Social Liberal: Practical Atheism

[Heraklea-]

"How dare social liberals insist that same-sex marriage, which has no impact in any way, shape or form, be recognized by the government? How dare they insist that bodily sovereignty be respected? How dare they insist that safe-sex practices be easily procured? How dare they insist that the irreversible punishment of death not be employed except in the most heinous of cases because of the well documented failings of the justice system in its application? How dare they insist police, the most visible embodiment on the states monopoly on the legitimate use of force, be held to a higher standard than the every man on the street? How dare they insist that people should be able to feel themselves in their own body, regardless of their physical sex at birth? How dare they insist..."

In other words:

"How dare we insist that man is God? How dare we insist that man is nothing but self-creation and pure choice? How dare we insist that there are natural limits to man's freedom, and there is an objective moral order? How dare we deny that God made us?"

You mean how dare I insist your adherence to an ancient and outdated moral system, built on a document so full of internal inconsistencies and supported by religious institutions which has actively supported slaving those of other faiths, torturing those merely suspected of not worshiping in the exact same way as the established doctrines and committing outright genocide on entire populations who dare resist the imposition of these dogmas upon themselves, not impact my life more than occasionally reading someone's whiny blog about people who dare to think differently?

(Sorry to everyone else about the run on sentence. I'd apologize to MC5 but I make it a habit of not apologizing to others for whatever manner I choose to attack their bigoted views.)

[Dooom35796821595]

You have to admit though, many of the arguments in favour of a right to an abortion just look bizarre when the same person suddenly turns around and argues against the death penalty.

I don't think it's logically consistent to be, at the same time, (a) ok with late-term abortion, and (b) fundamentally opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances. And yet, absurdly, many people combine those two stances anyway.

It's more about the lack of ability to survive outside the womb, combined with an underdeveloped brain. It's a grey area that no doubt will be viewed as barbaric in future societies that find more elegant solutions, just as we veiw lobotomies today.

[Constantinopolis]

You have to admit though, many of the arguments in favour of a right to an abortion just look bizarre when the same person suddenly turns around and argues against the death penalty.

I don't think it's logically consistent to be, at the same time, (a) ok with late-term abortion, and (b) fundamentally opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances. And yet, absurdly, many people combine those two stances anyway.

I'm sorry that you don't understand why not demanding women carry a fetus to term is the same as killing a person.

Do you honestly think that executing, say, Josef Fritzl, would be worse than aborting a second-trimester fetus, such that the former should be illegal but the latter should be legal?

Even granted that a fetus is not a human person, to suggest that it has less of a right to life than even the most outrageously evil human individual on the planet, seems utterly ridiculous to me.

After all, a dog isn't a human person either, but between a dog and Josef Fritzl, who do you have more empathy for?

[Mega City 5]

Do you honestly think that executing, say, Josef Fritzl, would be worse than aborting a second-trimister fetus, such that the former should be illegal but the latter should be legal?

Even granted that a fetus is not a human person, to suggest that it has less of a right to life than even the most outrageously evil human individual on the planet, seems utterly ridiculous to me.

After all, a dog isn't a human person either, but between a dog and Josef Fritzl, who do you have more empathy for?

It's absolutely ridiculous. Read the thread on Nation States General about Tamir Rice. One of the pro-aborts in that thread actually talks about how valuable human life is and how careful police should be to safeguard even the lives of dangerous and guilty people (e.g., thugs like Tamir Rice).

So, let's get this straight. Dude has a gun (or what appears to be a gun) and is threatening people with it. He has a right to life and police should respect it.

Innocent unborn child. No right to life?

[Morr]

Unless the Church is actually administrating things, social liberalism is the only meaningful option. I mean, how the hell are people going to complain about how unchristian homosexual marriage is, when divorces occur like a merry-go-round?

I dislike secularism as much as you do, but you're coming from the wrong perspective. First off, Christianity is about making it clear we condemn certain actions morally, but about leaving punishment for most of them up to God--the Church can punish there, but secular states can't. Okay, on top of that, you're outright incorrect on some of your stances in light of Catechism, which, for instance, explicitly states that the death penalty is only permissible where it is necessary to protect people, and it adds that is almost never the case in this day-and-age when imprisonment for life is both feasible and humane on a wide basis.

[Threlizdun]

I'm sorry that you don't understand why not demanding women carry a fetus to term is the same as killing a person.

Do you honestly think that executing, say, Josef Fritzl, would be worse than aborting a second-trimister fetus, such that the former should be illegal but the latter should be legal?

Even granted that a fetus is not a human person, to suggest that it has less of a right to life than even the most outrageously evil human individual on the planet, seems utterly ridiculous to me.

After all, a dog isn't a human person either, but between a dog and Josef Fritzl, who do you have more empathy for?

I would have more empathy for the dog, though I would prefer that any person have more rights than a dog, and Josef Fritzl is still a person, even if he is a terribly sick person. I see no meaningful reason to consider a fetus a person.

[Liriena]

The OP's hilariously visceral vitriol asides, I do not think social liberalism and atheism necessarily go hand in hand. I don't consider myself an atheist, but I definitely fit the definition of a social liberal. Let's not forget that there's plenty of religious groups whose core doctrine is, to some degree, socially liberal. Wicca, for one, gravitates towards social liberalism, albeit with some caveats. And some Far Eastern religions leave the door wide open for social liberalism by being entirely silent or neutral on the issues mentioned by the OP.

Get a blog. Homosexuality is fine, abortion is fine, same-sex marriage is fine, sexual reassignment surgery is fine, the current criminal justice system is shit, the death penalty is wrong, and sex is fun.

As always, you sum up my thoughts in a nutshell.

And just too add my own two cents on this, all sexual orientations are fine, being trans* but not wanting to go through sexual reassignment surgery is also fine, and though sex can be lots of fun, you are under no obligation to have it if you personally don't find it pleasurable.

[Heraklea-]

I'm sorry that you don't understand why not demanding women carry a fetus to term is the same as killing a person.

Do you honestly think that executing, say, Josef Fritzl, would be worse than aborting a second-trimister fetus, such that the former should be illegal but the latter should be legal?

Even granted that a fetus is not a human person, to suggest that it has less of a right to life than even the most outrageously evil human individual on the planet, seems utterly ridiculous to me.

After all, a dog isn't a human person either, but between a dog and Josef Fritzl, who do you have more empathy for?

And that is why emotions shouldn't come into the justice system. Of course I would like to leave Fritzl in a shallow grave. But that is a visceral, gut reaction. The fact of the matter is that we can't always know every detail of every case when it comes time for judgement. There may be circumstances involved that mitigate a crime, there may be evidence we don't know of that exonerates a suspect. There is almost always a chance that we got it wrong when judging a criminal. So I'm not comfortable with applying the death penalty when we have a less than 100% accuracy rate.

In the meantime, I'm not aware of any other time we insist that a person involuntarily sacrifice their own health or bodily sovereignty. Even if you volunteer as a marrow donor, you still get to change your mind all the way up to the moment it gets extracted, even if without that donation of marrow the recipient will die. I will always support a person right to refuse that request for an actual person. For a potential person not yet even out of the womb? Forget about it.

[Reploid Productions]

NSG is not your blog.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku