I think this highlights the basic difference between pro-life and pro-choice. Pro-lifers see children, basically, as a joy. Pro-choicers see them, primarily, as a burden.
I almost didn't post this but figured that it would be a good thing to post my viewpoints.
Wow. Just wow. Don't you think you are generalizing? Obama's statement of being "punished with a baby" simply means that a woman who is not interested in raising a baby should not be required to do so.
For example, in a case where a woman is raped, yes, she is being punished with a baby. She is being punished with a reminder of what was done to her and that will remain with her the rest of her life if she is not allowed to receive an abortion. And whether or not you agree with abortion, you have to realize that that places such an undue burden on that mother.
If the parents whip the child, beat them, or sexually, emotionally or psychologically abuse them, we have a different story. To those parents, that child is a burden. And who is to say that those parents aren't pro-lifers? Just because someone believes that life should not be ended in the womb doesn't mean that they don't think that it's okay to slap the wife or kids around.
I think that you've over generalized the issue. Just because someone might think that a child might be a burden to them does not mean that they think all children are burdens, which is how I took what you read.
I'm vehemently pro-choice because I believe every person has a choice to do what they want with their body. I'm also pro tattoos and pro needles, because if people want to do that, that's fine. I just would never do it. And yes, I suppose that means that were I to get pregnant, I might elect not have an abortion, but I believe that the option should be there.
You and I differ on the opinion of what a person's body is (i.e. you believe that the fetus is an actual person whereas I believe that it is an extension of the mother until it can live outside the womb on it's own), and that causes a lot of problems for us to see eye-to-eye. I do not believe that just because something came out of you (i.e. once the child is breathing on their own on the outside) do you have the right to do what you want. In other words, beating a child (or doing any numerous of other things to it) is not okay.
I am pro-choice. I am proud of that fact. And while I'm pro-choice, I am against most second trimester abortions and all third trimester abortions, because I believe that if the fetus can survive on the outside, it is no longer part of the woman's body.
Devin, thank you for posting your thoughts. You are always welcome to offer your opinion here.
But please ask yourself these questions:
At what stage in fetal development does the being in question have its own unique DNA?
When does it have a heartbeat? Brainwaves?
When does a fetus have a separate blood type from its mother's?
Science (not theology) clearly shows us that an unborn fetus is NOT merely an extension of the woman's body, but a genetically distinct, biologically separate individual. Take a human embryology course. The criteria of personhood for a fetus based on when they can "live outside the womb on their own" is meaningless because it is completely subjective to advancements in medical technology, the expertise of particular physicians, how much medical care the parents can afford and is locally available, and any number of other things that have NOTHING to do with what makes us a human being.
Can a full-term naturally delivered newborn live outside the womb "on its own"? It is still completely and constantly dependent on others for every aspect of its survival. Does the legitimacy of abortion then extend to these people? What about 3-year olds? What about severely mentally-handicapped people? What about socially-inept 30-year old males who still live in their parents' basements?
It is conceivable that at some time in the future, the entire fetal development process can be performed in a laboratory. What will the criteria for a person be then? The ability for a child to survive on its own outside the lab? Fetal stem cell research often involves fertilizing eggs and creating human embryos in a lab. These are surviving outside the womb. Should embryos created for in-vitro fertilization be protected from abortion, because they were originally surviving outside the womb?
This leads to the two questions at the heart of the matter: 1) At what stage in human development is a person completely independent of others for their survival? Alternately, what exactly is the standard for self-sufficiency? 2) Who has the right to determine this standard, or when someone else has achieved the status of a human person at all?
It is relevant at this time to note that Barack Obama supports late-term abortion (sucking the brains out of viable babies that meet your criteria for personhood) and even leaving to die babies that survive an abortion and ARE living and breathing outside the womb.
Society has already provided options for women who do not wish to raise their children for whatever reason. Adoption is readily available. California and some other states specifically give women the option to leave their babies at fire stations or hospitals or other places with no questions asked.
