Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm on the phone so just a question.

4 and a half year old asks: "Daddy, what happens when you die?" An athiest lacks a belief in God/gods. But he does believe something else.

I think you are struggling with the concept of not "believing" anything.

4.5 year old asks his athiest dad "Daddy, what happens when you die?"

Atheist Dad answers "In general your choices are limited to being buried or cremated."

What else is there to say?

Let me extend my answer to the obvious next question:

"Daddy, what happens after you die?"

Atheist Dad answers "Nothing son, when you're dead you're dead".

It may sound a bit candid but then if the 4.5 year old has been brought along to mass by an aunt or whatever he'll already be aware of the possibility that god may unleash his wrath on him, that he may burn in hell forever and he'll have seen a grown man drink blood.

Just being dead sounds way better!!

So I asked you how a child could be indoctrinated into not believing something and your response was

Peregrinus wrote: »

By being inculcated with an epistemology which will encourage him to reject or dismiss certain propositions, obviously.

so I challenged your assumption that athiest parents encourage their children to reject all gods and religions etc and your response is that you didn't make such an assumption.

Can you clarify how you assert parents inculcate with an epistemology which encourages children to reject or dismiss certain propositions if you are not assuming it?

Peregrinus wrote: »

All parents indoctrinate their children. I don't see that it can be otherwise.

And then you repeated your assertion but what are you basing that on other than an assumption or belief that they do?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm on the phone so just a question.

4 and a half year old asks: "Daddy, what happens when you die?" An athiest lacks a belief in God/gods. But he does believe something else.

He does, but he does not have to answer this question by imparting a belief. He could simply answer "I have no idea", or words to that effect; this would not be indoctrination.

smacl wrote: »

I'd suggest that a need to differentiate between indoctrination and education here, where to my mind the former involves providing hard information that is beyond dispute and the latter providing softer information that may be challenged and possibly rejected. e.g. if you tell a child they've done something wrong and they ask you why it is wrong there is a difference between saying 'because the bible says its wrong' and 'because it may cause hurt to another person'.

There is a difference, but they are both forms of indoctrination. In one case, you are indoctrinating the notion that the bible is authoritative and must always be obeyed; in the other the notion that hurting people is wrong and must be avoided. Your toddler is not equipped to critically scrutinise either of these propositions. The diffeerence is in the beliefs indoctrinated; the mechanism of indoctrination is the same in both cases.

And, no offence, but I think indoctrination versus education is a false dichotomy; education involves indoctrination. When it comes to matter of fundamental values and beliefs, indoctrination is a very large part of education, since education in these happens very early on.

smacl wrote: »

Yes, as parents we all indoctrinate as well as educate, but I'd suggest the relative levels of indoctrination versus education vary hugely. It is a bit like the difference between teaching by rote versus creating an environment where learning happens through exploration and experience. Of course we all pass our prejudices on to our progeny as a natural part of parenting, the variation comes with how readily we allow our kids to reject these prejudices.

I disagree. When they reach the appropriate age, your kids will naturally start to critically scrutinise the preconceptions they have acquired from you. They may accept them; they may reject them or (and this is mostly what happens) they may modify them and accept the modified version. The extent to which you "readily allow them' to do this will have little effect on whether it happens or not, and will little effect on the outcome beyond securing some temporary outward show of conformity if you are sufficiently authoritarian. But intimidating your children into not openly confronting your expectations of them is not indoctrination.

Indoctrination involves inculcating beliefs, values, etc which the subject accepts and internalises without critically scrutiny. Pretty much by definition, almost all learning that happens before the child has developed the ability to engage in critical scrutiny is "indoctrination", though the term is pejorative and we tend only to use it of people who are inculcating beliefs, values, attitudes, etc that we do not share. I inculcate sound values in my children, you raise your children to conform to your expectations, he or she indoctrinates his or her children.

