Is This Only A Blob Of Cells?...

[Anomaly]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343432733' post='2459484']

My outlook, which is reasonably consistent with most atheists I have talked to, is more inclusive, and more liberal than some religious positions.
Government to intervene only when society is in danger.
So for example gay people are oppressed by some religious groups, wanting gay marriage against the law, wanting gay sex against the law, in some places (some people) wanting gay people put to death (Hitler for example).
Me, I am not gay, do I care if people around me are having gay sex or gay marriage, nope, I don't care, doesn't impact me. So I have no interest to support law against gay people, actually I see laws against gay people as dangerous because oppressing these people may cause them to rebel violently. So I am in support of a minority group here, well, more precisely, I am opposed to law oppressing this minority group.
If the government wanted to put in laws against Bhuddists in my country, I would be opposed to it. I don't see it as government's place to oppress Bhuddists, these Bhuddists aren't making society dangerous, so I am opposed to this type of law. If I let government set this precedent, where they can pick on certain groups based on their own wants rather than society safety concerns, then whose to say they won't pick on me at some stage. I belong to many minority groups.
[/quote]Your positions posted here are self contradictory and intellectually dishonest because of their inconsistency for justification. Consistent would be having a principle that justifies protecting gay, Bhudist, and natal persons. Religion isn't needed for that. I find that unreasonable and unintelligent from my own atheist perpespective. It's silly when Christians or atheists choose to commit to opinions without any rationality.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

abortion saddens me terribly . I was explained it in this way that even at conception it's destiny is human, it isn't going to turn into a monkey or a tiger it is without a doubt human because it's destiny is human not animal or plant.

[Annie12]

Stevil, I think I've figured out where we differ.

I think we have different views of freedom. Pope John Paul II stated that [i][color=#0000ff]freedom is not the right to do what we want but the right to do what we ought[/color][/i]. So, from the catholic perspective, [color=#0000ff]we are fighting for our freedom[/color] and the freedom of others. True freedom consists of allowing a person to experience life to it's fullest[color=#0000ff] without allowing them to be dragged down by the negative[/color]. A person who is in prison is not truly "free". Likewise, a person weighed down by their past isn't free. So, if freedom is the right to do what we ought, then the government shouldn't let their people make harmful choices.

Just because someone down the street does something horrible which doesn't effect me, doesn't mean that it wasn't wrong. If I kill an innocent person It's wrong because its wrong. It has nothing to do with anyone else. The act I committed was inherently wrong. Likewise with abortion. A government should be shaping it's laws in a way to make people free.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

does a tree make a sound when it falls down if theres no one there to hear it ? Yes!

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='st.evil' timestamp='1343433179' post='2459485']
Millions of people are being slaughtered all the time, this is abortion. But it is not making society unsafe for me, therefore it is none of my business.
The decision is being made on an individual basis by the mothers, not government. [Contrary to all reason and consistency. -Tally]
[/quote]

I made the assertion before that the principle of "might makes right" (the idea that the value of one individual is based on another's opinion) is harmful to society. It is a principle which, if adopted in part, is certain to be applied to other situations and people; since there is no justification for the first incident, there need be none for any other.
Furthermore, there is the rather obvious fact that the unborn--as human individuals of our own flesh and blood--are part of our society. And however little their fate affects you personally, if your ideology is truly for the greater good of society, it is contradictory to declare Open Season upon all of society's citizens.

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343433179' post='2459485']
If government decide to slaughter the Jews, I will be opposed.
If they choose to slaughter one group based on arbitrary opinions then who is to say that one day they won't decide to slaughter my group.
[/quote]

What if the government withheld protection from certain people based on arbitrary opinion?
What if they decided to do this to, say, atheists, and declared an Open Season on them?
They did it to the unborn; who is to say it won't happen to you? Or religious people? Or gays? Or the disabled, elderly, and those with blue eyes?

I would question any government which protects or discards human individuals on a whim.

And once more, I present the conundrum of having mob rule to prevent mob rule, as well as the problem of protecting society by ignoring the individual (despite the fact that society is built upon individuals). This is a very serious flaw in your reasoning which you have yet to address. You claim the protection of society as the foundation of your ideology, and yet all evidence points to that ideology harming society.

Edited July 28, 2012 by Tally Marx

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1343438372' post='2459523']
Stevil, I think I've figured out where we differ.

