Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

Tom Mazanec wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 03, 2023 10:10 am

Perhaps free will, reason and self awareness are factors in the equation?

Some consider a paint test useful for self awareness. You dab something on an animals head and give them access to a mirror. If they dab at their own head to clean it they are self aware. Many animals are. Others will attack the mirror that has invaded their territory. I remember once having to provide a mirror for a robin who kept attacking my window, messing up my sleep. By that test, the robin was not self aware.

They have tested crows for reason. They float a seed in tubes of water of various widths, and make pebbles available to drop in the water to the point where the seed can be reached. As most crows rapidly go for the narrower tubes first, crows can reason? Of course reason is a property one can have at various levels.

I'm not aware of a test for free will. I note a fetus would fail the two tests.

As I said, both actual and potential sapients.

I read a science fiction book once, with a woman from a high tech culture who would only eat vat grown artificial meat, not meat from a fully formed animal. “As long as it didn’t once moo.” (Lois Bujold, the Vorkosigan Saga.) Plausible. If this became the norm, what would you do with the former ranchers? What would a political party that depended on rural population do? What would it do the the values of the shamed animal eaters? Would the company that held the vat patent finance a a philosopher or two? Would any shift in values affect the abortion question?

A shift in technology can result in a shift in values and culture covering many angles. I’m not going to say that such a possibility is clearly in our future a crisis or two downstream, or that we should try to anticipate, to change now. A crisis can only do so much. The source of our meat is not perceived of as one of the greatest problems in the culture. In the meantime, we cannot yet grow vat grown meat and what is available did once say moo.

I also recall stories of an exchange long ago. The French king would acknowledge the French pope. At the time it was a big deal, with the popes trying to secure support. In a tit for tat, the French pope, knowing the king needed lots of soldiers thus lots of population, made abortion and birth control a big deal sin. There was such a need for war and mass murder. Whenever I hear of holier than thou people who want to save groups of cells, the old story resonates.

I also recall stories of an exchange long ago. The French king would acknowledge the French pope. At the time it was a big deal, with the popes trying to secure support. In a tit for tat, the French pope, knowing the king needed lots of soldiers thus lots of population, made abortion and birth control a big deal sin. There was such a need for war and mass murder. Whenever I hear of holier than thou people who want to save groups of cells, the old story resonates.

Which French King and French Pope preceded these pronouncements?
https://www.catholic.com/tract/abortion

Tom Mazanec wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 04, 2023 7:15 am

I also recall stories of an exchange long ago. The French king would acknowledge the French pope. At the time it was a big deal, with the popes trying to secure support. In a tit for tat, the French pope, knowing the king needed lots of soldiers thus lots of population, made abortion and birth control a big deal sin. There was such a need for war and mass murder. Whenever I hear of holier than thou people who want to save groups of cells, the old story resonates.

Which French King and French Pope preceded these pronouncements?
https://www.catholic.com/tract/abortion

Not sure of the exact ones, but it was around here. As I've often said, the agricultural age was a mess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avignon_Papacy

Did you even read my link? Abortion was a big sin to the Church Fathers, a millennium before the Avignon Papacy.

EDIT: And these would be my arguments if I were any other religion (including none):
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print ... t-abortion

Yes, I read your link. The reason I included ‘big deal’ in front of ‘sin’ is because it was always a sin, but they didn’t make a big deal about it. You just went to confession, said a few extra Hail Maries, and that was it. It is not like they would run extraordinary propaganda against this sin more than they did about murder, torture, war, theft, genocide or others.

I have considerable respect for Jesus, the ‘love thy neighbor’ commandment and the tendency towards charity of the early church. In many ways it was a religious version of modern secular Democratic politics. Thing is, the church pretends to reflect an infallible, benevolent, omnipotent image. They claim to never make a mistake, and edit history to reflect their claims. In short, they lie. As a turning fan, I see the culture changing regularly every four score and seven years, especially on an age boundary. They have had to deal with two such boundaries, going from the agricultural to industrial to the information ages. The notion that the culture was perfect and always has been doesn’t fit my perspective. The church at times had a mile wide secular streak which they like to pretend didn’t exist.

Worst yet, they conspire to make young kids go to Saturday school. (Echoes of remembered long ago outrage.) They preach their lies to young kids who could be having fun playing football. This builds up a resentment an unwillingness to listen to their self serving version of ‘morality’. Fight this war and pay this bribe and we might arrange you serve less time after death being tortured. In short, it might be better to quote secular sources in some cases. I know some people still buy into the Catholic schtick, but I’m just not one of them.

That said, I cannot recall the source, so feel free to disregard it.

Did you read my SECOND (edited) link? Even if I were an atheist I would be opposed to abortion.

If you want to continue, you might repost the link.

The basic is that I respect 'love thy neighbor.' I see an adult woman as my neighbor, a few cells are not. There are all sort of whacky worldviews. Putin sees himself as another Catherine the Great, and self denies that makes him a second Genghis Kahn, Napoleon or Hitler. Other values can be followed, believed in and wrong.

While I divide history into turnings, ages and civilization, there is a fourth factor. What instincts, drives and desires were bred into humans during the long hunter gatherer time? Both love and a desire to control and rule others are included. I see Love as favorable, something we always wanted and needed to continue the species, to help out others of our own culture. To control and rule? Questionable. I do know people do not want to be ruled by folks of a different culture, people with different values. That is what I consider denying freedom. If you are against freedom, show no love for those with different beliefs, maybe you are one of the too many bad guys?

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print ... t-abortion

You do not consider a zygote to be a neighbor. Hitler did not consider Jews his neighbors. So you wish to deny humans the freedom from murder in the first nine months of their life. Maybe that makes you one of the too many bad guys?