News-Record.com

I just can't understand the logic behind late term abortions. How can anyone willingly deliver a baby only to kill it right as it's being born?

I agree; it's totally barbaric. But killing pre-born infants at any stage is no less horific, when you think about those precious little imago Deis being mamed and pulled apart by profiteering surgeons. The emperor really does not have any clothes on, regardless of the fantasies of abotionists.

But if God decides to maim and kill them, you suddenly stop objecting, do you?

What on earth are you talking about, Eric?

What on earth are you talking about, Eric?

What on earth are you talking about, Eric?

nikos, i think eric has channeled alice...........

Nikos, I'm talking about miscarriages. Isn't that a matter of God killing "pre-born infants"? Do you agonize of God's decision to murder all those millions of embryos every year, or is that no concern of yours at all? I read somewhere that there are more instances of fertilized eggs that fail to implant in the uterus wall than all other ways of ending a fertilized cell's life before full term birth combined. Surely, that bothers you at least a little...

This also makes me wonder, Nikos -- do you believe that the souls of "pre-born children" that are aborted end up in hell?

I know many who don't, and that makes me wonder why they object to abortion at all... After all, I seem to recall you recently said that the most important question in life was how to get to heaven.

Sorry to overburden you with a lot of questions, Nikos, but another one has come up. Since God is omniscient and omnipotent, I wonder what you think of the reason why any abortions occur at all. Seems to me that if God didn't want a fetus aborted before birth, He wouldn't allow any woman who would get one to ever get pregnant in the first place. If your view about God was true, why are we even discussing this issue? It doesn't make a lick of sense, seems to me.

Hey, what about ectopic pregnancies- or ancephalic fetuses?
Those seem like the work of a REALLY malcious Creator.

Stillbirths? Heartless beyond words.

Guess God's like Buz- still trying to work our how to be kind and charitable to living beings - and failing miserably.

Buz, you mentioned " channeling". You into necromancy and other new age stuff?
Huh. Thought that was a big ol' sin for your ilk.

Eric and Alice, You never cease to amaze me with the vituperance you demonstrate towards anything contrary to your ego-centric worldview. This latest outburst has seemingly left all semblance of sanity behind.

For your assertions to carry the least bit of weight worth responding to, you would first have to establish that a creator is bound by the same set of morality to which the creature is bound. Second, that an action by the creator carries the same moral consequences as actions by the creature.

Of course, this would require you to abandon logic or reason in order to come to the above conclusions. Name one philosopher/sophist who has come to those conclusions. Even the most atheistic of philosophers would not engage in trying to render the creator as equal to the creature. Now he/she might contest that there is no god, therefore, you can't argue that murder is wrong, or that terminating a baby's life is morally wrong since there is no moral absolutes. I have no problem with such a debate.

However, to presume in a debate or question the existence of a creator and then illogically render him as equal to the creature is both obtuse and inane. But of course you know better, you're merely being churlish.

alice my 'ilk' was attempting humor - apparently it failed for you - sorry !
you just plain got it 180 degress wrong - i am like God - in His image ya' know !
alice is it just Christian that you hate or is it anyone who believes in diety ?

"For your assertions to carry the least bit of weight worth responding to, you would first have to establish that a creator is bound by the same set of morality to which the creature is bound."

So "Paradigm" believes that morality isn't universal. I think paradigm needs to read a little from Plato's dialogs, rather than trying to convince his readers that he knows more than everyone else.

Agreed.
A creator whose motto is " Do as I say, not as I do" hardly seems worthy of notice, much less worship.

"Sorry to overburden you with a lot of questions, Nikos, but another one has come up. Since God is omniscient and omnipotent, I wonder what you think of the reason why any abortions occur at all. Seems to me that if God didn't want a fetus aborted before birth, He wouldn't allow any woman who would get one to ever get pregnant in the first place . . . Nikos, I'm talking about miscarriages. Isn't that a matter of God killing "pre-born infants"?

First, Paradigm was simply touching on the whole issue of divine/human dynamics. It is NOT the same as interpersonal dynamics - in that God is perfect in all his ways and his judgments are pure and unalloyed. WE are the creatures who have rebelled against HIS laws of life and happiness. We are culpable, not He.

