Abortion

[grumpy_otter]

The topic had come up in the culture thread, and I thought I'd bring my reply to another thread so as not to hijack the other:

I hesitate to go farther into this because it is off-topic, but I do want to address this.

On the first point, I doubt that we will agree. We seem to have different assumptions about what constitutes life, so that particular point will remain a stalemate.


I think it is right on topic, because it has to do with morality and the "decline" or not, of values. But I moved it anyway.

And I respect your right to disagree about when life begins.

On the second point, calling it a mark of an oppressive society is an opinion.

Unfortunately, no. Historically, one of the easiest ways to tell if a society is oppressive is to see if they try to limit, in any way, women's reproductive choices.

Check out this list, for example:

http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/world02.htm

Most of the countries who ban abortion are oppressive to women, and most who allow it are not (China is on the list for a different reason--of course there will be exceptions)

Then look here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

These are the countries, in order, of the best places to be a human. (I've seen a list that ranks specifically based on women's rights but can't find it now--but it's pretty similar, although I seem to recall Iceland was number 1 on that list)

But bottom line--generally countries that ban abortion are not nice places to live.

[Nekowolf]

I'll make it short:

The fetus is a parasite. This is a fact; it requires sustenance from a host in order to survive. That is what a parasite is.

"Oh it's murder!" Yeah, and I guess a woman is a murderer if she aborts it naturally, too, I guess, eh? Just be thankful it's a hell lot safer now than it used to be. And I really love the ones who say abortions should -never- be done, even if the mother's life is at risk. Why? You're indirectly causing someone to die! Think about that, you are letting someone die. Sounds a lot like...murder?

Look, I see fetus more as a thing than a person. It hasn't had any experiences, it isn't self-aware, it's not even fully developed usually.

I could say more in regards to certain political ideals and laws *coughOklahomacough*

[grumpy_otter]

I'll make it short:

The fetus is a parasite. This is a fact; it requires sustenance from a host in order to survive. That is what a parasite is.

That is pretty much my exact definition--it is my feeling that abortion should be legal until such time as the fetus can live independently without massive life support. (Very late term abortions tend to be dangerous for the mother, so i don't support that)

I could say more in regards to certain political ideals and laws *coughOklahomacough*

What about Oklahoma?

[Nekowolf]

There was two bills that went through the Oklahoma Senate, which is Republican-held. The Democrat Governor vetoed, saying they were unconstitutional, and the Oklahoma Senate overturned the vetos.

"Under the ultrasound legislation, doctors would have been required to use a vaginal probe in cases where it would provide a clearer picture of the fetus than a regular ultrasound. Doctors have said this is usually the case early in pregnancies, when most abortions are done."

"The new law also calls for a vaginal transducer ultrasound to be used in early-term abortions."

"The second abortion bill that the governor vetoed Friday was one that would have prohibited pregnant women from seeking damages if physicians withhold important information or provide inaccurate information about their pregnancy. Supporters of that measure said it was an attempt to keep pregnant women from discriminating against fetuses with disabilities."

"In Oklahoma, the monitor must be put in front of the woman. While she can still avert her eyes, she must listen to a description of what the doctor sees, then sign a declaration she received the information before obtaining an abortion. If a doctor performs an abortion knowing the woman did not hear the information, he could be charged with a felony offense and lose his license."

Oklahoma House Bill 2780 (http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/griffin/NEWS9/PDF/1004/HB2780.pdf)

Oklahoma House Bill 2656 (http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/griffin/NEWS9/PDF/1004/HB2656.pdf)

[el_flel]

^^ That is exactly how I feel about it too, and I believe is also the stance taken in legal cases. If a foetus cannot survive independently of the mother then it is not a 'life'.

People cannot say that abortion is murder, simply because murder is illegal and abortion is legal:
Murder - The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

It is also unrealistic to think that abortion would be unnecessary if everyone took precautions, because precautions fail. Out of the three women I know who have had abortions, they fell pregnant because of failed contraception (and yes, they were using it correctly).

If a woman doesn't want children and she finds herself pregnant then she should be allowed to choose whether she wishes to continue with that pregnancy. Accidents happen and it is preposterous to expect a woman to have to bring up a child that she does not want, and is cruel to force that life on the child.

There are so many misconceptions about abortion, so many negative opinions on it are due to such misconceptions.

[ivan17]

How can fetus be a parasite, if you are guilty that he is in belly.
If for you fetus is just a thing, is then a tree thing for you or any other plant?
(things are dead, fetus has a heart)

[Oaktree]

From the last thread:

I don't understand what you mean. Of course you can choose to murder! How is any action (whether you deem it moral or immoral) not a choice? Every action we take is a choice... isn't it?

This view is partially based in personal...psychology, I suppose, and partially based in Kant's ethical theory. I suppose I should explain that, after all.

Kant's underlying concepts are non-contradiction and universality. He points out that rationality is what gives us the power of choice, so we must logically preserve rationality in order to be able to make choices. Anything that destroys rationality is contradictory because that choice would not be possible if it weren't for rationality. This includes destroying the rationality of other beings because, if this were morally allowable, everyone would be allowed to destroy the rationality of others, and rational beings would have ceased to exist long before you would have been able to make the "choice" to destroy another's rationality. Therefore, the only rational choices you may make are those that preserve rationality or are not involved in rationality. Anything that you do that destroys rationality is irrational, and therefore not actually a choice, but something your baser nature drives you to do.

I don't follow this philosophy to a T for several reasons, but it is something that when I started taking philosophy, I found matches my own philosophy pretty well.

As to the matter of choice: I think my definition of choice is somewhat different from yours, and that is where the confusion comes from. One can, in a weaker sense, "choose" to do anything. What I basically mean when I say that murder is not a choice is that it is an action that is restricted by universal moral law, meaning it is not something a free person can choose. There is no freedom to defy universal law, meaning that murdering someone is not within the set of actions allowed to a moral being, but it also isn't a restriction on freedom because a moral being simply wouldn't choose to do so. This is rather difficult stuff to express; I hope I have explained it so you understand what I mean.


I have to disagree. Contraceptives are not 100% effective. Only abstinence is. And we already know that teaching kids not to do it doesn't work! :lol:

Even in those few cases where contraceptives don't work, it is still the responsibility of the individuals involved. Pregnancy is caused by sex, a well-known fact about the nature of our biology. This means that when an individual has sex (at least of the sort that is able to cause pregnancy) they are aware of the potential consequences and it is their moral responsibility whatever comes of it. I'm not saying that people should be abstinent. For those who are able, that is best, but I understand that people have strong sex drives. What I am saying is that an adult should be prepared to deal with the consequences if the contraceptives fail. Abortion, like murder, is not a free choice because it encroaches on the rights of a developing human being, that you were perfectly aware could be caused by your actions. If you are aware of the potential effects of your actions, you should always be prepared to take responsibility for them.

From this thread:


Unfortunately, no. Historically, one of the easiest ways to tell if a society is oppressive is to see if they try to limit, in any way, women's reproductive choices.

Check out this list, for example:

http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/world02.htm

Most of the countries who ban abortion are oppressive to women, and most who allow it are not (China is on the list for a different reason--of course there will be exceptions)

Then look here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

These are the countries, in order, of the best places to be a human. (I've seen a list that ranks specifically based on women's rights but can't find it now--but it's pretty similar, although I seem to recall Iceland was number 1 on that list)

But bottom line--generally countries that ban abortion are not nice places to live.

No society is ever fully wrong about everything or fully right about everything. During the period of British colonialism, the best places to live were part of the British empire. This doesn't mean that they were right about everything; in many ways they were very oppressive. If you use the best places to live now as your standard for moral correctness, you are ignoring the complexity of society in favor of judging one particular trait. It may be that they are wrong on this particular trait, as no country is perfect. There are so many other factors that play into an advanced society that you can't always know which traits caused that society to be advanced. Some are obvious, such as medical technology. Others, not so obvious, like gay rights and abortion. Gays have few rights in the US, a trait that I would see as oppressive, yet it is on the list of most developed countries. I don't think that means it is an accurate barometer of what is morally correct.

I'll make it short:

The fetus is a parasite. This is a fact; it requires sustenance from a host in order to survive. That is what a parasite is.

"Oh it's murder!" Yeah, and I guess a woman is a murderer if she aborts it naturally, too, I guess, eh? Just be thankful it's a hell lot safer now than it used to be. And I really love the ones who say abortions should -never- be done, even if the mother's life is at risk. Why? You're indirectly causing someone to die! Think about that, you are letting someone die. Sounds a lot like...murder?


A parasite is still a life form, and it just so happens that the earliest stage of human life is parasitic. That doesn't make it's value any less.

It isn't murder if a woman's body naturally aborts the fetus because it wasn't something she consciously did. It is an act of nature, so it isn't in her hands.

I should clarify and say that there are some instances in which I think abortion is still wrong, but potentially the lesser of two evils. Rape, underage pregnancy, and, depending on the circumstances, when it would be harmful to the mother. Pregnancy due to rape is encroaching on the rights of the woman, so it becomes a matter of the woman or the fetus having their personal rights violated. I personally think that it is still better to keep the fetus because it is a matter of impacted rationality vs. destroyed rationality, but I acknowledge that this is a grey area. Underage girls may not have the knowledge about sex and pregnancy, and in many cases are unable to make a rational choice about sex. If the woman knew that getting pregnant would be harmful to her and chose to be incautious anyway, she is wrong if she chooses to have an abortion. If there was no indication that the pregnancy would be harmful, again it is the lesser of two evils.

If a foetus cannot survive independently of the mother then it is not a 'life'.

People cannot say that abortion is murder, simply because murder is illegal and abortion is legal:



It grows, has a metabolism, at some point in its life cycle will be capable of reproduction, it is composed of cells. How is it not a life? Any other parasite is still considered a life, simply a life that we don't want around. How is it that the early stages of human development are even less valued than a tapeworm?

When I say that abortion is murder, I am speaking from moral law and logic. Human law can be wrong.

[Nekowolf]

I wasn't intending that it be devalued.

Anyhow, I find the idea that if it's natural, it's not murder, to be nothing more than semantics. For example; let's say she was sick and refused to take medicine, which ended up killing the fetus. Some would argue, oh, now it's murder. But illness is natural. So it's not really murder now, then is it? Or if it's a child, or even an adult in some cases. See, semantics.

Abortion is closer to having a tape worm removed than having a child; because it's not even completely human usually (unless it's a late-term abortion), nor does it have any real experience or anything of the like.

Abortion is murder, yet we don't complain when we kill insects or rodents, when we hunt and fish. We call it "murder" because we assume a fetus is a "person." I do not define it as a person. Human, yes, but not a person, not until later.

[Oaktree]

Illness is something that's in her power to control, though. If she is able to get medicine and refuses, then part of the blame of the fetus's death is on her.

Insects do not seem to be sentient. Rodents, I would say we shouldn't kill, unless it is for food, because they seem to have some degree of sentience. Hunting and fishing (and raising livestock) for food are perfectly fine because it is an unavoidable imperative. If we can develop the technology to create compounds that provide all of our nutritional necessities without killing animals and this is available to all, then it will be immoral to kill animals. Life should be preserved wherever possible.

[iCad]

I will usually stay out of abortion debates because...because. :) But what the hell? Here's my deal.

1) I am completely philosophically pro-life and believe that life begins at conception. I, personally, would not have an abortion even if my life was in danger. (Which is quite a rare thing, you know. Most pregnancies that might endanger the woman's life are miscarried early. That's nature's way.) HOWEVER, I am not at all "politically" pro-life nor am I at all activist about it. I do not advocate making abortion illegal because all that will result from that is "do it yourself" abortions, which alarmingly often will end with the death or maiming of the woman as well as the death of the child, and what possible kind of purpose does that serve? (This is what I ask the more politically-motivated pro-lifers that I know. It will often shut them up when they get in my face about not being "activist enough.") So, I prefer to limit my activities, on the very rare occasions that I engage in them at all, to advocating alternatives to abortion, namely adoption. And I should also note that my philosophical pro-life stance actually has nothing to do with my being a Christian. I was practicing Buddhism when my mindset shifted in this direction.

2) I was violently gang-raped when I was 18. The circumstances are a long story and are not important. But I was a virgin, and not on birth control, and the timing was just right. Or wrong, as the case may be. So guess what happened to me? And here's the other kicker: I didn't abort, even though, at the time, I was very "politically" pro-choice. I decided to carry the baby to term and, while pregnant, I arranged to have the baby privately adopted. (For those who care: My son was adopted by a wonderful couple with a lot of money but for whom no fertility treatment had worked. He is a doctor now, works in Africa with AIDS patients. He contacted me when he was 16, and we've remained in close contact since. He got married this past summer, and I just got word a few days ago that his wife is pregnant, so I'm going to be a grandmother. Yipes!)

So, all that said...I don't know what else to say. :) This is not a subject I can really debate effectively because I'm too close to it. But I want to address a couple of things here.

1) Obviously, I have mixed feelings about thinking it "OK" to abort a baby conceived in rape. I decided not to, and I had and have no regrets about that decision at all, especially not now that I know the person that that rape-conceived child became. Sure, it was hard sometimes, the baby being a constant reminder of what had happened, but ultimately the baby gave the rape an odd kind of purpose. The rape was evil, but the baby turned out to be a blessing for the couple who adopted him, and I was the vessel for that blessing. Had I aborted, all I would have been left with was the evil that was done to me, with no "bright side." For me, personally, that would have been far more devastating than dealing with the hard emotional and physical times during the pregnancy. But I realize that my experiences would not be the same as another person's experience. People are individuals, and we don't all react to the same situation in the same way, obviously. So I would never say that every pregnant-via-rape woman should make the same decision that I made. But I don't believe that every rape-conceived baby should automatically and unthinkingly be aborted, either. Private adoption DOES work, if one doesn't want to/can't keep the child.

And I'll tell you one thing that happened that was...disconcerting. As I said, I was politically pro-choice at the time, in a loud and somewhat activist sort of way. So, too, was my circle of friends because, you know, birds of a feather flock together. When I decided to carry the baby to term, you would not BELIEVE the backlash I received from the politically pro-choice community of which I was a member at the time. They were outraged that I'd be OK with carrying to term a baby conceived in rape. The nicest thing that was said to me was that I was setting back "women's rights" because I chose (Meaning, I wasn't coerced) not to kill the child that I was carrying. So on the surface, these people were all about "choice" and compassion for women, but I discovered that this group, at least, was only about compassion for women who agreed with them and/or who made the "choice" that they advocated. If you didn't...look out. This, naturally, was the start of my disillusionment with abortion-as-political-issue and was also the start of my path toward being staunchly pro-life, though not politically, as I said.

2) Be careful with the claim that a baby is only a "life" when it can survive outside of the womb. That threshold is being constantly pushed back. My daughter was born 2.5 months prematurely and required medical intervention to survive, but survive she did. Should she not have received that intervention since she wasn't a "life" because she couldn't survive outside of the womb? How about full-term babies who are born needing medical intervention to survive, for there are a good number of them? If our definition of what life is is based on whether or not a baby can survive outside of the womb, then I daresay that there might even be people who are posting in this thread who weren't "alive" when they were born. Just food for thought.

[Nekowolf]

@Oaktree

But that's my point. We'll blame someone for refusing medicine, when illness is natural, not medicine. But as soon as they make a choice to abort, now its murder?

I find it hypocritical. You are saying in one case, natural is bad, but then saying in another case, natural is good. A fetus is under her control just as much as illness. In one point, you're saying control is good. But on another, control is bad, when essentially, both are about the core principle of "preserving life."

I find abortion has nothing to do about children at all. It's about choice and projection personal morals onto others. What if they don't want the kid? Well now they have an unwanted child, you can damn well bet that's going to leave a psychological scar, all because someone didn't like the thought about abortions. Or social issues; all against abortion, it's bad! But as soon as government assistance programs or something, now it's welfare and they're all against it because it's a government takeover! In spite of the fact it could help families.

I've always found the abortion issue to often be nothing more than a facade. Caring about the fetus, but as soon as it's born? Fuck it! Damn socialism! Where are we living, Soviet Russia!? Because they just don't want available choices they may agree with, just like gay marriage, even though it has no significance to themselves personally.

Oh, and I didn't mean to direct any of that at you personally. It was a generalization rather than anything personal. Apologies if I came off in any other way than that.

[fakepeeps7]

Even in those few cases where contraceptives don't work, it is still the responsibility of the individuals involved. Pregnancy is caused by sex, a well-known fact about the nature of our biology. This means that when an individual has sex (at least of the sort that is able to cause pregnancy) they are aware of the potential consequences and it is their moral responsibility whatever comes of it.

In cases of rape, it is not a matter of responsibility at all. I don't think a woman should be forced to carry a baby that was conceived in that way. It's not fair to either of them. (If she wants to carry the baby to term, that's fine. But if she doesn't, she should have the choice to terminate the pregnancy.)

A parasite is still a life form, and it just so happens that the earliest stage of human life is parasitic. That doesn't make it's value any less.

Then are we supposed to start fighting for tapeworm rights?

For someone who wants a baby, they're not going to view the fetus as a parasite (even though, technically, that's kind of what it is). Someone who doesn't want a baby, on the other hand, might have a different opinion. The value placed on the fetus is going to be different, depending on the woman who's carrying it. And I think that's her right to assign that value... not the government's. After all, she's the one who has to deal with the thing growing inside her... not her local congressman.

Be careful with the claim that a baby is only a "life" when it can survive outside of the womb. That threshold is being constantly pushed back.

Yes, it is. But I think we're going to hit a plateau at some point. If a fetus is born with organs so underdeveloped that they haven't even started to function yet, no amount of artificial respiration and incubators and feeding tubes is going to help it survive. There are some bare minimum requirements that need to be met for survival to take place... and I think we're starting to reach those. In any case, those requirements arrive on the scene a while after most abortions (the responsible ones, anyway) take place.

[jooxis]

when an individual has sex they are aware of the potential consequences and it is their moral responsibility whatever comes of it.

True. And an abortion is sometimes the most responsible option.

[Nekowolf]

Not to mention of the condom breaks, or contraception just happens to fail that one time. I mean, unexpected shit happens. Going to blame them for being irresponsible when they weren't even expecting the unexpected?

[iCad]

Yes, it is. But I think we're going to hit a plateau at some point. If a fetus is born with organs so underdeveloped that they haven't even started to function yet, no amount of artificial respiration and incubators and feeding tubes is going to help it survive. There are some bare minimum requirements that need to be met for survival to take place... and I think we're starting to reach those. In any case, those requirements arrive on the scene a while after most abortions (the responsible ones, anyway) take place.

Well, yes. That's the current line between a miscarriage and a premature birth. But it's currently a moving goalpost. Not so long ago, my daughter would have been considered a miscarriage.

I guess it just troubles me when people define the point that a baby is alive by whether or not it can survive outside of the womb. It's as if they think that at the moment of birth a baby is magically imbued with "personhood" (when a few weeks before it wasn't a "person" at all), and it's the "personhood" that earns one the right to be protected from being killed. Really, we have no real idea when a developing baby becomes a "person," which most people take to mean when it can "think." From the reading that I've done on the subject, that doesn't actually happen until well after birth. That's the trouble with the human necessity to give birth to babies who actually aren't fully developed yet, physically, due to the large size of their brains/heads and the relatively small size of the birth canal. We're sort of like marsupials that way.

Now, most people I know don't think it's right to kill a baby that's been born. And, you know, that's encouraging at least. :) But some of these same people will argue that abortion is perfectly OK because the unborn baby isn't a "person" yet. I just think we need to define what a "person" is before we make decisions about whether or not it's ethically all right to kill something that may or may not be one.

In the end, I choose to take the easy way out, so that I can avoid thinking about such things. To me, even a human zygote is a "person," if only because, if left to its own devices and barring any mishaps, it will most certainly become one at some point, even if that "some point" is two years down the road.

[fakepeeps7]

In the end, I choose to take the easy way out, so that I can avoid thinking about such things.

That's certainly your right. But some people don't shy away from thinking about the tough questions... even if the answers aren't always ideal.

To me, even a human zygote is a "person," if only because, if left to its own devices and barring any mishaps, it will most certainly become one at some point, even if that "some point" is two years down the road.

This is where we differ. I don't consider a human zygote a "person". It is a potential person, but that's not the same thing. Ten years from now, a scraping of skin cells combined with advances in cloning and DNA technology could be a potential person. Does that mean that exfoliation will have to become a capital offense? (And I disagree that "left to its own devices and barring any mishaps, it will most certainly become one at some point". 10-25% of women who know they're pregnant will miscarry. And it's estimated that up to 50% of miscarriages occur in women who didn't even know they were pregnant. That sounds like quite a bit of uncertainty for that zygote.)

[Nekowolf]

Absolutely incorrect.

Condoms can break, and contraception can fail. They are absolutely not sure-fire protections; they just make it considerably less likely.

[Weezy67]

I know that I never post and none of you know me but...one thing can fix all of this...USE A CONDOM AND TAKE A BIRTHCONTROL PILL! USE SOME SPERMICIDES INCASE THE CONDOM BREAKS! IF U DO THIS YOU WON'T NEED ABORTION! :wtf:

[HystericalParoxysm]

Not to stir the pot a little but... how about a situation where a woman was absolutely convinced they could not become pregnant?

I know someone close to me (no, it's not me) who was told by her doctor, after having her first child and having some other health complications, that she was completely infertile, unable to conceive a child again naturally. She went years without using birth control (as a married woman) without conceving a child. 16 years later, she got pregnant - with twins - which was supposed to be impossible.

Now, she didn't abort, but all the yelling about contraception, I would think, wouldn't apply in this case. So, assuming this semi-hypothetical situation, what would one have to say about terminating an unwanted pregnancy that the mother thought -completely impossible- because of what she'd been told by a medical professional, and had seemed to be true for 16 years? In this particular case, the pregnancy, especially twins, was potentially life threatening.

[iCad]

That's certainly your right. But some people don't shy away from thinking about the tough questions... even if the answers aren't always ideal.

Hmmm. Perhaps I should have used a smiley; I'm trying to cut down on them. The last part of what you quoted was meant to be more self-deprecating. I think it should be quite obvious from what I generally post in this forum that I don't mind thinking about tough questions. :)

It is, all jesting aside, a decision that I made. I tried drawing lines. As in, "anything on this side of the line is a person, anything on that side isn't." But it didn't work for me. When stuff like that doesn't work for me, back to basics I go. Accepting a zygote as a person because it will invariably become one if it isn't already one all by its self is pretty darn basic. I realize people don't agree. They're free to. That's the decision I made, and that's the decision that I go by in terms of whether or not I, personally, would ever have an abortion. The difference between me and your stereotypical pro-lifer, I guess, is that I don't think my beliefs on the subject should be mandated into law, nor do I tend to preach others on the subject. The issue, to me, is an intensely personal one and should remain so, especially by law. I don't count myself as "pro-choice," because the implication of that is that I think is abortion is "OK," and I don't think that at all. I just don't get in people's faces about it, is all.

This is where we differ. I don't consider a human zygote a "person". It is a potential person, but that's not the same thing. Ten years from now, a scraping of skin cells combined with advances in cloning and DNA technology could be a potential person. Does that mean that exfoliation will have to become a capital offense?

No, because a skin scraping isn't the same as a zygote, which will develop all on its own, without any technological intervention whatsoever. I don't think the two are comparable. The process of cloning isn't at all the same thing as reproduction the "old-fashioned way."

(And I disagree that "left to its own devices and barring any mishaps, it will most certainly become one at some point". 10-25% of women who know they're pregnant will miscarry. And it's estimated that up to 50% of miscarriages occur in women who didn't even know they were pregnant. That sounds like quite a bit of uncertainty for that zygote.)

