agit-prop, opinion manipulation and well-poisoning games Atheism Darwinist rhetorical tactics Ethics Free Speech Freedom Logic and First Principles of right reason

The problem of anti-conscience, anti-theistic prejudice driving opinion, views and policy

Spread the love

In a current thread on the morality or otherwise on the Pagan practice of infanticide, frequent, objecting commenter BB gives us a summary of a common prejudice of our time:

BB, 69: ” The fact that we no longer blindly accept discrimination based on the justification of freedom of conscience or freedom of religion is a good thing. Freedom of conscience and freedom of religion were historically used as justification for many acts of discrimination, including the subjugation of women and the ban on interracial marriage. How can we be certain that some of the discriminations now justified using freedom of conscience and freedom of religion are not equally unjustifiable? ” [emphases added]

The presumption of discrimination and implication that religiously motivated or linked views are to be regarded as generally lacking warrant so suspect, needs to be firmly answered. Especially, given the context of recent discussions in this blog on warrant and degrees of certainty as well as on moral truth and knowledge. Where, it turns out that our entire thought life and context of arguing, debating and even quarrelling pivot on known duties to truth, right reason, prudence, fairness, justice etc. Where, when such reaches a court room or a legislature, moral government of reason emerges through duty to justice, best summarised as the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities under law.

Accordingly, I responded:

KF, 72: BB,
Do you see what you imply:


>>The fact that we no longer blindly accept discrimination based on the justification of freedom of conscience or freedom of religion is a good thing>>


This is first a dismissal of already offered grounding of moral truth and knowledge, as well as obvious refusal to seriously ponder already linked discussions that lay out legal, genetic, socio-cultural, ethical etc evidence and argument. In effect just on your sneering dismissal, we are invited to hold that once someone’s conscience and duty to God and to truth, evidence, right reason, prudence, fairness etc are at odds with your politically correct notions, agenda or imposition, such must be swept away as blind without further consideration. Moreover, this implies targetted religious discrimination on the presumption that religiously motivated or linked views can never be reasonable or responsible, being presumed to be empty, blind adherence to myths and superstitious prejudices. Given abundant and readily accessible evidence to the contrary (e.g. cf. a 101 here on in context), such is of course, plainly turnspeech, toxically loaded projection on your part.


Sorry, it does not work that way.


And, again, we see directly from you further evidence of just how far wrong our civilisation is going today.


So, that you are by your own admission blind and deaf to the shipwreck shoals ahead, we have good reason not to take your objections, dismissals and sneering at the despised, stereotyped, scapegoated religious other seriously. Save, as evidence of deep-rooted, conscience-numbing hostility.

This already explains the immediate context, an exchange on the Abortion holocaust:

BB, 63: >>Banning pederastry in Ancient Greece would have been considered a radical agenda. The Civil War was fought over the radical anti-slavery agenda. Banning child labour was the result of a radical agenda. Allowing women to vote was the result of a radical agenda. Allowing interracial marriages was the result of a radical agenda. Allowing blacks to sit at the front of the bus was the result of a radical agenda. A five day work week was the result of a radical agenda. Not jailing homosexuals was the result of a radical agenda.

The point I am making is that today’s radical agenda is often tomorrow’s concept of a just society.>>

KF, 64: >> the first established evil of our day, the central cancer sending out metastases is the holocaust of our living posterity in the womb. 800+ millions in 40+ years, mounting up at about another million per week. This has utterly corrupted our views, values and institutions until we now have the passage or attempted passage of laws to essentially abort children during child birth . . . >>

BB, 65: >> I am very comfortable with the direction civilization is heading. Abortions are on the decline, the more mysogenystic and homophobic aspects of religious doctrine are being questioned, and many of those doing the questioning are the religious people themselves. Discrimination under the false color of religious freedoms are being confronted. Violence is on the decline. Tolerance is on the increase. Infant mortality is low, life expectancy is high, education and healthcare are available to more and more people . . . >>

KF, 67: >> your response unfortunately is revealing. For example, would you have been comfortable to hear that the rate of the holocaust of Jews, Poles, Ukrainians, Russians etc was lower than previously? The issue is not rates (and about a million more victims per week globally cannot reasonably be deemed an acceptable rate), it is that we have distorted our civilisation and law, benumbed our consciences and are enabling the mass killing of our living posterity in the womb under false colour of law . . . >>

BB, 69: >>KF

For example, would you have been comfortable to hear that the rate of the holocaust of Jews, Poles, Ukrainians, Russians etc was lower than previously?

