Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

Perhaps he would be judged as being possessed  by the devil, one of Satan's little helpers.

Which, of course, creates all sorts of other problems.

[Nearly Sane]

I can't presume to know what is in the conscience of another person.  They could be genuinely mistaken about whether abortion is the right thing to do.  But they could also be making a self centred excuse to do something they know to be wrong.

A person can usually test their conscience by asking themselves what the true motive is.

If they can be genuinely mistaken, then so could you and it blows a coach and horses through the whole conscience thing, You aren't even getting close to a coherent position here.

[torridon]

In my view the devil is very much involved.
The jihadist is most likely ingoring his conscience is order to succumb to the devil's temptation to take a short cut to heaven.

Every human is different of course, but in cases where someone is prepared to give up his life for his belief, he probably does actually believe it. So in the case of a suicide bomber driven by sincere conviction that he is doing right, no devil is involved in that case according to you.

[Alan Burns]

Every human is different of course, but in cases where someone is prepared to give up his life for his belief, he probably does actually believe it. So in the case of a suicide bomber driven by sincere conviction that he is doing right, no devil is involved in that case according to you.

As I previously mentioned, suicide bombers think they can take a short to heaven at the expense of killing innocent people.  It is ultimately a selfish act which goes against any moral conscience.

[Outrider]

Of course I believe that abortion is morally wrong.

Why 'of course'? That suggests you have a rather simplistic view of what is a complex issue.

I am not in a position to judge the motives of people involved with the abortion, but I would be prepared to witness to them and try to convince them that what they are doing is wrong.

If you've already decided that what they're doing is wrong, then you have judged them (and, implicitly, decided that their motives are insufficient).

O.

[Gordon]

If you genuinely believe it is the right thing to do at the time, it is not a sin and therefore not the devil's temptation.

That just makes matters worse Alan since I could be mistaken in my beliefs for any number of reasons: my judgment could be impaired, my priorities could be biased, I could have inadequate information about causes and/or consequences or I could have been misled by others - these are all known risks where people are involved.

Therefore these are equally risks for you, that given your apparent certainty regarding your 'souls/free will' argument you either haven't recognised or have refused to acknowledge. Seems to me that taking known human fallibility into account when bad stuff happens is a more pragmatic position to hold to than is looking to blame ancient supernatural myths.

[Outrider]

As I previously mentioned, suicide bombers think they can take a short to heaven at the expense of killing innocent people.  It is ultimately a selfish act which goes against any moral conscience.

No, it goes against your (and my) moral conscience, but that's because they accept different moral precepts upon which to found their morality.

For them, obedience of Allah, and his will as illuminated by one interpretation of Mohammed, is the paramount concern, though there will likely be cultural influences as well.

For you, broadly, obedience to God, and his will as illuminated by the Orthodox interpretation of the Old and New Testaments is your paramount concern, again with cultural influences.

For me, broadly, adherence to individual freedom and personal liberty are the primary concerns, with other cultural influences as well.

They aren't 'immoral', it's merely that their morality is different - and worse, in my opinion - than yours and mine.

O.

[torridon]

As I previously mentioned, suicide bombers think they can take a short to heaven at the expense of killing innocent people.  It is ultimately a selfish act which goes against any moral conscience.

You aren't paying attention Alan, I was putting to you the case of the jihadist who is driven by his conviction to give up all he has to do what be believes is his moral duty as required by God.

[wigginhall]

I think Alan is hooked, impaled, gaffed, and now lies gasping for air on the bank, as his own description of conscience is shredded.   It's clear that every man's (and woman's) conscience is his own, and may also be affected by social groups.   Of course, Alan wants to say that his conscience has a hot line to God, and is therefore superior.   Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?  Autres pays, autres moeurs.

[Nearly Sane]

I think Alan is hooked, impaled, gaffed, and now lies gasping for air on the bank, as his own description of conscience is shredded.   It's clear that every man's (and woman's) conscience is his own, and may also be affected by social groups.   Of course, Alan wants to say that his conscience has a hot line to God, and is therefore superior.   Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?  Autres pays, autres moeurs.

I think part of Alan's problem is that for him to feel comfortable that someone is being judged, they must know what the right thing to do is
 Given that the actions of those who have stated they are Christian have been seen differently at different points in history, that leads to a conscience that somehow tells us what is right. That then leads to Alan having to think that anyone else who disagrees must be lying or mistaken
 If they are mistaken, then he is back to his original discomfort, to which saying 'God is the final judge' doesn't really cut it.


I've seen a number of discussions where people are asked do you think some form of eternal punishment is fair for what is, even if you think it is a wrong, a finite one, where they pull out the whole 'Not for me to judge'. And it then feels like they are saying, I don't feel it's right but it must be because of it wasn't then I am calling my god wrong.


I find the idea that for those ethical discussions where we find it hardest to decide what is right, that someone like Alan experiences those decisions as if there is an easy right answer, one that he just knows.

[wigginhall]

Yes, 'knowing the right thing' indicates a kind of certainty, whereas for many people moral decisions are highly ambiguous and uncertain.  So Alan has to wish away ambiguity and sitatuational factors, such as the jihadist's conscience telling him to commit violence.   But of course, many Christians have felt obliged to be violent - for example, they used to burn people.   I suppose Alan would say that this was mistaken, or was it in fact, the devil at work?  But how does he know this?  His conscience tells him so.

