Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned

[Twangbanger]

View attachment 199709

She presents a good argument in favor of abortion. Just not in the way I suspect she intended.

 

[KG1]

Satanists Plan Court Challenge Claiming Abortion a Religious Ritual - Headline USA

(Molly Bruns, Headline USA) The Satanic Temple has released a statement saying they will fight the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe v. Wade, joining Democrats, baby-killers and alt-left radicals in opposition to preserving life, according to the Gateway Pundit. The statement was released in a Tweet...

headlineusa.com

 

[Twangbanger]

If you're fine with humanity continuing on a perpetual cycle of murder and genocide against whichever group is deemed to be the less-than-humans of the day, then there's no reason why. If you'd rather live in a society where your right to life is not dependent on the next direction the winds of societal change start to blow, then there's a very good reason to seek a consistent definition of human life.

Can you name a single historical nation/society that claimed that a portion of their human population were not actually human, or did not have equal rights, whom we now look back on as anything other than barbarians and murderers? Has there ever been a point in history where the ones fighting to take away the right to life/liberty of a whole subset of humanity were in the right? What makes you think future generations will view abortion any differently?

Of course, all this brings up one of the difficulties of trying to debate morals from a purely secular standpoint in the first place. Here I'm making an appeal to being on the "right side of history", or how future generations will view us. Of course, for many people, that's not really going to mean anything. So how do you debate morals without an objective source of truth? I think you basically have to take one of two positions, either "right" and "wrong" have no objective meaning, and therefore whatever any given society decides is "right" in their own time period, is right. But if you believe that we have a right to look back at the genocides, mass murder, and mass enslavement of the past, and say definitively that those were wrong, then it seems to follow that you must be appealing to some idea of human rights that stays the same, and doesn't "change based on new information."

I don't think America of the past 50 years as having been "Barbarians" or murders. It's only one specific subset of people, the one you represent, which thinks that way.

The ability of people to change their ideas over time is what abolished slavery. It's what is giving us the chance to re-consider Abortion right now, when the "other side" had considered the idea "fixed" and settled since the 1970s.

The ability to change ideas over time is not inherently wrong.

The adherence to a fixed viewpoint is not automatically right.

That's what I'm trying to get the "activists" on this issue to see. You have the chance for a 98% victory here, but I see a subset of people who, in an effort to open their mouth and grab the other 2%, are going to let that bone fall "into the water." Because they're so scripted and conditioned by religious teaching to see Truth as a revealed entity which is fixed for all time, that they're intellectually incapable of seeing human ideas as an arc being bent in a better direction over time.

 

[jamil]

That "murky zone" is where the matter can only be considered philosophically (i.e. it is "murky" because science cannot define it).

On that matter, I hold the philosophical position that it is better to err on the side that gives the benefit of the doubt to the developing human life, because it is most likely to avoid the unjustified taking of a human life that has the attendant right to life (at the risk of extending that attendant right to some point prior to when that human life is endowed with that right). The opposing position introduces the risk of unjustly denying the right life of a developing human with which that human is endowed.

The philosophical position I take is consistent with the concept of innocent until proven guilty and the right to due process. The opposing position largely exists for reasons of political expediency.

Again, Science doesn’t and hasn’t determined when rights should apply. Prople, according to their worldviews, determine that. And this is why it’s such a divided issue.

 

[jamil]

View attachment 199766

That actually makes my point. It's an uncertain topic, but for people who have an ideological or religious view of abortion, they are very certain about their convictions. But, apart from ideological/religious belief, people are less certain. And I don't mean that disparagingly of religious people. I've said all along you have every right to vote your beliefs. But it is what it is.

 

[jamil]

Man has always had a tendency to be his own god. He can justify any position he wants, any compromise of principles and values. It‘s difficult to stand up for what is right when the whole world is against it. (Oops…there I go pulling Jesus into this conversation).