Well, a miscarriage would most certainly fall under the umbrella of "mishap," don't you think? Some miscarriages are the result of a genetic "oops." Some are caused by physical problems with the mother. What I meant was that, in general, if there's no miscarriage and no other issues that impedes its natural development, a zygote will most certainly become a person at some point. Now, what/when that point is is debatable, of course. But unless and until we are able to figure out without doubt what that point is, I'm going to stick to the "bottom line."

[jooxis]

No, because a skin scraping isn't the same as a zygote, which will develop all on its own, without any technological intervention whatsoever. I don't think the two are comparable. The process of cloning isn't at all the same thing as reproduction the "old-fashioned way."

I just fail to see how there is any relevant difference between the two. They're both potential lives, but one requires technology and the other requires a natural process - so what? In the beginning neither are developed persons they just have potential. And in the end they would both be fully conscious humans so they'd both be the same in the end. So what does the process itself have to do with anything? There's no moral difference between applying a natural or artificial process to come to the same result.

What matters is whether it's a person right now or not. Not whether it can be, or whether it was, or could have been or who knows.

[jhd1189]

I will usually stay out of abortion debates because...because. :) But what the hell? Here's my deal.


This is usually how I feel about abortion debates, so I'm not 100% sure what's possessing me to respond here... Oh well.

I think, for the most part, that I feel the same way about abortion as iCad and Oaktree do. I have a very difficult time justifying abortion to myself. I am not at all comfortable with the idea that there are people who consider themselves qualified to determine at what point a human becomes a human, and it's something I would prefer not to tamper with. What if we're choosing the wrong cut-off line?

As far as the whole argument about the fetus not really being any different from a tapeworm... well, no matter how lovingly you take care of your tapeworm, it will never develop into a human being. And I understand that a baby does, in fact, start life as a parasite, but so what? It's a stage in the process of developing.

I also have a problem with the argument that says "Oh yeah? Well... someday we'll have advanced cloning technology and scraping off skin cells on the floor will be the same thing as aborting a baby!" No, it won't. Scraping skin cells into the FetusMaker-O-Tron 9000 (TM) and then proceeding to abort whatever comes out of that would be the same thing.

[iCad]

I just fail to see how there is any relevant difference between the two. They're both potential lives, but one requires technology and the other requires a natural process - so what? In the beginning neither are developed persons they just have potential. And in the end they would both be fully conscious humans so they'd both be the same in the end. So what does the process itself have to do with anything? There's no moral difference between applying a natural or artificial process to come to the same result.


Cloning and sexual reproduction are fundamentally different processes, even though they each create new lives. Still, to me, a developing offspring whether it was created through cloning or the "old-fashioned" way, should be protected as "persons" from the very start, either once the cloned cell is viable or once a zygote is formed in the old fashioned way. (Actually, the "wasted embryos" caused by certain fertility procedures tend to creep me out for this reason...but that's a different story.)

But the same doesn't apply to the "raw material" used, in either case. Sperm cells can't and don't produce life by themselves. Egg cells in humans can't and don't, either. (At least, I've never heard of a case of human parthenogenesis.) Neither can skin cells or any other kind of cell in the human body. So, although any non-gamete cell in the human body has the full complement of DNA required to create an entire copy of the human that they belong to, they won't do it all by themselves. They are "raw material," potentially, but they are not yet (or ever, if cloning is not attempted) viable. That's the difference. To me, at least.

[fakepeeps7]

Sperm cells can't and don't produce life by themselves.

Tell that to the Church! :lol:

What's the big deal about masturbation and "spilling your seed", then?

[iCad]

Tell that to the Church! :lol:

What's the big deal about masturbation and "spilling your seed", then?

I answered this here (http://www.modthesims.info/showthread.php?p=3153420#post3153420), since I don't think this thread needs to be dragged off into more "religious" discussion. But I still wanted to address it, so....yeah. :)

[grumpy_otter]

I'm amazed at the thoughtful and moving posts that have been made here--I mainly wanted to reply to Oaktree and just explain my position about making abortion illegal--but it has turned into a really thought-provoking discussion.

I think a lot of it comes down to how you value life. I don't, for example, think humans are more important than bees. I am, intellectually, more upset about the diminishing honey bee population than I am about thousands of people killed in an earthquake. Of course, as a feeling person, I have empathy for those people and their families, but on an ecological scale, it's not important.

And this is how i feel about abortion--I don't think human "life" in the abstract is special. I am sad when geniuses like George Carlin die, but I do not get upset by the abortion of pre-humans. Where that line is drawn is still something I am working on.

Oh and thanks for the info about Oklahoma, Nekowolf. How lovely! How progressive! Bastards.

[Oaktree]

@Oaktree

But that's my point. We'll blame someone for refusing medicine, when illness is natural, not medicine. But as soon as they make a choice to abort, now its murder?

I find it hypocritical. You are saying in one case, natural is bad, but then saying in another case, natural is good. A fetus is under her control just as much as illness. In one point, you're saying control is good. But on another, control is bad, when essentially, both are about the core principle of "preserving life."

You are misinterpreting what I say about "natural". I suppose I should have clarified more. What I mean is that it is something that is not under our control. If something is under your control and you allow something bad (or good; it goes both ways) to happen, you are morally responsible for it. If something is not under your control, but just so happens to affect you, it is not your responsibility. Normal miscarriage that is caused by any number of natural occurrences that are not under our control is not something the mother can be blamed for. Miscarriage due to preventable illness or physical trauma that the mother allowed herself to be exposed to is her responsibility.

I find abortion has nothing to do about children at all. It's about choice and projection personal morals onto others. What if they don't want the kid? Well now they have an unwanted child, you can damn well bet that's going to leave a psychological scar, all because someone didn't like the thought about abortions. Or social issues; all against abortion, it's bad! But as soon as government assistance programs or something, now it's welfare and they're all against it because it's a government takeover! In spite of the fact it could help families.

I don't see morals as a personal thing. I don't generally project my moral stances onto others unless they are planning to do something actively harmful to another, but I do think that morals are universal and unchanging. Unwanted children have healthy, happy lives all the time. A good number of my friends were accidents and they turned out just fine. There are children who make it through the adoption system and have good lives. You are generalizing an extreme case. When you say that it's better to abort the child than allow an unwanted child into the world, you are judging the worth of that person's life. How do you know that their life is worthless? How do you know that they won't end up happy? You aren't even allowing them a chance at life, when the good may very well outweigh the bad.

I've always found the abortion issue to often be nothing more than a facade. Caring about the fetus, but as soon as it's born? Fuck it! Damn socialism! Where are we living, Soviet Russia!? Because they just don't want available choices they may agree with, just like gay marriage, even though it has no significance to themselves personally.

Oh, and I didn't mean to direct any of that at you personally. It was a generalization rather than anything personal. Apologies if I came off in any other way than that.

Why is socialism necessary for a child to be happy? There is the option to put up a child for adoption if there is no other way to take care of it, but there are also independent charities out there that want to help people in need. I think that, if we didn't have government holding our hands and giving us social welfare, there would voluntarily be a lot of similar, but more efficient systems in place out of the charity of individuals. Americans in particular are among the most charitable people on the planet. I think our citizens would be happy to give the less fortunate among us a helping hand.

I don't take any of this personally. I know that it's a debate and there will be some clash of opinion. :)

In cases of rape, it is not a matter of responsibility at all. I don't think a woman should be forced to carry a baby that was conceived in that way. It's not fair to either of them. (If she wants to carry the baby to term, that's fine. But if she doesn't, she should have the choice to terminate the pregnancy.)

I pointed this out, though it was in the middle of a long post, so you may have missed it.

Then are we supposed to start fighting for tapeworm rights?

For someone who wants a baby, they're not going to view the fetus as a parasite (even though, technically, that's kind of what it is). Someone who doesn't want a baby, on the other hand, might have a different opinion. The value placed on the fetus is going to be different, depending on the woman who's carrying it. And I think that's her right to assign that value... not the government's. After all, she's the one who has to deal with the thing growing inside her... not her local congressman.

My point was to say that a fetus is a life based on the scientific definition of life. A fetus is still quite different from a tapeworm. A fetus has the future potential to develop into a sentient being; a tapeworm does not.

Not to mention of the condom breaks, or contraception just happens to fail that one time. I mean, unexpected shit happens. Going to blame them for being irresponsible when they weren't even expecting the unexpected?

This is the sort of thing sex ed is supposed to teach. You guys have been arguing that contraceptives are fallible. When someone has sex, they should know this and be prepared for the consequences if the contraceptive does fail.

I just fail to see how there is any relevant difference between the two. They're both potential lives, but one requires technology and the other requires a natural process - so what? In the beginning neither are developed persons they just have potential. And in the end they would both be fully conscious humans so they'd both be the same in the end. So what does the process itself have to do with anything? There's no moral difference between applying a natural or artificial process to come to the same result.

What matters is whether it's a person right now or not. Not whether it can be, or whether it was, or could have been or who knows.

I fully agree with iCad on this one. A zygote will spontaneously become a life, so long as there is no trauma to it, while a skin cell only has the distant potential to become a life.

I'm amazed at the thoughtful and moving posts that have been made here--I mainly wanted to reply to Oaktree and just explain my position about making abortion illegal--but it has turned into a really thought-provoking discussion.

I think a lot of it comes down to how you value life. I don't, for example, think humans are more important than bees. I am, intellectually, more upset about the diminishing honey bee population than I am about thousands of people killed in an earthquake. Of course, as a feeling person, I have empathy for those people and their families, but on an ecological scale, it's not important.

And this is how i feel about abortion--I don't think human "life" in the abstract is special. I am sad when geniuses like George Carlin die, but I do not get upset by the abortion of pre-humans. Where that line is drawn is still something I am working on.

You and others have made posts that I find very thought-provoking as well. I can't say that my stance has changed, but I appreciate being able to debate with intelligent people on the topic. :)

I can't say that I place honeybees in-themselves above humans. Admittedly, to me, intellect is an important property. As humans are the most intelligent animals, I tend to care more about them. This doesn't mean that I don't care about any other animals, though. Other animals do have differing degrees of intellect, and I can have empathy for them. I also think that life as a whole should be protected. They also are necessary for the survival of our species. As far as honeybees go, they are absolutely necessary to the survival of humans and other large mammals, so they are very definitely important. I can agree with being more upset with the diminishing honeybee population than a few thousand people dying by an earthquake because it is a matter of scale and impact. An earthquake kills a few thousand people, the disappearance of honeybees could wipe out our species.

On the last point is where we differ. I do think that human life is special; I think that all life is special. I can understand extinguishing a life to protect another or several others, but I mean this in the strictest sense. A life should not be extinguished as a matter of convenience; it should be a life-or-death decision.

[Nekowolf]

You are misinterpreting what I say about "natural". I suppose I should have clarified more. What I mean is that it is something that is not under our control. If something is under your control and you allow something bad (or good; it goes both ways) to happen, you are morally responsible for it. If something is not under your control, but just so happens to affect you, it is not your responsibility. Normal miscarriage that is caused by any number of natural occurrences that are not under our control is not something the mother can be blamed for. Miscarriage due to preventable illness or physical trauma that the mother allowed herself to be exposed to is her responsibility.

Yet I would argue that that is exactly what pregnancy is; some that affects you rather than something you control. Using illness again, you have some control (aside from the REALLY bad stuff) over what happens to you. Let's say you have the flu -if you strain yourself instead of resting, you can make it worse. Pregnancy is like that; you don't necessarily "control" it, rather, it's an affliction. You can control what happens, in both cases, and in that way they are very similar. It could easily be argued, if you believe morals are a basis of community and, or, defined by community, that allowing yourself to become further ill is actually immoral to some extent.

I don't see morals as a personal thing. I don't generally project my moral stances onto others unless they are planning to do something actively harmful to another, but I do think that morals are universal and unchanging. Unwanted children have healthy, happy lives all the time. A good number of my friends were accidents and they turned out just fine. There are children who make it through the adoption system and have good lives. You are generalizing an extreme case. When you say that it's better to abort the child than allow an unwanted child into the world, you are judging the worth of that person's life. How do you know that their life is worthless? How do you know that they won't end up happy? You aren't even allowing them a chance at life, when the good may very well outweigh the bad.

Okay, you say that that is an "extreme case." Is it? Is it really? How do you define extreme, by numbers? And what about children born into impoverished families who can barely provide? Children born into poor, gang-ridden communities where violence is common?

You accuse me of judging? Then you would be doing the same by judging they would become healthy and good. The truth is, your final point is nothing more but a stalemate. You could say he'll become the next Norman Borlaug, I could say he could become the next Jeffrey Dahmer. The simple truth is you don't know, and I don't know. No, what I was really saying is an abortion may be the best way to go, but because, oh dear god its horrible and evil and murder!, children who may have been better off being aborted, a harsh truth, but a truth nonetheless, now have to endure the suffering and pain because someone had a "moral objection" to something that does not concern them personally.

Why is socialism necessary for a child to be happy? There is the option to put up a child for adoption if there is no other way to take care of it, but there are also independent charities out there that want to help people in need. I think that, if we didn't have government holding our hands and giving us social welfare, there would voluntarily be a lot of similar, but more efficient systems in place out of the charity of individuals. Americans in particular are among the most charitable people on the planet. I think our citizens would be happy to give the less fortunate among us a helping hand.

I think there was a miscommunication. I wasn't saying socialism is necessary, I was reciting the drivel that comes from groups like the Tea Party. That welfare programs that could aid the family are like Communism or fascism, that the "privileged" have to live in some mock Soviet Russia because they have to pay into welfare that goes is not exclusive to them. They absolute are against abortions, but as soon as it's out, anything to actually aid the child can go fuck off, because they are politically against it. If the Obama administration was to pass some kind of upgraded SCHIP program, you can be damn sure there would be these people standing in DC fighting it, while turning to the other side and demanding to illegalize abortion, headed by the Palins and the Bachmanns, screaming that it's death panels for children, indoctrination, stripping away our rights, etc.

[Oaktree]

Yet I would argue that that is exactly what pregnancy is; some that affects you rather than something you control. Using illness again, you have some control (aside from the REALLY bad stuff) over what happens to you. Let's say you have the flu -if you strain yourself instead of resting, you can make it worse. Pregnancy is like that; you don't necessarily "control" it, rather, it's an affliction. You can control what happens, in both cases, and in that way they are very similar. It could easily be argued, if you believe morals are a basis of community and, or, defined by community, that allowing yourself to become further ill is actually immoral to some extent.

One becomes pregnant through the choices one makes, though. To apply the analogy of illness, if you choose to spend a lot of time around a contagious person, it is your fault if you catch the illness. You are doing something that you know can lead to illness, so you are responsible for becoming ill if you do.

I wouldn't argue based on the larger community, but I would argue based on anyone who may directly take care of you. If your mother takes care of you when you are ill, you are making yourself more of a burden if you don't do what it takes to get over the illness most quickly.

Okay, you say that that is an "extreme case." Is it? Is it really? How do you define extreme, by numbers? And what about children born into impoverished families who can barely provide? Children born into poor, gang-ridden communities where violence is common?

You accuse me of judging? Then you would be doing the same by judging they would become healthy and good. The truth is, your final point is nothing more but a stalemate. You could say he'll become the next Norman Borlaug, I could say he could become the next Jeffrey Dahmer. The simple truth is you don't know, and I don't know. No, what I was really saying is an abortion may be the best way to go, but because, oh dear god its horrible and evil and murder!, children who may have been better off being aborted, a harsh truth, but a truth nonetheless, now have to endure the suffering and pain because someone had a "moral objection" to something that does not concern them personally.

Have you ever met someone who rightfully believed that they would have been better off never having been born? You are saying that unwanted children are like this. I think that there is enough good in life to outweigh the bad, and that the bad can actually be good for you, as it is character building. Abortion denies those experiences to an individual. Let me put it this way: killing a fetus because it might have a bad life is like presuming guilt over innocence. You are assuming that its life will be bad and taking drastic action that would be unnecessary and wrong if its life were actually going to be good. If, on the other hand, you allow the fetus to live, you grant it an opportunity for good, though bad may happen. On the one hand you have two bad outcomes, on the other you have one good and one bad outcome. Isn't it better to allow the possibility of the good outcome?

[iCad]

I think a lot of it comes down to how you value life. I don't, for example, think humans are more important than bees. I am, intellectually, more upset about the diminishing honey bee population than I am about thousands of people killed in an earthquake. Of course, as a feeling person, I have empathy for those people and their families, but on an ecological scale, it's not important.

Indeed, it absolutely does depend on how you value life. And I'm with Oaktree in that I believe that ALL life is "special" and should ideally be protected. We do not, however, live in an ideal world, obviously. Still, it troubles me that some humans seem to value human life well below other life. It's a curious phenomenon, and I have pondered why it exists.

I've had creationists tell me that it's the fault of evolutionary theory and the teaching thereof; they claim that since it's taught that we're "just animals," then there's no need to believe that human life (at any stage of development) should be valued. But if that were the case, I would think that we would value ourselves as much as other animals. But we don't. In my experience, some people value human life much less than they value the lives of other animals. So, I tend to point at the environmentalist movement instead. We tend to berate humanity as "great destroyers," and so it doesn't surprise me that we devalue ourselves because of that.

But anyway, one's opinions about abortion, when religion and religious teaching is removed from the equation, does indeed seem to revolve around how much or how little one values human life in general.

For me, while I understand that, ecologically speaking, honeybees are more important than any given population of human beings, for me that doesn't translate into thinking human life unimportant or of less/no value. If nothing else, while we might be "great destroyers," we also have the potential to be "great repair people," do we not? (Note: That's a rhetorical question; I don't necessarily expect anyone to answer. :) )

[Doddibot]

My point was to say that a fetus is a life based on the scientific definition of life. A fetus is still quite different from a tapeworm. A fetus has the future potential to develop into a sentient being; a tapeworm does not.
That doesn't mean the fetus is different from a tapeworm. It means at some point in the future the fetus might be different from a tapeworm. But neither are sentient, not yet.

One becomes pregnant through the choices one makes, though. To apply the analogy of illness, if you choose to spend a lot of time around a contagious person, it is your fault if you catch the illness. You are doing something that you know can lead to illness, so you are responsible for becoming ill if you do.
This seems irrelevant, because we'd still allow that ill person to receive medication for that illness, perhaps only shaking our head. Likewise, if somebody pregnant seeks an abortion, we should allow that person to receive one.

Let me put it this way: killing a fetus because it might have a bad life is like presuming guilt over innocence.
I agree with you here. This is why I think it's acceptable for people with serious genetic diseases to reproduce. And I think reproduction via incest is ok too. A bad life is still worth living.

But that doesn't mean abortion is bad. Not being born isn't worse than being born. Aborted embryos and foetuses don't sit around thinking 'damn, wish I'd been born, this sucks' because they can't think at all. So there's no harm in abortion, from the perspective of the foetus.

[ivan17]

Humans are stupid. They never think about consequences...

[fragglerocks]

Hey Ivan, do the billy goats trampling over your bridge keep you awake at night?

[Nekowolf]

One becomes pregnant through the choices one makes, though. To apply the analogy of illness, if you choose to spend a lot of time around a contagious person, it is your fault if you catch the illness. You are doing something that you know can lead to illness, so you are responsible for becoming ill if you do. I wouldn't argue based on the larger community, but I would argue based on anyone who may directly take care of you. If your mother takes care of you when you are ill, you are making yourself more of a burden if you don't do what it takes to get over the illness most quickly.
But that's not always necessarily accurate. Again, it's just like illness; it can either A. happen, or B. because you did something stupid. In pregnancy, you can either A. have sex without any form of protection, in which case, sure, you could get pregnant. But on the other hand, if you do take protection like contraceptives, and they fail, saying "oh but it was their choice to have sex" comes across, more than anything, of blaming the victim, because contraceptives nowadays are reasonably good at what they're designed to do, so pregnancy is unexpected more than anything. It's like if you take a medicine for an illness, and get one of those "serious" side-affects that, really, only affect a small percentage. That is something that you simply cannot expect, because while it's possible, it's a small possibility, and something most people don't think about because the chances are it would be more unlikely than not that it would happen to them.

So then now you're pregnant, and it was unexpected. You say it's immoral to burden people by not choosing a proper action (taking medication), well then what if a baby becomes an overbearing burden to the family? Well then, it becomes moral to abort to lessen that burden. Now you could say, oh, they could put it up for adoption, yeah, or they could abort, which would probably be easier for the family. If you go through adoption, you still have to endure pregnancy, which the mother may not want to have to deal with at all. So now by illegalizing abortion, you are forcing her to endure with something she does not wish to, that could be remedied, against her will. That comes off as sounding really freaking immoral to me.

Have you ever met someone who rightfully believed that they would have been better off never having been born? You are saying that unwanted children are like this. I think that there is enough good in life to outweigh the bad, and that the bad can actually be good for you, as it is character building. Abortion denies those experiences to an individual. Let me put it this way: killing a fetus because it might have a bad life is like presuming guilt over innocence. You are assuming that its life will be bad and taking drastic action that would be unnecessary and wrong if its life were actually going to be good. If, on the other hand, you allow the fetus to live, you grant it an opportunity for good, though bad may happen. On the one hand you have two bad outcomes, on the other you have one good and one bad outcome. Isn't it better to allow the possibility of the good outcome?
Personally, no, but I'm not much of a social butterfly. But that does not mean they do not exist; how about those who endure, say, severe cases of Stiff Person Syndrome. How about those who suffer painful terminal illness, children who suffer from something like that. It's not my place to determine, it's theirs, but there are people who would have preferred not being born. Furthermore, you are assuming, or coming across as assuming, that I mean -all- unwanted children, which simply is not true. There is a breaking point of "bad is good" and its results can be horrific. Not just to them, but to others as well.

Anyhow, "denying experience" is something of an appeal to emotion; the fetus doesn't care, it won't know. It doesn't really have any experience to begin with and ends with no experience. It has to be self-aware first to understand the denial of experience, which it isn't. You can say it denies experience, but really that's nothing but rhetoric, but so what? It doesn't care; it's a mass of unconscious (hell, when most abortions are done, it may not even HAVE any form of consciousness) organic tissue.

But also, you're doing the same thing by assuming it's good. Would it be better to not have it experience pain and suffering undeserved? See how this works, I can do it to. No, I'm not assuming it'll be good or bad; what I'm saying is we don't know. So you are now making a moral choice based off assumption of others. When you say, "but it could have a good life!" I can come back and say, "or a bad life," which only further solidifies my point that by using the "could be's" of its life is nothing more but a stalemate argument.

But anyway, one's opinions about abortion, when religion and religious teaching is removed from the equation, does indeed seem to revolve around how much or how little one values human life in general.
I actually disagree; it's not so much about the value of human life, but rather, what IS it? Some say it's not living yet, some say it's a human child, some, like myself, differentiate that, yes, it's human but not yet a person. I think, really, there's almost no argument over the value of human life, because even that point is subjective (when is it alive, and what constitutes life), but rather what IS life, WHEN is life, etc. Because you can still touch on those subjects in a very secular way; they are not bound to religious ideology.

Humans are stupid. They never think about consequences...
Pot calling the kettle black?

[Oaktree]

That doesn't mean the fetus is different from a tapeworm. It means at some point in the future the fetus might be different from a tapeworm. But neither are sentient, not yet.

The fetus is something that spontaneously develops sentience. It will become sentient so long as it isn't killed first.


This seems irrelevant, because we'd still allow that ill person to receive medication for that illness, perhaps only shaking our head. Likewise, if somebody pregnant seeks an abortion, we should allow that person to receive one.