I would definitely be comforted by that information if it was true. Wouldn’t you?
The issue is not rates…
When attaining zero abortions is a completely unattainable goal then rates are critical. If you saw a train load of Jews heading to a concentration camp and you had the opportunity to save only two of them, would you not do anything because rates aren’t the issue? >>

The issue, of course, is always justice and in a civilisation full of democratic polities we are not trying to hide one or two Jews to save them from the SS and the death camps. We are dealing with the implementation — under false colour of law and through manipulating and warping media, perceptions, institutions, professions, courts, parliaments and more — of a holocaust that dwarfs the Nazi holocaust and even the Communist one. Likewise, under similar false colour, we have undermined and warped marriage, family and personal identity (destabilising the foundations of stable society) — notice how X-phobia is rhetorically used to imply that objections to such are invariably irrational [contrast the lack of serious engagement of say this on conjugal marriage and this on claimed genetic determination of sexual habituation and linked attitudes as already linked], and are now setting out on definitively pushing conscience and religiously link-able moral principles beyond the pale of the Overton Window into the zone of the despised other:

Indeed, we have set out on the path of undermining moral truth and moral government. Which implies, undermining of responsible, rational thought and freedom itself.

Therefore, I think it relevant to highlight the exchange as above. END

PS: Has any law against murder, theft, rape etc been able to reduce the incidence of such crimes to nil? Would that inability warrant us in simply regulating or trying to regulate the rate at which such happen? (It seems to me that, fundamentally, we are dealing with those who have so dehumanised our living posterity in the womb that they are desensitised to the implications of taking unborn children’s lives at will, now literally to the point of birth. If that is not an example of the real, destructive slippery slope in action with benumbing of conscience and media-amplified marginalisation of principled objections on some convenient excuse or the other as the acting ratchets, nothing is.)

27 Replies to “The problem of anti-conscience, anti-theistic prejudice driving opinion, views and policy

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    The problem of anti-conscience, anti-theistic prejudice driving opinion, views and policy

  2. 2
    Belfast says:

    The infanticide aspect of the Virginia law on abortion highlights the ‘right to do what she likes with her own body’ theme. The baby is now in a crib, and people vote to kill or let live. There is no longer an issue about doing what one likes with one’s own body.

  3. 3
    kairosfocus says:

    B, it never was about one’s own body. Half the genetic complement comes from a different person from the outset. Half the time the child is not even the same sex as his mother. The whole my own body argument was a fallacy that pivots on dehumanising the child in the womb. KF

  4. 4
    Brother Brian says:

    Has any law against murder, theft, rape etc been able to reduce the incidence of such crimes to nil? Would that inability warrant us in simply regulating or trying to regulate the rate at which such happen?

    Yet we invest heavily in tools to reduce rates of murder, theft, rape, etc.. We also invest heavily in reducing rates of hazardous but legal things like making, drinking, etc.. Why are you so opposed to investing heavily in tools to reduce the rates of abortion? Your reluctance defies logic.

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    BB,

    The primary step is that we recognise that crimes and gross injustices are wrongs requiring that the sword of justice be brought into play, starting with police and courts. So, we enact and enforce laws.

    The primary goal is not, what is an acceptable rate.

    Just as the acceptable rate for a much less heinous matter — smoking — has long been recognised as zero.

    First things must come first.

    If you are blind to the dehumanisation of living posterity in the womb, perhaps you should watch this reference video put up almost a week ago as a reminder: https://uncommondescent.com/laws/reference-pregnancy-week-by-week/

    First things must come first.

    A continued global holocaust under false colour of law, proceeding at a million further victims per week is not an acceptable compromise.

    Life is the first right.

