Ethics, principals and morals

[MSizer]

To this I am speaking of fears by the mother.
How does it not exist? If the abortion never happens then the potential for the child to come into a bad home does exist.

The point I'm trying to make is that once a life is terminated, no other "potential" factors matter anymore. It's comparable to a promise made to someone who has passed away. IMO, there is absolutely no obligation anymore to keep a promise, since the wishes of that person disappeared at death. so, for example, if my wife asked me not to have any ceremony after her death, and I agreed, but then when she died all of her family asked me to have one, I would, because my wife's wishes no longer exist, but those of her family do.

And your point is what? Nothing to do with abortion..

Yes, my T. McVeigh analogy is related to abortion, because both cases are decisions to terminate human life other than our own.

So this is your view? That is fine, may I ask your faith and why you feel this way?.

I don't have any faith so to speak. Pretty much anything that is written by Peter Singer makes me say "what he said". I am an atheist, and I believe that sentience of all beings should be considered morally comparable. When I deliberate whether a being deserves my moral patiency, I consider factors like sentience, self awareness, and long term concern for it's own well being. As a result, I consider a pre-sentient fetus the same as a piece of flesh, but that changes as soon as it has the capacity to suffer. As a result I am a moral vegetarian, but that's a whole other story (which seems to pi$$ a lot of poeple off somehow).

I fully agree I was a little presumptuous:sorry1: in my post. I was only speaking of the birth control abortions. I actually heard of a case where one child could be carried by the mother though she had twins, they put it in gods hands and lost both. A decision I could not live with either way.

No worries, it's hard to get all of our thoughts out in text like this, and it can lead to misunderstandings. It's an inherent problem with all forums I think.

 

[Storm]

I support abortion rights because I believe abortion to be the lesser evil.

 

[Archer]

[/color]

The point I'm trying to make is that once a life is terminated, no other "potential" factors matter anymore. It's comparable to a promise made to someone who has passed away. IMO, there is absolutely no obligation anymore to keep a promise, since the wishes of that person disappeared at death. so, for example, if my wife asked me not to have any ceremony after her death, and I agreed, but then when she died all of her family asked me to have one, I would, because my wife's wishes no longer exist, but those of her family do.




Yes, my T. McVeigh analogy is related to abortion, because both cases are decisions to terminate human life other than our own.





I don't have any faith so to speak. Pretty much anything that is written by Peter Singer makes me say "what he said". I am an atheist, and I believe that sentience of all beings should be considered morally comparable. When I deliberate whether a being deserves my moral patiency, I consider factors like sentience, self awareness, and long term concern for it's own well being. As a result, I consider a pre-sentient fetus the same as a piece of flesh, but that changes as soon as it has the capacity to suffer. As a result I am a moral vegetarian, but that's a whole other story (which seems to pi$$ a lot of poeple off somehow).



No worries, it's hard to get all of our thoughts out in text like this, and it can lead to misunderstandings. It's an inherent problem with all forums I think.

Thank you for your clarifications.

 

[Archer]

I support abortion rights because I believe abortion to be the lesser evil.

As I stated in an earlier post I do understand. Though I do not condone the act (for reasons stated above) I feel that it is possibly the lesser of two evils.

What stance does your chosen faith take? Trust me, some of my views are considered liberal but I cant find much Biblical foundation to form a competent argument for or against abortion therefore I defer to my personal feelings. If you will take note of most things I say I follow my Bible not the teachings of man.

 

[Storm]

As I stated in an earlier post I do understand. Though I do not condone the act (for reasons stated above) I feel that it is possibly the lesser of two evils.

What stance does your chosen faith take? Trust me, some of my views are considered liberal but I cant find much Biblical foundation to form a competent argument for or against abortion therefore I defer to my personal feelings. If you will take note of most things I say I follow my Bible not the teachings of man.

The UUA also supports "reproductive freedom."

 

[Archer]

The UUA also supports "reproductive freedom."

thanks! it helps to know where people stand when having a discussion.

 

[MoonWater]

I'm reposting this in case anyone missed it in the heat from earlier and wanted to respond.

That horse took a while to kill, actually he was beaten long after he was dead.

Let us try this again, as a Christian I do not believe in same sex marriage as homosexuality is against the teachings of my holy book. I do not believe that a church has a right to marry same sex couples as they are going against their teachings. It is not Biblical.

you know it would take another thread to debate the matter but I do feel like bringing this up in case you are interested in discussing it elsewhere. I've done some reading on the subject and from what I've read scholars have found that the bible, when read and studied in it's original language does not support that conclusion and indeed at most could only be seen as saying that Jews should not partake in homosexual relations and that rule was simply one of the many rules meant to separate the Jews from the Canaanites. There are also many Christians who feel that, since they are followers of Christ, Christ's teachings are the most important thing for them to follow and since Christ makes no mention of homosexuality but several mentions of loving others and fixing yourself before trying to fix others, that it is not their place to stand against same sex couples. Indeed there are numerous arguments that could be made against the idea of homosexuality being "non-biblical" or "un-Christian". But like I said, that's for another thread if you are actually interested in discussing it.