Hey, I don't see a problem with bringing Jesus into something to make a point. When it gets to the point of proselytizing, or telling people they're going to hell for not having xyz position, I think that would be over the line. But if you basis for an opinion you want to share involves Jesus, it's fair game in my book. It's your opinion, you have every right to share it. You might get pushback, which is also fair game.

 

[jamil]

If you're fine with humanity continuing on a perpetual cycle of murder and genocide against whichever group is deemed to be the less-than-humans of the day, then there's no reason why. If you'd rather live in a society where your right to life is not dependent on the next direction the winds of societal change start to blow, then there's a very good reason to seek a consistent definition of human life.

What if the definition that society decides is correct, is not at conception? Does it have to be YOUR definition or everyone else is wrong?

Can you name a single historical nation/society that claimed that a portion of their human population were not actually human, or did not have equal rights, whom we now look back on as anything other than barbarians and murderers? Has there ever been a point in history where the ones fighting to take away the right to life/liberty of a whole subset of humanity were in the right? What makes you think future generations will view abortion any differently?

Of course, all this brings up one of the difficulties of trying to debate morals from a purely secular standpoint in the first place. Here I'm making an appeal to being on the "right side of history", or how future generations will view us. Of course, for many people, that's not really going to mean anything. So how do you debate morals without an objective source of truth?

Most morals are relative. Some morals are more universal. So then objective morals are the ones that are present in pretty much all societies across time and culture. From an evolutionary standpoint, morals are necessary in service of propagation of the species. Well that got thrown out when humans discovered how to override their programming.

Incidentally this is why I answered the original question of what's the best non-religious argument for the "at conception" argument. I said "potential". Ending even potential life does not serve evolutionary propagation of the species. But I don't think that's a good argument. Because we have discovered how to override evolution anyway. Not that that's working out all that swell.

But I want to get to this idea of "how do you debate morals without an objective source of truth?". I mean, you said so yourself, it's murky. It's not murky if you're religious and your religion is where your morals are derived. It is written. That's your source. Boom. Done. That's why the meme that GFGT posted is what it is. To the people who hold the "at conception" view, "it is written" is the deepest source of their truth. It's deeper than the claims of "it's 'science'". It doesn't matter because it's even deeper than that. It is written.

I think you basically have to take one of two positions, either "right" and "wrong" have no objective meaning, and therefore whatever any given society decides is "right" in their own time period, is right. But if you believe that we have a right to look back at the genocides, mass murder, and mass enslavement of the past, and say definitively that those were wrong, then it seems to follow that you must be appealing to some idea of human rights that stays the same, and doesn't "change based on new information."

This is the nature of moral philosophy. There's a maturity of morality as it evolves socially. Slave holders in the US did not have moral clarity on that. But eventually that moral came into focus. Will "at conception" be the next moral maturity point? I don't know. I don't see that as the next logical step.

 

[KG1]

Pro-choice advocacy is predicated on only the mother having rights as long as the baby is still in the womb. Pro-lifers disagree and are advocates for separate human rights for the baby to continue to develop within the womb once the reproductive process has begun after conception. IMO the child bearer has an obligation at that point to protect those rights as much as humanly possible.

 

[Magyars]

Pro-choice advocacy is predicated on only the mother having rights as long as the baby is still in the womb. Pro-lifers disagree and are advocates for separate human rights for the baby to continue to develop within the womb once the reproductive process has begun after conception. IMO the child bearer has an obligation at that point to protect those rights as much as humanly possible.

Rights like Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness?

 

[KellyinAvon]

I skipped a few pages, based on what I've read thanks for keeping this discussion between the ditches. There are a lot of strong feelings on this issue to say the least.

So what's the over/under on the "Roe v Wade riots begin" date?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

[BTW, since this has been a constant point of confusion in this thread, I just want to clarify that everywhere below that I use the phrase "human life" I mean a human life with equal rights, NOT just a scientifically speaking living, human organism. I don't believe there's a difference between the two, but I know some people do, so for the purpose of this discussion I just wanted to clarify that.]