Once people have developed a critical ability, it become difficult to "indoctrinate" them; if we want to do so we have to use external methods, e.g. by limiting their information, by keeping facts from them which would bear on their critical evaluation of whatever it is we are trying to protect. For obvious reasons, it's difficult to do this long-term. Or, we can try and indoctrinate them by psychological oppression, so they are restrained by their own fear of/dependence on us from engaging in critical thought that might anger us, and so threaten them and their sense of well-being. And this needs either extreme methods (e.g. a brainwashing camp) or a psycholigical dependence inculcated early on and maintained from a young age.

Somebody simply telling his normally-developed children things that you do not agree with is not "indoctrinating" them in any meaningful sense. Or, if he is, then you and all other parents are indoctrinating your children too. His children are just as capable of evaluating and rejecting what he tells them as yours are of rejecting what you tell them.

antiskeptic

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

We're all born athiests, that is a simple fact. How can a child be indoctrinated into not believing something?

Ref your second point. Parents should absolutely provide their children with info on the religious beliefs they hold dearly and allow them to freely embrace them once they are mature enough to decide for themselves.

Another way to look at it is we would all (I assume) oppose the idea that a parent who is communist (for example) would enrol his 5 year old daughter in the communist party, play communist songs to the child daily, make the child chant a communist mantra before thing to bed each night and bring the child to communist meetings each weekend so that by the time the child is old enough to think for itself it is well and truly indoctrinated in the communist ideology and therefore much more likely to stay with the communist party than a child who is given info.on the range of political parties and is free to choose her own preference.

Replace communism with religion and apparently everything changes. Why?

I'm on the phone so just a question.

4 and a half year old asks: "Daddy, what happens when you die?" An athiest lacks a belief in God/gods. But he does believe something else.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

All parents indoctrinate their children. I don't see that it can be otherwise. I don't even see that it should be otherwise, frankly. The distinction is not between parents who indoctrinate and parents who don't; it's between parents who are aware of what they are doing and are somewhat intentional about it, and parents who are simply in denial.

I'd suggest that a need to differentiate between indoctrination and education here, where to my mind the former involves providing hard information that is beyond dispute and the latter providing softer information that may be challenged and possibly rejected. e.g. if you tell a child they've done something wrong and they ask you why it is wrong there is a difference between saying 'because the bible says its wrong' and 'because it may cause hurt to another person'. Yes, as parents we all indoctrinate as well as educate, but I'd suggest the relative levels of indoctrination versus education vary hugely. It is a bit like the difference between teaching by rote versus creating an environment where learning happens through exploration and experience. Of course we all pass our prejudices on to our progeny as a natural part of parenting, the variation comes with how readily we allow our kids to reject these prejudices.

Samaris

The title is a bit misleading, isn't it? It's either unrestricted abortion or it is unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks.

That timeframe directly contradicts the "unlimited abortion full stop" arguments. Tis one or tother.

I will be voting yes. The state has not shown that it should be responsible for this aspect of women's health imo. It should be a decision for those directly involved with the advice of their doctors, advice that they neccessarily get less of when abortion is the illegal elephant in the room.

It was never right for Ireland to duck the problem by exporting it to another country (and adding pressure to the British health system). And that becomes potentially even more awkward once Brexit happens.

Mind you, I also believe that religion, particularly other people's religion, should not have a place in the argument. Be it Islam, Catholicism, Zoroastrianism or anything else. I appreciate that they will impact some votes, that's another aspect of choice. But I don't feel it should be particularly relevant. The more so as the restrictions appear to differ in interpretation between the three religions based off roughly the same source material.

Saying that, it is the Christianity forum, so I'm not gonna flail at it being discussed through a religious lens. Will probably get more irritated at the religious newspaper articles on it though.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Your assumption that athiest parents encourage their children to reject all gods and religions etc is absurd . . .

It would be absurd if it were my assumption, but it's not my assumption.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

. . . and implies athiests would somehow invest time denigrating something they don't have an interest in.

It implies nothing of the kind. I think you need to go back and reread with a more open mind what I said.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Your assumption that religion is somehow a special topic of relevance to everyone is quite arrogant.

