“Scientifically a baby is a separate entity from the mother defined by the unique combined DNA of both parents so no it isn't just your body.” I mean that begs the question of personhood. Is the ‘baby’ a person?
“There's a reason people get angry when a pregnant mom knowingly ingests drugs that could harm the baby in the womb or when she drinks alcohol while pregnant or goes skydiving while pregnant... people get upset when pregnant women do dangerous stuff because we know well and good that she has to be responsible for more than just herself. ” Most people are generally upset because the person that is soon to come would have to live with consequences they did not have a choice over.
"Most people are generally upset because the person that is soon to come would have to live with consequences they did not have a choice over." And babies are forced to die with the consequences of something that had no choice over.
"I mean that begs the question of personhood. Is the 'baby' a person?" The things that would hinder "personhood" in the minds of most people still apply to a baby during infancy as well as to early term carriages. If a baby is delivered via C section during the late second trimester or early third trimester, it is still considered a baby with rights outside of the womb, just not inside the womb. Legally, no the baby is not a person because according to law there are only two things: people and property. The difference is the possession of rights. Babies inside the womb have no rights (until recently for which I am thankful). Babies outside the womb DO have rights. So I agree with you in a sense that it depends wholly on what you consider to make someone or something a person. However, I place the value in humanity itself. Being a human being makes you a person whether or not you yourself are aware of it. If we are to speak scientifically then a fetus should be considered just as human as anyone else. However, you must make an appeal to something above science in order to claim that a baby in the womb does not yet have personhood. If we're talking about something above science, I'd appeal to the God of the universe who Himself has also said that killing babies is a horrible sin and personal offense. But, even without appealing to God, and strictly looking from the point of science a baby is a baby at every stage.
From what perspective are we talking about morals? If we are appealing to a higher authority such as God, then yes a fetus most certainly is to be treated with moral consideration as a person.
And yet if there is a God (singular) that exists with infinite power and knowledge, as I believe there does, would he not reasonably have full authority to define and enforce morality? A God of infinite power, one that cannot be opposed by humanity could not be challenged in His determining of right or wrong. So then, because I believe there is a God, I rightfully base what I believe to be morally right or wrong on what I consider to be the directly recorded word of that God.
“And yet if there is a God (singular) that exists with infinite power and knowledge, as I believe there does, would he not reasonably have full authority to define and enforce morality?” No. Even if there were an all powerful, all knowing god, do these attribute imply he is a good moral source? If having more knowledge and more power is really what makes a moral source good, should we then have a wealthy powerful intellectual elite determine politics?
“A God of infinite power, one that cannot be opposed by humanity could not be challenged in His determining of right or wrong.” So an unchallengeable authority who has power to bend things to his will is a person we should base as a moral ideal?
"If having more knowledge and power is really what makes a moral source good, should we then have a wealthy powerful intellectual elite determine politics?" No we should not because we are human beings and God remains a HIGHER power than mankind. Our political setup is based on biblical principles that limit the power of human beings because according to the Bible we are sinful corrupt beings bent on rebelling against God.
"So an unchallengeable authority who has the power to bend things to his will is a person we should base as a moral ideal?" Put simply yes. Without God the only definition of morality we would have is personal opinion or that which is agreed upon by a majority.
For perspective... if I wanted to pour hot water on someone's head what would stop me? The fact that the majority would see it as wrong and ostracize me for it? Then morality is no more than a matter of self-preservation. Alternatively if it's defined by personal opinion, the only thing stopping me from pouring hot water on someone's head (assuming I so desired) would be their ability to prevent me from doing just that. In other words it would be a situation of might makes right. And THEN... assuming the only basis for morality is self-preservation, if there was someone capable of shutting down any who opposed them, self-preservation would dictate it is best to serve that person and obey them. Thus, might has always been the determining factor. So then, yes an all powerful God would have full authority to define morality unchallenged.
Not really. The Bible has a limited, if at all role in our laws. Most of the laws nowadays are based on the ideas of the Enlightenment. Also you said humans are sinful and need morals from god, so the Bible tells humans are bad and should read the Bible, and why the Bible word should be taken is because humans are bad? I’m just saying, it seems a little circular.
Yeah. Are morals are personal? I don’t see your argument yet.
So you’re saying something is true, it’s a fact, because otherwise you would feel the world is wrong. You justify what you think is objective by saying how it should be morally?
My argument is that beliefs are founded in what we consider to apply to everything. They may change from person to person, but if one person is right another must be wrong in them. I believe there is a God who does exist and does judge sin. I believe everyone has violated his laws and are in need of a savior. I believe he is a perfect being and I believe the Bible is his direct word both because it says it is and because I believe the ideas in it are so fundamentally opposed to what I know from my own experience to be the nature of humanity that I don't believe a human being could have ever written it apart from His direct inspiration. If, as I believe, such a God exists, the only reason anyone should need to serve him would be basic common sense.
... I don't believe it's subjective at all because it is defined by God. As the one who defines what is right and wrong (wrong being everything opposed to his nature and right being the opposite active of that which is wrong) he is the epitome of what we ought to consider perfection as human beings. He created us therefore he gets to define the rules. "Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" Romans 9:20-21
God defines right and wrong, he defines perfection. What is perfection you ask? Perfection is God. That is the only explanation as no one can fully comprehend God in his fulness thus no one can fully comprehend perfection without first knowing God.
That which God defines as moral. If God is the ultimate authority, then that which is immoral is inherently that which he is against, and that which is moral is inherently that which he desires and promotes.
Because God as the ultimate authority commanded it of us. It is the "right" thing because he said it was. He says that we ought to do it therefore, as the ultimate authority, indeed we ought to. God established what it means to have authority and established too what it means to be under authority by being a superior authority. The concept of being obligated to submit to authority comes from God himself and as the perfect authority (since he defines perfection) there's no exceptions of "obey authority unless authority doesn't understand the situation or, unless you can do it better and make a better outcome, etc." As God is all knowing no one can claim they can do it better or that they know better etc. He defines what better is in the first place.
So do x because he says x is right. And he’s right because he says he’s right, therefore he’s right?
