(July 30, 2017 at 7:17 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(July 30, 2017 at 6:58 pm)ignoramus Wrote: Who doesn't

Not me. Can you imagine the headache!

That's exactly what I have said since I was a kid and couldn't understand why my Saturday morning cartoon supervillains were so hell-bent on world domination.

(July 30, 2017 at 6:22 pm)Dropship Wrote: Nobody knows what a 'true' christian is, just as nobody knows what a 'true' atheist is.
One definition of a true christian which I like is "somebody who likes Jesus'..
As for abortion, when my mother became preggers out of wedlock 60 years ago, her and my dad had a shotgun wedding to cover it up. But if they'd have aborted me friends and neighbours would have thought "Oh well, it was for the best", and not minded.
But I might have minded..

I reckon a true christian is one who enacts what they have been told their savior said. Of course some of it is unsavory, but if you cherry-pick wisely, the message ain't that bad. Now -- how many humans pick anything wisely? Yeah.

Regarding abortion, and yours hypothetically, I'm glad for you that you're alive. But for all the power your personal story might have, it doesn't change the fact that anyone seeking to outlaw it is trying to control what they think is the morality of others, rather than paying attention to their own. In the words of many of the same opponents, it's "virtue-signalling".

To which I say, "We get it, you're a good person, and you're against abortion. That's great. Don't have one."

It's pretty simple: a religion is a political entity first and foremost. By encouraging certain behaviors while making others taboo, you create an environment where groupthink and obedience is not only encouraged, but a measure of personal value. From there, you can control large groups of people with very little effort. Modern cults start with this, usually making certain rational behaviors (like contacting the police, contacting family members on the outside, contacting mental health professionals) taboo. See also: Scientology.

Religion, in particular, attaches morals to sexual encounters because one tactic of fighting against other tribes and sects is simply to outbreed them. It's especially important if your population is low compared to the other sects/groups you're competing with, and you're surrounded by them. The modern Quiverfull movement is an example of this mentality. Sex must be orderly, and primarily slanted towards reproduction, in order to be useful for the group at large.

So, yeah, it's no great mystery. If you view organized religion as the political apparatus it's always been, a lot of things start to make sense.

(July 30, 2017 at 9:32 am)pool the matey Wrote: I think it's because religion is big on families and their stability and whatever they moral police not to do they believe has some negative impact on families.

That's the official excuse, but even "family values" is a fulcrum of control for them. Ultimately, religious morality is all about keeping people in line with dogma and ideology. Claiming to want to "protect" families or children or whatever makes it sound high-concept, but at the end of the day it's still about control.

Societal morality does a fine job of protecting the vulnerable and facilitating societal units like families. God adds nothing to it other than a bunch of assertions that can't be substantiated.

@OP Q

Because it makes fiscal sense.  You're welcome.

(July 30, 2017 at 9:09 pm)mordant Wrote:

(July 30, 2017 at 9:32 am)pool the matey Wrote: I think it's because religion is big on families and their stability and whatever they moral police not to do they believe has some negative impact on families.

That's the official excuse, but even "family values" is a fulcrum of control for them. Ultimately, religious morality is all about keeping people in line with dogma and ideology. Claiming to want to "protect" families or children or whatever makes it sound high-concept, but at the end of the day it's still about control.

Societal morality does a fine job of protecting the vulnerable and facilitating societal units like families. God adds nothing to it other than a bunch of assertions that can't be substantiated.

Exactly; the 'family values' part sounds great and of course puts the fear into the parents who want to protect their kids, but put zero critical examination into it because of the conclusions they come to about it. All it really does is ensure that indoctrinating the next generation is a priority to parents and sets up the next generation after that to follow suit.

And it doesn't just add naked assertions, it adds skewed and questionable ideas about morality and reality, which is a net negative, not a useless neutral effect.

(July 30, 2017 at 8:02 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: ..anyone seeking to outlaw it is trying to control what they think is the morality of others...

Suppose somebody accidentally got his girlfriend "in trouble" and was delighted at the prospect of becoming a father, but his girlfriend wanted to abort it.
In his place how would you feel? Don't dads have rights too?

Not that one, you're welcome.

(July 30, 2017 at 10:23 pm)Khemikal Wrote: @OP Q

Because it makes fiscal sense.  You're welcome.

Well Jesus was a Jew so his dad probably was too.
Just another family business making good.

(July 31, 2017 at 1:16 am)Dropship Wrote:

(July 30, 2017 at 8:02 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: ..anyone seeking to outlaw it is trying to control what they think is the morality of others...

Suppose somebody accidentally got his girlfriend "in trouble" and was delighted at the prospect of becoming a father, but his girlfriend wanted to abort it.
In his place how would you feel? Don't dads have rights too?

It has happened to me -- but no matter my "right" to be a father, her right to bodily autonomy trumped my wishes, and that is as it should be.

But to play along with your scenario for a moment: What if both mother and father decided it was a bad time to become parents? Would you then allow both parents exercise the right to choice? Or is this hypothetical, and vague, "right" of fathers contingent upon them agreeing with your stance on abortions?