AMYNTAS wrote:Calilasseia wrote:Except that, of course, whilst these ideas might have
originated with a particular religion, they cease to be the exclusive purview thereof, the moment those ideas are disseminated publicly. Those ideas become a free-fire zone on the artillery range of discourse. Let me explain how this is working here, shall I, with respect to this particular topic and the assertions extant therein?
First, we have the assertion that a family planning organisation is purely devoted to abortion, an assertion that is known to be plain, flat, wrong to everyone who has actually bothered to check the
data. Though I've noticed a particular species of discoursive duplicity endemic to anti-abortion campaigning - again, more of that
data I keep reminding people to pay attention to.
I do not know what relevance the first paragraph has on this discussion.
This might have much to do with your attempt to assert some sort of proprietorial hegemony over the ideas in question. Proper discourse doesn't work like that. Especially when the ideas in question have ramifications beyond the originating species of thought, including ramifications for people not adhering to said species of thought, but whose actions are subject to policing attempts on the part of adherents of said species of thought. Quite simply, those who wish a given set of ideas to remain "purely internal" to their particular doctrine, cannot expect to do so, whilst simultaneously seeking to coerce others to conform to those purportedly "purely internal" ideas. Unfortunately, this is another of those elementary principles that supernaturalists habitually demonstrate a complete failure to understand.
Meanwhile, moving on a little, didn't you read the first post in this thread? Only if you did, you would know that certain brands of supernaturalist are trying to concoct lies about a family planning organisation, which was, incidentally, the original topic of the thread. Lies such as [1] the organisation is purportedly only in existence to perform abortions (it isn't - only 3%of its activities are abortion related), and [2] that the organisation is purportedly operating as a "cover" for "satanists" and "ritual child sacrifice" (this latter lie is so preposterous, that only the terminally addled would give this assertion enough time of day to do other than treat it with well-deserved contempt). But of course, we're used to seeing supernaturalists trying to dictate the path of discourse here, except that we're wise to this, and have a habit of bringing such attempts crashing to a halt.
AMYNTAS wrote:I did not speak about origination, public or the public.
So why the hell were you trying to assert some sort of proprietorial hegemony over the ideas being discussed in your previous posts?
As I said, the moment an idea is released into the public domain, it becomes available to all to subject to critique. This is another of those elementary core principles of proper discourse you appear to be unaware of. As a corollary, it doesn't matter what doctrine the idea originates from, or is a part of, the moment that idea enters the public domain, it becomes the subject of
any discoursive participant's analysis. All the more so, when people seek to impose that idea upon others as a behavioural constraint. But again, we're used to seeing supernaturalists try and assert that those being forced to conform to various strictures, purportedly have no say in the matter. It's been standard operating practice for the best part of two millennia, except that thankfully, we now live in an era where such attempts at coercion are treated, quite properly, with scorn and derision.
AMYNTAS wrote:Whether a family planning organization does or does not purely devote itself to abortion is also irrelevant to my concern.
Except that as I've stated above, it
is of concern in this thread - it was one of the original topics being discussed.
AMYNTAS wrote:Second, we have the assertion that abortion is universally wrong, regardless of circumstances, which tends to be an assertion that is favoured by the sort of people who erect nonsense such as the first assertion. This assertion is questionable on several grounds, one particularly inconvenient one for certain classes of anti-abortion campaigners being the little matter of ectopic pregnancy. Now for those who are unfamiliar with the data here, an ectopic pregnancy occurs when a fertilised egg mistakenly implants in a fallopian tube instead of the uterus. The trouble with this being, that in the absence of medical intervention, it's invariably fatal for both mother and the would-be child, and happens to be an extremely nasty, painful way for a woman to die. Consequently, failure to perform an abortion in this instance condemns that woman to a hideous death, and does nothing to save the child. On the other hand, performing the abortion spares the woman said hideous, painful death, and bestows upon her the opportunity, at some future date, to have a child that doesn't implant mistakenly in the fallopian tube, and which she actively wants to bring to term. There are other circumstances I can think of where an abortion would be preferable to no abortion, but this happens to be the most glaringly obvious one.
Ectopic pregnancies are interesting scenarios for Catholic bioethicists.
Oh I'll bet it is.
AMYNTAS wrote:You're right that the fertilized egg hangs out in the fallopian tube, but sometimes the cervix or ovary. Your picture of the scenario seems a little inaccurate. For you, it's either death of both or the death of one, as you offer no other alternative.
Last time I checked, neither does medical science. Upon whose findings I base my statements on the subject.
AMYNTAS wrote:In practice, however, expectant management is sometimes an option.
