Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:
How about we stop the religion bashing argument that we have every other week around here before this thread gets locked?

Have you no respect for tradition?!?

I'd also argue that the majority of discourse is not related to bashing religion, but questioning the need to bash religion by default. We could actually get somewhere with this one and it's staying civil more or less.

More and more, everytime I read about something like this, all I can think is that we know that making contraception freely available reduces the number of abortions by about 80%. As such, the absolute best way to stop the number of abortions is to promote access to contraception. And yet we do not see that. Instead we see bs like the people in the OP's post.

Ultimately, it becomes impossible to believe that the groups who carry on about abortion are genuine in their protests. If they were they would have embraced the real, practical methods of reducing abortions that are available. Instead they carry on about they being oppressed... because their real interest is in seeing themselves as poor, unfortunate martyrs.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
That's awfully reductive. You don't know what's the beleiver's motivation in beleiving, just that he beleives. His motivation might be that he thinks God gave us moral intuitions to guide us, it might be a respect of the scripture, or it might be simply that it's his need of 'goodness' in the world that oriented him toward beleiving in the first place.

I can be reductive because "because of belief in god" was a premise of the statement I was responding to. It's explicitly about someone who does good things because of their religion, not someone who does good things because they're a good person and just happens to be religious as well.

And all of those "alternatives" are still bad reasons.

Maybe it's not blind luck? Maybe everyone more or less have the same inner drives, and just have a variety of different myths to justify them? Everyone has a tendency to inflate the content of their consciousness, after all.

Except we've seen "obey god" be used for both good and bad things in the past. You can't single out the people that do good and praise their motivation while ignoring the people who use the same motivation to do bad things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:
And you very clearly made a comment questioning why we should refrain from calling decisions made according to a belief in God stupid.

No I didn't.

I objected to a specific appeal to consequences as a reason for not calling acting based on a belief in god stupid.

I said nothing about other reasons for not calling acting based on a belief in god stupid. For example, my criticism would not apply to someone who said that it's not stupid to act based on a belief in god because look over here, god is yelling at you to do something and you really don't want to kindle the anger of the lord. Granted, there would be other objections to that, but that's separate from the specific issue I was criticizing.

Or, if you wanted to ignore the factual/moral questions involved, my criticism also wouldn't apply to someone who said that we should refrain from calling actions based on a belief in god stupid because it's rude to call someone stupid.

 Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Whether that''s a good reason or not, again, I could give a gak.

You might have a point if I was arguing that if we ever meet someone who acts out of a belief in god we should yell at them for their stupidity, rather than just pointing out something in a forum debate. Apathy is a comment about behavior, it isn't an argument.

 azazel the cat wrote:
As an interesting note, I don't believe the Bible actually says anything about abortion... the entire anti-abortion sentiment was something that began amongst the "new wave" of Evangelical Christians sometime in the late 1970s. In fact, it almost shifted overnight. Prior to Jerry Falwell & friends, the Evangelicals didn't seem to have the objections that they do now.

Yep. Into the mid-70s concern about abortion was seen as a Catholic thing.

But then the new generation of evangelical leaders, the New Christian Right, saw abortion as a great way to draw in the large Catholic vote to their growing power bloc. It didn't work as intended, the Catholic vote remained as hard to capture en masse as it always had, but it did work incredibly well in forming the opinions of evangelicals - abortion went from being an issue they barely considered, to a cornerstone of their political beliefs. Given the nature of movement though, and the dishonest nature of its leadership, there was little discussion or conversation on the issue, just a sudden ramping up in sermons about abortion and the need to end the practice, and no commentary on why now all of a sudden it had become an issue. They just pretended they'd always believed it.

As a protestant idea, the belief that life begins at conception is younger than the Happy Meal. But finding evangelicals that know that is incredibly hard.

 Peregrine wrote:
You might have a point if I was arguing that if we ever meet someone who acts out of a belief in god we should yell at them for their stupidity, rather than just pointing out something in a forum debate. Apathy is a comment about behavior, it isn't an argument.

 Peregrine wrote:

Why shouldn't we call it stupid?.

And arguing a course of thought is a legitimate form of debate. And implying that I'm apathetic is far different from realizing that I'm arguing the path of least resistance on this issue.

Isn't great that we live in a country were we think its our right to have our employer provide free morning after pills, and we think it is okay to fine that employer millions of dollars a day when we don't get what we want. Sense of entitlement much?!?

 sebster wrote:
More and more, everytime I read about something like this, all I can think is that we know that making contraception freely available reduces the number of abortions by about 80%. As such, the absolute best way to stop the number of abortions is to promote access to contraception. And yet we do not see that. Instead we see bs like the people in the OP's post.