I do not assume or believe this. If there is any arrogance in this exchange, could it possibly be - now, don't get angry - could it possibly be found in your assertion that I do?

Peregrinus wrote: »

By being inculcated with an epistemology which will encourage him to reject or dismiss certain propositions, obviously.

Your assumption that athiest parents encourage their children to reject all gods and religions etc is absurd and implies athiests would somehow invest time denigrating something they don't have an interest in. I wouldn't waste time trying to discourage my children from having an interest in train spotting any more than I would from having an interest in religion. Neither topic is o interest or relevant to me but as part of a balanced education I'd made sure my kids had access to information so of they wanted to find out more about either subject they could.

Your assumption that religion is somehow a special topic of relevance to everyone is quite arrogant.

Peregrinus wrote: »

All parents indoctrinate their children. I don't see that it can be otherwise.

I know you don't wish really is quite worrying and explains a lot really!!

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

We're all born athiests, that is a simple fact. How can a child be indoctrinated into not believing something?

By being inculcated with an epistemology which will encourage him to reject or dismiss certain propositions, obviously.

All parents indoctrinate their children. I don't see that it can be otherwise. I don't even see that it should be otherwise, frankly. The distinction is not between parents who indoctrinate and parents who don't; it's between parents who are aware of what they are doing and are somewhat intentional about it, and parents who are simply in denial.

antiskeptic wrote: »

He's moved from a Ford Focus to an Audi. His parents taught him to drive.. is a way to see it.

How would you deal with someone indoctrinated with a strain of athiest philosophy who becomes a Christian?

Should parents avoid raising their kids with values they themselves hold sincerely. And how is this to be achieved?

We're all born athiests, that is a simple fact. How can a child be indoctrinated into not believing something?

Ref your second point. Parents should absolutely provide their children with info on the religious beliefs they hold dearly and allow them to freely embrace them once they are mature enough to decide for themselves.

Another way to look at it is we would all (I assume) oppose the idea that a parent who is communist (for example) would enrol his 5 year old daughter in the communist party, play communist songs to the child daily, make the child chant a communist mantra before thing to bed each night and bring the child to communist meetings each weekend so that by the time the child is old enough to think for itself it is well and truly indoctrinated in the communist ideology and therefore much more likely to stay with the communist party than a child who is given info.on the range of political parties and is free to choose her own preference.

Replace communism with religion and apparently everything changes. Why?

antiskeptic

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Don't you see any contradiction in the how you left the RCC strain of christianity you'd been indoctrinated into by (presumably) your parents once you were old enough to reason for yourself yet you in turn are indoctrinating your own kids into your preferred religion before they are old enough to reason for themselves?

You don't see any problem with that?

He's moved from a Ford Focus to an Audi. His parents taught him to drive.. is a way to see it.

How would you deal with someone indoctrinated with a strain of athiest philosophy who becomes a Christian?

Should parents avoid raising their kids with values they themselves hold sincerely. And how is this to be achieved?

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

I learned what good grammar was, something you obviously didn't!
As for flying spaghetti, we know that spaghetti can't take to the air of its own volition:)
How about answering my question ( not far above this post)

In fairness that was a terrible piece of writing on my behalf, please forgive me.

The substantive point, however difficult to decipher as a result of my poor grammar, remains.

Don't you see any contradiction in the how you left the RCC strain of christianity you'd been indoctrinated into by (presumably) your parents once you were old enough to reason for yourself yet you in turn are indoctrinating your own kids into your preferred religion before they are old enough to reason for themselves?

You don't see any problem with that?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I repent ☺

Boom boom

If I could thank you twice I would have!!

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

You never answered my earlier question as to whether we should just go the whole hog and abort up to 39 weeks 6 days.
After all it's not a baby till it's born...just a foetus!

Well the honest answer is I don't believe there is a single cut off point which is universally applicable e.g. if the reason is that the mother was raped or incest etc or it's just an unplanned pregnancy which the mother/parents are incapable of dealing with then I'm in favour of abortion being as early a stage as is pragmatic whether that is 12 weeks or more, I would trust the medical professionals to decide how to strike the right balance.

