Pro-Life or Pro-Choice: Vote [Archive] - Unofficial World of Warcraft Forums

PhatAlbert

13-04-2004, 06:00 AM

Drakeon, although the fetus has not commited any crimes and thus should not be punished the mother should still not be forced to accept the huge reponsiblity a baby brings. Now this may sound as though that is not an excuse please keep in mind that if the mother is unprepared to accept a child and to take care of that child then that child will suffer. Even if the mother is ready if the mother CANNOT support the baby via being jobless, physically incapacitated from the ****, mentally unbalanced or immature then the baby will indeed suffer.
Im Pro-Choice to a certain extent, if it is truly an unwanted child and the mother is passionate enough about this decision then she should make it in the first tri-mester, if not then I believe that the mother should definatly proceed to have the child and rear it...now what if the mother cannot fully rear the child due to the above said problems, well then in the interests of the child he/she should be handed over to social services and taken to another family who can take care of that child; as for the mother there is no remorse because the idea of abortion was taken into account firstly, thus showing her unwillingness to commit herself lovingly to the said child, and she had stalled until the first tri-mester was completed.
It may seem as though it is controversial but I think that it is the mother's choice to decide whether she indeed wants to raise a child in this world, and if she does not then it should be aborted, there is no point into bring a child into this world if the mother does not want it...and although there is social services to turn to that, I believe, is a last resort and should only be used if an instance like the one above it happening...the government cannot fix every problem that the population goes through.
Addressing the crowd that believes the fetus is alive/has thoughts/feels/whatever your reason for not wanting the fetus to die I think that until the first tri-mester or whenever the baby is actually developed to the point of movement (kicking and whatnot, not accidently "oops he bumped against me in the womb") that the fetus is not actually "alive" and it is the mother's decision fully, not the developing child

WHEW!

Drakeon

13-04-2004, 06:28 AM

Phat Albert, have you never heard of adoption? There are laws here in california that you can walk into a hospital, hand a nurse or docter a baby and walk out, no string attached. And if not that, you can do a normal adoption procedure.

The way I view it is that some say it's the mothers choice, but I think the baby (fetus) needs a voice, it concerns two persons. If you don't believe its alive fine, but with an abortion your not even giving it a chance of living.

PhatAlbert

13-04-2004, 07:17 AM

Sorry, I did not take into account the adoption program, yes that would clear up a lot of the issues that I touched on, but this is a good thing to come to a consensus on a subject that is as complicated as this. Regarding the whether the fetus is alive or not I believe that it is alive, but it cannot percieve or make rational thought yet and because of this it cannot have a voice in its existence, although that is harsh it I believe is the truth, its the same way with the life support pulling the plug issue, because the person that is incapacitated cannot undergo rational thought his or her decision must be made by the family in his or her's best interests, although that is much different becase we are dealing with a fully grown human, not a fetus that is completely incapable of rational thought and choice, now I am not informed on the capabilities of a fetus at the later stages in pregnancy, or whether it ever percieves its world until it forms into a baby that is housed in the womb, but from what I take is that its heart is beating and other motor functions are still being created as the fetus grows into a baby.
Overall what I am trying to say that is if the fetus cannot think rationally then it is not "alive" and cannot decide its fate, that is up to the family, mother, to decide for the baby.

Drakeon

13-04-2004, 07:23 AM

But if your having an abortion, your probably not deciding for the baby, because you probably don't consider it to be alive and thus your deciding for yourself and yourself alone.

AgeOfAbnegation

13-04-2004, 11:08 AM

That's a good point Drakeon.

TheDagdaMor145

13-04-2004, 01:25 PM

Overall what I am trying to say that is if the fetus cannot think rationally then it is not "alive" and cannot decide its fate, that is up to the family, mother, to decide for the baby.

:uhhuh: sorry, cant resist making saying....

viewing all the posts in the recent hot debates, i would say this could apply to many people here! :lol:

oh im just kidding

here, have a drink :drink:

AgeOfAbnegation

13-04-2004, 01:29 PM

haha - I was going to post something like that but until now resisted the urge for more sarcasm :p

Echod16

13-04-2004, 05:04 PM

i voted pro-choice until trimester

though as many people have described, it depends on what we know and with today's technologys it's likely we'll be able to tell if the infant will have a mental disorder and such at birth (in 10 years or so)

DarknessCrusader

13-04-2004, 06:06 PM

I am pro-life, except under the most extreme of circumstances... mother's health, **** of minor, or incestual **** for sure.
But, I am not going to hold anything against anybody for having an abortion. That's for them to deal with, not for me to judge.
I do have a problem with people using abortion as a means of birth control tho'... take a pill or use a condom! PLEASE!!!

p.s. Thank the Lord I wasn't aborted, as I was a miracle baby anyways.

DarknessCrusader

13-04-2004, 06:12 PM

One last thing I forgot to say... (oops)
As far as I've ever known, a human child can NOT survive by itself. Even after birth, it totally relies on the mother or seregate mother. So should abortion be available till like the age of three or what?

Also, my wife wants me to point out how bad it is for the people who can't have babies of thier own. It kills her everytime she hears of an abortion cause she wants a child and can't have one, meanwhile other people are just flushing them away.

Tetzel

14-04-2004, 12:37 AM

Also, my wife wants me to point out how bad it is for the people who can't have babies of thier own. It kills her everytime she hears of an abortion cause she wants a child and can't have one, meanwhile other people are just flushing them away.

There are plenty of places to get children who are up for adoption. My aunt and uncle got their son from Russia, actually. It's a difficult process no matter where you get the child, but the actual living and breathing kids out there who have no homes should be taken care of first. When no more of those remain anywhere, then you can start using adoption as a valid alternative to abortion.

PlagueBearer

14-04-2004, 01:26 AM

There's no pro-death choice...

:cheesy:

DarknessCrusader

14-04-2004, 04:51 AM

There are plenty of places to get children who are up for adoption. My aunt and uncle got their son from Russia, actually. It's a difficult process no matter where you get the child, but the actual living and breathing kids out there who have no homes should be taken care of first. When no more of those remain anywhere, then you can start using adoption as a valid alternative to abortion.

We have no choice but to adopt. My wife WANTS to go through the child-bearing process tho', so it's extremely rough on her. Her whole life she's been a motherly individual and has wanted nothing less than a family that was her's. Adoption is great and I would never diss the process, but unfortunately it's not the same... especially for the mother.
Plus, my sister, who is an awesome woman with a great education and job, tried adopting for years. After about the fifteenth year, she gave up and has now decided a kid in her future was not meant to be. Again, she wants to have a baby, but can't. She can get pregnant, but because of medical situations I'm not about to get into... she ALWAYS miscarriages. As far as she is concerned, she's lost several children of her own...

Ryu

14-04-2004, 05:08 AM

that sucks darkness, give them both my deepest sorrow and i wish them luck if they keep trying

Sage the Mage

14-04-2004, 05:18 AM

List of valid reasons to not have a child (to me at least):

-Not wanting the child
-Not being able to take care of the child
-High possibility of some sort of disease
-High risk of injury

The argument against this is that it denies the child a potential life. My argument against that is that we define life at an arbitrary point...hell you could say a lotta guys are mass murderers if ya know what I mean.

But, using my reasons not to want to give birth...I figure 3 months is enough time to figure those out...and thus the cutoff point right now is ifne.

In conclusion, yes.

Cale The Dark

14-04-2004, 05:42 AM

i find it disheartining that there were 11 people in these forums who are for allowing the brain to be sucked out of a baby 1 day away from birth. because thats what the "pro-choice all the way" thing says. there is a reason partial-birth abortions were banned. i saw a video of the procedure. my mother was forced to leave the room and i felt sick for the rest of the day. while i don't agree with it, i can at least see where the pro-choicers who say only the first trimester or no partial birth are coming from. those who are for any and all abortions i don't understand however. i think that they should all be sat down and forced to watch a video of a partial birth abortion. if they can stand that without flinching they then need to be taken out and shot for it is clear they aren't human.

AgeOfAbnegation

14-04-2004, 06:11 AM

Honstly Cale, I think the middle 3 options are what is foolish about this thread. Either you support it or you don't. There is no such thing as "partially dead". Silly thread.

Essex

14-04-2004, 06:51 AM

well I voted pro-choice all the way because i knew it would look weak on the part of the pro-choice people if we hemed and hawed our way around it. It's easy for you guys to vote pro-life all the way. Plus when I read the words "all the way" I read it to mean I just supported it fully, like ya know you hope your team goes "all the way"

let's not turn this into an arguement over words.