Ultimately, it becomes impossible to believe that the groups who carry on about abortion are genuine in their protests. If they were they would have embraced the real, practical methods of reducing abortions that are available. Instead they carry on about they being oppressed... because their real interest is in seeing themselves as poor, unfortunate martyrs.

er... what? Got a citation on that 80% statistic?

Contraceptives are generally available... thing is, you gotta get the girls to use 'em as directed (folks forget about that too).

Or we could just choose to not go to hobby lobby simply on the grounds that they are religious nuts? I can get my paintbrushes and model rocket engines elsewhere.

 Geemoney wrote:
Isn't great that we live in a country were we think its our right to have our employer provide free morning after pills, and we think it is okay to fine that employer millions of dollars a day when we don't get what we want. Sense of entitlement much?!?

A little... but, hey... that's what the people elected for... *shrugs*


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 GalacticDefender wrote:
Or we could just choose to not go to hobby lobby simply on the grounds that they are religious nuts? I can get my paintbrushes and model rocket engines elsewhere.

See... to me, THAT'S an appropriate response.

 Geemoney wrote:
Isn't great that we live in a country were we think its our right to have our employer provide free morning after pills, and we think it is okay to fine that employer millions of dollars a day when we don't get what we want. Sense of entitlement much?!?

Isn't it great that we live in a country where we think we shouldn't use to obey the law and should not be fined when we don't like the law.

 Geemoney wrote:
Isn't great that we live in a country were we think its our right to have our employer provide free morning after pills, and we think it is okay to fine that employer millions of dollars a day when we don't get what we want. Sense of entitlement much?!?

Isn't it great that morning after pills are also cheaper than raising a child.

 d-usa wrote:

 Geemoney wrote:
Isn't great that we live in a country were we think its our right to have our employer provide free morning after pills, and we think it is okay to fine that employer millions of dollars a day when we don't get what we want. Sense of entitlement much?!?

Isn't it great that we live in a country where we think we shouldn't use to obey the law and should not be fined when we don't like the law.

Right... just ask David Gregory! Youtube...

Hey-O!

 Geemoney wrote:
Isn't great that we live in a country were we think its our right to have our employer provide free morning after pills, and we think it is okay to fine that employer millions of dollars a day when we don't get what we want. Sense of entitlement much?!?

How is Hobby Lobby not displaying an even greater sense of entitlement? And we're not talking about free morning after pills. Insurance still costs money.

 whembly wrote:
er... what? Got a citation on that 80% statistic?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ii8uL3q4Sj96voE4OclB9r-U_tBw?docId=CNG.a514f4de519d6873aa2a708f67df099b.1e1

Figure given there is for a reduction in abortions by 873,000. There's about 1.1 million abortions a year at present. 80%.

Contraceptives are generally available... thing is, you gotta get the girls to use 'em as directed (folks forget about that too).

They're available, but they're not free. In most cases they're not even cost prohibitive, but they're still not free.

Now, contraception even at its current price might be a hell of a lot cheaper than an abortion let alone raising a kid, and so you'd think that'd be enough to make sure everyone that didn't want a kid used them. That was the general assumption for a long time in health policy circles. It reduced unplanned abortions and pregnancies massively, but it didn't remove them entirely, especially not among the poor. I think most of that is that the poor, typically, don't make great financial decisions*. Doubly so for the young and poor. To a lot of folk, $10 for condoms or the pill feels like a lot, when they can't really conceptualise the $50,000 or $100,000 they'll pay over the next 18 years for a kid, and so they skip on the condoms or the pill, and end up with an unplanned pregnancy.

But when something is free, they'll use it, and studies in the field have shown most women choose IUDs. Now, $5,000 for a 10 year implant might seem like a lot, but it's a lot cheaper than paying a mum the single parent pension, or the costs generally associated with raising a kid raised by a Mum who wasn't ready yet.

And if what you really want is no more abortions, well then its both a moral imperative and a great way to save money. And yet the idea is not only unsupported among abortion groups, it's responded to with absolute hostility. One has to wonder why.



*Poor financial decision making is both a consequence of being poor and a major reason they're poor in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Geemoney wrote:
Isn't great that we live in a country were we think its our right to have our employer provide free morning after pills, and we think it is okay to fine that employer millions of dollars a day when we don't get what we want. Sense of entitlement much?!?

Isn't it great that common sense public policy that benefits all parties (less overall cost to government, less abortions) is railed against through some gibberish notion that someone else gets something they didn't personally earn.

"Who cares if we'd all be better off, that person would be better off without earning it, and that's unacceptable!"