I think we have different views of freedom.
[/quote]

No, Annie. He is saying that since abortion does not affect him personally and concretely, he simply doesn't care.
If Pro-"Lifers" came to his door with AK 47s and threatened his life, then he would care.
If we rallied in the streets and blocked his way to work, then he would care.
Maybe he would care about abortion on demand if his wife had an abortion with a pregnancy he wished to keep.
But until then, he assumes the only people abortion affects is the mother and the child, and opines they are the only ones who have a real reason to care. It is not about freedom. It's a non-argument.

(PS: that was a lovely paragraph you wrote, though; nice theology, and a very good point about the government and objective acts )

Edited July 28, 2012 by Tally Marx

[stevil]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1343436013' post='2459506']
Your positions posted here are self contradictory and intellectually dishonest because of their inconsistency for justification. Consistent would be having a principle that justifies protecting gay, Bhudist, and natal persons. Religion isn't needed for that. I find that unreasonable and unintelligent from my own atheist perpespective. It's silly when Christians or atheists choose to commit to opinions without any rationality.
[/quote]
Problem is that you haven't read what I have posted. I have been consistent.
I'm not talking about protecting gays. I am talking about opposing laws against gay marriage, or against gay sex or against gay people. The law is the problem, and certainly from a point of view as to the reasons why law is imposed. I am against law imposed based on someone's perception of morality. I feel law needs to be for protecting society.
Law against abortion does not protect society, thus I am against it. The alternative in the case of abortion is to let each mother decide rather than govenment dictate.

[stevil]

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1343438372' post='2459523']
Stevil, I think I've figured out where we differ.

I think we have different views of freedom. Pope John Paul II stated that [i][color=#0000ff]freedom is not the right to do what we want but the right to do what we ought[/color][/i].[/quote]
With regards to an atheist viewpoint who dictates "what we ought"?
Thus a definition of freedom based on "what we ought" makes no sense.

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343423599' post='2459450']
Society doesn't seem to care about the unborn baby. Life goes on for the rest of us, we are under no threat what-so-ever.
People are not taking up arms in defense of the unborn. People are not willing to risk their own lives in defense of them (besides a very, very small minority). So if there is no danger to society, then what business is it of the government?

I totally understand why some people want the unborn to live, want them to have the right to live and want government to protect them.

But I am against government imposing unnecessary laws, as a society member I need be concerned for myself. I need to support laws that benefit me (otherwise I am minding other people's business, oppressing them because I am incapable of minding my own business), this means also being in support of laws ensuring society is safe and stable. Abortion does not impact my safety or the stability of society. Therefore I take the stance that this isn't a legal issue, it is up to individual choice. A mother kills her own unborn, it is none of my business.
[/quote]

People killing innocent people doesn't effect society? Trust me, it does. A society that kills its future is a society doomed to failure. Pope John Paul II has a quote similar to this that is much more sophisticated and smart, but I quit Google searching after midnight. It's a personal moral choice.

[stevil]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1343443153' post='2459569']
What if the government withheld protection from certain people based on arbitrary opinion?
What if they decided to do this to, say, atheists, and declared an Open Season on them?
They did it to the unborn; who is to say it won't happen to you?
[/quote]
It is not open season on the unborn. The mother can decide for what-ever reason she chooses, to abort her pregnancy.
No-one else can, not the father nor anyone else in society.
So the mother has a free hunting pass when the prey is her own fetus.

How can this apply to atheists? Let our mother's shoot us, no matter what our age?

Once we are born and into society, people develop bonds with us, the like us, they love us, they marry us. These people would even fight for us or die trying. Declaring open season on atheists would be extremely dangerous to society, it would result in war. Letting mothers abort their pregnancy does not cause war. There is no impact. Society doesn't care.

If society did care, if it was likely to make society dangerous, create much conflict, create war, then I personally would be against it. I would vote for a law against abortion. I don't vote on moral grounds, I vote on survival grounds (my survival).