“ "obey authority unless authority doesn't understand the situation or, unless you can do it better and make a better outcome, etc." “ That seems like quite the leap in logic. You derived an ought from an ought. At no point did you completely derive the fact that if a omnipotent god existed, we ought to follow that god’s command.
And yet, I ask you this... what would be the point of defying such a God? Simply because you don't like him or his rules? And is it worth it knowing the consequences for rebellion against him? It seems a rather foolish endeavor to me. If you want to be purely practical about it the simple reason for why we ought to obey such a God would be to please Him. If, as the Bible says, we are made in God's image we can assume certain things about his character, such as, that he has a certain appreciation for those love him. From a practical standpoint, serving an all powerful God would mean putting yourself in a very self-benefiting position, while opposing such an all-powerful God would put you in a... precarious situation at best. Now, if you want to take a holier than thou stance against God, that's entirely up to you, but you have no power against him so at best... you can consider yourself right and feel self-righteous for a while. But that seems a pretty poor pro vs. the cons of rebellion.
So we should obey powerful authoritarian authority because he says so. It is morally right because he’ll punish us otherwise.
Hmmmm... that sounds familiar. I can’t quiet remember who use this kind of moral justification for horrific acts like genocide. *cough*... The Nazi...*cough**cough*
We think the Nazi are evil because we think that genocide is morally wrong. There isn’t anything objective about that. We can only say the Nazi are evil because we have a particular axiom in our moral system.
But in this particular example, I am demonstrating how a powerful authority order doesn’t logically imply that is what you ought to do.
Ah and see here is where we diverge in perspective. When I speak of God you hear that I believe a powerful authority defines morality. On the contrary there is but one singular being who defines morality. Not because he is powerful, but he is all powerful. Think of it this way, if the south had won the Civil War they would have been seen as the good guys. They would have been looked at as freedom fighters and their side of the story would be told, slaves would have been freed within 7 years according to the plan they'd set up to educate slaves and give them the tools they needed to make a living etc etc. But because the north won we look at the south as evil racists who wanted the slaves to always be slaves and treated them as less than human. I'm not saying whether this was true or not only making the point that this is our perspective.
You know the old phrase "the good guys always win?" in a sense this is absolutely true and absolutely false. The idea comes from the winners writing the history books and painting themselves in the best light. However it's somewhat true throughout history that we look at those who win wars as the good guys in the conflict. Likewise God defines morality for this and several other reasons. Firstly God is not just a powerful authority but an all-powerful authority. He will always be victorious no matter the conflict and must therefore be considered good. This isn't even including his authority as creator. Just as a writer has every right and authority to define each part of his world, characters, etc, God as creator of this world has every right to define what is right and wrong within his creation.
You bring up an interesting point though. Some people who call themselves Christians are what's known as universalists, in other words they believe all human beings will be saved by God. I don't believe the Bible teaches that in any regard, rather it says God specifically makes human beings, some for the sake of being saved and others for the sake of sin and future damnation. It may seem cruel and heartless but I believe he has full authority to do so. I also find it interesting as I believe all those people who will one day suffer eternal damnation in hell will and always have looked at God and considered immoral and stood in rebellion against him for that reason whilst all those who love God will believe him the perfect define of morality. So it's interesting to think about.
What about Thanos? Suppose the Avengers never stopped him (Potential spoilers). Do people view him as a good guy even though he committed mass genocide? He has the Infinity Gauntlet and if he wanted, he could make himself unbeatable. Should we then consider him as a moral authority?
And if the undefeatable wrote the history story, isn’t it more that they’re a bias source instead of actually being a source of objective morality? Or even if the majority portray the person as good, that doesn’t mean they’re objectively good.
People’s idea of who is right and wrong doesn’t make it a fact of who is right and wrong.
So if Thanks remade the universe to his will, would you consider him a moral authority? Replace god with Thanos and ask yourself the same question. If your answer differs for Thanos, then you have hit a logical inconsistency.
The problem is that even Thanos could be and was defeated. Thanos himself was not eternal therefore he could never establish an objective morality. The morals God sets forth are both imprinted on all of creation and are eternal because he himself is eternal and unchanging. The moral law (summed up in the 10 commandments) is a reflection of God. God, according to the Bible which is believed to be His direct word, is unchanging and truthful thus his moral standard will never change. This is why morals are not subjective. They don't change based on opinion they remain a constant because they are established by God who is himself a constant.
The problem with Thanos is, even if he were unchallengable and eternal, he didn't create the universe in the first place thus he has no inherent right to change it or establish the rules that govern it. God on the other hand DID create the universe and therefore has every right to establish the rules that govern it. The creator gets full authority over what happens to his creation unless he signs that creation away legally. God never signed away his rule of creation thus He still has full authority over what happens to it.
The problem is you're creating scenarios that are under a completely different set of circumstances because in every circumstance you're speaking of mortal beings that are faulty and change over time. If there were no God to define morality in the first place however then yes a scientist who created his own miniature universe with his own set of beings would have full authority to do with them whatever he so desired it just wouldn't work very well because he's a faulty human being capable of change and death.
Even then though there would be other beings of equal power to the scientist who would be capable of upsetting the balance of the miniature universe through conflict with said scientist. Again... A scenario that cannot happen when God is the creator.
It's difficult to address as to me I can't comprehend how it wouldn't be a given that we owe allegiance to the one who created us or rules over every aspect of existence having created beauty and order for his pleasure and that of his creation or why we wouldn't gladly give our lives for the God willing to sacrifice himself for us/send his son to die in our place so that we wouldn't face his divine judgement. I cannot wrap my head around why that wouldn't all just be a given that all people would assume, at least if not for the fact that the Bible makes clear our nature is to rebel against God with our whole being and we cannot do otherwise if he doesn't change our hearts to produce wills capable of loving him.
Basically... it should be a given that we serve God, but we rebelled so it isn't any longer and now we have no way of doing anything BUT rebelling against God unless he changes us on a spiritual level to be capable of such.
No, scientifically a fetus is not a separate thing. It's an organ, not a separate life. This idea that it's a viable being is not scientific, it's not even logical.