I must say Cale you are much more passionate about this topic than any other i've seen you. I do worry if the people who were invovled in this process can move past this thread and still be friends :(

Ryu

14-04-2004, 07:11 AM

Except for the mudslingers, i dont thnik anyone who debated with anyone has hard feelings, i sure dont

AgeOfAbnegation

14-04-2004, 07:14 AM

Ryu

14-04-2004, 07:16 AM

AoA, only reason i didnt want to vote all the way was because for me, all the way meant NO exceptions, but the mothers health is THE exception

AgeOfAbnegation

14-04-2004, 07:22 AM

Ryu- So now we play the game of who's worth more? That's called taking responsibility for one's life. One one hand, she could be promiscuous and want to abort out of convenience. That is deplorable. On the other hand, she may have been *****. Does that justify the killing of a young one? Alot of people say yes. Idiots. Shoud that child have to die? One is not pro-life if one holds that view. Can the mother's life be an exception? No, it cannot be. One has the obligation to do as much as possible for BOTH subjects. If a choice must be made, I would hope that the mother would have the honor enough to give the new child a chance at life. Playing games of value-roulette are a fool's errand.

Essex

14-04-2004, 07:32 AM

ok wow.. a 25 year old college grad who is working on becoming a doctor to go to third world countires and help all the starving children and aids ridden patients should just give up her life because the child she is having is going to have a complicated birth and may wind up killing them both, as heart warming as that is it's just damn right stupid to me AOA. Would you want your wife to do that for a child you haven't even met yet? You can't make those kind of judgement calls on other people's lives.

AOA you usually have good points but I'm sorry that one is just freaking crazy to me.. (and when did you start calling people who differ with you idiots?) btw probably won't reply i'm going to bed lol

AgeOfAbnegation

14-04-2004, 07:55 AM

I've always gone soft on you before Essex because I know you to be sensitive - otherwise you get mad, and we dont want that. But I really must do justice to this point.

ok wow.. a 25 year old college grad who is working on becoming a doctor to go to third world countires and help all the starving children and aids ridden patients should just give up her life because the child she is having is going to have a complicated birth and may wind up killing them both, as heart warming as that is it's just damn right stupid to me AOA.

The key here is values once again - that hurtle that keeps tripping you up. A person's value does not depend on what they do, it is an intrinsic property. I find that people who don't value themselves usually project human value onto a particular station in society. There really is no difference in value between the example of the person you gave, and the unborn child. Choices should be made for maximum life preservation, regardless of subject - It is a matter of ontology, not utility. What is at stake is VALUES. Can you not see it? Objective values.
Your argumentation, sadly representative of pop culture's utilitarian view of "the good", leads to an infinite regress. Remember that the med-school student was once in her mother's womb. To escape this cycle, one must see the bigger picture, and yes, that has to do with God.

Would you want your wife to do that for a child you haven't even met yet? You can't make those kind of judgement calls on other people's lives.

AOA you usually have good points but I'm sorry that one is just freaking crazy to me.. (and when did you start calling people who differ with you idiots?) btw probably won't reply i'm going to bed lol

Ironically, I discuss all this stuff with my present girlfriend. We've been dating for a year, and I spare her no grim hypothesis, as we try to keep life in perspective. Remarkably, she still puts up with me.
As for the idiot clause, I sometimes carry my objective critiques over to the person. My bad. Yet, a person could be described as an Idiot if their lack of good judgment is characteristic of their person. That label does not devalue a person per se, but points out something they can correct with time. I sometimes laugh at your posts, but I do try to uphold friendly terms with you and my other detractors. And no, our bashing each other on posts won't degrade your value to me, or any other for that matter. That being said, I would argue that there is - by critical use of reason - a "correct" way of thinking and judging properly. Some of the stuff I've read so far - as indicated in my post slamming lukewarm pro-lifers - I see as foolery, based on a critical evaluation using reason. That, combined with an overall stressful day, would elicit the dubious title of "idiot", so I will apologise for that. Hope I've answered your questions.

Cale The Dark

14-04-2004, 07:56 AM

Honstly Cale, I think the middle 3 options are what is foolish about this thread. Either you support it or you don't. There is no such thing as "partially dead". Silly thread.

I agree, i'm against it 100% and while i don't belive in the whole "timeframe for an acceptable abortion", at least the people who want to abort during the first trimester have at least SOMETHING behind their opinions. they look at it as squashing ants or swatting flies. i don't, you don't. however, anyone who is pro-choice "all the way" is for partial birth abortions which used to be carried out right up to term. while i consider it murder in any case, this is the murder of a fetus that is OBVIOUSLY a living sentient human being. this is what i find deplorable. there is no way they can justify this away with things like "it can't feel pain" or "it isn't self aware" because there is little to no difference between a partial birth abortion baby and a newborn. that's the point i was saying. these people are not only murderers, they must at some level realize that they are and they just don't care. their solution to overpopulation i guess.

if we allow partial birth abortions, we might as well give the mothers a 3 week "grace period" to try the baby out. not every mother can deal with a crying baby. i mean with their "frail mental state" that is implied by the fact that some "can't handle having a child". sure, 3 weeks and if you don't like it....well, their head is still soft as they still have cartilage in their skull. obviously they aren't fully developed and therefore, aren't human beings so who cares right? the needle and vacuum pump is still ready.

~oh and essex. surely you must admit that there ARE idiots on these forums. they aren't everyone who disagrees with me, but they are there. on both sides. sometimes simply recognizing that fact isn't a flame. at least, not to me.

~~i know you were talking to AoA...but i couldn't stop myself.

AgeOfAbnegation

14-04-2004, 08:04 AM

Cale, what a strange statement:

"however, anyone who is pro-choice "all the way" is for partial birth abortions which used to be carried out right up to term."

Where did that come from?

SaroDarksbane

14-04-2004, 10:31 AM

Essex - it seems that for some people it wasn't at all easy to vote pro-life "all the way". This is what i found silly - as if killing someone with lethal injection was any different than an eletric chair - or in this case - using a vacuum cleaner to suck out their brains. Then people bring up this bull$hit about the "facts" they've read in a scientific periodical informing them that human life begins somewhere "in between" conception and early embrionic development. idiocy. Then some "pro-lifers" throw up their hands, claiming to "be realistic" in a war that seems to have no hope - taking what they can get. If you're giving an inch, you're watering down what's truly at stake. Halfa$$ed pro-lifers are pro-choice advocates in disguise.
So if tommorow a bill was introduced into congress that would prohibit abortions except in cases of ****, you would vote against it because it didn't go "all the way"? I'm as for going "all the way" as you are, but at this point I'll take what I can get to stop the bulk of the slaughter. As I said before, **** is often used as an excuse to allow any abortion, so simply conceding the point for now would save lives in the long run, I think.

Does that make sense? :confused:

EDIT:

And on an unrelated topic, why are AoA and his posts so secksy? ^_^

AgeOfAbnegation

14-04-2004, 10:50 AM

Saro - of course, it stands to reason that one would vote in favor of any assistance that popped up in the system. However, I spoke of one's mentality and outlook. If one believes that abortion should be relinquished in any and all cases, than it's just that. Legalities do not matter. The poll above us leaves room for people who desire an end to abortion, but only in certain cases. This isn't about "saving lives in the long run". It's a radical, agressive stance "here and now", so that the true importance of the issue is relayed. When you hit a punching bag, do you aim for just the bag, or do you aim for a foot past it? You're supposed to set the target behind the bag, so that your punch hits with all the more force. That's what I'm talking about here. If you give an inch, the culture of death will take it a mile.

More importantly, to say that you're willing to bend on a rule is to say that you do not fully understand what's truly at stake in the matter. I've preached ontology and values to Essex, as it's the only way to rise above an otherwise pointless discussion. One cannot come up with a humanistic reason why abortion should be stopped - indeed, if humanism were the true path (which is impossible), I would preach pro choice all the way. As such, the underpinnings of this topic have far-reaching repercussions. More subtly, I am pro-choice: I am pro God's choice for calling people into being in the first place. Without getting into the discussion of God and evil, we have to deal with the fundamental tenet that the value of existence must first be addressed, and that the legal structures we have - while giving order to society - may or may not be indicative of the laws and values of the cosmos. We've come a long way in this, but in truth, we're still very much in the dark ages.

SaroDarksbane

14-04-2004, 11:05 AM

If you give an inch, the culture of death will take it a mile.
But in our society, the culture of death has already taken a mile, and some people are fighting to get it back down to an inch.

Maybe we're arguing the same thing, or at least not disagreeing . . . :scratch:

AgeOfAbnegation

14-04-2004, 11:23 AM

some people are fighting to get it back down to an inch.

Don't fight to get it down to an inch, fight to have it obliterated.

DarknessCrusader

14-04-2004, 04:31 PM

Just one more statement from an partial pro-life idiot...
I don't have any desire to vote on an anti-abortion bill. The thought going through my mind is that I'm not having (being partnered with) an abortion. Unless my wife's life is at stake, that baby will be ours.
And yes, as much as we both want a child, and as much as she might disagree with me, MY WIFE COMES FIRST. Always.

