in their view, yes. with hindsight we see things a little differently but at the time of the nazis, they were driving their society, and had they won the war the world would be a very different place.So, when society determined that blacks were sub-human, or the Nazis decided that non-Aryans were subhuman, they were speaking the truth?
You don't draw any distinction between deliberately killing innocents and accidentally killing innocents?
I mean if you don't, then you're essentially tossing out the entire concept of responsibility.
And again, as a parent, I would never put child in a situation where their risk of death was no better than a coin toss. We put parents in jail who pull shit like that.
I did not say this either. Come on dude, I'm sure you're better at reading comprehension than this.
Your link takes a decidedly anti abortion slant to the Guttmacher study. It doesn’t actually break down the number of abortions done in the third trimester which does not start at 20 weeks as that study does.
The relevant factor is the child's development relative to the type of abortion necessary to destroy it. 2nd and 3rd trimester babies are too large to suck out. Therefore they must be torn apart and removed, one limb at a time, and re-assembled on a table.
The best numbers I could find are from a doctor trained in late term abortions who interpretred CDC data:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/drjeng...re-really-performed-in-the-united-states/amp/
She found from 2012 data:
- 1186 abortions after 21 weeks
- aproximatley 600 after 24 weeks
- most of the 600 were due to fetal deformities with a few being for incestual rape of a minor
There’s no factual basis to assume the majority of third trimester abortions are for any thing but tragic medical or criminal circumstances.
Of course not. The tension here is between the woman’s freedom vs the life of the child. A healthy fetus after 35 weeks can be born no problem.
So an “abortion” at 39 weeks is just giving birth via induction or surgically and adoption.
in their view, yes. with hindsight we see things a little differently but at the time of the nazis, they were driving their society, and had they won the war the world would be a very different place.
with slavery, it wasn't all our society that viewed black that way, but it was a sizable segment that did, even in the north.
society is not static, it does change over time, what was acceptable then may not be acceptable now.
what is called evil is just a different set of morals.
Not much of one, no. It's a pet peeve in general that too much emphasis is placed on that dubious distinction.
See also the distinction between 'deliberately' stabbing someone and choosing to habitually drive in a careless way that will inevitably one day kill or injure someone.
For some reason the latter is generally forgiven by the justice system (and put down as an 'accident') in a way that the former is not. I think it has a lot to do with the level of social power those who do each of those things has.
And juries tend to be stuffed full of terrible drivers but don't usually have many people who habitually threaten people with knives.
People in positions of power can do damage without having to have 'bad thoughts' in their heads, and so tend to get treated more leniently than those with less power, who have to act more consciously to inflict the same level of harm.
That's why I think that Spider Man movie (about which I otherwise remember nothing) was one of the great artistic works of our time! "With great power comes great responsibility" is an aphorism for our times.
Quite the contrary, I'm attempting to preserve the concept of responsibility and apply it consistently.
"Furthermore, I'd be happy with the idea of state services available to say re-home any minor who is being indoctrinated/forced against their will to adopt religious principles."
Do you concede that you actually said this?
You would support the government taking children away from their parents if the parents are training their children in their religion, correct?
You just quoted me verbatim, of course I wrote it. Now, can you tell the difference between what I wrote and your earlier interpretation of what I wrote?
If not, then this discussion is over and you need to head back to school for remedial English language classes.
If not, then this discussion is over and you need to head back to school for remedial English language classes.
Okay, then you tell me what the difference is. Because I'm tired of trying to guess at your point.
So everything's really just a power struggle. Hitler wasn't really wrong. He was just, in the end, not sufficiently popular. The same goes for slavery, which was quite sufficiently popular for the bulk of human existence.
I don't see how people can function if they truly adopt such a relative view of morality. I want to kill you. You want to stay alive. Let's fight and see who is right.
Well modern morality can actually be based on Human values, such as what improves our lives and we can measure improvements over time.The only difference between a Modern "Relative" Morality and a Religious "Objective" Morality is a function of Time. The Religious "Objective" Morality is just the Relative Morality of a people at some point in History. It's like thinking that some Ancient people had figured everything out and it was glorious. Then concluding that We all should become just like Them. By most measures, those people were Barbarians.
Well modern morality can actually be based on Human values, such as what improves our lives and we can measure improvements over time.
Ironic given that the Bible allows for and condones slavery and is hardly pro-life at all.As an irrelevant side-note, I'd really love to know where the pro-lifers here picked up that "abortion is like slavery" argument from, an argument that has to be advocated by someone so narrow-minded that they need to abandon every meaningful yardstick of what it is to be human in order to feel that it's appropriate to compare a bunch of cells that are completely devoid of humanity let alone self-expression to the kidnapping and working to death of fully-functioning humans for profit.
Okay, then you tell me what the difference is. Because I'm tired of trying to guess at your point.
Well modern morality can actually be based on Human values, such as what improves our lives and we can measure improvements over time.
Objectively actual improvements can be shown to be improvements. Of course those with a strong sense of entitlement and privilege will disagree with their lose of privilege even if they are still way better off then the majority of folks.Oh, I don't know. People can disagree on what qualifies as 'improvement'. Also, people can dispute or just deny the chain of cause-and-effect (as some are doing with climate-change).
The only difference between a Modern "Relative" Morality and a Religious "Objective" Morality is a function of Time. The Religious "Objective" Morality is just the Relative Morality of a people at some point in History. It's like thinking that some Ancient people had figured everything out and it was glorious. Then concluding that We all should become just like Them. By most measures, those people were Barbarians.
Objectively actual improvements can be shown to be improvements. Of course those with a strong sense of entitlement and privilege will disagree with their lose of privilege even if they are still way better off then the majority of folks.
Seems to me that he's just making the (rather banal, actually) point that it all depends on the degree. At least, that's what I'd say - there's a difference between raising a child within a religious tradition (or within a political or philosophical one) and forcefully brainwashing them into a cult-like mindset where they can't consider any other point-of-view.
It's a fuzzy line, I think, but that's human life for you.
Edit - personally I'd favour giving parents a _lot_ of leeway. For anything short of major physical violence. Even seriously indoctrinated children can grow up to make their own decisions about what they believe (even if the ideology you were raised with never _quite_ leaves you), and taking children away and putting them in what is risibly called 'care', rarely works better than leaving them where they are (I'd hate to be a social worker who has to make those sorts of decisions).
Ironic given that the Bible allows for and condones slavery and is hardly pro-life at all.
Well I was atheist/agnostic since 15 and I did hold some pro-life views after that for some time. However I can't say how much was influenced by previous held religious outlook.I wondered whether this was a dig at my OP, and on that vein I'd be interested to see what percentage of pro-lifers haven't in some way had a religious upbringing (even if their parents didn't actively go out of their way to do so but were brought up with a religious background). I'd bet it's less than 5%.
Ironic given that the Bible allows for and condones slavery and is hardly pro-life at all.
I wondered whether this was a dig at my OP, and on that vein I'd be interested to see what percentage of pro-lifers haven't in some way had a religious upbringing (even if their parents didn't actively go out of their way to do so but were brought up with a religious background). I'd bet it's less than 5%.