I'll comprimise. I don't like the term entirely, but it'll do. Just like there are pro-gun-rights and pro-gambling-rights (and there used to be pro-slavery-rights).

Is it just for the sake of disagreeing with the religious? Is it because they see being anti-abortion-rights as being a strictly religious viewpoint? Are anti-abortion-rights atheists worried about fitting in? Is it just a coincidence?

Views: 548

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I agree that Machiavelli is highly misunderstood - so much so that I think many take away the opposite of what he intended. This is, unfortunately, typical of how great ideas can become a shitty ideology.

Does a Machiavellian and misanthrope have just one small tight circle of compassion? (I have to admit, I thought he was euphemistically referring to your anal sphincter here - lol)

The particular is "what is correct for the situation" ... compassion is often times the worst answer, in the larger scope of societal correctness; unfortunately, being pragmatic means removing emotion from the situation, totally. Most humans aren't comfortable with that behavior.

We can agree on this point and come to a different conclusion. I think this might be stated slightly differently:

When looking for the most correct solution, given a dilemma where all the best choices nevertheless render both positive and negative repercussions, scale must be considered. If I must sacrifice having a boat to help pay for everyone to receive good healthcare, then I will choose to do so, because a pandemic spreads faster in a population that does not readily and rapidly treat its sick. And germs don't care if I have a boat.

Therefore, if someone can show me that abortion prohibition actually slows the rate of abortion and/or results in less general misery, crime, and hardship - and all the attending expenses associated with that, I will re-evaluate my position on reproductive choice.
Therefore, if someone can show me that abortion prohibition actually slows the rate of abortion and/or results in less general misery, crime, and hardship - and all the attending expenses associated with that, I will re-evaluate my position on reproductive choice.

Which is the general evaluations of the greater populace; hence, abortion is legal. As such, personal desires become an aside of little relativity; except as a discussion item.

What purpose is there in you reevaluating your position? Are you being asked or told to do so? I fail to understand what import there is to changing position; unless it is a forced issue.
Do you think that any idea of 'retribution' 'vengeance' or 'payback' should be part of our justice system? Currently, I would say that most people think so. And I would also say that that comes from an almost strictly emotional place.

I do not think that those things have anything at all to do with 'justice.' They do not represent solutions to anything.
Emotions are, not completely, but for the larger part, energy draining and lead away from rational thought/understanding.

Ceteris paribus, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I just heard this guy talk about the role of the 'emotional brain' in decision making versus the role of the cortex.

Read the article on decision making.

Here's the NPR Fresh Air interview with him about it I heard. [text]
audio

John might have a strong point - to a point.
Actually Howard, I own and have read his book, "How We Decide".

It's a great work, and I've spent an enormous amount of time rifling through his list of references; only succeeding in getting through about 1/5 of them completely.

I think an inherent problem of involving emotions, which is one of the most direct causes of gullibility, is the manner with which the human brain handles risk aversion. In this area, and without tight emotional control, having knee jerk reactions and making logically poor or invalid decisions happens too often.
Well, for example, if medical science (nanotech?) could safely remove a zygote from a woman and implant it in another woman as an alternative answer to both abortion and infertility (for some) - especially if these zygotes could be stored in a given interim - I might become a proponent of this procedure over abortion.

If someone could prove to me that owning a gun in the city made the general populace safer or, at least, in no more danger than otherwise - I would re-evaluate my position on inner city gun regulation.

The reason being - my view of 'justice' is about the attempt to restrict freedoms as little as possible across the board. This usually not a zero sum exercise. For example, your freedom to put a bullet in my head is outweighed by the fact that if you exercise such a freedom, all my freedom is taken away forever. Nevertheless, even murder isn't usually a zero sum equation - which is why there are so many 'degrees' and a variety of mitigating scenarios.

As we understand more about the nature of mitigating scenarios as well as the efficacy the consequences we impose - as well as alternative consequences - we should be willing to re-evaluate how we balance freedoms.
If someone could prove to me that owning a gun in the city made the general populace safer or, at least, in no more danger than otherwise - I would re-evaluate my position on inner city gun regulation.

This is where a pragmatic mindset is helpful, at least in my estimation.

Certain regulations requiring information on gun ownership, and greater, gun knowledge/safety prior to ownership are sensible, practical. Removing the right to own guns because of geographic location, is neither sensible or practical. Not everyone who lives in an urban environment has the ability to live elsewhere; school, employment, familial commitments can all be plausible reasons.

The three greatest issues that cause weapons violence:

1. Lack of uniformity; both in the laws and the populace. The law is not equally applied, easily circumvented, (weapons shows/FFD) and the populace is inconsistent with regards to ownership.

2. Lack of education; any weapon requires practice and knowledge. Neither are enforced, and too often weapons owners become the victim of their own weapon.

3. Lack of logical consistency; we have a divided populace that rarely, if ever, uses reasoning to come to a proper conclusion. Either everyone owns, everyone doesn't, everyone carries, everyone doesn't ... find a logical, uniform decision and the issue would be more correct for the longer term.

For example, your freedom to put a bullet in my head is outweighed by the fact that if you exercise such a freedom, all my freedom is taken away forever.

I think you misplaced some words, but believe the intent is understood.

Disagree, and again, we come back to logical consistency and uniformity; the law, summarily, has none. There are too many non-essential factors that are allowed to play high priority and as the old adage goes, "as verbosity increases, veracity diminishes". The law is impotent; and if I choose to act as a Sovereign, the law can quite readily be circumvented. Did you know that a hog farm is a perfect place to dispose of human remains? Hogs are non-discriminatory feeders, and can completely pulverize both human flesh and bone.

As we understand more about the nature of mitigating scenarios as well as the efficacy the consequences we impose - as well as alternative consequences - we should be willing to re-evaluate how we balance freedoms.

And as Machiavelli has stated; "if you are going to do injury to a man, it should be complete, such that there is no fear of revenge."

Again, the law is utterly bereft of uniformity and plays too often in the "grey" realm of mitigating scenarios; not that they shouldn't exist at all, but they shouldn't be the standard, but the exception.

We live the alternative consequences, because of the failure of the law to exercise logic and pragmatics.
Why are so many atheists pro-abortion-rights?

We just hate babies!
Midgets make for great barbecue, with a side of deadpuppies.
Midgets are actually people. Foetuses are not.
Depends upon your definition I suppose.

RSS

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service