(December 7, 2017 at 12:14 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Wanted to apologize real quick for calling y'all idiots. Abortion is a very personal issue for me and my family for several reasons. I have little patience with this issue and so can't talk about it civilly when there are downright bad arguments being made in favor of it.

CL, out.

It's fine CL

(December 7, 2017 at 12:05 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

(December 7, 2017 at 12:02 pm)wallym Wrote: You guys wouldn't have to use your dipshit rationalizations if you just owned reality.  You think women should be able to murder babies.  That's what's really going on.  If you can't accept that as reality, then you should be anti-abortion.  But you don't have to be.  You can be pro women murdering babies, and there's nothing wrong with that.  You're atheists.  This is a perk.  We don't have to make our views fit around the silly notion that life is inherently valuable.  

I had this discussion with someone about 6 months before Louis CK's special came out, and he summed it up perfectly.

https://youtu.be/iWFGIf1jIdY

This assumes that i'm using rationalizations . Didn't realize you were psychic wally . And just because you have given up on having any morality does not mean i have to follow you into the abyss.

We're already in the abyss together.  We both are okay with abortion.  There are no practical gaps between what you think and what I think.  If a lady wants an abortion, she should be able to have one.  We're holding hands skipping along in the darkness.

Where we differ is that you go on and on about viability and women's bodies, and quality of life, and fetus, and developmental stages, and blah blah blah.  Whereas I just very simply say "yeah, killing babies is fine for awhile."  I'm not trying to dress up baby killing as something it's not.  You have to, because you have a bunch of irrational views on life that you're trying to hold together with scotch tape and an expired glue stick, but I'm saying give up on that horrific craft project that you call morality, and just own something for once.  Give it a try, see how it feels.  Maybe you'll like it.

---

(December 7, 2017 at 12:15 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(December 7, 2017 at 12:02 pm)wallym Wrote: You guys wouldn't have to use your dipshit rationalizations if you just owned reality.  You think women should be able to murder babies.  That's what's really going on.  If you can't accept that as reality, then you should be anti-abortion.  But you don't have to be.  You can be pro women murdering babies, and there's nothing wrong with that.  You're atheists.  This is a perk.  We don't have to make our views fit around the silly notion that life is inherently valuable.  

I wish other atheists like Tiz were as intellectually honest as you and your willingness to embrace "the abyss". We have at least that much in common.

While it's fine for discussion purposes, I think we're better off with as few of people like me as possible

(December 7, 2017 at 12:17 pm)wallym Wrote:

(December 7, 2017 at 12:05 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: This assumes that i'm using rationalizations . Didn't realize you were psychic wally . And just because you have given up on having any morality does not mean i have to follow you into the abyss.

We're already in the abyss together.  We both are okay with abortion.  There are no practical gaps between what you think and what I think.  If a lady wants an abortion, she should be able to have one.  We're holding hands skipping along in the darkness.

Where we differ is that you go on and on about viability and women's bodies, and quality of life, and fetus, and developmental stages, and blah blah blah.  Whereas I just very simply say "yeah, killing babies is fine for awhile."  I'm not trying to dress up baby killing as something it's not.  You have to, because you have a bunch of irrational views on life that you're trying to hold together with scotch tape and an expired glue stick, but I'm saying give up on that horrific craft project that you call morality, and just own something for once.  Give it a try, see how it feels.  Maybe you'll like it.

---

(December 7, 2017 at 12:15 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I wish other atheists like Tiz were as intellectually honest as you and your willingness to embrace "the abyss". We have at least that much in common.

While it's fine for discussion purposes, I think we're better off with as few of people like me as possible

Yeah, but Christian apologists would love to have more people like you around, because the stuff you unwittingly say serve as some of the best fodder for strawmen arguments against atheism.

Quote:e're already in the abyss together.  We both are okay with abortion.  There are no practical gaps between what you think and what I think.  If a lady wants an abortion, she should be able to have one.  We're holding hands skipping along in the darkness.