I don't think America of the past 50 years as having been "Barbarians" or murders. It's only one specific subset of people, the one you represent, which thinks that way.

I wasn't talking about the past 50 years, I'm talking about time periods before that. I never said that I believe that America of the past 50 years is made up of barbarians or murderers, what I'm saying is that we tend to view every other people throughout history, who do the same thing we're doing to the unborn, just to another subset of humanity, as barbarians and murderers. This is a generalization, and doesn't hold true for every individual, but tends to holds true among the general public nowadays.

The ability of people to change their ideas over time is what abolished slavery. It's what is giving us the chance to re-consider Abortion right now, when the "other side" had considered the idea "fixed" and settled since the 1970s.

The ability to change ideas over time is not inherently wrong.

The adherence to a fixed viewpoint is not automatically right.

Okay, I think I may have created some confusion with the way I phrased things. I'm NOT saying that it's a bad thing for people to change their ideas over time; what I AM saying is that human rights don't change over time, so if you are knowingly basing your definition of when human life begins on changeable criteria, I think that's a bad starting point.

It's one thing to have a belief regarding when human life begins, but then if someone presents you with evidence or information you hadn't considered before, be willing to go "Oh, hey I was wrong, I'll change my viewpoint now."

It's an entirely different thing to have change "built in" to your definition of human life.

In other words, if you base your definition of human life on criteria that you know, almost for a fact, are going to change, I would argue that's evidence that your definition is a bad one. Also, if you base your definition of human life on criteria that are subjective, and cannot be determined with objective means, I would argue that's evidence that your definition is a bad one.

That's what I'm trying to get the "activists" on this issue to see. You have the chance for a 98% victory here, but I see a subset of people who, in an effort to open their mouth and grab the other 2%, are going to let that bone fall "into the water."

Well, I kind of agree with you on this point. If we can see the question of abortion returned to the states, and outlaw most abortions with a few exceptions, that would be a huge step in the right direction, and I'm not saying we should throw that away. I'm not really arguing for or against any political approach to the matter, or for or against any certain law right now, my main interest in jumping into this thread was that I saw the claim being debated whether or not there is a rational, secular argument for believing that human life begins at conception, and I thought that it was an interesting discussion, in the hypothetical, as I had heard many very solid arguments in favor of human life beginning at conception that make no reference to religion.

Because they're so scripted and conditioned by religious teaching to see Truth as a revealed entity which is fixed for all time, that they're intellectually incapable of seeing human ideas as an arc being bent in a better direction over time.

Okay, now you've really lost me. If we can't agree that truth is fixed and unchanging, how can we even have a meaningful discussion? I know I'm not going to wake up tomorrow and find that my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have gone away, and I know this because the TRUTH is that I have those rights, and that TRUTH does not change. Ever. If we can't agree on this as a starting point, I don't know where we can even find common ground to debate from.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I skipped a few pages, based on what I've read thanks for keeping this discussion between the ditches. There are a lot of strong feelings on this issue to say the least.

So what's the over/under on the "Roe v Wade riots begin" date?

If you live in the same neighborhood as certain justices, you might be able make the claim they’ve already started, minus the fires and looting.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

What if the definition that society decides is correct, is not at conception? Does it have to be YOUR definition or everyone else is wrong?

I'm not sure how this applies to what I said, I was giving my argument for why I believe that we should seek a consistent definition of human life, rather than one that is subject to change over time. I was not arguing, in this specific case, for the merits of one definition over another.

But to answer your question, yes. That's the tricky thing about having beliefs. If you believe something is true, than it has to follow that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Otherwise you don't really believe it. I believe that the earth is round, therefore, everyone who believes it is flat is wrong. I believe that all races have equal rights, therefore, anyone who believes otherwise is wrong. I believe that life begins at conception, therefore, I believe that anyone who believes otherwise is wrong.

This is the very nature of having beliefs. Why is this associated with religion? Isn't this just the simple foundation of mankind's ability to believe anything at all?

