A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion

[SteveII]

It’s frustrating when Steve and those like him try to engage in discussions about a topic yet refuse to explain their own.  He’s quick to tell us how wrong or misguided we are without divulging his own or deflecting, stating that he wants us to display ours.  He won’t even tell us which demonization he’s coming from yet groups all atheists into a single bundle.  He likes to use others arguments without stating whose argument it is (sometimes he does…rarely) and when he gets cornered or asked a specific question, he changes the subject or goes on a different tangent.  He is polite…I’ll give him that…but he’s frustrating as well.

This is great. You can reverse your entire narrative here and replace me with you lot and you with just about any thoughtful Christian that comes along and you have described almost every single conversation between an atheist and a Christian here at AD.

If I haven't been clear, I ground morality in the Nature of God. The abortion issue is grounded in the fact that we are made in the image of God and all humanity has intrinsic value simply because of that fact. Every single argument I have made--even the 'non-religious' ones--are arguments that can also be grounded in that fact. But not everyone does ground them in the image of God and I thought it was a productive conversation to explore. I have learned a lot in the process.

Regarding objective morality, all atheist are in a single bundle: a method for grounding objective morality requires a transcendent law giver--something atheist by definition deny. I use arguments that have been discussed for centuries if not millennium--it would be hard to cite them.

If you think I have been "cornered" and change the subject because I can't answer something, it might be that if a participant can't handle having a rational and moderately civil conversation (now or in the recent past), they are blocked. They might have a great point, I wouldn't know. If you think that might be the case, you are welcome to ask me to comment on anything at all.

[epronovost]

Regarding objective morality, all atheist are in a single bundle: a method for grounding objective morality requires a transcendent law giver--something atheist by definition deny. I use arguments that have been discussed for centuries if not millennium--it would be hard to cite them.

It has been explained numerous time in this thread mostly by @Rhythmcs and is famously well established by philosophy that a transcendent law giver is incompatible with objective morality since objective morality relies on the idea that moral facts are an integral part of that which they describe. The Divine Command theory is a form of moral subjectivism. For example: if murder is bad; "bad'' is something inherent to the nature of murder; that's the basic idea of all moral realism schools, how and why is different from one school to another. A morality based on a transcendent law-giver is based demands that "bad" is something inherent not to murder, but the perception of murder by the law-giver. It's thus subjective. You confuse moral absolutism, as in the authority and accuracy of moral statement, with moral objectivity which is on the nature of moral facts themselves. You can simultaneously hold of the belief that moral facts exist and are inherent to that which they describe and at the same time produce false or dubious ethical statements like "murder is good".

[SteveII]

Steve does not give a fuck about objective morality, and would deny it thrice before the cock crowed.  He is not an advocate of objective morality, and will never affirm one in any circumstance.

I agree. I'm done arguing about objective morality with him. It's just an excuse for him to impose his morality on everyone else because he's a christofascist. I said earlier that when talking to grown ups that I don't think the distinction between subjective and objective morality is even a useful one and it's only necessary for theist bigots with simplistic binary rigid thinking.

So it boils down this one question Steve.

Why do you believe that your subjective morality should supersede everyone elses?

Ah, so, agree with an insult, declare you're done arguing, add another insult and another and a few more. Then ask a question. Got it.

First, my morality is not subjective, but that is not really relevant because I don't think my morality should supersede others. My morality consists of thousands of things that I don't demand other people do. So what makes some things more important than other things that they rise to the point of advocacy? Could it be that the source of the morality has less to do with it and perhaps real world consequences a little more?

This is important so pay attention: I opposed abortion, child-trans ideology and procedures, particular issues affecting the foundation/importance of the family, certain children's issues, assisted suicide, some DEI ideas, etc. because I think that some issues are critical to a healthy and well-functioning society. I can make a non-religious argument for every single one at any time.

Your constant questioning of my motive is called an ad hominem fallacy (in nearly every post).  Ironically, the fact that you think it is important to keep repeating it says more about your motives than mine.

BTW, you sound like a shrill, over-the-top, irrational liberal stereotype when you constantly use the term 'christofascist'.

[SteveII]

Hm, Steve, I'm just curious, what do you think happens to the souls of the children who are aborted?

I don't know. I imagine the same thing that happens to others who die--which I also don't know. I believe in the endgame, the details in between are not explained.

[1Sam15]

Hm, Steve, I'm just curious, what do you think happens to the souls of the children who are aborted?

