FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Abortion analogies...with a little "God" discussio





JoryRFerrell
If you were one of a group of only 10 people or so, and you had limited resources to go around, would you be irresponsible for having a kid when the food was already scarce?
Would it be irresponsible to intentionally have a kid, knowing you will need to steal resources from someone else in the group to feed your child, knowing THEIR child (who is already alive and feeling hunger/thirst) WILL starve to death as a result?

In this light, would it be irresponsible...even slightly evil to...to have a child, knowing what you know about the state of affairs for your fellow survivors? If so, is this similar to our situation with global resources? There are limited resources in the world, that is obvious. Would it be fair to say that this situation is simply a scaled up version of the analogy concerning a small band of survivors?

Also, if god see's it as our duty to reproduce, does he also see it as our duty to make sure we create more mouths to feed, burn more oil to keep warm, fire more bullets to protect? Does god see it as our duty to struggle with third world nations to steal their resources in under-handed deals? Does God prefer that we create more people so that the few resources available are even rarer, meaning people have to pay more for resources, and therefore employers (who also pay higher prices for raw resources which are now in higher demand as well) must pay lower wages to those more numerous people, meaning purchasing power goes down even further....to the point that you work for $2/hour (US currency)? Does it really seem that god prefers we add even more people, knowing that when we do so, we WILL kill or starve to death as a result?
Bluedoll
First of all people do not have kids, goats do. Secondly, I would think a political topic would have political topics inside it, not religious ones however I do understand the Hitler philosophy of blaming someone for your troubles. Hitler’s political speeches reflected the difficult global economic conditions of that time period but in his speeches he blamed other nationalities so that he could achieve emotional support of his party.

If you wish to bring God into a political discussion know this. You have to know something about God before doing it and you will be a religious person by doing so. That is not very political.

To answer the question on the ten people in the community, I would hope for a communal farm setting where I could nurture the land and grow crops of plenty so that Mommy and Daddy would feel safe and not threatened in order to feed one more small mouth. Most people that cry, “limited resources” drive cars some fly in huge jets across the sky and shop regularly at that big mall they had built for themselves. I think it is possible to distribute wealth if it is managed correctly.
Ankhanu
Bluedoll wrote:
Most people that cry, “limited resources” drive cars some fly in huge jets across the sky and shop regularly at that big mall they had built for themselves. I think it is possible to distribute wealth if it is managed correctly.

Ideally, I agree. I also agree that wealth is NOT distributed correctly, the disparities are incredible.
That said, resources ARE limited, and humans are not the only ones who need to make use of them to survive. I find that most people who are proponents of there being plenty of resources to go around take a very narrow view of who/what are to make use of those resources, and a very narrow view of the time scales involved.

An unlimited resources scenario is not one that is being explored here, however... you can't just change the scenario if you don't like it Razz


JoryRFerrell - The topic is nominally about abortion and population control... but I think it misses the most important factor in controlling birth rates, and thereby resource allocation: not producing children in the first place, whether they come to term or be aborted. If these 10 people are in such a dire situation that an additional child is a heavy burden to the community, an abortion would be an incredible expense of resources and would tax the community as well, though perhaps for a shorter time. You seem to assume that the abortion process itself wouldn't be burdensome (resource wise, I'm not touching the emotional baggage)... which is largely true in today's modern world and early-term drug induced abortions where the drugs aren't terribly expensive... but if surgery is involved, or if the drugs are not readily available, the whole thing becomes much more of a burden, possibly removing the woman as a productive member of the heavily resource taxed community, becoming another liability.
There is a moral grey or dark area to having children in those circumstances, but I'd argue that having unprotected sex would be potentially amoral to immoral in itself due to the risk involved. Recreational sex is fine and all, but, steps should be taken to avoid/prevent pregnancy. That'd be step one. Should those measures fail, then the morality of abortion vs. raising the child come in to play. Both options have their problems, but if caught early enough, aborting the pregnancy may be the least taxing option.