Essex

14-04-2004, 05:16 PM

I've always gone soft on you before Essex because I know you to be sensitive - otherwise you get mad, and we dont want that. But I really must do justice to this point.
The key here is values once again - that hurtle that keeps tripping you up. A person's value does not depend on what they do, it is an intrinsic property. I find that people who don't value themselves usually project human value onto a particular station in society. There really is no difference in value between the example of the person you gave, and the unborn child. Choices should be made for maximum life preservation, regardless of subject - It is a matter of ontology, not utility. What is at stake is VALUES. Can you not see it? Objective values.
Your argumentation, sadly representative of pop culture's utilitarian view of "the good", leads to an infinite regress. Remember that the med-school student was once in her mother's womb. To escape this cycle, one must see the bigger picture, and yes, that has to do with God.
Ironically, I discuss all this stuff with my present girlfriend. We've been dating for a year, and I spare her no grim hypothesis, as we try to keep life in perspective. Remarkably, she still puts up with me.
As for the idiot clause, I sometimes carry my objective critiques over to the person. My bad. Yet, a person could be described as an Idiot if their lack of good judgment is characteristic of their person. That label does not devalue a person per se, but points out something they can correct with time. I sometimes laugh at your posts, but I do try to uphold friendly terms with you and my other detractors. And no, our bashing each other on posts won't degrade your value to me, or any other for that matter. That being said, I would argue that there is - by critical use of reason - a "correct" way of thinking and judging properly. Some of the stuff I've read so far - as indicated in my post slamming lukewarm pro-lifers - I see as foolery, based on a critical evaluation using reason. That, combined with an overall stressful day, would elicit the dubious title of "idiot", so I will apologise for that. Hope I've answered your questions.

First of all I don't want anyone to feel they have to hold their tongue around me, the only time I've ever really gotten upset on one of these is when it was the g.ay marragie or g.ay rights debates because that directly influences me (selfish I know) anything else we talk about I generally won't be as passionate about.

I don't mind you calling people and idiot (and Cale I'll agree there are tons on this fourm and all over the world, hell I'm one) it just seemed odd placed for you thats all.

I sure as hell hope your against the death penalty because if your not then some of the things you have said are some what hypocritical. This value for life while very high minded of you can not be that black and white in any case. I just don't get the idea of wanting a mother to die for her child that isn't even born yet. Especially if they realize early on before the second trimester that the birth would probably kill her. I don't know it just seems beyond my scope of reality which is probably limited.

To be honest your girlfriend is probably banking on the fact that if you all have a child it will be a perfect birth, but I still wonder in the heat of the moment if your values might not be shaken, in fact I would hope you would doubt, because if you don't then you are doing the exact thing you hate (murder of a life) to someone else (the mother). Anyway I hope to God that you are never faced with that situation.

It just still boogles my mind that's all.

Ryu

14-04-2004, 06:28 PM

Erm Essex, i thought you were a girl? Nothing against *** people, just want to make sure I had it right

AoA, i meant, if the baby is going to kill the mom, and probably die itself, then the mothers life should be saved, in turn ending the babies life although that isnt the reason to do it.

Essex

14-04-2004, 06:41 PM

LOL oh that's funny. I need to get a manly man avatar just so that won't happen again.

No i'm a man, just well not a very macho one I suppose you could say.
My mother always said she wanted to have a girl, turns out my sister turned out to be really butch (thought strangely enough straight) and I turned into what I did.. so she got her wish :)

Ryu

14-04-2004, 07:58 PM

Heh im not that macho either, so that doesnt mean much
i took some online test, same site as a buncha tests, and it said i was a girl -_-

Cale The Dark

14-04-2004, 08:22 PM

Cale, what a strange statement:

"however, anyone who is pro-choice "all the way" is for partial birth abortions which used to be carried out right up to term."

Where did that come from?

i was just talking about "pro-choice all the way" in the context of this poll. i mean, there was a choice that specifically said no partial birth abortions, yet the majority of people who are pro choice didn't choose this option. that is what i was talking about. so far i haven't heard a single person argue in favor of partial birth, yet the majority of pro-choicers are for it it seems. maybe they just didn't think. anyhow, this is the point where i would go into a rant about the murderers, but i've already done that once on this page so i'll stop.

Feoh

14-04-2004, 09:02 PM

Pro choice here.. a womans body is her own to do with as she pleases, I mean who are the pro life people to say that she cant do this or that? anyway life dont begin until your atleast 18 years old anyhow! and if someone is *****? how can one console that? just off the creature because it wont be human, and if someone is pregnant with someone in the family? the creature coming out wont be even remotly human just a degenerate monster that should not be allowed to live, as would the father. im also pro-excecution and a misantrop.. but does that count'?

I hate the human race.. its not personal.. its political :cheesy:

To deny a human its basic right of its own body.. and what that human can do with it.. it takes people to the dark ages.. or worse.. hitler

xXxDraGoNxXx1123

14-04-2004, 09:13 PM

WoW, I agree with your reasons for abortion, but not the statements you supplied with them.

1) anyway life dont begin until your atleast 18 years old anyhow!

2) and if someone is *****? how can one console that? just off the creature because it wont be human,

3)and if someone is pregnant with someone in the family? the creature coming out wont be even remotly human just a degenerate monster that should not be allowed to live, as would the father. im also pro-excecution and a misantrop.. but does that count'?

1) Umm... you never had the priviledge of watching a child grow up have you? Life begins the very least right at the second you are born, THAT is when you begin living your life.

2 + 3) Completely wrong. It isn't a damn creature, it is a normal baby. Being ***** does not make the baby magically come up deformed in some way. A baby born of **** is exactly like a baby born of consentual sex. In incest, there is a small chance at some physical deformaties, but that is a small chance.

Cale The Dark

14-04-2004, 10:28 PM

Scytale

14-04-2004, 10:34 PM

ganz deutsch habe ich erlernt, daß ich vom rammstein erlernt habe

Scytale

14-04-2004, 10:36 PM

sorry i just wanted to see my signature

Essex

14-04-2004, 10:45 PM

you have lerned german, and you learned it from Rammstien? is that what you were saying?

I always get a kick out of your avatar lol.

and yeah that guy set the pro-choice movement back about 10 years (not you scytale the one Cale was talking about)

BhsCrew

14-04-2004, 11:29 PM

anyway life dont begin until your atleast 18 years old anyhow!

At one time I was seventeen and I could be wrong but I am pretty sure that I distinctly remember being alive. 18 is just an arbitrary number that decides in this country when you gain full rights as an adult. I can assure you though that nothing magical happened on my 18th birthday that changed me from an inanimate object into a living human being.

Were you joking? I can't imagine that you believe that statement. Don't you remeber back to before your 18th birthday? Were you alive?

Sage the Mage

15-04-2004, 12:23 AM

The key here is values once again - that hurtle that keeps tripping you up. A person's value does not depend on what they do, it is an intrinsic property.

Now for the bombardment of questions!

First: do you believe that animals have intrinsic value as well?
If so, then do you think its ok to kill animals?
If so, then why should we allow the killing of animals but not abortion?

If you don't believe animals have intrinsic value, then why not?
Why can animals not have any intrinsic value, but a fetus can?

How much wood can a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

BhsCrew

15-04-2004, 12:30 AM

Now for the bombardment of questions!
How much wood can a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

277 board ft. of lumber.

AgeOfAbnegation

15-04-2004, 12:34 AM

I sure as hell hope your against the death penalty because if your not then some of the things you have said are some what hypocritical. This value for life while very high minded of you can not be that black and white in any case.

That's correct Essex, I am indeed against the death penalty.

I just don't get the idea of wanting a mother to die for her child that isn't even born yet. Especially if they realize early on before the second trimester that the birth would probably kill her. I don't know it just seems beyond my scope of reality which is probably limited.

I did mention that the goal is to try and save both subjects in that situation. I simply mentioned that the value of both subjects are equal, and that ontological considerations outweighs circumstantial nuances.

To be honest your girlfriend is probably banking on the fact that if you all have a child it will be a perfect birth, but I still wonder in the heat of the moment if your values might not be shaken, in fact I would hope you would doubt, because if you don't then you are doing the exact thing you hate (murder of a life) to someone else (the mother). Anyway I hope to God that you are never faced with that situation.

It just still boogles my mind that's all.

It is true that what I say can sometimes be a hard pill to swallow. Yet, we consider any and all possibilities. Values that can be "shaken" are not objective values, they are subjective. These values can be discovered in reality, and we can start a new thread on that if you so desire. One's core understanding of value and metaphysics will give flavor to any and all positions of particular nature, such as this.

AgeOfAbnegation

15-04-2004, 12:46 AM

Now for the bombardment of questions!

First: do you believe that animals have intrinsic value as well?
If so, then do you think its ok to kill animals?
If so, then why should we allow the killing of animals but not abortion?

If you don't believe animals have intrinsic value, then why not?
Why can animals not have any intrinsic value, but a fetus can?

How much wood can a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

Fire away.

You have failed to make a distinction between "degrees of value". I'll offer you the notion that there is a hierarchy of value in the cosmos. This is demonstrated by the form and essence of a given thing. This not only includes human beings, but also animals, plants, and the 4 emelents. The value increases in a given thing in regard to its degree of "perfection" of existence. As such, humans rank above animals in this order. Also, there is a degree of perfection and actualization within the animal kingdom. Animals are to be treated in accord with their "destiny" on earth, and should be treated with kindness. In short, we are to demonstrate good stewardship in our relationship with our environment, with which we are intrinsically linked.