Most morals are relative. Some morals are more universal. So then objective morals are the ones that are present in pretty much all societies across time and culture. From an evolutionary standpoint, morals are necessary in service of propagation of the species. Well that got thrown out when humans discovered how to override their programming.

Incidentally this is why I answered the original question of what's the best non-religious argument for the "at conception" argument. I said "potential". Ending even potential life does not serve evolutionary propagation of the species. But I don't think that's a good argument. Because we have discovered how to override evolution anyway. Not that that's working out all that swell.

But I want to get to this idea of "how do you debate morals without an objective source of truth?". I mean, you said so yourself, it's murky. It's not murky if you're religious and your religion is where your morals are derived. It is written. That's your source. Boom. Done. That's why the meme that GFGT posted is what it is. To the people who hold the "at conception" view, "it is written" is the deepest source of their truth. It's deeper than the claims of "it's 'science'". It doesn't matter because it's even deeper than that. It is written.


This is the nature of moral philosophy. There's a maturity of morality as it evolves socially. Slave holders in the US did not have moral clarity on that. But eventually that moral came into focus. Will "at conception" be the next moral maturity point? I don't know. I don't see that as the next logical step.

I think I see now where our real difference is, and unfortunately, I think it's one we cannot resolve.

When I said that when "life" begins was murky, what I meant to say was that if you base the definition on subjective criteria like how complex the fetus has developed to be, then it becomes murky. I do not actually believe that the question of when "life" begins is murky at all, because I have a definition of human "life" that is based on clear, objective criteria.

I had assumed that we could agree that in order for a society to have decent morals, those morals must be clear, and based on objective criteria. In my view this had nothing to do with religion, and was simply a philosophical standpoint taken by anyone who wants to be able to hold a reasonable debate regarding morality.

However, from the sounds of it, it seems that you believe that there is no point in trying to have clear, objective morals, because at the end of the day human morality is constantly changing anyways, and we never know where it's going to evolve to next. If this is the case, then I guess I really can't present you with any good, secular argument for "life" beginning at conception.

If I am wrong about this, and you would like to continue the discussion, then I think the most important question I need answered, is "Where do YOU think morality comes from?" I don't mean, why did we humans develop a concept of morality, I mean, what is your starting point for determining morality? How do you answer the question of whether or not something is moral? Is it whatever serves the purposes of evolution? (I think you already discarded that idea.) Is it whatever brings the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of human beings? (If that's the case, how to you define human beings?) Is it just the majority consensus at any given point?

 

[Expat]

Having held our baby that was miscarried at around 4 months, you a can not convince me that was not a living human being.

 

[KLB]

I wasn't talking about the past 50 years, I'm talking about time periods before that. I never said that I believe that America of the past 50 years is made up of barbarians or murderers, what I'm saying is that we tend to view every other people throughout history, who do the same thing we're doing to the unborn, just to another subset of humanity, as barbarians and murderers. This is a generalization, and doesn't hold true for every individual, but tends to holds true among the general public nowadays.

What would be your equivalent? Destroying whole populations, like that of a city? Selectively killing people that are not wanted?

Humans have always been and probably always will be a cruel species.

 

[jamil]

I skipped a few pages, based on what I've read thanks for keeping this discussion between the ditches. There are a lot of strong feelings on this issue to say the least.

So what's the over/under on the "Roe v Wade riots begin" date?

Give them a minute. Spinning up the George Floyd riots didn't happen overnight.

This decision isn't official yet, but given the conservative Justice's apparent resolve, it will be. And the riots will begin sometime around then. And then we can look forward to another summer of love, with fiery but "peaceful" protests.

 

[KG1]

Give them a minute. Spinning up the George Floyd riots didn't happen overnight.

This decision isn't official yet, but given the conservative Justice's apparent resolve, it will be. And the riots will begin sometime around then. And then we can look forward to another summer of love, with fiery but "peaceful" protests.

There is nothing more loving and peaceful than a fiery protest.