Asking what God prefers, however, well, who's to know; even the believers can't agree on that.
JoryRFerrell
Bluedoll wrote:
First of all people do not have kids, goats do. Secondly, I would think a political topic would have political topics inside it, not religious ones however I do understand the Hitler philosophy of blaming someone for your troubles. Hitler’s political speeches reflected the difficult global economic conditions of that time period but in his speeches he blamed other nationalities so that he could achieve emotional support of his party.

If you wish to bring God into a political discussion know this. You have to know something about God before doing it and you will be a religious person by doing so. That is not very political.

To answer the question on the ten people in the community, I would hope for a communal farm setting where I could nurture the land and grow crops of plenty so that Mommy and Daddy would feel safe and not threatened in order to feed one more small mouth. Most people that cry, “limited resources” drive cars some fly in huge jets across the sky and shop regularly at that big mall they had built for themselves. I think it is possible to distribute wealth if it is managed correctly.


I think it's not quite correct to say I can't know something about god without being religious.
That would be like saying I heard a speech by Hitler disparaging Jews and Gays, but I can't say he was a bad guy because I didn't have a personal relationship with him. It's like saying I can't know anything about Nazi's without being a Nazi. So that is an invalid argument. This robot cannot process that irrational value.

It is very political to discuss how people involve their religious preference in making domestic and foreign policy. I agree that religion has little business in the realm, but as long as others vote against gay marriage, or support installing dictators because we need to protect god's chosen nation at all costs...well...then I have to discuss religions current affect on politics.

I am not quite crying for wealth re-distribution. Those who work hard should be able to earn more money than those which don't. I support capitalism. What I don't support is monopolies, dirty deals made behind closed doors by politicians bought and paid for with money from previous dirty deals, mass murder using the profit from said dirty deals, etc. While I agree that it's hypocritical to cry about oil resources and drive a car to a very slight degree....is it really? I mean, if we do take part in an inefficient system and add to the problem, does that absolve us of any responsibility in attempting to change the system so that we don't need so much oil? I am fine with people driving cars. I do not think it wise to continue to drive cars and not force our government to invest more heavily in battery tech, giving subsidies to companies like Tesla to bolster the spread of the electric auto industry, using tax money to install electric charging station for such vehicles, etc. You know..."little" shit like that. Also, people should drive their cars, but ALSO force our government to stop passing legislation which makes it harder for Tesla to improve it's sales and discourages the people investing in the tech: [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri-TDxSH3J4[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDs2WgMoTt4[/youtube]

Shit like this gets people literally killed because we stay inefficient and in order to make up the difference, we push the burden down to the people who's shoulders we have already been standing on.

Quote:

To answer the question on the ten people in the community, I would hope for a communal farm setting where I could nurture the land and grow crops of plenty so that Mommy and Daddy would feel safe and not threatened in order to feed one more small mouth.

This is not what I asked. I put forth a VERY SPECIFIC question for a very SPECIFIC reason.
Please answer the question as intended: If you were in a community of ten people, and you ONLY HAD enough resources to go around for those ten people already consuming resources, would it be justifiable to starve another child who already exists, so that you can have one of your own in the future?

That is a very specific question, worded so as to avoid any attempt to insert your ideal compromise or effort to circumvent the logic that follows from this example:

We are letting people starve (instead of adopting children), because we want to have our own kids and a comfortable life, while also crying that other's are murdering children by aborting (early abortion of a collection of cells is not murder no more than excision of cancer is, but I AGREE late abortion of a developed child is the same as strangling your child right after giving birth in a dumpster), even though their action helps ease the economic burden on some other child who WILL starve to death otherwise.
Bluedoll
Alright Ankhanu, I’ll stay within this scenario. You have ten people that are already starving. Adding one more just makes it worse. Then in this scenario lets put these people into a space station. The problem is never going to get better there. Abort and come back to earth! If the radio says earth is a nuclear waste dump that can not support life then I guess you are out of luck man. I think my viewpoint in this case is if you can not support one more child then life is not worth living for anyone. It would have been better to nurture the gardens on earth and than to build up the war machines.