On a personal level I feel that if they want to live like that so be it. It does not affect me, until a Christian church allows it. I have Gay friends and they know how I feel and thet dont have a problem with it!! BTW I will lay down my life for my friends as I do love them I just dont like the things the do.

Anyone else care to share their beliefs on this subject, and note their faith? I hope we can do this in a civil way.

I am fully in favor of same-sex marriage and same sex couples. I see them as being no different than opposite sex couples beyond simple biology. indeed I am in full support of all forms of romantic love whether they be hetero, homo, mono, poly, or open relationships. I feel that just because I have a preference in one direction that does not give me the right to say others should not be allowed to pursue different preferences. As for my faith I am still searching but am currently leaning toward the Feri Tradition which falls under Paganism. And yes the Feri Tradition agrees with my views.

As for abortion I myself would not have one except in cases of medical emergency, but I do support a woman's right to have an abortion as like storm I see it as the lesser of two evils. From what I've seen thus far feri tradition is silent on the matter of abortion. Indeed feri tradition, much like other pagan traditions, leaves matters of morality and ethics largely up to the individual.

 

[Archer]

I'm reposting this in case anyone missed it in the heat from earlier and wanted to respond.

Good Idea I did respond but I was in a heated discussion.

like storm I see it as the lesser of two evils

Actually I said that

 

[MoonWater]

Good Idea I did respond but I was in a heated discussion.

could you direct me to the post #?

Actually I said that

yes I see that you did

 

[Archer]

could you direct me to the post #?

yes I see that you did

I guess I did not respond? I could have sworn I did:foot:

 

[Zadok]

ok, first off, I mad no accusations nor did I "jump to any conclusions". I asked you questions about your stance. Now granted perhaps I could have worded them better but my issue was to make a point not make you look like a bad guy or demonize your stance. I don't think you or anyone for that matter would honestly answer yes to those questions. My point was that if you place your sole focus on making sure kids are raised by their biological parents then those functions I asked about will suffer. It was also to make the point that the parents a child is born to are not always the best people for the job as your stance seems to assume.(emphasis on seems to)

Here's a better way of putting it: do you feel it is better for a child to be raised by their biological parents or by parents who are loving and compassionate who may or may not be their biological parents? Please note that in the second option biology is not a part of it, love and compassion are. So in other words which do you feel is the more important aspect of parenting, biology or love and compassion?

As I said before – when we start comparing things that should not be we can justify anything – the reason is that we can always find something worse. But why should we even consider anything less than what should be. Let us not take our focus off of what should be and what society’s role should be. I believe that biological parents have responsibilities for their offspring. And I believe that society has responsibilities to teach parents to care for their offspring and make personal sacrifices for the benefit of their offspring. I believe society need to hold biological parents responsible for their offspring.

Before we start talking about changes because of failures let’s make sure we understand what the causes of the failures are and correct them whenever possible. As a scientist and engineer I believe it to be stupid and unjust to try to treat symptoms without any effort to reduce causes.

I realize this is a highly charged subject but let us deal with the problems without creating more problems.

I realize that there are real issues that will end a marriage of responsible adults – like death of a spouse. And I realize that society needs to help in such cases. But – and I believe this is important to understand – we as a society need to be aware that a next generation is essential to human survival. Sexual relationships are a most essential element to a healthy next generation and that with every species that exist there must be care given to a next generation or we will become extinct.

People can argue about all the personal pleasures they want but unless we are willing to take responsibility for a next generation such personal focuses are tantamount to treason to our society and species. Without question we need responsible biological parents and any effort that discourages this most important function or to try to use the force of law to say that anything else is just as important – looks to me to be pure insanity and the essence of species turning on its self and committing genocide.

If you have some startling information or logic that I am incorrect in this assessment I would be very interested into how you came to such a conclusion.

Zadok

 

[MoonWater]

As I said before – when we start comparing things that should not be we can justify anything – the reason is that we can always find something worse. But why should we even consider anything less than what should be. Let us not take our focus off of what should be and what society’s role should be. I believe that biological parents have responsibilities for their offspring. And I believe that society has responsibilities to teach parents to care for their offspring and make personal sacrifices for the benefit of their offspring. I believe society need to hold biological parents responsible for their offspring.

