactions to the anti-abortion case it does our position significant harm, it is not the informed reasoned case we should be trying to present to the world.
The problem with that approach, as I see it, is that it reinforces the corruptions in thought originally introduced by the particular goddist doctrine concerned. Every time you profess "understanding" of a goddist maltruth, you support and intensify it and increase the chances of the survival of that maltruth, and thereby participate in the corruption of rationality introduced by the maltruth in the first place.

Its like computer spam. The temptation is to respond to it and tell the spammer to eff off. However that is the wrong thing to do, as it tells the spammer you are there. The correct thing to do is to erase the spam email. Its the same with the erroneous doctrines spread by goddists.

The temptation is to take them seriously and try and refute them. In attempting to do so you will (a) not succeed and (b) increase their credibility. The correct procedure is to refute them out of hand.

IMHO naturally!

If I'm correct, then the question about abortion needs to be tackled not on the basis of beliefs of Catholics or any other goddist group, but on the basis of reason.

Titanium Wheels
Posts: 143
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 8:20 am

#24 Post by Titanium Wheels » July 25th, 2007, 3:03 pm

Hi Clayton,

references.... my Divinty degree notes I'm afraid. I dig the stuff out and come up wiht something in a few days.
Wheelchair-Rollin' Househusband

clayto
Posts: 384
Joined: July 22nd, 2007, 6:34 pm

Abortion

#25 Post by clayto » July 25th, 2007, 6:13 pm

I do not agree at all with what God has just pronounced in this Forum any more than I agree with what are claimed to be pronouncements by any of the many Gods in other spheres!

God declared "Every time you profess "understanding" of a goddist maltruth, you support and intensify it and increase the chances of the survival of that maltruth, and thereby participate in the corruption of rationality introduced by the maltruth in the first place. "

To use my professional context as a (retired) senior lecturer in political ideology I have spent my life seeking to understand and impart understanding of (among much else) Socialism, Fascism, Communism, Anarchism, Liberalism Racism, Democracy, Totalitarianism, Pluralism etc., and the individual beliefs and policy prescriptions of these and other political ideologies. I totally reject the bizarre notion that professing 'understanding' of any of these promotes them in any way and 'participates in the corruption of rationality.' Away from my professional role I have worked for some of the above and against others. Understanding those which I have decide I am opposed to helps
me to promote those I support. The same applies to religious and ethical ideologies in just the same way. Understanding Nazism (such as studying Mein Kampf for example) is not promoting it.

If I were to say, in a debate of some sort "I have put serious effort into studying the religious basis for opposition to a woman's right to an abortion and in the light of my understanding of (not my ignorance of) religious opposition to that right I conclude that it is wrong for the following reasons ---------" I am sure that would carry more weight than demonstrating ignorance and prejudice about why (some) religious people take the stand which they do.

It seems to me that on this Forum God is seeking to promote ignorance, anti-intellectualism and irrationality.
clayto

User avatar
God
Banned
Posts: 841
Joined: July 6th, 2007, 12:23 pm

Re: Abortion

#26 Post by God » July 25th, 2007, 6:44 pm

clayto wrote: If I were to say, in a debate of some sort "I have put serious effort into studying the religious basis for opposition to a woman's right to an abortion and in the light of my understanding of (not my ignorance of) religious opposition to that right I conclude that it is wrong for the following reasons ---------" I am sure that would carry more weight than demonstrating ignorance and prejudice about why (some) religious people take the stand which they do.
Not when you're dealing with goddists it doesn't. 'Cos in understanding the logic of their position you have to accept their original premise, which adds weight to it and therefore supports it. You have always to go back to basics and refute the fundamental assumptions of the goddist position. Its difficult I know, particularly for someone of intellect. That's the way the con works. It's bloomin' canny, innit.

clayto
Posts: 384
Joined: July 22nd, 2007, 6:34 pm

Abortion

#27 Post by clayto » July 26th, 2007, 11:29 am

Well, I just think God is totally wrong ---- not for the first time.
clayto

clayto
Posts: 384
Joined: July 22nd, 2007, 6:34 pm

Abortion

#28 Post by clayto » July 26th, 2007, 11:35 am

Quote "in understanding the logic of their position you have to accept their original premise". Not true. I am trying to understand your logic ('logic'?) and I am not accepting your original premise which (speaking softly) seems utter tosh. Plus the fact that many opponents of abortion are not 'goddists' and many 'goddists' are not opponents of abortion.
clayto

User avatar
Lifelinking
Posts: 3248
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 11:56 am

#29 Post by Lifelinking » August 21st, 2007, 6:35 pm

This story is about a RC Bishop who has resigned from amnesty over their policy to support abortion for women where 'pregnancy is a grave risk to their life or health.' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6953704.stm
"Who thinks the law has anything to do with justice? It's what we have because we can't have justice."
William McIlvanney

User avatar
Lifelinking
Posts: 3248
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 11:56 am

#30 Post by Lifelinking » August 21st, 2007, 6:36 pm

He really seems to believe that the choice he is making is the morally correct one. Any views?
"Who thinks the law has anything to do with justice? It's what we have because we can't have justice."
William McIlvanney

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

#31 Post by Alan C. » August 21st, 2007, 6:57 pm

I think he's just following orders from the Vatican. Not much more I can say really.
"It is never justifiable to take an innocent human life," he said.
It bloody annoys me every time they use that as an argument :cross: How many deaths of innocent people is the Catholic church responsible for? And it's still going on now, IE prohibiting the use of condoms in Africa, where millions are dying from AIDS, I'd like to grab herr Rat-slinger and give him a bloody good slapping.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

Post Reply