JoryRFerrell you took what I said the wrong way. I’m not saying you can not talk about God. I am saying you can not talk about God without being religious anymore than you can have a political discussion without being political. Everyone is not affiliated with political parties but while in discussions everyone is involved with the subject.

I understand what you are saying when you said peoples views are motivated by religious views but what difference does it really make “why” they believe in abortion or don’t believe in abortion when the only think worth paying attention to is listening to what their views are. Why bring God into the discussion at all?

Hitler brought God into his political movement when he wrote his savior of Germany for a thousand years book. It was right out of the bible. Bin ladder did the same thing by promoting a religious war. It is up to people (religious and non-religious) to denounce this action as being what it is. They bring religion into where it doesn’t belong because it motivates people. This are users. You are doing the same thing in this topic.

It is obvious that mankind has some problems and mankind needs to fix it without blaming God for their mistakes. Bringing God into politics will not change anything for the positive.

JoryRFerrell wrote:
Also, if god see's it as our duty to reproduce, does he also see it as our duty to make sure we create more mouths to feed, burn more oil to keep warm, fire more bullets to protect?
<- religious discussion

God does not see it as our “duty” to reproduce but created us the way we are. It is our nature to reproduce. That is a good thing. It is our duty only to love one another. The reason we have limited resources and fire bullets can be attributed to poor management by mankind not God. <- religious discussion
JoryRFerrell
Bluedoll wrote:
Alright Ankhanu, I’ll stay within this scenario. You have ten people that are already starving. Adding one more just makes it worse. Then in this scenario lets put these people into a space station. The problem is never going to get better there. Abort and come back to earth! If the radio says earth is a nuclear waste dump that can not support life then I guess you are out of luck man. I think my viewpoint in this case is if you can not support one more child then life is not worth living for anyone. It would have been better to nurture the gardens on earth and than to build up the war machines.

JoryRFerrell you took what I said the wrong way. I’m not saying you can not talk about God. I am saying you can not talk about God without being religious anymore than you can have a political discussion without being political. Everyone is not affiliated with political parties but while in discussions everyone is involved with the subject.

I understand what you are saying when you said peoples views are motivated by religious views but what difference does it really make “why” they believe in abortion or don’t believe in abortion when the only think worth paying attention to is listening to what their views are. Why bring God into the discussion at all?

Hitler brought God into his political movement when he wrote his savior of Germany for a thousand years book. It was right out of the bible. Bin ladder did the same thing by promoting a religious war. It is up to people (religious and non-religious) to denounce this action as being what it is. They bring religion into where it doesn’t belong because it motivates people. This are users. You are doing the same thing in this topic.

It is obvious that mankind has some problems and mankind needs to fix it without blaming God for their mistakes. Bringing God into politics will not change anything for the positive.

JoryRFerrell wrote:
Also, if god see's it as our duty to reproduce, does he also see it as our duty to make sure we create more mouths to feed, burn more oil to keep warm, fire more bullets to protect?
<- religious discussion

God does not see it as our “duty” to reproduce but created us the way we are. It is our nature to reproduce. That is a good thing. It is our duty only to love one another. The reason we have limited resources and fire bullets can be attributed to poor management by mankind not God. <- religious discussion


Quote:
JoryRFerrell you took what I said the wrong way. I’m not saying you can not talk about God. I am saying you can not talk about God without being religious anymore than you can have a political discussion without being political. Everyone is not affiliated with political parties but while in discussions everyone is involved with the subject.


Well...If you are saying I can't be "non-religious" when talking about religion....that is still false. When Athiests talk about religion, does that make them religious? No...that's ridiculous.