That's because receiving that medication does not kill sentient life. It does kill bacteria, but bacteria are not sentient. Abortion kills something that will, through the course of nature, develop sentience.


I agree with you here. This is why I think it's acceptable for people with serious genetic diseases to reproduce. And I think reproduction via incest is ok too. A bad life is still worth living.

But that doesn't mean abortion is bad. Not being born isn't worse than being born. Aborted embryos and foetuses don't sit around thinking 'damn, wish I'd been born, this sucks' because they can't think at all. So there's no harm in abortion, from the perspective of the foetus.

Not being aware of a wrong doesn't make it less of a wrong. You could be deprived of something and have it impact your quality of life (or, in this case, your existence) without realizing it is something you should have had.

But that's not always necessarily accurate. Again, it's just like illness; it can either A. happen, or B. because you did something stupid. In pregnancy, you can either A. have sex without any form of protection, in which case, sure, you could get pregnant. But on the other hand, if you do take protection like contraceptives, and they fail, saying "oh but it was their choice to have sex" comes across, more than anything, of blaming the victim, because contraceptives nowadays are reasonably good at what they're designed to do, so pregnancy is unexpected more than anything. It's like if you take a medicine for an illness, and get one of those "serious" side-affects that, really, only affect a small percentage. That is something that you simply cannot expect, because while it's possible, it's a small possibility, and something most people don't think about because the chances are it would be more unlikely than not that it would happen to them.

Pregnancy is not victimization unless it occurs through victimization. It doesn't matter if contraceptives are "relatively good" at what they do; we know that they are not infallible, so a responsible person will take that into their decision-making.

In the same way, if you get a serious side effect from medication, you are responsible if you knew it was a possibility. You can't sue your doctor (at least not morally) if you were made aware of the potential side effects and chose to take the medication anyway. It's simply something that happens sometimes and that you need to keep in mind before taking medication.

So then now you're pregnant, and it was unexpected. You say it's immoral to burden people by not choosing a proper action (taking medication), well then what if a baby becomes an overbearing burden to the family? Well then, it becomes moral to abort to lessen that burden. Now you could say, oh, they could put it up for adoption, yeah, or they could abort, which would probably be easier for the family. If you go through adoption, you still have to endure pregnancy, which the mother may not want to have to deal with at all. So now by illegalizing abortion, you are forcing her to endure with something she does not wish to, that could be remedied, against her will. That comes off as sounding really freaking immoral to me.

The burden of the fetus is the lesser "evil" when compared with killing it. People endure things they don't want to all the time; it's part of the way things are. If it is something born of a choice made on the woman's part, she cannot then choose to get rid of a developing life. In other matters, yes, one can fix one's screw ups. When it encroaches on the rights of another, then one cannot.

Personally, no, but I'm not much of a social butterfly. But that does not mean they do not exist; how about those who endure, say, severe cases of Stiff Person Syndrome. How about those who suffer painful terminal illness, children who suffer from something like that. It's not my place to determine, it's theirs, but there are people who would have preferred not being born. Furthermore, you are assuming, or coming across as assuming, that I mean -all- unwanted children, which simply is not true. There is a breaking point of "bad is good" and its results can be horrific. Not just to them, but to others as well.

Do you think that every moment of one's life suddenly becomes unimportant and meaningless as soon as one develops a terrible disease? A person can find joy in life and still value those moments even when they are dying of cancer. The value is not retroactively sucked away.

I was not assuming you meant all unwanted children; I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. And I do understand that there is a point where bad does not translate to good. Here you are assuming that I am making an overgeneralization.

Anyhow, "denying experience" is something of an appeal to emotion; the fetus doesn't care, it won't know. It doesn't really have any experience to begin with and ends with no experience. It has to be self-aware first to understand the denial of experience, which it isn't. You can say it denies experience, but really that's nothing but rhetoric, but so what? It doesn't care; it's a mass of unconscious (hell, when most abortions are done, it may not even HAVE any form of consciousness) organic tissue.

I responded to this point in my response to Doddibot.

But also, you're doing the same thing by assuming it's good. Would it be better to not have it experience pain and suffering undeserved? See how this works, I can do it to. No, I'm not assuming it'll be good or bad; what I'm saying is we don't know. So you are now making a moral choice based off assumption of others. When you say, "but it could have a good life!" I can come back and say, "or a bad life," which only further solidifies my point that by using the "could be's" of its life is nothing more but a stalemate argument.

I think it is worse to deny the experience of life entirely, but I will concede that this is a point in which other viewpoints are potentially valid.

[kustirider2]

I think a lot of it comes down to how you value life. I don't, for example, think humans are more important than bees. I am, intellectually, more upset about the diminishing honey bee population than I am about thousands of people killed in an earthquake. Of course, as a feeling person, I have empathy for those people and their families, but on an ecological scale, it's not important.

You're actually right here. Bees are more important. If all of the bees died out, then so would everything else. Bees pollinate flowers, which produce seeds, which herbivores eat, which carnivores then eat. If that didn't happen, there would be no food. Im sure there's other ways to pollinate flowers, but bees do the majority of it.

However, I do care more about the millions of people who are killed/die everyday than a bunch of bees.

[Nekowolf]

Pregnancy is not victimization unless it occurs through victimization. It doesn't matter if contraceptives are "relatively good" at what they do; we know that they are not infallible, so a responsible person will take that into their decision-making. In the same way, if you get a serious side effect from medication, you are responsible if you knew it was a possibility. You can't sue your doctor (at least not morally) if you were made aware of the potential side effects and chose to take the medication anyway. It's simply something that happens sometimes and that you need to keep in mind before taking medication.
And by illegalizing abortion, you are taking away a responsible choice from them. That is how you "blame the victim." They were responsible, something happened, and now they do not have the option to them, and get blamed for not, say, "appreciating the consequences" or something. But it's their right to have sex if they want, and the took the necessary steps, and those steps failed. To say it's their fault is both harsh and unreasonable.

The burden of the fetus is the lesser "evil" when compared with killing it. People endure things they don't want to all the time; it's part of the way things are. If it is something born of a choice made on the woman's part, she cannot then choose to get rid of a developing life. In other matters, yes, one can fix one's screw ups. When it encroaches on the rights of another, then one cannot.
First point: It's only lesser to you. Not to me, because I don't see abortion as "evil" in any sense. You really should not argue on that point; it would not be to your benefit. Second point: True; and some are worse than others, and some are so horrific, that perhaps yes, they are better off dead. Death would be a hell lot better than what some go through. Third point: If she CHOSE to get pregnant, should would not abort unless there was medical complications, so that's something of a moot point. And fourth point: And I find illegalizing abortions as encroaching on the rights of the mother, who I think is way more important that the fetus; although I will admit I'm not a fan of late-term abortions. Again, the whole human v. person thing.

Do you think that every moment of one's life suddenly becomes unimportant and meaningless as soon as one develops a terrible disease? A person can find joy in life and still value those moments even when they are dying of cancer. The value is not retroactively sucked away. I was not assuming you meant all unwanted children; I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. And I do understand that there is a point where bad does not translate to good. Here you are assuming that I am making an overgeneralization.
It's not about importantness or meaningfullness. It's about whether they should be forced to have to endure horrific disease or suffering. If I was a mother, and I found out my fetus was going to suffer from some form of disease that would cause them to suffer all their life, I would give serious consideration to an abortion. I could easily argue that forcing them into birth, to endure that suffering, far worse than aborting them, and also, immoral. It's not about value, it's about endurance, it's the same reason people would consider euthanasia.

The fetus is something that spontaneously develops sentience. It will become sentient so long as it isn't killed first.
But it does not happen right away; it has to develop first. Same with sentience; sure, it'll eventually become sentient, but "eventually" doesn't matter in an abortion (or rather, in an early-term abortion). It's a moot point.

[jooxis]

Pregnancy is not victimization unless it occurs through victimization. It doesn't matter if contraceptives are "relatively good" at what they do; we know that they are not infallible, so a responsible person will take that into their decision-making.

So a race-car driver who gets injured during a race or a smoker who develops cancer should get no medical help because they made a certain "risky" choice and should just deal with the consequences, right? I'm glad no developed countries actually have this mentality (but it isn't surprising of course).

[fakepeeps7]

I'm with Oaktree in that I believe that ALL life is "special" and should ideally be protected.

Then why take antibiotics? Are bacteria special, too?

That's because receiving that medication does not kill sentient life. It does kill bacteria, but bacteria are not sentient. Abortion kills something that will, through the course of nature, develop sentience.

And sentience is often described as the ability to feel pleasure and pain. By that reasoning, we could say that people with congenital analgesia or severe depression aren't sentient... and are therefore not worthy of life. I don't think sentience is that great a measure for what's eligible for abortion or not (especially since there's not much evidence that an embryo in the very early stages can even feel pleasure or pain... and we are talking about abortion here, not the murder of a fully formed child months later).

If we're going to use sentience as the measuring stick for morality, then why do pro-lifers eat meat? Can't animals feel pleasure and pain? (Anyone who says "no" has obviously never watched their dog run through the grass just for the sheer pleasure of it or cry out in pain when they hurt themselves.)

[Oaktree]

And by illegalizing abortion, you are taking away a responsible choice from them. That is how you "blame the victim." They were responsible, something happened, and now they do not have the option to them, and get blamed for not, say, "appreciating the consequences" or something. But it's their right to have sex if they want, and the took the necessary steps, and those steps failed. To say it's their fault is both harsh and unreasonable.

Making murder illegal also, in some regard, takes the responsibility out of the hands of the individual. We do outlaw murder, however, because there should be some punishment for doing so. Ideally an individual should make proper decisions without any incentive, but punishment is a necessity for rehabilitation.

First point: It's only lesser to you. Not to me, because I don't see abortion as "evil" in any sense. You really should not argue on that point; it would not be to your benefit.

In the same way, I don't see pregnancy that occurs due to the actions of the individual as evil, regardless of whether the pregnancy is wanted.

Second point: True; and some are worse than others, and some are so horrific, that perhaps yes, they are better off dead. Death would be a hell lot better than what some go through. Third point: If she CHOSE to get pregnant, should would not abort unless there was medical complications, so that's something of a moot point.

She chose to get pregnant if she chose to have sex and she got pregnant.

And fourth point: And I find illegalizing abortions as encroaching on the rights of the mother, who I think is way more important that the fetus; although I will admit I'm not a fan of late-term abortions. Again, the whole human v. person thing.

I don't think that the mother has any right to abort the fetus. We're arguing in circles.

It's not about importantness or meaningfullness. It's about whether they should be forced to have to endure horrific disease or suffering. If I was a mother, and I found out my fetus was going to suffer from some form of disease that would cause them to suffer all their life, I would give serious consideration to an abortion. I could easily argue that forcing them into birth, to endure that suffering, far worse than aborting them, and also, immoral. It's not about value, it's about endurance, it's the same reason people would consider euthanasia.

I have talked to people who have debilitating diseases, but still lead happy lives. You can't know that having an ailment means unhappiness. Many people with ailments are able to find the good in life and enjoy themselves regardless of the bad. I find that most of the people I know with major ailments have strong characters born of adversity.


But it does not happen right away; it has to develop first. Same with sentience; sure, it'll eventually become sentient, but "eventually" doesn't matter in an abortion (or rather, in an early-term abortion). It's a moot point.

Why is it a moot point? This seems to be personal feeling on your part. Why does it not matter that the fetus will develop into a sentient individual?

So a race-car driver who gets injured during a race or a smoker who develops cancer should get no medical help because they made a certain "risky" choice and should just deal with the consequences, right? I'm glad no developed countries actually have this mentality (but it isn't surprising of course).

No, because the medical help they would get would not encroach on the rights of another. Like I said earlier, there are plenty of cases in which one can fix one's screw ups, but only if it does not encroach on the rights of others.

Then why take antibiotics? Are bacteria special, too?

And sentience is often described as the ability to feel pleasure and pain. By that reasoning, we could say that people with congenital analgesia or severe depression aren't sentient... and are therefore not worthy of life. I don't think sentience is that great a measure for what's eligible for abortion or not (especially since there's not much evidence that an embryo in the very early stages can even feel pleasure or pain... and we are talking about abortion here, not the murder of a fully formed child months later).

If we're going to use sentience as the measuring stick for morality, then why do pro-lifers eat meat? Can't animals feel pleasure and pain? (Anyone who says "no" has obviously never watched their dog run through the grass just for the sheer pleasure of it or cry out in pain when they hurt themselves.)

I define sentience as self-awareness and meta-cognition. A fetus develops into a sentient being.

Pro-lifers can eat meat because it is a survival imperative. The nutrients in meat are necessary for a healthy life, so one must eat meat for the sake of survival. In this case, the extinction of a species is the greater evil.

[fakepeeps7]

Pro-lifers can eat meat because it is a survival imperative. The nutrients in meat are necessary for a healthy life, so one must eat meat for the sake of survival. In this case, the extinction of a species is the greater evil.

I must be talking to you from beyond my vegan grave. Wooooooo! :blink:

Do all the Hindus, Mahayana Buddhists, and Seventh-day Adventists know they should be dead right now?

All right, let's say it is a survival imperative. Then why is it okay to kill an animal to survive, but it's not okay to terminate a high-risk pregnancy so that the mother survives to bring up her existing children? Wouldn't children with a living mother be more likely to survive (and thrive)?

[Oaktree]

I must be talking to you from beyond my vegan grave. Wooooooo! :blink:

Do all the Hindus, Mahayana Buddhists, and Seventh-day Adventists know they should be dead right now?

All right, let's say it is a survival imperative. Then why is it okay to kill an animal to survive, but it's not okay to terminate a high-risk pregnancy so that the mother survives to bring up her existing children? Wouldn't children with a living mother be more likely to survive (and thrive)?

First, it is generally very difficult to get all of the vitamins and amino acids necessary for optimum health as a vegan. I know it isn't impossible, though. Second, for those who can't afford a vegan diet, it is better to provide whatever food is available, rather than let them starve.

I did state that under most circumstances abortion is allowable if there is risk to the mother. I said that it was more wrong if the woman knew that getting pregnant would most likely lead to a strong risk to her health and she chooses to engage in risky behavior regardless. I think that this is a bit more of a grey area, so it may be allowable for a woman to abort the child still, but I think that there is a definite level of wrongness to it, even if it is the lesser of the two wrongs.

I stated much earlier in the thread that there are a few circumstances under which abortion may be the lesser of two evils. I think that each of those instances varies contextually, but there are some instances in which it can be morally allowable.

[iCad]

Then why take antibiotics? Are bacteria special, too?


All life, including prokaryotic life, is special, in the sense that it came about through a series of unlikely events that may never happen again in the same way anywhere else in the universe ever again. And it is my belief that life ideally should be protected, yes, though not necessarily because it's special. But as I said, our world is not ideal.

Since our world is not ideal, some bacteria infect us, are foreign to our bodies, and have the potential to kill us. So, my human immune system will destroy invading bacteria in my body if it can because it "values" my life over the life of the bacteria. That's just nature, the way it is, the way the system developed. Antibiotics, when one chooses to use them, simply amplify the efficacy of the immune system, helping it to do what it does naturally. The situation with abortion is obviously not at all the same.

As an aside, for those arguing about sentience: Sentience is merely the ability to perceive with senses. Seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, perceiving pain, etc. are all a part of sentience. If you're talking about self-awareness, the ability to think, etc., then the word you want is "sapience." The two aren't really interchangeable.

It's pretty obvious that a developing human is sentient fairly early on. The nervous system is one of the first systems to develop, alongside of the circulatory system. Even human embryos will respond to sensory stimuli. But as to when a human becomes sapient...Well, that's the much bigger question. :) It might not be until well after birth.

[Oaktree]

As an aside, for those arguing about sentience: Sentience is merely the ability to perceive with senses. Seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, perceiving pain, etc. are all a part of sentience. If you're talking about self-awareness, the ability to think, etc., then the word you want is "sapience." The two aren't really interchangeable.

Ah, thank you, that was the word I was looking for. :)

[Nekowolf]

Making murder illegal also, in some regard, takes the responsibility out of the hands of the individual. We do outlaw murder, however, because there should be some punishment for doing so. Ideally an individual should make proper decisions without any incentive, but punishment is a necessity for rehabilitation.
...okay, honestly, I think you're really stretching to make a point with that one. I fail to see your point; murder is illegal because it really is killing a "person."

She chose to get pregnant if she chose to have sex and she got pregnant.
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. No matter what protection she does, you are blaming them for "not being responsible enough." Essentially, you are creating a black-and-white perspective of either: don't have sex, or deal with it. No, if she was on birth control she was not choosing to get pregnant. That is why she was on freaking birth control. To not get pregnant. This is what I mean by blaming the victim. You can go on about how "they should be prepared for the consequences" but to be frank, I find that as a loaded position, simply used to justify this "blame the victim" mentality. Because it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. What you are saying, using analogy, is if you don't give medicine to a child, you are responsible for that child's illness being left untreated, but then on the other hand saying you are also responsible for any side-affect that child may have because you gave them medicine. Either way, the parent gets blamed for either not doing anything (unprotected sex) or for not being responsible enough (contraception) while leaving no room for them to justify themselves aside from not having sex at all, which they should not be punished for having, which is what illegalizing abortion is at them; a punishment.

I have talked to people who have debilitating diseases, but still lead happy lives. You can't know that having an ailment means unhappiness. Many people with ailments are able to find the good in life and enjoy themselves regardless of the bad. I find that most of the people I know with major ailments have strong characters born of adversity.
And you cannot continue to assume they all leave happy carefree lives, that not a single person out there would dare consider euthanasia, that not a single person with a debilitating illness wants to die, that they feel they would have been better off not being born. Now stop stretching what I am saying. It is starting to tick me off.

Why is it a moot point? This seems to be personal feeling on your part. Why does it not matter that the fetus will develop into a sentient individual?
Because an abortion isn't about killing a sentient being later, it's about removing a insentient thing now, in the present. The future is inconsequential, because it won't have one. It won't have experience, it won't have thought, it won't have understanding, or self-awareness, it won't feel emotion. It has none of these processes yet. By going on about its future assumes it is something it is not, and is nothing more than an appeal to emotion. It assumes that it is conscious, that it is already self-aware, that it already understands what will happen to it. It does not. Therefore, it's future is a moot point, because it actually needs a future to be relevant, and it's future is so unknown, that you cannot possibly argue on it with any form of legitimate reasoning, cause everything you say about its future I can easily counter, and we would have absolutely no idea who's correct, if either side. He could be a doctor, he could a murderer. He could be a firefighter, he could be an arsonist. He could be an lawyer, he could be con artist. He could be a police officer, he could be a drug dealer. He could live until he's a hundred, he could die within weeks of being born. And it just goes on and on. You cannot argue about "would be's" in the abortion debate; they are nothing but straw men.

[sparrow_from_planet_astos]

i think abortion is the right thing to do if :
a- the fetus is killing the mother
b- the fetus was conceived of rape
c- the fetus is deformed or ect.

if the mother knowingly has sex with her partner, she should have the baby. it isn't fair for the fetus the die because of unlikely circumstances.

[Oaktree]

...okay, honestly, I think you're really stretching to make a point with that one. I fail to see your point; murder is illegal because it really is killing a "person."

I am talking about it in terms of meta-ethics. I think the problem here is that you and I are talking past each other. I am making a high-level, somewhat abstract moral argument, while you are talking at the level of applied ethics.

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. No matter what protection she does, you are blaming them for "not being responsible enough." Essentially, you are creating a black-and-white perspective of either: don't have sex, or deal with it. No, if she was on birth control she was not choosing to get pregnant. That is why she was on freaking birth control. To not get pregnant. This is what I mean by blaming the victim. You can go on about how "they should be prepared for the consequences" but to be frank, I find that as a loaded position, simply used to justify this "blame the victim" mentality. Because it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. What you are saying, using analogy, is if you don't give medicine to a child, you are responsible for that child's illness being left untreated, but then on the other hand saying you are also responsible for any side-affect that child may have because you gave them medicine. Either way, the parent gets blamed for either not doing anything (unprotected sex) or for not being responsible enough (contraception) while leaving no room for them to justify themselves aside from not having sex at all, which they should not be punished for having, which is what illegalizing abortion is at them; a punishment.

You are ignoring the possibility of taking responsibility and raising the child that occurs due to the pregnancy. I'll try to distill down the basic ideas behind my responses in this thread: 1) There are consequences to every action. If the possibilities are known, an individual is responsible for what happens when they choose to do whatever it is that they are contemplating doing. This applies to good and bad outcomes. You are responsible for your actions. I don't know how to express this any more simply. 2) You have no right to infringe on the rights of others. Ideally, you should do things that promote the well-being of yourself and others, but this is not necessary. You are doing wrong, though, if you do something that is harmful to another.

You seem to think that being responsible is, in-itself, a punishment. I think that being responsible is the only way to be a moral individual, and I feel that responsibility is not a burden because it makes me a better person.

And you cannot continue to assume they all leave happy carefree lives, that not a single person out there would dare consider euthanasia, that not a single person with a debilitating illness wants to die, that they feel they would have been better off not being born. Now stop stretching what I am saying. It is starting to tick me off.

I'm not stretching what you're saying. I'm providing perfectly valid counterpoints to what you are saying. I am giving you some of the reasons why I think abortion is wrong. If it ticks you off, don't debate with me.

Because an abortion isn't about killing a sentient being later, it's about removing a insentient thing now, in the present. The future is inconsequential, because it won't have one. It won't have experience, it won't have thought, it won't have understanding, or self-awareness, it won't feel emotion. It has none of these processes yet. By going on about its future assumes it is something it is not, and is nothing more than an appeal to emotion. It assumes that it is conscious, that it is already self-aware, that it already understands what will happen to it. It does not. Therefore, it's future is a moot point, because it actually needs a future to be relevant, and it's future is so unknown, that you cannot possibly argue on it with any form of legitimate reasoning, cause everything you say about its future I can easily counter, and we would have absolutely no idea who's correct, if either side. He could be a doctor, he could a murderer. He could be a firefighter, he could be an arsonist. He could be an lawyer, he could be con artist. He could be a police officer, he could be a drug dealer. He could live until he's a hundred, he could die within weeks of being born. And it just goes on and on. You cannot argue about "would be's" in the abortion debate; they are nothing but straw men.

As I argued before, awareness of wrong does not make it less wrong. Just because the fetus is unaware of the fact that it has potential, does not mean that it is okay to destroy that potential.

Clearly this is coming down to core differences in ideas; I don't think we will agree on this point.

[jooxis]

Haha, I'm surprised there aren't more pro-lifers arguing that rape pregancies shouldn't be aborted either - after all, the woman DID go out alone at night and was trusting strangers - so she should just deal with the consequences of her behavior! :rolleyes:

[iCad]

@ Neko: OK, I have to jump in here. First, I assume you're talking about sapience (self-awareness, thinking) and not sentience, which is merely sensual perception. Even early embryos are quite clearly sentient, as they will respond to sensory stimuli. But so far as I know, no one is really sure when a human being becomes sapient. It's generally thought that it's after birth, though, anywhere from a few weeks to a few months afterward.

Given the above and since you seem to think it's OK to abort a fetus because it isn't yet sapient, would you consider it acceptable to kill a one-month-old baby, then? And if not, why? What's the difference between a non-sapient say, five-month-old fetus and a not-yet-sapient one-month-old infant?

Note: I'm not trying to trap you here. Many people make the argument that abortion is OK because the child is not yet sapient. Yet, most of those same people people don't think it's OK to kill an infant once it's been born, even though our research tells us that full sapience -- at least as we define it -- doesn't happen until after birth. So I'm honestly curious about the thinking involved, is all.