The truth is that the only argument against abortion is religious, and even the Bible states that a fetus isn't a living thing. (Biblically life starts with the first breath).
Outlawing abortion is a bad move, it's bad socially (look at the data put forth in Freakonomics) it's bad medically, and its bad morally.
Listen I argue with liberals nonstop about certain issues but the truth is abortion can never be banned. Sure Alabama did it for a couple weeks and it got overturned of course. There is no way in hell the Supreme Court will ever ban abortion because abortion is population control that is needed. Not to mention how important it is to stem cells and the future of our species. Pro-life people need to worry about their own lives. If they don't want an abortion they don't need to get one but stay out of other people's business.
Firstly... population control isn't needed. The entire population of the world could fit within the state of Texas with nearly an acre and a half per-person (not just per family). There's no over-population problem, rather the problem lies in not utilizing the land we have very well.
Secondly there is a completely ethical and safe way of obtaining stem cells by the gallon without abortions. The placenta provides a large source of stem cells. Not only that but stem cell research using the stem cells from fetuses hasn't actually resulted in any major breakthroughs while research using stem cells from the placenta have been used for amazing break throughs.
Read the whole thing. I’m still pro choice. Nothing will change my mind like nothing will change your mind. I didn’t think your take was harsh. It was a nice read. Thank you for sharing ☺️💕
@RolandCuthbert @GraveDoll I do not intend to demonize anyone for what it's worth. I've simply been dealing with a lot of personal thoughts on the matter and kept coming into conflict with people. I felt like voicing my reasonings here as that is the point of the website.
I disagree with you on the rape and incest abortions. If my 12 year old sister got raped I'd support her abortion all the way. it's completely disgusting to expect her to have the baby. The psychological effects will be huge for her to be constantly reminded she was raped by carrying his child... The child will also eventually have to be told she was born as a result of a rape... No no no.
So it is better for the baby to die than to live as one conceived by rape? Is that any worse than finding out your father was a murderer or became one after you were born? It is difficult on the child but to consider that a valid death sentence seems horrendous. Don't get me wrong, I don't wish to belittle how serious of an issue rape is or its affects on its victims. I don't want its victims becoming murderers because of it though. No matter what trauma you experience I cannot believe it gives you the right to murder.
I think you need to speak to some victims of rape or incest. I know a few. The incest victims stories were absolutely harrowing. Hearing the details brought me to tears and then Great anger.. Grandfathers, step fathers molesting their own family... Why should a child bear a child resulting from those kinds of situations? A victim I know is severely mentally sick from it.
"So it is better for the baby to die than to live as one conceived by rape?" YES Is that any worse than finding out your father was a murderer or became one after you were born?" It is difficult on the child but to consider that a valid death sentence seems horrendous. Don't get me wrong, I don't wish to belittle how serious of an issue rape is or its affects on its victims. I don't want its victims becoming murderers because of it though. No matter what trauma you experience I cannot believe it gives you the right to murder."
your name is literally EpicDweeb how the hell are people supposed to take you seriously? You literally have no right to control what a women does with her body, even though you think you do. And you call yourself an epic dweeb so even more so you have nothing on women who want to make their own decisions.
You are right on the nose: great take! Your logic is inescapable, well-rendered and clear.
As for "murder" of the unborn baby--- if someone takes the lives of a pregnant baby and her unborn baby, that individual is charged with a DOUBLE homicide. case closed.
Thanks again for a great take.
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
Your words about rape and incest are absolutely insensitive and barbaric. I could not imagine telling any woman that "I am so sorry that you were raped and/or the victim of incest... so suck it up and have the kid anyway!" The mentality of seeing pregnant women as just conduits without any rights is beyond anything that I can comprehend.
Those women have rights, it's the babies that are given none. Yes I believe abortion is always murder even if you're murdering a rapists child. It's not a matter of women's rights being taken away but of the rights of children we can't see outside the womb still having them. Actually no. Them is plural. Babies have one right. One SINGULAR right. The right to not be murdered. I'm sorry they've gone through terrible things and they're now needing to live with the consequences of those terrible things. I'm all for more serious punishment of rapists and such. But that punishment should never fall on the child.
What we're really talking about is not "suck it up and have the kid anyway" it's, you were treated horribly but it doesn't give you the right to become a murderer.
Forcing a woman to carry a rapist's baby for 9 months with her knowing day in and day out that this was forced upon her in a violent, humiliating way and obviously, without her consent is absolutely vile and disgusting.
We are guys. So, we have the LIBERTY to discuss this from a gender distance. I am 100% positive if that men had the capacity to get pregnant like women do, abortion would legal! Hands down! If men could be raped and get pregnant, this issue would be over in NO TIME! Abortion would be legal EVERYWHERE!!!
@Ámayas_20 I've seen statistics that say otherwise. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to know according to whom are women more likely to be pro life than men?
I would not say a fertilized egg or fetus meets the criteria of human given the thing lacks a brain to even be conscious or have a person inside it. Abortion is already illegal after so long a time. I'm very pro choice / pro abortion. Especially with regard to genetic defects.
I can't be pro-choice either. I disappointed my mom because she fought for women's rights in the 60s. But I can't go along with abortion, I just can't.
I understand, I've got friends who are probably somewhat appalled by my stance but yeah. by the way while I haven't had orange cherries Rainier Cherries are delicious and amazing and you should try them some time =3
Nothing gives me the right to tell women what to do with their body. Nothing gives them right to take the life of a baby either so we're in the same boat.
I'm not telling them what to do with their body. I'm saying that I can never agree with a group of people who think it's okay or that think they have any right to take the life of children before birth. I'm saying what I believe is objectively wrong and I'm informing them that the belief that one can be pro-choice without inherently supporting abortion is fictitious at best. I'm not telling people "go do what you can to ban abortion." I'm being very clear as to what I believe the real effects of their beliefs are and stating my belief that their actions are inherently evil. I'm not telling women what to do with their body and I'm not going to pretend that I have any right to. But no one has the right to tell me that I'm not allowed to say what I think they are actually doing and that I don't believe they are doing something to their own body at all (except increasing their risk of cancer as it's been shown pregnancy produces a lot of cancer-prone cells to be produced in the breasts that transform into cancer resistant cells at 32 weeks if the pregnancy is not terminated causing early-term abortions to increase the risk of breast cancer).