That’s the Xian problem they don’t want to admit the souls of aborted babies get immediately beamed up to paradise, never being judged.

Sounds like a great deal if this shit is true.

[Rhythmcs]

This is important so pay attention: I opposed abortion, child-trans ideology and procedures, particular issues affecting the foundation/importance of the family, certain children's issues, assisted suicide, some DEI ideas, etc. because I think that some issues are critical to a healthy and well-functioning society. I can make a non-religious argument for every single one at any time.

This would be relative, not objective...if that's important....... Objective moral systems posit that there are or can be good things™ that we should do™ which probably wouldn't be beneficial to ourselves or to our societies. Things which -certainly- aren't, even.

Additionally, an ad hom is insisting that you are wrong because you're an asshole.  Calling you an asshole is just an objectively true observation.

[Minimalist]

This is important so pay attention:

Stevie...nothing you have ever written has risen to the level of "important."

[SteveII]

Regarding objective morality, all atheist are in a single bundle: a method for grounding objective morality requires a transcendent law giver--something atheist by definition deny. I use arguments that have been discussed for centuries if not millennium--it would be hard to cite them.

It has been explained numerous time in this thread mostly by @Rhythmcs and is famously well established by philosophy that a transcendent law giver is incompatible with objective morality since objective morality relies on the idea that moral facts are an integral part of that which they describe. The Divine Command theory is a form of moral subjectivism. For example: if murder is bad; "bad'' is something inherent to the nature of murder; that's the basic idea of all moral realism schools, how and why is different from one school to another. A morality based on a transcendent law-giver is based demands that "bad" is something inherent not to murder, but the perception of murder by the law-giver. It's thus subjective. You confuse moral absolutism, as in the authority and accuracy of moral statement, with moral objectivity which is on the nature of moral facts themselves. You can simultaneously hold of the belief that moral facts exist and are inherent to that which they describe and at the same time produce false or dubious ethical statements like "murder is good".

I promise I will start a thread on this soon.

I wouldn't know what Rhythmcs said about anything. While smart, he lacks enough character to have a discussion I would be satisfied with. I have tried multiple times. If you every think he has a good point, ask me about it. I'm not avoiding challenges to my ideas, just obnoxiousness.

[Rhythmcs]

Got me there - but...objectively speaking, I can be both obnoxious and correct. While, subjectively speaking, my being correct is obnoxious to your worldview.

[Minimalist]

Anyone who disputes his bible-based gibberish is obnoxious to Stevie's primitive worldview.

[pocaracas]

This is important so pay attention: I opposed abortion, child-trans ideology and procedures, particular issues affecting the foundation/importance of the family, certain children's issues, assisted suicide, some DEI ideas, etc. because I think that some issues are critical to a healthy and well-functioning society. I can make a non-religious argument for every single one at any time.

Would you say that a healthy and well-functioning society should include people that are not "normal"?
People who are trans? People who are homosexual? People who are autistic? People who have disabilities?
Should non-standard fdeamilies be a part of this society? Families with "two fathers" or "two mothers"?
How about families with one mother?... a quite common result of not being able to abort an unwanted pregnancy...?

[Rhythmcs]

Any answer to any of those questions would still yield a relative conclusion - as the question is fundamentally and explicitly relative.

[airportkid]

It's amusing to see that SteveII, about the most obnoxious and arrogant correspondent in these threads, can't stand anyone else that to his mind is obnoxious.



Projection?  There's much to support that behavior as a demonstrated fact.

[Mathilda]

I agree. I'm done arguing about objective morality with him. It's just an excuse for him to impose his morality on everyone else because he's a christofascist. I said earlier that when talking to grown ups that I don't think the distinction between subjective and objective morality is even a useful one and it's only necessary for theist bigots with simplistic binary rigid thinking.

Ah, so, agree with an insult, declare you're done arguing, add another insult and another and a few more. Then ask a question. Got it.

Sorry I shouldn't have insulted you by insinuating you're not an adult even though you are literally a theist bigot with simplistic binary rigid thinking and fascist adjacent beliefs.

So it boils down this one question Steve.

Why do you believe that your subjective morality should supersede everyone elses?

First, my morality is not subjective,

Yes it is. It's certainly not objective. But if that is how you want your morality to be judged, then it is wrong because it is derived from lies, ignorance and a lack of empathy which is a key feature of the human condition.

but that is not really relevant because I don't think my morality should supersede others. My morality consists of thousands of things that I don't demand other people do. So what makes some things more important than other things that they rise to the point of advocacy?