[Oaktree]

Haha, I'm surprised there aren't more pro-lifers arguing that rape pregancies shouldn't be aborted either - after all, the woman DID go out alone at night and was trusting strangers - so she should just deal with the consequences of her behavior! :rolleyes:

You are not responsible for the actions of others, only for your own. If you do not give consent, the responsibility lies in the hands of the rapist because he chose to continue.

[ivan17]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rolleyes: ...

Purpose of sex is production of new beings and persons, not pleasure.
But humans are much worse than animals, so here is one form of selfishness and irresponsibility - abortion.

[Oaktree]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rolleyes: ...

Purpose of sex is production of new beings and persons, not pleasure.
But humans are much worse than animals, so here is one form of selfishness and irresponsibility - abortion.

Sex can be for pleasure. There is nothing morally wrong with that. What I am saying is that you need to take responsibility for the consequences of sex.

[jooxis]

Purpose of sex is production of new beings and persons, not pleasure.

This is just funny. The real purpose of eating food is to survive. So, have you never eaten anything tasty even though you weren't hungry at all? Well there you go, instead of using it for its purpose, you've eaten food out of pleasure and you have obviously done a bad thing. :rolleyes:

[ivan17]

Yes, you gain weight. Lol.
Interesting, people are ready to kill what they created, but when you say that they are worse than animals, that's then insulting! :)

[Nekowolf]

@ Neko: OK, I have to jump in here. First, I assume you're talking about sapience (self-awareness, thinking) and not sentience, which is merely sensual perception. Even early embryos are quite clearly sentient, as they will respond to sensory stimuli. But so far as I know, no one is really sure when a human being becomes sapient. It's generally thought that it's after birth, though, anywhere from a few weeks to a few months afterward. Given the above and since you seem to think it's OK to abort a fetus because it isn't yet sapient, would you consider it acceptable to kill a one-month-old baby, then? And if not, why? What's the difference between a non-sapient say, five-month-old fetus and a not-yet-sapient one-month-old infant? Note: I'm not trying to trap you here. Many people make the argument that abortion is OK because the child is not yet sapient. Yet, most of those same people people don't think it's OK to kill an infant once it's been born, even though our research tells us that full sapience -- at least as we define it -- doesn't happen until after birth. So I'm honestly curious about the thinking involved, is all.
Apologies on my miswording. I really should pay more attention.

Anyhow, no, because once born, it becomes defined as a "person." Or rather, if you want, a criteria required to define someone as a "person." Choose whichever, as it's interpretable. But basically, once they can survive without a host, that is, I would say, a criteria to be a person. That's why I am actually against late-term abortions unless in dire situations, e.g. life-threatening situation to the mother. Because, if I'm correct, those "late-term" fetuses can, or at least are much more likely, to survive without the required host, whereas earlier in the pregnancy, this is not feasible.

Purpose of sex is production of new beings and persons, not pleasure.
The "purpose" of sex is however we individually wish to define it as we are not bound by the same instinctual need for reproduction that most of life is. And you gain weight regardless if it is necessity or not. So what's your point.

I am talking about it in terms of meta-ethics. I think the problem here is that you and I are talking past each other. I am making a high-level, somewhat abstract moral argument, while you are talking at the level of applied ethics.
Then I must admit I do not quite understand the position you expressed regarding that point.

You are ignoring the possibility of taking responsibility and raising the child that occurs due to the pregnancy. I'll try to distill down the basic ideas behind my responses in this thread: 1) There are consequences to every action. If the possibilities are known, an individual is responsible for what happens when they choose to do whatever it is that they are contemplating doing. This applies to good and bad outcomes. You are responsible for your actions. I don't know how to express this any more simply. 2) You have no right to infringe on the rights of others. Ideally, you should do things that promote the well-being of yourself and others, but this is not necessary. You are doing wrong, though, if you do something that is harmful to another. You seem to think that being responsible is, in-itself, a punishment. I think that being responsible is the only way to be a moral individual, and I feel that responsibility is not a burden because it makes me a better person.
Because that is an option. If they want to take responsibility, fine, but by illegalizing abortion, you are forcing them to take responsibility. Because it pretty much is either A. get an abortion, or B. give birth. There is really no other options, so by taking one away, you are forcing them to go with another. And besides, if they -really- didn't want the kid, the mother could try to either have it done illegally, or try to induce a miscarriage.

Anyhow, I get your first position. I just find it, how to put it...in regards to this argument, I find it arrogant. Because even the best measures are not sure-fire. They already are taking responsibility by using contraception. It is not their fault the contraception failed, and therefore they should not be forced to take undue responsibility of a child, when they used contraception specifically to avoid that. And by taking away the option of abortion, that is exactly what you are doing. You are forcing them to deal with it, under your standards, not theirs. And as you already know, I find that by taking away that option, you are already infringing on the rights of the mother. We already know this point (fetal rights vs. mother's rights) is something that will progress no further, so I decided not to get into it.

And no, it's not being responsible that is the punishment. It's forcing other people to take responsibility, as per your standards, not theirs. They take contraception to avoid pregnancy. That is all they need to be responsible for. If it fails, it is not their fault nor responsibility to carry the child. That is your standard. That is the punishment.

I'm not stretching what you're saying. I'm providing perfectly valid counterpoints to what you are saying. I am giving you some of the reasons why I think abortion is wrong. If it ticks you off, don't debate with me.
No, you are going on about how I think life is worthless, how I think they don't live good, happy lives. I don't (think that). I have never expressed that they don't. I have only expressed it in the terms of a possibility. You are stretching what I was saying by applying the description that I meant the whole.

As I argued before, awareness of wrong does not make it less wrong. Just because the fetus is unaware of the fact that it has potential, does not mean that it is okay to destroy that potential.

Clearly this is coming down to core differences in ideas; I don't think we will agree on this point.
All I can say is that I disagree. Why has already been expressed. To be frank, I'd be surprised if we agree on anything in this debate. But, I don't argue to make people agree, so, whatever. Although if we continue to bring it up, it'll just go on as a back-and-forth without any real addition.

[iCad]

Anyhow, no, because once born, it becomes defined as a "person." Or rather, if you want, a criteria required to define someone as a "person." Choose whichever, as it's interpretable. But basically, once they can survive without a host, that is, I would say, a criteria to be a person. That's why I am actually against late-term abortions unless in dire situations, e.g. life-threatening situation to the mother. Because, if I'm correct, those "late-term" fetuses can, or at least are much more likely, to survive without the required host, whereas earlier in the pregnancy, this is not feasible.

OK, thanks for the clarification. :) Then let me ask you this: What makes a person a person? If it isn't sapience, which it's thought doesn't happen until a while after birth, then, really, what is the difference between aborting a barely-past-embryonic-state fetus, and aborting one that's a few days away from being born? Is it then "it's a person only when it can survive on its own?" But then, there are many full-term babies who have medical issues and can't survive on their own. There are babies who've been gestating for as little as 5.5 months, are born, and survive. (With drastic medical intervention, of course, but they survive.)

Again, I'm not trying to trap you. I'm just trying to understand the thinking involved here. This is the very thinking that I did when I was in the "drawing lines" stage of figuring out where I stood on abortion, and for me, it became an utter minefield. So when I couldn't satisfactorily answer the questions that I put to myself, I decided to stop drawing the damn lines, to err on the side of caution if I'm erring at all, and consider a zygote a "person." Of course, other people will swing the other way, and will decide that killing even postpartum babies is not morally wrong because those babies, so they believe, are not sapient. So, I'm just wondering what your thinking is, mostly because it's interesting to me to see how other people solve this particular dilemma.

[fragglerocks]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rolleyes: ...

Purpose of sex is production of new beings and persons, not pleasure.
But humans are much worse than animals, so here is one form of selfishness and irresponsibility - abortion.

Ah, but animals DO abort. Look up something called the Bruce Effect.

[Nekowolf]

OK, thanks for the clarification. Then let me ask you this: What makes a person a person? If it isn't sapience, which it's thought doesn't happen until a while after birth, then, really, what is the difference between aborting a barely-past-embryonic-state fetus, and aborting one that's a few days away from being born? Is it then "it's a person only when it can survive on its own?" But then, there are many full-term babies who have medical issues and can't survive on their own. There are babies who've been gestating for as little as 5.5 months, are born, and survive. (With drastic medical intervention, of course, but they survive.)
No no no, sapience is an aspect of what constitutes a "person" but is not a sole factor. And also, that's why I specifically said "host." It's not necessarily "if it can survive on it's own" as that is, if anything, rather misleading. It's, if it can survive without a host, while separated from the mother. If it has to survive on machines, fine, because that's not requiring a host, as a host has to be organic, that's more like, uh, assisted living.

I don't like describing it in this way, because it creates a false idea of difference. But to be a "person" you need to be able to either survive on your own or with assistance, and, uh...I don't want to necessarily say sapience, but, yeah. I guess to put it in really vague terms, there has to be something there in the head. I don't want to say it like that though cause then you could get into, oh what about the mentally handicapped, what about those in a coma, they're still people, it's not like there's person and non-person. But it creates a false perspective to say "oh, you need sapience," because there are situations that severely hinder that. They're not any less of a person, that stuff doesn't just go away after it's developed.

Ah, but animals DO abort. Look up something called the Bruce Effect.
And cannibalize their young. Hence "killing what they created." And yes, Ivan, I do mean the parents eating their own offspring.

(oops, double-post)

[fakepeeps7]

Then let me ask you this: What makes a person a person? If it isn't sapience, which it's thought doesn't happen until a while after birth, then, really, what is the difference between aborting a barely-past-embryonic-state fetus, and aborting one that's a few days away from being born? Is it then "it's a person only when it can survive on its own?" But then, there are many full-term babies who have medical issues and can't survive on their own. There are babies who've been gestating for as little as 5.5 months, are born, and survive. (With drastic medical intervention, of course, but they survive.)

For me, the determinant would be when most babies could survive outside the womb. Of course, that is being pushed back all the time with medical advances, but I think I said before that I believe there will be a point where it can't be pushed back any further. The earliest surviving preemie was born at something like 21 weeks? Medical technology may push that back a few more weeks, but after that... I think it's unlikely.

[grumpy_otter]

For me, the determinant would be when most babies could survive outside the womb. Of course, that is being pushed back all the time with medical advances, but I think I said before that I believe there will be a point where it can't be pushed back any further. The earliest surviving preemie was born at something like 21 weeks? Medical technology may push that back a few more weeks, but after that... I think it's unlikely.

I'm very against trying to push that limit back. Doctors are always much more interested in whether they can, not whether they should. Nature has REASONS for miscarrying babies--it is wrong to mess with that, I think. (I'm against fertility treatments for the same reason--as much as my heart bleeds for women who want to and can't conceive. Nature has REASONS for not permitting conception)

[fragglerocks]

I'm very against trying to push that limit back. Doctors are always much more interested in whether they can, not whether they should. Nature has REASONS for miscarrying babies--it is wrong to mess with that, I think. (I'm against fertility treatments for the same reason--as much as my heart bleeds for women who want to and can't conceive. Nature has REASONS for not permitting conception)

As much as I like your points, and usually tend to agree with what you say, its unfair to say that nature has reasons for not permitting conception. I DO understand what you are saying, I really do, but you can't really profess to know what nature's reasons are. And what about those cases where only one partner is not fertile, but the other one is? Are you saying that we should leave the one we love for a more fertile partner?

IVF treatments and whether or not they are deserved is very rocky ground, and I do admire your courage for bringing it up. :up:

[Doddibot]

Nature has REASONS
No it doesn't. Nature isn't reasoning, nor reasonable. It just is. And just because something is, that doesn't mean it ought to be .

[fakepeeps7]

I don't think grumpy_otter means "reasons" as in the reasoning sort of reasons. Say, for example, something goes wrong in the development process and the baby doesn't grow some necessary organ. In that case, the mother might miscarry because the child won't live. It has nothing to do with reasoning. It has to do with viability. Nature takes care of itself... even if it can't logically think through the scenario like we can.

[Neerie]

No it doesn't. Nature isn't reasoning, nor reasonable. It just is. And just because something is, that doesn't mean it ought to be .

I don't think Otter ment it as nature consciously determining the fertility of someone, but rather that there was probably a natural reason why the person is infertile, such as a genetic problem or something.

[Doddibot]

I think from the context, otter means nature operates with a purpose, and to go against that purpose would be wrong. I see no way the statement could be linked to being against IVF otherwise.

If it just means things naturally happen for a reason, which just means effects have causes, then of course I agree. But there's no way to logically go from that to talking about whether it's right or wrong to interfere with nature.

[ivan17]

And yes, Ivan, I do mean the parents eating their own offspring.

Okay, so we just need to put our offsprings in oven, serve with potato, sauce, salad, wine and voilà! We are like animals, or maybe worse? We love to enjoy in food.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I have heard that humans flesh taste like pork, but I prefer chicken. :lol:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[kattenijin]

I'm pro-choice mainly because I'm (usually) in favor of anything that leaves more options open. Do I like that it is used mainly as a form of birth control rather than a last resort due to physical/mental trauma; no, not really. It gives me hope that in the last 20 years, the abortion rate has declined by almost 1/3; mostly due to better education and availability of contraceptives.

I also look at the flip side of the coin. I always hear "Put the child up for adoption." as the answer if the mother truely dosen't want the child. There are already almost 3 million children in the US waiting for adoption. The adoption rate fluctuates between just over 1% to just over 2%. This means most children put up for adoption will never be adopted. Forcing all unwanted pregnancies to come to term will only increase the number of children waiting for adoption.

For those of you advocating an anti-abortion stance, how many children have you adopted? How many do you plan to adopt? If you aren't planning to adopt personally, why not?

Purpose of sex is production of new beings and persons, not pleasure.

There are other species that engage in sex "just for fun", so it is perfectly natural to have sex for reasons other than procreation. Just because your church says otherwise dosen't make it so. (And we all know how perfectly clergy follow their vows. /sarcasm)

Ivan, I have a proposition for you. Since medical technology will let you have children without ever having sex, I challenge you to remain celibate (one who abstains from sexual intercourse) for your entire life, and only have in-vitro fertilization when you and your spouse decide to have children.

[ivan17]

:rolleyes:
I am against vitro fertilization...
Anyway, since there's too much advantages in abortion... We will eat our children.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[simbalena]

I don't think Otter ment it as nature consciously determining the fertility of someone, but rather that there was probably a natural reason why the person is infertile, such as a genetic problem or something.

Yes I agree that in many cases this is probably true. For example my aunt adopted two children because she couldn't give birth to her own, but then she died when the eldest was eight. So in this case "nature" may not have allowed her to have children because there was no way she was going to live long enough to be able to raise them. Because of her want for children her poor children ended up each losing two mothers.

[jooxis]

Yes I agree that in many cases this is probably true. For example my aunt adopted two children because she couldn't give birth to her own, but then she died when the eldest was eight. So in this case "nature" may not have allowed her to have children because there was no way she was going to live long enough to be able to raise them. Because of her want for children her poor children ended up each losing two mothers.

Surely that's just one anecdotal case. There doesn't seem to be a connection between infertility and the likelihood that you're going to die or be incapable of raising kids. :wtf:

[Nekowolf]

@Ivan

No surprise there. Anyhow, you say humans are worse, yet we do things that animals do; we are no worse then animals as we are animals. You name anything, and I can probably find an animal that does it.

So, abortion = worse than animals = bullshit, to sum it up.

[iCad]

I also look at the flip side of the coin. I always hear "Put the child up for adoption." as the answer if the mother truely dosen't want the child. There are already almost 3 million children in the US waiting for adoption. The adoption rate fluctuates between just over 1% to just over 2%. This means most children put up for adoption will never be adopted. Forcing all unwanted pregnancies to come to term will only increase the number of children waiting for adoption.

Ahhhh, but most of those waiting children are not infants. It's sad, but people want babies, not older children who often come with issues. Those issues are very difficult to deal with, and not everyone has the fortitude to do so, much as they might wish they had. So, many of the children waiting for adoption are fosters, not children voluntarily put up for adoption at birth.

In addition, in the case of trying to adopt foster children, there are usually many roadblocks in the way, some put up by the state government, some put up by the extended families of the foster child in question, some put up by the birth parent(s). The process is long, exhausting, expensive, and tied up in miles upon miles of red tape. This is why many people looking to adopt go overseas to do so, to avoid the BS. I mean, those children need homes, too, but my opinion is that we should take care of our own first. But our government makes it difficult/expensive/incredible time-consuming to do so. Idiots.

So while many people, I'm sure some of them pro-life, want to adopt even "difficult" children, the system doesn't make it easy at all. In the case of fosters, if there's any thought whatsoever in the caseworker's mind that the birth parent(s) will "reform" or if an extended family member ever shows any interest whatsoever in taking in the foster child(ren), the state will usually not allow the foster family to adopt the child(ren). This is indeed the problem encountered by my (very pro-life) gay-couple friends who are foster parents. The issue with the daughter they were able to eventually adopt wasn't that they were gay, but that the girl's grandmother raised objections to the girl being adopted by anyone, gay or not.

Now, on the other hand, I have direct experience with the private adoption of a just-born infant. When I found out that I was pregnant and after I decided not to abort, I made the rounds of lawyers who handled private adoptions, made it known to them that I was carrying a child whom I wanted to have adopted at birth. I was subsequently FLOODED with "applications," and I got to choose which family would raise my child. THAT system does work, and it is quite fast because it's all done privately...although it is also expensive and, in my opinion, it shouldn't be. I realize that lawyers need to make a living but... *sigh* Anyway, when I do any pro-life "work" at all, it is limited to working with an interfaith agency (meaning, we ain't all Christians. There's a pretty even mix of Christians and New Agey Buddhist-y kind of people, at the moment, which makes for...interesting conversations. :) ) that connects pregnant girls/women who don't want to/can't keep their child but who don't want to abort with families around the country who want to adopt. The system works quite well, when given a chance. It's just that many women seem to think it's abortion or have the baby. Or, I guess many women don't want to go through the whole pregnancy thing. I can understand that, too. But for those who ARE willing to go through with the pregnancy...well, there we are. :)

For those of you advocating an anti-abortion stance, how many children have you adopted? How many do you plan to adopt? If you aren't planning to adopt personally, why not?

I have not adopted any. My profession, which requires chunks of time spent on the road, and my single marital status are not conducive to having young children around the house. Were that not the case, if I ever "retire" from music, I might be very willing to adopt, if I have the means to do so.

On the other hand, advocating adoption doesn't immediately obligate one to do it, does it? I can assure you that many pro-life people HAVE adopted, but many people, pro-life or otherwise, cannot afford to do it, much as they might want to. As I said, my opinion is that the process ought to be streamlined and "cheapified," especially if we are going to put legal limits on abortion. But then, I don't want the government sticking its nose into private/independent adoption, either, for it would only make things worse, so it's a double-edged kind of sword.

[ivan17]

@Ivan

No surprise there. Anyhow, you say humans are worse, yet we do things that animals do; we are no worse then animals as we are animals. You name anything, and I can probably find an animal that does it.

So, abortion = worse than animals = bullshit, to sum it up.

So, answer to this!
Why are we then pretending that we are special, if we are animals? You know; e.g. Oh God, I can't eat meat, I can't eat animals, I am vegetarian!, or OMG, I am so special and pleople don't like me because I am gay! I want my rights!, or I would never eat my children!?
Why are we killing other animals and deciding about other's lives (abortion).
Why then this forum and debates, if we are just animals and everything we do is natural?

[Nekowolf]

1. If I had to guess, because we are the dominant species, as well as capable of philosophical thinking. Therefore, we perceive ourselves as "special," in spite of the fact that we are organic; require nutrition, water, and sleep to survive; are vulnerable to disease; live and die. Just like every other intelligent life-form in the world.

2. I fail to see your point, if the intention is a counterargument. As, other animals do those very same things.

3. I never said nor believe everything we do is natural; such a concept is laughable. But, we, as humans, are natural. What we create may not be, but what we are, is.

So I ask again, what the hell is your point.

[Oaktree]

Because that is an option. If they want to take responsibility, fine, but by illegalizing abortion, you are forcing them to take responsibility. Because it pretty much is either A. get an abortion, or B. give birth. There is really no other options, so by taking one away, you are forcing them to go with another. And besides, if they -really- didn't want the kid, the mother could try to either have it done illegally, or try to induce a miscarriage.

Anyhow, I get your first position. I just find it, how to put it...in regards to this argument, I find it arrogant. Because even the best measures are not sure-fire. They already are taking responsibility by using contraception. It is not their fault the contraception failed, and therefore they should not be forced to take undue responsibility of a child, when they used contraception specifically to avoid that. And by taking away the option of abortion, that is exactly what you are doing. You are forcing them to deal with it, under your standards, not theirs. And as you already know, I find that by taking away that option, you are already infringing on the rights of the mother. We already know this point (fetal rights vs. mother's rights) is something that will progress no further, so I decided not to get into it.

And no, it's not being responsible that is the punishment. It's forcing other people to take responsibility, as per your standards, not theirs. They take contraception to avoid pregnancy. That is all they need to be responsible for. If it fails, it is not their fault nor responsibility to carry the child. That is your standard. That is the punishment.


What I am trying to say is that I think these moral stances I am expressing are universal, objective morality. It is possible that I am wrong about parts of it, or even all of it, but I have used logic to come to these conclusions, so I think that there is a good chance that they are right. When I say that abortion should be illegal (with a few exceptions), it isn't me forcing my moral stance on others; it is me saying that others should follow universal moral standards. When you talk about it being my moral stance as if the moral stance of someone in favor of abortion is equally right, you are arguing for moral relativity. I believe between the earlier posts of this thread and some of the posts in the "decline of modern civilization" thread I have made a good argument for objective morality.

You can think it arrogant all you like, but there are some opinions about the nature of reality (including morals) that are right and some that are wrong. Though tolerance is much exalted in other matters, tolerance to other moral stances, to the point of saying that everyone can simply do whatever they feel like, is not acceptable. If there is objective morality, those people who don't believe so are acting on falsehood. You could just as easily say that Darwin is arrogant because his theory of evolution defies the idea that God created man as man is now, but right is right. Darwin was right, so arrogance has nothing to do with it.

[Nekowolf]

See, and that is the root of the problem in your argument. I'll be blunt; I think you are absolutely incorrect. There is absolutely no such thing as absolute, or universal, morals. I find such a thought as something sort of like, hm, I guess I would say sort of like exceptionalism. "Logic" is not infallible, nor is it objective; it is very much subjective. You say you come to your conclusions logically, and hence, are probably right. What, and I haven't? Well I have. I have expressed why I think the way I do. So I guess that means I'm also most likely right, too? Oh, but now have a conundrum. We both cannot be "probably right" when both sides are opposing.

Anyhow, you are saying you believe that, regarding this issue, it is a universal, objective moral. I, and others, disagree. Therefore, illegalizing abortion, because you believe it is "universal" and "objective" is, indeed, forcing others to comply. Others who adamantly disagree. This idea of "universal morals" is exactly a cause of oppression, because people who disagree must be deviants and therefore lesser to the majority (or supposed majority). And I would say no, you have not made "good" arguments, because morality is almost entirely subjective. There is almost nothing objective about it at all.

I just don't find it arrogant. I find the idea that there are morals that are "always right" oppressive, and I find it very dangerous. The fact you say they are "acting on falsehood" simply because they disagree, it's dictatorial! You are basically saying, "This is MY way! MY way is right! No exceptions!" because you are saying those who disagree are absolute wrong!

And lastly, you cannot compare Darwin's theory of evolution to this. This is not science, this is philosophy.