Many women who are impregnated through rape and choose to deliver the baby experience a great catharsis by witnessing how such a beautiful thing as their own child can result from such a hideous act.
NO ONE in the pro-life movement would force women to raise children they don't want. The opposition to abortion is purely based on the principled position that an unborn child is a human being and has the same right to live as anyone.
Joe's observation is, yes, a generalization about the cultural left that does not seem to treasure children. Look at the birth rate demographics for liberals vs conservatives.
Thank you Dave. You perfectly covered every point I was going to make in my response. The only thing I can add to it is the response of Feminists For Life to the case of rape:
Quote Out of our desire to save someone from suffering, it is normal to wish we could erase a painful memory such as rape. Unfortunately, the hard truth is that as much as we want to, we can't.
Abortion doesn't erase a memory. Think about it. Could anything ever erase your memory of September 11, 2001?
At my lecture at Vanderbilt University, a medical student told other students that abortion is a second act of violence against a woman who is raped, and said her “abortion was worse than the rape.”
Both victims—the woman and her child—deserve our unconditional support.
Pregnancy can be punishing, but a child is not a punishment. When Julie Makimaa was reunited with her birthmother, Lee Ezell ("Victory Over Violence," The American Feminist, vol. 5, no. 3), Julie asked her if it would have been better for Lee if Julie was never born at all.
Lee told Julie that she was the “only good thing to come out of the rape.” /Quote
I am not against adoption. Adoption in this country is an extremely difficult thing to do. I understand that people want to adopt children, but the fact of the matter is that it's easier to get a kid from another country than it is to get a kid from this country. People sit on lists for YEARS before they are ever even looked at. And that sucks. People who want to be parents should be able to be parents. (Sorry, I have a few friends who are extremely opposed to out-of-the-country adoption and unless they're going to change the current adoption system in the US, I don't see anything changing.)
And yes, advances in science and technology are great. Allowing a child to live outside the womb at 27 weeks (like my nephew) is a wonderful and miraculous thing. And while I can't say we should go back to the middle ages to see when a baby can exist outside the womb (nor would I ever say that), a fetus that does not have the viable means, i.e. some sort of lungs, digestive system, nervous system and circulatory system I would say cannot exist outside the womb.
As to the statement of "every child is a blessing": A blessing usually requires some sort of divine inspiration. Since I am obviously of a different religious persuasion than the rest of you, your blessings would come from Jesus whereas were I to have any, they'd come from somewhere else. And since I can't quite explain that to myself, you'll have to live with the fact that religion divides us. It does not mean to, but in this regard, I cannot say that we will ever see eye-to-eye.
Now, onto the DNA and blood type aspect of your question, Dave. I understand that each of us has unique DNA, but just because we have DNA does not mean that we are A-destined to be something great or B-not allowed to be killed. I'm not trying to spark some extended debate here, but the fact of the matter is, chickens and cows and pigs all have their own unique DNA and yet, we kill them and eat them as though they were nothing important. Their lives mean nothing to us except to sustain us. Now, while I'm not advocating vegetarianism, I am asking you to look at all sides of the spectrum.
Again Tom, you're generalizing when you speak about children as burdens. You can't assume that all liberals are the same just like I can't assume all conservatives are the same.
I have a problem with statistics. They never look at the whole population, just a subset of it. So until a survey has been done on ALL women who've had abortions or ALL women who've had children of rape, I cannot accept what you say with any certainty.
And in case you didn't read, I am opposed to 2nd and 3rd term abortions. I have a problem with women being unconvinced after 3 months. If a woman is 6 months along, let the damn thing cook a little longer and give it up. I have no problem with Bush's outlawing of 3rd trimester abortions, because in that case, the child really can survive outside the womb (to quote Dave "babies that survive an abortion and ARE living and breathing outside the womb").
The bottom line here is that I'm not going to change your minds and you aren't going to change my mind. I enjoy the exchange of ideas with a positive attitude, but I really hope this doesn't become "beat up on the little Jewish girl" since you all share the same ideas.