If you are advocating for the sanctity of a few non sentient cells as being more important than all other moral considerations and other people's lives to the extent that you think they should be forced into modern slavery then yes, you think your morality supersedes all others.

Could it be that the source of the morality has less to do with it and perhaps real world consequences a little more?

This is important so pay attention: I opposed abortion, child-trans ideology and procedures, particular issues affecting the foundation/importance of the family, certain children's issues, assisted suicide, some DEI ideas, etc. because I think that some issues are critical to a healthy and well-functioning society.

History show us that your morality won't lead to a heathy and well functioning society. This is why society has moved on and why your political views are now commonly described as regressive.

BTW, you sound like a shrill, over-the-top, irrational liberal stereotype when you constantly use the term 'christofascist'.

But you are a christofascist. At the very least your morality can be called fascist adjacent. You are part of a larger movement that includes open fascists who share a very similar world view as you.

The movement you are part is trying to separate trans people from the rest of the LGB community as part of a strategy of divide and conquer. This started once they realised that they had lost the argument on gay marriage. This strategy also weakens the concept of body autonomy which further erodes all women's rights.

If you thought through the implications of what you believe in, of where it leads and what it would require to enforce, then you end up with a fascist state.

Your constant questioning of my motive is called an ad hominem fallacy (in nearly every post).  Ironically, the fact that you think it is important to keep repeating it says more about your motives than mine.

Except people from your movement expounding the same moral stance as you have been shown to be consistently duplicitous and not arguing in good faith. There is every reason to suspect this is also the case with you. And if it's not then you would be the exception.

[Dānu]

This is important so pay attention: I opposed abortion, child-trans ideology and procedures, particular issues affecting the foundation/importance of the family, certain children's issues, assisted suicide, some DEI ideas, etc. because I think that some issues are critical to a healthy and well-functioning society. I can make a non-religious argument for every single one at any time.

Haven't you also argued that a non-theistic justification of these positions is necessarily relativist and essentially therefore mere opinion, no better than contrary views?

[AutisticWill]

This is important so pay attention: I opposed abortion, child-trans ideology and procedures, particular issues affecting the foundation/importance of the family, certain children's issues, assisted suicide, some DEI ideas, etc. because I think that some issues are critical to a healthy and well-functioning society. I can make a non-religious argument for every single one at any time.

Some children are trans. I don't like it either; but it's true, go fuck yourself.

[SteveII]

This is important so pay attention: I opposed abortion, child-trans ideology and procedures, particular issues affecting the foundation/importance of the family, certain children's issues, assisted suicide, some DEI ideas, etc. because I think that some issues are critical to a healthy and well-functioning society. I can make a non-religious argument for every single one at any time.

Haven't you also argued that a non-theistic justification of these positions is necessarily relativist and essentially therefore mere opinion, no better than contrary views?

I have no problem with any of that except perhaps some opinions are better reasoned or supported with data that others. I think my positions have excellent secular reasons, arguments, and data and that's all I expect my fellow citizens of our pluralistic society to consider.

It might be helpful for some to think about what is going on in the mind of a Christian. We believe the closer we get to honoring God's design for how humans should conduct ourselves, the more society will flourish because God understands humanity better than humanity does. It follows from that that any position we base on God's principles should have plenty of reasoning, arguments, and data to back them up. As you can imagine, especially in a large population, that provides a lot of confidence. That confidence, especially when wielded by less thoughtful people, is interpreted as arrogance.

[Rhythmcs]

Love it. A subjectivist explanation for a relativist morality.

I wonder if people who believe exactly that see the implications of those positions in reverse? That if following gods law goes tits up..well, that's on god - not us. That if there isn't all of this reasoning arguments and data to back god up...there should be.......or that the declining ratio of christiofascists in the us ought to create a drop in confidence. That being dragged as an arrogant prick suggests Steve is a less thoughtful person.

[Dānu]

Haven't you also argued that a non-theistic justification of these positions is necessarily relativist and essentially therefore mere opinion, no better than contrary views?

I have no problem with any of that except perhaps some opinions are better reasoned or supported with data that others. I think my positions have excellent secular reasons, arguments, and data and that's all I expect my fellow citizens of our pluralistic society to consider.

That's pretty much what it means to have an opinion, which leaves you no better off than anyone else.

[Rhythmcs]

Far worse, as steve has already explained. His moral opinions are someone else's opinions about something else's nature.