 

[jamil]

[BTW, since this has been a constant point of confusion in this thread, I just want to clarify that everywhere below that I use the phrase "human life" I mean a human life with equal rights, NOT just a scientifically speaking living, human organism. I don't believe there's a difference between the two, but I know some people do, so for the purpose of this discussion I just wanted to clarify that.]

Thanks for acknowledging the difference even if you don't believe there is one. But I think what is missing is the acknowledgment that the decision to attach rights to the point you do is not "science". I'll use that placeholder again to illistrate that you guys don't seem to like. If science could determine precisely when "sentience" happens, and I believed that rights should be conferred then, it would not be "science" that decides to attach rights at that point. Science can inform one's belief about rights. But the belief about rights, itself, is not scientific. And honestly, after all the covid "science" talk, I almost hate using the word. It feels dirty.

I wasn't talking about the past 50 years, I'm talking about time periods before that. I never said that I believe that America of the past 50 years is made up of barbarians or murderers, what I'm saying is that we tend to view every other people throughout history, who do the same thing we're doing to the unborn, just to another subset of humanity, as barbarians and murderers. This is a generalization, and doesn't hold true for every individual, but tends to holds true among the general public nowadays.

Okay, I think I may have created some confusion with the way I phrased things. I'm NOT saying that it's a bad thing for people to change their ideas over time; what I AM saying is that human rights don't change over time, so if you are knowingly basing your definition of when human life begins on changeable criteria, I think that's a bad starting point.

It's one thing to have a belief regarding when human life begins, but then if someone presents you with evidence or information you hadn't considered before, be willing to go "Oh, hey I was wrong, I'll change my viewpoint now."

Attaching the point of rights to a fixed place seems like a good idea, but the fixed nature of the point make it the right point? We can find lots of fixed point, unchanging criteria during a pregnancy, to decide that it is at that point which rights should attach. But you will only agree with one. You will not accept any other. That doesn't make you right and everyone else wrong. It's a belief.

It's an entirely different thing to have change "built in" to your definition of human life.

I prefer to call it evolution.

In other words, if you base your definition of human life on criteria that you know, almost for a fact, are going to change, I would argue that's evidence that your definition is a bad one. Also, if you base your definition of human life on criteria that are subjective, and cannot be determined with objective means, I would argue that's evidence that your definition is a bad one.

If we're talking about how to make a law that attaches rights at the right place, I agree. It has to be some objective point.

Well, I kind of agree with you on this point. If we can see the question of abortion returned to the states, and outlaw most abortions with a few exceptions, that would be a huge step in the right direction, and I'm not saying we should throw that away. I'm not really arguing for or against any political approach to the matter, or for or against any certain law right now, my main interest in jumping into this thread was that I saw the claim being debated whether or not there is a rational, secular argument for believing that human life begins at conception, and I thought that it was an interesting discussion, in the hypothetical, as I had heard many very solid arguments in favor of human life beginning at conception that make no reference to religion.

Something that I want to make clear, this is the part of the abortion argument I wanted to pursue. I don't think I have said that there isn't a rational secular argument for "at conception". I said there wasn't a good one. The best one that I've thought of is the "potential" argument. I haven't heard one in this thread that is really any better than that one.

Well, there's one that is compelling if not a good argument for "at conception". If a person murders a pregnant woman, that person can be charged with two counts, or however counts depending on how many unborn children were in the womb. That's not really an argument for "at conception" as it is an argument that the laws are inconsistent.

Okay, now you've really lost me. If we can't agree that truth is fixed and unchanging, how can we even have a meaningful discussion? I know I'm not going to wake up tomorrow and find that my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have gone away, and I know this because the TRUTH is that I have those rights, and that TRUTH does not change. Ever. If we can't agree on this as a starting point, I don't know where we can even find common ground to debate from.