Devin, thanks for responding. It is true that most of us here are like minded (although Tom will verify we've had some disagreements), but I hope we're being nice to you. I didn't realize you were Jewish, but I've been trying to discuss this topic in non-religious terms anyway, since I believe abortion is a non-religious issue.
My point about DNA, heartbeats, etc. was that an unborn fetus is a separate organism, a distinct life form from its mother. I was trying to illustrate how biologically, a human fetus is a distinct human being. To permit abortion is you must accept one of the following statements:
1) It is sometimes morally permissible to directly and deliberately take the life of an innocent human being. 2) Some human beings are not "persons" until they achieve some arbitrarily chosen status determined by other human beings.
The first statement runs counter to the entire history of Western Civilization and the concept of justice. The second statement asserts essentially a divine authority of some men over others. The unwritten third statement is merely the denial of scientific truths. These statements are logical prerequisites for justifying abortion as a moral act.
If adoption is as difficult as you suggest, then perhaps the system needs to be changed to allow couples and families to adopt more quickly and easily. I'm not familiar with the system first-hand, but I believe that most of the scrutiny and difficulty in the process is an attempt to avoid the kinds of horrible abuse and neglect cases that happen now and then.
Referring to a child as a "blessing" in Joe's context is not tied to any specific religious concept, just a generalization about how the child brings joy to a family, is a Very Good Thing in and of itself, and makes the family better. For someone to consider something a blessing they don't necessarily need to personalize the source, although they may attribute it to Jesus, Allah, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or quantum fluctuations.
Remember that generalizations are just statements about tendencies and typical behaviors, not absolutes about entire groups. We all know there are exceptions.
I did read your opposition to late-term abortions and I'm glad you feel that way. I only meant to point out to interested readers, being close to the election and related to this topic, where Senator Obama stood on the matter. I guess it might sound like a political dig, but I thought it was relevant.
As for statistics, I only know because I've taken several statistics classes that you can get an extremely high degree of accuracy through sampling a very small group. Even presidential election polls typically sample fewer than 2000 voters, when more than 100 million vote. It is true, however, that sampling methods can affect the accuracy, and this should always be considered when reading the result of any poll.
Sorry this is so long, but I thought your comment deserved a thorough reply.
Yes Dave, you have all been nice. I just could have seen it going in another direction and I wanted to put a kibosh on that.
I don't believe that to permit abortion, in its earliest stages, you need to allow either of the two statements. However, to answer your question, based upon our society as it is today, it is sometimes completely permissible to take the life of an innocent human being. Look at the wars we create and the innocent people we will while fighting them. We accidentally kill innocent people when testing drugs to better other's lives. And while I'm not saying it's a good thing, I am saying that we take our cues from society.
I'm glad you've explained your opinion. I was unaware that many pro-lifers thought of this as a non-religious issue. Apparently, I am rather ignorant about the conservative mindset, so thank you all for explaining it to me. Joe has done a remarkable job explaining things to me and I hope I have opened his eyes to some liberal points as well.
Yes, the adoption standard needs to be changed. While many people are looking to be parents, they are looking to be parents to babies. So many children are taken out of homes and put into foster care at around the age of 10. New parents don't want to deal with damaged children and thus look for new children to be parents to. It's not the greatest system because so many children grow up not having anyone to provide a good home. Some foster parents are great, but others, well, you've read the headlines. We need a better system, but unfortunately, I don't know what that is.
Thank you for the explanation of the blessing issue. I don't generally use that term outside of my religious setting, so the term is a bit foreign to me.
I love the Flying Spaghetti Monster! How did you know? :D
Oh man, I hate the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Nothing against you, Devin, but I hate that thing. I've had several arguments where that creature has been brought up. It took me a long time to figure out why I detested it so much, but I finally did figure it out.
