The difference is that the union member can't be fired for his malfeasance (in at least some cases, see public sector unions) without causing more pain for those doing the firing than he himself will ever feel. The non-union member will (more often) have to face the consequences of his actions. That's the real reason people don't like unions - people should have to face their own consequences. Also, incidentally the reason that people don't like corporations - with corporations, people sometimes have to feel consequences they actually don't deserve - opposite problem, still a problem ...

At least you're being reasonable about the whole thing - I think it is a pretty strong moral negative, although perhaps not strong enough to be legislated against (as that legislation itself produces negative effects). To me, the fetus is for all intents and purposes a human, and to want to eliminate it for aesthetic or selfish purposes says something about you (I hate to judge, but really). Especially when (most of the time) you could have prevented it in the first place.

However, to ban abortion is not to eliminate it, and legislating morality doesn't really work (see the prohibition in the USA), so ... we're left trying to educate people to make the right choice and support them if they've made the wrong one, even though the wrong one ended up in the death of, at some level, a human. So I could live with your boundaries - education for free, make people face their own choices head-on, and hopefully more often than not (certainly more often than today) they'd make the right choice!

Same to you - great to see that an interesting (dare I say rational) conversation can be had with someone who holds a very different viewpoint than mine - unfortunately it doesn't happen too often! The contrast between Old and New Testament is indeed fascinating - they aren't inconsistent, yet they are different. Not sure if modern man could construct something half as interesting - so far, in all the fiction I've read, I haven't found anything close (which makes me lean towards some form of divine inspiration, although I'm sure you draw a different conclusion :).

I think we have a pro-lifer in the makings!!! Lol ;)

Banning, no, but a 24-hour wait period or an ultrasound is hardly banning, really not risky at all, and not a long enough period of time to make a significant difference in the status of the fetus (assuming the mother was able to figure out she had an "unwanted" pregnancy in the time period of a few months). So is that positive or negative? It really should be a choice, but I think as a society, we've assumed that "choice" means easy, and this is one choice that should be anything but (in a moral way, not a financial/etc way).

I also found your repeated references to the poorer women needing more access to abortion instructive ... why would a poorer woman want an abortion sooner than a richer woman? Obviously there's more at play than just "I don't want this baby right now". Rather than focusing so much energy on making abortion easier to obtain, can't we focus some of that on making keeping the child easier to do?

Most biblical heroes are :). They tend to be very very human (as you I can see you know from the rest of this post). However, getting it right does make one somewhat heroic ... if he was wrong, he would have been a monster. Apparently he had the faith and the discernment to be right, which is why he's held up (even in the New Testament) as a hero of the faith. We should all struggle to be as right as him. And be very careful not to be as wrong as he could have been ...

I prefer to think of it as a "definition of good" kind of thing - we define it as a lack of suffering and struggling, but I don't think that's accurate (as we also define change and reward as "good"). I always love the fact that the "tree" in the garden was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - ie, before we knew "good" (or "evil"), we were perfect ...

I don't spend a lot of time thinking about heaven, and the Bible is quite explicit that we can't understand it. There is a heaven, but it very much doesn't describe the details (other than to say that you in heaven compared to you now, is kind of like looking at a big tree and comparing it to a seed - ie, the same, yet very much not). This life itself is much more rewarding with God than without, and that's more than enough for me - maybe I'm just weak in that I need to give it some meaning ... but I think that's a very human failing (and I believe rather intensely that there really is that meaning - but I do recognize that there is some faith required).

Very interesting. When religion is only bought into as a pass to the afterlife, then I hesitate to call that religion real. That God may choose to accept me into His presence after this life can be a comfort at times, but this life would be awfully long if that was the only reason I had for doing what I do (as Martin Luther once said, even if I knew God was coming back tomorrow, I'd still plant a tree today ...).

And what about abortions that happen past the point when the fetus actually is viable outside of its mother? There are more of those than there are the "rape case".

Not a crime, but surely we can work towards a point where we reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. And one portion of that should be turning unwanted ones into wanted ones (ie, give the mother the support she's lacking, or at least give her time to decide and make the honest decision to kill her child rather than to "get rid of a few cells"). Also, lots of parents occasionally do not "want" their children. Or children their parents. Should we sanction killing them?

Valid point. I'm not entirely in favour of the death penalty ... for fetuses or rapists.

Again, the idea is to reduce abortions. I really don't believe that every aborted fetus would have been a burden on society, and I really don't believe that every abortive mother would have chosen to have an abortion if there were other/better options, or if abortion wasn't as easy to obtain as the Sunday paper. Even other elective surgery (what this is) is generally more of a pain ...

Jonathon Swift had some ideas about this - based on the hunger of the surrounding population perhaps?

(sigh). Let's go over this once more. Using condescending language and fitting a story into your stereotype by putting it into your own words means it can mean *gasp* whatever I want it to!! Some points to ponder: At the time of Abraham, Mosaic law had not yet been given (those whole 10 commandments ... Abraham didn't have 'em). Also, the word is "murder", not "kill". Also, Abraham did not actually have to kill his son. Point in time, yes, he intended to. God exists outside of time. Conflicting instructions? Love God, love your neighbour. Those don't conflict. For Abraham, it was "obey God". Again, no conflict. How do you define rational? Mathematically consistent? Logically consistent?

