Elective surgery is banned unless... it is for abortion

[Dan From Smithville]

Hmm....so Schrodinger's Cat was both natural & unnatural.

Yes. Maybe?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So "natural" equates to your liking it?

Naturally.

 

[Cooky]

Is what you believe, believed by all? Would everyone arrive at your conclusion from an unbiased analysis and review of the evidence. Are you, or anyone else able to know and review every piece of evidence? Is vanilla the best I've cream flavor?

I don't think nature involves itself in eliminating choices... But I do believe it involves itself in achieving positive ends.

 

[Cooky]

Then abortion is natural and by your definition, also positive.

Only in this time. But time is moving. One day it will be refined to it's most positive end.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't think nature involves itself in eliminating choices... But I do believe it involves itself in achieving positive ends. Naturally.

So the gazelle that was taken down by the lion that is eating it while it is still alive is a positive end for the gazelle?

I think it boils down to what you like is natural and what you do not like is unnatural. But others like different things, so I cannot use your definition for others. Thus it is subjective and the reasoning and application is not universal.

 

[columbus]

I think if it were *truly* natural, I would not be opposed to it to begin with as a product of nature myself. But since I am, and many others like me are, refining must still take place.

Refining what, exactly?

If everyone became sufficiently unnatural to consistently behave in a moral way, driven mostly by unnatural agape and less by our natural instincts towards theft and violence, I'd consider that an improvement. A positive.

I don't expect it. I don't think humans are capable, as a group, of transcending natural behavior. And there is no Omnimax God who cares enough to help.

So
Tom

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Only in this time. But time is moving. One day it will be refined to it's most positive end.

Global thermonuclear war? Shall we play a game?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't think nature involves itself in eliminating choices... But I do believe it involves itself in achieving positive ends.

Are you saying that the gazelle that is doing everything in its power to avoid being eaten by the lion is really choosing to be eaten by the lion?

 

[Cooky]

So the gazelle that was taken down by the lion that is eating it while it is still alive is a positive end for the gazelle?

No, that's a primitive way. There are progressive groups of people currently searching for animal free products that taste like meat though. So one day, things could be different for us more advanced lifeforms in how we eat. Because we're the most consciously refined 'diamonds' of life.

I think it boils down to what you like is natural and what you do not like is unnatural. But others like different things, so I cannot use your definition for others. Thus it is subjective and the reasoning and application is not universal.

You could very well be right. I hope you enjoyed the conversation as much as I did though.

I'm having a great morning.

 

[epronovost]

I don't think nature involves itself in eliminating choices... But I do believe it involves itself in achieving positive ends.

So in opinion, one day every single pregnancy will happen to woman who wants a child, can afford to raise a child and has the skills, time and emotional availability to do so? That's a bit too utopian for me to take this as achievable. Yes, one day, abortions might be far less necessary then they are now and there are certainly many thing that can be done to make them less necessary, but I don't think there will ever be a time where no mistakes and no accidents are ever made.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What would your argument against abortion be if it were "natural"?
And what argument would you make if you avoided the idea of natural vs unnatural?

That is a good question. Abortions do occur without human intervention. Perhaps we can say 'naturally', I am not sure now.

Is it natural for humans to be able to choose? According to biblical views, choice was a God-given ability. And the consequences of that choice were with God and not to be infringed on by man.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, that's a primitive way. There are progressive groups of people currently searching for animal free products that taste like meat though. So one day, things could be different for us more advanced lifeforms in how we eat. Because we're the most consciously refined 'diamonds' of life.



You could very well be right. I hope you enjoyed the conversation as much as I did though.

I'm having a great morning.

Are you suggesting that it is natural for humans to provide carnivorous predators like lions with plant-based meat substitutes that do not exist in nature so that gazelles can wonder freely without establishing their own #meattoo hash tag?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

In our "natural" habitat, societies often can't afford to dedicate precious time and resources to those who cannot contribute to the upkeep of the community and will not likely live a long life anyway. It was very much mentally healthy to sacrifice one life for the good of the rest. The sanctity of all human life is a religious concept, not a "natural" one

Modern society is of course very different, but modern society is not "natural".