Quote:
They bring religion into where it doesn’t belong because it motivates people. This are users. You are doing the same thing in this topic.


So when slaves talked about the religion of their masters being used to justify slavery, were the slaves just trying to appeal to emotion like Hitler then? No. They were making valid points about how people with religious views tend to pick and choose things to support their world view which makes them comfortable or boosts profit for less personal sweat invested by the "masters". My point of this post was NOT to motivate people using religious ideology. It was in fact the opposite. It was actually to point out, as you yourself stated, that people bring religion into realms where they do not belong...like politics, because they are relying on it's ability to emotionally reach people, (who are religious either from fear of death being the true end of our existence, or fear of being sent to hell) and make sure that the powerful motivator of religion compels them to follow the agenda put forth.
But when it becomes inconvenient, suddenly, people easily shed their religious ideals. Few religious people protest over the Iraq/Afghan civilian casualties. But far more protest over abortion, based on their religious ideology. Why? Isn't all innocent life equal? Since they are going to heaven anyways, why not spend more time defending kids from having their jaws blown off? Because deep down, they know that life, that existence, is finite, and so they only attack things which are close at hand and/or make them, or those close to them, uncomfortable.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/august/3.16.html

Quote:
Daniel Akin, president, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary:

"There is a scriptural mandate for it, and you have admonitions in the psalms that speak of the blessedness of God providing many children to a husband and wife. And there's a general tenor throughout scripture that children are a blessing and a heritage from the Lord. So, should Christians be fruitful and multiply? I say absolutely. In fact, I would say this: the only instance in which Christians should not seek the gift of children would be in extraordinary ministry circumstances where perhaps having children would be ill-advised or dangerous."


Now I am not attacking his saying things of his opinion. I am simply pointing out that he, a theologian, is saying the bible mandates reproduction.

Btw...not trying to feel hostile or militant. Just trying to point out how the system works.
Bluedoll
I disagree that the bible says that having children is a requirement nor in that paragraph that you provided does the author mandate it. To say that children can be considered a blessing or a heritage is not making the creation of family’s mandatory only valuable.

I can agree with you that in many instances man has and is using religion for their own personal gain. JoryRFerrell are you guilty of being religious? Maybe yes or maybe not but if you are going to tell me you started a political topic without the intention of bringing God into it, I would have to say that is not true.
JoryRFerrell wrote this,
Quote:
Does it really seem that god prefers we add even more people, knowing that when we do so, we WILL kill or starve to death as a result?
So tell us what God prefers JoryRFerrell! Tell us all about God. Fine. Just don’t tell me you aren’t preaching God belief. It may be anti thesis sediment preaching but it is still preaching about what you think God prefers.

The alternative in a political discussion is to talk about abortion by talking about let’s see, the pro’s and con’s of abortion? I think it is enough to also talk about morality without bringing God to the table but that is your choice.
JoryRFerrell
Bluedoll wrote:
I disagree that the bible says that having children is a requirement nor in that paragraph that you provided does the author mandate it. To say that children can be considered a blessing or a heritage is not making the creation of family’s mandatory only valuable.

I can agree with you that in many instances man has and is using religion for their own personal gain. JoryRFerrell are you guilty of being religious? Maybe yes or maybe not but if you are going to tell me you started a political topic without the intention of bringing God into it, I would have to say that is not true.
JoryRFerrell wrote this,
Quote:
Does it really seem that god prefers we add even more people, knowing that when we do so, we WILL kill or starve to death as a result?
So tell us what God prefers JoryRFerrell! Tell us all about God. Fine. Just don’t tell me you aren’t preaching God belief. It may be anti thesis sediment preaching but it is still preaching about what you think God prefers.

The alternative in a political discussion is to talk about abortion by talking about let’s see, the pro’s and con’s of abortion? I think it is enough to also talk about morality without bringing God to the table but that is your choice.


