@pianoman1 saidI don't know whether it is "enlightened" to your way of thinking, but I would suggest that parenting is about teaching and enabling children to make decisions but within a moral framework that is imposed by the parents. I would see NOT doing so as dereliction of duty on the part of the parent.
In my view an enlightened parent gives children choices.
@fmf saidI think the third post does a fair enough job of it
OK. But can you link all this post content you are typing specifically to the question that this thread poses, which is in the second post on page 1?
I also think this discussion of the public & private could work neatly into a criticism of one of the secular left's favorite topics 'theocracy.'
The fact of the matter is that there is not a qualitative difference between a theocratic state and any secular humanist state that still bases itself off of a series of values that require their own metaphysical leaps of faith to uphold.
@pianoman1 saidYou are completely right in the first half: when there is no God, there is no objective morality, and we may even say that morality does not really exist in any meaningful sense of the term. One's moral system is a highly personal code, and there is no reason to place any system above another other than for your own selfish reasons.
My take on this: if we can agree that objective morality can only exist independent of the observer then, leaving aside the metaphysical jungle of God, in my view all morality must be subjective to an observer, therefore personal. For the smooth running of a society, however, a broad ground plan of acceptable moral norms has to be put into the public domain.
In answer to ...[text shortened]... ht do I have to impose my moral spectrum on anyone else. The human is nothing if deprived of choice!
But I think this actually makes your second point about not wanting to impose your moral spectrum on anyone else rather moot... How are you being immoral if you create laws based on your personal preferences? What moral precept has been violated?
There are no morals to violate.
@philokalia saidI don't understand why you are being so evasive.
I think the third post does a fair enough job of itI also think this discussion of the public & private could work neatly into a criticism of one of the secular left's favorite topics 'theocracy.'
The fact of the matter is that there is not a qualitative difference between a theocratic state and any secular humanist state that still bases itself off of a series of values that require their own metaphysical leaps of faith to uphold.
@philokalia saidGosh. I'm getting the distinct impression that this thread topic and question have gone - whoosh - right over your head.
How are you being immoral if you create laws based on your personal preferences? What moral precept has been violated? There are no morals to violate.
@philokalia saidYou won't agree, of course, but so much of your evasive and pusillanimous posturing makes you seem like a man with a single lock of hair carefully combed over the middle of his bald head.
I don't want to be rude or anything, but I will not answer every question, especially if I think it is very loaded or trolling.
@secondson said“Abortion is murder”
Abortion is legal in America. I believe abortion is immoral, it is murder. But I have no authority to murder abortionists, even if I wanted to. And though abortion is legal, no one can legally force me to participate.
Do you feel that abortion be illegal in all cases?
Pregnancy through rape is an obvious example to consider.
@velns saidYes.
“Abortion is murder”
Do you feel that abortion be illegal in all cases?
Pregnancy through rape is an obvious example to consider.
Life begins at conception. Any other rationale to the contrary is speculative at best.
The child has the right to live regardless of the circumstances of his or her conception.
The only exception, as I stated before, is if there is a medical reason for a decision of whether the birth of the child or the life of the mother is in question, then that decision is between the doctor and the mother, and God if that should be the case.
Caveat: there is no law or rule that demands that anyone agrees with my position.
I have but one voice.
@secondson saidI don't see that you've offered any rationale for your position, so you aren't in a strong position to dismiss other attempts.
Life begins at conception. Any other rationale to the contrary is speculative at best.
As I see it, you picked 'conception' simply because it's a definable moment in the process of reproduction, and not because there is any 'rationale' to it whatsoever.
@bigdoggproblem saidI didn't offer a rationale. Notice I said, "Any other rationale to the contrary", meaning that a rationale made against the assertion that "life begins at conception" is contrary to it.
I don't see that you've offered any rationale for your position, so you aren't in a strong position to dismiss other attempts.
As I see it, you picked 'conception' simply because it's a definable moment in the process of reproduction, and not because there is any 'rationale' to it whatsoever.
Offering a "rationale", to my way of thinking, to prove that two humans procreate human life even at the moment of conception, seems counterintuitive.
@secondson saidI guess you're OK with simply believing stuff, even when you self-admittedly have no reason to believe it, then. 😛
I didn't offer a rationale. Notice I said, "Any other rationale to the contrary", meaning that a rationale made against the assertion that "life begins at conception" is contrary to it.
Offering a "rationale", to my way of thinking, to prove that two humans procreate human life even at the moment of conception, seems counterintuitive.
At least you're honest.