Ahem, as any actual trained obstetrician will tell you, there will come a point, if intervention is not performed, where the foetus ruptures the fallopian tube. Most obstetricians I know prefer to intervene
before this stage, because of the known medical facts, which are, that [1] said rupture is excruciatingly painful for the mother, and [2] rapidly leads to potentially fatal complications. The only reason for delay, is to gather the evidence confirming the diagnosis. Once diagnosis is confirmed, obstetricians have a habit of moving quickly, in order not to reach the stage where those complications manifest themselves - complications such as hypovolaemic shock, or worse still, haemorrhagic septicaema and peritonitis. I happen to have some personal experience of what it's like to have a fulminating septicaemia, courtesy of a meningoccal infection, and I can tell you it's not something I would wish on someone else.
You appear to be unaware that "expectant management" consists of
waiting for evidence supporting a diagnosis, and nothing else. Once the diagnosis is confirmed, hey presto, it's rapid action time.
AMYNTAS wrote:In addition to that, salpingectomy is another option, for Catholics, at least, since the death of the child is foreseen but the unintended effect.
Oh wait, do you know what salpingectomy is? It's
surgical removal of the fallopian tube. Which constitutes a
de facto abortion in the case of ectopic pregnancy. One rendered unavoidable if the mother isn't going to die. Furthermore, it's
one of the standard surgical procedures in every developed nation, where the tube-saving salpingostomy is no longer an option.
AMYNTAS wrote:It would not constitute an abortion, for Catholics, on that basis.
Ah, the malodorous miasma of apologetic fabrication. Except that, oh wait, abortion is
defined as the termination of a pregnancy resulting in the death of the foetus. Attempting to have one's apologetic cake and eat it simultaneously doesn't work in the real world. What part of the words "the foetus still ends up dead" do you not understand?
AMYNTAS wrote:Third, we have the assertion that Mr Invisible Magic Man from mythology is purportedly responsible for all of the occurrences that take place in our daily lives, including the occurrences that surround conception etc. The problem here being that if this assertion is true, every miscarriage constitutes, under the terms of this assertion, a "divine abortion". Which inconveniently conflicts with the second assertion above.
It conflicts with the idea that abortion is always wrong?
Oh, do you need the baby steps here?
Step 1: Abortion is defined, as I said above, as the termination of a pregnancy resulting in the death of a foetus.
Step 2: If one asserts that abortion is always wrong, then by definition,
any agency bringing about the end of a pregnancy in this manner, is doing something wrong.
Step 3: If one asserts that Mr Invisible Magic Man is responsible for all the processes and phenomena that affect us, then once again, by definition, this includes those processes affecting conception, pregnancy, and whether or not that pregnancy completes to term.
Step 4: From Step 3, we therefore have that the assertion contained therein, means that Mr Invisible Magic Man is responsible, by direct action, for miscarriages, and therefore, by Step 1, is an agent carrying out an abortion, and by Step 2, is doing something wrong. Which renders null and void any assertion that this entity never does anything wrong. QED.
AMYNTAS wrote:That moral prohibition has a particular scope of those to whom it applies, and it applies to us, not God.
Already addressed this with my remarks on special pleading. Those of us who paid attention in elementary logic classes understand the fail at work here, which consists of [1] asserting that a given principle is purportedly "universally applicable", and therefore has a universal quantifier at the head of the proposition, followed by [2] asserting in the next breath that a specific, privileged entity is purportedly exempt from that principle, whilst trying to maintain the pretence of universal applicability. But several of the veterans here are familiar with this particular piece of apologetic
legerdemain.
If a principle is
genuinely universally applicable, then it applies to
all entities without exception. Trying to fabricate escape clauses for privileged entities in the above manner, will simply result in much pointing and laughing on the part of those of us who passed Logic 101.
AMYNTAS wrote:Think of a teacher in a classroom who declares, 'Everyone must do the test'. This rule wouldn't apply to the teacher herself: Its particular scope is limited to the children.
Ah, bad analogy time. Except of course, that
there was a point in the teacher's life when said teacher was a pupil, and at that time, sat the same or a similar test intended to test knowledge acquisition. Without which, said teacher probably would not have become a teacher in the first place. That's the part at which your bad analogy falls on its face.
AMYNTAS wrote:We declare something similar with God and abortion.
In short, blindly assert that Mr Invisible Magic Man enjoys privileges not dispensed to any other entity.
As I stated earlier, you might want to ask yourself what dangerous paths such privilege-laden thinking can lead down.
AMYNTAS wrote:What I have said thus far, in the paragraph above, only pertains to what we mean when we say, 'it is always wrong to have an abortion'. I have said nothing in the earlier paragraph to think that God is, in fact, not allowed to abort babies.
