Vatican accuses Amnesty of immorality

Originally posted by whiterose
Yes, I am also argueing that the church's position on abortion is part of its effort to subjugate women. I don't know why you keep trying to divert the topic to semantics instead of answering my post.

Do you think that the Church, by banning abortion, is really trying to subjugate women and only apparently trying to subjugate immorality?

If so, do you think that the members of the Church are aware of ths pretense, or are the victims of self-deception? If either, how do you know?

Isn't it also possible they might ban abortion for other reasons?

Originally posted by whiterose
Yes, I am also argueing that the church's position on abortion is part of its effort to subjugate women. I don't know why you keep trying to divert the topic to semantics instead of answering my post.

See Pkh's post above.

Originally posted by whiterose
[b]This is not rocket science. The definition (or determination) of intelligence is based on what an entity can do. If a computer is determined to be intelligent, then it clearly will not use any biological infrastructure. Your argument here (if any) is fallacious -- just because known instances of intelligence coincide with a nervous system doesn't ...[text shortened]... id was that society determines what rights people have, not what rights people should have.[/b]

So if a computer is determined to have intelligence based on this new definition does it deserve the same rights as humans? No.

If a computer possesses intelligence and satisfies other criteria for rights, then of course it does.


No. Read my posts. What I said was that society determines what rights people have, not what rights people should have.

If society determines that a person no longer has a right then, according to your position, the person simply no longer has that right. It's not a 'violation' of that person's right because the right no longer exists.

So, on what basis would you object to society taking away a woman's "right to choose"?

Originally posted by whiterose
[b]Ever heard of something called analogy? Or metaphor?

An analogy is a comparison between two different things, in order to highlight some form of similarity.
A metaphor is a figure of speech in which one thing is called another which it resembles in some significant way.
So I'll ask you again, why should God be refered to as He?

I'm arguin father". So yes, children should be thankful to their parents. Would you disagree?[/b]

An analogy is a comparison between two different things, in order to highlight some form of similarity.
A metaphor is a figure of speech in which one thing is called another which it resembles in some significant way.
So I'll ask you again, why should God be refered to as He?

Because the use of masculine language in the reference of God is analogical.


Power, as the dictionary defines it, is possession of controlling influence. Why should the definition be any different in the context of the church?

It needn't be. If "controlling" is the operative word then it's quite clear the only thing the hierarchical Church controls is itself; i.e. men controlling men.


Ah, that's clearer. It would be hypocritical of them to punish someone for murdering another in self defence, but I'm pretty sure they know that and have laws set up accordingly.

Is it hypocritical for them to punish murderers not acting in self-defence?


Sure, bring it on.

Start a thread. Solicit the professional opinion of people engaged in biological sciences as to whether gestating offspring can be technically considered 'parasites'.


Aren't most people brought up to thank their mothers for bringing them into this world? I know one of the christian tenents is to "honour thy mother and father". So yes, children should be thankful to their parents. Would you disagree?

Children can be thankful to their parents for a lot of things. They don't have to be thankful their parents permitted them to live. And they certainly don't have to be thankful for parents considering them "parasites".

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
In your view, is the immorality of a deliberate abortion completely independent of the known developmental state of the unborn human?

My intuition is that it should *not* be completely independent. All else equal, I believe it is morally worse to deliberately terminate (one's own) pregnancy at 8.5 months than at 8.5 seconds. By way of comparison, I a ...[text shortened]... to share these moral intuitions? Or do you share them, but on principled grounds reject them?

I know that I will feel sicker in my gut at the sight of an aborted third trimester fetus than a first trimester one. But I'm not going to let uncontrollable emotion be the basis of my ethical system.

And, to answer your question, no -- I do not share your intuition. My intuition tells me that the embryo at 9 days is the same being as that at 9 months or 9 years. My intuition tells me that a crime is more heinous the more helpless and defenceless the victim is.

'Aren't most people brought up to thank their mothers for bringing them into this world? I know one of the christian tenents is to "honour thy mother and father". So yes, children should be thankful to their parents. Would you disagree'?

I would definately disagree. A child doesn't have a choice whether it is born or not. A parent owes their child everything not the other way around. You're not a mother are you?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I know that I will feel sicker in my gut at the sight of an aborted third trimester fetus than a first trimester one. But I'm not going to let uncontrollable emotion be the basis of my ethical system.

And, to answer your question, no -- I do not share your intuition. My intuition tells me that the embryo at 9 days is the same being as that at 9 mon ...[text shortened]... ntuition tells me that a crime is more heinous the more helpless and defenceless the victim is.

But isn't it also your moral intuition that there is less of a victim present the less biologically developed the victim is?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]So if a computer is determined to have intelligence based on this new definition does it deserve the same rights as humans? No.