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1343443153' post='2459569']
I would question any government which protects or discards human individuals on a whim.
[/quote]
I question any government that looks to enforce a moral belief on individuals (on a whim)


[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1343443153' post='2459569']
And once more, I present the conundrum of having mob rule to prevent mob rule
[/quote]
I am presenting the purpose of government with regards to ensuring a stable and safe society.
One only needs to understand human nature to realise that violence is the way we react on really important issues. When we act violently, we know that we are putting our own survival at risk, therefore, generally we only act violently on items that threaten our survival. When I say "our survival" this is also often extended to others within our society. We do this because we understand that we need a certain type of society in order to survive ourselves.
A lot of people will react violently when they see a pregnant woman being assaulted. The aggressor will find themselves in turn being attacked by impartial bystanders. We do this because it matters to us and it is worth putting our own lives at risk. But when a woman walks into an abortion clinic, it is rare that impartial bystanders will act violently against the woman.
So as a society we are saying that in order to be safe we need laws against violent attacks on people, but we don't need laws against abortion.
Similar thing goes for gay marriage, it is rare that an impartial bystander will act violently against a gay couple getting married, therefore we don't need a law against it.
With theft, people (impartial bystanders) will act violently against a thief, therefore we need laws against theft.
With adultery, impartial bystanders will not act violently against an adulterer, therefore we do not need laws against it.
The husband might act violently against his wife whom has committed adultery, but an impartial bystander is likely to act violently against the husband for abusing the wife rather than against the wife for adultery.
It is human nature that dictates which laws are necessary, this is called natural law.

[Annie12]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343452860' post='2459649']
With regards to an atheist viewpoint who dictates "what we ought"?
Thus a definition of freedom based on "what we ought" makes no sense.
[/quote]

Well, in terms of what you believe, yeah, it doesn't. But for people who have a moral code and can recognize that there are absolutes; right's and wrongs, this makes perfect sense.

Why don't you kill your best friend?
Because:[list=1]
[*]He is your friend and you care about him

[*]you wouldn't have a friend

[*]you would go to jail.
[/list]
But, with all of these reasons, the fact that you care about your friend is at the top of the list. In C.S. Lewis' book, The Four loves, he divides love into four groups. 1. Affection 2.Friendship 3.Romance 4. Unconditional love. Now, you can't deny that humans love. Its what we do. A human which doesn't love is sent off to get treatment or lock up in a prison cell. It's not natural NOT to love. So, you have to face the question - why is this?

you could argue that humans just evolved this way. I wouldn't say you're wrong either but I would say that you are missing something crucial. From the start of humanity, humans have worshiped gods and goddesses, being either monotheistic or polytheistic. Okay, so you could say we're just really intelligent. But, this belief in God shows a sense of the absolute. It shows that humanity had what was right and what was wrong all lay out. now, flash forward to modern times. Science, just helps to prove that there is a God. Just take this: what happened before the big bang? no matter what you believe you have to come the the point of realization that before the big bang there was nothing. Not even one atom. Not even one proton. Nothing! So, how does something come from nothing? It doesn't. There had to be a creator because everything goes from non-existence to existence. Something can't come from nothing. There has to be a creator. If there wasn't we wouldn't be here and the universe would be non-existent.

So, I guess this is where Christianity comes in. Humans love because God made us to love and by destroying his creation we are failing to love him. Abortion is just horrible. It is straight up murder no ifs, ands or buts about it. When someone has an abortion they fail to love their newly created child and instead love themselves. I don't blame them though. Our society is very selfish. Atheists didn't come to be until the enlightenment. And not to attack what you believe, but Atheism has no moral code of conduct. Its a self oriented belief system. I don't believe an atheist can't be truly happy because they are disconnected from a part of their being/ purpose. humans are made to love God. Happiness is found in this fact.

I tried to not be too scattered in my train of thought, but I apologize if I was!

Edited July 28, 2012 by Annie12

[add]

Two blobs (twins) of cells at 14 weeks, reaching out to each other and then making social contact.
The researchers were able to distinguish between accidental and deliberate contact. So, at least for twins, entry into society precedes birth by many months.

Terms like zygote, blastocyst, embryo, foetus are necessary usage for certain purposes, although their unfamiliarity tends to mask that these are all life stages of a fellow human being. But of course a phrase like “a blob of undifferentiated cells” is even more useful for rhetoric. I wonder whether its users ask themselves why this blob seems always to develop as a human being and never as a horse or a piece of green coagulated milk.

LINK: http://phys.org/news/206164323-twin-fetuses-social-womb.html#

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='st.evil' timestamp='1343468027' post='2459699']
It is not open season on the unborn. The mother can decide for what-ever reason she chooses, to abort her pregnancy.
No-one else can, not the father nor anyone else in society.
So the mother has a free hunting pass when the prey is her own fetus.