Except that in this case, you cannot consistently claim prohibition in this case to be universally applicable, because you're explicitly asserting the existence of an exception. But of course, if this exception can exist, why can other exceptions not exist? What's wrong with me saying "a valid exception is to prevent a woman dying an agonising and preventable death"? Because, after all, saving a life in peril is one of those actions considered to be commendable, and frequently, we're told this by the same supernaturalists peddling the apologetics you're presenting here, but, oh wait, some of those supernaturalists think this ceases to be the case when a woman fails to be an incubator for Magic Man. Apparently, for this class of supernaturalist, the sanctity of human life begins at conception, and ends when you've had a dick in your pussy.
AMYNTAS wrote:To answer that question, we need to look into the varying philosophies concerning God, morality and obligation.
You mean "various collections of blind assertions on these subjects".
AMYNTAS wrote:On my philosophy, moral obligations are laws imposed by a superior or an equal onto another
I gather the jurists at Nuremberg had much to say on the matter of "superior orders".
This, and several other reasons, point to why modern, advanced jurisdictions don't operate on the basis of decrees from on high, but instead operate on the basis of
seeking informed common consent for constraints on behaviour.
AMYNTAS wrote:but there is no superior or equal to God, so far as I can see.
Heil Cosmic Führer!
Well this is another one of those reasons why the rest of us tend to want
evidence to support all these assertions supernaturalists keep pulling out of their rectal passages, because this is the sort of thinking that in the past, was used as an easy pseudo-justification for all manner of hideous conduct, on the part of enforcers of conformity to doctrine. I'll refer you to Susan B. Anthony, who presciently stated "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their own desires."
AMYNTAS wrote:What is more, laws themselves are imposed so that a good can be realized in the person himself
Actually, my understanding is that in modern, advanced jurisdictions, laws are enacted in considerable measure for
social good. Indeed, the entire business of ethics is necessarily in large measure a social enterprise. The fun part being, of course, that most of the laws enacted cover
conduct involving interactions between two or more human beings, or humans interacting with the wider surroundings. It's exceedingly rare to find laws enacted that cover what actions one performs in isolation. Furthermore, as I've just stated above, laws in advanced jurisdictions aren't "imposed" as such, but instead constitute
a contract forged from informed common consent. I gather Rousseau had much to say on the matter.
AMYNTAS wrote:but God, on my philosophy, is goodness itself
Oh dear, it's Thomism Polka Time!
I wondered when this humorous fabrication would rear its ugly head. Because, at bottom, it's nothing more than an
ex recto fabrication, a discoursive shell game played to try and hand-wave away the stark contrast between assertions of ethical perfection, and the assertions contained in the requisite mythology, of conduct on the part of this purportedly "ethically perfect" entity, of a sort that would invite punitive measures against humans behaving in the same manner. At bottom, it's the appeal to force fallacy writ large - Magic Man has all the power, therefore Magic Man can do as Magic Man pleases without any comeback, while the serfs, plebs and puppets do as they're fucking told. I don't suppose it's ever crossed your mind how utterly fascist this all sounds?
AMYNTAS wrote:or the good, which means that no further good can be realized in Him. That He is goodness itself, or the good, is reason to think that He is or that His commands are the moral law, which suggests that He is not under the law.
Word salad that simply means "Magic Man has all the power, therefore Magic Man gets to dictate to the rest of us". Heil Cosmic Führer!
It's no wonder religion is so appealing as a tool of social control to fascist dictators.
AMYNTAS wrote:I am here telling you
about my philosophy, the ideas internal to it. I am not supporting them.
And I, in turn, am telling you why I find those ideas repellent and dangerous.
AMYNTAS wrote:I am just trying to give insight into what we believe.
And here is another central part of the problem, namely treating
belief, the uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions, as a source of substantive knowledge. Except that in the world of proper discourse, it isn't.
AMYNTAS wrote:Attempts to try and "resolve" this inconvenient conflict between those two assertions, inevitably involves rolling out yet another blind assertion, to the effect that Mr Invisible Magic Man possesses special privileges with respect to the matter, and that anything Mr Invisible Magic Man does carries with it some ineffable seal of ethical untouchability, even when this involves actions that would be considered heinously punishable if performed by us humans. I'm sure it won't take long for even elementary contemplation about this latter assertion, to lead inexorably to some fairly morbid conclusions.
It's not blind. If God is what we say he is, then his relation to moral law makes perfect sense.
No it doesn't. It's a lash-up from start to finish, based upon a primitive model of social organisation that was past its sell by date 3,000 years ago.
