[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[Antityranicals]

I like how you've conveniently neglected to respond to what I said earlier:

People did those things. I'm not going to argue with you over the downright fucking horrific and corrupt things the Catholic Church has done and still does, but all the good that it has done was because of humans. You can call the UN whatever you'd like but they and their affiliated bodies are the only international body that we can say holds "final judgement" on what goes on in the world, regardless of how weak or strong their power is.

Oh, and don't pull the "God did it through the humans" rhetoric because that's as valid as saying Santa Claus is real because I put Christmas presents under the tree through his will.

The UN doesn't hold final judgement on shit. It can yell and scream about things it doesn't like, but it can't change anything unless it can get a real government to do so. And sure, the people of the Catholic Church have done good and bad things. Those things which are horrific and corrupt are the result of people not properly following the Great Commission of Christ.

And here's the thing about God: He gave us a universe which follows laws, and an intellect to trace these laws back to him through reason. The heavens tell the glory of God, all of creation echoes back. For God to simply appear as God would render all of nature redundant, since its entire purpose is to lead us to Him. If we are too blind to see Him in nature, why would we believe in him if he showed up in person?

[Antityranicals]

Fairness is a big one.

Even the Categorical Imperative can act as a basis for morality, by positing an objective standard by which to judge one's actions.

Both of these things are based upon subjective definition of "good." These aren't bases, these are simply more turtles in the "turtles all the way down." What makes life good, and death bad?

[Kernen]

I like how you've conveniently neglected to respond to what I said earlier:

The UN doesn't hold final judgement on shit. It can yell and scream about things it doesn't like, but it can't change anything unless it can get a real government to do so. And sure, the people of the Catholic Church have done good and bad things. Those things which are horrific and corrupt are the result of people not properly following the Great Commission of Christ.

And here's the thing about God: He gave us a universe which follows laws, and an intellect to trace these laws back to him through reason. The heavens tell the glory of God, all of creation echoes back. For God to simply appear as God would render all of nature redundant, since its entire purpose is to lead us to Him. If we are too blind to see Him in nature, why would we believe in him if he showed up in person?

Better question would be why we shoulf care enough to harm society making him happy when legalizing abortion would make strides solving innumerable problems.

[Antityranicals]

I would say that it is murder, but than you'd go on about how murder has to be illegal to be so, which, in short, is stupid. That would mean that the Holocaust wasn't mass murder...

From a legal realist perspective, it wasn't. Its the only logical outcome if you are a realist and not a positivist or natural law theorist. I'm not sure how one can support natural law if one doesn't believe in a natural source of right and wrong, so you can see where I'm left from a legal perspective.

This, of course, assumes that the actions of the Third Reich coming to power were themselves legal, which many legal realists, myself included, also dispute.

When society is wrong, holding it back is a very good thing. If society wants to jump off a cliff, we ought not endorse that.

Sure we should. Progress for progress's sake is great. Just think, if we keep it up, we can have actual designer babies and fully automated luxury gay space communism.

For the first 1800+ years of the Catholic Church, it was among the most left-wing institutions in the world. Why? Because society was wrong about many things, and needed to progress beyond them. Now, it is among the most right-wing institutions in the world. It's teachings haven't changed, it's always been right, society has been wrong in different ways. That's no reason to stop teaching the truth.

Then the church should accept that society doesn't care about its version of truth anymore.

It is well aware. But that's no reason to start lying... It is the duty of the Catholic Church to preach the word of God, not the consensus of society.

[Kernen]

It is well aware. But that's no reason to start lying... It is the duty of the Catholic Church to preach the word of God, not the consensus of society.

This is why US law ignores what your church has to say on the matter, and more the better for us.

[Antityranicals]

The UN doesn't hold final judgement on shit. It can yell and scream about things it doesn't like, but it can't change anything unless it can get a real government to do so. And sure, the people of the Catholic Church have done good and bad things. Those things which are horrific and corrupt are the result of people not properly following the Great Commission of Christ.

And here's the thing about God: He gave us a universe which follows laws, and an intellect to trace these laws back to him through reason. The heavens tell the glory of God, all of creation echoes back. For God to simply appear as God would render all of nature redundant, since its entire purpose is to lead us to Him. If we are too blind to see Him in nature, why would we believe in him if he showed up in person?

