Religion has so many connections to political and economic beliefs, there needs to be a place to identify linkages, problems, goals, options, action plans and evaluation criteria.
Members: 84
Latest Activity: on Tuesday
An eternal question, what is the purpose of life?, occupied philosophers’ thoughts throughout history. Stone pictographs reveal even primitive peoples reflected on this query. Each one has the capacity to define his or her personal thinking about politics, economics and religion.
Started by Dallas the Phallus. Last reply by Tom Sarbeck on Sunday. 1 Reply 1 Like
Tamar Gendler, Department of Philosophy Chair at Yale University, Cognitive ScientistWho gets what and who says so? These two questions underlie and inform every social arrangement from the resolution of schoolyard squabbles to the meta-structure of…Continue
Tags: wealth, income, social contract, culture, philosophy
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on Friday. 0 Replies 0 Likes
Military Quietly Grants Itself the Power to Police the Streets Without Local or State…Continue
Tags: civilian protection from military, military takeover, Posse Comitatus Act
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner May 14. 0 Replies 0 Likes
The Vicious New Bank Shakedown That Could Seriously Ruin Your LifeJPMorgan Chase and other big banks are accused of running a…Continue
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Tom Sarbeck May 12. 1 Reply 0 Likes
Super-Sized Citizens: The Relationship Between a Country's Fast-Food Outlets and Its Obesity RatesWhile this study only claims an association, not cause, it…Continue
Tags: WTO, obesity, restaurant density, transnational food companies
Comment
Nobody is pro abortion - pro choice, yes. I was an unwanted child and decided at an early age that I wouldn't force another person to go through childhood. And I made sure of it too, got a sterilization before I was 30 and never regretted my decision. I'm not bad or worthless, but rather heavily scarred by hypocritical fundie parents. The best thing we can do is teach the children everything about sex, children, the ways to prevent pregnancy and all about life. They'll work it out for themselves.
Comment by Joan Denoo on September 19, 2012 at 1:00am Robert, You make sound and rational statements if your concern is only for the unborn child/with potential to grow to be a man or woman. That is one point I am trying to convey.
1. Why should each and every pregnant woman be expected to sacrifice herself for the life of her unborn child without consideration of the price she pays. I would not/could not abort a child, whether at the moment of conception or at the moment of birth, but what I decide is my right and that responsibility resides in me. I cannot make that decision for another woman. I don't know her mental state, or her physical state, for that matter. To expect a woman to make a decision because someone else has a belief makes no sense to me. Each person is entitled to her/his beliefs, not all beliefs are equal, and no one is required to respect the beliefs of others. Beliefs are standpoint specific; one person believes one thing and another a different one. It is not like gravity, a natural law of nature. (Thanks Sk8eycat for Shaw's quote.)
In primitive cultures, whether a woman carries pregnancy to term is often decided by the needs of the tribe. If there is enough food for another life, the pregnancy goes to term; if there is not enough food, the pregnancy is ended, without consulting the mother.
In China, with incredible overcrowding, a woman is allowed only one child. If the 1st child is a female, it often is killed, making possible for another child who could be a male. If a woman has two children or more, she loses her rights to access to benefits provided by the state. I talked to many Chinese women in China who had been caught up in that terrible dilemma, and you know what, women that I talked to agreed with the law. Well, if that is what they want, so be it. However, desperate times require desperate thinking. It depends on where you stand on an issue and one standpoint is not right for a person from a different standpoint.
As to my over-generalizing about christians, you are absolutely correct. I over-generalize. I do so when a fundamentalist christian makes some ridiculous statement, such as the Earth is 6,000 years old, and a rational person does not stand up and say, "Wait a minute, that is not true!" Not all christians are uneducated, but all christians seem to think the old bromide, my religion, right or wrong; or my country, right or wrong; or my family, right or wrong. Such devotion to religion or patriotism or family loyalty is bigoted. By that, I mean, "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."
Confession time, I am a bigot. I make no apologies for being obstinate and intolerant of beliefs that interfere with evidence. When a person wants to bring creationism or intelligent design into a science classroom, I object, and loudly. If there are those who believe in a god or allah or yahweh or whatever the name, and know that evidence does not support that claim, yet remains silent, I find that more intolerable than a person who loudly claims creationism. Silence implies agreement.
Have you ever heard a christian confront another christian who believes in spirits and devils and angels and heaven and hell? Silence tells me all I need to know about a person.
I respect your willingness to debate, Robert, and enjoy the challenge,.