One of His dynamic principles, in this regard, is that there are realms of being which are discrete to some degree,(angelic, earthly human, divine) and which contain MOs that are peculiar to each one - i.e. God has granted free will to his earthly creatures (limited by thier existential context)) so that they can live out this aspect of the Imago Dei. The repurcussions of their decisions are played out in time and history in order for them to be authentic and purposeful. Otherwise we would be instict-driven animals or humanoid automotons.

THEREFORE, God allows bad, negative things to occur in order that our realm of being may play itself out, demonstrating that we are the real keepers of this realm and truly responsible for our beliefs and actions - and historical consequences. One of these consequences is that sin is both physically, as well as spiritually and psychologically, degenerative; and the incidence of disease, physical malformations, mental deficiencies, et al. is part of sins cosmic affects.

Thus, miscarriages, congenital problems, etc. are NOT God's direct will or actions, but the cumulative and historical affects of OUR sin in the world. Miscarriages have actaully been shown to be natural and merciful in that there are sometimes serious problems with the fetus. However, to consciously take the life of a viable, developing baby in the womb is a direct and willful act of murder, done primarily for our selfish convenience.

"For your assertions to carry the least bit of weight worth responding to, you would first have to establish that a creator is bound by the same set of morality to which the creature is bound."

Eric: "So "Paradigm" believes that morality isn't universal. I think paradigm needs to read a little from Plato's dialogs, rather than trying to convince his readers that he knows more than everyone else."

Morality not universal? That's not what I said at all. Why Plato? Certainly, Kant would fit with the idea of universal morality rather than Plato and Aristotle’s more teleological ethics. It would appear that Kant’s deontological ethics are much more applicable than Plato's dialogs based on your accusation of me. In fact, under both Plato and Aristotle, God’s actions would be justified because of the end result being virtuous while the doctor performing the abortion would be morally culpable because the end result would be morally justified. Thus, under Plato’s dialogs and Aristotle’s various postulations, my accused position of "non-universal morality" would indeed be justified and correct. Further, it would still allow the creature to praise and worship the more supreme being.

Maybe you could point me to the exact dialogue you were referring to when you said I needed to read it? (for the record I have read them, but I couldn’t recall one from memory which would support a notion of universal morality, other than perhaps his later views on justice)

However, both these and all other ethical suppositions deal with intra-human relationships and/or human actions. While certainly God abides by his own law because that is a reflection of his very nature, we cannot ascribe human reasoning to his actions. In other words, while a doctor might terminate a pregnancy for the convenience of his patient, God allowed the pregnancy to terminate for a reason wholly within his judgment - which is righteous and blameworthy. As I said before you cannot equate the creator with the creature when evaluating actions or perceived actions. You must view the human in light of what we know about humans and the creator the attributes that a creator would, by logic, possess. We can debate the existence or non-existence of God, but we cannot render God as equal to, in his thoughts and actions, a human.

It is strange to me that you think I’m trying to convince you that I’m smart. Was there something I said that made you think I thought I was smarter than you? I believe I am more correct, but that would not make me necessarily more intelligent than you. I simply noted that you spouted off without reference to logic or reason. However, I have done that in past when I’m especially peeved. I even noted that you likely knew better, but were just being petulant.

See Eric, Paradigm isn't smarter than you- hes just omnicscent. He knows what you're thinking and why you think as you do.
The Triad better be able to harness all his psychic abilities before every spoon in the Triad gets bent by his brain waves.
Be very afrad...

"See Eric, Paradigm isn't smarter than you- hes just omnicscent."

Yeah, it's getting a little tiresome constantly hearing from the clueless who think they're omniscient. One wonders why an all-knowing person would bother with asking questions. I guess for him they're all rhetorical, therefore requiring no response.

"One wonders why an all-knowing person would bother with asking questions. I guess for him they're all rhetorical, therefore requiring no response."......

does anyone but me see this as a deliberate attempt at dodging the question(s) ?

sounds like paradigm called erics bluff on the plato stuff and now eric ran out of words ! oops ......

I'm not sure what you thought was rhetorical. Remember you started this by insulting me.

I simply noted that given Plato's teleological ethical bent, his dialogues would not seem to support your accusation of me or seem relevant to support a notion of universal morality as it relates to specific actions. Thus, here are my questions to you:

What specifically, did you have in mind when you pointed me to Plato? (remember you assumed I'd never read Plato, I assumed you had)

Given that Kant had a more deontological ethical framework, why wouldn't you use his writings to support your accusation of me?