Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

Again, I am the one giving a right to life to all human beings from conception to natural death. You are the one giving it to some. When you say I can practice my own beliefs but not force it on others it is like saying an abolitionist can practice his own beliefs but not force them on slaveholders.

And again, slaveholders and religious fanatics are trying to change other's culture against their will. Women and slaves are not. They are the victims.

We are beginning to repeat ourselves. Argumentum ad nauseam is starting to come up. If you keep on saying the same thing over and over, that does not make it more true. If anything, you are moving me from the position that abortion is a difficult unresolvable moral question to thinking it quite clear.

JCP wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 4:54 amPeople want moral absolutes, not moral relativism.

I am seeing the opposite. People are moving from religious to secular perspectives. The religious inflexibility which John’s mother represents is becoming less popular. In issues like prejudice, conquest and abortion, the controlling other’s culture positions are not new, the equality and freedom positions more popular. You don't try to impose your culture on others. This is not really moral relativism. You help the victims of these policies. In terms of demographics, the secular positions look to have the edge.

This is a stronger trend in the West than among Muslims, at least in this crisis.

I have had no real opinion of Pope Francis, but it seems he is more for being right on ethics than consistent with age old positions. This may turn some people off, but I sympathize with both sides. The people are moving. If the Church is going to survive, he has to move with them.

Bob Butler wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 7:39 am And again, slaveholders and religious fanatics are trying to change other's culture against their will. Women and slaves are not. They are the victims.

We are beginning to repeat ourselves. Argumentum ad nauseam is starting to come up. If you keep on saying the same thing over and over, that does not make it more true. If anything, you are moving me from the position that abortion is a difficult unresolvable moral question to thinking it quite clear.

Pro-choicers are trying to change pro-lifers's culture against their will. Preborn babies are not. They are the victims.
If you keep saying the same thing over and over it does not make it more true either.

Tom Mazanec wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 9:04 am

Bob Butler wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 7:39 am And again, slaveholders and religious fanatics are trying to change other's culture against their will. Women and slaves are not. They are the victims.

We are beginning to repeat ourselves. Argumentum ad nauseam is starting to come up. If you keep on saying the same thing over and over, that does not make it more true. If anything, you are moving me from the position that abortion is a difficult unresolvable moral question to thinking it quite clear.

Pro-choicers are trying to change pro-lifers's culture against their will. Preborn babies are not. They are the victims.
If you keep saying the same thing over and over it does not make it more true either.

Again, the religious fanatics are being allowed to practice their beliefs. There is no attempt to change their culture. A fetus is not sapient. You have yet to identify a property of sapience or humanity which a fetus has.

Is it necessary to defend your position to repeatedly lie?

Bob Butler wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 8:05 am

JCP wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 4:54 amPeople want moral absolutes, not moral relativism.

I am seeing the opposite. People are moving from religious to secular perspectives. The religious inflexibility which John’s mother represents is becoming less popular. In issues like prejudice, conquest and abortion, the controlling other’s culture positions are not new, the equality and freedom positions more popular. You don't try to impose your culture on others. This is not really moral relativism. You help the victims of these policies. In terms of demographics, the secular positions look to have the edge.

This is a stronger trend in the West than among Muslims, at least in this crisis.

I have had no real opinion of Pope Francis, but it seems he is more for being right on ethics than consistent with age old positions. This may turn some people off, but I sympathize with both sides. The people are moving. If the Church is going to survive, he has to move with them.

What I meant was that the people who remain religious will be the ones in more conservative groups, not the wishy washy ones.

People need the spiritual. Now wokeism is a new kind of deranged religion. Isis was able to tap into he shallowness of post-Christian Europe and recruit hundreds, perhaps thousands of secular Europeans of Christian background into their army.

Guest wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 9:25 am

Bob Butler wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 8:05 am

JCP wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 4:54 amPeople want moral absolutes, not moral relativism.

I am seeing the opposite. People are moving from religious to secular perspectives. The religious inflexibility which John’s mother represents is becoming less popular. In issues like prejudice, conquest and abortion, the controlling other’s culture positions are not new, the equality and freedom positions more popular. You don't try to impose your culture on others. This is not really moral relativism. You help the victims of these policies. In terms of demographics, the secular positions look to have the edge.

This is a stronger trend in the West than among Muslims, at least in this crisis.

I have had no real opinion of Pope Francis, but it seems he is more for being right on ethics than consistent with age old positions. This may turn some people off, but I sympathize with both sides. The people are moving. If the Church is going to survive, he has to move with them.

What I meant was that the people who remain religious will be the ones in more conservative groups, not the wishy washy ones.

People need the spiritual. Now wokeism is a new kind of deranged religion. Isis was able to tap into he shallowness of post-Christian Europe and recruit hundreds, perhaps thousands of secular Europeans of Christian background into their army.

I can agree the people who remain religious will be more conservative.

I will disagree that people need the spiritual. The world is becoming more secular. Those who do not need religion are numerous and content. If you do not recognize the world as shifting, you certainly won’t be with Pope Francis. See him as moving to keep up with a changing base.

Is the secular / democratic position wishy washy? Are BLM, the Ukrainians and pro choice people wishy washy? You might wish it so, but they are on top of this crisis.

I am coming to believe the issues of this and prior American crises have featured one conservative group trying to control another culture. The white supremacists try to maintain dominance over the blacks, the Russians over the Ukrainians, the religious fanatics over women. I go into more depth on this on my own thread. This is wider than the abortion question, but people don’t like it when another bunch of people tries to control them. In recent crises, those being controlled are not wishy washy about it, but come out ahead. I could see it going the same way this time.

ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) is not the bulk of the Muslims who moved to the west. Those that moved were those most sympathetic with western values. Those that remained were more in tune with the middle eastern autocratic culture. We have to be careful to maintain the western ideal of religious freedom. We have to allow them to practice their religion as they wish. Still, it is an instinct to try to control those who are different. We have to recognize it an suppress it.

Again, the religious fanatics are being allowed to practice their beliefs. There is no attempt to change their culture. A fetus is not sapient. You have yet to identify a property of sapience or humanity which a fetus has.

The fetus is a fetal human, that is the property of humanity it has...humanness. And religious people have a moral obligation to protect all humans. Obviously you don't. I am not lying, this is my obligation.

Tom Mazanec wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 12:43 pm

Again, the religious fanatics are being allowed to practice their beliefs. There is no attempt to change their culture. A fetus is not sapient. You have yet to identify a property of sapience or humanity which a fetus has.

The fetus is a fetal human, that is the property of humanity it has...humanness. And religious people have a moral obligation to protect all humans. Obviously you don't. I am not lying, this is my obligation.

Rewording it then, from my perspective no culture has a right to impose its beliefs and doctrines on another culture unless the other is causing harm to other sapients. Take this premise from my recent talks with John and JCP. In most crises. the losing conservative faction is attempting to maintain control of another culture as the religious fanatics are trying to control women. This is dubious. The British did not control America. The South did not control the slaves. The Fascists ended up not controlling anyone. Putin is not controlling Ukraine. Attempting to control others is a bad idea. In a crisis, it has not worked.

No one is inhibiting the religious from practicing their own beliefs.

A fetus is not sapient. You have yet to define a property of sapience other than 'has human genes'. In this case your are assuming your conclusion as a premise. Can you come up with another measurable criteria?

Prove that a fetus is not sapient. Obviously you don't care about humanity. If a fetus is not sapient than neither are you in deep nonREM sleep.
And as for religious, I gave you a link with five arguments OUTSIDE of religion against abortion.