[Oaktree]

See, and that is the root of the problem in your argument. I'll be blunt; I think you are absolutely incorrect. There is absolutely no such thing as absolute, or universal, morals. I find such a thought as something sort of like, hm, I guess I would say sort of like exceptionalism. "Logic" is not infallible, nor is it objective; it is very much subjective. You say you come to your conclusions logically, and hence, are probably right. What, and I haven't? Well I have. I have expressed why I think the way I do. So I guess that means I'm also most likely right, too? Oh, but now have a conundrum. We both cannot be "probably right" when both sides are opposing.

It is a matter of building one's argument from fundamental principles, though. It's nothing personal, but your argument is not built in fundamental principles. By the mere fact that you casually reject the concept of responsibility, you are throwing out the basis of ethical judgement.

I'd also like to point out that, when you say we cannot both be "probably right", you are arguing against your own judgement that morality is subjective. The biggest problem with subjective morality is that it denies that there is any truth whatsoever in reality. If you speak at all of truth values, you are denying that there is moral subjectivity.

Anyhow, you are saying you believe that, regarding this issue, it is a universal, objective moral. I, and others, disagree. Therefore, illegalizing abortion, because you believe it is "universal" and "objective" is, indeed, forcing others to comply. Others who adamantly disagree. This idea of "universal morals" is exactly a cause of oppression, because people who disagree must be deviants and therefore lesser to the majority (or supposed majority). And I would say no, you have not made "good" arguments, because morality is almost entirely subjective. There is almost nothing objective about it at all.

Disagreeing with the concept of objective morality is not a valid argument against the existence of objective morality. If there is objective morality, it exists whether people follow it or not. Even if not one person follows it, it still exists, immutable.

Further, if morals were truly relative, then there would be no basis on which to give any sort of punishment for any sort of crime. No matter how abhorrent the crime or how sociopathic the criminal, there would be no way to hold the person responsible because they could simply claim that their actions did not defy their own moral code.

If there is no such thing as objective morality, to take an example from Sam Harris, you could compare the Dali Lama to Ted Bundy and say that they have equally valid world views. Only a deluded handful would ever argue this. Arguing from any ethical theory short of emotivism or relativism will come to the conclusion that the Dali Lama's views are morally superior.

By saying that I have made no good arguments because morality is subjective, you are directly stating a preexisting prejudice on your part against the concept of objective morality. You further fail to support your statement that there is nothing objective about morality.

I just don't find it arrogant. I find the idea that there are morals that are "always right" oppressive, and I find it very dangerous. The fact you say they are "acting on falsehood" simply because they disagree, it's dictatorial! You are basically saying, "This is MY way! MY way is right! No exceptions!" because you are saying those who disagree are absolute wrong!

And lastly, you cannot compare Darwin's theory of evolution to this. This is not science, this is philosophy.

You aren't providing any reasons for your argument. You have settled on using emotionally weighted labels to describe objective morality, without providing any logical basis in your supposed refutations of my argument.

It is more dangerous if there are no objective morals. This would allow people to act in any manner they choose, without the potential for any sort of corrective action. If you steal, you have done something that has bad consequences. You chose to take on those consequences, so you are responsible for the fact that they occurred. Therefore, in order to prevent future bad consequences, you must be made to not commit them. That, in a nutshell, is objective morality. It is simple, fundamental, and logically sound. From this basis, individual cases of applied ethics can be examined. If you're not even on this page, it is impossible to hold a meaningful debate. I think this is where a large chunk of the problem in abortion debates comes from. Moral relativity is in vogue, but many people never bother to examine it to see if it is logical. It is not.

Ignoring the fact that you shouldn't believe in any sort of truth if you think that morality is subjective, science isn't any more reliably accurate than philosophy. Science is based on certain assumptions, in much the same way as philosophy, in that it assumes that the universe is stable, that causality exists, that our perceptions are accurate, etc. If you want to be a hard-line nihilist, you can throw away these assumptions just as easily as you can throw away these assumptions underlying philosophy. If you carried nihilism to its logical end, you would be obligated to throw away those assumptions. Yet there has to be some form of existence, even if we are not perceiving it correctly, because the mere fact that we can perceive speaks to some sort of existence.

[jooxis]

Further, if morals were truly relative, then there would be no basis on which to give any sort of punishment for any sort of crime. No matter how abhorrent the crime or how sociopathic the criminal, there would be no way to hold the person responsible because they could simply claim that their actions did not defy their own moral code.


By "objective morality" you seem to mean "the currently most common accepted moral code in a certain society". Laws differ from country to country depending on the general most widely-accepted set of "morals" of that society. And the punishments for crimes will be set accordingly. Nothing is confusing about that.
That doesn't mean that the law is a reflection of this "objective morality" myth you speak of.

[fragglerocks]

I don't think grumpy_otter means "reasons" as in the reasoning sort of reasons. Say, for example, something goes wrong in the development process and the baby doesn't grow some necessary organ. In that case, the mother might miscarry because the child won't live. It has nothing to do with reasoning. It has to do with viability. Nature takes care of itself... even if it can't logically think through the scenario like we can.

I suffer from terrible insomnia and I know its no excuse but I did get some words mixed up. I meant to say fertility treatments, not IVF and where I got that from I'll never know. Either way I do think you are right and I did misunderstand. What I was thinking when I responded was this-there is nothing unnatural to me about hormone therapy, which a form of fertility treatment. It doesn't make sense that any treatment that helps the body to do what it naturally should do to begin with in order to allow conception would be something anyone could be against. That's where my insomnia kicked in, because in the general context of the arguments grumpy otter often makes, never did they lack common sense. So grumpy otter, I do hope you accept my apology for not giving you more credit.

[ivan17]

So I ask again, what the hell is your point.

:lol:
When I say anything against abortion, gays, etc. I got answer: "It's natural.", so everything is natural then! :rofl:

[Doddibot]

Further, if morals were truly relative, then there would be no basis on which to give any sort of punishment for any sort of crime. No matter how abhorrent the crime or how sociopathic the criminal, there would be no way to hold the person responsible because they could simply claim that their actions did not defy their own moral code.
There would be no objective basis for punishment, but there would still be subjective reasons for punishment. It might be in my moral code to punish you for violating my moral code, regardless of what your moral code indicates.

It is more dangerous if there are no objective morals. This would allow people to act in any manner they choose, without the potential for any sort of corrective action. If you steal, you have done something that has bad consequences. You chose to take on those consequences, so you are responsible for the fact that they occurred. Therefore, in order to prevent future bad consequences, you must be made to not commit them. That, in a nutshell, is objective morality. It is simple, fundamental, and logically sound
This isn't a logical argument. You're just saying that if there was no objective morality, bad things would occur. Well, unfortunately, reality exists how it is regardless of whether we like it or not. We can't alter truth just on wishful thinking.

[Oaktree]

By "objective morality" you seem to mean "the currently most common accepted moral code in a certain society". Laws differ from country to country depending on the general most widely-accepted set of "morals" of that society. And the punishments for crimes will be set accordingly. Nothing is confusing about that.
That doesn't mean that the law is a reflection of this "objective morality" myth you speak of.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I have said a couple of times now that no society is perfect, and that there is room for my ideas on the matter to be imperfect. What I mean by objective morality is a universal standard that exists independently of humanity. It would be equally applicable to any species that developed enough sapience to make conscious decisions. Humans don't create the laws of objective morality, they must discover what those laws are. This is why I think at least basic logic and philosophy should be taught in public schools. If people learn to think deeply and logically, they can make more accurate decisions and judgments. This, in turn, would lead to the majority having more logically sound stances, making it easier to put those sound stances into law. I'm not saying that my personal philosophy should be taught. I was taught a variety of different ethical theories in my ethics class, but I chose the ones that I think are most logically sound.

There would be no objective basis for punishment, but there would still be subjective reasons for punishment. It might be in my moral code to punish you for violating my moral code, regardless of what your moral code indicates.

That is far too arbitrary and far more "oppressive" than having a universal standard. If we base punishment on the standards of a few individuals, we allow room for corruption and inconsistency. If you had different judges trying two different people who have committed nearly identical crimes for identical reasons, the personal feelings of those judges may differ, and then it would be considered acceptable to give wildly different punishments to the two criminals. That is inconsistent and unjust.


This isn't a logical argument. You're just saying that if there was no objective morality, bad things would occur. Well, unfortunately, reality exists how it is regardless of whether we like it or not. We can't alter truth just on wishful thinking.

Bad things will occur regardless of whether there is objective morality. That doesn't mean that those bad things are okay and the people who do them should be left unpunished. I am not arguing that objective morality would have some kind of physical manifestation that would prevent someone from doing something bad. That clearly isn't the case. I am arguing that objective morality allows punishment for crime to be fair and just, and it protects society by allowing that punishment in the first place.

[fragglerocks]

What I mean by objective morality is a universal standard that exists independently of humanity.

To me this would mean empathy. We feel pain for others because we can imagine the pain ourselves, and I think this is what mostly shapes our objective morality.

[Nekowolf]

It is a matter of building one's argument from fundamental principles, though. It's nothing personal, but your argument is not built in fundamental principles. By the mere fact that you casually reject the concept of responsibility, you are throwing out the basis of ethical judgement.

I'd also like to point out that, when you say we cannot both be "probably right", you are arguing against your own judgement that morality is subjective. The biggest problem with subjective morality is that it denies that there is any truth whatsoever in reality. If you speak at all of truth values, you are denying that there is moral subjectivity.
But your own "fundamental principles" that you are arguing on could also be wrong, and based in subjectivity. Just because you have "principles" does not mean your argument is infallible, nor does it mean you are automatically correct in your assumptions. I am basing my argument on some principles; you are simply rejecting them because they do not comply to your standard. Nor am I rejecting the concept of responsibility; what I am saying is you are placing unreasonable responsibility on the parents. This is what I was talking about when I said you are stretching what I am saying; I have never said they should forfeit all responsibility, or not be held accountable (depending on the situation (such as not using contraception and getting pregnant)). And no, you are wrong. It's as simple as that. Subjective morality does not deny truth in reality; it merely interpreters truth in different ways. Take murder; when you murder someone, they die, that is a truth. The punishments and how severe of a crime murder is, or if there is justification for murder, is subjective yet also a moral that differs in societies.

And no, I was not arguing against my own position. You are saying there are universal, objective morals. You said you are most likely right, because you used "logic" to come to your conclusions, hence they, and you, are probably right. I used "logic" in my position too, hence, I must also be "probably right," according to your own argument. It's a conundrum and your concept that you are correct because you thought it out is self-defeating. Either you are, in truth, making a very poor argument, or you are assuming that I am irrational, emotional, and that my viewpoint is completely invalid, bereft of thought. Too which I take great insult, as I believe I have quite adequately shown my capability of argumentative thought.

Disagreeing with the concept of objective morality is not a valid argument against the existence of objective morality. If there is objective morality, it exists whether people follow it or not. Even if not one person follows it, it still exists, immutable.

Further, if morals were truly relative, then there would be no basis on which to give any sort of punishment for any sort of crime. No matter how abhorrent the crime or how sociopathic the criminal, there would be no way to hold the person responsible because they could simply claim that their actions did not defy their own moral code.

If there is no such thing as objective morality, to take an example from Sam Harris, you could compare the Dali Lama to Ted Bundy and say that they have equally valid world views. Only a deluded handful would ever argue this. Arguing from any ethical theory short of emotivism or relativism will come to the conclusion that the Dali Lama's views are morally superior.

By saying that I have made no good arguments because morality is subjective, you are directly stating a preexisting prejudice on your part against the concept of objective morality. You further fail to support your statement that there is nothing objective about morality.

If not one person believe in it, it can no longer exist as a moral, short of divine providence. For a moral to exist, there has to be a counter-opinion. If not a single person believe killing is wrong, then killing is wrong is no longer a moral option, because it is not considered. That is what a moral is; a definition of what is right v. wrong; but if everyone in the world believed that one thing is right, or that one thing is wrong, then it's not a moral anymore because there is no longer any countering ideas. You're basically saying that what is right v. wrong exists outside of human philosophy. That just makes no sense.

Secondly, again, you are completely wrong. Because subjective, relative, does NOT mean "individual." Morals can easily be established by a community, by society. The argument that subjective morality means no punishment is absurd. And, as I already pointed earlier, there are still fundamental objective truths, such as killing someone makes them not alive anymore, that subjective morality can be based on; how bad is it really to take someone's life, is killing ever justifiable, should it be punishable. It is subjective because it is interpretable, because it can vary in opinion. What you are essentially saying is there is one absolute opinion, and all others are wrong, regardless of what they are.

Thirdly, YES! They are equally valid! You could say they are incorrect, you could say they do not make good arguments, but you cannot fucking say they are "invalid." Just because someone did something wrong, even a great wrong, does not mean that everything they absolutely say is invalid. That is what you are saying. That you must be morally superior in order to be valid. This is absolutely dangerous thought! Whites thought they were superior to blacks, so blacks were invalid. The Nazis thought they were morally superior to the Jews, so the Jews were invalid. The Vatican thought they were morally superior to the pagans, so the pagans were invalid. The Romans thought they were morally superior to the slaves, so the slaves were invalid. What you are saying in incitement of repression! We few who know the Absolute Truth are superior!, all others are wrong!, all others must not be listened to!, they know not of what they speak of!

And you're using a preexisting prejudice against MY view! So I guess we're fucking equal, oh but wait, I'm wrong, because you know the truth, therefore you must be superior! I've made plenty of argument for my position, nor did I ever say that there was nothing objective about morality. Never.

What I said was: morality is mostly subjective. Mostly. Subjective.

You aren't providing any reasons for your argument. You have settled on using emotionally weighted labels to describe objective morality, without providing any logical basis in your supposed refutations of my argument.

It is more dangerous if there are no objective morals. This would allow people to act in any manner they choose, without the potential for any sort of corrective action. If you steal, you have done something that has bad consequences. You chose to take on those consequences, so you are responsible for the fact that they occurred. Therefore, in order to prevent future bad consequences, you must be made to not commit them. That, in a nutshell, is objective morality. It is simple, fundamental, and logically sound. From this basis, individual cases of applied ethics can be examined. If you're not even on this page, it is impossible to hold a meaningful debate. I think this is where a large chunk of the problem in abortion debates comes from. Moral relativity is in vogue, but many people never bother to examine it to see if it is logical. It is not.

Ignoring the fact that you shouldn't believe in any sort of truth if you think that morality is subjective, science isn't any more reliably accurate than philosophy. Science is based on certain assumptions, in much the same way as philosophy, in that it assumes that the universe is stable, that causality exists, that our perceptions are accurate, etc. If you want to be a hard-line nihilist, you can throw away these assumptions just as easily as you can throw away these assumptions underlying philosophy. If you carried nihilism to its logical end, you would be obligated to throw away those assumptions. Yet there has to be some form of existence, even if we are not perceiving it correctly, because the mere fact that we can perceive speaks to some sort of existence.

I would have hoped I would not need to state explicitly my reasons for saying it's dangerous; I thought the concept of superiority over others was prevalent enough. Apparently, I was wrong. I have further explained why up above. And I have already dismantled what you stated in this quote above above, as well.

:lol:
When I say anything against abortion, gays, etc. I got answer: "It's natural.", so everything is natural then! :rofl:
Firstly, homosexuality is natural. There's fucking science behind it, we have seen it in non-human species as well. All you are doing is rejecting the science behind in favor of your own, flawed, preconceptions. Secondly, abortion IS natural. That's what a miscarriage is; a natural abortion. However, there are also abortions that are not natural. If you dare say we shouldn't be doing "unnatural" things, you better take a good fucking look at what we have that IS unnatural that we do to our bodies. Stuff that saves lives. And there is plenty of it.

[ivan17]

Firstly, homosexuality is natural. There's fucking science behind it, we have seen it in non-human species as well. All you are doing is rejecting the science behind in favor of your own, flawed, preconceptions. Secondly, abortion IS natural. That's what a miscarriage is; a natural abortion. However, there are also abortions that are not natural. If you dare say we shouldn't be doing "unnatural" things, you better take a good fucking look at what we have that IS unnatural that we do to our bodies. Stuff that saves lives. And there is plenty of it.

Okay, so, for example, one girl is pregnant and she wants to do abortion. But I hit her in face and she falls in unconscious state. I put her in one room and she lives there until she bore. She is unable to do abortion. And she bore new healthy baby. So, everything is natural and I saved one life.
Also, if I kill someone with my hands, that's natural.
Why is then to be gay legal and kill someone illegal, when both is natural and we are all just animals.
When cat kill mouse, it's legal!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Nekowolf]

...trust me. There are things I so want to say to you, but I refrain.

I will say this though; how absurd, I mean, really. I want to put nails into my head after having to read that. The very fact I have to explain this to you, I'm shocked. The ineptitude of that statement is just...wow.

Look, we as humans, are animals. This is fact. FACT! Unless you are some kind of android, which I know you are not. We are a species. We are made of organic tissue, we have neurological capabilities, we have natural processes, we require sustenance to survive. What about us ISN'T animal? The fact we can create? Well that's just because two main factors: 1. our intelligence and the development of our psyche, and 2. imposable thumbs.

The reason something is illegal is not because it is natural or not. It is because it has been to be found morally wrong, insufficient, or questionable.

Now, I would recommend perhaps you think before you speak, while you are still behind.

[Oaktree]

But your own "fundamental principles" that you are arguing on could also be wrong, and based in subjectivity. Just because you have "principles" does not mean your argument is infallible, nor does it mean you are automatically correct in your assumptions. I am basing my argument on some principles; you are simply rejecting them because they do not comply to your standard. Nor am I rejecting the concept of responsibility; what I am saying is you are placing unreasonable responsibility on the parents. This is what I was talking about when I said you are stretching what I am saying; I have never said they should forfeit all responsibility, or not be held accountable (depending on the situation (such as not using contraception and getting pregnant)). And no, you are wrong. It's as simple as that. Subjective morality does not deny truth in reality; it merely interpreters truth in different ways. Take murder; when you murder someone, they die, that is a truth. The punishments and how severe of a crime murder is, or if there is justification for murder, is subjective yet also a moral that differs in societies.

I have said before that I could be wrong. But I'm pointing out that my logic is more sound than yours is. You may disagree with me on this point, and that is why you argue back, but ultimately, either one of us is right or neither of us is right; we can’t both be right.

The responsibility I place on the parents is not unreasonable because the responsibility cannot fall on anyone else. The full consequences must fall on the parents because no one else made the choices involved.

Subjective morality denies truth because moral responsibility is based in consequence. The rightness or wrongness of an act depends on the consequences of that act, therefore, the rightness or wrongness of the act is "set in stone", so to speak. It is based in reality, so denying that an act can be right or wrong is denying that it has consequences.

The rightness or wrongness can be contextual, in that the consequences can vary in different cases of the act, but the rightness or wrongness does not vary based on opinion. Cultural relativity is just as wrong as any other form of moral relativity for this reason.

And no, I was not arguing against my own position. You are saying there are universal, objective morals. You said you are most likely right, because you used "logic" to come to your conclusions, hence they, and you, are probably right. I used "logic" in my position too, hence, I must also be "probably right," according to your own argument. It's a conundrum and your concept that you are correct because you thought it out is self-defeating. Either you are, in truth, making a very poor argument, or you are assuming that I am irrational, emotional, and that my viewpoint is completely invalid, bereft of thought. Too which I take great insult, as I believe I have quite adequately shown my capability of argumentative thought.

Your logic may be flawed. My logic may be flawed. If one of us is arguing from flawed principles, that person is wrong. That is why I am attempting to outline my underlying principles and support those; it decreases the likelihood that my logic is flawed if I can show that my underlying principles are not. I am not saying that your viewpoint is bereft of thought, but I do think that your logic is flawed, and you do not always argue from logic.

If not one person believe in it, it can no longer exist as a moral, short of divine providence. For a moral to exist, there has to be a counter-opinion. If not a single person believe killing is wrong, then killing is wrong is no longer a moral option, because it is not considered. That is what a moral is; a definition of what is right v. wrong; but if everyone in the world believed that one thing is right, or that one thing is wrong, then it's not a moral anymore because there is no longer any countering ideas. You're basically saying that what is right v. wrong exists outside of human philosophy. That just makes no sense.

If not one person believes killing is wrong, it doesn't change the value of that point of view. If everyone thinks that it's okay to kill at random, this is actively harmful to our species - really to any species (which is what I meant when I said that morality is a standard that exists independently of humanity). Rather than working to keep the species alive, the members of the species would be actively working toward its destruction. I think that it is bad for the species to be destroyed both because life is precious and because rationality is special. These are my underlying assumptions, (though I do have logical reasons for these assumptions) so you may disagree with me here. If you agree with one or both of those assumptions, however, you cannot disagree with the idea that murder is wrong because the wrongness rigidly follows from those assumptions.

You keep asserting that morality is based in human values, and that it varies from culture to culture. "Moral values" can vary, but it doesn't mean that those moral values are correct. Morality is what exists above and beyond those moral values. I have argued that morality is objective; given this, morality exists as an objective standard whether moral values match up to it or not. You are arguing that there is no higher standard than the moral values of human societies. This means that any moral values would be pointless, as they would be meaningless fabrications. As I explained above, this also fails to take reality into account because it ignores that there are consequences.

Secondly, again, you are completely wrong. Because subjective, relative, does NOT mean "individual." Morals can easily be established by a community, by society. The argument that subjective morality means no punishment is absurd. And, as I already pointed earlier, there are still fundamental objective truths, such as killing someone makes them not alive anymore, that subjective morality can be based on; how bad is it really to take someone's life, is killing ever justifiable, should it be punishable. It is subjective because it is interpretable, because it can vary in opinion. What you are essentially saying is there is one absolute opinion, and all others are wrong, regardless of what they are.

My argument can just as easily be applied to communities. If one community does wrong to another, the wrongdoer can say that the wrong is not actually wrong because it is not wrong based on their moral views. This leads back to a situation in which a wrongdoer cannot be punished for their wrongdoing.

Subjectivity, based on your definition, seems to be simply refusing to make up one's mind. If you think through the consequences, you can come to a decision that is right, or at least more right. By saying that it is subjective, you're basically just saying that you don't want to go to the effort of making up your mind. If morality can truly vary based on opinion, once again we come back to a scenario in which no one can be punished, because there will always be some opinion that the crime is not wrong.

Thirdly, YES! They are equally valid! You could say they are incorrect, you could say they do not make good arguments, but you cannot fucking say they are "invalid." Just because someone did something wrong, even a great wrong, does not mean that everything they absolutely say is invalid. That is what you are saying. That you must be morally superior in order to be valid. This is absolutely dangerous thought! Whites thought they were superior to blacks, so blacks were invalid. The Nazis thought they were morally superior to the Jews, so the Jews were invalid. The Vatican thought they were morally superior to the pagans, so the pagans were invalid. The Romans thought they were morally superior to the slaves, so the slaves were invalid. What you are saying in incitement of repression! We few who know the Absolute Truth are superior!, all others are wrong!, all others must not be listened to!, they know not of what they speak of!

They are equally possible, but not equally valid. If there are no good arguments for your position (you don't necessarily need to make them, but there has to be some way to make them) then your position is wrong, and you cannot continue to act in accordance with that position. A group thinking that they are superior and that another is invalid, does not make that group superior. If that group has no way to support their view, their view is invalid. Taking your example of whites believing themselves superior to blacks: there is no argument based in reality that supports this view; science shows that whites and blacks are essentially the same, so the viewpoint that one is superior to the other is invalid.

