Mariah Walton was born with a birth defect that could have been fixed rather easily, if her parents had only allowed it (if there’s an ad in the video, it’s worth waiting through it):
I take parents’ rights very seriously, but how many examples of children being harmed by their parents’ belief in faith healing do we need before we step in? And is there any point at which faith healers will acknowledge that they were wrong? Or is it like prayer, where no response simply means the request wasn’t according to God’s will, or the person’s faith wasn’t strong enough? Do they never stop to wonder why life expectancy was so low back when virtually everyone had to rely on faith and superstition to heal the sick?
Finding Truth 
william,
(Disclosure:) for the most part, I find myself agreeing with Ruth’s conclusion, but not with all of her arguments.
If you’re interested, this debate (between two atheists) changed my thinking on the matter.
“Abortion Debate at Texas Freethought Convention, Matt Dillahunty vs. Kristine Kruszelnicki”
LikeLike
(sub)
LikeLike
ratamacueo,
I appreciate the link and will have to watch later as I am not able to at this time.
I am not staunchly opposed to abortion, but that’s mostly because there’s issues that arise with uncontrolled population growth, but that comes more from an idea about resources, etc, much like the way game officials regulate hunting and all that.
But the ethical side of me still thinks it’s important to associate value with human life, and I currently believe that there are inherent problems when we begin making exceptions.
I still don’t like nate’s point where he likens it to giving his kidney to save the life of a stranger.
1) the life of the stranger has nothing to do with him, but the inherent responsibility of parents to their offspring isn’t just a human concept, but one of most animals in nature as well.
2) to remove nate’s kidney requires action to save the life of that stranger, where as with abortion it requires action to terminate the life of that offspring.
3) to remove nate’s kidney requires intrusive action, which could lead to complications. This is where it gets stickier, because some abortions can be intrusive where as earlier abortions may only require a pill, some abortions may reduce the chances of complications and some pregnancies could increase the risk of complications, but still, nate being forced to remove his kidney to give to stranger is not quite the same as a parent being compelled to care for their children.
4) if you make a mess, it’s yours to clean up. If a stranger makes a mess, you can help clean if you like, but it’s not your responsibility. So a stranger needs nate’s kidney, it’s not nate’s responsibility to risk his life or health for the stranger. Nate decides to have sex with someone, get’s pregnant, then I do think there is some inherent responsibility there from nate to that life that results from nate’s actions and genes.
And then we usually hear abortions defended by citing rape, incest or life of the mother. If each and every one of those was granted, that wouldn’t be enough – people would still want them for all the crappy, selfish and less than noble reasons – but I think overall that’s realized which is why the arguments mostly contain rape, incest, life of the mother, because the other excuses sound a little too petty and shallow to validate the termination of a human life.
People don’t want to practice self control, but they want to do what they want to do while eliminating the obvious consequences so that they can continue their life without getting fat, getting saggy boobs, or enduring a financial burden, or being tied town, or whatever… And while I do recognize not everyone who gets an abortion is so shallow, there are those who certainly are. I do not know the statistics, but I imagine the percentage of these type of shallow people is higher than the percentage who actually abort due to rape, incest or life of the mother, but I also recognize that I could be wrong about that.
But i’ve gone over these, so I apologize for being redundant. And I know this is a touchy subject and that some of what I said will go over badly. I dont intend for it to, but it’s difficult to lay some of this out in a way that is happy 🙂 – so I apologize for that as well.
I’ll watch the video when I get a chance.
thanks again.
LikeLike
I’m sure I’ve commented on this before but …
I will agree with you (and many others) that there are several ethical issues surrounding abortion. But as a woman, my position has been and will remain … it’s my body, my choice.
LikeLike
So far I’ve only been able to listen to both opening statements. One is clearly better at public speaking than the other, but so I far I can’t say that I align perfectly with either one.
I won’t go into why I disagree with the pro-choice guy, even after I listen to the entire debate, but all I want to do is to again say that I am not in support of legislation on this matter, and that for this post, I was more interested in comparing the abortion arguments and situations to a parent’s obligation for their born children, like in the original post.
We just may not reach an agreement on this, and I don’t think that’s a problem. I’m not throwing stones or advocating punishments or incarceration or even laws.