Truth, at least in how you seem to be using it, is the full representation of facts and reality. Facts can change with circumstances. Reality can change with circumstances. Some things are subjective. Not every belief we have has a definite truth value. Is it true that pineapple does not belong on pizza. I believe that's true. It's not true for everyone. I'm not trying to be glib with the subject. It's a serious matter. For you, "at conception" is true. But as I've said, I think you have to step out of secular thinking to get you there. And I don't have a problem with that. Just recognize that almost every non-religious person is unlikely to agree.

 

[jamil]

I'm not sure how this applies to what I said, I was giving my argument for why I believe that we should seek a consistent definition of human life, rather than one that is subject to change over time. I was not arguing, in this specific case, for the merits of one definition over another.

I think this illustrates part of the problem, that most of my involvement in this discussion is around the idea that it's a religious belief that drives "at conception". The question was in service to that point.

But if we're going to talk about what the public policy should actually be, I have agreed that laws should be based on something objective. But there are a lot of objective, measurable points during a pregnancy that could be the policy. "At conception" is objective. First heart beat/brain waves, is objective. When the fetus reacts to pain. First kicks. Up to the first trimester. Second trimester. Third trimester. Before cutting the umbilical cord at birth.

Undoubtedly some of those points sound morally reprehensible. More of those points would sound morally reprehensive to a religious person who believes in a soul than a non-religious person who doesn't. I think it tugs at the heartstrings more at a point where there's a heartbeat and brainwaves. Even more at the point where the fetus can feel pain. And so on. Non-religious, non-ideologically driven people feel the moral weight of those points too. But at conception, there isn't the same reactive moral repugnance when someone doesn't believe in a soul.

I suppose you might think I'm an atheist. I'm not religious. But not an atheist. I'm more of an agnostic. And I do think there is something sacred about life. But I have no reason to believe there is a soul that's separate from human existence.

But to answer your question, yes. That's the tricky thing about having beliefs. If you believe something is true, than it has to follow that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Otherwise you don't really believe it. I believe that the earth is round, therefore, everyone who believes it is flat is wrong. I believe that all races have equal rights, therefore, anyone who believes otherwise is wrong. I believe that life begins at conception, therefore, I believe that anyone who believes otherwise is wrong.

This is the very nature of having beliefs. Why is this associated with religion? Isn't this just the simple foundation of mankind's ability to believe anything at all?

What drives your belief? Why is it that pretty much all the people who believe "at conception" are religious? That belief is highly correlated with religion. Again, I'm not disparaging that your religion drives your beliefs. It's reasonable that it does. I would find it absurd if it didn't. If we believe in freedom of thought, which I do, then people have a right to believe what they believe, for whatever reason they have. I think I've answered that last question already, but in case it's not clear, it's associated with religion in service of my point that "at conception" is driven by religion. It is subjective. And as I've said many times. All opinions on when rights should attach regarding abortion is subjective.

I would be proud of the person who could stand up and say, yes. My belief is driven by God. That's my right. Deal with it. But no. People keep thinking it's necessary to find a place to argue it on the ground of secular thinking. They say, "no, but the science!" And I say ********. Claiming rights should be conferred at conception is not "science". It's an opinion as much as any other point on this topic. Of course you're free to disagree. And that would be your own opinion.

I think I see now where our real difference is, and unfortunately, I think it's one we cannot resolve.

When I said that when "life" begins was murky, what I meant to say was that if you base the definition on subjective criteria like how complex the fetus has developed to be, then it becomes murky. I do not actually believe that the question of when "life" begins is murky at all, because I have a definition of human "life" that is based on clear, objective criteria.

From the beginning of the conversation I had no doubts that you were quite certain about the objectivity of your thinking. There is nothing murky about this topic to you except the views of the people who disagree with you. I don't hope that you'd ever agree with me on my subjective views. My only hope of agreement between us would be that we can acknowledge that your belief, though steadfast, is not the "science". There is not a logical path that flows from "the science" to applying the same rights "at conception".

I had assumed that we could agree that in order for a society to have decent morals, those morals must be clear, and based on objective criteria. In my view this had nothing to do with religion, and was simply a philosophical standpoint taken by anyone who wants to be able to hold a reasonable debate regarding morality.