So yes, animals have intrinsic value, like all the aforementioned modes of existence. What is salient here is the degree of worth and value that is objectively ascribed to a given thing or life form. Your generalization of a the concept of value betrays the problematic you present.

AgeOfAbnegation

15-04-2004, 12:57 AM

Life begins the very least right at the second you are born, THAT is when you begin living your life.

First it was posited by Feoh that life began at 18 :p lol.. That doesn't even deserve a resoponse. Dragon correced this thankfully. Yet, the timeline still must be pushed back. Life is understood here in terms of "living your life", interacting with the environment, etc. Our senses may be engaged more fully when we exit the womb, but believe me, we've still got a living being before the water breaks. Human life begins at conception.

xXxDraGoNxXx1123

15-04-2004, 01:25 AM

First it was posited by Feoh that life began at 18 :p lol.. That doesn't even deserve a resoponse. Dragon correced this thankfully. Yet, the timeline still must be pushed back. Life is understood here in terms of "living your life", interacting with the environment, etc. Our senses may be engaged more fully when we exit the womb, but believe me, we've still got a living being before the water breaks. Human life begins at conception.

I didn't say that it began right at birth. I knew everyone seems to have differing views here so I said "Life begins the very least right at the second you are born" meaning regardless what your views on the baby are, you have to at least concede once it is born, it is alive.

I'm a sneaky, sneaky guy. :lol:

(in other words, I am still attempting to avoid the direct discussion here)

Ryu

15-04-2004, 02:11 AM

AoA hit my response right on the head, so I dont have to make it
And no one here, hopefully, wants the mom to die for the baby, if one must be sacrificed, ti will be the baby most of the time, but not in an active killing, they'll try to save both but baby must die sometimes to save mother

Sage the Mage

15-04-2004, 02:32 AM

Your generalization of a the concept of value betrays the problematic you present.

I did not generalize. I asked, if animals have value, then is it ok to kill them? Your answer was yes, because the value is less than that of a human.

Now my question is, Why is abortion different? What gives it more value?

AgeOfAbnegation

15-04-2004, 02:54 AM

I did not generalize. I asked, if animals have value, then is it ok to kill them? Your answer was yes, because the value is less than that of a human.

Now my question is, Why is abortion different? What gives it more value?

I believe I had answered that question. Why must I repeat myself? I mentioned that the value of a human being is indeed higher than that of brute animals. Then I qualified that by citing the notion of greater perfection in being. We are not equal to animals, yet many people choose to live, and think, like animals. Ironically, brute animals do not think - they have instinct and conditioned memory whuch is ordered to their particular state in life. Human beings have reason, and are capable of radical choice. It may help if you read my post before hitting the reply button.

For those of you who want to press me on how you believe animals are the same as humans, I would direct you to read some texts on philosophical anthropology, and to stop living like animals, which is simply a life of reaction to base desire and need. After all, we become what we do.

To expand more on the idea of "values", it cannot be understood without reference to love. The "law of love" is written on the human heart, as it's the reason why we perform any action. Even abortion is a reaction to a value of love, in that it seeks to smooth over a problematic circumstance - it thus serves the notion of narcissistic love, or self-love. This is very differernt than a healthy notion of "love of self", which sees our intrinsic value. Objective values coincide with objective laws that govern the universe. As Max Scheler cites, "our hearts mirror the cosmos". All things and concepts exist in an ultimate framework, as do values - since love is the universal mover of all things. Indeed, we value things in an order in everyday life - for example, we value certain people over others, and certain things over others. This is simply indicitive of the universal ranking. The multiplicity in ranking occurs as a resut of choosing an ultimate good, from which all other values flow. For example - if you love your girlfried/boyfriend more than anything else, your outlook on other things will follow to serve that platform. The key here is to have one's "ultimate value" ordered to the ultimate "objective value", or principle - that of the creator. Then and only then, will this topic be easily dealt with.

BhsCrew

15-04-2004, 03:09 AM

I believe I had answered that question. Why must I repeat myself? I mentioned that the value of a human being is indeed higher than that of brute animals. Then I qualified that by citing the notion of greater perfection in being. We are not equal to animals, yet many people choose to live, and think, like animals. Ironically, brute animals do not think - they have instinct and conditioned memory whuch is ordered to their particular state in life. Human beings have reason, and are capable of radical choice. It may help if you read my post before hitting the reply button.

For those of you who want to press me on how you believe animals are the same as humans, I would direct you to read some texts on philosophical anthropology, and to stop living like animals, which is simply a life of reaction to base desire and need. After all, we become what we do.

So if I understand your theory. Even though a fetus doesn't have reason and isn't capable of radical choice, the fact that it will eventually turn into a human with those things gives it the same value as an adult?

AgeOfAbnegation

15-04-2004, 03:14 AM

Bhs - almost. Yet, we have to go deeper than that. The value doesn't come in with the development into a greater being - that's a utilitarian view. Rather, the value is present even in the delicacy of the developing being. It's a "here and now" thing. Savvy?

BhsCrew

15-04-2004, 03:24 AM

AgeOfAbnegation

15-04-2004, 03:41 AM

Yeah. Now I understand. I still don't agree, but I think I finally understand. :)

If you understand, how could you disagree? What is it that you find so problematic?

BhsCrew

15-04-2004, 04:31 AM

If you understand, how could you disagree? What is it that you find so problematic?

Heh. I figured you'd say that. :)
What I meant was that I understand the facts of your theory. Basicially what it comes down to is that I have a list of values that makes me happy. I do not see the advantage of changing my list to match a list from some higher power that may or may not be accurate.

It is your belief that there is one set of objective laws that governs the universe. That everything has one intrinsic value set down by God. You assume that disagreement with that set of values is caused by ignorance and that if we learned enough information we would have to agree. (I am going off of what you said I'm not trying to attribute anything to you that isn't true.)

I belief that there is no higher power or set of intrinsic values. I see existance as something that happens without reason. It is governed by a set of phyisical laws but I see no purpose in them. With no word of god to govern my actions, I am free to live my life how I choose with my goal to be as happy as possible in the long run.

It is my belief that it is to my advantage to be nice to others and tell the truth because it nets me many friends and people who help me and increase my happiness. A person who is cruel and mean will generially come up against an obsticle at some point in his life that he can't cross without help and there will be no one to help him cross it. I live what I consider a good life and so far I am achieving my goal. I am happy and it looks like I will continue to be happy throughout my life as long as I continue to make good decisions.

Niether of us is going to absolutely know who is right until we die, and by that time there is nothing we can do to change our lives. I am willing to take the gamble that the world is subjective, each man is free to make his own choices, and that there is no guiding force that holds the right answers to those choices.

I wish you luck in your search for the one truth, and I will continue to make choices based on my desire for long term happiness. We both live our lives based on what we think is right. You think you have the right way on your side, and I think that my side is one of many right ways, so we will never settle this here.

It was nice hearing your viewpoint as it is obviously well thought out and you have taken much care to refine it. I got the names of a few books to add to my reading list, and I learned some more about human nature just from reading all the discussions, so I am happy. :)

AgeOfAbnegation

15-04-2004, 05:25 AM

Heh. I figured you'd say that. :)
What I meant was that I understand the facts of your theory. Basicially what it comes down to is that I have a list of values that makes me happy. I do not see the advantage of changing my list to match a list from some higher power that may or may not be accurate.

Looks like you don't grasp the seriousness of this enough to directly deal with this. I'm sorry Bhs, but that is one of the most foolish positions I've heard. Is that all that matters? Having a system that makes you happy? Foolery. If I were you, I'd start taking this very seriously. If there is no God, than it means nothing. However, if there is one, it means everything. You would rebel against an infinite being in favor of the illusion you dwell in? Surely you'd have enough inclination to start seriously seeking with the tools you do posess. Your position on this is reprehensible.

It is your belief that there is one set of objective laws that governs the universe. That everything has one intrinsic value set down by God. You assume that disagreement with that set of values is caused by ignorance and that if we learned enough information we would have to agree. (I am going off of what you said I'm not trying to attribute anything to you that isn't true.)

In truth, there is only one true thinking. There is only one true cosmos. There is only one true nature. After years of studying metaphysics and philosophy through the ages, this is inherently clear, there can be no other way. All ages speak this truth, even this one by its denial. Do you have your own personal sun and moon? Get real. Reason is universal for all. The only mutable aspect through this is the will. The epitome of arrogance is to stay locked in a subjective cosmology of self and believe what you want, regardless of what reality shows us. Sadly, I'd say 90% of posters on this site do the same thing. I used to think like that as well, until I got serious about seeking this out. Gravity affects everyone the same on earth - and I hope you get serious about this journey. Otherwise, your life will consist in only in the subjective meaning you create for it - rendering it meaningless. I welcome subsequent posts from the majority of you who see this as troubling.