Nope your in the abyss .Yup we are for very different reasons .

Quote:Where we differ is that you go on and on about viability and women's bodies, and quality of life, and fetus, and developmental stages, and blah blah blah.  Whereas I just very simply say "yeah, killing babies is fine for awhile."  I'm not trying to dress up baby killing as something it's not.  You have to, because you have a bunch of irrational views on life that you're trying to hold together with scotch tape and an expired glue stick, but I'm saying give up on that horrific craft project that you call morality, and just own something for once.  Give it a try, see how it feels.  Maybe you'll like it.

No were we defer is on why abortion is okay . And the fact morality exists but not as magic fairy dust .

Quote:I wish other atheists like Tiz were as intellectually honest as you and your willingness to embrace "the abyss". We have at least that much in common

Yes i bet you do wish that Wooter . But i doubt it has anything to do with intellectual honesty and more to do with apologetic convenience.

---

(December 7, 2017 at 12:28 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(December 7, 2017 at 12:17 pm)wallym Wrote: We're already in the abyss together.  We both are okay with abortion.  There are no practical gaps between what you think and what I think.  If a lady wants an abortion, she should be able to have one.  We're holding hands skipping along in the darkness.

Where we differ is that you go on and on about viability and women's bodies, and quality of life, and fetus, and developmental stages, and blah blah blah.  Whereas I just very simply say "yeah, killing babies is fine for awhile."  I'm not trying to dress up baby killing as something it's not.  You have to, because you have a bunch of irrational views on life that you're trying to hold together with scotch tape and an expired glue stick, but I'm saying give up on that horrific craft project that you call morality, and just own something for once.  Give it a try, see how it feels.  Maybe you'll like it.

---

While it's fine for discussion purposes, I think we're better off with as few of people like me as possible

Yeah, but Christian apologists would love to have more people like you around, because the stuff you unwittingly say serve as some of the best fodder for strawmen arguments against atheism.

Which is why the love wally

(December 7, 2017 at 12:28 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Yeah, but Christian apologists would love to have more people like you around, because the stuff you unwittingly say serve as some of the best fodder for strawmen arguments against atheism.

I think it's cute that you think he says it unwittingly.  The guy can be positively relied upon to mouth the most incompetent theist lines about atheism. Personally, I think he could make a killing doing appearences on the pulpit.  All he;d have to do is roll out the usual schtick and then say "Boo!" at the end of it. They'd be throwing money at his face.



(I do think..though, wallym, that you should tell people that you're a hitlery democrat - it's a force multiplier, you know, just a suggestion for your consideration.)

(December 7, 2017 at 11:01 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(December 7, 2017 at 10:40 am)SteveII Wrote: Abortion advocates have elevated a right of the mother in favor of the right of the child. Subjective

No, they haven't..this is one of many reasons that your opinion is wrong.  Nor is anything above an issue of subjectivity in the first place.  So that's twice you were factually wrong and there's nothing subjective about it.

What?!?! The very crux of the debate is the "rights" of the mother. The baby has no rights OR has rights at a certain number of weeks--depending on jurisdiction = subjective. 

Additionally, the babies rights can then be set aside if other subjective conditions are met--which vary wildly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (like the mental health of the mother).  

Quote:

Quote:A child 10 minutes before birth has little or no rights and can be terminated. 20 minutes later-- murder. Subjective

Where, Hell-holistan?  Now you're not only factually wrong you're being intentionally duplicitous..and -still- haven;t managed to point out any subjectivity.  You just keep typing the word.

What?!?!? Setting aside that Planned Parenthood considers any ban to be unconstitutional (read "unborn baby has no rights"), third-trimester abortions happen all the time in many jurisdictions. The baby born at 3pm could have been killed right up to delivery. At 3:10, sitting in the incubator, it would be murder to kill it. Why? What magically happened in those minutes to endow rights to the baby that is not subjective? Location? 