Before we start talking about changes because of failures let’s make sure we understand what the causes of the failures are and correct them whenever possible. As a scientist and engineer I believe it to be stupid and unjust to try to treat symptoms without any effort to reduce causes.

I realize this is a highly charged subject but let us deal with the problems without creating more problems.

I realize that there are real issues that will end a marriage of responsible adults – like death of a spouse. And I realize that society needs to help in such cases. But – and I believe this is important to understand – we as a society need to be aware that a next generation is essential to human survival. Sexual relationships are a most essential element to a healthy next generation and that with every species that exist there must be care given to a next generation or we will become extinct.

People can argue about all the personal pleasures they want but unless we are willing to take responsibility for a next generation such personal focuses are tantamount to treason to our society and species. Without question we need responsible biological parents and any effort that discourages this most important function or to try to use the force of law to say that anything else is just as important – looks to me to be pure insanity and the essence of species turning on its self and committing genocide.

If you have some startling information or logic that I am incorrect in this assessment I would be very interested into how you came to such a conclusion.

Zadok

if securing the next generation is so vitally important to a society then would it not be more important and serve that purpose even better if we focus on making sure all children have good healthy upbringings, regardless of whether or not those upbringings occur under their biological parents?

I agree largley with what you say zadok; you can't solve the problem by treating the symptoms and we need to help biological parents raise their children responsibly as best we can. But I also don't see society as being so limited that focusing on multiple things will necessarily detract from any of those areas. Nor do I see how allowing same sex marriage and same sex adoption would interfere at all with what you are saying.

 

[footprints]

By human qualities I mean those shared among all those with and those without faith. By religious qualities I mean mass, temple, prayer, beliefs about giving set forth by your faith and so on.

Everybody has faith Archer, some people just live in a fairytale existance and believe they are different. Faith and belief are part and parcel of human nature, it cannot be extracted from it no matter what a persons belief pattern tells them. Of course because some have so much belief, that they don't have a belief, you cannot rationally nor logically explain to them that they do have a belief, their own intelligence will stop you evey time. Refer to Jesus on this matter when asked if he were the King of the Jews.

It is okay to differentiate if you want to, however I will tell you a general meeting down at my local golf club is the same as a congreation in a church, and you wouldn't believe some of the myths and rituals they go through. Some want different rules for the members of the fold compared to visitors from other clubs, some even want complete denial for people who are not even members of another club, and as to what they think about people who don't play golf at all, well that is another story.

As to point two, I do not disagree but as I said a Christian Church has no precedent for such a union. If the secular government want's to call it marriage then so be it, though it will lead to trouble. I say this because it could bring discrimination suits against those who do not believe in same sex marriage and refuse to marry two of the same sex due to religious texts..

In most western countries a church has no such precedent, this is in the hands of the Government. No religious body is in charge of this, the government in some ways may be swayed by what some religions think, albeit not all members of any government are religious or belong to the same religious sect.

A church isn't needed to get married in, nor is a religion needed. Albeit a marriage depends on the legal definition of a marriage and what the law allows as a legal union.

There is already fear among Churches as well as in the Islamic and Jewish community about possible hate crime charges due to texts in their scriptures. The Old Testament condoned killing homosexuals, actually commanded it. The New Testament teaches against it (no killing). So as you can see doors are opening that will destroy the Churches as we know them if we are not careful.

Hate crimes have been in existance for a long time now, they will continue to be in existance for a long time to come unless people change their ways. Jesus for one showed the world how it could be, but it cannot be that way unless everybody in the world was in the image of Lord Jesus or a similar image Buddha as another example. In reality of the world around us, a pacifist like Jesus would still get run over and crucifed by the maddening crowd and those that thought it a good idea to crucify him.

 

[Archer]

Everybody has faith Archer, some people just live in a fairytale existance and believe they are different. Faith and belief are part and parcel of human nature, it cannot be extracted from it no matter what a persons belief pattern tells them. Of course because some have so much belief, that they don't have a belief, you cannot rationally nor logically explain to them that they do have a belief, their own intelligence will stop you evey time. Refer to Jesus on this matter when asked if he were the King of the Jews.

It is okay to differentiate if you want to, however I will tell you a general meeting down at my local golf club is the same as a congreation in a church, and you wouldn't believe some of the myths and rituals they go through. Some want different rules for the members of the fold compared to visitors from other clubs, some even want complete denial for people who are not even members of another club, and as to what they think about people who don't play golf at all, well that is another story.