I belief that there is no higher power or set of intrinsic values. I see existance as something that happens without reason. It is governed by a set of phyisical laws but I see no purpose in them. With no word of god to govern my actions, I am free to live my life how I choose with my goal to be as happy as possible in the long run.

It's your will, but you live a lie. Does this seem arrogant? You may reject a framework, but you still exist in one. As long as you exist in space and time, you exist in a structure. Need it make sense to you? It will make sense if you get off your a$$ and begin the journey. At least try to seek truth. I've already proven to you on the other thread that skepticism was futile - an argument to which you gave assent. Then you simply shrugged your shoulders.

It is my belief that it is to my advantage to be nice to others and tell the truth because it nets me many friends and people who help me and increase my happiness. A person who is cruel and mean will generially come up against an obsticle at some point in his life that he can't cross without help and there will be no one to help him cross it. I live what I consider a good life and so far I am achieving my goal. I am happy and it looks like I will continue to be happy throughout my life as long as I continue to make good decisions.

I think you agreed that you were ok with simply floating by in life. It's your call. But what you do in life affects others. In this case, we're talking about abortion. All humanity exists as a whole - what one does affects others. The choices you make may cost others their lives, or, in another example, hinder them from reaching their "goals", which you value in your own life.

Niether of us is going to absolutely know who is right until we die, and by that time there is nothing we can do to change our lives. I am willing to take the gamble that the world is subjective, each man is free to make his own choices, and that there is no guiding force that holds the right answers to those choices.

If that is your wish then, why ask questions on these heavy topics? Is it to remain secure in nihilism? Will you read the texts I offered you to shield yourself from truth? Cut and paste journalism. In truth, you DO care, and your questioning is evidence of a reaction to a person's nature to desire transcendence and wholeness. The answer is there, you need only "desire" it.

I wish you luck in your search for the one truth, and I will continue to make choices based on my desire for long term happiness. We both live our lives based on what we think is right. You think you have the right way on your side, and I think that my side is one of many right ways, so we will never settle this here.

I'll tell you this much Bhs, don't walk away from this. I hope that if and when you do read those texts, something will grip you. It's not about "my theory", or "your theory", its about discovery. It's within your grasp. Nobody has the monopoly on truth, but it is for the taking if we desire it.

It was nice hearing your viewpoint as it is obviously well thought out and you have taken much care to refine it. I got the names of a few books to add to my reading list, and I learned some more about human nature just from reading all the discussions, so I am happy. :)

In closing, I'll again say that I do not own my viewpoint per se - it's the conclusion anyone will come to if they follow the laws of reason to its full extent. One last text I'll offer you is by Ernst Cassirer, who, ironically, lived in the 20th century. His text is called "the philosophy of the enlightenment". That's a good survey text. Anyway, I hope you find out sometime before you die that God does love you, and there is such a thing as objectivity and purpose.

Sage the Mage

15-04-2004, 07:21 AM

Yes this stuff is going to be a little unordered.

If you understand, how could you disagree? What is it that you find so problematic?

Bad logic. I'm right, so unless you think I'm right, you're wrong!

Next thing:

As Max Scheler cites, "our hearts mirror the cosmos". All things and concepts exist in an ultimate framework, as do values - since love is the universal mover of all things. Indeed, we value things in an order in everyday life - for example, we value certain people over others, and certain things over others. This is simply indicitive of the universal ranking.

Interpreting this as I read it...In the early 1900s in the US whites valued other whites over blacks. This is simply indicitvie of whites being ranked higher than blacks in the universe this logic is saying, since whites are valued more than blacks. You see a problem with this, don't you? Its a problem of perception, not everyone sees the same thing.

The multiplicity in ranking occurs as a resut of choosing an ultimate good, from which all other values flow. For example - if you love your girlfried/boyfriend more than anything else, your outlook on other things will follow to serve that platform. The key here is to have one's "ultimate value" ordered to the ultimate "objective value", or principle - that of the creator. Then and only then, will this topic be easily dealt with.

What you are forcing us to do here is to except the ultimate value as to that of a creator. This, of course, can not be accepted with out a very good reason.

It's your will, but you live a lie. Does this seem arrogant? You may reject a framework, but you still exist in one. As long as you exist in space and time, you exist in a structure. Need it make sense to you? It will make sense if you get off your a$$ and begin the journey. At least try to seek truth. I've already proven to you on the other thread that skepticism was futile - an argument to which you gave assent. Then you simply shrugged your shoulders.

I'll take this as your evidence of a creator, unless you can provide better, but this can be debated endlessly, and yes it is hard to not justify a first cause. The problem is defining what that cause is.

Then I qualified that by citing the notion of greater perfection in being. We are not equal to animals, yet many people choose to live, and think, like animals. Ironically, brute animals do not think - they have instinct and conditioned memory whuch is ordered to their particular state in life. Human beings have reason, and are capable of radical choice. It may help if you read my post before hitting the reply button.

For those of you who want to press me on how you believe animals are the same as humans, I would direct you to read some texts on philosophical anthropology, and to stop living like animals, which is simply a life of reaction to base desire and need. After all, we become what we do.

If your life is not based on desires and needs, then what is it based on?

AgeOfAbnegation

15-04-2004, 07:39 AM

Bad logic. I'm right, so unless you think I'm right, you're wrong!

It's easy to take that out of context isnt it? I also qualified that later on in the post by stating that the position was not mine per se, but one that is discovered by use of speculative reason - one that can be reached by anyone using that tool. It does follow that if one employs the correct procedure, one will elicit a guaranteed result. 2+2 = 4 means the same for everyone last time I checked. Posts like that make you out to be the fool, not me.

Interpreting this as I read it...In the early 1900s in the US whites valued other whites over blacks. This is simply indicitvie of whites being ranked higher than blacks in the universe this logic is saying, since whites are valued more than blacks. You see a problem with this, don't you? Its a problem of perception, not everyone sees the same thing.

If you did'nt say "interpreting as I read it", there would have been little hope for that. However, I will further state that my example of a particular pointed to a universal maxim. Correct judgment in perception is a cynch when one's outlook conforms to natural law. If you want to take Bhs's position of believing what he wants, expect a different result. All judgment flows from one's highest value, as I mentioned before.

What you are forcing us to do here is to except the ultimate value as to that of a creator. This, of course, can not be accepted with out a very good reason.

I'm not "forcing" you to do anything. As I told Bhs before, the reason you feel forced is because you are resisting the objectivity and weight of the argument I present, and that goes against your value system. Your system would fall apart if God usurped your throne. Give me your msn, and I'll discuss the existence of God no problem, or create another thread.

I'll take this as your evidence of a creator, unless you can provide better, but this can be debated endlessly, and yes it is hard to not justify a first cause. The problem is defining what that cause is.

The term seems simple enough to me. Yet, if we can't agree on language for a debate, we'll either be beating ourselves over the head, or running in opposite directions. Try thinking of it in terms of "movement".

If your life is not based on desires and needs, then what is it based on?

Well you got this part right at least. Life is indeed about desires and needs. The key is how they are satiated. I would offer the term "ordered desires" as the true path. I'll return tommorow sometime. Ciao.

Eiger

15-04-2004, 08:18 PM

Hehe - I can't believe this has gotten 60 votes. Most I've seen in a poll I think. Have fun! Don't beat each other up too bad....

BhsCrew

15-04-2004, 08:42 PM

In closing, I'll again say that I do not own my viewpoint per se - it's the conclusion anyone will come to if they follow the laws of reason to its full extent. One last text I'll offer you is by Ernst Cassirer, who, ironically, lived in the 20th century. His text is called "the philosophy of the enlightenment". That's a good survey text. Anyway, I hope you find out sometime before you die that God does love you, and there is such a thing as objectivity and purpose.

I do take this very seriously and my viewpoint is something I have come to after many years of reading and discussion. You hope that sometime before I die I find out that God does love me, and there is such a thing as objectivity and purpose.

I hope that you find out before you die that there are many truths and that the world can still be a good place if everyone doesn't follow the same set of values that you do. I'll add the text to my list and I do plan on reading all of them. As to why I discuss these things, I discuss to learn. You always assume that if don't seek the same truth you do then I must not be serious in my search. I assume that if you're only looking for one truth then your searth is far too narrow.

I'm going to go race. See you all monday.

AgeOfAbnegation

16-04-2004, 01:40 AM

I hope that you find out before you die that there are many truths and that the world can still be a good place if everyone doesn't follow the same set of values that you do.

There are indeed many truths, but one universal underpinning of the cosmos, or "ultimate truth". Keep in mind our discussion on the other thread about absolutist positions - in which you admitted after several posts. As for the world, it is objectively a "good place", as it has its own intrinsic value. Yet, the challenge is indeed in the discovery of objective values, as we can uncover objective laws of the universe such as gravity, etc.

You always assume that if don't seek the same truth you do then I must not be serious in my search. I assume that if you're only looking for one truth then your searth is far too narrow.

Please do not assume. We can never know all knowledge in reality, that is futility. Yet, we can determine universal laws that underpin and guide these forces, which is the goal of our discourse.