I would also suspect that within the pro-choice community there are disagreements as to whether there are limits, like late-term vs early stages, etc – and within the pro-life camp, there are those who see no exceptions and those who do see some exceptions, so this is anything but but and dry.
I do have my opinions and I feel like they’re well reasoned, rational and defensible – just as you all view yours. I’m cool with that.
LikeLike
If your God is “powerful & conscious” you must ask yourself in meditation, like Jesus, if your idea of God, which I believe is the Demiurg, is a good God or a naughty God.
LikeLike
I don’t have a god. There are no gods that I believe in. If you claim otherwise, the burden of proof is on you to prove it – but first you should explain the claim.
LikeLike
I can not prove it scientifically, but maybe a scientist of the brain can.
I have tried to falsify it, to a level where I now have very little doubt.
God is our own higher long-term consciousness, higher than our false short-term egos.
You yourself can maybe also prove it to yourself in silent meditation if you have the motivation to experience such enlightenment.
LikeLike
I suppose you’re alluding to the notion of a soul. As far as I know, neurologists have yet to show the human mind to be anything other than a function of the brain. This is the bulk hypothesis, and it is consistent with the fact that brain damage can alter personality.
However, even if the existence of a soul could be demonstrated, how/why should that lead us to believe in any gods?
What did you try to falsify, and how did you try to falsify it? Is your claim falsifiable?
I don’t know what this means. It also sounds so different from any other (attempted) definition of God that I know of, that I think using that label (and all its associated baggage) in this way is more confusing than helpful.
How would one perform such meditation? And why should we think that performing such a task would lead to truth regarding your claims?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually, ratamacue, he’s voicing just one of the many, many approaches I’ve been reading about recently, from a book called The History of God (I’ll be elaborating on this when I finally get my own website up and running). Between about 300 AD and 1500-1600 AD, in the Muslim world, the Christian World, and the Jewish world, as well as in India, new and differing viewpoints arose in an effort to define god, to decide who and what god was, what effect (if any) we have on him/her and what (if any), he has on us.
They are far too numerous to go into here, but what I’m hearing from Maitreya is the belief that each of us are manifestations, emanations if you will, of an infinitely multifaceted god, and by introspection, self contemplation, one can see the god particle (not the boson) in himself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@arch
Oh man, the stupid book. I have the misfortune of knowing about this book via my adventures in reddit.
It’s just a bunch of junk science, appeals to emotions and junk philosophy (I am not trashing philosophy, just that this book’s usage of philosophy is so bad it is criminal).
End of the day, it distills to “I have seen the truth, join me and you will see the truth too”.
LikeLike
Thanks for the info, arch. Can’t say I quite get it yet… Let me/us know when you get your site up.
Do you think anything you’ve said here answers my specific questions to Maitreya, or contradicts anything I’ve said?
LikeLike
Arch, is it the Karen Armstrong book? It’s been quite a while since I’ve read it, but I seem to remember it being pretty good.
LikeLike
Powell, you must be referring to a different book – so far (and I’m 2/3 through), I’ve seen no science, no emotions, and she doesn’t mention her own philosophy, just enumerates and describes the existing philosophies ranging from Aristotle to, I must presume, the present.
LikeLike
Not really, but then I don’t really have a dog in this race, I just heard, coming from Maitreya, something much like I had just read earlier that morning, and I was just trying to explain where he was coming from.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, Nate – for some reason, I couldn’t remember her name. Former nun for 22 years, right?
LikeLike
Yep, that’s the one.
LikeLike
The idea of a soul or no soul is not important. It is a pseudo-discussion. In theory “a soul” could refer to our consciousness, our thinking-patterns, patterns that can be rewired in Meditation.
I think therefore I probably exist. My thoughts exists, my consciousness or my “soul”, if you wish, exists. Non-existence is thereby falsified.
Meditation is best performed in a silent monastery or if you are very self-driven, committed and motivated, then alone in silence preferably under a tree in nature.
The only way yo know what meditation is, is to experiment on your own if you are motivated.
It is like the experiment with a kilo of cotton and a kilo of iron. Before experimentation people believed iron fell much faster. The only way to know is to do.
Breath deep, watch things as they come and go. Sit for 20 minutes at a time, walk very slowly 20 minutes, do postrations slowly to an empty chair or an enlightened symbol.
Do not believe anything! Try and observe without judgment!
LikeLike