Even if you believe you know the absolute truth, you are still accountable to logic. This generally requires that you are held accountable by others, so long as those others are also held accountable to logic. This doesn't mean that you need to be held accountable to others who share your view, however, as a person can still be logical even if they simply start from the wrong assumptions. This is where the controversy in philosophy comes from: each person can be logical, while still arguing different points. This does not mean that each point is correct, however, as the difference in viewpoints comes from different base assumptions, and there can't exist contradiction in reality, so some of those base assumptions will be wrong. Ultimately, this makes it impossible to debate philosophy perfectly, but I think it is still worthwhile to debate, even with the inherent imperfections. It is better to believe in something, even if it may be wrong, than to believe in nothing. It also happens to be impossible to believe in nothing because humans simply can't think that way.

And you're using a preexisting prejudice against MY view! So I guess we're fucking equal, oh but wait, I'm wrong, because you know the truth, therefore you must be superior! I've made plenty of argument for my position, nor did I ever say that there was nothing objective about morality. Never.

What I said was: morality is mostly subjective. Mostly. Subjective.

I never claimed to "know" the truth. I'm taking educated guesses about the truth. I'm arguing the logic behind my educated guesses and poking holes in arguments that are less logical, or that I believe are less logical.

Where do you draw the line to find where morality is subjective and where it is objective? What is your logical basis for arguing this?

I would have hoped I would not need to state explicitly my reasons for saying it's dangerous; I thought the concept of superiority over others was prevalent enough. Apparently, I was wrong. I have further explained why up above. And I have already dismantled what you stated in this quote above above, as well.

You are not arguing about the danger of objective morality; you are arguing about the danger of humans armed with flawed perceptions of objective morality. I explained before that morality is not based in human standards, as consequences for certain types of actions are similar regardless of the species of the individual performing the action. Killing, by definition, takes a life, regardless of the species. The specific intent and impact of the act can vary from situation to situation, but there will always be some degree of wrongness in the act. The wrong may be the lesser of two evils in some circumstances, in which case it may be allowable for the perpetrator to not be punished at all. Self-defense, for example, is considered the lesser of two evils, so a person who kills in self-defense is usually not punished.

My argument regarding abortion was that abortion is only ever the lesser of two evils in some cases where it may affect the health of the mother, or if the mother did not consent to the act that lead to the pregnancy. This is because, through the argument that rationality should be preserved (see my first post in this thread), it is a greater evil to take away a rational life (the fetus) than it is to merely impact a rational life (the mother). At this point, I don’t know if there is much point in you and I even arguing at this level, as our more general philosophies don’t match, so they will only diverge even more as we look at specific applied cases.

[fakepeeps7]

ivan17, why are you hitting women in the face and holding them captive? Because they don't agree with you?

You scare me, you know that?

To me this would mean empathy. We feel pain for others because we can imagine the pain ourselves, and I think this is what mostly shapes our objective morality.

I think that's a good way of looking at it.

Unfortunately, we also need laws because there are too many people running around without any empathy.

[Nekowolf]

I have said before that I could be wrong. But I'm pointing out that my logic is more sound than yours is. You may disagree with me on this point, and that is why you argue back, but ultimately, either one of us is right or neither of us is right; we can’t both be right.

The responsibility I place on the parents is not unreasonable because the responsibility cannot fall on anyone else. The full consequences must fall on the parents because no one else made the choices involved.

Subjective morality denies truth because moral responsibility is based in consequence. The rightness or wrongness of an act depends on the consequences of that act, therefore, the rightness or wrongness of the act is "set in stone", so to speak. It is based in reality, so denying that an act can be right or wrong is denying that it has consequences.

The rightness or wrongness can be contextual, in that the consequences can vary in different cases of the act, but the rightness or wrongness does not vary based on opinion. Cultural relativity is just as wrong as any other form of moral relativity for this reason.

No. You think, you presume, your logic is more sound than mine. And those parents did not make the choice for their contraception to fail. You keep saying, "you should be prepared for the consequences," well being willing to abort is being prepared. It's just not a preparation you personally like.

No it is not! You are provide a flawed concept of what "subjective morality" is. It is not denying consequences or punishment! I have already gone into this. I have already stated how, and I will not get into it again. Refuse to accept my points as valid, I really don't care anymore. There's no use in arguing with someone who refuses to listen.

And you're also wrong on the whole right v. wrong based on opinion. This is nothing more but more of your crap about universal absolute truths. Objective morality is like Christ-based science. Loaded.

Your logic may be flawed. My logic may be flawed. If one of us is arguing from flawed principles, that person is wrong. That is why I am attempting to outline my underlying principles and support those; it decreases the likelihood that my logic is flawed if I can show that my underlying principles are not. I am not saying that your viewpoint is bereft of thought, but I do think that your logic is flawed, and you do not always argue from logic.
What bullshit. If one argues from flawed principles, that does not make them "wrong" as they may still make good points. I can say the same shit about your points, too. Yeah, I think YOUR logic is just as flawed and broken! I think your logic is based on the underlying concept that you have predetermined that you are correct in what you say! This whole freaking deal is not for the sake of argument, but to preside your views as superior and correct! You can say, "well, I may be flawed to" but you don't really think that, do you? So your "may be" is nothing but crap to cover your ass. It's like a damn Birther saying "Well, I'm not saying Obama is illegitimate, I'm just saying it's something to question." No, just as that Birther believe Obama is illegitimate, you believe you are correct and I am wrong, and this crap about "but I could be wrong" is nothing but bullshit.

If not one person believes killing is wrong, it doesn't change the value of that point of view. If everyone thinks that it's okay to kill at random, this is actively harmful to our species - really to any species (which is what I meant when I said that morality is a standard that exists independently of humanity). Rather than working to keep the species alive, the members of the species would be actively working toward its destruction. I think that it is bad for the species to be destroyed both because life is precious and because rationality is special. These are my underlying assumptions, (though I do have logical reasons for these assumptions) so you may disagree with me here. If you agree with one or both of those assumptions, however, you cannot disagree with the idea that murder is wrong because the wrongness rigidly follows from those assumptions.

You keep asserting that morality is based in human values, and that it varies from culture to culture. "Moral values" can vary, but it doesn't mean that those moral values are correct. Morality is what exists above and beyond those moral values. I have argued that morality is objective; given this, morality exists as an objective standard whether moral values match up to it or not. You are arguing that there is no higher standard than the moral values of human societies. This means that any moral values would be pointless, as they would be meaningless fabrications. As I explained above, this also fails to take reality into account because it ignores that there are consequences.

YES it does change the value, because the view that killing is wrong no longer exists! You could say it's wrong, looking in retrospect, but if nobody believes it then there IS no retrospect! And no, I could believe in both of those and still disagree! You are saying everyone thinks like you fucking do! You are saying, "well if they agree with me on these bullet points, then obviously they must agree with me as a whole." NO! You are projection yourself onto others. We could agree killing is wrong, but our ideas on how wrong it is, on the punishment for it, could be completely different!

And morality IS moral values! Norms, for example, are a collection of common practices! Societal morality is a collection of moral values adopted by that society! And no, it is not meaningless because it still benefits society or the individual. You are, yet again, completely stretching the argument to mold into your little narrow perspective.

My argument can just as easily be applied to communities. If one community does wrong to another, the wrongdoer can say that the wrong is not actually wrong because it is not wrong based on their moral views. This leads back to a situation in which a wrongdoer cannot be punished for their wrongdoing.

Subjectivity, based on your definition, seems to be simply refusing to make up one's mind. If you think through the consequences, you can come to a decision that is right, or at least more right. By saying that it is subjective, you're basically just saying that you don't want to go to the effort of making up your mind. If morality can truly vary based on opinion, once again we come back to a scenario in which no one can be punished, because there will always be some opinion that the crime is not wrong.
Absolute bullshit! That community can dictate a set of rules based on the moral majority, e.g. the majority believe killing is wrong, and therefore install punishments for the action. What you are say is completely shit.

My definition of subjectivity is based on perspective. You are the one arguing for "not making up one's mind." You are the one completley forgoing my arguments, throwing them out the window, then coming back and criticizing on falsities that YOU created. I'm getting real fucking sick of it. I will not leave this argument; instead, you can pull your head out of your ass.

They are equally possible, but not equally valid. If there are no good arguments for your position (you don't necessarily need to make them, but there has to be some way to make them) then your position is wrong, and you cannot continue to act in accordance with that position. A group thinking that they are superior and that another is invalid, does not make that group superior. If that group has no way to support their view, their view is invalid. Taking your example of whites believing themselves superior to blacks: there is no argument based in reality that supports this view; science shows that whites and blacks are essentially the same, so the viewpoint that one is superior to the other is invalid.

Even if you believe you know the absolute truth, you are still accountable to logic. This generally requires that you are held accountable by others, so long as those others are also held accountable to logic. This doesn't mean that you need to be held accountable to others who share your view, however, as a person can still be logical even if they simply start from the wrong assumptions. This is where the controversy in philosophy comes from: each person can be logical, while still arguing different points. This does not mean that each point is correct, however, as the difference in viewpoints comes from different base assumptions, and there can't exist contradiction in reality, so some of those base assumptions will be wrong. Ultimately, this makes it impossible to debate philosophy perfectly, but I think it is still worthwhile to debate, even with the inherent imperfections. It is better to believe in something, even if it may be wrong, than to believe in nothing. It also happens to be impossible to believe in nothing because humans simply can't think that way.
By saying they are "invalid," you are saying they are not worthy, or worth it, or too incapable to make a proper or reasonable decision. You are saying, "they don't count." And who determines if it's a "good argument?" So if I make a good argument that killing should be okay, then I guess I'm right and you're wrong. As long as it's "good." Right, and what, you're the judge? But if I'm arguing against you, of COURSE my argument is crap! Please, what you say makes about as much sense as the convict being his own jury.

And whites being superior to blacks WAS based on logic; their logic! Just like you are basing that you are correct, on YOUR logic! Your point, such as this statement, "if there is objective morality, those people who don't believe so are acting on falsehood," is that those who do not believe in objective morality, those who do not believe in these "set in stone" principles, are wrong. They are wrong! They have always been wrong! They will always be wrong! You are saying your position is superior to mine, because I am fucking wrong! No arguments, I am wrong, the fucking end, period! Well!...never mind, I'd probably get in trouble for saying that.

You are not arguing about the danger of objective morality; you are arguing about the danger of humans armed with flawed perceptions of objective morality. I explained before that morality is not based in human standards, as consequences for certain types of actions are similar regardless of the species of the individual performing the action. Killing, by definition, takes a life, regardless of the species. The specific intent and impact of the act can vary from situation to situation, but there will always be some degree of wrongness in the act. The wrong may be the lesser of two evils in some circumstances, in which case it may be allowable for the perpetrator to not be punished at all. Self-defense, for example, is considered the lesser of two evils, so a person who kills in self-defense is usually not punished.

My argument regarding abortion was that abortion is only ever the lesser of two evils in some cases where it may affect the health of the mother, or if the mother did not consent to the act that lead to the pregnancy. This is because, through the argument that rationality should be preserved (see my first post in this thread), it is a greater evil to take away a rational life (the fetus) than it is to merely impact a rational life (the mother). At this point, I don’t know if there is much point in you and I even arguing at this level, as our more general philosophies don’t match, so they will only diverge even more as we look at specific applied cases.
No, I'm arguing that you are walking a dangerous line for presuming that there is a superior v. inferior, and that is that those who are morally right are superior, and those who are morally wrong are inferior, as presented by saying that the Dalhi Lama is superior over Ted Bundy based on moral perspective, that anything Ted Bundy says is wrong, and invalid, therefore, as is defined by the word invalid, not grounded in logic and/or truth, therefore, irrelevant! Those who are "morally wrong" are irrelevant! Because no matter what, they are wrong! That is how horrific shit gets started! Because one side said, "We are right, you are wrong! We demand you accept it!" And when the other side didn't accept it? Well, I don't think I need to go into it!

[jooxis]

Okay, so, for example, one girl is pregnant and she wants to do abortion. But I hit her in face and she falls in unconscious state. I put her in one room and she lives there until she bore. She is unable to do abortion. And she bore new healthy baby. So, everything is natural and I saved one life.
Also, if I kill someone with my hands, that's natural.
Why is then to be gay legal and kill someone illegal, when both is natural and we are all just animals.
When cat kill mouse, it's legal!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I don't know why, but I've read this twice. My only thought is - are you really trying to make sense?

[Purity4]

Okay, so, for example, one girl is pregnant and she wants to do abortion. But I hit her in face and she falls in unconscious state. I put her in one room and she lives there until she bore. She is unable to do abortion. And she bore new healthy baby. So, everything is natural and I saved one life.
Also, if I kill someone with my hands, that's natural.
Why is then to be gay legal and kill someone illegal, when both is natural and we are all just animals.
When cat kill mouse, it's legal!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: I just assumed ivan was a troll :rofl: who uses lots of :rofl: and :rofl: and when I see 'ivan' pop up on the screen, :rofl: I see troll and don't take anything they type seriously. :rofl:

[fakepeeps7]

All those rolling smileys are making me dizzy...

[Doddibot]

That is far too arbitrary and far more "oppressive" than having a universal standard. [...] That is inconsistent and unjust.
Yes it is, but that's not anything to do with whether morality is subjective or objective. We might want morality to be a certain way, but wanting will not make it so.

I am arguing that objective morality allows punishment for crime to be fair and just, and it protects society by allowing that punishment in the first place.
I know, but I'm telling you that's totally irrelevant. What we think ought to be true is not necessarily what is true. It's just wishful thinking to think it is.

[Oaktree]

No. You think, you presume, your logic is more sound than mine. And those parents did not make the choice for their contraception to fail. You keep saying, "you should be prepared for the consequences," well being willing to abort is being prepared. It's just not a preparation you personally like.

I implied that I think my logic is more sound than yours. You are completely ignoring the now numerous times I have said that I am not perfect and my views very well could be wrong. Abortion is not an acceptable way to prepare for the consequence of pregnancy, though. I have already run this argument into the ground and you clearly don't agree, so I don't see the point in explaining it all over again.

No it is not! You are provide a flawed concept of what "subjective morality" is. It is not denying consequences or punishment! I have already gone into this. I have already stated how, and I will not get into it again. Refuse to accept my points as valid, I really don't care anymore. There's no use in arguing with someone who refuses to listen.

I have been waiting for you to make a logical argument. I could also easily say the same about you: that you refuse to listen. Every post you have made in response to mine has in some way misconstrued what I have said. You are doing what you accuse me of doing: forcing my argument into some narrow mold that you think it fits into.

And you're also wrong on the whole right v. wrong based on opinion. This is nothing more but more of your crap about universal absolute truths. Objective morality is like Christ-based science. Loaded.

And this statement is loaded to make me look dogmatic and irrational. You are begging the question when you say that "objective morality is like Christ-based science". You are defining it as such and then acting like the fact that you defined it as such makes it an admissible argument.

What bullshit. If one argues from flawed principles, that does not make them "wrong" as they may still make good points. I can say the same shit about your points, too. Yeah, I think YOUR logic is just as flawed and broken! I think your logic is based on the underlying concept that you have predetermined that you are correct in what you say! This whole freaking deal is not for the sake of argument, but to preside your views as superior and correct! You can say, "well, I may be flawed to" but you don't really think that, do you? So your "may be" is nothing but crap to cover your ass. It's like a damn Birther saying "Well, I'm not saying Obama is illegitimate, I'm just saying it's something to question." No, just as that Birther believe Obama is illegitimate, you believe you are correct and I am wrong, and this crap about "but I could be wrong" is nothing but bullshit.

You can stumble upon truth without having logical backing to it. That is part of what I said in the paragraphs you are responding to here. However, if you come to a conclusion from flawed principles that turns out to have no logical backing when you argue from true principles, then you are still wrong. Bohr believed that the atom was simply a material nucleus with observable electrons orbiting around it. Based on his knowledge at the time, this was a logical conclusion. We know now, though, that it is not an accurate model of the atom. He is wrong, even if his logic was not flawed.

If you think my logic is flawed, you should point out the flaws in my logic. So far, you have mostly been lashing out at my arguments emotionally, rather than rationally. I really would prefer it if you did try to point out logical flaws, because you can't have a debate if it is all based in emotion. Of course, I may disagree with you, as it may be that there are flaws in your logic, but I'm not simply ignoring what you say, as I am clearly taking the time to respond to you.

My intent is not to "preside [my] views as superior". My intent is to debate, but I can't debate properly if I shift my views every time someone makes a weak argument against me. Debate is about taking a stance and airing the logic in your stance. If someone were to make a more logical argument in favor of abortion than could be made against it, I would consider it. You can't walk into a debate room and expect everyone to magically end up on your side, though, particularly when much of your debating strategy relies on emotional appeal.

YES it does change the value, because the view that killing is wrong no longer exists! You could say it's wrong, looking in retrospect, but if nobody believes it then there IS no retrospect! And no, I could believe in both of those and still disagree! You are saying everyone thinks like you fucking do! You are saying, "well if they agree with me on these bullet points, then obviously they must agree with me as a whole." NO! You are projection yourself onto others. We could agree killing is wrong, but our ideas on how wrong it is, on the punishment for it, could be completely different!

The view that we are composed of cells didn't exist before the 1650's. That doesn't mean that views opposing it were right until cells were discovered. A lack of knowledge does not change the truth value of any objective fact. It's really rather arrogant to think that the laws of the universe are entirely reliant on human perception, as the universe existed before we did and will continue to exist long after we're gone.

If you believe in both of those things but disagree with me, tell me why. I can't say that I'll automatically think you're correct, but if your logic is sound, I will consider it. Our ideas on how wrong it is may differ, but it still doesn't mean that we're both right.

And morality IS moral values! Norms, for example, are a collection of common practices! Societal morality is a collection of moral values adopted by that society! And no, it is not meaningless because it still benefits society or the individual. You are, yet again, completely stretching the argument to mold into your little narrow perspective.

Some moral values may, in fact, be detrimental. Slavery used to be a commonly accepted practice, but slavery is actually quite bad for the individuals forced into slavery, as well as for the economy of the country employing slave labor. In this case, the moral value is wrong. The objective standard would be that slavery is wrong because it is detrimental and wrongs the individual.

Absolute bullshit! That community can dictate a set of rules based on the moral majority, e.g. the majority believe killing is wrong, and therefore install punishments for the action. What you are say is completely shit.

You are missing my point. Take for example, a country that invades another because they want the resources that the other country possesses. The invader may think that it is okay for them to invade because the resources would benefit its people, while the invaded country would think that it was wrong for the invader to invade because the invader is infringing on the rights of the people of the invaded country. Each country has a different opinion on the morality of the situation, so how do you determine which country is right?

My definition of subjectivity is based on perspective. You are the one arguing for "not making up one's mind." You are the one completley forgoing my arguments, throwing them out the window, then coming back and criticizing on falsities that YOU created. I'm getting real fucking sick of it. I will not leave this argument; instead, you can pull your head out of your ass.

You accuse me of thinking that I am absolutely right, yet you show signs of this thinking yourself. Further, if I understand you correctly, you are trying to make me stop debating. You can't have a debate if you're just going to tell your opposition "you're wrong because I said so, now stop arguing with me because you have to agree with me". If I am misinterpreting what you say, you have every right to correct me. I have had to correct you as you have misinterpreted me almost continuously throughout this debate. I'm not losing my temper with you, however, as I am aware that sometimes it is difficult to express yourself in a way that other people can understand. I came prepared to have to reiterate my ideas in new and creative ways to try to make my point clear.

By saying they are "invalid," you are saying they are not worthy, or worth it, or too incapable to make a proper or reasonable decision. You are saying, "they don't count." And who determines if it's a "good argument?" So if I make a good argument that killing should be okay, then I guess I'm right and you're wrong. As long as it's "good." Right, and what, you're the judge? But if I'm arguing against you, of COURSE my argument is crap! Please, what you say makes about as much sense as the convict being his own jury.

I'm not saying that everything they ever believed is wrong. I have expressed some variation on this idea many times throughout this thread: it is possible to be wrong even if you are usually right, and it is possible to be right even if you are usually wrong. No one is perfect and no one is 100% wrong.

If you think you can make a good argument that killing is okay, I'd like to hear it. You are interpreting the concept of a good argument far too loosely. Even if it sounds logical when you tell it to yourself, it can still be hung out to dry when others examine the logic in it. If the logic in an argument turns out to be flawed, it is not a good argument. If the logic is sound, but the premise is flawed, it is not a good argument, though it is headed in the right direction, at least. A good argument is only that which most strictly adheres to logic and objective reality (note that I said reality, as it is the most fundamental place to argue from and it encompasses the nature of truth).

You also seem to have missed the paragraph I wrote about being held accountable to logic, which is determined by others who make use of logic. I said that it is possible for others to disagree, but to have used logic in coming to their conclusions. I take part in the Philosophy Club at my school; we are far from consensus on pretty much every issue, yet everyone makes use of logic in their arguments. We have different philosophical assumptions that we make, which causes us to differ in our opinions. Yet, some of the arguments have made me stop to consider, and I have been swayed on a couple of points. When I air my thoughts, I am airing them to people who make use of logic, so any criticism I receive on the logicality of my statements is certainly valid.

And whites being superior to blacks WAS based on logic; their logic! Just like you are basing that you are correct, on YOUR logic! Your point, such as this statement, "if there is objective morality, those people who don't believe so are acting on falsehood," is that those who do not believe in objective morality, those who do not believe in these "set in stone" principles, are wrong. They are wrong! They have always been wrong! They will always be wrong! You are saying your position is superior to mine, because I am fucking wrong! No arguments, I am wrong, the fucking end, period! Well!...never mind, I'd probably get in trouble for saying that.

Some instances of it were based in logic with flawed premises, some were based in flawed logic. In any case, they are wrong because there is some flaw somewhere in their argument.

After I made that statement regarding objective morality and falsehood I went on in later posts to describe why morality is objective. So yes, I do believe that those who don't believe in objective morality are wrong in that regard, but you are taking my statement out of context.

Those who don't believe in objective morality may be right in some instances of applied ethics, though they get there through an incorrect route. For example, there are plenty of people who think that killing is wrong, which is a right assertion, but they don't get there through a logical route. So, no, I am not dismissing your argument out of hand simply because you don't believe in objective morality. If you had agreed with me that abortion is wrong, but you still didn't believe in objective morality (which is, in itself, a logical paradox) I would agree with your conclusion, even though I thought your method incorrect. In this case, I disagree with both your method and your conclusion, but I have provided reasons for my disagreement.

No, I'm arguing that you are walking a dangerous line for presuming that there is a superior v. inferior, and that is that those who are morally right are superior, and those who are morally wrong are inferior, as presented by saying that the Dalhi Lama is superior over Ted Bundy based on moral perspective, that anything Ted Bundy says is wrong, and invalid, therefore, as is defined by the word invalid, not grounded in logic and/or truth, therefore, irrelevant! Those who are "morally wrong" are irrelevant! Because no matter what, they are wrong! That is how horrific shit gets started! Because one side said, "We are right, you are wrong! We demand you accept it!" And when the other side didn't accept it? Well, I don't think I need to go into it!

I said morally superior. I said nothing of anyone's worth as a human being. I'm not saying we should round up all the relativists and shoot them. I am saying that they are wrong in their views, but that doesn't mean that they are less worthy of fundamental human rights. When conflict occurs, it comes from human flaws, rather than flaws in objective morality. As I said earlier, no one is perfect. People can think they're right and be wrong. You are trying to shift blame off of humans and onto the nature of morality, when those wrongs come from human misinterpretations of morality.

[Nekowolf]

And yet here you are, saying morality is objective and universal. So if you believe in that morality, which I'm assuming you do, you cannot be wrong. Arrogant, just as I said. You can claim you can be wrong all you want, but your own argument says you are not, unless the idea that morality is objective and universal, in itself, is wrong.