BhsCrew

16-04-2004, 03:38 AM

There are indeed many truths, but one universal underpinning of the cosmos, or "ultimate truth". Keep in mind our discussion on the other thread about absolutist positions - in which you admitted after several posts. As for the world, it is objectively a "good place", as it has its own intrinsic value. Yet, the challenge is indeed in the discovery of objective values, as we can uncover objective laws of the universe such as gravity, etc.
.

All values that I know of are subjective. The world has value to us because we live on it, and without it we couldn't exist. It would have no value to some form of life on another planet half way accross the universe.

Gravity exists as a law of physics. It determines how stuff moves in the world, but it has nothing to do with values. Gravity is just a word we made up to describe the process that makes an object fall to the ground when I drop it.

Sage the Mage

16-04-2004, 05:08 AM

It's easy to take that out of context isnt it? I also qualified that later on in the post by stating that the position was not mine per se, but one that is discovered by use of speculative reason - one that can be reached by anyone using that tool. It does follow that if one employs the correct procedure, one will elicit a guaranteed result. 2+2 = 4 means the same for everyone last time I checked.

Math is based on proofs, which can be rejected if a premise is thought to be false. Just like your argument here, it can be rejected if one believes a premise to be false.

If you did'nt say "interpreting as I read it", there would have been little hope for that. However, I will further state that my example of a particular pointed to a universal maxim. Correct judgment in perception is a cynch when one's outlook conforms to natural law. If you want to take Bhs's position of believing what he wants, expect a different result. All judgment flows from one's highest value, as I mentioned before.

You still aren't taking perception into account here. What makes one perception true and another false? That they conform to natural law? What if one follows what they percieve to be the natural law? You would say that their perception is correct. But what if those percieved natural laws are incorrect? Basically the problem here being, what makes one's percieved set of natural laws more correct?

I'm not "forcing" you to do anything. As I told Bhs before, the reason you feel forced is because you are resisting the objectivity and weight of the argument I present, and that goes against your value system.

But...your argument isn't objective :) Here's why:

Value is measured in closeness to perfection.
Perfection is defined as that of closeness to being the creator.
A creator is a sentinet being.
A creator exists.
Humans are capable of rational thought and animals are not.

So,
Humans have a higher value than animals.

Thus, in order to accept your argument, you are forcing us to accept the existence of a creator, and that that creator is a sentinent being.

You go on to mention that it is more of a mover, but my argument still remains the same, that a mover does not imply a being.

AgeOfAbnegation

16-04-2004, 08:28 AM

All values that I know of are subjective. The world has value to us because we live on it, and without it we couldn't exist. It would have no value to some form of life on another planet half way accross the universe.

Gravity exists as a law of physics. It determines how stuff moves in the world, but it has nothing to do with values. Gravity is just a word we made up to describe the process that makes an object fall to the ground when I drop it.

I wish I had more energy to reply to posts tonite.. The Text by Scheler will help with this point. You see clearly enough the objectivity of physical and temporal laws, but still haven't grasped laws of human nature. I'd ask you to consider the point that all volition is granted expression by desire. Start there.

AgeOfAbnegation

16-04-2004, 08:40 AM

Math is based on proofs, which can be rejected if a premise is thought to be false. Just like your argument here, it can be rejected if one believes a premise to be false.

Argument discarded. A "false premise" in math is already indicitive of an objective law at work which states these boundaries. Belief is irrelevant.

You still aren't taking perception into account here. What makes one perception true and another false? That they conform to natural law? What if one follows what they percieve to be the natural law? You would say that their perception is correct. But what if those percieved natural laws are incorrect? Basically the problem here being, what makes one's percieved set of natural laws more correct?

Perception does not have to do with truth and falsehood - it is merely perception. You speak of the "understanding", which is the ordering of sense data. THis ordering is determined by values. Indeed, you'd be much more likely to notice a buxom blonde in a mall than another boi. Focus does determine one's reality - but focus depends on ones position to objective values.

But...your argument isn't objective :) Here's why:

Value is measured in closeness to perfection.
Perfection is defined as that of closeness to being the creator.
A creator is a sentinet being.
A creator exists.
Humans are capable of rational thought and animals are not.

So,
Humans have a higher value than animals.

Thus, in order to accept your argument, you are forcing us to accept the existence of a creator, and that that creator is a sentinent being.

What are we to do then, argue without a premise? I have offered many times why these tenets are indeed easily demonstable in reality. Really Sage, I find your posts taxing. I wonder if you have read my posts with any kind of speculation at all. At least Bhs has a modicum of intellectual honesty in saying that he at least doesn't like the position I offer.

You go on to mention that it is more of a mover, but my argument still remains the same, that a mover does not imply a being.

LOL - than what else could it imply? I would call God the "prime mover". A thing can be moved by another thing, but a thing per se as in inanimate element cannot begin movement from a state of stasis. Further, movement is not eternal in its history. If that were the case - motion as such would not be distinguishible. Motion can only be distinguished and defined from its oppostite - inertia. Really Sage, you're out of your league.

Sage the Mage

16-04-2004, 09:44 PM

First, please refrain from attempting to insult me :)

What are we to do then, argue without a premise? I have offered many times why these tenets are indeed easily demonstable in reality. Really Sage, I find your posts taxing. I wonder if you have read my posts with any kind of speculation at all. At least Bhs has a modicum of intellectual honesty in saying that he at least doesn't like the position I offer.

I am not asking you to argue without a premise, that's just silly. I just request you attempt to prove those premises to be true, which if I feel an objection can be made, then I will argue against.

So, lets look at the thing I'm making an objection to one more time.

"The creator is a sentinet being."

This of course implicates the premise that there exists a creator, which you argue for via the prime mover arugment:

than what else could it imply? I would call God the "prime mover". A thing can be moved by another thing, but a thing per se as in inanimate element cannot begin movement from a state of stasis. Further, movement is not eternal in its history. If that were the case - motion as such would not be distinguishible. Motion can only be distinguished and defined from its oppostite - inertia. Really Sage, you're out of your league.

When I say it does not have to be a being, it could be a force, now couldn't it?

This also argument fails to argue that there cannot be multiple first movers, as well. This poses a problem for the argument you are using, now doesn't it? Which creator is the most perfect? Can there be multiple perfections?

Nor does there have to be a first at all, does there?
Much like there is no first number or a first point on a circle.

And...we haven't even gotten to the sentinent being part :)

AgeOfAbnegation

16-04-2004, 10:09 PM

So, lets look at the thing I'm making an objection to one more time.
"The creator is a sentinet being."

Your first objective would be to come to terms on the language we could use to describe God. The term "sentient being" still has its limits. Once we move up the hierarchy of beings, our language loses its effectiveness.

This of course implicates the premise that there exists a creator, which you argue for via the prime mover arugment:

When I say it does not have to be a being, it could be a force, now couldn't it?

Like in star wars? lol.. I insulted you last thread becuase you cannot read. You seem to just bypass the essential notions in my text. Keep doing that and I'm done with you. I specifically mentioned in my last post WHY the prime mover must be at least "sentient" (but not limited to that term), in that there must be a beginning to all forces, movements, and purposes. A force per se is a medium of action, and it in itself must have a source or beginning. Forces are linked to the realm of time and space, in that they are measured as such. If there be a creator, it must not be subject to time and space or its characteristics. Further, our world easily points to an intelligent designer. If you can't see that, you've been smoking too much pot.

This also argument fails to argue that there cannot be multiple first movers, as well. This poses a problem for the argument you are using, now doesn't it? Which creator is the most perfect? Can there be multiple perfections?

If you don't know philosophy, stop trying to sound like you do. There cannot be multiple perfections of the same degree. If so, they would be the same perfection. Savvy?

Nor does there have to be a first at all, does there?
Much like there is no first number or a first point on a circle.

And...we haven't even gotten to the sentinent being part :)

Discarded. Perfection implies within it a hierarchy of least perfect to most perfect by its very meaning. There must be a "highest degree" of perfection. In this notion, all that is within this degree is essentially of the same essence as it shares that property.

Go ahead, keep asking away, I dont mind the few minutes out of my day. Yet, I hope you're agruing to learn, as BhsCrew does. If not, I won't waste my time.

Halcyon's Dawning

16-04-2004, 10:39 PM

Good posts AoA.. your ability to answer any and all questions continues to impress me. :thumbsup:

Sage the Mage

16-04-2004, 11:09 PM

Your first objective would be to come to terms on the language we could use to describe God. The term "sentient being" still has its limits. Once we move up the hierarchy of beings, our language loses its effectiveness.

Sentinent being - a being having a consciousness;
This is what your factor for differentiating between the value of animals and humans seems to be.

Like in star wars? lol.. I insulted you last thread becuase you cannot read. You seem to just bypass the essential notions in my text. Keep doing that and I'm done with you. I specifically mentioned in my last post WHY the prime mover must be at least "sentient" (but not limited to that term), in that there must be a beginning to all forces, movements, and purposes

Here's what you are referring to, correct?

