Born This Way

[bèlla]

When the need to belong is great you'll believe anything and group think usually follows. From hobbies to religion. We identify with different things and embrace their principles. With constant agreement belief is formed.

~bella

 

[FireDragon76]

I think its all part of Postmodernist thinking where objective reality, nature and any truth is denied as a social construction and the only reality is self referential truths. I

Not true.

It just means people don't accept traditional explanations for morality. And why should they? Appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy.

 

[Strong in Him]

"We are born this way. Therefore, it cannot be wrong."
Have you heard that before? Does the logic follow?

Yes.
I suspect this question is about sexuality, rather than disabilities.
We do not choose even to be born; we don't choose our sexuality, our parents, siblings, how many chromosomes we have, what we look like or anything.
We are how we are. It's not wrong for someone to be disabled, ill or of a different sexuality to us.

 

[stevevw]

Not true.

It just means people don't accept traditional explanations for morality. And why should they? Appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy.

I think its more than not just appealing to tradition. Theres a replacement belief for tradition which is just if not more a fallacy than tradition. Tradition often aligns with reality. For example thaat there are biological facts in the world like male and female. Whereas the Postmodernist belief is that there is no male and female or biological reality.

But the appeal to non biological reality is based on feelings, social constructions which are based on the subjective. There is no way to prove this apart from the feeling of being non gender conforming.

Tradition has also been lived out in reality when see see things like how males are dominant in sports for example. It is also a reality in that we tested traditional principles like Freedom of speech, Individual worth in norms, laws and Declarations of nations such as Human Rights and being made in Gods image where we have natural inalienable Rights by birth.

We lived through the horrors of how humans treat each other and the truth principles we derived from this history of experience stand regardless of subjective opinions because they have proven their worth in real life time and time again as well as how societies become unstable and chaotic when these truths are not applied.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think its more than not just appealing to tradition. Theres a replacement belief for tradition which is just if not more a fallacy than tradition. Tradition often aligns with reality.

That's debatable, considering that what is often traditional is culturally relative.

But the appeal to non biological reality is based on feelings, social constructions which are based on the subjective. There is no way to prove this apart from the feeling of being non gender conforming.

That's a meaningless distinction, considering tradition often plays to feelings as well.

Tradition has also been lived out in reality when see see things like how males are dominant in sports for example.

The real question is why men are dominant in sports. Alot of it has nothing to do with potential prowess, and everything to do with culturally relative assumptions about the proper place of women.

It is also a reality in that we tested traditional principles like Freedom of speech, Individual worth in norms, laws and Declarations of nations such as Human Rights and being made in Gods image where we have natural inalienable Rights by birth.

Principles that aren't even that old. If you're going to appeal to science, lets look at the broad span of human existence. Western social organization and norms are just one of many, and not necessarily even the most successful in terms of how long it has endured, or how many people it has influenced.

We lived through the horrors of how humans treat each other and the truth principles we derived from this history of experience stand regardless of subjective opinions because they have proven their worth in real life time and time again as well as how societies become unstable and chaotic when these truths are not applied.

Now you are making a pragmatic argument. That doesn't fit with the rest of your assertions. I also am a pragmatist. That doesn't mean that I believe pragmatism leads to "objectivity", but it's a close approximation. Pragmatism also allows for different responses as equally valid.

 

[CoreyD]

Yes.
I suspect this question is about sexuality, rather than disabilities.
We do not choose even to be born; we don't choose our sexuality, our parents, siblings, how many chromosomes we have, what we look like or anything.
We are how we are. It's not wrong for someone to be disabled, ill or of a different sexuality to us.

Thanks. Is it wrong to correct what's not right?

 

[Strong in Him]

Thanks. Is it wrong to correct what's not right?

What do you mean by "not right"?
Someone who is born with Cerebral Palsy? With one leg? With cystic fibrosis or some other condition? If there is a cure and if the person wants it; I don't see that it's wrong. If a child is born with Down's Syndrome and the parents want it to have surgery so that they don't look as though they've got it, in a bid to make them "normal"; in my view, that's not advisable.

If you're talking about changing someone's sexuality because you, or someone else, judges it to be wrong, and radical surgery would make that person more acceptable in your eyes, or the eyes of Christians/the church; yes, that's wrong.