It basically comes down to insulting a reasonable belief based centuries of witnesses and extraordinary events to the most absurd spur-of-the-moment thoughts. The idea that I might believe in Jesus, Allah, Buddha or whoever millions have followed, who many people have given up their lives for, where documented "miracles" are attributed to, which explains so much of the universe we live in, to compare that to whatever pops into your head next is very insulting. Now if someone wants to compare Scientology to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, they’d have a much better case. The cult is small, not too many years of "witnesses" or documented "miracles," no one has seriously been willing to die for their belief in it. It really isn't that far off, but I could understand if Scientologists felt insulted nonetheless.
Using a logical tool like Flying Spaghetti Monster to claim that any religious belief has no weight requires that the user be utterly blind to an immense amount of evidence (not necessarily proof) or just a dismissive jerk. It ends up sounding like some 8th grader who just took a logic class and now thinks they know everything about Theology, Philosophy and the Universe. (Actually a lot of modern "Philosophers" sound a lot like that too...)
Tom, you summed it up. Anyone who seriously tries to compare the FSM nonsense to religions based on centuries of rational thought are not really contributing to the debate. That being said, if NOT taken as a direct insult to Christianity, the FSM stuff is pretty funny.
The only other point I want to make here, Devin, is that I don't think it is EVER morally acceptable to directly and deliberately kill innocent people. The possibility of casualties during wartime, medical testing, building construction, whatever, is a risk, and in each case an undesired consequence. Intent is a key issue here. The good thing that you're trying to accomplish must outweigh or at least equal the expected bad things that are likely to occur as a direct result of what you're doing. You can see the difference from abortion here, where the objective is the termination of someone's life.
And I don't think, and hope you didn't intend to imply, that what any given society is in the habit of doing has any impact on what is or is not moral. Yes, people pick up a sense of what is acceptable from what people around them are doing, but that doesn't mean they're right, and certainly is not what defines morality. I don't really take my cues from society. I hold values based on what I consider to be fundamental principles, which don't change when society wants them to (or ever).
Gosh, I love that woman.
ReplyDeleteI almost didn't post this but figured that it would be a good thing to post my viewpoints.
ReplyDeleteWow. Just wow. Don't you think you are generalizing? Obama's statement of being "punished with a baby" simply means that a woman who is not interested in raising a baby should not be required to do so.
For example, in a case where a woman is raped, yes, she is being punished with a baby. She is being punished with a reminder of what was done to her and that will remain with her the rest of her life if she is not allowed to receive an abortion. And whether or not you agree with abortion, you have to realize that that places such an undue burden on that mother.
If the parents whip the child, beat them, or sexually, emotionally or psychologically abuse them, we have a different story. To those parents, that child is a burden. And who is to say that those parents aren't pro-lifers? Just because someone believes that life should not be ended in the womb doesn't mean that they don't think that it's okay to slap the wife or kids around.
I think that you've over generalized the issue. Just because someone might think that a child might be a burden to them does not mean that they think all children are burdens, which is how I took what you read.
I'm vehemently pro-choice because I believe every person has a choice to do what they want with their body. I'm also pro tattoos and pro needles, because if people want to do that, that's fine. I just would never do it. And yes, I suppose that means that were I to get pregnant, I might elect not have an abortion, but I believe that the option should be there.
You and I differ on the opinion of what a person's body is (i.e. you believe that the fetus is an actual person whereas I believe that it is an extension of the mother until it can live outside the womb on it's own), and that causes a lot of problems for us to see eye-to-eye. I do not believe that just because something came out of you (i.e. once the child is breathing on their own on the outside) do you have the right to do what you want. In other words, beating a child (or doing any numerous of other things to it) is not okay.
I am pro-choice. I am proud of that fact. And while I'm pro-choice, I am against most second trimester abortions and all third trimester abortions, because I believe that if the fetus can survive on the outside, it is no longer part of the woman's body.
(composed at the same time as Tom's response)
ReplyDeleteDevin, thank you for posting your thoughts. You are always welcome to offer your opinion here.
But please ask yourself these questions:
At what stage in fetal development does the being in question have its own unique DNA?