How can this apply to atheists? Let our mother's shoot us, no matter what our age?
[/quote]

In no other instance can one, for whatever reason they choose, kill another human individual. Abortion is a single, isolated allowance that contradicts all precident. *That* is whimsical.
This can apply to atheists, for example, by making hate-crimes toward atheists perfectly legal. Really, you make up about 2% of the population. It doesn't harm anyone but you if crimes are committed against you because of your belief, and it certainly doesn't affect me. By your logic, having laws against this hate-crime is about as whimsical as it gets, as was Illegalizing slavery, and enforcing a drinking age.

[quote name='st.evil' timestamp='1343468027' post='2459699']
Once we are born and into society, people develop bonds with us, the like us, they love us, they marry us. These people would even fight for us or die trying.
[/quote]

You have still failed to answer how valuing individuals by the price tags of the powerful contributes to a stable society.

[quote name='st.evil' timestamp='1343468027' post='2459699']
I question any government that looks to enforce a moral belief on individuals (on a whim)
[/quote]

If your government will abandon you arbitrarily, their enforcement will be the least of your worries. If they don't value the lives of the invidivuals in society, they aren't likely to value any moral belief you happen to hold or disavow.

[quote name='st.evil' timestamp='1343468027' post='2459699']
I am presenting the purpose of government with regards to ensuring a stable and safe society.
One only needs to understand human nature to realise that violence is the way we react on really important issues. When we act violently, we know that we are putting our own survival at risk, therefore, generally we only act violently on items that threaten our survival. When I say "our survival" this is also often extended to others within our society. We do this because we understand that we need a certain type of society in order to survive ourselves.
[/quote]

The first and only way to ensure a stable society is to value the life of individuals. If you don't value the foundation stone of a pyramid, you can hardly be said to value the pyramid. And this is not your only nonsensical argument. You are effectively saying that self-sacrifice is evidence of self-survival, which is not only contradictory but is also untrue in many cases. People become violent over many things that do not affect their survival. Slavery in no way affected those Northerners that wished to illegalize it. Most had never seen a black person in their lives. People also fail to become violent over many things that do affect their lives, such as drugs, abortion, and euthanasia (all of which are not productive to the survival of individuals). Many people become violent when they see others not following their moral belief, such as those who become violent over animal abuse, or those religions which seek to eradicate infidels. By your logic, because they are willing to violently force their morals upon others, it must be essential to society to force these morals. You cannot use violence as an indicator to avoid whimsy because it is whimsical.

That you advocate the eradication of one part of society by another part of society of the sake of society also begs the question as to what you think a stable society is, exactly.

The discussion cannot continue until you address these points, which you have been ignoring.

1) how the government can value/protect society without valuing the individuals upon which it is founded
2) how a "might makes right" mentality contributes to a stable society
3) what *is* a stable society?
4) how the whimsical violence of humans can be an indicator for non-whimsical laws.

Please answer these, and if that doesn't take up too much room I would love to hear how you feel about laws enforcing seat-belt wearing, alcohol consumption age-limits, life insurance, education, and everything else that doesn't have anything to do with our survival and doesn't threaten the lives of anyone.

[stevil]

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1343483015' post='2459715']
Well, in terms of what you believe, yeah, it doesn't. But for people who have a moral code and can recognize that there are absolutes; right's and wrongs, this makes perfect sense.
[/quote]
You believe in god's law defining what is right and what is wrong. This is more a legality than it is a morality, but that is a semantic argument.

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1343483015' post='2459715']
Why don't you kill your best friend?
[/quote]
I don't go around killing people because this action will endanger my own life.
1. The person I am trying to kill, will likely try to stop me
2. Other people whom loved this person may seek vengeance on me
3. Impartial bystanders may see me as a threat to society and seek to remove me as a threat.
4. Government will seek to punish me.
5. I want a society that disallows murdering people (whom have already been born) because I want to be safe from being murdered

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1343483015' post='2459715']
1. Affection 2.Friendship 3.Romance 4. Unconditional love.
Now, you can't deny that humans love. Its what we do. A human which doesn't love is sent off to get treatment or lock up in a prison cell. It's not natural NOT to love. So, you have to face the question - why is this?
[/quote]
Animals such as birds also display affection and romance, many birds form life long bonds. Love is not unique to humans. In fact without lust we would not procreate, without affection we would not look after our young until they are old enough to look after themselves. Thus love can be explained via evolution and a basic need for survival.

