This video may help you to see what is really going on in there.
Chris S. sent me the video.
Tag Archives: Life
What did the early church fathers think about abortion?
This is from Birds of the Air. (H/T Neil Simpson)
Summary:
Recently I came across a reading of the Didache. “The what?” you may ask. The Didache is a book written somewhere in the first or second century. For a long time it was up for consideration as Scripture. It was believed to be the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Eventually it was agreed that the book was an excellent book, but not inspired Scripture. So I was pleased to be able to download this admirable book containing good teachings from the early Church fathers.
The book seemed to be largely a lot of quotes from Scripture. You’ll learn the basic rules of Christianity — “First, you shall love God who made you; second, love your neighbor as yourself.” You’ll learn that “grave sins” are forbidden, like adultery, murder, fornication, and so on. (They specifically include pederasty in the list.) There are instructions regarding teachers, prophets, Christian assembly, and so on. Lots of the normal, good stuff. But, since this was written sometime prior to 200 AD, I was somewhat surprised at this instruction: “You shall not murder a child by abortion” (Didache, Ch 2).
Honestly, there is no real factual disagreement on abortion. People justify killing the weak the same way as they always do – because the weak are in their way and they are stronger and can get away with it. The politically correct jibber-jabber about “choice” is just to make them (the man and the woman) feel good afterward. Really, abortion is just selfishness taken to the nth degree – you create another human being by recreational sex (fun) and then you kill them in order to avoid have to take responsibility for that new life. It’s like going out and getting drunk then getting behind the wheel of a car and killing someone with the car. It may not be what they intended to do, but it was their decisions that led up to it. They’re responsible. But they don’t want to face the natural consequences of their own actions, and they are willing to do the most heinous crime imaginable in order to do so. Sex makes babies. If you can’t welcome a baby into the world, don’t have sex. I don’t. And the chance of getting a woman pregnant is of the reasons why. (One of the others is that I don’t want to hurt a woman by leaving her after sex – which is why I believe in married sex. I don’t want to hurt anyone, most of all babies.
Given the pro-life practices of the early church, I find it hard to understand how people can think that fornicating (pre-marital sex) and abortion are OK. We were not like that then, and we shouldn’t be like that now. Sex was not a recreational activity then, and it is not a recreational activity now.
Learn about the pro-life case
- How to take an incremental approach to the abortion problem
- Videos from academic debate on abortion at the University of Victoria
- Audio: Scott Klusendorf’s 35-minute case for the pro-life position
- Audio: A 55-minute discussion featuring Greg Koukl and Scott Klusendorf
- My own religion-free case for the pro-life position in plain English
- A comparison of embryonic and adult stem cell research
- Video: Cute 12-year old girl makes the pro-life case in a short speech
MUST-HEAR: Glenn Peoples debates Arif Ahmed on God and morality
Another good Unbelievable debate between theist Glenn Peoples and atheist Arif Ahmed.
Details:
Torturing children for fun – is that absolutely wrong?
The Moral Argument for God states that there are such things as objective moral facts, and that objective moral facts must have an immaterial source – namely God. Therefore God Exists… Simple right?
However, atheist Cambridge Philosopher Arif Ahmed disagrees with the first two premises. He debates with New Zealand’s Christian philosopher Glenn People’s on whether the argument proves the existence of God.
So, are moral beliefs nothing more than our “preferences”? What do we do with the intuition that certain things are absolutely wrong? Are atheists who affirm moral facts but deny God, being inconsistent?
I would not really characterize Glenn as an orthodox “Christian” philosopher, although he claims to be – because he doesn’t hold to some beliefs that are essential. E-mail me if you want more info and links to his statements. But he makes good arguments for theism.
Summary
Are there moral facts?
Glenn Peoples:
- Here is my argument:
- If there are moral facts, then they have a basis that is either supernatural or natural
- If there are moral facts, then there basis is not natural
- Therefore, if there are moral facts, then there basis is supernatural
- A supernatural person is the most plausible way to think of the the basis of moral facts
- If there are moral facts, then the best way to think about their basis is that they are grounded by a supernatural person
Arif Ahmed:
- There are no moral facts
- There is no sensory evidence for moral facts
- I would only accept sensory evidence for the existence of moral facts
- Each person has preferences for how to treat other people
- I campaign for things I personally prefer
- So morality for me is doing whatever I want
Glenn Peoples:
- Well, that is not moral conduct, that’s “satisfaction conduct”
- You are doing what satisfies you, but it’s not normative
- There is no ought there
- It’s not prescriptive of what you should do, it’s just descriptive of what you do
Arif Ahmed:
- I would interfere with other people’s preferences if I didn’t prefer them
Glenn Peoples:
- What do you mean you “ought to” impose your preferences on other people
Arif Ahmed:
- I do this thing I prefer and this thing I prefer and this thing I prefer
- I do certain things because I like the way I feel when I do them
- Nothing defines moral standards because there are no moral standards
Glenn Peoples:
- On Arif’s view, it is impossible that anyone’s preference could be “wrong”
- Each person’s preferences are supreme and cannot be judged on Arif’s view
- On his view, someone who tortures people for fun is as justified as someone who doesn’t because both act on the basis of preferences
Arif Ahmed:
- We can’t prove the existence of moral facts because only things that can be perceived with the senses are real
Glenn Peoples:
- But even sensory inputs cannot be proven to be reliable using the senses
Is Glenn’s argument valid?
Arif Ahmed
- Well, what if I arbitrarily assert that harm is morally wrong without sensory evidence for that moral fact, thus breaking my own rule about what counts as true
- that makes me look like less of sociopath than before, right?
- so how about that?
- even if there were moral facts, God doesn’t have to be the cause of them
Glenn Peoples:
- If there are moral obligations, they must be owed to a person, not to a state of affairs
Arif Ahmed:
- Human beings don’t have any proper function, no way we ought to be
- Each person just decides what they want
Glenn Peoples:
- What about purpose, is there any reason why we are here?
- On atheism, you would have to say no
Arif Ahmed:
- An atheist could have a purpose for your life in an accidental universe without a designer
- I don’t believe there is a purpose to life though
- But you can choose social justice, or yoga, or vegetarianism, or video games and have meaning in life
- And an arbitrary, narcissistic, illusory purpose is just as valid as an objectively true purpose (and as healthy!)
- It’s very liberating to be able to make up your own arbitrary purpose and arbitrary preferences
- You can even pretend they are significant and meaningful and that you are a good person (but they aren’t!)
Glenn Peoples:
- Just to be fair, the idea of objective meaning and objective purpose does require creativity and work – it’s not a cop out
WINTERY KNIGHT 