Texas v abortion

[tstorm823]

Lmao, if god is omniscient and has a plan then free will is an illusion. God already knows what "choices" we're gonna make and we're just going through the motions.

What you are actually describing is called "hindsight"

a) I'm a Catholic, and you're largely arguing against Calvinism.
b) You're not doing a very good job, because it's really easy to imagine a plan that allows for choice. "We drive to the city, you pick where we have lunch, then we'll go to the concert from there." Look, I made a plan where you choose.
c) What you're actually describing is approximate to hindsight. A God that exists independent of time knows every decision you make at all times, but that doesn't mean you don't make them any more than a human in the future knowing what choices you made in the past means you didn't choose them.

Like, the reality is that there is only one way that everything will happen, but that does not deny that you have influence over part of the one existing scenario that is reality.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

a) I'm a Catholic, and you're largely arguing against Calvinism.
b) You're not doing a very good job, because it's really easy to imagine a plan that allows for choice. "We drive to the city, you pick where we have lunch, then we'll go to the concert from there." Look, I made a plan where you choose.
c) What you're actually describing is approximate to hindsight. A God that exists independent of time knows every decision you make at all times, but that doesn't mean you don't make them any more than a human in the future knowing what choices you made in the past means you didn't choose them.

Like, the reality is that there is only one way that everything will happen, but that does not deny that you have influence over part of the one existing scenario that is reality.

If there's only one way that everything will happen, and there's an outside observer than knows how it all goes down, what is the functional difference? I'm raised, baptized, and confirmed Catholic too, my dude. The theology uses cognitive dissonance to plaster over the weak bits.

Oh no. Thousands of years of theology destroyed. Pack it up, folks.

How does that destroy theology when it's explicitly describing more than a few theologies, is the logical conclusion of several more, and describes more than a few secular philosophies as well?

I'm just making fun of the guy going "if not my version of god, no free will"

 

[MrCalavera]

Oh no. Thousands of years of theology destroyed. Pack it up, folks.

Theology isn't a real science anyway.

 

[tstorm823]

If there's only one way that everything will happen, and there's an outside observer than knows how it all goes down, what is the functional difference?

There's only one way that your life has happened up to this point. If you look back and know what happened in your life, does that mean you never made a choice in the past? Why do you think observing someone doing something means they had no choice in doing it? It's a silly thing to think.

I'm just making fun of the guy going "if not my version of god, no free will"

And you're sucking at it.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

There's only one way that your life has happened up to this point. If you look back and know what happened in your life, does that mean you never made a choice in the past? Why do you think observing someone doing something means they had no choice in doing it? It's a silly thing to think.

Because, according to you, the same guy allowing you the choice already knows what you're going to choose and you won't actually choose something else.
Determinism, but with theological authority and a creator that set everything in motion

Like, dude, you're the person saying that if god didn't exist people wouldn't have free will

 

[bluegate]

Like, dude, you're the person saying that if god didn't exist people wouldn't have free will

Lol, what?

 

[tstorm823]

Because, according to you, the same guy allowing you the choice already knows what you're going to choose and you won't actually choose something else.
Determinism, but with theological authority and a creator that set everything in motion

Like, dude, you're the person saying that if god didn't exist people wouldn't have free will

I mean, I didn't say that at all. And you really don't grasp the concept of eternity.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I mean, I didn't say that at all. And you really don't grasp the concept of eternity.

Nobody grasps the concept of eternity. We can barely grasp the concept of space and our brains actively lie to us about the concept of time. The idea that making choices, something monkys do, as being a super natural act instead of a perfectly normal, natural state of being is laughable.

It's largely a moot point when I've got loving Christians telling me that the government should force 12 year old rape victims to give birth though. Theological discussions are fun and all but at the end of the day we've got practical problems

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Probably already posted, but buried

A Doctor Who Defied Texas' Abortion Law Is Sued, Launching A Legality Test Of The Ban

The law, which restricts abortions to about six weeks of gestation, can only be enforced through lawsuits by private citizens, who are entitled to claim at least $10,000 in damages if successful.

www.npr.org

 

[Gordon_4]

Probably already posted, but buried

A Doctor Who Defied Texas' Abortion Law Is Sued, Launching A Legality Test Of The Ban

The law, which restricts abortions to about six weeks of gestation, can only be enforced through lawsuits by private citizens, who are entitled to claim at least $10,000 in damages if successful.

www.npr.org

I'd be curious to know how this would work if, for the sake of argument, the person went to a family member who lived in another country and got the money directly wired to them and went out of state to do the procedure.

