Jump to content

mfbukowski

Contributor
  • Content Count

    30,013
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mfbukowski

  1. I agree but that argument would not fly today If the topic of discussion was rape, you would get back comments saying that even rape is normal In some tribal cultures, when women in one's own tribe are not available. The belief is that every judgment should be based on scientific evidence. Of course that's a ridiculous belief but that is the predominant belief today. Malum in se I think would not work, and clearly it does not apply in the case of abortion. We are going against popular culture here.
  2. As you know what is a "fact" is determined by the Trier of facts. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trier_of_fact That doesn't help your argument in times like these.
  3. Well I happen to agree. But that is not my point here. My point is that there is no basis or REASON for a consensus on your proposal. In an age of boundless and erroneous scientism and selfishness it cannot be "proven", and that is what the masses want. Ain't gonna happen, brother. Resistance is futile because it is one set of morals against another, and it appears we are in the minority on this swing of the pendulum. When there are only 42 humans left on the planet things may look different. Uh, no that's not Mormon doctrine, for the newbies.
  4. Well what has been recently debated as I have heard it even blurs these lines but the seriously debated issue so far has not included infanticide, so that issue has not really been on the table and so becomes a strawman
  5. Agree, except there are no moral "facts" even upon which to base anything. We would just then argue if whatever criteria we chose for brain maturation etc was morally "right" It just moves the subjective decision up or down a notch, but the answer still remains debatable.
  6. It is already a discussion about subjective opinions, so what's the difference? It "devolved" into that the instant it came into existence and should have been "aborted" instantly There is no possible resolution. We might as well be discussing whether or not the church is "TRUE", there is at least that much ambiguity here to slosh around in. Hope we all are wearing hip boots.
  7. Since this is a question which cannot be resolved, and is a matter of moral opinion, that attitude is about the best hope that can be expected for any kind of consensus, but we will always have this issue between us. There is simply no basis for a resolution upon which we can all agree, because it is a moral issue, and therefore based on subjective feelings.
  8. This cannot in principle happen Religious / moral beliefs are about what should be, while science purports to be about "what is", free of moral implications. The world described by science doesn't care if mankind exists or not, or if this planet becomes a cloud of dust, much less worrying about the fetuses of one species over another. When does a canine fetus become a "dog"? When does it take on "puppiness"? This is a totally arbitrary subjective human decision in which science becomes irrelevant. As a moral decision, a consensus covering all of humanity will never be found, and belief that it can be based on scientific evidence is a logical category mistake https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake
  9. Not sure that it's a good thing, quite frankly. That's a lot of time. My ratios could be better but around 50% "likes" is not too bad. Some run close to 100% or higher! Look at Calm or Kevin C or Clark Goble
  10. Well that should be acceptable because everyone knows that life begins at 40. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4gXVXVXzqg
  11. Agree. This though just repeats the same problem- how to turn scientific evidence into a moral issue. It just kicks it into a different level but essentially brings up the same issues in making a decision
  12. Read some Hume on the is/ought distinction Moral questions are not scientific questions and vice versa. They are separate language games. Mixing the two simply make for confusion. The decision to call that a living human being is totally a moral decision. Of course that is my moral position too. But you can't deduce it from science. It's the same logical contradiction that one finds by thinking that one can prove the spiritual truth of the Book of Mormon by archaeology. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem
  13. Ah yes, the One source of absolute truth in the universe, delivering it right here before us!
  14. Huh? The "evidence" produces the feeling, and what keeps you here is your perception of what you call the evidence. Your feelings expressed on this board are palpably clear which come from what you perceive as the evidence. As always it's all in one's perception and you are no exception.
  15. If that is so then it is ironic, since what the brethren tell us is to get our own testimonies for every principle. I think you are out of touch with the real church as it is today. You sound straight out of the 1950's and the days of Mormon Doctrine erroneously making the rules. That all was a sad chapter. Probably it's the Utah factor in action again.
  16. What, the scientific method doesn't work? Well study it out in your mind and make a decision and see if it works
  17. ....which itself implies that you think that infallibility could in principle "exist". Not exactly a Pragmatic view Fallibility and infallibility and what defines a "mistake" are in the eyes of the beholder. Best wishes on your demands for absolute certainty in life One picks what seems best, and if it doesn't work, one tries something else. The first choice even if it doesn't work is not necessarily a "mistake"- human beings learn by trial and error. You like science? THAT is science. Edison comes to mind. It's all in the attitude.
×
×
  • Create New...