[ndigila]

Originally Posted by ATLian

Also, it is completely wrong to say that "most free thinkers accept what popular culture tells them without question" since, by definition, a free thinker is one who accepts what popular culture tells him only after doing some research. Compare that to the theist who accepts what popular culture tells him bila any question.

The research part is what is at stake here. To defend abortion by saying "a woman can do whatever she wants with her body" isn't research.

Besides, by own admission in this thread, homosexuality is unnatural behavior, yet you still defend it. You need to give me a logical reason why an adult's choice matters more than his health. Even if it does, then what's the moral standard if society has no reason to question what humans do?

[reggie_woic]

You need to give me a logical reason why an adult's choice matters more than his health.

matters to who? - you (society and what it thinks of the adult) or the adult
(and what he thinks of himself)?
because if there's an argument here, the two obviously aren't eye to eye on the issue.

some of us answer to society's morals; all of us should answer to the law (constitution).

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by reggie_woic

matters to who? - you (society and what it thinks of the adult) or the adult
(and what he thinks of himself)?

To both.

To society because we keep being told that society is a moral standard yet at the same society has no right to question adults' decisions.

To the adult because it's the adult's health at stake.

[reggie_woic]

Originally Posted by ndigila

To both.

To society because we keep being told that society is a moral standard yet at the same society has no right to question adults' decisions.

To the adult because it's the adult's health at stake.

yeah, it probably matters to both...i suppose what i meant to ask was who gets the final say...but no matter

let society question all it wants, but its morals cannot stand in anyone's way
(unless of course these morals are manifested in the law)

[a.wanjala]

Originally Posted by ndigila

I don't know whether you've read most of this discussion, but anyway, you're defenses are not logical but emotional, which is my point that most free thinkers accept what popular culture tells them without question.

I will admit I have not read every post here. However, since I was replying to a specific post I did not think it was neccesary. I will gladly read this thread, But I doubt my answers will change since I wasn't replying to the thread, but to a specific post. Are my defenses illogical or emotional? That is subjective......... to me they aren't, to you they are. I'll try to make the logic in them clearer.

Originally Posted by ndigila

That isn't the issue. You first have to show how homosexuality is natural behavior before saying its okay to be born with it. Kids are born with unnatural conditions all the time yet their parents seek medical and psychiatric help.

What is natural behavior according to you? Natural behavior is relative i.e. that depends on you. What the africans did wasn't considered natural behavior, we were considered savages. Were we savages? According to us, we were normal. According them we were unnatural. Tell me your criteria of normal first. Then I could show how it's natural.

Originally Posted by ndigila

You have to show why an adult's decision matters more than his health. And what constitutes an adult because there's 21 year olds who act very immature and there's 16 year olds who act very mature enough to make adult decisions.

Do you smoke? Do you drink? If a person makes the decision to do something that, according to you, is harmful to their health, who are you to stop it? Do you own them?Or if I come up to you and see you are doing something of which I disaprove, do I have the right to stop you as long as I'm doing it in your best interests?As long as they are capable of making their own decisions, they should be allowed to.
Now, when are they capable of making their own decisions? That is another argument all together. But just because we dont know, we should take away their ability to make decisions at all? Now that is illogical.

Originally Posted by ndigila

in, you have to logically show why the adult's decision matters more than the baby's life. Besides, you could easily make the argument that a new-born baby is not yet fully human and justify genocide.

I am with you on this, I do not think women should abort under normal circumstances. However people will continue to do this despite what I think. Does that mean I have the right to stop them? I can try to convince them not to, but that is as much as I am willing to do. I won't shove my beliefs down anyones throat, and I expect the same from everyone else.

[grip_daddy]

I can try to convince them not to, but that is as much as I am willing to do. I won't shove my beliefs down anyones throat, and I expect the same from everyone else.

I think you are being selective in application of criteria set for approval and disapproval of issues. If you will advice (institute premises that can lead to decision making) based on health, you should apply it universally.

