Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

Jump to new
Yes, just beautiful, Calliope, thanks for sharing :)

I have been enjoying these old photos in the Herald Sun.
 
Tink said:
Herzy, by bad, I meant the child abuse.

I agree with what the Church stands for -- for the common good in society, family and life.

I have already been through this.
Click to expand...

The cognitive dissonance and refusal to engage on a rational level is astounding (and a shame). But perhaps it's a necessary trait to being religious...?
 
herzy said:
Surely if the bad outweighs the good, then that's a problem? That's why it's important to objectively determine:
- if there was good that is attributable to religion
- if that good outweighed the bad.
Click to expand...

Are we talking about good and bad for society, the world or for the individual ?

Obviously for individuals who remain in the church, the good outweighs the bad, otherwise they wouldn't be there.

For society, the question is irrelevant. Unless we legislate religion out of existence, society can't get rid of it. Individuals have to decide that it's not for them or it is.
 
SirRumpole said:
Are we talking about good and bad for society, the world or for the individual ?

Obviously for individuals who remain in the church, the good outweighs the bad, otherwise they wouldn't be there.

For society, the question is irrelevant. Unless we legislate religion out of existence, society can't get rid of it. Individuals have to decide that it's not for them or it is.
Click to expand...

It's not entirely true that for individuals the good outweighs the bad otherwise they wouldn't be there. Some have grown up believing it, and so are trapped in that sense, being terrified of living a life of sin and hell. Unfortunately, it's only a simple 'choice' if you're already of the view that there is no god. If you believe in the particular religion, it's not really a 'decision' as such. But let's leave that.

For society, it's relevant because Tink was claiming that religion has benefitted society (being Australian and Western society) greatly. I wanted to explore that a little bit.

Society can (and is) slowly getting rid of religion - largely due to discussions like these. People being brave enough to question ideas and belief systems they've held since children and never re-evaluated.
 
herzy said:
It's not entirely true that for individuals the good outweighs the bad otherwise they wouldn't be there. Some have grown up believing it, and so are trapped in that sense, being terrified of living a life of sin and hell.
Click to expand...

Yes, true there is a lot of family pressure on children to "toe the line", and once baptised the expectation is that the child has a duty to remain in the church for life. This obviously denies them freedom of choice, and if imposed against their will is an immoral thing to do.

Maybe others like the sense of belonging and security that having ones friends and family in a particular group brings.

It would be hard to determine what the majority view of churchgoers is as to why they practise religion, but I would hazard a guess that a lot probably see churchgoing as a harmless social event done to please family members and if they don't believe in the doctrines, they don't let on for the sake of family harmony.
 
Herzy, I have had numerous discussions in here before.

If I say what I think, then I get accused of putting down atheists etc, so I would rather not.

I think Christians are speaking up more though, and that is one thing I have noticed a lot more of in society.

Religion was a topic rarely mentioned, but it has been interesting watching.

As I have said, a few have left this forum.
 
SirRumpole said:
Yes, true there is a lot of family pressure on children to "toe the line", and once baptised the expectation is that the child has a duty to remain in the church for life. This obviously denies them freedom of choice, and if imposed against their will is an immoral thing to do.

Maybe others like the sense of belonging and security that having ones friends and family in a particular group brings.

It would be hard to determine what the majority view of churchgoers is as to why they practise religion, but I would hazard a guess that a lot probably see churchgoing as a harmless social event done to please family members and if they don't believe in the doctrines, they don't let on for the sake of family harmony.
Click to expand...

Yes I think you're right.

Especially for the white, straight males (that haven't been molested). I think among homosexuals and women you'll find higher numbers of dissatisfaction.
 
If you are concerned about the rights of others, VC, then you would agree with this post -

Dr Lauren Burns talks about the rights of children to know their biological parents

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-1...-story/5661198

Sperm donor-conceived woman planning next step in six-year fight to secure identification rights and learn identity of father

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-1...ildren/5661090

that I posted in this thread - Children, the big losers

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17282&page=2
 
Tink said:
If you are concerned about the rights of others, VC, then you would agree with this post -

Dr Lauren Burns talks about the rights of children to know their biological parents

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-1...-story/5661198

Sperm donor-conceived woman planning next step in six-year fight to secure identification rights and learn identity of father

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-1...ildren/5661090

that I posted in this thread - Children, the big losers

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17282&page=2
Click to expand...

I am not sure Tink, I haven't done a lot of thinking on the topic.

But their would be two sides rights to think about, both the sperm/egg donor and the person that was created in the process have rights.

When a person donates either sperm or an egg to a couple who can't conceive by themselves, that person has rights also. I have no problem with the two parties meeting if thats what both sides want, But if it came down to forcing a donor to meet some one, I am not sure whether that would work, How productive is it going to be to force someone to meet someone.

Also, when people say "Children, the big losers", I don't like that heading, because it causes an emotional response because people immediately think of small children, when we are actually talking about adults, and I can't see how they are "Big losers", because this process has provided them their only ever chance at life, without it they would have remained as one of the Trillions of Trillions of unborn people who never got a chance to live because the certain sperm never met the certain egg it would take to make them.