Just reading all the posts here.
Hope everyone is doing well today.
Comment by sk8eycat on September 18, 2012 at 8:47pm
Comment by Loren Miller on September 18, 2012 at 8:35pm "Life begins at conception."
Sure, right ... even if that life is that of an anencephalic embryo ... or a fused twin ... or a chimera or some other description? How detectable is that to some country doctor without advanced equipment, say in a rural area, without easy access to the kind of facilities some but not all US citizens enjoy?
The process of creating human life is a gauntlet, a 40-week stretch of too many kinds of challenges, dangers and biological minefields. It's estimated that 40-50% of all fertilized eggs get flushed out with the next menses, and that something like 5-7 percent of pregnancies don't survive the first trimester, not to mention other potential affectations of genetic and other sources. Yet mankind has survived to this point, and indeed, is beginning to spread beyond this planet's ability to sustain its quickly increasing numbers.
There is no single metric I am aware of which would say, past this point, the gestating being is fully HUMAN, not even at 40 weeks, without the sophistication of modern medicine. That sophistication is available to many, but hardly all. Someone ... I DARE you ... try to legislate the dynamics of a pregnancy so that all those who can survive will, and even then, what of the choice of the mother?
I have said this before and will repeat: it is women who bear this responsibility. They deserve the right to be trusted with the contents of their own bodies FIRST. The men who may have participated in that process may deserve input, but it remains the woman's body FIRST.
As was said some time back: Trust Women.
Comment by sk8eycat on September 18, 2012 at 7:52pm The people I have a problem with are the ones who want it written into our laws that "life begins at conception." How can they tell? It takes up to 8 days after an ovum is fertilized for it to reach the uterus and implant itself there. All that while the cells are dividing. And it's estimated that more than 50 percent of all fertilized eggs fail to attach at all.
So are they human at that stage, or what?
Comment by Greg LeGore on September 18, 2012 at 7:04pm Booklover, none of us have unlimited rights to our body as a deep and broad array of laws, and cases affirming them, attests - sorry you somehow think that you, and all women, have unlimited rights and control when you do not. Feel free to use caps but realize that those of us who wish to have a discussion will eventually pay less attention to your postings as they decreasingly contribute to each of us learning and growing - which is, I think and I hope, one of the primary aspects of our participation in this forum. That was my point of mentioning caps - not trying to be condescending at all - because I and probably many other find that postings with caps are often a rant or an attack upon someone rather than a discussion.
Comment by booklover on September 18, 2012 at 6:46pm Sorry Greg, but it's not your body. Doesn't matter what you want. You can't force a woman to grow another human being in her body. And as for using caps, I will use what I want to make my point. By telling me what to use, you are being condescending. I don't know what man doesn't know that, by having sex, there might be a chance that a woman gets pregnant, and if she does, and decides to keep it, they have to pay for that child. Sorry biology didn't work-out the way you wanted it.~ MELINDA
Comment by Greg LeGore on September 18, 2012 at 6:38pm @booklover: I agree with some of what you say, but think that you would be better served by not using all caps and berating others. People from the other side of this argument have provided several insightful examples which illustrate the difficulty with you stating that men NEVER have any input into the decision. If men have no rights regarding birth, then how can they have responsibilities (e.g., be forced to pay child support)? And what about the situation in which a woman wants an abortion but the man asks that the baby be delivered so that he can raise the child (I've knew someone in this situation). Better for our cause to marshall the facts and make the case to convince others rather than use all caps and say that they are non-participants.
Comment by booklover on September 18, 2012 at 6:35pm Where did I say that Robert? I actually wish no one would have a late-term abortion, but if the mother's life is in danger SHE COMES FIRST. I still think what another person does with their body is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. I didn't say I LIKED abortions, especially late-term abortions. But it is the PRIVATE business of a WOMAN. I kinda think you're a troll...
sk8eycat, so sorry you had to go through that with that jerk, but awesome that you knew your own mind and wonderful of your employer for helping you.
Joan Denoo commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
John Hutcheson posted a blog post
Ian Mason commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
Nerdlass replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion Cicadas taste like asparagus in the group THE KNIFE & FORK
Nerdlass commented on Debra Stevenson's blog post Some Wiccans and their seeking approval from Christians
Hiram replied to Hiram's discussion Epicureanism: a Secular Doctrine for Happiness
Hiram commented on Maruli Marulaki's group Epicurean Atheists© 2013 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.


You need to be a member of Politics, Economics, and Religion to add comments!