[Peace-discuss] abortion and ethics, was Re: Immigration Reform

[Morton K. Brussel]

Karen, I find much of this—not all—silly.  And I apologize to all other readers for foisting this on them; I had an inner compulsion to defend my thoughts. … . 


On Dec 9, 2009, at 3:58 PM, Karen Medina wrote:

> Carl, I think Mort said what he meant. Though I think Mort incorrectly jumped to a conclusion**

What conclusion?

> 
> Mort, Being active in a religion does not automatically mean the reasoning side of their minds is completely closed.

I would never claim this, but on certain questions I believe it to be so. There clearly is a broad spectrum of religionists, some more close minded (on certain topics) than others. In any case who is "close minded" is a purely subjective term. 

> Under the right circumstances, both Carl and Wayne can change even their most strongly held positions. I look forward to being there when it happens. 

Me too.

> … Carl is consistent -- pro-life to him means anti-war and pro-life also means 1) that you adopt the unwanted children AND 2) you value the life of the mother as much as the 'innocent child'. Most nominal Catholics do not see their own inconsistencies. Most nominal pro-lifers I know do not value the life of the mother -- they see her as a guilty prostitute. Most nominal pro-lifers I know do not adopt children. 

I don't believe that Carl "values" the mother equally with the "innocent child" (= fetus, sperm+egg?) when the question of abortion arises. That's for him to answer, clearly. 

> 
> ** Mort is an atheist who cannot see beyond the idea that religion is bunk. So, in my opinion, he is sometimes blinded -- the very thing he is claiming religion does to people. 

In what am I blinded?

> Religion does serve a purpose beyond producing and promoting myths.

Indeed. 
Please define "religion". I take the widely accepted definition as necessarily invoking God or gods  (meaning unseen ineffable "forces") to explain what "we" can't explain otherwise. That domain has become, down through the ages, ever narrower, which should lead one to some obvious conclusions. A wonder about "nature" or about "feelings" is not the sole property of religionists, though (many) religionists claim it to be so. Yes, religion is the great superstition. And commitment to the unexplained (gods  or God, superstition) has indeed sometimes brought forth marvelous human creations, albeit at a price, sometimes frightful…

Incidentally, I don't subscribe to the nonsense, quoted elsewhere, that science is a religion, unless one wants total anarchy in language. 

> Though, I must admit, the fake side is the most visible side of religion.
> Mort jumped to this conclusion years ago and he will not look beyond that conclusion. 


Cheers, --mkb


> 
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Actually, you should say "some people's" ethics doesn't depend on theology, shouldn't you?  Some people's ethics clearly does. 
>  
> There is a textbook philosophical/theological debate, for example, over whether "God wills the Good because it is good, or the Good is good because God wills it," (or words to that effect).
>  
> Or, perhaps you mean that the latter position is counter-ethical?
> 
> Ricky
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20091209/629a537e/attachment.htm