 

[Silvanus]

I find it extremely irrational to compare a suffering of a free range hen to the convenience of me eating it later (after a year or two of laying eggs). Add to that other "cruelty" like shredding male chicks that nobody even eats. Any 'cruelty free' certificate could only be a checklist of things... like how we have requirements for 'organic' animal products. Who is the rational arbiter there? What is the 'normal' amount of suffering that comes with living in the first place? Unmeasurable, unanswerable, so I err on the side of convenience.

You've appealed several times to the fact that suffering is "unmeasurable", and concluded from that that you might as well just inflict it anyway. Which seems a tremendously lazy rationalisation, but anywho. My main point to make is: everything you've said here applies equally to human beings.

What's the "normal" amount of human suffering that comes with living? Unmeasurable, unanswerable! So we might as well inflict as much suffering as we want on our fellow man for our own fleeting enjoyment!

Anyway, that wasn't at stake here at any point, you made me elaborate on other things because my take on abortion isn't good enough, but I'm fine with it. So I'll ask you instead that if you base a fetus' life's worth on awareness are you fine with science determining when abortion changes to murder?

That would involve a value judgement, which isn't within science's purview.

I would read the second half of the sentence you quoted. Morality is a supernatural concept because free will is a supernatural concept. Natural forces follow the rules of cause and effect. To make a real decision, one must be capable of choosing between different possible effects. To be able to direct future outcomes with a certain level of independence from the causes that made you requires you to personally have supernatural influence on the world. The idea of free will, the concept of a choice, is a miniature version of the uncaused cause, the idea of man made in God's image. If you are simply a physical object with no existence outside of nature as we know it, free will makes no sense. If free will makes no sense, you can't really make choices, you are a deterministic blob guided by the forces of nature, which makes morality kind of a useless concept.

Alright. But most of the rest of us don't share your premises or conclusions, and free will exists perfectly comfortably as a phenomenon in plenty of atheist philosophies, including mine. That you don't believe it fits in other peoples' philosophies isn't very meaningful, because you generally don't tend to understand (or try to understand) other peoples' philosophies anyway.

 

[tstorm823]

Alright. But most of the rest of us don't share your premises or conclusions, and free will exists perfectly comfortably as a phenomenon in plenty of atheist philosophies, including mine. That you don't believe it fits in other peoples' philosophies isn't very meaningful, because you generally don't tend to understand (or try to understand) other peoples' philosophies anyway.

Free will fits perfectly comfortably in atheist philosophies that allow for supernatural forces to exist, sure. There are plenty of people in the world who don't believe in God but do believe in souls and spirits and whatnot. Like, you want to talk about not understanding or trying to understand, the moment I bring up a supernatural concept, I'm immediately bombarded with tired, banal arguments people heard Richard Dawkins make once that don't actually apply to what I'm saying. I would love for someone to take on the conception of free will I presented rather than attempt to disprove God instead, but here we are.

The premises my argument is built on here are shared by the majority of western civilization though. Not because they are Christian premises, but because they are the basic assumptions of science: that the natural world exists, that it has an order that can be explained, than a scenario with identical circumstances will result in an identical outcome, that this information can be used to predict or repeat outcomes. Add to that a basis in empiricism, the idea that valid knowledge is found through experience. A scientific framework does not allow for free will as a natural force. Free will defies order, free choices can't be explained, you can't count on them to be repeated. If one believes that science is the proper perspective for understanding the natural world, one cannot categorize free will as a natural force.

I make a good deal of effort understanding people's philosophies here. You honestly might be an exception to that rule, because I don't know you've ever spoken to me about what you actually think. You seem largely content to just pick at my words looking for something to dispute, which is fun and I appreciate, but hardly puts you in a position to complain if I don't know your personal philosophy.

 

[McElroy]

What's the "normal" amount of human suffering that comes with living? Unmeasurable, unanswerable! So we might as well inflict as much suffering as we want on our fellow man for our own fleeting enjoyment!

I acknowledged this with the sadist example. We are already not minimizing suffering in some sense, because we value freedom more. Or in some other place they value freedom so little that they will violently take it away.

That would involve a value judgement, which isn't within science's purview.

Science has ways to determine awareness, which if I understand correctly is a big part of your evaluation on what protections life is granted. If that is to have any basis, then terminating a human fetus who has the awareness of some animal whose life you'd protect would be immoral.