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
er... what? Got a citation on that 80% statistic?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ii8uL3q4Sj96voE4OclB9r-U_tBw?docId=CNG.a514f4de519d6873aa2a708f67df099b.1e1

Figure given there is for a reduction in abortions by 873,000. There's about 1.1 million abortions a year at present. 80%.

Contraceptives are generally available... thing is, you gotta get the girls to use 'em as directed (folks forget about that too).

They're available, but they're not free. In most cases they're not even cost prohibitive, but they're still not free.

Now, contraception even at its current price might be a hell of a lot cheaper than an abortion let alone raising a kid, and so you'd think that'd be enough to make sure everyone that didn't want a kid used them. That was the general assumption for a long time in health policy circles. It reduced unplanned abortions and pregnancies massively, but it didn't remove them entirely, especially not among the poor. I think most of that is that the poor, typically, don't make great financial decisions*. Doubly so for the young and poor. To a lot of folk, $10 for condoms or the pill feels like a lot, when they can't really conceptualise the $50,000 or $100,000 they'll pay over the next 18 years for a kid, and so they skip on the condoms or the pill, and end up with an unplanned pregnancy.

But when something is free, they'll use it, and studies in the field have shown most women choose IUDs. Now, $5,000 for a 10 year implant might seem like a lot, but it's a lot cheaper than paying a mum the single parent pension, or the costs generally associated with raising a kid raised by a Mum who wasn't ready yet.

And if what you really want is no more abortions, well then its both a moral imperative and a great way to save money. And yet the idea is not only unsupported among abortion groups, it's responded to with absolute hostility. One has to wonder why.



*Poor financial decision making is both a consequence of being poor and a major reason they're poor in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Geemoney wrote:
Isn't great that we live in a country were we think its our right to have our employer provide free morning after pills, and we think it is okay to fine that employer millions of dollars a day when we don't get what we want. Sense of entitlement much?!?

Isn't it great that common sense public policy that benefits all parties (less overall cost to government, less abortions) is railed against through some gibberish notion that someone else gets something they didn't personally earn.

"Who cares if we'd all be better off, that person would be better off without earning it, and that's unacceptable!"

Hmm interesting...

I don't think that access to contraceptive has changed all that much to account for that shift.

*shrugs*... I don't care either way, just wondering where you got that figure.

But, I sort of question the fact that just because BC are free that it'll directly cause that much of a shift.

 whembly wrote:
Hmm interesting...

I don't think that access to contraceptive has changed all that much to account for that shift.

There hasn't been a shift. The point is that is what abortion numbers are expected to shift by if free contraception was offered.

But, I sort of question the fact that just because BC are free that it'll directly cause that much of a shift.

Well, you can question it all you want, but it's what studies undertaken in the real world have indicated. That is, when people have been offered free contraception of their choice, that's how much behaviour has changed. The number of studies are still limited so the end result of the policy is hardly absolutely guaranteed, but to a large extent the findings of real world studies ought to matter than what people just kind of figure will happen.


And yet, in anti-abortion circles the response is either silence or a hostile rejection of the figures. If the motive was really about ensuring no unborn is to be wilfully destroyed, well public policy just offered a means to reduce the abortions by 800,000 a year. That's more than the whole movement has managed in sum total over 40 years. And yet they don't like. Because ultimately the anti-abortion movement basically isn't motivated by reducing abortions.

 Peregrine wrote:

No I didn't.

I objected to a specific appeal to consequences as a reason for not calling acting based on a belief in god stupid.

No, no you didn't. Cannerus said that he did not believe acting according to a hypothetical belief in God was stupid, because such a belief can motivate people to do good things. You responded to this by asking why we shouldn't call it stupid. At no point was the existence of God discussed, and it certainly wasn't implied that God exists because a belief in His existence motivates people to do good things; which would be required for an appeal to consequence in this case.

However, what you did do is beg the question, erect a strawman and, just now, employ kettle logic.

 Peregrine wrote:

And all of those "alternatives" are still bad reasons.

Why?

 GalacticDefender wrote:
Or we could just choose to not go to hobby lobby simply on the grounds that they are religious nuts? I can get my paintbrushes and model rocket engines elsewhere.

Yeah, I casually mentioned this to my wife who is a big Hobby Lobby fan... or she was. She has also now banned us from ordering Dominoes Pizza as well.

Worse, she actually means it! I remember about 15 years ago, a local Pizza Hut didn't honor a coupon. She vowed to never go back. That location went out of business and was demolished 8 years ago, and I finally convinced her this year that it was okay to support our new local franchise owner who opened up 6 months ago.

If she says she isn't shopping someplace again, she really means it. She's down right hardcore about it.

Hobby Lobby is just evil EVIL for following their religious beliefs. EVILLLLL!
Its better they go out of business then have their better paid employees continue to suffer so. In fact all their employees should quit and go work for that paragon of employment - McDonalds.