First of all, any
genuinely existing entity, of the sort asserted to exist in the requisite doctrine, would have far more sophisticated means at its disposal, than fascist-style decrees from on high, and even more fascist instances of ruthless and brutal culling. The Ancient Greeks worked out a better model than this, in prototype form, 25 centuries or more ago.
AMYNTAS wrote:For, if he is what we say he is, there'd be no equal or superior.
That's the mother of all "ifs".
And, it's precisely because this mother of all "ifs" has manifestly dangerous ramifications, that the rest of us aren't going to be satisfied with blind assertionist platitudes on the matter. Not least because we can point to a vast mountain range of evidence from history, warning us of those dangerous ramifications.
Plus, as I've already stated above, any
genuine entity possessing, as this entity is asserted to, the requisite fantastic gifts of knowledge and power, would be eminently well placed to solve the requisite problems of cosmic administration in a far more elegant manner, than the sort of cosmic Big Brother you're peddling here. Your assertion that an entity effectively comprising a cosmic Pinochet is "goodness itself" is laughable.
AMYNTAS wrote:That's a premise even the most stubborn atheist will grant
Except I don't, for the entirely pertinent reason I've just given, namely that your model of Magic Man is nothing more than a cosmic Pinochet, a primitive fascist dictator exhibiting all the indolence, cruelty and incompetence associated with that ilk. A
genuinely "ethically perfect" entity would have no need for the sort of measures routinely asserted to be pressed into service by your magic man in the requisite mythology. Quite simply, any
genuine god would do a much better job, and it's an indication of the piss poor level of your "philosophy", that you cannot conceive of a better god than a Kim Jong-Il in the clouds.
AMYNTAS wrote:since it is understood that we are talking about something conceived to be the alpha and omega.
No, we're dealing with something
asserted to be marvellous beyond compare, but which is then presented as being
way short of that mark.
AMYNTAS wrote:If he is what we say he is, then he is goodness itself
Er, no. Because as I've just told you, any
genuinely existing entity of this sort, possessing fantastic gifts of knowledge and power, would be far more elegant and civilised in its approach. Indeed, such an entity would
actually be characterised not by visible pyrotechnics, not by an ever growing body count, but by deploying education and the development of consensus. The manifest absence thereof in many supernaturalist circles is wonderfully informative here.
AMYNTAS wrote:which seems to problemize the idea of him being
under the moral law.
No, this is another of those fabrications you're unable to recognise as such. Because, first of all, ethical principles only make sense in a domain inhabited by beings capable of formulating those principles, and acting upon them. For much of the 13.6 billion year history of the universe, this was not the case, and indeed, in its early history, was incapable of sustaining neutral atoms, let alone sentient beings. Second, many ethical principles only make sense in a
social setting, which requires the existence not only of sentient entities, but sentient entities with social behaviours. It's a bit difficult to see how a lone god could possess social behaviours. Third, we're back to this tiresome business of asserting a privileged status for an entity, without even a shred of evidence for the
existence of this entity, let alone its possession of all manner of asserted attributes, whilst at the same time struggling to maintain the pretence of "universally applicable" principles, whilst the elephant in the room of a gigantic, privileged exception is sitting there making the entire edifice sink into the apologetic quicksand it's built on.
AMYNTAS wrote:The point is that these relations between the moral law and God flow well once we understand what God is said to be.
Er, no. If we humans can devise better models of jurisprudence and governance than fascist dictatorship, surely any god worthy of the name can do so as well, and indeed, can provide us with even better models than the ones we already have? But, oh dear, every time supernaturalists are pressed on this, they keep repeating the same tired, recycled fabrications, that their sad, pathetic, primitive models of such an entity constitute some sort of acme of intellectual achievement matching the glory of their magic man. If you haven't worked out why I'm not buying this discoursive snake oil by now, you might want to spend some time acquainting yourself with some real world data for a while.
AMYNTAS wrote:The only remaining question is whether such a God exists, but that's not something in the purview of this discussion.
It's going to be a fucking huge blow to your doctrine if this entity
doesn't exist, isn't it?
AMYNTAS wrote:Are you serious?
You're trying to tell us that doctrinal appropriation of an idea counts for more than its truth value?
I'll give you three guesses what I think of that.
In discussions about premises internal to Christianity? Yes. Its truth value is irrelevant to whether it is internal to Christianity and the relations it holds within Christianity.
So you're admitting here that all that counts, in your eyes, is whether the made up shit is the
right brand of made up shit?
And you want to dignify this palsied hilarity with the word "philosophy"?
by 
That's fubar! 