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1343483015' post='2459715']
From the start of humanity, humans have worshiped gods and goddesses, being either monotheistic or polytheistic.
[/quote]
Yes, people have sought to explain that with they don't understand and they have sought to control that which is uncontrollable.
Make the gods angry and the volcano erupts, please the gods and the volcano stays dormant. Please the gods and rain comes to feed the crops...
I don't know when god worship began, it must have an origin, but people are so imaginative, they believe in ghosts, superstitions (like a lucky pair of sox or not walking under a ladder or being scared of a black cat).

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1343483015' post='2459715']
But, this belief in God shows a sense of the absolute. It shows that humanity had what was right and what was wrong all lay out.
[/quote]
People can't agree on what is right and wrong. People from different cultures, different religions, even within the same religion, same denomination, they still differ on their own beliefs of right and wrong.

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1343483015' post='2459715']
Science, just helps to prove that there is a God. Just take this: what happened before the big bang? no matter what you believe you have to come the the point of realization that before the big bang there was nothing. Not even one atom. Not even one proton. Nothing! So, how does something come from nothing? It doesn't. There had to be a creator because everything goes from non-existence to existence. Something can't come from nothing. There has to be a creator. If there wasn't we wouldn't be here and the universe would be non-existent.
[/quote]
Most scientists are atheists. All scientists agree that we have no scientific knowledge of what was prior to the big bang. Personally I don't believe in the cosmological argument. It makes assumptions and falls into the logical fallacy called "Begs the question".

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1343483015' post='2459715']
So, I guess this is where Christianity comes in. Humans love because God made us to love and by destroying his creation we are failing to love him. Abortion is just horrible. It is straight up murder no ifs, ands or buts about it.
[/quote]
I understand why you are opposed to abortion. It is a reasonable stance given your assumptions about your god.

[stevil]

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1343483015' post='2459715']Atheism has no moral code of conduct.
[/quote]
Atheism isn't even really an "ism", it is merely a loose collection of people all whom "lack a belief in gods". We have no common scripture or beliefs, we are not coordinated at all.
With regards to moral code. "Morality" is a very difficult term to define, many people have a different understanding of what this word means. You believe it means "god's law" a universal law that applies to all humans.
The majority of atheists believe it means knowing what is right and wrong, and because they have personal opinion and personal values they take this to be "morality". They recognise that their own opinions and values differ from other people's thus they term their morality subjective.
I believe there is a difference between personal opinion/personal values and morality, in this way I am similar to a theist, however I do not believe in gods let alone god's law thus I have no moral belief.
My personal opinions and personal values tend to be more aligned with atheists, I just wouldn't call this morality and I don't extend it into the realm of "this is how others ought to behave" that would be inconsistent to the recognition of subjective morality, which in my opinion isn't a "morality".

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1343483015' post='2459715']
Its a self oriented belief system.
[/quote]
Atheism isn't a belief system. It is a lack of belief in gods

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1343483015' post='2459715']
I don't believe an atheist can't be truly happy because they are disconnected from a part of their being/ purpose. humans are made to love God. Happiness is found in this fact.
[/quote]
You are entitled to that belief.

Edited July 28, 2012 by stevil

[stevil]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1343492299' post='2459737']
Many people become violent when they see others not following their moral belief, such as those who become violent over animal abuse, or those religions which seek to eradicate infidels. By your logic, because they are willing to violently force their morals upon others, it must be essential to society to force these morals.
[/quote]
Therefore we need laws against animal abuse.
Therefore in some Arab countries there is a need to enforce a religion "Islam" on others, without this law, many people will die. A law that is necessary for one country may not be appropriate for another country.


[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1343492299' post='2459737']
That you advocate the eradication of one part of society by another part of society of the sake of society
[/quote]
This seems like a strawman argument.
I only advocate that a pregnant woman can choose whether to terminate her own pregnancy.

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1343492299' post='2459737']
The discussion cannot continue until you address these points, which you have been ignoring.