I have made plenty of logical arguments; you simply cannot follow my logic. Misconstrue? Perhaps, instead, you should choose your words more carefully if you do not want to be misunderstood.

And the idea that moralities are set in stone, unchangeable, infallible, forever existing and forever prevalent IS dogmatic!

And I HAVE pointed out the flaws in your logic. Go back and read. Or stop ignoring them. Whichever it is. Also pointed out how dangerous your logic is. This idea that morality is so black and white. You simply shrugged that off, too. I've made plenty of argument for my positions. You just sit there and go on about "well your wrong, my morals say so. Because they are universal." Your own argument states it.

[Oaktree]

Yes it is, but that's not anything to do with whether morality is subjective or objective. We might want morality to be a certain way, but wanting will not make it so.

I know, but I'm telling you that's totally irrelevant. What we think ought to be true is not necessarily what is true. It's just wishful thinking to think it is.

You have brought up valid points and I am thankful for that. I did provide weak arguments here.

I will point to what I have been saying to Nekowolf: In reality, there are consequences to actions. Those consequences must be taken on as the responsibility of the person who committed the action, as there is no one else who can be held responsible and nature/the universe is not a rational being capable of taking on responsibility. If the consequences are detrimental, the action should be stopped. Admittedly this is based on an assumption that what is favorable to life is good and what is detrimental to life is bad. You can agree with me or not on that point. If you disagree with me here, there is little point in continuing discussion on the matter unless you feel you can logically point out why morality should not be based in what is good or bad for life. The way to prevent the action from happening in the future is to stop the perpetrator from doing it again. For this reason, the perpetrator is punished in a manner that is judged to give incentive not to repeat the action. This is the simplest level of objective morality.

The individual cases of applied ethics must logically follow from this basis. There may be disagreement on individual cases as to what the punishment should be, or whether there should be punishment at all for a particular action, but this disagreement cannot change the nature of the action and the consequences of that action. If the consequences of the action happen to be detrimental, someone saying that they think the consequences are beneficial does not change the fact that they are detrimental. On a more complex level, there may be both beneficial and detrimental effects of an action. In that case, the magnitude of the benefits and detriments must be determined. Once again, there may be some disagreement, but the disagreement does not change the nature of reality.

And yet here you are, saying morality is objective and universal. So if you believe in that morality, which I'm assuming you do, you cannot be wrong. Arrogant, just as I said. You can claim you can be wrong all you want, but your own argument says you are not, unless the idea that morality is objective and universal, in itself, is wrong.

My claim that there is objective morality follows from the fact that there is objective reality. I have explained it twice now. You can pick apart my argument if you'd like, but you haven't.

I have made plenty of logical arguments; you simply cannot follow my logic. Misconstrue? Perhaps, instead, you should choose your words more carefully if you do not want to be misunderstood.

The same applies to you: if I can't follow your logic, you should choose your words better to be understood.

And the idea that moralities are set in stone, unchangeable, infallible, forever existing and forever prevalent IS dogmatic!

It is not dogmatic because it is based in a strictly logical argument.

And I HAVE pointed out the flaws in your logic. Go back and read. Or stop ignoring them. Whichever it is. Also pointed out how dangerous your logic is. This idea that morality is so black and white. You simply shrugged that off, too. I've made plenty of argument for my positions. You just sit there and go on about "well your wrong, my morals say so. Because they are universal." Your own argument states it.

Even if my ideas are dangerous, if they are true, they should not be ignored. I am of the opinion that truth is far more important than safety or comfort. My argument isn't as black and white as you seem to think. I have said that the conditions of an action can alter the moral value of it. I am asserting, however, that human perception cannot change the nature of reality.

[Nekowolf]

What is "good" and what is "bad" for life, while in some aspects are objective, are subjective in others; by saying morality is objective, and only objective, you are disregarding the subjective aspects. You are posing a situation in black-and-white, either it is entirely objective or entirely subjective, when you state that morality is permanent, unchanging, objective, and universal. We can say slavery is "bad" because it abuses human life; but on the other hand, slavery could also pose to be beneficial to a society. THAT is subjectivity! We could argue it's wrong, yes, but as soon as you start using "life" as a basis of argument, you are delving into subjectivity. Because "life," in itself, is subjective. Not even the concept that we are "alive" is objective!

Right and wrong are subjective in just about every way! When you say, "this action is wrong, regardless, and that is universal," you are not being objective, you are being subjective! Because you are believing that that action is wrong, that is your personal opinion and you are projecting it into a dogmatic status!

You speak of benefit v. detriment, but and while the actions already performed cannot be changed, the consequences, indeed, can be changed! If someone kills another, the fact the victim is dead may not be changeable, but the consequences can be changed! Just an aspect of the consequences is objective. That he did something the resulted in the death of a person. Everything after that is subjective; his punishment is subjective, his attitude is subjective, how society judges this case is subjective. What if it was in self-defense? Well now some people will argue, no, it was wrong to kill the other person, while yet others will disagree and say, it was justified. This is subjectivity! This is morality!

The very fact you think morality is objective is subjective!

Is this "logical" enough for you? Or am I just too absurd for adequate logical argument?...in your opinion.

[Doddibot]

Admittedly this is based on an assumption that what is favorable to life is good and what is detrimental to life is bad. You can agree with me or not on that point.
I disagree. This is the subjectiveness of morality. I'm a utilitarian, I say whatever maximises happiness/pleasure is good, and whatever causes pain or a lack of happiness is bad. Many disagree. There doesn't seem to be any objectiveness here, and if there is, we're bad at working it out.

[fragglerocks]

We could argue this in circles until we are blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that both forms of morality exist. I think they are closer linked than anyone thinks.

We all feel pain. That is objective. But some people take medication to relieve it, while others bring it on for pleasure. That's the subjective part. We all live and die-objective. But we all do it differently-subjective.

So in conclusion, we all have morals-objective. Our moral views differ-subjective.

Nekowolf is right, in my opinion, because even objective morality is, in itself, subjective. Even scientists use subjective reasoning. Oaktree, do you know something they don't? ;)

[kattenijin]

I disagree. This is the subjectiveness of morality. I'm a utilitarian, I say whatever maximises happiness/pleasure is good, and whatever causes pain or a lack of happiness is bad. Many disagree. There doesn't seem to be any objectiveness here, and if there is, we're bad at working it out.

I guess that means if "going postal" at my local school and killing 30 people would maximise my pleasure it is moral and good. Granted, it causes others pain, but who cares about them anyway? I maximised my happiness and pleasure.

You need to have a part about maximising your pleasure/happiness not being at the expense of other's happiness and pleasure.

[Xunixeon]

Basically, it is the fact that abortion kills a living being. A potential human, I would say, should be allowed to live as long as it doesn't harm its mother (the host someone would say). Is it not a crime for a woman to give birth to the rapist's child if she is forced to?

China would basically force women to abort as well although it's for their own good that they shouldn't have more than a couple of children max. Read the One child policy and you will see once you have a second child, you're fixed as a woman.

I agree population control is all we need to cut down on 7 billion people. But what about incentives to have less children as well as child limits based on income? What about people being allowed to adopt more and have less babies?

We need ways to cut down on abortions as well but not by banning it.

[Doddibot]

You need to have a part about maximising your pleasure/happiness not being at the expense of other's happiness and pleasure.
Well, that's a bit of a contentious issue within utilitarianism. Do we act in a way that maximises the average happiness of everyone (average utilitarianism)? Or ensures society as a whole has the highest maximum happiness (total utilitarianism)? Or do we minimise suffering instead of maximising happiness (abolitionism)? Or do we do things that, if everyone did them, would maximise happiness (act/ utilitarianism)?

I guess I'm actually closer to an act utilitarian, in that respect. And I'm a preference utilitarian, in that while I think happiness is the end goal, maximising the satisfaction of preferences is, I think, the best way to attain that.

[ivan17]

ivan17, why are you hitting women in the face and holding them captive? Because they don't agree with you?

You scare me, you know that?

:lol: Maybe she was a pregnant lesbian! :lol:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
No. I am cavalier. This was just example, I would never do such thing.

:rofl: I just assumed ivan was a troll :rofl: who uses lots of :rofl: and :rofl: and when I see 'ivan' pop up on the screen, :rofl: I see troll and don't take anything they type seriously. :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Nekowolf]

ALRIGHT! Stop with the freaking smilies or I swear I will start cracking heads open like Thor on a giant's skull!

[jooxis]

Cut it out already.

[HystericalParoxysm]

ivan17 - Your behavior is starting to be really disruptive in these debates. You can make your point but please be nice about it - the snark and the sarcastic smiley abuse needs to stop. You are hereby allowed one emoticon/smiley per post - including those in quotes.

[Vampire_aninyosaloh]

Okay, so, for example, one girl is pregnant and she wants to do abortion. But I hit her in face and she falls in unconscious state. I put her in one room and she lives there until she bore. She is unable to do abortion. And she bore new healthy baby. So, everything is natural and I saved one life.
Also, if I kill someone with my hands, that's natural.
Why is then to be gay legal and kill someone illegal, when both is natural and we are all just animals.
When cat kill mouse, it's legal!


Ermmm... when I read that I was like.. no way! I have to have read that wrong.. but no, I didn't. I'm starting to think that that's not just an example due to everything you say in every single post you have.

Are you really comparing the fact of being gay with killing someone?? Killing someone with your hands is not natural, as you are changing the course of nature and life. Being gay is as natural as being straight. You're too extremist with your ideas and you're starting to look like Hitler to me...

Whatever, a girl has her rights of deciding to abort if she wants. If she risks of dying for having the baby, would you make her have him/her anyway??

[bakea]

Okay, so, for example, one girl is pregnant and she wants to do abortion. But I hit her in face and she falls in unconscious state. I put her in one room and she lives there until she bore. She is unable to do abortion. And she bore new healthy baby. So, everything is natural and I saved one life.
Also, if I kill someone with my hands, that's natural.
Why is then to be gay legal and kill someone illegal, when both is natural and we are all just animals.
When cat kill mouse, it's legal!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:




Oh no ... I can't believe that there were people in the world who say that after nazis!!!How you can compare killing somebody with being gay!!??

Gays don't hurt anybody only because being gay, but if you kill somebody you are hurting!!Anybody CAN'T tell you who you can kiss or love. Gays don't take out freedom of anybody, but if you kill somebody, you are taking out the freedom of the person you kill ...

Saying that animals are like humans and using it to say what is natural and what is not natural, you are "agreeing" with natural selection ... and if you are agree with this I can give you an advice: look for shaved people with adjusted trousers, military boots and swastikas and they will understand your ideas ... they could be your best friends ...

And please, stop writing this: :rofl:

[mythx1991]

Hello, I am new in this web site, but I have just read this post and I am surprised
I am absolutely infuriated on having read this comparison... The homosexual relations and killing someone. It is possible that I have felt specially angry because I am GAY.
I think that both things are not sufficiently tied in order that they could be compared.
I dont want to discuss, but I would like to know the arguments that Ivan17 contributes to do the comparison.

[bakea]

Hello, I am new in this web site, but I have just read this post and I am surprised
I am absolutely infuriated on having read this comparison... The homosexual relations and killing someone. It is possible that I have felt specially angry because I am GAY.
I think that both things are not sufficiently tied in order that they could be compared.
I dont want to discuss, but I would like to know the arguments that Ivan17 contributes to do the comparison.

Yeahh!!!!!I wolud like to know them also!!!

[bakea]

*shares to david* I like soooooo much your avi!
:rofl:

[Nekowolf]

Okay, okay. Look, if you want, there's some topics about homosexuality somewhere in the debate room; you could look at Ivan's comments there or in the Christianity thread.

Or, at the very least, he can post a response in one of those topics. But, as for this one, let's try to get back on track.

[mythx1991]

Sorry!!!

[Nekowolf]

No worries.

So, to get back on topic; Ivan, as stated, your argument is incredibly poor. Look, medical abortions may not be natural, but neither are eyeglasses, pace makers, defibrillators, shunts, etc. And while the act of killing is natural, we, as a species, have evolved intellectually enough to the point to realize the disadvantages of murder within society. This is not a matter of natural v. human; this is a matter of human intellect v. other species. We, as a species, have evolved, psychologically and sociologically, beyond any other animal in the world. We have learned that "natural" does not always mean "beneficial," or rather, beneficial as defined by ourselves as a species, which historically has placed us above everything else. Only recently has this idea started to actually come into question, with new ideas and concepts being birthed, e.g. environmentalism.

That is both why we are often considered as "special," and why you completely screwed up the argument of naturality.

[jooxis]

but I would like to know the arguments that Ivan17 contributes to do the comparison.

Ahh! You're asking for another post riddled with rofl smileys and incoherent sentences *facepalm*

[mythx1991]

Ahh! You're asking for another post riddled with rofl smileys and incoherent sentences *facepalm*
Yes yes, I read it, hehehe

[jhd1189]

Guys, let's stop discussing the other debaters and try to just focus on the debate for now, please. HP has already alerted Ivan17 to the fact that his behavior is unacceptable, and your side commentary is doing nothing to correct the problem.

[Oaktree]

What is "good" and what is "bad" for life, while in some aspects are objective, are subjective in others; by saying morality is objective, and only objective, you are disregarding the subjective aspects. You are posing a situation in black-and-white, either it is entirely objective or entirely subjective, when you state that morality is permanent, unchanging, objective, and universal. We can say slavery is "bad" because it abuses human life; but on the other hand, slavery could also pose to be beneficial to a society. THAT is subjectivity! We could argue it's wrong, yes, but as soon as you start using "life" as a basis of argument, you are delving into subjectivity. Because "life," in itself, is subjective. Not even the concept that we are "alive" is objective!

I am saying that slavery is bad because it is detrimental to the individual. While it is unlikely to ever be the case, it is possible that there are circumstances under which slavery is the lesser evil, but it still remains morally wrong. I made an argument for this very concept when I was talking about killing in self-defense above. Killing is wrong, but sometimes it is the lesser wrong. I'm not saying that every screw up or no-win situation is deserving of years in prison. I'm saying that these are things that are wrong and should not be performed lightly, but, under thorough consideration, may in some cases be the better option. This is not relativity, but contextuality. Relativity posits that the moral value of something can vary, allowing something to be good in some circumstances and bad in others. Contextuality means that the moral value does not change, but that the options may sometimes make a particular course of action the best course of action, even if it is morally wrong. It is a fine line, but it makes all the difference. Relativity means that you can rightfully feel good about killing someone if there is no better option, contextuality means that you realize the weight of the actions but are left with no better option. It doesn't mean that you have to carry guilt around with you for the action, but it means that you can't just shrug it off without consideration.

Right and wrong are subjective in just about every way! When you say, "this action is wrong, regardless, and that is universal," you are not being objective, you are being subjective! Because you are believing that that action is wrong, that is your personal opinion and you are projecting it into a dogmatic status!

Merely stating that I am "being subjective" is not proof that I am being subjective. First off, I cannot be subjective, but my moral views have the potential for it, which is what I assume you meant. My views may be subjective, if by that you mean they may be only my personal views and not actually hold any weight or truth value, but that is only if you can prove that reality is subjective. If reality is subjective then everything is subjective. If reality is objective, some things are objectively right and others are objectively wrong. You are, once again, starting from the premise that reality is subjective.

You speak of benefit v. detriment, but and while the actions already performed cannot be changed, the consequences, indeed, can be changed! If someone kills another, the fact the victim is dead may not be changeable, but the consequences can be changed! Just an aspect of the consequences is objective. That he did something the resulted in the death of a person. Everything after that is subjective; his punishment is subjective, his attitude is subjective, how society judges this case is subjective. What if it was in self-defense? Well now some people will argue, no, it was wrong to kill the other person, while yet others will disagree and say, it was justified. This is subjectivity! This is morality!

You misunderstand the meaning of consequences. When I say consequences, I am not speaking of punishment. I am speaking of the direct effects of an action. The effects of an action cannot be changed because they are in the past and the past cannot be changed. If we ever invent time travel, moral arguments may become moot because the consequences can be reversed, but in the mean time, the events of the past are immutable and have a specific impact on the present.

Society's views may vary, but that simply means that some (or possibly all) people are wrong on that issue. That is my assertion and what I have been providing arguments for throughout the thread. Merely stating that it is subjective does not refute my argument.

The very fact you think morality is objective is subjective!

Is this "logical" enough for you? Or am I just too absurd for adequate logical argument?...in your opinion.

This is yet another unsupported assertion.

I don't think that you are too absurd to argue logically, as I think that everyone is capable of employing logic, but you are only using logic sporadically, and much of it is flawed. Yes this is my opinion, but I have backed it up with logical argument in my previous posts.

I disagree. This is the subjectiveness of morality. I'm a utilitarian, I say whatever maximises happiness/pleasure is good, and whatever causes pain or a lack of happiness is bad. Many disagree. There doesn't seem to be any objectiveness here, and if there is, we're bad at working it out.

Happiness is a quality that requires some level of awareness of one's condition, however, which is a quality that is unique to life, as we tend to group anything with any awareness into the category of life. Yes, it is a self-referential definition, but saying that you think whatever increases happiness is good means that you want what increases happiness of living things.

I fully agree that we are bad at working out the objective standard. That's why there are so many different philosophies in existence. You and I can argue back and forth all day and never come to a perfect way of determining who is correct because the nature of human thought is that we base our ideas on certain unprovable assumptions. There are only two base assumptions that I have that I feel confident that I have a proof for: that there is objective reality (though it may not match up to our perceptions of it) simply because there must be some type of existence for our perceptions to have anything to observe; also because the assertion that there is no objective morality, should it be true, is an objective fact, therefore contradicting itself. The other is "I think, therefore, I am". It has a very similar argument to my argument for objective reality, in that there must be something that I am for me to be able to perceive anything. Everything else is built logically on top of those base assumptions or is unsupported assumption.

The fact that we cannot know certain objective facts with certainty does not mean that they aren't true. The argument can go either way, making it a fairly pointless argument if you actually want to make a case for something. It is human nature, though, that, no matter how much we may want to reject all assumptions, we will run on certain assumptions. I think this is for the best because we would be trapped in endless metaphysical crisis if we were to try to cast out all assumptions.

I don't think that all philosophies are equal, however. Some are based on shakier logic than others and some require much stranger base assumptions. I believe that relativity is one of these, so that is why I argue against it.

One final note: You are a rather unusual utilitarian if you really believe in subjective morality while believing that that which maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain is good. If you believe that that which maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain is good as your own personal philosophy, but that other philosophies are equally valid for other people, then you are actually a relativist. If you believe that that which maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain is objectively good, then you are not carrying out your moral stance in a logical fashion if you think that only you are required to follow it, but that others can follow whatever (false) moral ideas they like.

[Nekowolf]

1. As I keep saying, I disagree. Context in an action is both objective and subjective. It is not black-and-white. Almost nothing is purely objective, or purely subjective. And I don't think anything is ever, now, forever, and always has been, "morally wrong," because morality is a invention of human intellect, and human knowledge. To say it is eternal is dogmatic. You are sustaining a creation of man, and a set of morals that you personally believe into a position of authority that presides over all. A set of morals you personally believe in as unchanging and has always been and will be. That. is. dogma.

I find it is bereft of context or relativity. Because no matter what happens, the context adopted is either you are right, or you are wrong. You could be "less" wrong, yes, but you are still wrong. That is what is objective in your argument. If you do not follow "our" moral values, my (as in you) moral values, you (as in everyone else) are wrong. You may say it is a lesser evil, but an evil nonetheless. Regardless of the situation, if a deviant conclusion against the precedence of your morality should happen, your morality then no longer objective. If for all of man, a specific action is wrong, then one situation happens, just one, that justifies that action as a right, your entire argument is null, because it no longer has objectivity. Because it has gone against its own precedence.

The context taken by your concept of morality is poor, and deprived of the simple fact that as a species are an emotional species. Your concept turns a blind eye to subjectivity. It is a flawed concept. It is, in my opinion, a concept of egotistical bullshit.

2. Yes you can be subjective! You are human! Humans ARE subjective! It is in our very nature! The only thing objective is that you are human, and that you are here in some context. And reality IS subjective! We can see a death, and we can agree that someone has died. But! We may disagree on the nature of death! We may disagree on what death entails! We may disagree on what is the afterlife! We may disagree that there even is an afterlife! All of this is part of reality. Even the concept of reality is subjective. Yes, shocking, isn't it, that there are arguments over what reality is. Over what life is.

What you have been doing is picking one specific objective element in a situation, and using it, saying "This is objective, this is my proof!" while ignoring everything subjective about that situation. Like murder, you take the act of murder as objective. Yes! The act of murder is objective! But you take it, and say, "it is wrong, this is objective." NO! It is not objective! Because I could argue this specific case was not wrong! That it does have justification, and that some could perceive it as a right, just as much as others could perceive it as a wrong. And THAT is contextualization! You simply stand there, and say "No it is always wrong, and if anyone disagree, they are false, incorrect." That is not context! That is arrogance!

Even the consequences are not absolute, lest you believe in a divine plan. The past is the past, true. The present is the present, also true. But the future is vast with many possibilities. What we do now, in the present, will change the future in one of many possibilities. You are ignoring the future consequences, the future which is dynamic. Your view that encompasses only the past and present is a shallow one.

And once again, I repeat, your concepts are dogmatic. And dangerous. Because throughout the course of history, there are those societies which used such concepts, that all others are wrong, to impose some of the worst, most horrific, events. You may say, in retrospect, they were wrong. But this does not change the fact that they believed they were right! That they believed their morals were to be authoritative of everyone. Just like you are arguing now. That there are morals that all should follow, and those who don't are wrong, those who disagree are false.

3. And lastly...

I have supported myself plenty of times! I am sick of your god damn bullshit! All you have been doing is lording over my opinions, dictating! I am fucking tired of hearing your asinine excuses that "oh, I used logic!" Yeah? Well a lot of fucking people used logic to justify the worst atrocities! And they thought their logic was pretty damn sound, too! Sporadic, my bleeding ass! You either refuse to follow my logic, or you just feel so god damn superior that I could not possibly be accurate! I'll grant the benefit of a doubt and go with the former. You have not backed up your logic with infallible logical arguments because I have torn them down! Your logic is no better than mine, and I am sick of you sitting there and presiding that my logic is flawed, ergo, I am incorrect! Pull your head out of your ass, o' mistress!

I'm done with you! It's obvious you have no interest aside from sitting upon thine throne, judging in fallacy, superior because of your greater logic capabilities devoid of emotion or bias; a goddess among men, human no more. After all, you are "probably right" because, god forbid, I dare be equaled to you in my own logic regarding my opinions, which are obviously much more flawed and simple than your otherworldly knowledge.

[ivan17]

Okay, first - my human rights for smilies are damaged, but ok. I have right to put 1 per post. :)
I can compare gays with killing because both is natural. Someone said that animals are also gays, so I am saying that animals are killing other animals.
But anyway, what are we talking about, when we are all animals?
So abortion is natural, mother is killing future baby.
There is too much people on Earth, so maybe is good to reduce our number, even with abortion.

[Nekowolf]

...are you being serious? Sarcastic? Or are you summing up the arguments made? Cause frankly, I'm confused as hell by what you are trying to say.

[Xunixeon]

*Pours sh*t into the washing basin*

Ivan, do you want to wash in that sh*t? It's natural for pigs.

[fakepeeps7]

Ivan, do you want to wash in that sh*t? It's natural for pigs.

Technically, I think they roll in mud. Dogs, on the other hand, will roll in crap (but they also sniff each other's butts).