 

[CoreyD]

What do you mean by "not right"?
Someone who is born with Cerebral Palsy? With one leg? With cystic fibrosis or some other condition? If there is a cure and if the person wants it; I don't see that it's wrong. If a child is born with Down's Syndrome and the parents want it to have surgery so that they don't look as though they've got it, in a bid to make them "normal"; in my view, that's not advisable.

If you're talking about changing someone's sexuality because you, or someone else, judges it to be wrong, and radical surgery would make that person more acceptable in your eyes, or the eyes of Christians/the church; yes, that's wrong.

So, it is not wrong to correct what's not right. That's all I am saying. I am not referring to physical surgery.

 

[Strong in Him]

So, it is not wrong to correct what's not right. That's all I am saying. I am not referring to physical surgery.

How are you defining what wrong is? Wrong in whose eyes?
Morally wrong? A wrong choice? A choice that might turn out to be wrong? Something that's physically wrong; an organ in the wrong place?
The answer depends on what you're talking about, and what it is you're judging to be wrong.

 

[CoreyD]

How are you defining what wrong is? Wrong in whose eyes?
Morally wrong? A wrong choice? A choice that might turn out to be wrong? Something that's physically wrong; an organ in the wrong place?
The answer depends on what you're talking about, and what it is you're judging to be wrong.

Those are all interesting questions.
I invite you to look back at the OP.

***************************************************
"We are born this way. Therefore, it cannot be wrong."
Have you heard that before? Does the logic follow?

"We are born this way. Therefore, nothing is wrong with us. It's perfectly normal."

Normal
Anophthalmia
Müllerian agenesis

Hence, this must be wrong.
Treatments - Cosmetic surgery
Treatment - Lab-grown vagina
_

Does that logic follow?
***************************************************

Perhaps you saw the answers?
It might require some balanced thinking, but, since I don't know your thinking, I'd better explain.

Did you notice who claimed what normal or right is, and how they determined it?

"We are born this way. Therefore, it cannot be wrong."​

What follows, is that normal or right becomes what persons consider, in their own eyes to be right, or normal, based on (reasoning above).
Hence, I used an object lesson - Normal is, any condition that a person is born with (That was the claim).
Therefore, what is wrong, is anything that would seek to correct it.

Then, the question - Does that logic follow?

If you noticed, it wasn't me, who defined right, or wrong. It is the persons that believe that right, or normal, is how we are born.
As a reminder : "We are born this way. Therefore, it cannot be wrong."

The question - Does that logic follow?
Did you answer, though? I'm interested in your answer. What's your answer?
Also, how do you determine right and wrong?
My answer to that, is, the universal king - the true God, is the one to determine right and wrong.

 

[Strong in Him]

Those are all interesting questions.
I invite you to look back at the OP.

***************************************************
"We are born this way. Therefore, it cannot be wrong."
Have you heard that before? Does the logic follow?

"We are born this way. Therefore, nothing is wrong with us. It's perfectly normal."

Normal
Anophthalmia
Müllerian agenesis

If someone is born without a limb, with a disability, with an extra chromosome, that is how they are.
Life may be more difficult for them, they may get bullied by ignorant, mean or insecure people, and they may later wish to have surgery to try to rid themselves of their disability. But how can it be wrong?

It wasn't what God intended for anyone, but it is what it is.
There are many stories of disabled people who achieve great things - and not just Paralympians. There have been accounts of people who've said "this is me - I don't need to get another leg or get my sight back so as to be considered 'normal' by others."

Perhaps you saw the answers?
It might require some balanced thinking, but, since I don't know your thinking, I'd better explain.

Did you notice who claimed what normal or right is, and how they determined it?

"We are born this way. Therefore, it cannot be wrong."​

What follows, is that normal or right becomes what persons consider, in their own eyes to be right, or normal, based on (reasoning above).
Hence, I used an object lesson - Normal is, any condition that a person is born with (That was the claim).

Yes, it is normal for them; they know of nothing else.
The way we're born is the way we're born.
Would it be "wrong" or "abnormal" for a baby to be born with blue eyes in a brown eyed family? For a toddler to have red hair when the parents were blonde? Or for a mixed race couple to have twins; one black and one white? (It has happened.)

Some people do think that it's wrong to have a child with, say, Down's syndrome. Years ago, even the medical profession advised parents to "put them in a home and forget you had them." These days, there are people who subject their Down's child to surgery, to try to change their appearance and make them more acceptable, or "normal." THAT is wrong, in my view - though if the child chose that option as an adult, it would be up to them.