I also believe late stage abortions should be permitted where the life of the mother is threatened or there is likely to be grave danger/injury to the mother if she proceeds with the pregnancy or where there is a substantial risk that if the child were borne it would be seriously handicapped and I can speak on the latter from personal experience where a late stage abortion would have been a better outcome for the foetus, the mother, the father, the siblings and the wider family none of whom to this day believe carrying the pregnancy to full term in order for a severely disabled and un-viable baby to be born, to struggle desperately to breathe for a few minutes and then die in my brother in laws arms whilst my sister was breaking down in the bed next to him having just given birth was the right thing to do.

Does that address your question satisfactorily?

So tadpoles are called tadpoles and not baby frogs because we eat frogs and fetuses are called babies because we (generally) don't eat babies.

Is that seriously what you are saying?

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

You sure could but it would be as stupid a thing to say as depriving a child of having a relationship with the flying spaghetti monster or any of the other thousands of alleged gods is child abuse.

So what you are saying is that before you were old enough to reason for yourself you were indoctrinated in the RC which clearly wasn't your choice or preference as once you were mature enough to make up your own mind you left and despite that experience you in turn have indoctrinated your own kids into a non RC strain of christianity regardless of their personal choice as they are currently too young to decide for themselves, just like you were too young to decide on the RC flavour of christianity back in the day and you're ok with that?

You don't see even the slightest hint of having learned nothing from your own personal experience pre being able to reason for yourself?

I learned what good grammar was, something you obviously didn't!
As for flying spaghetti, we know that spaghetti can't take to the air of its own volition:)
How about answering my question ( not far above this post)

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

I could just as easily say that depriving a child of having a relationship with his/her creator is child abuse.

You sure could but it would be as stupid a thing to say as depriving a child of having a relationship with the flying spaghetti monster or any of the other thousands of alleged gods is child abuse.

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

I was brought up RC , when I was old enough, I made a decision to follow Christ and left the RCC. My kids will have to make the same choice one day ( but not have to leave the RCC)

So what you are saying is that before you were old enough to reason for yourself you were indoctrinated in the RC which clearly wasn't your choice or preference as once you were mature enough to make up your own mind you left and despite that experience you in turn have indoctrinated your own kids into a non RC strain of christianity regardless of their personal choice as they are currently too young to decide for themselves, just like you were too young to decide on the RC flavour of christianity back in the day and you're ok with that?

You don't see even the slightest hint of having learned nothing from your own personal experience pre being able to reason for yourself?

antiskeptic

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Nope, that wasn't me

I repent ☺

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

So tadpoles are called tadpoles and not baby frogs because we eat frogs?

Is that seriously what you are saying?

I think my head is going to burst :eek:

You never answered my earlier question as to whether we should just go the whole hog and abort up to 39 weeks 6 days.
After all it's not a baby till it's born...just a foetus!

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

We eat frogs, we generally don't eat babies.....we just want to kill them and dispose of them.

So tadpoles are called tadpoles and not baby frogs because we eat frogs?

Is that seriously what you are saying?

I think my head is going to burst :eek:

Nick Park wrote: »

I pointed out that it is intolerant and hysterical to use the term 'child abuse' with regard to parents choosing to take their children to mass. And, I believe, most reasonable people would agree with me.

Ah Nick, you're just being silly but I'm not sure if it's deliberate or not.

You try to make it sound that I want to call all parents bringing their children to mass child abusers and that's just not the case but you'll probably keep saying it until you get bored or whatever so off ya go, no worries.

Just for the record, what I'm saying is that IMO indoctrinating children into a specific religion before their minds are mature enough to reason for themselves is indeed child abuse. We protect children from the horrors of dracula and vampires in the cinema but replace the movie in a cinema with a story of the devil, burning in hell, the wrath of god, torturing someone on a cross and drinking blood etc etc being told in a building called a church by a man called a priest or stories of what should be done to apostates or homosexuals etc in mosque by a man called an iman and couple that with those messages being reinforced daily in a religious centric school and then you're definitely (again IMO which may well be very much in the minority, certainly on a christian forum :-)) in realms of "systematic indoctrination".