If a computer possesses intelligence and satisfies other criteria for rights, then of course it does.


No. Read my posts. What I said was that society determines what rights people have, not what rights peopl

So, on what basis would you object to society taking away a woman's "right to choose"?

If a computer possesses intelligence and satisfies other criteria for rights, then of course it does.


What are these other criteria for rights, and how does a computer satisfy them? In my view, the "intellingence" computers currently possess does not qualify them for the same rights as humans.


If society determines that a person no longer has a right then, according to your position, the person simply no longer has that right. It's not a 'violation' of that person's right because the right no longer exists.

If society determines that you do not have the right to live, they can kill you. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't have the right to live, just that you don't. I think every woman should have the right to choose whether to keep her child. However, many women in the world do not have this right, because the societies in which they live have not granted it to them.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]An analogy is a comparison between two different things, in order to highlight some form of similarity.
A metaphor is a figure of speech in which one thing is called another which it resembles in some significant way.
So I'll ask you again, why should God be refered to as He?

Because the use of masculine language in the reference of God is ...[text shortened]... ey certainly don't have to be thankful for parents considering them "parasites".[/b]

Because the use of masculine language in the reference of God is analogical.

So what's the similarity, if God isn't male? How is God more similar to males than females?

It needn't be. If "controlling" is the operative word then it's quite clear the only thing the hierarchical Church controls is itself; i.e. men controlling men.

So you are saying that there are no female catholics? Hm, that would make for a very short lived religion.

Is it hypocritical for them to punish murderers not acting in self-defence?

no

Start a thread. Solicit the professional opinion of people engaged in biological sciences as to whether gestating offspring can be technically considered 'parasites'.

You brought up the challenge of my definition, you start a thread.

Children can be thankful to their parents for a lot of things. They don't have to be thankful their parents permitted them to live. And they certainly don't have to be thankful for parents considering them "parasites".

I don't know anyone who considers their children to be parasites, nor did I ever say they were. As for allowing them to live, they should be thankful that you conceived them and went through all of the pain of pregnancy to bear them, yes. I've often heard women telling their children how they had to go through a long and painful process o get them here. I don't think this implies that they love them any less, in fact sometimes just the opposite.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Do you think that the Church, by banning abortion, is really trying to subjugate women and only apparently trying to subjugate immorality?

If so, do you think that the members of the Church are aware of ths pretense, or are the victims of self-deception? If either, how do you know?

Isn't it also possible they might ban abortion for other reasons?

According to the church, they are banning abortion for moral reasons. However, given the church's history of bending its morals to suit its purposes (e.g. sanctioning killing people when the bible clearly says not to), and also its history of subjugation of women, I conclude that this is another case of the church using the pretext of religion to achieve its own agenda (i.e. subjugation).

Originally posted by kinkyafro
'Aren't most people brought up to thank their mothers for bringing them into this world? I know one of the christian tenents is to "honour thy mother and father". So yes, children should be thankful to their parents. Would you disagree'?

I would definately disagree. A child doesn't have a choice whether it is born or not. A parent owes their child everything not the other way around. You're not a mother are you?

From a biological perspective, you're right, a mother owes her child everything as it is her way of passing her genes on to the next generation (the ultimate biological goal). I don't see why this precludes children being thankful to their parents.

Originally posted by whiterose
According to the church, they are banning abortion for moral reasons. However, given the church's history of bending its morals to suit its purposes (e.g. sanctioning killing people when the bible clearly says not to), and also its history of subjugation of women, I conclude that this is another case of the church using the pretext of religion to achieve its own agenda (i.e. subjugation).

Can't you distinguish between the Church hierarchy 500 years ago to the one that exists now? Those Catholics who agitate against abortion now are not the same Catholics that participated in the crusades or the inquisition. It's not hypcracy at all. They are different people.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
My intuition tells me that the embryo at 9 days is the same being as that at 9 months or 9 years.

What is it that leads you to conclude this (if intuitively)?

You also missed my post in the flurry of whiterose posts, I think.

Nemesio

Originally posted by whiterose
According to the church, they are banning abortion for moral reasons. However, given the church's history of bending its morals to suit its purposes (e.g. sanctioning killing people when the bible clearly says not to), and also its history of subjugation of women, I conclude that this is another case of the church using the pretext of religion to achieve its own agenda (i.e. subjugation).

How do you know that the intended agenda is subjugation, and that the subjugation does not merely occur in passing, in pursuance of another agenda? The claim that subjugation is an agenda is far more substantial that the claim that it merely occurs; hence, it requires more substantial argument and evidence. Can you provide it?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
But isn't it also your moral intuition that there is less of a victim present the less biologically developed the victim is?

Bump, Luciferhammer...