[pattylt]

Steves view might have some merit if there was any evidence that a godly society was more beneficial for most people. Besides the fact that Christian society wasn’t beneficial for the LGBTQ folks and was actually harmful to them, it was beneficial to the majority of Christian’s either. Christians have always refused to benefit the poor and downtrodden if it made the wealthy and elites have a little less….especially the church.

Every improvement made was secular driven…or wars…lots and lots of wars about, you guessed it, religion!

[mordant]

Every improvement made was secular driven…or wars…lots and lots of wars about, you guessed it, religion!

A significant but small percentage of wars are primarily driven by religion (I've heard the figure 17% bandied about). I would say most are over resources, with religion in a supporting role of, e.g., blessing / justifying some form of manifest destiny as a rationalization for theft. A close second would be tribal suspicions and rivalries that tend to be more racial and cultural than religious -- although again, religion is generally happy to provide rationales and to claim that God approves.

I don't think the war in Ukraine is about religion. I don't even think the genocide in Gaza is about religion so much as about race and just bigotry writ large ... though it has a strong religious subtext due to Israel invoking OT tropes about utterly wiping out the enemy down to the last woman and child -- tropes that resonate with both Jews and Christians.

[pocaracas]

Haven't you also argued that a non-theistic justification of these positions is necessarily relativist and essentially therefore mere opinion, no better than contrary views?

I have no problem with any of that except perhaps some opinions are better reasoned or supported with data that others. I think my positions have excellent secular reasons, arguments, and data and that's all I expect my fellow citizens of our pluralistic society to consider.

It might be helpful for some to think about what is going on in the mind of a Christian. We believe the closer we get to honoring God's design for how humans should conduct ourselves, the more society will flourish because God understands humanity better than humanity does.  It follows from that that any position we base on God's principles should have plenty of reasoning, arguments, and data to back them up. As you can imagine, especially in a large population, that provides a lot of confidence. That confidence, especially when wielded by less thoughtful people, is interpreted as arrogance.

As you may be aware, the atheist point of view... if there is a coherent one... is something along the lines of assuming that what believers claim to be God's design is actually a clerical agreement as to how society should be. How did those clerics arrive at those "ethics"? One can say that it dependes on the religion, on the sect, on the tribe, etc... But ultimately, they come from observing humans being humans, with the caveat that those observations apply to their geographical region - to their society, to their biases.
As soon as any of it is commited to paper, it is cristalized in time. Some societal advances then fail to match up with the written word and a scysm appears. Heck, sometimes the scysm appears immediately, as the things that are written are already in disagreement with the neighbouring camp.

Nowadays, we are arguably a bit better aware of some of our societal biases and try to integrate everyone to allow them to be as equal as possible parts of society. But many forces are working in the opposite way. Conservative forces that would prefer to have those "non-normal" people to have to choose to either fake it all their lives or live as outcasts.... or .

Reeling this back in to abortion: I'd prefer to see women happy with their lives and being members of society. I would be very much against ostracising anyone for aborting. While I would be very much in favor of ostracising someone who kills a baby. That alone says that there is a moral difference between the two (from my very subjective moral code which is based on the society where I grew up and live, Western Europe).

[Cavebear]

Haven't you also argued that a non-theistic justification of these positions is necessarily relativist and essentially therefore mere opinion, no better than contrary views?

I have no problem with any of that except perhaps some opinions are better reasoned or supported with data that others. I think my positions have excellent secular reasons, arguments, and data and that's all I expect my fellow citizens of our pluralistic society to consider.

It might be helpful for some to think about what is going on in the mind of a Christian. We believe the closer we get to honoring God's design for how humans should conduct ourselves, the more society will flourish because God understands humanity better than humanity does.  It follows from that that any position we base on God's principles should have plenty of reasoning, arguments, and data to back them up. As you can imagine, especially in a large population, that provides a lot of confidence. That confidence, especially when wielded by less thoughtful people, is interpreted as arrogance.

The mere statement that you are based on "honoring God's design for how humans should conduct ourselves, the more society will flourish because God understands humanity better than humanity does" is sufficient for me to basically ignore your argument. There is no evidence of a deity. So there is no "God's design".

Why can't theists get it through their thick skulls that we atheists here just don't relate to your "God's design" nonsense? It is just superstition to us. You might as well try to convince us there are unicorns...

[Rhythmcs]

Oh, Steve knows that, that's why he tried to launder his gods design as natural law. I think it's a pointless argument myself. Assume there is a god and it has a design. That's the way things are, but is that they way they ought to be?