When does it have a heartbeat? Brainwaves?
When does a fetus have a separate blood type from its mother's?
Science (not theology) clearly shows us that an unborn fetus is NOT merely an extension of the woman's body, but a genetically distinct, biologically separate individual. Take a human embryology course. The criteria of personhood for a fetus based on when they can "live outside the womb on their own" is meaningless because it is completely subjective to advancements in medical technology, the expertise of particular physicians, how much medical care the parents can afford and is locally available, and any number of other things that have NOTHING to do with what makes us a human being.
Can a full-term naturally delivered newborn live outside the womb "on its own"? It is still completely and constantly dependent on others for every aspect of its survival. Does the legitimacy of abortion then extend to these people? What about 3-year olds? What about severely mentally-handicapped people? What about socially-inept 30-year old males who still live in their parents' basements?
It is conceivable that at some time in the future, the entire fetal development process can be performed in a laboratory. What will the criteria for a person be then? The ability for a child to survive on its own outside the lab? Fetal stem cell research often involves fertilizing eggs and creating human embryos in a lab. These are surviving outside the womb. Should embryos created for in-vitro fertilization be protected from abortion, because they were originally surviving outside the womb?
This leads to the two questions at the heart of the matter:
1) At what stage in human development is a person completely independent of others for their survival? Alternately, what exactly is the standard for self-sufficiency?
2) Who has the right to determine this standard, or when someone else has achieved the status of a human person at all?
It is relevant at this time to note that Barack Obama supports late-term abortion (sucking the brains out of viable babies that meet your criteria for personhood) and even leaving to die babies that survive an abortion and ARE living and breathing outside the womb.
Society has already provided options for women who do not wish to raise their children for whatever reason. Adoption is readily available. California and some other states specifically give women the option to leave their babies at fire stations or hospitals or other places with no questions asked.
Many women who are impregnated through rape and choose to deliver the baby experience a great catharsis by witnessing how such a beautiful thing as their own child can result from such a hideous act.
NO ONE in the pro-life movement would force women to raise children they don't want. The opposition to abortion is purely based on the principled position that an unborn child is a human being and has the same right to live as anyone.
Joe's observation is, yes, a generalization about the cultural left that does not seem to treasure children. Look at the birth rate demographics for liberals vs conservatives.
Thank you Dave. You perfectly covered every point I was going to make in my response. The only thing I can add to it is the response of Feminists For Life to the case of rape:
ReplyDeleteQuote
Out of our desire to save someone from suffering, it is normal to wish we could erase a painful memory such as rape. Unfortunately, the hard truth is that as much as we want to, we can't.
Abortion doesn't erase a memory. Think about it. Could anything ever erase your memory of September 11, 2001?
At my lecture at Vanderbilt University, a medical student told other students that abortion is a second act of violence against a woman who is raped, and said her “abortion was worse than the rape.”
Both victims—the woman and her child—deserve our unconditional support.
Pregnancy can be punishing, but a child is not a punishment. When Julie Makimaa was reunited with her birthmother, Lee Ezell ("Victory Over Violence," The American Feminist, vol. 5, no. 3), Julie asked her if it would have been better for Lee if Julie was never born at all.
Lee told Julie that she was the “only good thing to come out of the rape.”
/Quote
Read the whole thing here.
Thank you Dave for your encouragement.
ReplyDeleteI am not against adoption. Adoption in this country is an extremely difficult thing to do. I understand that people want to adopt children, but the fact of the matter is that it's easier to get a kid from another country than it is to get a kid from this country. People sit on lists for YEARS before they are ever even looked at. And that sucks. People who want to be parents should be able to be parents. (Sorry, I have a few friends who are extremely opposed to out-of-the-country adoption and unless they're going to change the current adoption system in the US, I don't see anything changing.)