1) how the government can value/protect society without valuing the individuals upon which it is founded
2) how a "might makes right" mentality contributes to a stable society
3) what *is* a stable society?
4) how the whimsical violence of humans can be an indicator for non-whimsical laws.
[/quote]
1) Government to reduce violence and to create a stable society by recognising human nature. Protecting those things that people would get violent over thus removing the necessity for "normal" people to become violent.
2) Not my argument. This is a strawman.
3) A society where "normal" people don't need to resort to violence.
4) violence of "normal" humans isn't whimsical. When people resort to violence they put their own lives at risk, therefore "normal" people only resort to violence on things that are really important.
[size=2][b]From [url="http://jim.com/rights.html"]"Natural Law and Natural Rights" by James A Donald[/url]:[/b][/size]


[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1343492299' post='2459737']
I would love to hear how you feel about laws enforcing
a) seat-belt wearing,
b) alcohol consumption age-limits,
c) life insurance
d) education,
[/quote]
a) Government overstepping their mandate
b) Necessary in conjunction with driving as drunk drivers make the roads unsafe. With regards to age alone, Possibly necessary if parents take to violence against anyone offering alcohol to their dependent children. This one is up for debate.
c) Government overstepping their mandate
d) This one is very debatable, if a poor family needs their children to generate income so that the family can survive then the child needs to work rather than go to school. Government can offset this by providing financial support to the family.
I see eduction as the primary approach to solving rich/poor gap. The importance of solving the rich/poor gap comes down to survival. If the poor can't survive then there will be war.

Edited July 28, 2012 by stevil

[Annie12]

Stevil, I see you were busy.

So, You acknowledge the life of the fetus... soooooo I'm really lost. Your argument makes no sense. under your argument abortion could be qualified as senseless killing ([i]which it is[/i]).

You say it is the right of a mother to terminate the human life of her child!!! I'm just lost... I really am! So does she have a right to terminate the life of her mother or father or sister or brother?!?! Or does it have to do with authority?

If you're saying a mother can terminate the life of her child because she has more authority then you are basically saying she could terminate anyone's life who is younger than her, which makes absolutely no sense. Why doesn't she have the right to commit infanticide? Just because the fetus (i.e the baby) is in the womb doesn't mean that it is any less human! It's a stage of life!!!!!! A STAGE OF LIFE!!!!!!!!!! Like, puberty for example!!!!

She doesn't own the child like property! That's called slavery!!!

So, I'M REALLY LOST! Your argument doesn't make any sense.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Annie12

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343510526' post='2459802']

This seems like a strawman argument.
I only advocate that a pregnant woman can choose whether to terminate her own pregnancy.

[/quote]

Since you have already admitted that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a human individual, there is no difference.  You are advocating the unquestioned killing of some human individuals by other human individuals.  And do not attempt to isolate your ideology.  You have presented a principle which applies to more than the abortion issue, one which certainly does support the extermination of one part of society, by another part of society, for the sake of society.  It is a contradictory stance, a flaw in your idea that I would rather you address than attempt to weasel out of.


[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343510526' post='2459802']
1) Government to reduce violence and to create a stable society by recognising human nature. Protecting those things that people would get violent over thus removing the necessity for "normal" people to become violent.
[/quote]

You are avoiding the question.  You have presented the idea that human individuals have no value in and of themselves, but are only worth protection if other humans see fit to protect them.  You have disregarded the value of the individual for the opinion of a majority.  Please explain how a government can protect society when it does not value the lives of the individuals upon which that society is based.  "Preventing violence" by obeying the demands of the loudest, most violent group does not protect society or prevent war and violence, especially when the demands of that vocal group **are themselves violent.**


[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343510526' post='2459802']
2) Not my argument. This is a strawman.
[/quote]

You, sir, are weaseling again.  You have presented the idea that the value of one human individual is determined by the price tag another places upon them, and that whether or not A is actually worth protecting depends on how loud and violent B can get.  Or, in the case of abortion, not get.  That is most certainly "might makes right".  Address it, please.


[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343510526' post='2459802']
3) A society where "normal" people don't need to resort to violence.
[/quote]

Yet you are saying that the government should not step in until people become violent (mob rule)... not to mention the fact that the "normal people" may themselves be violent.  What if, as in the case of slavery in the US, it is the  majority that is advocating violence?  


[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343510526' post='2459802']
4) violence of "normal" humans isn't whimsical. When people resort to violence they put their own lives at risk, therefore "normal" people only resort to violence on things that are really important.
[/quote]

You want to speak broadly of human nature?  So we shall.  The objects toward which humans direct their affection are, in the general scheme of things, very whimsical.  They are based upon the opinion of the individual, and are rarely held by other individuals.  Even if society holds a collective affection, it is still whimsical; culture changes.   You try to say an individual gets violent for survival, and that this survival-violence is indicative of what a society needs to survive.  I propose that you are wrong.  Violence is not always about the survival of the individual; it is a measure taken over much more frivolous things, like animal abuse.  Important in the minds of some people, yes.  But certainly not to their survival.  And beyond how far they are willing to push this relative whimsy, certainly not to the survival of society. Therefore, I assert that if violence is not indicative of the individual's survival, it should not be indicative of society's survival.