 

[Silvanus]

I acknowledged this with the sadist example. We are already not minimizing suffering in some sense, because we value freedom more. Or in some other place they value freedom so little that they will violently take it away.

Indeed. So the "unmeasurable, so do what you want" rationale is just as applicable to humankind and other animal species.

Science has ways to determine awareness, which if I understand correctly is a big part of your evaluation on what protections life is granted. If that is to have any basis, then terminating a human fetus who has the awareness of some animal whose life you'd protect would be immoral.

That would be correct (although awareness isn't my only criterion). But it would be the role of science to determine (as best we can) the level of awareness. Passing judgdement on what to do at different levels of awareness is not the purview of science, because it involves a value judgement.

 

[Silvanus]

Free will fits perfectly comfortably in atheist philosophies that allow for supernatural forces to exist, sure. There are plenty of people in the world who don't believe in God but do believe in souls and spirits and whatnot.

No, free will exists perfectly comfortably in atheist philosophies that don't have a single supernatural element to them. It has for centuries.

Like, you want to talk about not understanding or trying to understand, the moment I bring up a supernatural concept, I'm immediately bombarded with tired, banal arguments people heard Richard Dawkins make once that don't actually apply to what I'm saying. I would love for someone to take on the conception of free will I presented rather than attempt to disprove God instead, but here we are.

Oh, give me a break. I'm not trying to disprove god. What happened here is that you, yet again, tried to tell other people what they believe. You're here insisting your opponents' philosophies are impossible/illogical, and then you have the chutzpah to moan about other people acting dismissively towards yours? Practice what you preach.

 

[McElroy]

Passing judgement on what to do at different levels of awareness is not the purview of science, because it involves a value judgement.

I'm not saying that. Are you acting dense on purpose? I'm wondering how you would take a pro-choice or a pro-life stance: at what point is a fetus comparable to an animal you wouldn't kill? Some scientific findings must have given a guideline or two.

Tying it to the topic: is a heartbeat granted protection? I'm guessing no just for the simple reason that we can keep a braindead person's heart beating, but is the pregnant woman comparable to a heart-lung machine? What if we were to unplug the machine?

 

[tstorm823]

No, free will exists perfectly comfortably in atheist philosophies that don't have a single supernatural element to them. It has for centuries.

Would you care to explain one of those?

Oh, give me a break. I'm not trying to disprove god. What happened here is that you, yet again, tried to tell other people what they believe. You're here insisting your opponents' philosophies are impossible/illogical, and then you have the chutzpah to moan about other people acting dismissively towards yours? Practice what you preach.

1) I'm guessing that you aren't reading anyone else's posts, I was not referring to you specifically about trying to disprove God.
2) I'm stating my own positions, not anyone else's. I'm not trying to tell anyone what they believe.
3) I have no problem with people dismissive of my beliefs. I enjoy arguments like this because I like people to challenge my beliefs, as well as me challenging theirs. My complaint isn't that people are dismissive of my beliefs, it's that they are dismissive of things I'm not saying. Which I suppose is fine as well in a sense, but what I'd appreciate is responses to the things I say.

I'm not telling you what you think. I'm telling you what I think, and if you think something that disagrees, please explain that. I would love to hear your positions on free will or morality beyond you just telling me that you think that I'm wrong. I promise, you stating a different belief than my own is not a personal attack.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Would you care to explain one of those?

Nihilism and existentialism, just to take a couple off the top of my head.

Tying it to the topic: is a heartbeat granted protection? I'm guessing no just for the simple reason that we can keep a braindead person's heart beating, but is the pregnant woman comparable to a heart-lung machine? What if we were to unplug the machine?

Pregnant people are not-in fact, a piece of medical equipment and should not be forced by the government into being one against their will.
This is based on my belief that nobody should be reduced to medical equipment or spare parts by the government nor anybody else without their express consent.

 

[McElroy]

Pregnant people are not-in fact, a piece of medical equipment and should not be forced by the government into being one against their will.
This is based on my belief that nobody should be reduced to medical equipment or spare parts by the government nor anybody else without their express consent.

I agree, but it sounds like logistics and convenience, and it could be immoral to put them before a life that's granted protections.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I agree, but it sounds like logistics and convenience, and it could be immoral to put them before a life that's granted protections.

Why? Should we have the government get into mandated organ harvesting to save the lives of children? Force an underclass of people to donate blood when the need arises?

Whether or not it's moral to let somebody die when you can sacrifice bits of your body to save them is an issue for your own belief system, we're talking about ethics and when the government gets to treat people like medical equipment