They are actually big winners, If their donor hadn't had the right to keep his/hers identity secret, he may never have made the donation, and hence that person never have existed.
 
Value Collector said:
and I can't see how they are "Big losers", because this process has provided them their only ever chance at life, without it they would have remained as one of the Trillions of Trillions of unborn people who never got a chance to live because the certain sperm never met the certain egg it would take to make them.
Click to expand...

What you don't know can't hurt you. Are you saying we should feel sorry for billions of "unborn" persons ? If that is the case , then contraception should be a crime. No harm ever came to them because they never existed. I think it's much better to concentrate on quality of life, not quantity.

Knowing that a biological parent has rejected you and never wants to see you must be a worse fate than never existing at all.

Trying to ensure that those that are born have loving biological parents is more important than encouraging more people to be born just because some parents are trying to fulfill their own perceived needs for offspring by any means possible even if it means a detriment to the children.
 
Value Collector said:
without it they would have remained as one of the Trillions of Trillions of unborn people who never got a chance to live because the certain sperm never met the certain egg it would take to make them.
Click to expand...

Every sperm is sacred.:D

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SirRumpole said:
What you don't know can't hurt you. Are you saying we should feel sorry for billions of "unborn" persons ? If that is the case , then contraception should be a crime..
Click to expand...

Not feel sorry for the unborn, You should feel lucky that you won the lottery and were conceived and born.

I am not talking about contraception, just the trillions of other people that would have resulted from different combinations of your mothers eggs and your fathers sperm, you literally have trillions of possible unborn brothers and sisters. The night you were conceived there would have been thousands different sperm that could have fertilised the egg, and even the egg that was there was random.

No harm ever came to them because they never existed. I think it's much better to concentrate on quality of life, not quantity.
Click to expand...

Offcourse, But the ones that do exist, especially those born into comfortable lives, should feel lucky, however it was we made our way here.

Knowing that a biological parent has rejected you and never wants to see you must be a worse fate than never existing at all
Click to expand...
.

I wouldn't say that, there is plenty more reasons to live than the acceptance of people you never met. I think it comes down to how the story is explained to them.

Trying to ensure that those that are born have loving biological parents is more important than encouraging more people to be born just because some parents are trying to fulfill their own perceived needs for offspring by any means possible even if it means a detriment to the children
Click to expand...

This Altered sentence makes more sense to me. "Trying to ensure that those that are born have loving parents is the most important thing, where the DNA comes from is less important"

How can you ensure biological parents are loving?

Normally either the mother or the father is still a biological parent anyway, they just have a sperm or egg donor but one side is still a biological parent normally,
 
Value Collector said:
How can you ensure biological parents are loving?
Click to expand...

It's a lot more likely if children are born into family whose biological parents are together in a good relationship than if a father gave a bit of sperm for money and has no interest in what results from it.
 
SirRumpole said:
It's a lot more likely if children are born into family whose biological parents are together in a good relationship than if a father gave a bit of sperm for money and has no interest in what results from it.
Click to expand...

Not all biological parents are in good relationships,

Not all people who are in good loving relationships, who would make great parents can have children naturally. I don't see a problem, with couples using donated sperm/egg to have a child.

then contraception should be a crime
Click to expand...

If you think contraception is immoral, then abstaining from sex is also, either way your preventing viable sperm meeting viable eggs,

Society doesn't have the right force women to be pregnant, even if it does mean some one misses out on their chance of existing, because a potential child's rights doesn't over rule a living woman's right to not be pregnant. Women have the right to choose whether they get pregnant of not.

And consenting to sex is not consenting to be pregnant, and consenting to get pregnant is not the same as consenting to stay pregnant.
 
Value Collector said:
Not all biological parents are in good relationships,

Not all people who are in good loving relationships, who would make great parents can have children naturally. I don't see a problem, with couples using donated sperm/egg to have a child.
Click to expand...

The problem is that a lot of IVF children spend years trying to to find a biological parent, so the need to do is very strong. I don't see a reason to put them through that trauma and deny them the knowledge that you and I take for granted. If they don't have that right then they have less rights than you or I and that is unacceptable.

If sperm donor's identities are by law available to to their children, that should be a minimum requirement. If it turns people off donating sperm, too bad.
 
SirRumpole said:
The problem is that a lot of IVF children spend years trying to to find a biological parent, so the need to do is very strong. I don't see a reason to put them through that trauma and deny them the knowledge that you and I take for granted. If they don't have that right then they have less rights than you or I and that is unacceptable.

If sperm donor's identities are by law available to to their children, that should be a minimum requirement. If it turns people off donating sperm, too bad.
Click to expand...

As long as donors knew from the start that their details would be handed out, I can't see a problem, Also there should be a limit to the contact details given out, maybe just a first name and a phone number, and a report on some familymedical history and of course the donor has the right to reject a request to met etc.

You can't force people to sit down and have a coffee with you, or be your friend on facebook etc.
 
Top