Just have the baby and throw it at the adoption foster home. it won't get adopted be passed around for 16 years maybe touched on by on of the homes or kids there. And become mentally messed up and commit a crime like drug use or something go to jail and get death sentence
With all due respect, I don't care what happens to the woman's body outside her dying. If her life is at stake then most certainly I care but then abortion wouldn't be the solution a pregnancy being life threatening in the first place. I care about the baby's body and the fact that you don't have the right to take its life even if you are the one pregnant.
A “baby” aborts should be some during the first trimester, that’s not a baby, that’s a fetus during the first period. If you care about the baby, then are you going to take care of all the babies that come to the world to suffer because their parents can not maintain them? Are you going to adopt all of them? Will all the respect, but you are a men are you are never going to happen for all the stages of a pregnancy, your body and mental health are not the ones changing.
You don’t get to decide what a woman should do with their body, specially if you are not going to take care about the baby or if you are not going to maintain the baby for the next 18 years.
I fully intend to adopt as many kids as I am able. No I can't adopt all of them but I would call as many as are able to adopt and care for the children of mothers who couldn't keep them or didn't want them to show them they are still loved and show them that they can live good lives despite whatever places they may have come from.
And... I believe a baby is no less a baby at any stage of pregnancy. Even if I didn't, it's still the law that a woman can legally have an abortion up til the day of delivery due to roe v wade and the health clause therein contained which essentially says a baby may be aborted for any reason pertaining to the woman's health (including economic, emotional, physical, and SOCIAL health). If it would marginally inconvenience her in any way a woman is considered to have the right to an abortion at any stage of pregnancy and that's not okay.
If there were more comprehensive sex education (schools and organizations such as Planned Parenthood) and better availability of contraceptives, perhaps there wouldn't be the high rate of unwanted pregnancies that there is in the US?
You believe that abortion is murder. Your belief doesn't make it so; it's simply your belief and your opinion.
By defending Planned Parenthood and demonizing similar organizations, you're only exacerbating the whole problem of unwanted pregnancies. Oh, and the whole 'Christian' attitude of not permitting sex education.
While I AM Christian you'd be completely incorrect in thinking I'm against reforming sex education to explain it better. However... Yes it's my belief. But more specifically, my belief is that it's OBJECTIVELY true. You can disagree but it won't make it any more or less true. Which... of course is where the conflict lies.
how dare you impose your personal point of view on to others and prevent them from having the right of choice... you are aware that even if pro choice is acceptable everywhere, there are still criteria for to be applicable for an abortion... also , how many are the cases of young girls losing their fertility because of an illegal practitioners ... what exactly is your concern anyway?
For the record... There is only one criteria a woman to get an abortion in the United States. Due to Roe vs. Wade, the mother can have an abortion at any time up to the day of delivery if she has a "health" excuse. The specific word "health" is not defined in that case thus it is given a very broad definition. The broad definition is that it can refer to a woman's physical health, her emotional health, her ECONOMIC health, or her SOCIAL HEALTH. And, because no clarification is made as to how badly the pregnancy has to hinder her health, a woman can, up to the date of delivery, get an abortion for any mild inconvenience that falls into one of those four categories.
Did you read the title of this myTake? I'm not imposing my personal point of view on anyone, I'm simply stating what that point of view is and defending my reasons to anyone who comments on the post. I'm not telling anyone "you have to become pro-life." I'm simply telling them what I believe as someone who is pro-life. I also have no means by which to prevent anyone from having the right to choose, as there are no politicians I can currently vote for or bills I can vote in support of that would have any effect on this situation. Thus... I've done nothing you claim that I have done.
My concern, for the record, is that killing babies, inside the womb or outside, is murder of a living human being (not the mother) who only has one right... the life not to have its life taken away. It is a right we are constantly violating and we are treating human life as worthless. My concern is the protection of human life. It's as simple as that.
Matt Dillahunty have a grate point on the matter , look him up if you are interested. Now I understand that you aren't against the deed itself , but disagreeing with the current laws... I do think that they need to be redone !
Being pro choice implies abortion but that you may have mixed feelings about it. But if you're not pro abortion (and pro choice) , should we take it to mean you feel there's something wrong with abortion?
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
36Opinion
“Scientifically a baby is a separate entity from the mother defined by the unique combined DNA of both parents so no it isn't just your body.”
I mean that begs the question of personhood. Is the ‘baby’ a person?
“There's a reason people get angry when a pregnant mom knowingly ingests drugs that could harm the baby in the womb or when she drinks alcohol while pregnant or goes skydiving while pregnant... people get upset when pregnant women do dangerous stuff because we know well and good that she has to be responsible for more than just herself. ”
Most people are generally upset because the person that is soon to come would have to live with consequences they did not have a choice over.
"Most people are generally upset because the person that is soon to come would have to live with consequences they did not have a choice over." And babies are forced to die with the consequences of something that had no choice over.
"I mean that begs the question of personhood. Is the 'baby' a person?" The things that would hinder "personhood" in the minds of most people still apply to a baby during infancy as well as to early term carriages. If a baby is delivered via C section during the late second trimester or early third trimester, it is still considered a baby with rights outside of the womb, just not inside the womb. Legally, no the baby is not a person because according to law there are only two things: people and property. The difference is the possession of rights. Babies inside the womb have no rights (until recently for which I am thankful). Babies outside the womb DO have rights. So I agree with you in a sense that it depends wholly on what you consider to make someone or something a person. However, I place the value in humanity itself. Being a human being makes you a person whether or not you yourself are aware of it. If we are to speak scientifically then a fetus should be considered just as human as anyone else. However, you must make an appeal to something above science in order to claim that a baby in the womb does not yet have personhood. If we're talking about something above science, I'd appeal to the God of the universe who Himself has also said that killing babies is a horrible sin and personal offense. But, even without appealing to God, and strictly looking from the point of science a baby is a baby at every stage.