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You need to look at the reasons a woman might be compelled to feel she has no other option than to go through such a physically difficult and emotionally draining procedure such as an abortion.
In an ideal world abortion would never be necessary. Because every child would be planned and wanted, by their legal age financially stable fully educated parents, and there would be no health concerns.
Unfortunately this isn’t the reality of the world we live in, so women find themselves in a position where they need one.

abortion is for the most part unnecessary. women for the most part don't need it, they want it.
where it is needed, it is mostly availible here. however there are circumstances still not covered where it should be, and we can extend availability to those circumstances via the existing laws which allow abortion in limited circumstances, and we should do that. but unlimited abortion is not needed or necessary, and it should not be provided in ireland.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

So I state that in my opinion indoctrinating children into a religion (as opposed to providing them with general info on all the major religions as part of their education) before they have the capacity to reason for themselves is child abuse and for that I'm labelled a bigot and a drama queen but J C and owneybaloney have carte blanche to to threaten me with eternal damnation and the wrath of god etc etc unless I repent and that's just hunky dory because it carries the label of "religion"? You seriously need to review how you form your opinions and decide who to pin pejorative labels on.

BTW, just because an activity imposed on a child is by parental choice does not by itself mean it is not child abuse.

I could just as easily say that depriving a child of having a relationship with his/her creator is child abuse. Jesus had a lot of time for children despite of what His disciples thought.

I was brought up RC , when I was old enough, I made a decision to follow Christ and left the RCC. My kids will have to make the same choice one day ( but not have to leave the RCC)

SusieBlue

NaFirinne wrote: »

The country wants to make it legal to slaughter unborn babies on a massive scale, just like the many countries around the world are doing.

I mean the shear numbers of abortions in the world should be enough to show anyone with a heart that there is something very wrong with it.

The most dangerous place in the world is a mothers womb, that's crazy.

You need to look at the reasons a woman might be compelled to feel she has no other option than to go through such a physically difficult and emotionally draining procedure such as an abortion.
In an ideal world abortion would never be necessary. Because every child would be planned and wanted, by their legal age financially stable fully educated parents, and there would be no health concerns.
Unfortunately this isn’t the reality of the world we live in, so women find themselves in a position where they need one.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

So you don't deny you misused the statement from the Harvard professor and you've no rebuttal as to why tadpoles are called tadpoles and not "baby frogs" just as fetuses are fetuses and not human beings.

We eat frogs, we generally don't eat babies.....we just want to kill them and dispose of them.

Nick Park

So I state that in my opinion indoctrinating children into a religion (as opposed to providing them with general info on all the major religions as part of their education) before they have the capacity to reason for themselves is child abuse and for that I'm labelled a bigot and a drama queen but J C and owneybaloney have carte blanche to to threaten me with eternal damnation and the wrath of god etc etc unless I repent and that's just hunky dory because it carries the label of "religion"? You seriously need to review how you form your opinions and decide who to pin pejorative labels on.

You're all over the place here. Where did I, at any point, express any view about anything JC or owenbaloney have said? Where did I give them 'carte blanche' to do anything?

You're hardly doing yourself any favours here if you genuinely want people not to think you're being a drama queen.

You want to label a huge percentage of Irish parents as 'child abusers' - but then start going on about 'pejorative labels' when someone points out what such wild accusations suggest about you?

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

BTW, just because an activity imposed on a child is by parental choice does not by itself mean it is not child abuse.

Nobody claimed that just because an activity imposed on a child is by parental choice does not by itself mean it is not child abuse. For goodness sake, if you really want to engage in discussion why don't you start addressing what people actually post?

I pointed out that it is intolerant and hysterical to use the term 'child abuse' with regard to parents choosing to take their children to mass. And, I believe, most reasonable people would agree with me.

NaFirinne wrote: »

The most dangerous place in the world is a mothers womb, that's crazy.

And that right there demonstrates the weakness of your argument.