In most western countries a church has no such precedent, this is in the hands of the Government. No religious body is in charge of this, the government in some ways may be swayed by what some religions think, albeit not all members of any government are religious or belong to the same religious sect.

A church isn't needed to get married in, nor is a religion needed. Albeit a marriage depends on the legal definition of a marriage and what the law allows as a legal union.



Hate crimes have been in existance for a long time now, they will continue to be in existance for a long time to come unless people change their ways. Jesus for one showed the world how it could be, but it cannot be that way unless everybody in the world was in the image of Lord Jesus or a similar image Buddha as another example. In reality of the world around us, a pacifist like Jesus would still get run over and crucifed by the maddening crowd and those that thought it a good idea to crucify him.

So keep the Churches out of Gay Marriage if the claim to follow the teachings of the Bible.

 

[footprints]

So keep the Churches out of Gay Marriage if the claim to follow the teachings of the Bible.

I just wish it were that simple.

Unfortunately humans have intelligence even the homophobic have intelligence, and their logic and reason tells them being Gay is wrong let alone having Gay marriages. By their logic and reason, if it is wrong for them it just has to be wrong for anybody else, and just another case where one person or one group of people is trying to force their view of life onto everybody else. In this case it is the homophobic trying to enforce their will over everybody else.

Homophobia isn't just specific to the religious, and being Pro Gay isn't just specific to those extraneous to religions. However, I will agree religions above all should know better and should follow their own teachings.

Humans in general, not just the religious, are reluctant to change whenever their current comfort zone is threatened, and are eager to change whenever their comfort zone is improved. At the moment the weight of the homophobic vote holds more to politicians than that of the Pro Gay vote. This will not always be the case, slowly the tide is turning the other way. Change may not be happening as fast as you would like but be assured it is happening.

 

[Archer]

Some of you intrigue me, some of you challenge my intellect but most of you well........................ ..... Goodbye I am through here and thank all of you. I have learned nothing. There is no education here for the most part only contempt, lies, foolishness and some logic.

I think I am leaning toward becoming a fundamentalist or an atheist, both have similar attributes.

 

[gnomon]

Some of you intrigue me, some of you challenge my intellect but most of you well........................ ..... Goodbye I am through here and thank all of you. I have learned nothing. There is no education here for the most part only contempt, lies, foolishness and some logic.

I think I am leaning toward becoming a fundamentalist or an atheist, both have similar attributes.

And a third time!

Are you a Wiccan?

 

[Zadok]

if securing the next generation is so vitally important to a society then would it not be more important and serve that purpose even better if we focus on making sure all children have good healthy upbringings, regardless of whether or not those upbringings occur under their biological parents?

I agree largley with what you say zadok; you can't solve the problem by treating the symptoms and we need to help biological parents raise their children responsibly as best we can. But I also don't see society as being so limited that focusing on multiple things will necessarily detract from any of those areas. Nor do I see how allowing same sex marriage and same sex adoption would interfere at all with what you are saying.

I have spent much of my life trying to make some sense of things. It appears to me that there is not a human ill or harm committed against another that has ever occurred throughout the history of mankind that has not had a direct cause to a loss of focus on the betterment and safety of the next generation. There is no species that exists that does not provide a means and way to guarantee the survival for a next generation. The more successful a species is about securing a next generation the more successful that species will be. I have not found even a single exception.

It is also interesting that every single society that man has in his vast intelligence organized has failed. The reason that every society has failed is because that society has at some point failed to secure a next generation to support that society. Again I know of no exceptions. If there is one – please enlighten me if you know of one. This is not rocket science or brain surgery – the proven formula for success is very simple and it has always involved biological parents involved responsibly with their offspring. It would seem that it is so simple but throughout history mankind has outsmarted themselves and screwed it up; thinking they could get some other way to work just as well. As with all things there are exceptions. But society should not ever encourage exceptions. Tolerate to some degree maybe but never encourage. At least I cannot see any logic in it. Again, I believe society can tolerate some exceptions but that is very different that encouraging exceptions.

In truth, I do not believe same sex attractions are that big of a problem but they are without question part of the big problem. Most children currently being born in the USA will not be allowed to grow up in a healthy functioning home with their biological parents. But even worse is that almost all the propaganda being produced by our society is saying to everybody, parents and children, that such things are to be expected and that we should not make any “real” effort to change it. Instead the propaganda is that we really do not need core families. Interesting we think this when studies show that over 75% of the criminals are products of broken homes; so is over 75% of our poverty.