Quote:

Quote:If a pregnant mother is murdered, someone can be charged with a double-murder. If the mother kills the baby, it's okay. Subjective.

You mean..there's no difference between murder and killing?  You seem to think otherwise elsewhere..and yet again, you've failed to establish any subjectivity.  

You did, however, in each and every case, use the term "subjective" as a placeholder for what you found to be "wrong".  This is -why- you cannot competently comment on objective morality (or in this case objective statements regarding legality).  You don't know what it is.  You take and communicate whatever it is you think a fairy said to be the definition of objective and right...and whatever you don't agree with to be the definition of subjective and wrong.  Your failure, and frankly the failure of your religion these past centuries..in this regard..holds a mirror up to and explains the failure of those who respond as reactionaries -to- that failure by denying the existence of any moral facts.  Your mistake precipitates and fuels their mistake.

A productive and informative conversation about objective morality and the relationship between non optimal decisions -could- be had using the legality of abortion as a foil for the process of moral decision-making..but not with you or anyone who has codifed their moral response by the assumption of your commonly shared misapprehensions.

Ah, but there is no difference from the baby's perspective--just a different person's intent. Subjective

Differing legality in different jurisdictions is not the same as morally right or wrong, but it surely is a perfect example that the morality of abortion is highly subjective. 

Therefore, your harm avoidance framework as a basis of morality is NOT objective. Christian morality is much more objective because we can start with the premise the all human life has intrinsic value because we were made in the image of God with purpose. Talking about past failures is a epistemic problem not whether there is an objective standard or not.

(December 7, 2017 at 12:28 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(December 7, 2017 at 12:17 pm)wallym Wrote: We're already in the abyss together.  We both are okay with abortion.  There are no practical gaps between what you think and what I think.  If a lady wants an abortion, she should be able to have one.  We're holding hands skipping along in the darkness.

Where we differ is that you go on and on about viability and women's bodies, and quality of life, and fetus, and developmental stages, and blah blah blah.  Whereas I just very simply say "yeah, killing babies is fine for awhile."  I'm not trying to dress up baby killing as something it's not.  You have to, because you have a bunch of irrational views on life that you're trying to hold together with scotch tape and an expired glue stick, but I'm saying give up on that horrific craft project that you call morality, and just own something for once.  Give it a try, see how it feels.  Maybe you'll like it.

---

While it's fine for discussion purposes, I think we're better off with as few of people like me as possible

Yeah, but Christian apologists would love to have more people like you around, because the stuff you unwittingly say serve as some of the best fodder for strawmen arguments against atheism.

I just said I think women should be able to murder babies, and he didn't even try to argue with me.  Didn't even give it a whirl. That your half-ass ideas on life struggle to deal with his half-ass ideas on life seems like more of a 'having half-ass ideas" problem, than the fact my views make all his arguments irrelevant.

(December 7, 2017 at 12:53 pm)SteveII Wrote: Therefore, your harm avoidance framework as a basis of morality is NOT objective. Christian morality is much more objective because we can start with the premise the all human life has intrinsic value because we were made in the image of God with purpose. Talking about past failures is a epistemic problem not whether there is an objective standard or not.

And yet, that's contradicted by the various passages in the Bible where it was divinely ordained to go slaughter people, including children. Some intrinsic value human life has.

Actually it does not Steve . And once again theism has no basis for objective morality

(December 7, 2017 at 1:04 pm)wallym Wrote:

(December 7, 2017 at 12:28 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Yeah, but Christian apologists would love to have more people like you around, because the stuff you unwittingly say serve as some of the best fodder for strawmen arguments against atheism.

I just said I think women should be able to murder babies, and he didn't even try to argue with me.  Didn't even give it a whirl. That your half-ass ideas on life struggle to deal with his half-ass ideas on life seems like more of a 'having half-ass ideas" problem, than the fact my views make all his arguments irrelevant.

The arguments are irrelevant by default. You're just making them feel more validated in their absurd beliefs.