    First, as one robbed of life has been robbed of all other rights.

    (If our consciences do not stir under the impact of such considerations, we should get seriously concerned whether we indeed have “dead horses” dealing with: our seared, benumbed consciences.)

    KF

  6. 6
    Brother Brian says:

    KF

    The primary step is that we recognise that crimes and gross injustices are wrongs requiring that the sword of justice be brought into play, starting with police and courts. So, we enact and enforce laws.

    Except that we don’t agree that crimes and gross injustices are being perpetrated. And we probably never will. What I think that we can agree on is that abortions are never the preferred option. The preferred option is to not find yourself in a position where you are considering an abortion. Education and access to contraceptives go a long way to achieving this.

    The primary goal is not, what is an acceptable rate.

    I have never suggested that we set an acceptable rate. I have argued for implementing processes that continually reduce the rate.

    First things must come first.

    But we have not agreed on what this first thing is.

  7. 7
    Ed George says:

    It is obvious that the brother in his pseudonym does not refer to his taking the vows, but I didn’t interpret his words as being anti-theistic. My read on it is just that he thinks it is a good thing for society to question acts of discrimination that justified through claims of religion freedom. And I can’t disagree with that. As theists it is incumbent on us to make sure that our actions truly reflect our theistic beliefs, and not that we use theistic beliefs as a crutch to justify actions that would be difficult to justify in any other manner.

  8. 8
    Brother Brian says:

    KF, just a comment on the formatting in your OP. I think the use of blockquote is a little messed up. It makes it difficult to see who said what.

  9. 9
    kairosfocus says:

    BB [and EG], at this stage posing opinions does not matter; ironically you are failing the test of recognising common humanity, which common humanity directly leads to the implication that our living posterity in the womb have rights to life that we are duty-bound to respect. It is that fact of refusal to recognise patent fact that is utterly devastating. It also carries with it the terrible implication of implacable polarisation due to willful clinging to the dehumanisation of targetted victims marked for death. The implications of that are horrific, what we have done to ourselves to enable holocaust cannot end well. Posing on rights and freedoms and doubtless on concern for victims of oppression while enabling holocaust speaks, speaks volumes. And yes, there are all sorts of historical echoes and ironies implicit in the situation — we are failing to learn from bitterly bought lessons of our civilisation’s history. All of this also shows why I keep pointing to this issue as the central cancer sending out metastases all across our civilisation. That’s stage IV, and as I know from sad, close experience, there is no stage V. KF

  10. 10
    kairosfocus says:

    BB, the new block style is seriously problematic, but that’s what WP decided. Blogger now has better formatting options, irony of ironies. KF

  11. 11
    Brother Brian says:

    KF

    BB [and EG], at this stage posing opinions does not matter;

    Feel free to stop posing them if you like. 🙂

    ironically you are failing the test of recognising common humanity, which common humanity directly leads to the implication that our living posterity in the womb have rights to life that we are duty-bound to respect.

    I am not failing any test. I am just disagreeing with you. I don’t believe that the rights of an early term embryo exceed those of the woman. This being said, I also believe that we should make every effort to ensure that women never have to make that difficult choice. You don’t do that by threatening them with a criminal record.

    It is that fact of refusal to recognise patent fact that is utterly devastating.

    Again, you are confusing fact with opinion.

  12. 12
    kairosfocus says:

    BB, you seem to imagine that you can simply tag warranted conclusions about moral truths as “opinions” [likely, religious and or X-phobia du jour lurk in the subtext] then dismiss. I reply, on the central matter [a] it is not in serious doubt that people have a right to life . . the moral truth at stake. That [b] our living posterity in the womb — which is our own former condition — are human and living, genetically distinct from their mothers etc etc is also beyond reasonable doubt . . . common sense and science. That [c] they have a presumptive right to life patently follows is obvious [as class b is manifestly a subset of class a], save to those locked into agendas that are enabling the worst holocaust in history under false colour of law. The breakdown of responsible, rational conduct implied by such is hardly less chilling than the implication of the mass blood guilt that stains our civilisation. That breakdown, I add, leads to spreading irrationality and nihilism across the board. Hence, central cancer sending out aggressive metastases and fatally weakening the host so opportunistic invasive infections can accelerate systemic collapse. The failure of the Austro-Hungarian Empire comes to mind. KF

    PS: Note the very simple logical structure. In order to refute c, you need to SHOW, not merely assert, that a fails or b fails or else both fail. I am confident that such an attempt will be even more revealing.