Better question would be why we shoulf care enough to harm society making him happy when legalizing abortion would make strides solving innumerable problems.

At the cost of millions of lives. The arguments you're making are akin to those made to justify the Holocaust. The only difference is you have no shame.

[The New California Republic]

Even the Categorical Imperative can act as a basis for morality, by positing an objective standard by which to judge one's actions.

Both of these things are based upon subjective definition of "good." These aren't bases, these are simply more turtles in the "turtles all the way down." What makes life good, and death bad?

...actually, the Categorical Imperative is not based upon a subjective definition of "good" at all; it's precisely what it avoids...

Read Kant.

[Kernen]

Better question would be why we shoulf care enough to harm society making him happy when legalizing abortion would make strides solving innumerable problems.

At the cost of millions of lives. The arguments you're making are akin to those made to justify the Holocaust. The only difference is you have no shame.

I have plenty of shame. Just last week, I had to choose between drinking a Budweiser and water, and I chose the Bud. I fear I will never live it down.

I'm a legal realist because it's what makes sense, not what makes me happy.

[Antityranicals]

Both of these things are based upon subjective definition of "good." These aren't bases, these are simply more turtles in the "turtles all the way down." What makes life good, and death bad?

...actually, the Categorical Imperative is not based upon a subjective definition of "good" at all; it's precisely what it avoids...

Read Kant.

I have, and it literally is based upon a subjective definition of "good," hidden in a few figurative "turtles" on the way down and a whole bunch of legalese. If I'm wrong, tell me the actual and legitimate basis for the Categorical Imperative.

[Antityranicals]

At the cost of millions of lives. The arguments you're making are akin to those made to justify the Holocaust. The only difference is you have no shame.

I have plenty of shame. Just last week, I had to choose between drinking a Budweiser and water, and I chose the Bud. I fear I will never live it down.

I'm a legal realist because it's what makes sense, not what makes me happy.

Fine, let me specify: You have no shame about killing sixty-two million for the sake of convenience.

And no, this isn't about what makes me happy, no sir! I don't like this whole thing either, and life would be a lot easier if humans just "began" born. But the universe is what it is, and we can't avoid it.

[Makdon]

Then the church should accept that society doesn't care about its version of truth anymore.

It is well aware. But that's no reason to start lying... It is the duty of the Catholic Church to preach the word of God, not the consensus of society.[/quote]
which do you care about more, the church or democracy?

[Kernen]

I have plenty of shame. Just last week, I had to choose between drinking a Budweiser and water, and I chose the Bud. I fear I will never live it down.

I'm a legal realist because it's what makes sense, not what makes me happy.

Fine, let me specify: You have no shame about killing sixty-two million for the sake of convenience. This isn't what makes me happy, no sir! I don't like this whole thing either, and life would be a lot easier if humans just "began" born. But the universe is what it is, and we can't avoid it.

I have no shame saying that I am a legal realist and accepting the consequences of the logical follow-through. Legal realism rejects that there is a source of law other than those who make it. That power can be used to harm and to benefit.

If you're trying to get me to make an emotional reaction, you're out of luck. Its part of my job to separate feelings and reasoning.

We can avoid it by aborting unwanted fetuses.

[Antityranicals]

Then the church should accept that society doesn't care about its version of truth anymore.

It is well aware. But that's no reason to start lying... It is the duty of the Catholic Church to preach the word of God, not the consensus of society.

which do you care about more, the church or democracy?[/quote]
The church. Democracy is akin to two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

[Antityranicals]

Fine, let me specify: You have no shame about killing sixty-two million for the sake of convenience. This isn't what makes me happy, no sir! I don't like this whole thing either, and life would be a lot easier if humans just "began" born. But the universe is what it is, and we can't avoid it.

I have no shame saying that I am a legal realist and accepting the consequences of the logical follow-through. Legal realism rejects that there is a source of law other than those who make it. That power can be used to harm and to benefit.

If you're trying to get me to make an emotional reaction, you're out of luck. Its part of my job to separate feelings and reasoning.