[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343510526' post='2459802']
Therefore we need laws against animal abuse.
Therefore in some Arab countries there is a need to enforce a religion "Islam" on others, without this law, many people will die. A law that is necessary for one country may not be appropriate for another country.
[/quote]

And yet the people who react violently against animal abuse are a minority, and are not indicative of our society's morals, much less human nature.
And in some Arab countries, their need to violently force their religion on others isn't a need that ends at the borders of their own country.  An interesting problem when viewed through your ideology.




In addition to the points you have disregarded, I now present this one:

5) How does your definition of a stable society hold up when presented with a violent society?  What if--as with the Nazi regime--those in power or--as with slavery--those with the most numbers, advocate violence?  What if "normal people" are violent?

Edited July 29, 2012 by Tally Marx

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1343523164' post='2459842']
Stevil, I see you were busy.

So, You acknowledge the life of the fetus... soooooo I'm really lost. Your argument makes no sense. under your argument abortion could be qualified as senseless killing ([i]which it is[/i]).

You say it is the right of a mother to terminate the human life of her child!!! I'm just lost... I really am! So does she have a right to terminate the life of her mother or father or sister or brother?!?! Or does it have to do with authority?

If you're saying a mother can terminate the life of her child because she has more authority then you are basically saying she could terminate anyone's life who is younger than her, which makes absolutely no sense. Why doesn't she have the right to commit infanticide? Just because the fetus (i.e the baby) is in the womb doesn't mean that it is any less human! It's a stage of life!!!!!! A STAGE OF LIFE!!!!!!!!!! Like, puberty for example!!!!

She doesn't own the child like property! That's called slavery!!!

So, I'M REALLY LOST! Your argument doesn't make any sense.
[/quote]

He is saying that human individuals (any human individual, born or unborn) has no value. Their only value comes from whether or not others value them. A mother can terminate her child because she doesn't care about him. If Stevil had never existed to care about and protect his children, they wouldn't be worth protecting. If you and Stevil lived on an island together, you could kill him if you wanted to; he wouldn't have any value. In the case of things being legal or illegal, he believes this on a larger scale. If enough people care enough about another group of people, then that second group is worth protecting. And if they don't, they aren't.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Tally Marx

[stevil]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1343527565' post='2459852']
He is saying that human individuals (any human individual, born or unborn) has no value. Their only value comes from whether or not others value them. A mother can terminate her child because she doesn't care about him. If Stevil had never existed to care about and protect his children, they wouldn't be worth protecting. If you and Stevil lived on an island together, you could kill him if you wanted to; he wouldn't have any value. In the case of things being legal or illegal, he believes this on a larger scale. If enough people care enough about another group of people, then that second group is worth protecting. And if they don't, they aren't.
[/quote]
I'm not sure where all this talk of value has come from. At no point have I discussed the value of a person.
People are reading between the lines, adding preconceptions into the mix.

I have discussed the purpose of government. Basically in order to keep the peace. I have also talked about Natural law as it pertains to what people deem as important. Natural law trumps government law. "Normal" people will get violent against their government if the government overstep certain boundaries. This is an observation of human behavior not an opinion on value of individuals.

Government does not define the value of a person, the purpose of government isn't to judge the value of a person.
Generally society members want a government that is a representative of society, one that can allow society to function and not degrade to the point of war.

For a pregnant mother, it is a difficult position that she is in, having the legal power over life and death of her child. I presume that she can try and work out the value of the human life growing in her womb if she feels that is relevant to her decision to abort or not.
Whether I personally value her unborn's life is beside the point. I am not willing to risk my life to stop her aborting, i will not intervene, I deem it as none of my business as it does not endanger me nor will my society become dangerous. I have made no judgement other than I trust her to make this decision rather than a bunch of politicians to make it for her.

Government are not a pseudo Mum and Dad, they aren't our morality guides, if they were then there would be no need for any Church. Once people become adults, they are more than capable of making their own life decisions as long as it doesn't make society unsafe, and unstable.