And yes, advances in science and technology are great. Allowing a child to live outside the womb at 27 weeks (like my nephew) is a wonderful and miraculous thing. And while I can't say we should go back to the middle ages to see when a baby can exist outside the womb (nor would I ever say that), a fetus that does not have the viable means, i.e. some sort of lungs, digestive system, nervous system and circulatory system I would say cannot exist outside the womb.
As to the statement of "every child is a blessing": A blessing usually requires some sort of divine inspiration. Since I am obviously of a different religious persuasion than the rest of you, your blessings would come from Jesus whereas were I to have any, they'd come from somewhere else. And since I can't quite explain that to myself, you'll have to live with the fact that religion divides us. It does not mean to, but in this regard, I cannot say that we will ever see eye-to-eye.
Now, onto the DNA and blood type aspect of your question, Dave. I understand that each of us has unique DNA, but just because we have DNA does not mean that we are A-destined to be something great or B-not allowed to be killed. I'm not trying to spark some extended debate here, but the fact of the matter is, chickens and cows and pigs all have their own unique DNA and yet, we kill them and eat them as though they were nothing important. Their lives mean nothing to us except to sustain us. Now, while I'm not advocating vegetarianism, I am asking you to look at all sides of the spectrum.
Again Tom, you're generalizing when you speak about children as burdens. You can't assume that all liberals are the same just like I can't assume all conservatives are the same.
I have a problem with statistics. They never look at the whole population, just a subset of it. So until a survey has been done on ALL women who've had abortions or ALL women who've had children of rape, I cannot accept what you say with any certainty.
And in case you didn't read, I am opposed to 2nd and 3rd term abortions. I have a problem with women being unconvinced after 3 months. If a woman is 6 months along, let the damn thing cook a little longer and give it up. I have no problem with Bush's outlawing of 3rd trimester abortions, because in that case, the child really can survive outside the womb (to quote Dave "babies that survive an abortion and ARE living and breathing outside the womb").
The bottom line here is that I'm not going to change your minds and you aren't going to change my mind. I enjoy the exchange of ideas with a positive attitude, but I really hope this doesn't become "beat up on the little Jewish girl" since you all share the same ideas.
Devin, thanks for responding. It is true that most of us here are like minded (although Tom will verify we've had some disagreements), but I hope we're being nice to you. I didn't realize you were Jewish, but I've been trying to discuss this topic in non-religious terms anyway, since I believe abortion is a non-religious issue.
ReplyDeleteMy point about DNA, heartbeats, etc. was that an unborn fetus is a separate organism, a distinct life form from its mother. I was trying to illustrate how biologically, a human fetus is a distinct human being. To permit abortion is you must accept one of the following statements:
1) It is sometimes morally permissible to directly and deliberately take the life of an innocent human being.
2) Some human beings are not "persons" until they achieve some arbitrarily chosen status determined by other human beings.
The first statement runs counter to the entire history of Western Civilization and the concept of justice. The second statement asserts essentially a divine authority of some men over others. The unwritten third statement is merely the denial of scientific truths. These statements are logical prerequisites for justifying abortion as a moral act.
If adoption is as difficult as you suggest, then perhaps the system needs to be changed to allow couples and families to adopt more quickly and easily. I'm not familiar with the system first-hand, but I believe that most of the scrutiny and difficulty in the process is an attempt to avoid the kinds of horrible abuse and neglect cases that happen now and then.
Referring to a child as a "blessing" in Joe's context is not tied to any specific religious concept, just a generalization about how the child brings joy to a family, is a Very Good Thing in and of itself, and makes the family better. For someone to consider something a blessing they don't necessarily need to personalize the source, although they may attribute it to Jesus, Allah, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or quantum fluctuations.
Remember that generalizations are just statements about tendencies and typical behaviors, not absolutes about entire groups. We all know there are exceptions.
I did read your opposition to late-term abortions and I'm glad you feel that way. I only meant to point out to interested readers, being close to the election and related to this topic, where Senator Obama stood on the matter. I guess it might sound like a political dig, but I thought it was relevant.