There are many examples I have run into where people of one faith or another, including Christianity, have claimed that they felt in their hearts God was telling them to have a large family.
This is particularly notable in the Catholic religion.

My point in talking about god and politics was to show that other people are bringing god into the equation concerning very serious issues which affect us all. By claiming god prefers that we not perform abortions, it would automatically mean he would rather another child starve to death so the new child will have the resources it needs upon birth. If I KNOW that a woman in my complete control, is about to have a baby, and when she does, another child will starve to death because her country will strip the other child's country of it's wealth (and stability overall), and I say I want her to have the child anyways, I automatically condemn the other child to death. It's made worse if the woman believes (either correctly or incorrectly) that I want her to reproduce as much as possible, meaning that others must die in each new child's place.

I have no idea what "anti thesis sediment preaching " is.....but I chance a guess and say you were saying "Anti-Theistic sentiment preaching". I was not preaching. I was exploring. Is it preaching to say that Satan is automatically saying he thinks murder is ok when he encourages it? No. That's an observation and a fair one. It is NOT "preaching".

For your last point, this debate is specifically meant to target religious beliefs about abortion. That is why god is specifically mentioned in the topic title. "Just don’t tell me you aren’t preaching God belief." I am definitely not preaching God belief. I don't believe god even exists. Maybe you are not used to my way of discussing a topic. I often "play along" with your beliefs (or those of other's),
arguing from my position hypothetically, AS IF god actually existed. This does not mean I believe in god. It would be the same in this situation: Fairies. If you believed in fairies (say evil faries that murdered people but claimed to love them), I might sometimes talk as if the faries were real, but not actually believe in them:

"Why do fairies love us, but then gather around us, lift us hundreds of feet in the air, and then drop us? By doing so, Fairies must know we will die, and so that must mean that Fairies prefer us in a non-living state. Should we continue basing politic decisions based on what we think the fairies want?"

That is not preaching, and it is not "bringing" fairies into the realm of politics, but rather discussing whether or not Fairies SHOULD be involved in politics seeing as they ALREADY ARE (in this fictional example mind you...). It's not admitting that fairies exist, nor is it a critique of their morality. It is about how people are reacting to the fairies, and an observation about their subsequent effect on politics.

BTW...that preacher LITERALLY STATED THE FOLLOWING: "There is a scriptural mandate for it"...
So I don't know why you said he didn't say that.....my point isn't about what the bible even says really, but what people THINK it says. Some people thought the bible justified the enslavement of African Americans. Maybe it didn't, maybe it did, but whatever the case, it can't be ignored that people thought it supported African American enslavement, and so they acted on it. Same situation here. Some people convince themselves that God WANTS them to reproduce and that it is their duty.
All while ignoring the idea that a new employee means another, already living child, gets "laid off" to make new room for fresh blood. Basically the bible is supporting constant turn-over of staff. But this ain't McDonalds.
Bluedoll
I just want to clarify what I have been writing about previously because I think you didn’t understand the point I was making. I will stop posting in this thread however because it is becoming redundant.
JoryRFerrell wrote:
There are many examples I have run into where people of one faith or another, including Christianity, have claimed that they felt in their hearts God was telling them to have a large family.
This is particularly notable in the Catholic religion.
I would say it could be a personal thing but there are a few mentions of this subject in the bible.

Then God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply. Let the fish fill the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.” - Genesis 1:22

It would be easy for someone to assume or argue that this is God commanding mankind to have children but assuming that could be very wrong. I read from the bible that this as a blessing for mankind not a commandment. If we simply use logic, we know that most couples think about having families. It is a natural desire and is a good thing too.

JoryRFerrell wrote:
My point in talking about god and politics was to show that other people are bringing god into the equation concerning very serious issues which affect us all. By claiming god prefers that we not perform abortions, it would automatically mean he would rather another child starve to death so the new child will have the resources it needs upon birth.
Maybe it would be helpful to show where “other people” are bringing God into politics because I only see you doing it here. Abortion issues are complicated with religion I can understand this. Here in your posts, you are blaming God for decisions God has made, commandments God has made which I do not agree are correct and in doing so are not allowing mankind to take responsibility for mankinds own actions which is what I think politics should be all about.