It’s not a baby. We condemn that act because it causes a future person problem mentally.
When I ask if it’s a person, I’m asking if it is an element of the set of things that deserve moral consideration.
From what perspective are we talking about morals? If we are appealing to a higher authority such as God, then yes a fetus most certainly is to be treated with moral consideration as a person.
I’d say that deriving morality from god alone isn’t a good justification.
And yet if there is a God (singular) that exists with infinite power and knowledge, as I believe there does, would he not reasonably have full authority to define and enforce morality? A God of infinite power, one that cannot be opposed by humanity could not be challenged in His determining of right or wrong. So then, because I believe there is a God, I rightfully base what I believe to be morally right or wrong on what I consider to be the directly recorded word of that God.
“And yet if there is a God (singular) that exists with infinite power and knowledge, as I believe there does, would he not reasonably have full authority to define and enforce morality?”
No. Even if there were an all powerful, all knowing god, do these attribute imply he is a good moral source? If having more knowledge and more power is really what makes a moral source good, should we then have a wealthy powerful intellectual elite determine politics?
“A God of infinite power, one that cannot be opposed by humanity could not be challenged in His determining of right or wrong.” So an unchallengeable authority who has power to bend things to his will is a person we should base as a moral ideal?
"If having more knowledge and power is really what makes a moral source good, should we then have a wealthy powerful intellectual elite determine politics?" No we should not because we are human beings and God remains a HIGHER power than mankind. Our political setup is based on biblical principles that limit the power of human beings because according to the Bible we are sinful corrupt beings bent on rebelling against God.
"So an unchallengeable authority who has the power to bend things to his will is a person we should base as a moral ideal?" Put simply yes. Without God the only definition of morality we would have is personal opinion or that which is agreed upon by a majority.
For perspective... if I wanted to pour hot water on someone's head what would stop me? The fact that the majority would see it as wrong and ostracize me for it? Then morality is no more than a matter of self-preservation. Alternatively if it's defined by personal opinion, the only thing stopping me from pouring hot water on someone's head (assuming I so desired) would be their ability to prevent me from doing just that. In other words it would be a situation of might makes right. And THEN... assuming the only basis for morality is self-preservation, if there was someone capable of shutting down any who opposed them, self-preservation would dictate it is best to serve that person and obey them. Thus, might has always been the determining factor. So then, yes an all powerful God would have full authority to define morality unchallenged.
Not really. The Bible has a limited, if at all role in our laws. Most of the laws nowadays are based on the ideas of the Enlightenment. Also you said humans are sinful and need morals from god, so the Bible tells humans are bad and should read the Bible, and why the Bible word should be taken is because humans are bad?
I’m just saying, it seems a little circular.
Yeah. Are morals are personal? I don’t see your argument yet.
So you’re saying something is true, it’s a fact, because otherwise you would feel the world is wrong. You justify what you think is objective by saying how it should be morally?
My argument is that beliefs are founded in what we consider to apply to everything. They may change from person to person, but if one person is right another must be wrong in them. I believe there is a God who does exist and does judge sin. I believe everyone has violated his laws and are in need of a savior. I believe he is a perfect being and I believe the Bible is his direct word both because it says it is and because I believe the ideas in it are so fundamentally opposed to what I know from my own experience to be the nature of humanity that I don't believe a human being could have ever written it apart from His direct inspiration. If, as I believe, such a God exists, the only reason anyone should need to serve him would be basic common sense.
No. Not really. Morality itself is subjective.
Perfect in what sense? Your argument doesn’t follow.
... I don't believe it's subjective at all because it is defined by God. As the one who defines what is right and wrong (wrong being everything opposed to his nature and right being the opposite active of that which is wrong) he is the epitome of what we ought to consider perfection as human beings. He created us therefore he gets to define the rules. "Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" Romans 9:20-21
God defines right and wrong, he defines perfection. What is perfection you ask? Perfection is God. That is the only explanation as no one can fully comprehend God in his fulness thus no one can fully comprehend perfection without first knowing God.
Okay. What is the definition of morality first of all?
That which God defines as moral. If God is the ultimate authority, then that which is immoral is inherently that which he is against, and that which is moral is inherently that which he desires and promotes.
Okay, then that begs the question, according to that definition, why ought we be moral?
Because God as the ultimate authority commanded it of us. It is the "right" thing because he said it was. He says that we ought to do it therefore, as the ultimate authority, indeed we ought to. God established what it means to have authority and established too what it means to be under authority by being a superior authority. The concept of being obligated to submit to authority comes from God himself and as the perfect authority (since he defines perfection) there's no exceptions of "obey authority unless authority doesn't understand the situation or, unless you can do it better and make a better outcome, etc." As God is all knowing no one can claim they can do it better or that they know better etc. He defines what better is in the first place.
So do x because he says x is right. And he’s right because he says he’s right, therefore he’s right?
“ "obey authority unless authority doesn't understand the situation or, unless you can do it better and make a better outcome, etc." “
That seems like quite the leap in logic. You derived an ought from an ought. At no point did you completely derive the fact that if a omnipotent god existed, we ought to follow that god’s command.
And yet, I ask you this... what would be the point of defying such a God? Simply because you don't like him or his rules? And is it worth it knowing the consequences for rebellion against him? It seems a rather foolish endeavor to me. If you want to be purely practical about it the simple reason for why we ought to obey such a God would be to please Him. If, as the Bible says, we are made in God's image we can assume certain things about his character, such as, that he has a certain appreciation for those love him. From a practical standpoint, serving an all powerful God would mean putting yourself in a very self-benefiting position, while opposing such an all-powerful God would put you in a... precarious situation at best. Now, if you want to take a holier than thou stance against God, that's entirely up to you, but you have no power against him so at best... you can consider yourself right and feel self-righteous for a while. But that seems a pretty poor pro vs. the cons of rebellion.
So we should obey powerful authoritarian authority because he says so. It is morally right because he’ll punish us otherwise.