  13. 13

    Brother Brian said:

    I am not failing any test. I am just disagreeing with you. I don’t believe that the rights of an early term embryo exceed those of the woman. This being said, I also believe that we should make every effort to ensure that women never have to make that difficult choice. You don’t do that by threatening them with a criminal record.

    And yet, in another thread, Brother Brian said:

    There might be a little confusion. When I said that, if I had the power, I would force them to stop this type of oppression, I was not referring to physical force. I was thinking more along the lines of force of law.

    I’m a little confused here; is the force of law effective or ineffective at changing people’s behaviors, in your opinion?

  14. 14
    Brother Brian says:

    KF

    BB, you seem to imagine that you can simply tag warranted conclusions about moral truths as “opinions” [likely, religious and or X-phobia du jour lurk in the subtext] then dismiss.

    Since I don’t believe in objective moral truths, I’m pretty sure that I can.

    I reply, on the central matter [a] it is not in serious doubt that people have a right to life . . the moral truth at stake.

    I agree. Where we disagree is that a fertilized ovum has the same right to life. The rest of your logic falls apart if the first part fails.

    That breakdown, I add, leads to spreading irrationality and nihilism across the board.

    Yet the abortion rate continues to drop. Why do I get the feeling that if it dropped to zero without imposing an outright legal ban on abortion, you wouldn’t be happy?

    The failure of the Austro-Hungarian Empire comes to mind.

    It never came to my mind, or anyone else’s that is reading this (all two of them).

  15. 15
    kairosfocus says:

    BB, I forget, there are crimes that are crimes in themselves, crimes against nature. Shedding innocent blood heads the list. The issue is how to handle our existing mass blood guilt without having the moral cancer kill our civilisation.The answer is repentance and forgiveness, joined to reformation. But that requires a restoration of recognition of our Creator that is obviously utterly unacceptable to ever so many. Of course, after an awful crash, that will change but at horrific cost. KF

  16. 16
    kairosfocus says:

    BB, you continue dismissiveness in the face of warrant — starting with objectivity of moral truth; note, your own arguments pivot on appealing to our known duty to truth, right reason, prudence, justice etc, thus it is fatally incoherent. You inadvertently underscore the point. KF

  17. 17
    Brother Brian says:

    KF

    BB, you continue dismissiveness in the face of warrant

    No, I continue dismissiveness in your opinion of what constitutes warrant.

  18. 18
    anthropic says:

    14 KF, BB
    “I reply, on the central matter [a] it is not in serious doubt that people have a right to life . . the moral truth at stake.”

    “I agree. Where we disagree is that a fertilized ovum has the same right to life.”

    Nobody argues that in the exceedingly rare case of a choice between the mother’s life and the life of the fetus, the fetus should win. These days, the choice is almost always between the right to life of a human fetus and other people’s desire to get rid of it. So if you acknowledge the fetus has some type of right to life, you should acknowledge that 99 percent of the time abortion is a gross violation of human rights.

  19. 19
    kairosfocus says:

    Anthropic, the premise is, a living human has a right to life. That needs to be acknowledged, and those who are undermining it by ignoring evidence and willfully dehumanising do not seem to understand the seed they are sowing. They imagine that the ratcheting slide can be stopped at their will at a point convenient to them. They do not realise how corrosive the nihilist principle that might and manipulation make ‘right’ ‘truth’ ‘justice’ ‘knowledge’ ‘warrant’ etc is. The latest, oh I dismiss what you imagine is warrant speaks for itself given what is on the table and given the two yardstick cases that have been put up but dodged and dismissed: moral government of our thought life and that it is self-evidently wrong to kidnap, bind, sexually assault and murder a young child. In these cases lies a rich trove of principles that ground a considerable body of natural law and moral knowledge. It is telling that for weeks we have yet again seen evasions and dismissivenesss by trying to tag warranted argument as subjective opinion. This has extended to core mathematics, showing how deep the cancer has gone. KF