LOL - than what else could it imply? I would call God the "prime mover". A thing can be moved by another thing, but a thing per se as in inanimate element cannot begin movement from a state of stasis. Further, movement is not eternal in its history. If that were the case - motion as such would not be distinguishible. Motion can only be distinguished and defined from its oppostite - inertia. Really Sage, you're out of your league.

Here's what you state are stating as I read it:
"A thing can be moved by another thing, but a thing per se as in inanimate element cannot begin movement from a state of stasis."
So, basically a mover must be moving in order to move. How else would a first mover actually move? By another mover? Then that would be the first mover. Thus there is no requirement here for it to be a being.

"Movement is not eternal."
It is not required for movement to be eternal for it to be the prime mover. It just has to happen. Use dominos as an example I guess.

Now there is no argument for sentinence within here, though there are attempts at arguing for the thing being a being of some sort, and against the possibility of no beginning at all.

If there be a creator, it must not be subject to time and space or its characteristics. Further, our world easily points to an intelligent designer. If you can't see that, you've been smoking too much pot.

Invalid argument. The perception of evidence does not require a creator to exist. Bush might like your argument though.

If you don't know philosophy, stop trying to sound like you do. There cannot be multiple perfections of the same degree. If so, they would be the same perfection. Savvy?

Nice, but you answered the wrong question. Why can there not be multiple first movers?

Halcyon's Dawning

16-04-2004, 11:18 PM

This also argument fails to argue that there cannot be multiple first movers, as well. This poses a problem for the argument you are using, now doesn't it? Which creator is the most perfect? Can there be multiple perfections?

It would seem that in that^ argument, you say that the creators have to have "multiple perfections" if there are more than one creator, therefore mutliple perfect creators..
So.. um.. he DID answer your question, according to your post.

Sage the Mage

16-04-2004, 11:45 PM

Look closer, I was presenting the problems that would result if there are multiple creators.

AgeOfAbnegation

17-04-2004, 01:53 AM

So, basically a mover must be moving in order to move. How else would a first mover actually move? By another mover? Then that would be the first mover. Thus there is no requirement here for it to be a being.

I believe I distinguished between the temporal plane (time and space), and that which is outside it. All movement occurs in this realm. We can only use language to characterize this plane of existence, as we are enmeshed within it. We can, however, by use of reason, determine some norms of that which is beyond us by removing concepts that would not fit. In time and space, all movers must necessarily move. Yet, motion itself is created by God, who in utter simplicity, encompasses all and nothing at the same time. By referring to God as a "first mover", the first movement would be in the act of creation, which set time and space and its laws in motion. We can't by reason discover exactly what God is, but we can discover what he is not by reason, and also by revelation for those fortunate enough to hold its promises.

"Movement is not eternal."
It is not required for movement to be eternal for it to be the prime mover. It just has to happen. Use dominos as an example I guess.

Movement cannot be eternal. Outside time and space, there is complete "actuality", or the eternal state of the perfection of all movement. This further demonstrates another attribute of God, being one of consciousness - as since God is complete simplicity (Dionysius uses the term "everything and nothing", God would not be able to create something other than himself - since he is all things. Thus, God is not an impersonal God. The creation of time, space, matter, and limited contingent beings requres a concious decision. Furthermore, the decision was not come to by reflection (as that would imply the process of thinking - which requires time), but eternally existed in his being.

Now there is no argument for sentinence within here, though there are attempts at arguing for the thing being a being of some sort, and against the possibility of no beginning at all.

I believe I have answered this concisely in light of the above.

Invalid argument. The perception of evidence does not require a creator to exist. Bush might like your argument though.

If that is the case, than the perception of evidence would not require any truth or answer to exist. We should then overturn the criminal justice system as futile. Creation demands an intelligent designer. If that's still not clear enough for you, look at "the evidential power of beauty" by Thomas Dubay for a more perfect explanation.

Nice, but you answered the wrong question. Why can there not be multiple first movers?

This is the silliest question I've seen on rpgforums to date. There is only one "first". There can only be a "first player up to bat", followed by those on deck, and so forth. A single movement is cause by one cause, and its subsequent effect. If there were many gods, they would be the same God.

Sage the Mage

17-04-2004, 04:46 AM

We can't by reason discover exactly what God is, but we can discover what he is not by reason, and also by revelation for those fortunate enough to hold its promises.

How can something already existing beyond reason be subjective to contradiction?
Its all a matter of belief, there's no telling exactly what's true, so your beliefs, as every other one, cannot be proven to be true.

So, there's no sense in saying I'm totally right and you're totally wrong about these things once an argument reaches the point where you have to go beyond the scope of space and time in order to prove an argument.

Ryu

17-04-2004, 06:10 AM

believing in God is logical because if you believe in Him and are wrong, you lose nothing, but if you dont believe in Him and are wrong, you lose everything

Pascals wager

Thats not why i believe of course, but its food for though for non believers who want to criticize believers

George Bush

17-04-2004, 06:21 AM

Sage the Mage

17-04-2004, 06:26 AM

believing in God is logical because if you believe in Him and are wrong, you lose nothing, but if you dont believe in Him and are wrong, you lose everything

Pascals wager

Lets go with the crazy go nuts god: The guy who hates if you believe in it, so the tables are turned. Or we go with the fact that using this wager does not force you to believe because you truely believe, but because you are playing the odds.

Halcyon's Dawning

17-04-2004, 06:51 AM

define "life"

lets not beat around the bush here.
when you abort a baby you are killing it. as soon as the sperm jumps in that egg you are carrying the stuf of life in you. its all about if you feel that its ok to kill it or not.

for me i say hell the world is overpopulated already so go go go ! if you abort a kid that kid's life wouldve been hell anyways cause obviously you diddnt want him/her.

and while we are aborting kids lets post birth abort some kkk people and the like :D.
For one thing, in case you didn't notice, the topic you're talking about isn't really the main theme of the conversation anymore..
A better place for that argument would be the prolife/pro choice, weigh in thread- 170414
Anyways, in reference to your comment, have you not heard of adoption??
IF the parents REALLY didn't want the kid, if they had him or her anyways, they would give it up for adoption, where he/she would have a chance for a happy life..
A lot of parents are really unsure, and decide to have the abortion for 'convenience', not because they really didn't want it.
Many women leave scarred emotionally..

Ryu

17-04-2004, 07:15 AM

just saying, for those who ask why we believe or something, consider that statement

AgeOfAbnegation

17-04-2004, 07:19 AM

Hello Again Sage, at least the argumentation is taking shape.

How can something already existing beyond reason be subjective to contradiction?

We are within our rights to speak of the realities we live in by virtue of the powers we ourselves possess, and this includes some content about what we know of our creator, and our purpose of existing. I did mention that we could determine what God "is not" by means of negating axioms that cannot be - by use of speculative reason. Happily, we can shave away quite a bit, which leaves us with a relativey clear idea of the nature of our creator. Reason, which exists as an objective force within us, is universal and immutible. We may thus forge a tunnel by removing all that is inconsistent, as we have been doing in our thread. In truth, there really is no contradiction as you just admitted. As Dionysius mentiones in his text "mystical theology", our capacities will extend so far, but will extend far enough to point in a clear direction of the truth.

Its all a matter of belief, there's no telling exactly what's true, so your beliefs, as every other one, cannot be proven to be true.

So, there's no sense in saying I'm totally right and you're totally wrong about these things once an argument reaches the point where you have to go beyond the scope of space and time in order to prove an argument.

Here is an invitation for you to escape from the mire of skepticism & dogmatism into speculative reason. By this means, we can discuss concepts such as these. Skepticism cannot stand on its own - one cannot doubt something without believing in something else. Dogmatism is also a form of skepticism, as it refuses to explore the reasons for a position. Any non speculative thinker - which at this time includes you - cannot hope to come to any further knowledge of our predicament. If you will not accept speculative reason, you remain ignorant by your own fault.

AgeOfAbnegation

17-04-2004, 07:22 AM

Lets go with the crazy go nuts god: The guy who hates if you believe in it, so the tables are turned. Or we go with the fact that using this wager does not force you to believe because you truely believe, but because you are playing the odds.

I will agree that Pascal's wager is inherently foolish. Christians who believe because they weighed the scales in favor of God have lost the true meaning.

Essex

17-04-2004, 07:42 AM

remind me to shoot Eiger next time I see him for making a whole new thread just for a poll. which oddly enough seems even.

Booms

17-04-2004, 08:48 AM

I would call God the "prime mover". A thing can be moved by another thing, but a thing per se as in inanimate element cannot begin movement from a state of stasis. Further, movement is not eternal in its history. If that were the case - motion as such would not be distinguishible. Motion can only be distinguished and defined from its oppostite - inertia.

Yes, I know this was posted a while back, but the whole "mover" thing is quite essential to the argument, so I figure that digging this up couldn't hurt.

This may be nitpicking...but inertia is not the opposite of motion. You're looking for stasis.

Stasis: Inactivity; stagnation; a state of motionless equilibrium. From the Oxford English Dictionary.