Hmmmm... that sounds familiar. I can’t quiet remember who use this kind of moral justification for horrific acts like genocide. *cough*... The Nazi...*cough**cough*
Tell me, what made the nazis evil? (And I'm not disagreeing with you, I whole heartedly believe that the nazis were and are evil).
We think the Nazi are evil because we think that genocide is morally wrong. There isn’t anything objective about that. We can only say the Nazi are evil because we have a particular axiom in our moral system.
But in this particular example, I am demonstrating how a powerful authority order doesn’t logically imply that is what you ought to do.
Ah and see here is where we diverge in perspective. When I speak of God you hear that I believe a powerful authority defines morality. On the contrary there is but one singular being who defines morality. Not because he is powerful, but he is all powerful. Think of it this way, if the south had won the Civil War they would have been seen as the good guys. They would have been looked at as freedom fighters and their side of the story would be told, slaves would have been freed within 7 years according to the plan they'd set up to educate slaves and give them the tools they needed to make a living etc etc. But because the north won we look at the south as evil racists who wanted the slaves to always be slaves and treated them as less than human. I'm not saying whether this was true or not only making the point that this is our perspective.
You know the old phrase "the good guys always win?" in a sense this is absolutely true and absolutely false. The idea comes from the winners writing the history books and painting themselves in the best light. However it's somewhat true throughout history that we look at those who win wars as the good guys in the conflict. Likewise God defines morality for this and several other reasons. Firstly God is not just a powerful authority but an all-powerful authority. He will always be victorious no matter the conflict and must therefore be considered good. This isn't even including his authority as creator. Just as a writer has every right and authority to define each part of his world, characters, etc, God as creator of this world has every right to define what is right and wrong within his creation.
You bring up an interesting point though. Some people who call themselves Christians are what's known as universalists, in other words they believe all human beings will be saved by God. I don't believe the Bible teaches that in any regard, rather it says God specifically makes human beings, some for the sake of being saved and others for the sake of sin and future damnation. It may seem cruel and heartless but I believe he has full authority to do so. I also find it interesting as I believe all those people who will one day suffer eternal damnation in hell will and always have looked at God and considered immoral and stood in rebellion against him for that reason whilst all those who love God will believe him the perfect define of morality. So it's interesting to think about.
What about Thanos? Suppose the Avengers never stopped him (Potential spoilers). Do people view him as a good guy even though he committed mass genocide? He has the Infinity Gauntlet and if he wanted, he could make himself unbeatable. Should we then consider him as a moral authority?
And if the undefeatable wrote the history story, isn’t it more that they’re a bias source instead of actually being a source of objective morality? Or even if the majority portray the person as good, that doesn’t mean they’re objectively good.
People’s idea of who is right and wrong doesn’t make it a fact of who is right and wrong.
So if Thanks remade the universe to his will, would you consider him a moral authority? Replace god with Thanos and ask yourself the same question. If your answer differs for Thanos, then you have hit a logical inconsistency.
The problem is that even Thanos could be and was defeated. Thanos himself was not eternal therefore he could never establish an objective morality. The morals God sets forth are both imprinted on all of creation and are eternal because he himself is eternal and unchanging. The moral law (summed up in the 10 commandments) is a reflection of God. God, according to the Bible which is believed to be His direct word, is unchanging and truthful thus his moral standard will never change. This is why morals are not subjective. They don't change based on opinion they remain a constant because they are established by God who is himself a constant.
The problem with Thanos is, even if he were unchallengable and eternal, he didn't create the universe in the first place thus he has no inherent right to change it or establish the rules that govern it. God on the other hand DID create the universe and therefore has every right to establish the rules that govern it. The creator gets full authority over what happens to his creation unless he signs that creation away legally. God never signed away his rule of creation thus He still has full authority over what happens to it.
If a scientist created a miniature universe, does he get to do whatever he wants with these beings?
Again, you haven’t shown it’s a logical implication.
The problem is you're creating scenarios that are under a completely different set of circumstances because in every circumstance you're speaking of mortal beings that are faulty and change over time. If there were no God to define morality in the first place however then yes a scientist who created his own miniature universe with his own set of beings would have full authority to do with them whatever he so desired it just wouldn't work very well because he's a faulty human being capable of change and death.
Even then though there would be other beings of equal power to the scientist who would be capable of upsetting the balance of the miniature universe through conflict with said scientist. Again... A scenario that cannot happen when God is the creator.
You still haven’t address the is ought problem.
It's difficult to address as to me I can't comprehend how it wouldn't be a given that we owe allegiance to the one who created us or rules over every aspect of existence having created beauty and order for his pleasure and that of his creation or why we wouldn't gladly give our lives for the God willing to sacrifice himself for us/send his son to die in our place so that we wouldn't face his divine judgement. I cannot wrap my head around why that wouldn't all just be a given that all people would assume, at least if not for the fact that the Bible makes clear our nature is to rebel against God with our whole being and we cannot do otherwise if he doesn't change our hearts to produce wills capable of loving him.
Basically... it should be a given that we serve God, but we rebelled so it isn't any longer and now we have no way of doing anything BUT rebelling against God unless he changes us on a spiritual level to be capable of such.
No, scientifically a fetus is not a separate thing. It's an organ, not a separate life. This idea that it's a viable being is not scientific, it's not even logical.
The truth is that the only argument against abortion is religious, and even the Bible states that a fetus isn't a living thing. (Biblically life starts with the first breath).
Outlawing abortion is a bad move, it's bad socially (look at the data put forth in Freakonomics) it's bad medically, and its bad morally.
Listen I argue with liberals nonstop about certain issues but the truth is abortion can never be banned. Sure Alabama did it for a couple weeks and it got overturned of course. There is no way in hell the Supreme Court will ever ban abortion because abortion is population control that is needed. Not to mention how important it is to stem cells and the future of our species. Pro-life people need to worry about their own lives. If they don't want an abortion they don't need to get one but stay out of other people's business.
Firstly... population control isn't needed. The entire population of the world could fit within the state of Texas with nearly an acre and a half per-person (not just per family). There's no over-population problem, rather the problem lies in not utilizing the land we have very well.