 Frazzled wrote:
Hobby Lobby is just evil EVIL for following their religious beliefs. EVILLLLL!
Its better they go out of business then have their better paid employees continue to suffer so. In fact all their employees should quit and go work for that paragon of employment - McDonalds.

Break the law, pay the fine. It doesn't matter how many good things they might do.

If your dog poops on the sidewalk and you don't clean that up, you still pay a fine even if T-Bone is a model citizen dog otherwise.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Hobby Lobby is just evil EVIL for following their religious beliefs. EVILLLLL!
Its better they go out of business then have their better paid employees continue to suffer so. In fact all their employees should quit and go work for that paragon of employment - McDonalds.

Break the law, pay the fine. It doesn't matter how many good things they might do.

If your dog poops on the sidewalk and you don't clean that up, you still pay a fine even if T-Bone is a model citizen dog otherwise.

Do other cities actually enforce this law? I've never seen anyone get a ticket because fido made his pees and poops on your yard.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Hobby Lobby is just evil EVIL for following their religious beliefs. EVILLLLL!
Its better they go out of business then have their better paid employees continue to suffer so. In fact all their employees should quit and go work for that paragon of employment - McDonalds.

Break the law, pay the fine. It doesn't matter how many good things they might do.

If your dog poops on the sidewalk and you don't clean that up, you still pay a fine even if T-Bone is a model citizen dog otherwise.

Do other cities actually enforce this law? I've never seen anyone get a ticket because fido made his pees and poops on your yard.

No, but people get in fist fights over it.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Hobby Lobby is just evil EVIL for following their religious beliefs. EVILLLLL!
Its better they go out of business then have their better paid employees continue to suffer so. In fact all their employees should quit and go work for that paragon of employment - McDonalds.

Break the law, pay the fine. It doesn't matter how many good things they might do.

If your dog poops on the sidewalk and you don't clean that up, you still pay a fine even if T-Bone is a model citizen dog otherwise.

A. If they lose the suit then pay the fine. But lets stop this nonsense about them being evil and worthy of protest. Jeez. Get off the high horse people.
B. TBone does poop on the sidewalk because: 1) he goofs up and can't see whats grass and whats sidewalk; or 2) he's that mean.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Hobby Lobby is just evil EVIL for following their religious beliefs. EVILLLLL!
Its better they go out of business then have their better paid employees continue to suffer so. In fact all their employees should quit and go work for that paragon of employment - McDonalds.

Break the law, pay the fine. It doesn't matter how many good things they might do.

If your dog poops on the sidewalk and you don't clean that up, you still pay a fine even if T-Bone is a model citizen dog otherwise.

Do other cities actually enforce this law? I've never seen anyone get a ticket because fido made his pees and poops on your yard.

No, but people get in fist fights over it.

Try to attack me for Rodney pooing in your yard and TBone will pee on your shoe. Its what he does and he does it well.

EDIT: That was an epic youtube.

 Easy E wrote:

 GalacticDefender wrote:
Or we could just choose to not go to hobby lobby simply on the grounds that they are religious nuts? I can get my paintbrushes and model rocket engines elsewhere.

Yeah, I casually mentioned this to my wife who is a big Hobby Lobby fan... or she was. She has also now banned us from ordering Dominoes Pizza as well.

Well To be fair, Banning Dominoes is a rational decision even if you are not against their beliefs.

Well this is silly...

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 GalacticDefender wrote:
Or we could just choose to not go to hobby lobby simply on the grounds that they are religious nuts? I can get my paintbrushes and model rocket engines elsewhere.

Yeah, I casually mentioned this to my wife who is a big Hobby Lobby fan... or she was. She has also now banned us from ordering Dominoes Pizza as well.

Well To be fair, Banning Dominoes is a rational decision even if you are not against their beliefs.

Why? When it comes to chain pizza places, Dominoes is great now that they no longer serve cardboard.

I prefer Papa John's if I'm buying chain store pizza. I like a handful of the frozen pizzas better than any of the chain store pizzas, though. I might be weird that way.

Homemade is the best.

Hobby Lobby makes terrible pizzas. They taste like plastic and you can't cook them...

I thnk Papa John's founder felt the need to speak out about the ACA or somethign political too. However, I'm too lazy to look it up, or tellmy wife about it. I have to get delivery pizza from somewhere!

 Easy E wrote:
I thnk Papa John's founder felt the need to speak out about the ACA or somethign political too. However, I'm too lazy to look it up, or tellmy wife about it. I have to get delivery pizza from somewhere!

Basically "I know I give away millions of free pizzas each year as a promotional stunt, but if I have to give health insurance to people I am charging everyone $.50 more!"