We can avoid it by aborting unwanted fetuses.

That's not even morality than, that's might makes right. So why do you even care to argue, if you'd agree with me if the law did?

[Kernen]

I have no shame saying that I am a legal realist and accepting the consequences of the logical follow-through. Legal realism rejects that there is a source of law other than those who make it. That power can be used to harm and to benefit.

If you're trying to get me to make an emotional reaction, you're out of luck. Its part of my job to separate feelings and reasoning.

We can avoid it by aborting unwanted fetuses.

That's not even morality than, that's might makes right. So why do you even care to argue, if you'd agree with me if the law did?

I would, and have, argued that a law banning abortion is bad policy and unnecessarily invasive. That doesn't change the source of the law. You can disagree with a statute or ruling without accepting natural law.

[Antityranicals]

That's not even morality than, that's might makes right. So why do you even care to argue, if you'd agree with me if the law did?

I would, and have, argued that a law banning abortion is bad policy and unnecessarily invasive. That doesn't change the source of the law. You can disagree with a statute or ruling without accepting natural law.

Under what grounds do you disagree with a law or ruling? I think we can get somewhere with this...

[Kernen]

I would, and have, argued that a law banning abortion is bad policy and unnecessarily invasive. That doesn't change the source of the law. You can disagree with a statute or ruling without accepting natural law.

Under what grounds do you disagree with a law or ruling? I think we can get somewhere with this...

We can't. We've had this discussion before. And I already answered this. I've little desire to go in circles with you on this. It devolves into you going on about your god some more, and a moderator wading in with a nightstick yelling about threadjacks.

[Antityranicals]

Under what grounds do you disagree with a law or ruling? I think we can get somewhere with this...

We can't. We've had this discussion before. And I already answered this. I've little desire to go in circles with you on this. It devolves into you going on about your god some more, and a moderator wading in with a nightstick yelling about threadjacks.

I don't think you've yet stated that you would disagree with a law or ruling. I'd really be curious as to why, outside of the law.

[The New California Republic]

...actually, the Categorical Imperative is not based upon a subjective definition of "good" at all; it's precisely what it avoids...

Read Kant.

I have, and it literally is based upon a subjective definition of "good," hidden in a few figurative "turtles" on the way down and a whole bunch of legalese. If I'm wrong, tell me the actual and legitimate basis for the Categorical Imperative.

The notion of the good arises from universal applicability, the other as an end in themselves, and the universally legislating will; so no, it isn't subjective.

[Kernen]

We can't. We've had this discussion before. And I already answered this. I've little desire to go in circles with you on this. It devolves into you going on about your god some more, and a moderator wading in with a nightstick yelling about threadjacks.

I don't think you've yet stated that you would disagree with a law or ruling. I'd really be curious as to why, outside of the law.

Its not on me to help you recall past conversations, friendo.

[Antityranicals]

I have, and it literally is based upon a subjective definition of "good," hidden in a few figurative "turtles" on the way down and a whole bunch of legalese. If I'm wrong, tell me the actual and legitimate basis for the Categorical Imperative.

The notion of the good arises from universal applicability, the other as an end in themselves, and the universally legislating will; so no, it isn't subjective.

That's all very subjective. Why is any of this "good"?

[Antarctic Swabia]

Yes.

At least you're ideologically consistent. Too many "pro-life" people are in favor of capital punishment, despite that it violates their stated principle "don't kill another human".

False equivalence.

[Antarctic Swabia]

Murder is the worst crime which exists, period.

No it isn't.

[Antityranicals]

Murder is the worst crime which exists, period.

No it isn't.

What exactly is, then? I'm quite curious...

[The New California Republic]

The notion of the good arises from universal applicability, the other as an end in themselves, and the universally legislating will; so no, it isn't subjective.

That's all very subjective. Why is any of this "good"?

Universal applicability etc isn't subjective at all; only engaging in doublethink makes it so. And the Categorical Imperative isn't in and of itself "good", it allows us to determine the good. But I'm not actually Kantian, so I'm merely arguing this from a Kantian perspective.

But this is also getting close to threadjack territory, so...