I think it is nice and interesting that you think our society would be better off if we just accepted same sex attractions to be as valuable and beneficial as opposite sex attractions. But I fail to see the logic in that and no one cares to explain it to me. But let me give you a simple bit of logic. If tomorrow everybody woke up and there was no same sex attractions anywhere – not a single one. I cannot see any problems from that in even 10,000,000 years. But let us suppose that tomorrow everybody woke up and there were no opposite sex attractions anywhere – not a single one. Mankind would be in big time trouble in just 100 years.

I am not suggesting we can force anyone to do anything. What I am saying is that in order to be honored and respected by society we ought to expect that those receiving the honor and respect provide something beneficial for it. I really do not care what people do – as long as they do not disrupt things happing in society that are beneficial and needed or think unnecessary things are important as necessary things. If someone wants to spend their life pursuing same sex attractions then fine, let they do it but let’s not pronounce them as honorable and as necessary as responsible biological parents. Certainly let’s not say such behavior is even equally respectable or needed – because in truth it is not. Let’s be honest and place such behaviors in the basket of things we really do not need and can do without. Why lie about it?
Zadok

Sorry this was so long

 

[Zadok]

I just wish it were that simple.

Unfortunately humans have intelligence even the homophobic have intelligence, and their logic and reason tells them being Gay is wrong let alone having Gay marriages. By their logic and reason, if it is wrong for them it just has to be wrong for anybody else, and just another case where one person or one group of people is trying to force their view of life onto everybody else. In this case it is the homophobic trying to enforce their will over everybody else.

Homophobia isn't just specific to the religious, and being Pro Gay isn't just specific to those extraneous to religions. However, I will agree religions above all should know better and should follow their own teachings.

Humans in general, not just the religious, are reluctant to change whenever their current comfort zone is threatened, and are eager to change whenever their comfort zone is improved. At the moment the weight of the homophobic vote holds more to politicians than that of the Pro Gay vote. This will not always be the case, slowly the tide is turning the other way. Change may not be happening as fast as you would like but be assured it is happening.

I find this post absurd. Allow me to explain why. You say human have intelligence? I define intelligence as the ability to learn and alter cognitive behavior. Please try to keep up with the logic and explain where I have gone wrong. Sexual attractions are by the very definition of being able to recognize what is an attraction a cognitive behavior of recognition. Therefore, it is possible for an intelligence species to modify sexual behaviors – unless of course there is no intelligence associated with a particular behavior.

Next you seem to be upset that one group of people is trying to force their view of life on another group of people. The problem with this logic is that every law ever enforced by any society of mankind is exactly that. If everybody agreed there would never be a need for any human legislated law. The only time or place for a human legislated law is when one group of people forces their view of life on another group of people. The problem is when there is no benefit from a particular point of view.

Thus the real problem is when one group of people tries to force their view of life on another group of people that will result is something unbeneficial to society.

If you can explain why society must have gays in order to exist then I will agree we need laws to pronounce gays as needed and beneficial as heterosexual relationship to preservation of society for many more generations – please do so.

Zadok

 

[Cobblestones]

If you can explain why society must have gays in order to exist then I will agree we need laws to pronounce gays as needed and beneficial as heterosexual relationship to preservation of society for many more generations – please do so.

I have to wonder what you mean by "preservation of society." There are some who in the past thought that giving women the right to vote was not beneficial to society or giving people of color equal rights would not be beneficial to society or even that having a nation on this continent that was independent of England would not be beneficial to society.

The question is not whether we "must have gays" but rather what do we do about the gay people that are here? Every society in history has had gay people in it.

In this case, two guys in Malawi married even though they knew that to do so could land them in prison for up to 14 years. You have to be incredibly stupid or very much in love to take that kind of risk.

To my mind, society has to be incredibly stupid or exceedingly fearful or hateful to impose such a criminal sentence on two people who love each other. It used to be that a white person could not marry a black person in many US States.

I see gay marriage as exactly the same thing. Do we "need" gays? Not any more (or any less) than we "need" whites, Hispanics, Christians, Muslims, liberals or conservatives. The fact is that we have all of these and it is incumbent upon us as a society to treat each group equally and fairly. To fail to do so makes us morally poor.

Should we force a religion to change its views? No. That cannot be done. The only way that religion ever changes its views is when the civil/secular consciousness changes its views. The Renaissance was evidence of this. Evolutionary thinking is also evidence of this.

The question of homosexuality is very simple to me. Say, for the sake of argument, that a married heterosexual couple enjoys anal sex on occasion (this is not as uncommon as come would like to think). As a society, do we have the right to deny that couple the right to be married?

What the heck is the difference between that and two men who love each other or two women who love each other? It's not as if the 6 billion people on the planet are going to suddenly disappear and it's not like heterosexuals are going to suddenly become "gay" by being around gay people. So what's the big problem? Seriously?