  20. 20
    kairosfocus says:

    BB, given your prior record of refusal to provide warrant for rejection, we have a perfect epistemic right to draw our own conclusions on the balance on the merits. This is multiplied by the pattern which has extended to mathematics. It is quite clear that we are seeing the fallacy of the closed mind, here enabling of outright holocaust. That is how much damage has been done to the moral fabric of our civilisation. KF

    PS: Fetus is Latin for baby, switching language does not work word magic and transmute our living posterity in the womb to the subhuman. The first thing, remains: acknowledging the basic humanity of the unborn. Making real-world hard decisions as to whether one dies or two die can only follow on first acknowledging that two living human beings are involved. Otherwise, dehumanisation returns us to the same holocaust under false colour of law.

  21. 21
    StephenB says:

    Brother Brian to KF:

    What I think that we can agree on is that abortions are never the preferred option.

    I am not following your logic. If abortion is *not* the killing of an innocent human being, then why would it not be the preferred option? It does, after all, achieve the objective of removing “the product of conception” from the woman’s womb. If, on the other hand, it *is* the killing of an innocent human being, then why should it be tolerated at all?

    The preferred option is to not find yourself in a position where you are considering an abortion. Education and access to contraceptives go a long way to achieving this.

    Contraception does not decrease abortion rates, it increases them. So your rationale is faulty.

  22. 22
    Seversky says:

    It appears to me that there are several measures that society as a whole needs to adopt if it wants to minimize the abortion rate.

    The first is to bite the bullet and affirm in law that a right to life attaches to all human beings at whatever stage of development they may have reached, whether postnatal or prenatal, when any question concerning the continuance of that life may arise.

    The second is that sex education programs and contraceptive measures should be universally and freely available. They are not a ‘silver bullet’ solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies but there is reason to believe that they help to reduce the incidence and I see no good reason why anyone should be denied access to them.

    The third is to clarify the question of medical exemptions. I have read some OB/GYNs assert that there are no medical issues in near-term pregnancies that are not better solved by Cesarean section than by abortion. On the other hand, I have seen others argue that there are certain conditions in the mother and/or the fetus which are currently untreatable and for which abortion may be the only humane response. This is something on which the medical community needs to contribute carefully-considered guidance.

    The fourth is the provision much better support for the mothers who find themselves in these difficult situations and for the sad cases of children who may find themselves alive but unwanted by their natural parents. Societies need to distance themselves from the shaming and shunning that drove women with unwanted pregnancies from their homes and families to seek dangerous back-street abortions because that was the only solution they saw.

    Ultimately, the best way to prevent an abortion where there is no medical necessity is to persuade – not browbeat – the mother into seeing the fetus as another human who, if granted the right and opportunity to live – could bring great joy, if not to the biological mother, then to a couple who would love to adopt it.

  23. 23
    ET says:

    My apologies to Seversky, but we are in agreement. 😎

  24. 24
    Brother Brian says:

    StephenB

    Contraception does not decrease abortion rates, it increases them.

    This in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

  25. 25
  26. 26
    StephenB says:

    SB: Contraception does not decrease abortion rates, it increases them.

    Brother Brian:

    This in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

    Have you not yet learned that bluffing does not work on this site? IUD’s are abortifacients, not contraceptives. Naturally the former would reduce the abortion rate since it, too, kills innocent life. It is usually not necessary to kill the baby twice. Contraceptives, on the other hand, lead to abortion.

  27. 27
    StephenB says:

    Seversky

    On the other hand, I have seen others argue that there are certain conditions in the mother and/or the fetus which are currently untreatable and for which abortion may be the only humane response.

    An abortion is the purposeful act of killing an innocent human being in the womb. The situation you describe is not an abortion since its purpose is to preserve the health of the mother, not to kill the baby. In that sense, the death of the baby would be incidental, not purposeful. Murder is one thing; collateral damage is quite another thing.

Leave a Reply