Morals are relative to one's moral beliefs. But there are "objective" morals. Just about every culture throughout human civilization, has had the concept of murder, the unjustified killing of a person, as being morally wrong. What's different in the details of that morality is the underlying beliefs about what is "justified" and what is "a person". If we both believe the same thing then we both would have the same moral belief. That's why religion is an important part of the discussion. Whether one is religious or not, that drives the difference whether you want to acknowledge that or not.

However, from the sounds of it, it seems that you believe that there is no point in trying to have clear, objective morals, because at the end of the day human morality is constantly changing anyways, and we never know where it's going to evolve to next. If this is the case, then I guess I really can't present you with any good, secular argument for "life" beginning at conception.

Hold the **** on now. If you think I sound like there's no point in trying to have clear and objective morals, I don't think you have a very good understanding of what this discussion between us is. Those are assumptions you make, I think because you're trying to understand what I'm saying within your own worldview. And it doesn't make any sense.

The way you've described my position looks to be the only way it makes any sense to you. That I must believe there's no point to try to have clear, objective morals, because what I'm saying doesn't make sense otherwise. Well, let's clear this up first. Human morality does change. It used to be considered immoral to marry a person of another race. In some circles it still is. But, I do think we should strive to have clear, objective morals, as much as we can agree on. But, that all morality is fixed, is objectively not the case. The Bible hasn't changed. But do you think people still shouldn't intermarry?

To understand another person, you have to step out of your worldview and try to get into theirs. It's not always possible. I've had the worldview of a Bible-believing Christian man for a few decades of my life. So I still remember a lot of that worldview. So I think I can step back into that to try to understand. And I do get it. I used to make some of the same arguments about abortion back in the day.

If I am wrong about this, and you would like to continue the discussion, then I think the most important question I need answered, is "Where do YOU think morality comes from?" I don't mean, why did we humans develop a concept of morality, I mean, what is your starting point for determining morality? How do you answer the question of whether or not something is moral? Is it whatever serves the purposes of evolution? (I think you already discarded that idea.) Is it whatever brings the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of human beings? (If that's the case, how to you define human beings?) Is it just the majority consensus at any given point?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I do think you're more confident in your position than a non-religious, non-ideological, secular person would be. They don't have the surety of a faith in something that transcends the reality of what is seen. I don't think that's a bad thing. But I'm sure you think you're better off. We can agree to disagree on those things.

On the question of morality itself for non-religious people? That's a different topic in itself. Probably would be a good thread. But briefly, don't harm people who don't deserved harm. Treat people like you want to be treated unless they behave otherwise. (you get what you give). I'm sure some of that sounds familiar.

Except I don't believe God told me to do it. And I don't believe I'll go to hell if I don't. I think morality perpetuates the species and we're programmed through an evolutionary process to develop morals.

Why do some cultures not wipe with their right hand? That's an issue of morality to them. Probably because they noticed people wiping and then eating with the same hand, and then getting sick. They attached a moral significance to that because they didn't have any other mechanism to deal with that curse. If they had a scientific process, they could have found their way to common sense. That if you eat with ****** hands, you ingest bacteria that can make you sick. So wash your hands and you can eat with either hand after ****ting.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

What would be your equivalent? Destroying whole populations, like that of a city? Selectively killing people that are not wanted?

Humans have always been and probably always will be a cruel species.

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking what our nation would have to do for me to consider us a nation of barbarians and murderers? I feel like even pursuing the answer to that question takes us dangerously close to the boundaries of what most would consider polite/civil discourse. But let's just say this for now: It is an objective fact that our society destroys innocent human life (I'm switching here to using the term in the strict sense, as in, any living human organism, whether or not a given person believes it has rights) at a rate that has, as far as I know, has never before been eclipsed, in terms of the scale of number of lives taken over such a long period of time, by any society or nation before in history. Does that make us a nation of barbarians and murderers? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that at some point, future generations will view us that way.