[Nearly Sane]

The hardest moral decisions I struggle with are those that i can see no entirely good outcome, and indeed I am completely unsure if what the outcome will be, does Alan think that the conscience has some sort of magical inbuilt felicific calculator that will just put a glowing red arrow over the 'right answer'?

[wigginhall]

And somebody having an abortion might think it's the right thing to do.   But that is an impossible thought for Alan, because it would mean acknowledging that there are other people, with (gasp) different ideas about morality.   Before you know where you are, men are marrying men, people are using condoms, and militant lesbians stalk the streets of Hackney.   

[floo]

And somebody having an abortion might think it's the right thing to do.   But that is an impossible thought for Alan, because it would mean acknowledging that there are other people, with (gasp) different ideas about morality.   Before you know where you are, men are marrying men, people are using condoms, and militant lesbians stalk the streets of Hackney.   

If only children like that poor little soul Baby Peter had been aborted when his evil mother first got pregnant, he would have been spared so much suffering.

[Alan Burns]

If only children like that poor little soul Baby Peter had been aborted when his evil mother first got pregnant, he would have been spared so much suffering.

You are suggesting that it is OK to kill an innocent person to prevent them from suffering.
Your logic is truly terrifying.

[Shaker]

You are suggesting that it is OK to kill an innocent person to prevent them from suffering.

The overwhelming majority of people are in support of and full agreement with euthanasia, you know, which entails the death of an actual person (rather than a potential one as in abortion) to prevent suffering.

Most people are against suffering - perhaps you hadn't heard.

[SqueakyVoice]

You are suggesting that it is OK to kill an innocent person to prevent them from suffering.
Your logic is truly terrifying.

No the destruction of a small bundle of cells that cannot feel pain and has no concept of suffering (or anything else for that matter) is entirely different from a person, innocent or otherwise.

[wigginhall]

You are suggesting that it is OK to kill an innocent person to prevent them from suffering.
Your logic is truly terrifying.

Here we are Alan, there are different people in the world, and they have different views about morality.   Are you really terrified by this?  I doubt it.   Praise Thor that your views are not enforced today. 

[Outrider]

You are suggesting that it is OK to kill an innocent person to prevent them from suffering.
Your logic is truly terrifying.

That's what complicates the question - at what point does it become a person.

At conception and through the very early stages is a nonsense, it's no more a person than a chicken or a fish is.

Late term it's obviously a person, with senses and feelings and some sort of brain activity, already starting to form neural useful neural pathways.

At what point is the crossover... that's where the first of the grey areas come in.

O.

[Enki]

If you genuinely believe it is the right thing to do at the time, it is not a sin and therefore not the devil's temptation.

Well I genuinely have no interest in following any god that I don't think exists. Hence, according to you, far from being led by your devil,  I am not even being tempted by him when I choose to get on with my life without any recourse to your God, as I do now. Again, according to you, as long as I  make any decisions genuinely based upon what I consider to be the right thing to do, then I am not even committing any sin at all. Now, of course, I try to make my decisions taking into account the appropriate checks and balances which I consider to be important, valid or worthwhile, whether you had made the above statement or not, but it is nice to know that from your particular religious position, you seem to be quite supportive in this.

Cheers, Alan.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Outy,

That's what complicates the question - at what point does it become a person.

At conception and through the very early stages is a nonsense, it's no more a person than a chicken or a fish is.

Late term it's obviously a person, with senses and feelings and some sort of brain activity, already starting to form neural useful neural pathways.

At what point is the crossover... that's where the first of the grey areas come in.

Ah but in Alan's somewhat baroque ontology he's also pouffed into existence something he calls a "soul" - which presumably pops into this nascent "person" at some point (doubtless he'll tell us when). Would abortion therefore entail the killing of this soul, and thus it's a "sin" I wonder, or does this soul just pop itself into the next about to be baby along, taxi rank style?

Alan - I think we should be told! 

[Alan Burns]

That's what complicates the question - at what point does it become a person.

At conception and through the very early stages is a nonsense, it's no more a person than a chicken or a fish is.

We were all embryos once.  So were our parents and grandparents.  These were all real people.  Just imagine if abortion had been legalised in 1867 instead of 1967, how many of us would be here?

Just a thought.

[Outrider]

We were all embryos once.  So were our parents and grandparents.  These were all real people.  Just imagine if abortion had been legalised in 1867 instead of 1967, how many of us would be here?

Given that a great deal of medical knowledge about infant mortality was gained from the medical investigation of foetuses, quite probably significantly fewer. However, given that those individuals would never have existed, who would suffered?

We were all embryos, but now we are people - people are, rightly, protected in law and for what I'd generally consider moral reasons, but embryos aren't afforded the same protection because they aren't people.

Any number of them, naturally, never go on to become people, and a very small number due to medical intervention don't go on to become people.

At what point, though, does an embryo become a person - until you've made a call on that, you can't make an informed argument on the morality of abortion.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

We were all embryos once.  So were our parents and grandparents.  These were all real people.  Just imagine if abortion had been legalised in 1867 instead of 1967, how many of us would be here?

Just a thought.

What thought do you think you've had exactly?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

PS Isn't the embryo stage a fairly arbitrary place to draw the line? The sperm and eggs that became these people were presumably in your mind potentially these people too. What about the morality of not using them for procreation purposes?