As for statistics, I only know because I've taken several statistics classes that you can get an extremely high degree of accuracy through sampling a very small group. Even presidential election polls typically sample fewer than 2000 voters, when more than 100 million vote. It is true, however, that sampling methods can affect the accuracy, and this should always be considered when reading the result of any poll.
Sorry this is so long, but I thought your comment deserved a thorough reply.
Yes Dave, you have all been nice. I just could have seen it going in another direction and I wanted to put a kibosh on that.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that to permit abortion, in its earliest stages, you need to allow either of the two statements. However, to answer your question, based upon our society as it is today, it is sometimes completely permissible to take the life of an innocent human being. Look at the wars we create and the innocent people we will while fighting them. We accidentally kill innocent people when testing drugs to better other's lives. And while I'm not saying it's a good thing, I am saying that we take our cues from society.
I'm glad you've explained your opinion. I was unaware that many pro-lifers thought of this as a non-religious issue. Apparently, I am rather ignorant about the conservative mindset, so thank you all for explaining it to me. Joe has done a remarkable job explaining things to me and I hope I have opened his eyes to some liberal points as well.
Yes, the adoption standard needs to be changed. While many people are looking to be parents, they are looking to be parents to babies. So many children are taken out of homes and put into foster care at around the age of 10. New parents don't want to deal with damaged children and thus look for new children to be parents to. It's not the greatest system because so many children grow up not having anyone to provide a good home. Some foster parents are great, but others, well, you've read the headlines. We need a better system, but unfortunately, I don't know what that is.
Thank you for the explanation of the blessing issue. I don't generally use that term outside of my religious setting, so the term is a bit foreign to me.
I love the Flying Spaghetti Monster! How did you know? :D
[threadjack]
ReplyDeleteOh man, I hate the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Nothing against you, Devin, but I hate that thing. I've had several arguments where that creature has been brought up. It took me a long time to figure out why I detested it so much, but I finally did figure it out.
It basically comes down to insulting a reasonable belief based centuries of witnesses and extraordinary events to the most absurd spur-of-the-moment thoughts. The idea that I might believe in Jesus, Allah, Buddha or whoever millions have followed, who many people have given up their lives for, where documented "miracles" are attributed to, which explains so much of the universe we live in, to compare that to whatever pops into your head next is very insulting. Now if someone wants to compare Scientology to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, they’d have a much better case. The cult is small, not too many years of "witnesses" or documented "miracles," no one has seriously been willing to die for their belief in it. It really isn't that far off, but I could understand if Scientologists felt insulted nonetheless.
Using a logical tool like Flying Spaghetti Monster to claim that any religious belief has no weight requires that the user be utterly blind to an immense amount of evidence (not necessarily proof) or just a dismissive jerk. It ends up sounding like some 8th grader who just took a logic class and now thinks they know everything about Theology, Philosophy and the Universe. (Actually a lot of modern "Philosophers" sound a lot like that too...)
[/threadjack]
Tom, you summed it up. Anyone who seriously tries to compare the FSM nonsense to religions based on centuries of rational thought are not really contributing to the debate. That being said, if NOT taken as a direct insult to Christianity, the FSM stuff is pretty funny.
ReplyDeleteThe only other point I want to make here, Devin, is that I don't think it is EVER morally acceptable to directly and deliberately kill innocent people. The possibility of casualties during wartime, medical testing, building construction, whatever, is a risk, and in each case an undesired consequence. Intent is a key issue here. The good thing that you're trying to accomplish must outweigh or at least equal the expected bad things that are likely to occur as a direct result of what you're doing. You can see the difference from abortion here, where the objective is the termination of someone's life.
And I don't think, and hope you didn't intend to imply, that what any given society is in the habit of doing has any impact on what is or is not moral. Yes, people pick up a sense of what is acceptable from what people around them are doing, but that doesn't mean they're right, and certainly is not what defines morality. I don't really take my cues from society. I hold values based on what I consider to be fundamental principles, which don't change when society wants them to (or ever).