Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I repent ☺

Boom boom

If I could thank you twice I would have!!

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?

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?

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?

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.

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: »

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?

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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!!

Nick Park

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

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.

And yet here you are, on the Christianity Forum of boards.ie, investing time denigrating something you claim to have no interest in.

Your assumption is that if parents inculcate an epistemology which operates so as to to discourage the acceptance of certain classses of proposition, their motivation or intention must have been to get their children to reject propositions of that type.

I made no assertion about their motivations or intentions. That's where you went wrong in your assessment of my position.

If they simply raise their child to evaluate propositions in the way they themselves evaluation propositions, the likely outcome is that the children will reach similar conclusions to the parents about similar propositions. This will be the case whether or not the parents intend or wish this outcome.

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.

Didn't get asked by mine until a few years later, and I gave the simple and honest answer, 'Nothing'. This didn't bother them in the least. Christianity as a religion places a lot of emphasis on death and the potential of surviving it through an afterlife. From my experience if you're not raised with these concepts they aren't really an issue. We had my father living with us before his death and I think the primary feeling in the household once he was gone was one of loss rather than any existentialist angst. He was also stoical right up until the point he died, watching snooker with me as it happens, and with all sorts of ailments knew there wasn't much left nor was too upset by it. The sense of loss was, and to a lesser extent still is, profound and I can fully understand how a Christian might be comforted through the belief that it hasn't actually happened. That said, in my opinion the loss will be no different.

Apologies for being rather off topic. Regarding abortion, as an atheist I don't consider a 12 week old fetus to be a person or family member, though as above I can understand how a Christian or any other person might do. My understanding is that the Catholic hierarchy in Rome take the same view on the morning after pill. Personally, much like what happens after death, we're in the realm of belief and philosophy here rather than fact and should keep that in mind before dictating how other people should lead their lives.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

Apologies for being rather off topic. Regarding abortion, as an atheist I don't consider a 12 week old fetus to be a person or family member, though as above I can understand how a Christian or any other person might do. My understanding is that the Catholic hierarchy in Rome take the same view on the morning after pill. Personally, much like what happens after death, we're in the realm of belief and philosophy here rather than fact and should keep that in mind before dictating how other people should lead their lives.

Some people believe that blacks are not fully human beings. They want to be able to keep black people as slaves. That is a matter of belief and philosophy.

I believe that black people are human beings made in the image of God. That is a matter of belief and philosophy. Should I keep that in mind before dictating how other people should lead their lives?

Nick Park wrote: »

And yet here you are, on the Christianity Forum of boards.ie, investing time denigrating something you claim to have no interest in.

I'm not denigrating a persons right to believe in whatever god they choose and the fact that that's all you are able to contribute says a lot.

FWIW I'm absolutely not hear to troll. The OP asked a question which relates to a forthcoming referendum in which all citizens have an interest.

If the question had been asked in the After Hours forum it would have equally attracted my interest.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Your assumption is that if parents inculcate an epistemology which operates so as to to discourage the acceptance of certain classses of proposition, their motivation or intention must have been to get their children to reject propositions of that type.

I made no assertion about their motivations or intentions. That's where you went wrong in your assessment of my position.

If they simply raise their child to evaluate propositions in the way they themselves evaluation propositions, the likely outcome is that the children will reach similar conclusions to the parents about similar propositions. This will be the case whether or not the parents intend or wish this outcome.

I'm not aware of any atheist I know who discourages the acceptance of certain classes of proposition, why should they be so prejudiced? I can only speak from limited experience but what I observe in my own home and in others is a willingness to encourage inquisitiveness without predetermined boundaries or predetermined outcomes which is the opposite to raising children to evaluate propositions in the way they themselves evaluate propositions.

You obviously find it hard to believe that some parents are capable of allowing their children to make up their own minds on subject and issues that interest them which is a shame really.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

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

Let's have a look see.

"Daddy, what happens after you die?"

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

You believe (for the reasons you do) that there's nothing after you die. You are making a positive statement: such and such is the case. Since the position can't be proven, it's a belief.

It doesn't matter how much you suppose the evidence for something is lacking, lack of evidence isn't positive proof of anything.