Secondly there is a completely ethical and safe way of obtaining stem cells by the gallon without abortions. The placenta provides a large source of stem cells. Not only that but stem cell research using the stem cells from fetuses hasn't actually resulted in any major breakthroughs while research using stem cells from the placenta have been used for amazing break throughs.
Read the whole thing. I’m still pro choice. Nothing will change my mind like nothing will change your mind. I didn’t think your take was harsh.
It was a nice read. Thank you for sharing ☺️💕
I sincerely appreciate your civility. Thank you for taking the time to read the whole thing =) <3
No problem ☺️ you have great counter arguments.
so tired of this topic and people in general
(I just skim read as it something that is not brand new)
thumb down me all you want. So what? is that someone how going to make you feel better.
I hope so
I am tired of the topic too. I just wish people would stop trying to demonize each other and work on compromises. This helps no one.
@RolandCuthbert @GraveDoll I do not intend to demonize anyone for what it's worth. I've simply been dealing with a lot of personal thoughts on the matter and kept coming into conflict with people. I felt like voicing my reasonings here as that is the point of the website.
I completely agree with everything you've said and I'm so glad you're standing up and saying it!
Also though a unborn baby doesn't even meet the standards of a parasite, not that it would matter if they did.
If we're being honest a fetus is a parasite but so is an infant and even children.
@Celtero Then you don't understand what a parasite is in the slightest.
I mean... adults can be parasites too.
Point is, being a parasite isn't grounds for murdering a human.
If that logic was valid then we should kill all the bums, or everyone on welfare...
@Celtero You're speaking metaphorically not correctly.
I disagree with you on the rape and incest abortions. If my 12 year old sister got raped I'd support her abortion all the way.
it's completely disgusting to expect her to have the baby. The psychological effects will be huge for her to be constantly reminded she was raped by carrying his child... The child will also eventually have to be told she was born as a result of a rape... No no no.
So it is better for the baby to die than to live as one conceived by rape? Is that any worse than finding out your father was a murderer or became one after you were born? It is difficult on the child but to consider that a valid death sentence seems horrendous. Don't get me wrong, I don't wish to belittle how serious of an issue rape is or its affects on its victims. I don't want its victims becoming murderers because of it though. No matter what trauma you experience I cannot believe it gives you the right to murder.
I think you need to speak to some victims of rape or incest. I know a few. The incest victims stories were absolutely harrowing. Hearing the details brought me to tears and then Great anger.. Grandfathers, step fathers molesting their own family... Why should a child bear a child resulting from those kinds of situations? A victim I know is severely mentally sick from it.
"So it is better for the baby to die than to live as one conceived by rape?" YES
Is that any worse than finding out your father was a murderer or became one after you were born?" It is difficult on the child but to consider that a valid death sentence seems horrendous. Don't get me wrong, I don't wish to belittle how serious of an issue rape is or its affects on its victims. I don't want its victims becoming murderers because of it though. No matter what trauma you experience I cannot believe it gives you the right to murder."
@over_it I am so sorry for you.
your name is literally EpicDweeb how the hell are people supposed to take you seriously? You literally have no right to control what a women does with her body, even though you think you do. And you call yourself an epic dweeb so even more so you have nothing on women who want to make their own decisions.
You are right on the nose: great take! Your logic is inescapable, well-rendered and clear.
As for "murder" of the unborn baby--- if someone takes the lives of a pregnant baby and her unborn baby, that individual is charged with a DOUBLE homicide. case closed.
Thanks again for a great take.
Your words about rape and incest are absolutely insensitive and barbaric. I could not imagine telling any woman that "I am so sorry that you were raped and/or the victim of incest... so suck it up and have the kid anyway!" The mentality of seeing pregnant women as just conduits without any rights is beyond anything that I can comprehend.
Those women have rights, it's the babies that are given none. Yes I believe abortion is always murder even if you're murdering a rapists child. It's not a matter of women's rights being taken away but of the rights of children we can't see outside the womb still having them. Actually no. Them is plural. Babies have one right. One SINGULAR right. The right to not be murdered. I'm sorry they've gone through terrible things and they're now needing to live with the consequences of those terrible things. I'm all for more serious punishment of rapists and such. But that punishment should never fall on the child.
What we're really talking about is not "suck it up and have the kid anyway" it's, you were treated horribly but it doesn't give you the right to become a murderer.
Forcing a woman to carry a rapist's baby for 9 months with her knowing day in and day out that this was forced upon her in a violent, humiliating way and obviously, without her consent is absolutely vile and disgusting.
Is it justification for murder? Is there ever valid justification for murder? Yes or no?
We are guys. So, we have the LIBERTY to discuss this from a gender distance. I am 100% positive if that men had the capacity to get pregnant like women do, abortion would legal! Hands down! If men could be raped and get pregnant, this issue would be over in NO TIME! Abortion would be legal EVERYWHERE!!!
I beg to differ... it would be no less murder whether legal or not.
You can beg to differ all you want. You and I both know it's true!
Well said! No way should a raped woman be forced to have the baby.
I don't know it's true. That's why I said it. I don't know nor do I believe it's true.
Your opinion on what happens to a woman’s body is irrelevant. Give birth then have an opinion.
there's a hundred women at my church and we are all against abortion hon
Mind your own uterus. Idgaf about YOUR religion
you are a nasty piece of work aren't you
You do realise more women statistically are pro life than men?
I honestly don’t give a fuck. Mind your own uterus
@Ámayas_20
I've seen statistics that say otherwise. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to know according to whom are women more likely to be pro life than men?
I would not say a fertilized egg or fetus meets the criteria of human given the thing lacks a brain to even be conscious or have a person inside it. Abortion is already illegal after so long a time. I'm very pro choice / pro abortion. Especially with regard to genetic defects.
I can't be pro-choice either. I disappointed my mom because she fought for women's rights in the 60s. But I can't go along with abortion, I just can't.
I understand, I've got friends who are probably somewhat appalled by my stance but yeah. by the way while I haven't had orange cherries Rainier Cherries are delicious and amazing and you should try them some time =3
I will look for them !