Maybe the evil alien never should have created beings that were even capable of suffering? Or struggling? But what would life be without that - I think it would eliminate growth, change ... reward ... I'm not sure I can conceive of that kind of life and still be a person. I also would resist sacrificing my son (would pull a Jonah and head the other way probably). I can't speak for Abraham (the Bible is fascinating in what it omits as much as in what it includes), however I'm quite sure he had a different perspective on death than you or I - one where it was inevitable and controlled by God, whenever or however it happened. We tend to think of death (if we think of it), as something to put off for as long as possible ...

Someone born without sight (and I include myself in this metaphor) won't notice a thing ...

And, by means beyond my understanding, gave us consciousness. Whatever that is. It apparently implies some responsibility ...

Agreed, you might as well say, "this apple is an apple" - it's a circular definition. Just like "God is good." According to Plato, there was a "perfect" dog somewhere, that all dogs derive their "dog-ness" from. According to Christianity, God is the absolute source of good. With moral relativity, well, everything's relative, so there's no point to even really discussing this all, just do your best and be content (it's moral for you to take my stuff if you can get away with it, just as it's moral for me to work to make it so you can't get away with it).

I actually agree with you on this one. It takes faith ... just as it takes faith (or it would, for me) to believe that the universe is an effect without a cause (or that the Big Bang is an effect without a cause, or that we're just bits of cosmic matter that happened to come together in an interesting and self-aware way), and that's all I can say about that when discussing with someone who doesn't share my beliefs (well, I could point to other circumstantial evidence which was instrumental in my own journey, but I'll spare you this time :D).

The first lesson ... did you have to be taught that? Neither did Abraham. The second lesson - "blindly" is a pejorative term. Abraham wasn't blindly loyal, he was completely loyal. He knew and had already interacted with God in other ways, so he knew it was God (how, I don't know, I'm not Abraham ... I probably would have doubted), trusted in him, and so he was completely loyal, and believed that God would make it right. The kind of loyalty you could only give someone if you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were all-powerful, all-seeing, and totally there for you (and all mankind) 100%. The kind of loyalty you can never give to another person, and that I can't even claim to be able to give to God ...

One other interesting thing about the whole story, is how Isaac never seems to hold all of this against Abraham, or against God. If anyone should get offended that his father was willing to kill his own child ...

PS. Before you freak out about how this can lead to us "religious fanatics" doing anything with a mistaken belief that it will all be alright in the end, note that the Bible does warn us to "test the spirits" as well - ie, to examine yourself and everything you do and make sure that it doesn't fall foul of "love your neighbour").

Nice - can I assume you also subscribe to the enlightened self-interest defining your morality? I'm pretty sure you'd find someone else to piss you off even if me and all my stupid Christian friends were put in the gas chambers ...

Ah, but Abraham is told that his child will suffer horribly - to live in disobedience to God (without a relationship with God) is to suffer horribly. And it isn't "I make him suffer horribly", it's "he will suffer horribly." Again, see my first point. "We" did not already agree that the deity was evil - first we would have to agree on what evil is (and how you can even assert that it exists in an impartial mathematical universe) ... Might makes right doesn't apply when speaking about God - we have no metaphor for an omnipotent being who exists outside of (and yet also inside of) our universe.

That's a valid point - that God isn't evil, because he knows the outcome. The limits that are there for the demands of God, are those which God has put in place. If someone today hears a voice telling him to murder his son, he can know that it isn't God - we very clearly have the Bible telling us that this is not God's will. Abraham interacted with God differently, and was able to know that it was God's will to take his son to the altar.

It's interesting that you base morality on enlightened self-interest, but then you make this statement. I actually think that self-sacrifice can be very moral, but I agree that murder is immoral ... however, that's the opposite of self-interest, that's based on an absolute morality (based on obedience) that has absolutely nothing to do with self-interest. I can only imagine how relieved Abraham was to find out that the God he worshiped was indeed a merciful and kind God, and did not require that kind of thing at all ...

And in the 19 centuries before that, it was various other religions. And in the last century, it was probably communism, followed by ... Naziism? The point being, humans are humans, whether religious or not. Your real assertion:

is not backed up at all. It may have stunted development. And maybe, if it wasn't there, another religion would have stopped it altogether. And maybe it actually enhanced development (you'll come up with many arguments such as the crusades, Galileo, popes, witch burnings, I'll come up with counter-arguments such as the abolition of slavery, the spreading of reading due to the Bible, many individual acts of courageous sacrifice, religiously motivated opposition to the Nazis and care for the sick and poor ...), in the end I don't think it can be proven.

In the end, you assume there is no God, and therefore a belief in him is irrational and holds a person back. I assume (have faith) there is a God, and therefore a belief in him is rational and enhances a person's life.