Are you not indoctrinating your child with your sincerely held beliefs?

-

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.

You appear to have been mainlining The God Delusion.

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

I likewise disagree. In my experience, which is admittedly anecdotal and hence not an attempt at being authoritative, children are inquisitive from the moment they're born and this is where learning begins. We can't consider the possibility of indoctrination yet as this learning doesn't require external influence. Once children learn to speak they ask questions and seek information from trusted sources such as parents. When answering a child's question, if we first ask for their opinion, we're entering into a discussion and encouraging critical thinking. As such, we're teaching critical thinking from an early age and not waiting for it to occur naturally. I would suggest that indoctrination is providing bare information without the accompanying discussion, and actively discouraging that critical process. Rote learning is similar, and carries the risk of leaving one with answers to questions without understanding those answers or possibly even the questions.

Intimidating your children, as you say, is something altogether different.

smacl wrote: »

Didn't get asked by mine until a few years later, and I gave the simple and honest answer, 'Nothing'. This didn't bother them in the least.

1. Is this not indoctrinating them with your beliefs?

2. Neither does talking about God bother them.

Christianity as a religion places a lot of emphasis on death and the potential of surviving it through an afterlife.

Of course it does. Who am I, where have I come from, where am I going, why am I here are some of the biggest questions that can be asked. Atheism answers them one way, Christianity another. Since atheism offers comparatively little by way of answer, there is no need to focus overly on what it says.

From my experience if you're not raised with these concepts they aren't really an issue. We had my father living with us before his death and I think the primary feeling in the household once he was gone was one of loss rather than any existentialist angst. He was also stoical right up until the point he died, watching snooker with me as it happens, and with all sorts of ailments knew there wasn't much left nor was too upset by it. The sense of loss was, and to a lesser extent still is, profound and I can fully understand how a Christian might be comforted through the belief that it hasn't actually happened. That said, in my opinion the loss will be no different.

I would disagree. There must be a difference between what is felt to be permanent loss and loss which is felt to be temporary. There is also the sense that the person is better off now than when they were alive, which too, diminishes the loss

Personally, much like what happens after death, we're in the realm of belief and philosophy here rather than fact and should keep that in mind before dictating how other people should lead their lives.

Belief and philosophy lie at the root of how you view the child in the womb, I'm afraid. Science declares factually on the physical constituent parts of the foetus, your belief and philosophy declares that the physical constituent parts constitute the whole.

Hold a different philosophy and you have no problem dictating how other people live their lives - to the extent they impact on lives that are not their own.

Nick Park wrote: »

Some people believe that blacks are not fully human beings. They want to be able to keep black people as slaves. That is a matter of belief and philosophy.

I believe that black people are human beings made in the image of God. That is a matter of belief and philosophy. Should I keep that in mind before dictating how other people should lead their lives?

Do they, or did they? I'm not aware of anyone in this day and age advocating enslavement of 'black people' and fail to see how this bears any relationship whatsoever to the abortion debate. Seems like a rather flimsy red herring.

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

True.

But if he to avoid indoctrination, he must continue that for all his values and beliefs, must he not?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Let's have a look see.

You believe (for the reasons you do) that there's nothing after you die.

You really don't get it do you? I don't "believe" there is nothing after you die. There is no evidence to support the belief that there is something after you die.

It's only those who believe that there is an afterlife that are in the "belief" business.

Let me simplify for you.

AFAIK elephants are unable to pole dance. I've never seen any evidence to the contrary. Does that mean I somehow have a "belief" that they can't pole dance?

Hotblack Desiato

Nick Park wrote: »

And yet here you are, on the Christianity Forum of boards.ie, investing time denigrating something you claim to have no interest in.

So he's denigrating now? I suppose one can't really call a non-christian a heretic in this day and age.

He may wish to have no interest in religion, but religion very much has an interest in him and the laws he - and the rest of us - must live under.

Are no dissenting opinions to be tolerated here? And some people wonder why Christianity in the developed world is going down the tubes.

If you want a safe-space echo chamber like the old Islam forum was, ask the mods, but I doubt they'll entertain that sort of thing again.