Inertia: That property of matter by virtue of which it continues in its existing state, whether of rest or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless that state is altered by an external force.

Motion: the action or process of moving or being moved, with respect to place or position.

You make one big assumption, and that is that everything started out motionless, instead of assuming the opposite. What if everything started out moving? In a vacuum there are no external forces to disrupt the state of motion, so the motion could just as easily be as eternal as a state of no motion.

And now instead of waiting for "God" to pop out of nowhere and push something to make the Earth and whatnot, you've got everything moving, and now you just have to wait until there is a collision. Boom, creation without God.

Oh yeah, Sage mentioned multiple movers. If you've got two movers, acting simultaneously, then technically you would have two "first movers."

AgeOfAbnegation

17-04-2004, 09:47 AM

Yes, I know this was posted a while back, but the whole "mover" thing is quite essential to the argument, so I figure that digging this up couldn't hurt.

This may be nitpicking...but inertia is not the opposite of motion. You're looking for stasis.

Stasis: Inactivity; stagnation; a state of motionless equilibrium. From the Oxford English Dictionary.

Inertia: That property of matter by virtue of which it continues in its existing state, whether of rest or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless that state is altered by an external force.

Motion: the action or process of moving or being moved, with respect to place or position.

Your correction is acceptable. I could have used a better word.

You make one big assumption, and that is that everything started out motionless, instead of assuming the opposite. What if everything started out moving? In a vacuum there are no external forces to disrupt the state of motion, so the motion could just as easily be as eternal as a state of no motion.

Nope. I believe I presented the agrument in saying that the temporal plane began as an act of movement. Nothing in time and space can begin motionless. In this case, it began in the act of creation, where the concept of movement was created and enacted simultaneously.

And now instead of waiting for "God" to pop out of nowhere and push something to make the Earth and whatnot, you've got everything moving, and now you just have to wait until there is a collision. Boom, creation without God.

Here your statement implies that the temporal plane existed before God "popped out" to influence it. Ironically, Plato thought of this as well, but it could not stand, as the creator would necessarily have to predetermine and underpin anything created and composite in nature. In the creation of the universe, the concept of its motion is bound up in its existence, and thus, the two concepts are essentially one.

Oh yeah, Sage mentioned multiple movers. If you've got two movers, acting simultaneously, then technically you would have two "first movers."

I should have clarified this. Full understanding of this can be explained in terms of the hierarchy of perfection. If there were two movers, they in turn would have to be separate in essence in order to be two separate entities, acting on one element. If this were the case, than their separateness indicates a composite nature, which inherently speaks of imperfection of a certain degree. As such, these two movers would have to be moved by a greater mover that preceeds them, with a higher degree of perfection, and thus, simplicity of being. As such, in the end, all can be traced back to a single mover of utter completeness, which can be named as God.

George Bush

17-04-2004, 10:00 AM

god would have to be infinite to be god. he would have to include everything including you, me, my toilet,the thought of my toilet, the poop in said toilet, ect.
everywhere, all powerful, all knowing, ect.
anything less than everything wouldnt be god . instead you would just have some EXTREMELY POWERFUL ..... being.

i mean i have a genius level iq and i can still barley contemplate the nature of the above thought itself without feeling like i am going crazy.

anyways you could go by the old saying

"once something becomes absolute it becomes obsolete"

and no i dont think god is obsolete i just see god in everything to where it becomes second nature. ive gotten to the point in my thoughts that ive passed that breaking point and come out completely changed ... and i still know that i cant even dent infinite knowledge. we are infinite and we cant even understand the full nature of what that means.

bleh. " all i know is that i know nothing."

AgeOfAbnegation

17-04-2004, 10:11 AM

nice post G.B. :thumbsup: As Augustine said, "there is a trace of the trinity in everything"

Spensdawg

17-04-2004, 11:28 AM

Hey, beta server's down so i thought I'd drop in :D. This post is going to be something of a tangent filled with observations, so feel free to skip over it.

I always enjoy arguments/discussions between religious people and aetheists/agnostic/any-other-word-for-non-organized-religion people. In order for the discussion to go anywhere, the two parties have to temporarily stash away their fundamental differences. That is the religious people have to not mention that the "heathens" (my word, not necessarily yours :D) are going to hell and the non religious folk have to not mention that they think the religious folk are following empty rhetoric.

The fact that these people co-exist every day is also amazing, in a way. That is the way the religious person doesn't run up to his/her co-worker whom they know to be an aetheist and scream, "Bill, you're going to hell! What are you doing?! Repent!!!" And the way the aetheist doesn't run up and yell, "Jeremiah, you're nuts!!! Stop wasting your time on some ancient code of laws!!!"

As for me I'm an aetheist through and through. I've seen no proof of God or anything similar and I don't see any need to devote myself to a religion in order to be a good person. Any religion that sends me to hell while I'm a good person just because I don't follow their by-laws doesn't deserve me as a follower. In case ya wanted to know ;)

AgeOfAbnegation

17-04-2004, 11:51 AM

hehe - hi spensdawg. Our thread isn't discussing religion at the moment, but I suppose it's making its way there. Overall, amid the heavy discussion, I'm glad that we're moving towards the roots of the issue of abortion - as if there is no higher values than those we create - then abortion would be less controversial.

I would say that religion - in this case christianity as indicated by your clause on hell - for the record does not "send people to hell". Sadly, most do not scratch the surface of the major faiths, and those who grow up in pop culture - which offers them bandaid solutions and glittering licentious freedoms, see religion as being "against" this and that. Rather, and I'll only offer this as a morsel to chew on, religion is not against anything, but is only "for" something. Further, the follower of a religion should not see him/herself as following a code per se, but rather guidelines that, if followed, would elicit in that person's life a more open reception to a given truth or tenet of reality. Just something to think about spen. p.s. - don't steal too much underwear :p

Spork_Lord

17-04-2004, 06:03 PM

Hmm... Votes are pretty divided. Pro-choice, all the way.

Sage the Mage

17-04-2004, 07:14 PM

We are within our rights to speak of the realities we live in by virtue of the powers we ourselves possess, and this includes some content about what we know of our creator, and our purpose of existing. I did mention that we could determine what God "is not" by means of negating axioms that cannot be - by use of speculative reason. Happily, we can shave away quite a bit, which leaves us with a relativey clear idea of the nature of our creator. Reason, which exists as an objective force within us, is universal and immutible. We may thus forge a tunnel by removing all that is inconsistent, as we have been doing in our thread. In truth, there really is no contradiction as you just admitted. As Dionysius mentiones in his text "mystical theology", our capacities will extend so far, but will extend far enough to point in a clear direction of the truth.

I still see my same problem, unfortunately. I do not think you can know at all any properties once something exists out of existance, because I cannot see any reason why there would be a contradiction in something that is already defined by a contradiction.

I should have clarified this. Full understanding of this can be explained in terms of the hierarchy of perfection. If there were two movers, they in turn would have to be separate in essence in order to be two separate entities, acting on one element. If this were the case, than their separateness indicates a composite nature, which inherently speaks of imperfection of a certain degree. As such, these two movers would have to be moved by a greater mover that preceeds them, with a higher degree of perfection, and thus, simplicity of being. As such, in the end, all can be traced back to a single mover of utter completeness, which can be named as God.

Problem here is you gotta now prove that perfection itself exists as more than just an idea.

Here is an invitation for you to escape from the mire of skepticism & dogmatism into speculative reason. By this means, we can discuss concepts such as these. Skepticism cannot stand on its own - one cannot doubt something without believing in something else. Dogmatism is also a form of skepticism, as it refuses to explore the reasons for a position. Any non speculative thinker - which at this time includes you - cannot hope to come to any further knowledge of our predicament. If you will not accept speculative reason, you remain ignorant by your own fault.

If you want me to accept a premise to be true, I cannot do that and still be arguing against the argument, unless the argument itself is not valid, for then the argument cannot be proven absolutely to be true.

AgeOfAbnegation

17-04-2004, 09:34 PM

I still see my same problem, unfortunately. I do not think you can know at all any properties once something exists out of existance, because I cannot see any reason why there would be a contradiction in something that is already defined by a contradiction.

It seems I must lead you by the hand in every detail..
God is outside our realm, yet "in and through", as all things exist by and for him. As such, we are part of him in a way, though separate in our sentience. So, in answer to this query, we can say that he is not so far removed from existence that he is utterly alienated from our understanding. We can thus have understanding in regard to his relationship TO US.
In truth, God is not "defined" by contradiction, rather, what he is not can be defined by the negation of principles.

Problem here is you gotta now prove that perfection itself exists as more than just an idea.

Many objective concepts are self evident and simple. Here's a fun project you can work on this weekend - have someone close to you take note of every time you make reference to one thing being "better", or more perfect than another. For instance, if you like hockey, you could say that the senators play better hockey than the maple leafs (i wish they did last night :p). There are degrees of perfection in everything. It is a transcendental quality that exists in all things. Even if you would say that we simply label these things ourselves, it still remains an element that calls for a name.