My argument here has been that you are turning a political discussion into a religious discussion. I’ll define the word preaching as how I was using it here.

Preaching = discussion about religious topics with the intent to convince others that you are correct.
watersoul
Bluedoll wrote:
Maybe it would be helpful to show where “other people” are bringing God into politics
I hear 'God bless America' most times the US president is shown on UK television, in fact, every US president I've ever seen on news reports. That is an example of people bringing God into politics, never mind all those religious crazies who are campaigning for intelligent design to be taught as fact in US schools, or the extremist Christians who have killed abortion doctors or threatened congress members to vote against pro-choice laws.

Yes, there are many people who would love their particular brand of faith to influence the politics of their country....or were you not aware of any of that?
Bluedoll
watersoul wrote:
Yes, there are many people who would love their particular brand of faith to influence the politics of their country....
I am so done with this thread but since my name came up once again, I’ll make this one post an exception.

Yes. Certainly religion has an impact on the belief system of people. In that I will agree. However, “God bless America” is not exactly earth shattering politics. When it comes to real politics, decisions get made, laws are created and regulations employed through a political system.

Political agenda in modern day governmental debates are after all political in nature. I think the focus in the political forum results from the issues at hand and it is not truly a religious movement but a political one.

If such a thing exists as you think it does, you would be very good at it by demonstrating your version of politics as you profess your atheist beliefs and spread your religious propaganda.
watersoul
Bluedoll wrote:
If such a thing exists as you think it does, you would be very good at it by demonstrating your version of politics as you profess your atheist beliefs and spread your religious propaganda.
More silly assertions which are only real in your own mind.
In 7 years I have never brought religion into any political forum debate unless religion is the issue, such as questions of Anglican bishops having voting rights in the UK upper house. Lack of faith is irrelevant though, if I were a Buddhist/Hindu/Zoroastrian I would still disagree with it because of the discriminatory nature of government 'picking' one unsubstantiated religion over another.

If I were a politician my lack of faith in gods would have absolutely no influence in my consideration of any laws unrelated to religion. I would use reason, logic, economic issues, moral & ethical questions and any other practical concerns to make any decision.

The only issues my lack of faith would have any relevance to my discussing politics are concerns with any religious organisations having influence in government - Unelected Anglican (Church of England) bishops having voting rights in the UK upper house for example, or faith groups trying to force religious indoctrination in state funded schools.

Nope, once again you come out with a silly and ridiculous statement that my lack of faith somehow translates into something similar to evangelising political religious types which are frankly ten a penny in most democratic countries.

I have no reason to declare any "atheist beliefs" in any general political discussions so I do not.
I use reasoned argument to consider if something is moral or not whereas a politician with strong faith in a particular god will be influenced in their thinking by what they believe their god declares as right or wrong.

If you have forgotten my clear and concise explanation of my lack of faith then I refer you back to this>> http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-156576.html&highlight= Your 'atheist belief' claim remains as wrong now as it was in that topic.
I separate political considerations from anything which has no evidence to back it up.
I couldn't give a toss what any god is alleged to have said about abortion for example, I look solely at medical concerns, child/mother welfare, and human rights. That is sensible and requires no 'atheist belief' Wink
Related topics
God of War
NY Times: A perfect example of lieberals spreading...
Is God....
Conservative Christian Dictionary.
Right to Lifers' Problem
Abortion: Yes or No?
BLACK METAL
Can anyone prove God loves you?
The Whole "GOD" Thing
Do we have Free Will or is there only Determinism?
Does God exist?
Vatican Declared "7 New Sins"
Things only a Republican could believe
New sections added in ‘Philosophy of life and other essays&q
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.