That's a generalization that doesn't fit the evidence. An example: Evidence supporting an intentional Neandertal burial at La Chapelle-aux-Saints

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, that's a primitive way. There are progressive groups of people currently searching for animal free products that taste like meat though. So one day, things could be different for us more advanced lifeforms in how we eat. Because we're the most consciously refined 'diamonds' of life.



You could very well be right. I hope you enjoyed the conversation as much as I did though.

I'm having a great morning.

Thank you. I have enjoyed it. I understand that you do not agree with the option of choosing abortion. I can accept that. It is the basis you are applying to come to the conclusion this is how it should be for all of us that I find most interesting.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Refining what, exactly?

If everyone became sufficiently unnatural to consistently behave in a moral way, driven mostly by unnatural agape and less by our natural instincts towards theft and violence, I'd consider that an improvement. A positive.

I don't expect it. I don't think humans are capable, as a group, of transcending natural behavior. And there is no Omnimax God who cares enough to help.

So
Tom

We are wondering further afield, but there is mounting evidence that altruism might be a natural consequence of our biology. Thus morality may have a natural origin resulting from the evolution of biologically-based behaviors.

 

[McBell]

So the gazelle that was taken down by the lion that is eating it while it is still alive is a positive end for the gazelle?

If you are the lion, it is natural (positive).
If you are the gazelle, it is not natural (negative).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you are the lion, it is natural (positive).
If you are the gazelle, it is not natural (negative).

And opposites attract. It is all so clear to me now. Well not so much, but I am naturally remaining positive.

 

[Augustus]

What about love? Are "precious time and resources" more important than love..?

That's a generalization that doesn't fit the evidence. An example: Evidence supporting an intentional Neandertal burial at La Chapelle-aux-Saints

What's that got to do with the fact that infanticide has been a common 'strategy' in countless societies though?

It's not that they were heartless, just that in pre-modern times resources were scarce and they couldn't be supported. So 'love' for the group required infanticide at times otherwise they'd all be at far greater risk of death.

Anthropologist Laila Williamson notes that "Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunter gatherers to high civilizations, including our own ancestors. Rather than being an exception, then, it has been the rule."[3]:61...

Many Neolithic groups routinely resorted to infanticide in order to control their numbers so that their lands could support them. Joseph Birdsell believed that infanticide rates in prehistoric times were between 15% and 50% of the total number of births,[7] while Laila Williamson estimated a lower rate ranging from 15% to 20%.[3]:66 Both anthropologists believed that these high rates of infanticide persisted until the development of agriculture during the Neolithic Revolution.[8]:19 Comparative anthropologists have calculated that 50% of female newborn babies were killed by their parents during the Paleolithic era.[9] From the infants hominid skulls (e.g. Taung child skull) that had been traumatized, has been proposed cannibalism by Raymond A. Dart.[10] The children were not necessarily actively killed, but neglect and intentional malnourishment may also have occurred, as proposed by Vicente Lull as an explanation for an apparent surplus of men and the below average height of women in prehistoric Menorca.[11]

Infanticide - Wikipedia

 

[McBell]

And opposites attract. It is all so clear to me now. Well not so much, but I am naturally remaining positive.

I am imagining the Gazelles are forming up committees to ban lions because what they do is not natural.
Of course, the lions are basically reply with "shut up or we will eat you {dramatic pause} first"

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am imagining the Gazelles are forming up committees to ban lions because what they do is not natural.
Of course, the lions are basically reply with "shut up or we will eat you {dramatic pause} first"

It would be natural for the lions to support the continuation of their unnatural acts, since do it, because they like it.

There is unrest in the forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas

The trouble with the maples
And they're quite convinced they're right
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade

Trees by Rush

 

[Cooky]

Refining what, exactly?

If everyone became sufficiently unnatural to consistently behave in a moral way, driven mostly by unnatural agape and less by our natural instincts towards theft and violence, I'd consider that an improvement. A positive.

I don't expect it. I don't think humans are capable, as a group, of transcending natural behavior. And there is no Omnimax God who cares enough to help.

So
Tom

Maybe we're still in the beginning times. And what you see as unnatural, actually is natural conscious evolution.

...A whole new phase of evolution.