Then, the question - Does that logic follow?

If you noticed, it wasn't me, who defined right, or wrong. It is the persons that believe that right, or normal, is how we are born.
As a reminder : "We are born this way. Therefore, it cannot be wrong."

Of course it's not wrong.
It may be an inconvenience, make life difficult, or challenging, or be perceived as being wrong by parents who want "perfect" babies.
But if someone born without an eye, leg or anything else is labelled as "wrong", then were are making a judgement against them and discriminating because they do not meet the criteria of what we consider to be normal or acceptable.

The question - Does that logic follow?
Did you answer, though? I'm interested in your answer. What's your answer?

I answered in post #23.
We are how we are; it's not wrong to be born disabled.

If you're asking, "is it wrong to have plastic surgery to correct a condition we're born with; shouldn't we just accept how we are?"
My answer is that, in my view, it it wrong to inflict surgery onto a child just because the parents want it to be more "normal." Urgent and life-saving surgery is, obviously, different. A child can later choose cosmetic surgery for themselves, if they wish.

My answer to that, is, the universal king - the true God, is the one to determine right and wrong.

But God hasn't said that it is wrong to be born with a disability - nor that it is wrong to have surgery to try to correct it.

 

[Nithavela]

Those are all interesting questions.
I invite you to look back at the OP.

***************************************************
"We are born this way. Therefore, it cannot be wrong."
Have you heard that before? Does the logic follow?

"We are born this way. Therefore, nothing is wrong with us. It's perfectly normal."

Normal
Anophthalmia
Müllerian agenesis

Hence, this must be wrong.
Treatments - Cosmetic surgery
Treatment - Lab-grown vagina
_

Does that logic follow?
***************************************************

Perhaps you saw the answers?
It might require some balanced thinking, but, since I don't know your thinking, I'd better explain.

Did you notice who claimed what normal or right is, and how they determined it?

"We are born this way. Therefore, it cannot be wrong."​

What follows, is that normal or right becomes what persons consider, in their own eyes to be right, or normal, based on (reasoning above).
Hence, I used an object lesson - Normal is, any condition that a person is born with (That was the claim).
Therefore, what is wrong, is anything that would seek to correct it.

Then, the question - Does that logic follow?

If you noticed, it wasn't me, who defined right, or wrong. It is the persons that believe that right, or normal, is how we are born.
As a reminder : "We are born this way. Therefore, it cannot be wrong."

The question - Does that logic follow?
Did you answer, though? I'm interested in your answer. What's your answer?
Also, how do you determine right and wrong?
My answer to that, is, the universal king - the true God, is the one to determine right and wrong.

You have to excuse people thinking that this thread is chiefly about homosexuality. Most threads are.

 

[returntosender]

That brings up the question 'Were they born gay'? Did that take away their choice?

 

[Strong in Him]

That brings up the question 'Were they born gay'? Did that take away their choice?

Do we have a choice when it comes to sexuality?
I wasn't told I had to fancy boys - even though many at my all girl's school had boyfriends. I wasn't put into a room and told to choose.

 

[returntosender]

I believe most have a choice now. There are few that are like what we grew up with, some kind of an imbalance. They choose it now out.of rejection, popularity, persuasion, etc.

 

[Strong in Him]

I believe most have a choice now. There are few that are like what we grew up with, some kind of an imbalance. They choose it now out.of rejection, popularity, persuasion, etc.

Really?
I'm talking about sexuality, not gender.
Does anyone choose to fancy boys or girls; to have feelings for the same, or opposite, gender? Can someone who is happily married choose to go and sleep with a woman; or someone who is gay choose to passionately kiss someone of the opposite gender, and enjoy it?
If even adults can't do that, how likely is it that children will be able to?

 

[returntosender]

I believe most in the last few generations choose it. It's the in thing.

 

[Robban]

Do we have a choice when it comes to sexuality?
I wasn't told I had to fancy boys - even though many at my all girl's school had boyfriends. I wasn't put into a room and told to choose.

Thought you was a bloke, you had a pictureframe shop unless I mixed you up with someone else.

 

[Strong in Him]

Thought you was a bloke, you had a pictureframe shop unless I mixed you up with someone else.

Sorry, I'm female, and I've never owned a shop.
Worked in a couple, but they were bookshops.

 

[Robban]

Sorry, I'm female, and I've never owned a shop.
Worked in a couple, but they were bookshops.

My mistake, thanks for your reply.