They also don't stain because the juice is mostly clear. (They look pale yellow with streaks of red).
if you're pro choice, you're anti woman
"oh, im not" is what you'll say
yeah, well, let them have a CHOICE IN WHAT THEY DO WITH THEIR BODY
IT IS NOT YOUR BODY. WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT THEY SHOULD AND shouldn't DO WITH THEIR BODY
YOU SIMPLY DONT
Nothing gives me the right to tell women what to do with their body. Nothing gives them right to take the life of a baby either so we're in the same boat.
no, nothing gives you the right to tell them what to do with their body.
I'm not telling them what to do with their body. I'm saying that I can never agree with a group of people who think it's okay or that think they have any right to take the life of children before birth. I'm saying what I believe is objectively wrong and I'm informing them that the belief that one can be pro-choice without inherently supporting abortion is fictitious at best. I'm not telling people "go do what you can to ban abortion." I'm being very clear as to what I believe the real effects of their beliefs are and stating my belief that their actions are inherently evil. I'm not telling women what to do with their body and I'm not going to pretend that I have any right to. But no one has the right to tell me that I'm not allowed to say what I think they are actually doing and that I don't believe they are doing something to their own body at all (except increasing their risk of cancer as it's been shown pregnancy produces a lot of cancer-prone cells to be produced in the breasts that transform into cancer resistant cells at 32 weeks if the pregnancy is not terminated causing early-term abortions to increase the risk of breast cancer).
Just have the baby and throw it at the adoption foster home. it won't get adopted be passed around for 16 years maybe touched on by on of the homes or kids there. And become mentally messed up and commit a crime like drug use or something go to jail and get death sentence
Good My Take. I myself have made a My Take on the abortion issue. It is titled: If Unborn Babies Could Talk...…………...
Another men trying to decide what is best for a woman’s body...
With all due respect, I don't care what happens to the woman's body outside her dying. If her life is at stake then most certainly I care but then abortion wouldn't be the solution a pregnancy being life threatening in the first place. I care about the baby's body and the fact that you don't have the right to take its life even if you are the one pregnant.
A “baby” aborts should be some during the first trimester, that’s not a baby, that’s a fetus during the first period. If you care about the baby, then are you going to take care of all the babies that come to the world to suffer because their parents can not maintain them? Are you going to adopt all of them? Will all the respect, but you are a men are you are never going to happen for all the stages of a pregnancy, your body and mental health are not the ones changing.
*done *and
You don’t get to decide what a woman should do with their body, specially if you are not going to take care about the baby or if you are not going to maintain the baby for the next 18 years.
I fully intend to adopt as many kids as I am able. No I can't adopt all of them but I would call as many as are able to adopt and care for the children of mothers who couldn't keep them or didn't want them to show them they are still loved and show them that they can live good lives despite whatever places they may have come from.
And... I believe a baby is no less a baby at any stage of pregnancy. Even if I didn't, it's still the law that a woman can legally have an abortion up til the day of delivery due to roe v wade and the health clause therein contained which essentially says a baby may be aborted for any reason pertaining to the woman's health (including economic, emotional, physical, and SOCIAL health). If it would marginally inconvenience her in any way a woman is considered to have the right to an abortion at any stage of pregnancy and that's not okay.
If there were more comprehensive sex education (schools and organizations such as Planned Parenthood) and better availability of contraceptives, perhaps there wouldn't be the high rate of unwanted pregnancies that there is in the US?
Perhaps so. But why should we be okay with there being ANY if, as I think science itself shows, abortion is the murder of human babies?
You believe that abortion is murder. Your belief doesn't make it so; it's simply your belief and your opinion.
By defending Planned Parenthood and demonizing similar organizations, you're only exacerbating the whole problem of unwanted pregnancies.
Oh, and the whole 'Christian' attitude of not permitting sex education.
*defunding
While I AM Christian you'd be completely incorrect in thinking I'm against reforming sex education to explain it better. However... Yes it's my belief. But more specifically, my belief is that it's OBJECTIVELY true. You can disagree but it won't make it any more or less true. Which... of course is where the conflict lies.
Great take. I very much agree with your points. Bless you for saying it and bless you for standing up.
how dare you impose your personal point of view on to others and prevent them from having the right of choice... you are aware that even if pro choice is acceptable everywhere, there are still criteria for to be applicable for an abortion... also , how many are the cases of young girls losing their fertility because of an illegal practitioners ... what exactly is your concern anyway?
For the record... There is only one criteria a woman to get an abortion in the United States. Due to Roe vs. Wade, the mother can have an abortion at any time up to the day of delivery if she has a "health" excuse. The specific word "health" is not defined in that case thus it is given a very broad definition. The broad definition is that it can refer to a woman's physical health, her emotional health, her ECONOMIC health, or her SOCIAL HEALTH. And, because no clarification is made as to how badly the pregnancy has to hinder her health, a woman can, up to the date of delivery, get an abortion for any mild inconvenience that falls into one of those four categories.
Did you read the title of this myTake? I'm not imposing my personal point of view on anyone, I'm simply stating what that point of view is and defending my reasons to anyone who comments on the post. I'm not telling anyone "you have to become pro-life." I'm simply telling them what I believe as someone who is pro-life. I also have no means by which to prevent anyone from having the right to choose, as there are no politicians I can currently vote for or bills I can vote in support of that would have any effect on this situation. Thus... I've done nothing you claim that I have done.
My concern, for the record, is that killing babies, inside the womb or outside, is murder of a living human being (not the mother) who only has one right... the life not to have its life taken away. It is a right we are constantly violating and we are treating human life as worthless. My concern is the protection of human life. It's as simple as that.
Matt Dillahunty have a grate point on the matter , look him up if you are interested. Now I understand that you aren't against the deed itself , but disagreeing with the current laws... I do think that they need to be redone !
I am against the deed itself I'm simply incapable of doing anything about that fact.
why? will not be surprised if you consider masturbation as an genocide...
also , are you religious? That will explain your point of view.
Being pro choice implies abortion but that you may have mixed feelings about it.
But if you're not pro abortion (and pro choice) , should we take it to mean you feel there's something wrong with abortion?