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by a.wanjala

I will admit I have not read every post here. However, since I was replying to a specific post I did not think it was neccesary. I will gladly read this thread, But I doubt my answers will change since I wasn't replying to the thread, but to a specific post. Are my defenses illogical or emotional? That is subjective......... to me they aren't, to you they are. I'll try to make the logic in them clearer.

Hey, I think I was unreasonably harsh in my previous response to you and for that I apologize. Mashada is known to incite the passions too much.

Originally Posted by a.wanjala

What is natural behavior according to you? Natural behavior is relative i.e. that depends on you. What the africans did wasn't considered natural behavior, we were considered savages. Were we savages? According to us, we were normal. According them we were unnatural. Tell me your criteria of normal first. Then I could show how it's natural.

You need to be able to look at a male body show how it can fulfill the purposes the sex with another male body. Likewise with the female body and another female body.
I'm not exactly sure how "african savages" fits into this.

Originally Posted by a.wanjala

Do you smoke? Do you drink? If a person makes the decision to do something that, according to you, is harmful to their health, who are you to stop it? Do you own them?Or if I come up to you and see you are doing something of which I disaprove, do I have the right to stop you as long as I'm doing it in your best interests?As long as they are capable of making their own decisions, they should be allowed to.

Wanjala, we're told time and time again that society forms its own moral standards, you don't need God as a source of objective morals. If society forms a moral standard, don't you think that one of the most important criteria is the wellfare of the humans (which includes preventing human beings from hurting themselves)?

Originally Posted by a.wanjala

Now, when are they capable of making their own decisions? That is another argument all together. But just because we dont know, we should take away their ability to make decisions at all? Now that is illogical.

Have you ever watched I Robot?

Originally Posted by a.wanjala

I am with you on this, I do not think women should abort under normal circumstances. However people will continue to do this despite what I think. Does that mean I have the right to stop them? I can try to convince them not to, but that is as much as I am willing to do. I won't shove my beliefs down anyones throat, and I expect the same from everyone else.

What is the moral standard in humans (if there is one)? (Correct me if I'm wrong, i'm assuming you're either atheist or agnostic).

[Type R]

This discussion has really degenerated into a question over the human value of an amoral system.

We should stick to the title of the thread.

[a.wanjala]

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

I think you are being selective in application of criteria set for approval and disapproval of issues. If you will advice (institute premises that can lead to decision making) based on health, you should apply it universally.

You hit it on the head, advise. Not demand. I will give you an opinion on issue A but I will not demand that you do it. Secondly, I will only give you an opinion if you go out of your way to get it. I will not tell you, you have to ask. If the anti-homosexuals acted like this, this would not even be an issue......

[a.wanjala]

You need to be able to look at a male body show how it can fulfill the purposes the sex with another male body. Likewise with the female body and another female body.
I'm not exactly sure how "african savages" fits into this.

You know I can't. However, who is to say that is the definition of normal. It's your definition, and it might even be mine, but surely it's not everyone’s? No one thinks alike. So who decides the criteria for normal? You, me, society, religion, government or the individual’s themselves? I opt for the last one, while drawing from these and other sources. You obviously focus on something different. That is where the difference lays.

Wanjala, we're told time and time again that society forms its own moral standards, you don't need God as a source of objective morals. If society forms a moral standard, don't you think that one of the most important criteria is the wellfare of the humans (which includes preventing human beings from hurting themselves)

But we don't all have the same views as the society, do we? Generally, yes society rules supreme. But it's not all about the society, individual views must also be considered. If not, are we to keep the same morals forever, discouraging free thought? We would be stagnant, if individual views were ignored.

What is the moral standard in humans (if there is one)? (Correct me if I'm wrong, i'm assuming you're either atheist or agnostic).

This is one of the shortcomings of non religion, in my opinion. Morals were typically set by religion and society, recently, with respect to government. Without that central governing body, I'm not sure what will happen. That scares me.
I'm not sure what I am. I'm closest to a hopeful agnostic, but they have some fundamental views that I don't agree with. But for this purpose, you could say I'm agnostic.
Thanks for the apology. I have been known to react emotionally as well. We have that in common, we are passionate.