What was my point again...?

[Xunixeon]

That was a mean joke for him. But if I made this special poo-poo bath, then he is a dog.

[fragglerocks]

1. As I keep saying, I disagree. Context in an action is both objective and subjective. It is not black-and-white. Almost nothing is purely objective, or purely subjective. And I don't think anything is ever, now, forever, and always has been, "morally wrong," because morality is a invention of human intellect, and human knowledge. To say it is eternal is dogmatic.

Thank you Nekowolf for stating the bolded part, because this puts into words exactly why I believe Oaktree's argument is flawed. Survival instincts guide most of what life does, but that is not morality.

[ivan17]

*Pours sh*t into the washing basin*

Ivan, do you want to wash in that sh*t? It's natural for pigs.

:rofl:

According to Nekowolf, fakepeeps7, etc., we are all animals, so enjoy everyone in washing in Xunixeon's wash basin. I am alien, troll... I am not human (animal).

[Nekowolf]

Ivan. Shut up. Just. Shut up. You clearly have no grasping of the concept. You have yet to refute it, instead, you just posted stupid, nonsensical shit.

This is not a hard idea to understand. We are part of this Earth. We contribute to the ecosystems. We require sustenance and sleep to survive. We are organic. We have bodily processes. We are birthed in some way, we live, and we die. We can be injured, and we can succumb to disease. All of that is not exclusive to us; it is found in every species on our planet. Not one exception. That makes us animals.

If you want to continue to disagree, at least show some level of intellect and refute that with an actual argument. Otherwise, if you wish to continue with your bullshit, just shut the hell up. You are not contributing, you are just being a pest.

[grumpy_otter]

*Pours sh*t into the washing basin*

Ivan, do you want to wash in that sh*t? It's natural for pigs.

I once raised pigs--they are very clean animals. If given enough space, which mine were, they will make a bedroom area, which they tend and freshen every day, as well as a potty area as far from their living space as possible. They lay in the mud only when they are very hot and are trying to cool off. They also have a good sense of humor and play pranks on each other.

Oh, but back on point--I think we should all focus on those who make substantive posts with points they back up. I haven't contributed here for a few days as it is exam week and I am buried under a pile of papers, but have enjoyed reading the well-though-out arguments put forth by the majority.

(And I think I'll start another thread for the IVF discussion--seems to be some interest there)

[HystericalParoxysm]

Nekowolf, while you are welcome to disagree with ivan's points (I disagree with most of 'em myself), you need to chill. Be nice, be courteous, and don't be insulting - or don't post.

[Nekowolf]

As much as it burns me up inside like the flames of Muspelheim, I reluctantly apologize to Oaktree and Ivan...although it does not change my opinions in any way.

[Doddibot]

Sorry to go back in the thread, but it'll bring the debate back on topic, and I seem to have missed responding to this, I think.

The fetus is something that spontaneously develops sentience. It will become sentient so long as it isn't killed first.
I don't see how that makes a difference. It's not sentient. Whether it will become sentient, spontaneously or not, doesn't change the fact that it isn't sentient.

That's because receiving that medication does not kill sentient life. It does kill bacteria, but bacteria are not sentient. Abortion kills something that will, through the course of nature, develop sentience.
Yes, so the real issue is the potentiality and sentience of the embryo. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether somebody is responsible for their pregnancy and should have known better or deserved it or whatever - those are all irrelevant.


Not being aware of a wrong doesn't make it less of a wrong. You could be deprived of something and have it impact your quality of life (or, in this case, your existence) without realizing it is something you should have had.
I fail to see how anyone could be deprived when they aren't even being. If you weren't ever able to sense your quality of life, how can your quality of life be impacted?

[Oaktree]

1. And I don't think anything is ever, now, forever, and always has been, "morally wrong," because morality is a invention of human intellect, and human knowledge.

I have said before that I see morality as outlining those things that are beneficial or detrimental to life and rationality. It is objectively true that killing takes a rational life, therefore it is detrimental to life and morally wrong. The same detrimental effects happen whether it is applied to humans or to other species. When a dolphin is killed senselessly, it is wrong. If there are alien species out there, it would be just as detrimental to them, therefore making it wrong. Either I'm not explaining this properly, or you're just not understanding what I'm trying to say. There are certain things that are detrimental to the well-being of a species. In a broad sense, the same things are detrimental to every species. Every species requires living members to propagate. Murdering them makes it hard for the species to propagate. Every species requires food to survive. Stealing food from an individual makes it harder for it to survive. For various reasons, consensual sexual encounters are better for every sexually capable species, meaning that rape is detrimental and wrong.



If for all of man, a specific action is wrong, then one situation happens, just one, that justifies that action as a right, your entire argument is null, because it no longer has objectivity. Because it has gone against its own precedence.

Can you give me an example of this? While showing that it is, in fact, right and not the lesser of two wrongs? Even if there is theoretically a possibility for this, if it has no support in reality, it is not true.

The context taken by your concept of morality is poor, and deprived of the simple fact that as a species are an emotional species. Your concept turns a blind eye to subjectivity. It is a flawed concept. It is, in my opinion, a concept of egotistical bullshit.

We can be emotional, but our emotions do not reveal truth. Even if you stumble onto a truth through emotionality, you can't know that it is true without using logical and rationality. Emotion is a personal thing; logic is universal. In order for your views to line up with reality, they have to fit within the universal reality shared by all.

2. Yes you can be subjective! You are human! Humans ARE subjective! It is in our very nature! The only thing objective is that you are human, and that you are here in some context. And reality IS subjective! We can see a death, and we can agree that someone has died. But! We may disagree on the nature of death! We may disagree on what death entails! We may disagree on what is the afterlife! We may disagree that there even is an afterlife! All of this is part of reality. Even the concept of reality is subjective. Yes, shocking, isn't it, that there are arguments over what reality is. Over what life is.

The phrase itself "you can be subjective" has little meaning, but the closest approximation I can come to is that you are saying that my existence is subjective. The fact of my existence is not subjective because I would not be able to ponder it if I did not exist. From your perspective, you don't know that I truly exist, but, if you think that I don't, you are simply wrong.

Disagreement does not mean subjectivity. Taking your example of afterlife, if there is an afterlife, then one arguing against it is wrong. If there isn't, then one arguing for it is wrong. If it only exists for one who believes in it, the one arguing against it is still wrong because it does exist for others, meaning that it does exist. Do you truly think that every case where two people disagree means that both are right? If I told you that the sky is green (under conditions of normal daylight), does the mere fact that I choose to believe this make it right? It doesn't. It means that I am deluded and wrong.

Arguments over the nature of reality do not make reality subjective. Reality has shown that it follows rules pretty closely, but that we simply don't know what all of those rules are. The fact that we don't have a grand unified theory of physics that shows us where all of the inconsistencies in physics come from does not mean that the nature of reality does not follow rules. It means that we haven't figured out what those rules are.

What you have been doing is picking one specific objective element in a situation, and using it, saying "This is objective, this is my proof!" while ignoring everything subjective about that situation. Like murder, you take the act of murder as objective. Yes! The act of murder is objective! But you take it, and say, "it is wrong, this is objective." NO! It is not objective! Because I could argue this specific case was not wrong! That it does have justification, and that some could perceive it as a right, just as much as others could perceive it as a wrong. And THAT is contextualization! You simply stand there, and say "No it is always wrong, and if anyone disagree, they are false, incorrect." That is not context! That is arrogance!

You would have to have a logical reason for why it is not objectively wrong, though. My basis for saying it is wrong is that it negatively impacts a life. If you want to argue logically, you have to have a basis for saying "in this instance it isn't wrong". You say that people disagreeing about whether it is right or wrong is contextualization, but then you say that me saying that it is wrong is not contextualization. Am I not one of the people arguing that it is wrong? I am simply providing a backbone to my argument, rather then saying "well, shucks, my momma told me it's wrong, so it must be!". The fact that you think I am wrong about this shows that you think you are right? Doesn't that make you arrogant as well, based on your definition of it?

Even the consequences are not absolute, lest you believe in a divine plan. The past is the past, true. The present is the present, also true. But the future is vast with many possibilities. What we do now, in the present, will change the future in one of many possibilities. You are ignoring the future consequences, the future which is dynamic. Your view that encompasses only the past and present is a shallow one.

If our actions in the present affect the future, how is the future so dynamic? Everything that is in the present can be traced back to something that happened in the past. I don't think that reality is entirely deterministic because I think that the choices one makes are free from causality, but there is a good case that can be made that even the nature of choice is an illusion. Probability is an illusion, though. When you choose to flip a coin, for instance, your brain sends a signal to your muscles. The strength and speed of that signal is dependent on the conditions within your body. The nervous impulse is translated based on these conditions and kinetic energy is translated to the coin. There may be a breeze that throws off the motion of the coin as it flips, but this breeze is due to disturbances in the air caused by other past events. The motion of the coin is regulated by the physical laws of reality. The laws of reality say that its torque will cause it to flip so many times and gravity will drag it down. You don't know how it will land because your brain is not capable of that level of observation and calculation, but the way in which it will land is determined once you have sent that impulse.

And once again, I repeat, your concepts are dogmatic. And dangerous. Because throughout the course of history, there are those societies which used such concepts, that all others are wrong, to impose some of the worst, most horrific, events. You may say, in retrospect, they were wrong. But this does not change the fact that they believed they were right! That they believed their morals were to be authoritative of everyone. Just like you are arguing now. That there are morals that all should follow, and those who don't are wrong, those who disagree are false.

Atomic weaponry is dangerous in the same manner as objective morality is, but that doesn't negate their existence. Further, these things are only dangerous in the wrong hands. It's like the saying "guns don't kill, people do". Objective morality in-itself is not dangerous; it is only when those who are wrong misinterpret it to use it to their own ends that it plays a part in being dangerous. Even in that case, they are using a misinterpretation, meaning that they are not actually using objective morality. And ultimately, it is the people who are doing the wrong, not the morality itself. The benefits of medicine are not reduced by the antics of a quack using drugs that are not considered part of the body of medicine. In the same manner, objective morality is not made wrong by those who claim to follow it, but are in fact wrong about it. The fact that they believed they were right does not change the fact that they were wrong.

I am arguing that there are morals that all should follow, and that those who don't are wrong. Though I wouldn't say that "those who disagree are false" because "person" does not have truth values. Person is not an idea, but a concrete object. It can exist or not, but only facts can have truth values. But I'm just being nit-picky about you grammar now.

. And lastly...

I have supported myself plenty of times! I am sick of your god damn bullshit! All you have been doing is lording over my opinions, dictating! I am fucking tired of hearing your asinine excuses that "oh, I used logic!" Yeah? Well a lot of fucking people used logic to justify the worst atrocities! And they thought their logic was pretty damn sound, too! Sporadic, my bleeding ass! You either refuse to follow my logic, or you just feel so god damn superior that I could not possibly be accurate! I'll grant the benefit of a doubt and go with the former. You have not backed up your logic with infallible logical arguments because I have torn them down! Your logic is no better than mine, and I am sick of you sitting there and presiding that my logic is flawed, ergo, I am incorrect! Pull your head out of your ass, o' mistress!

I'm done with you! It's obvious you have no interest aside from sitting upon thine throne, judging in fallacy, superior because of your greater logic capabilities devoid of emotion or bias; a goddess among men, human no more. After all, you are "probably right" because, god forbid, I dare be equaled to you in my own logic regarding my opinions, which are obviously much more flawed and simple than your otherworldly knowledge.

I'm not dictating, I'm debating. In case you didn't realize, every instance of me making an assertion using the word "you" was made in the general and ideal sense. I am arguing that this is what is morally correct, but I'm not actually forcing you to do anything about it. I can say that you're wrong, but I don't see how that's going to stop you. How is my argument any more dictatorial than your own, considering that you are also trying to assert an objective truth? You don't call it that, but any time anything is asserted as fact, it is objective because that is the nature of fact. You were asserting that I am wrong and you are right. In your mind, that is objective fact. Turnabout's fair play, so I could just as easily say that you are dictatorial, arrogant, and every other thing you have called me. But I haven't because we are engaging in a debate and the whole point of debate is to claim that a particular position is correct.

Every time that you think you have torn down my arguments, I have pointed out why you haven't and/or torn down the logic you used to try to tear down my logic. As I stated in that last post to doddibot, however, there is no way for either of us to perfectly argue our perspectives because there are always assumptions that the other person could point to and disagree with. This in itself does not make reality subjective, though; it means that our method of perceiving reality is flawed.

[ivan17]

As much as it burns me up inside like the flames of Muspelheim, I reluctantly apologize to Oaktree and Ivan...although it does not change my opinions in any way.

Apology accepted. It's not nice to hear words (in almost every sentence) such as sh*t, a*s...
That tells us much about culture (yes, it decays).

Conclusion - abortion is natural, we are animals.

...and, I think that Oaktree really doesn't deserve insolence.

[Doddibot]

Conclusion - abortion is natural, we are animals.
Probably, but this doesn't tell us if abortion is right or wrong.

[Nekowolf]

I will not get sucked back into this. This is my last comment on the subject. After this, I'm done; you seem to have no interesting in paying attention to what I am saying, and prefer to elevate your own conclusions as irrefutable using the circular logic that if morals are objective and universal, and you believe in those morals (despite your claims that you "may be" wrong, but do you really think you are? I doubt it), your conclusion cannot be wrong, because you believe in something that is universal and objective.

Throughout the whole freaking thing, pretty much the only real "evidence," I guess you could say, has been, "well I used logic to come to a conclusion." Not once have you given any evidence into how morality is objective, set in stone, unchangeable. You've pretty much just said, "this is so," and when confronted with your position, "because my logic came to that conclusion." That is not evidence. Logic is not always objective, an when discussing philosophical issues such as morality, it is generally subjective; it's a process that involves accumulated individual knowledge, emotional context, and personal opinion.

This is not like science or math. Math is objective, regardless, obviously. The scientific method is a method which, hopefully, tries to provide objectivity. This is not always the case, as some skirt around the method to try to prove their preconceived results.

When you discuss something like morality, something that falls into the realms of philosophy, objectivity breaks down. You can say, killing is wrong, regardless. It can never be justified enough to switch from a wrong, to a right. And you could argue, using your logic, it is because you are taking a life. Now let's say, for the sake of argument, I was a veteran of Iraq or Afghanistan. I could argue that I believe you are wrong; that killing can be justified, and in some contexts, can become a right. And I am still using logic; it is just my logic is different, because unlike yourself (for the sake of argument, of course), I was out in the field, and I had to kill to survive for my own life. My experience as changed my outlook, has changed my logic, to reach a new conclusion that, otherwise, I may have agreed on. Because I have experienced something you have not. This is evidence, this is proof, that logic can be subjective.

The reason I said you are dictating over my opinions, is because of opinions like this:
I have said before that I could be wrong. But I'm pointing out that my logic is more sound than yours is.
No, it is not. You are not even expressing at an opinion in this point. You are expressing it as a fact. Or how about this?

It's nothing personal, but your argument is not built in fundamental principles.
You do not know this, yet you are expressing it, again, as a fact. I do have my own principles. And I am arguing, in part, on those principles. Have I adequately expressed those principles, if at all? Perhaps not. But that does not give you the right to assume about me. And that is what you have just done; assumed about what my principles are, then stated, as a fact, that I am not building my argument on those principles. Or further back.

You are ignoring the possibility of taking responsibility and raising the child that occurs due to the pregnancy.
I was never ignoring that. That was a flaw in my argument you made. I never ignored it, I simply disagreed with your position. Plus there were the implications that you made that I said or believed that people with terminal illnesses cannot lead happy lives and would be better off dead. Something I never stated nor believe; what I said was, some may consider that. Some may think that, about themselves.

You are not as good as you may consider yourself. Your argument is not as sound as you may think it is. You criticize what I said, but I have provided plenty of argument as to why morality is subjective. Because it does change; because it can vary from person to person; because it is a human invention, and we are a subjective species. We think of new ideas, we think of new possibilities; without subjectivity, we wouldn't be able to survive. If we ran on cold hard logic and only that, we wouldn't be capable of doing very much. Some form of subjectivity is required for us to process, it's required for us to actually be able to made decisions. That is my evidence. The most you've provided has been, summed up:

1. My logic came to the conclusion that I have stated, therefore, I am probably correct.

2. Actions are either always right, or always wrong. They can be a lesser wrong, but a wrong nonetheless.

3. Those who practice otherwise, even as an entire society, is wrong about their morals. Those who disagree with my conclusions of morality, are false.

That is the sum of our argument as I have seen it, and that is a piss-poor argument. And I have stated why: I said it was dangerous because it is dogmatic, authoritarian; I have said it does not take context into account; I have said that morals require, by their very nature, opposing opinions to exist, which your argument ignores; I have said that for morals to be unchangeable and universal, it requires something beyond humans because that is what morality is. And apparently, either I didn't go into this or I missed it (I could haveve sworn I did; perhaps I took it out before posting), so I will now. In order for morality to be objective and universal, there has to be something above humans to set those values or actions as wrong or right. They just are not are. They don't simply exist. Morality is an idea, a concept. Ideas and concepts simply do not exist on their own; they require something to think them up. And for something to come up with the rights and wrongs that all humans should follow or be wrong in their actions require something of a deity, or someone who rules over all (and yes, that can be another person; but since that's not the case, and never was...). I have established reasons why I believe the way I do, why I think morality is subjective. Whether you ignore then or not, willingly or otherwise, is your fault, not mine. The things in this world that are objective is good science, math, physical evidence, and that we humans are not all-knowing.

And no, a debate is NOT to establish that you, as a debater, are correct. A debate is merely an argument. You can take up a contradictory position but not have any intention to "prove" anything. You can simply disagree with a stated position, and still debate. I could have said, " I don't know for sure, but I still think you are wrong in your position" and we could still hold a debate. I may disagree but not seek to prove anything; rather, provide information to consider. To think a debate is to establish a correct answer is naive.

Apology accepted. It's not nice to hear words (in almost every sentence) such as sh*t, a*s...
That tells us much about culture (yes, it decays).

Conclusion - abortion is natural, we are animals.

...and, I think that Oaktree really doesn't deserve insolence.
First of all, I can say what the hell I wish. Yeah, I swear, but that does not make me "less cultural," it just means that swear words hold less power. Like with any taboo, the more it's practiced, the more accepted it is, the less taboo it becomes. You should hear some of the words that were considered as swears back in the olden days. Words we wouldn't even notice nowadays. It doesn't mean culture is decaying; it just means those particular swear words are losing their offensiveness. In a few hundred years from now, who knows, "fuck" could be about as offensive as "damn."

And lastly, good for you. I still hold really harsh opinions of both of you; think the same of me if you wish, it'd only make it mutual. But I was sick of her crap of stretching what I actually said and making actual baseless assumptions (such as her superior logical thinking), with the best evidence she could make being her argument itself, was pissing me off. Yeah, I have a short temper, I know that. At least I apologized, although trust me, it wasn't for either of you to like me. I don't really even give a damn if you want to actually accept it or not.

[Oaktree]

I don't see how that makes a difference. It's not sentient. Whether it will become sentient, spontaneously or not, doesn't change the fact that it isn't sentient.

It has a life - which is something that I think should be preserved where possible - and it has potential for sapience (this being the correct word I was looking for). I think that the potential is important. Given standard conditions, all it takes is time for sapience to develop. I see fetuses as having a sort of proto-sapience, as the things that happen to them prior to achieving sapience impact the sapience that develops. I suppose it isn't a particularly strong argument without agreement on the base assumption I have put forth that life should only be taken out of dire necessity. Let me put this question to you: do you think that it should be legal to kill a 1-year-old, knowing that a 1-year-old is barely, if at all, sapient?


Yes, so the real issue is the potentiality and sentience of the embryo. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether somebody is responsible for their pregnancy and should have known better or deserved it or whatever - those are all irrelevant.

First off, I didn't use the word "deserve". That word denotes something that is punishment or reward, while pregnancy is effect or consequence. Effects/consequences are natural progressions of actions, while punishments and rewards are human (or other sapient being) responses.

I suppose, however, that I was talking one step past the issue when I was talking about responsibility.

I fail to see how anyone could be deprived when they aren't even being. If you weren't ever able to sense your quality of life, how can your quality of life be impacted?

Consider a sea sponge. The only reason I choose this animal is because it is essentially as simple as animals get, and it is highly doubtful that it has even the barest hint of sapience. A good life for a sea sponge is one that provides adequate food and possibly one that allows for reproduction. A sea sponge that does not get these things does not have a good life because those conditions are aversive to life. It isn't aware of the fact that it has or hasn't had a good life, but the condition applies nonetheless.



You can choose to respond to this or not:

I will not get sucked back into this. This is my last comment on the subject. After this, I'm done; you seem to have no interesting in paying attention to what I am saying, and prefer to elevate your own conclusions as irrefutable using the circular logic that if morals are objective and universal, and you believe in those morals (despite your claims that you "may be" wrong, but do you really think you are? I doubt it), your conclusion cannot be wrong, because you believe in something that is universal and objective.

I have provided reasons for morality to be objective and universal. You may have missed them or maybe I didn't express them clearly enough, but you didn't argue logically against my claim that reality is objective and you didn't logically provide a reason why morality can be subjective even if reality is objective. You keep merely stating that things are subjective simply because there is disagreement. Disagreement does not mean subjectivity, as I have pointed out.

Throughout the whole freaking thing, pretty much the only real "evidence," I guess you could say, has been, "well I used logic to come to a conclusion." Not once have you given any evidence into how morality is objective, set in stone, unchangeable. You've pretty much just said, "this is so," and when confronted with your position, "because my logic came to that conclusion." That is not evidence. Logic is not always objective, an when discussing philosophical issues such as morality, it is generally subjective; it's a process that involves accumulated individual knowledge, emotional context, and personal opinion.

I have provided other evidence than that. There have been times where I have pointed out that I am using logic, but that is when you have disputed the nature of philosophy itself. Logic is, by definition, objective. It is based in truth values, so it can only exist in the context of a system that has truth values, but it is the most fundamental aspect of such a system. There are certain truths that follow other truths logically. Logic itself is not faulty, but a person may use faulty logic. You may want to say that morality is subjective, but you cannot call logic subjective.

If you are truly a relativist, there is no argument that you can make. Logic is based in the principle that there is objective fact, so if you don't believe that there is objective fact, there is no way for you to come to logical conclusions. Anything that you assert is an objective statement that you are attempting to prove. If you don't believe in objective fact (first of all, this itself is an objective statement that you are making) then you can't believe that anything is right or wrong, so you cannot take a stance on anything at all. Seeing that you can't come to the conclusion that there is no objective fact without using logic (which is based in objective fact), there is no way to come to a correct conclusion that there is subjectivity and still remain within the bounds of human thought and philosophy.

This is not like science or math. Math is objective, regardless, obviously. The scientific method is a method which, hopefully, tries to provide objectivity. This is not always the case, as some skirt around the method to try to prove their preconceived results.

When you discuss something like morality, something that falls into the realms of philosophy, objectivity breaks down. You can say, killing is wrong, regardless. It can never be justified enough to switch from a wrong, to a right. And you could argue, using your logic, it is because you are taking a life. Now let's say, for the sake of argument, I was a veteran of Iraq or Afghanistan. I could argue that I believe you are wrong; that killing can be justified, and in some contexts, can become a right. And I am still using logic; it is just my logic is different, because unlike yourself (for the sake of argument, of course), I was out in the field, and I had to kill to survive for my own life. My experience as changed my outlook, has changed my logic, to reach a new conclusion that, otherwise, I may have agreed on. Because I have experienced something you have not. This is evidence, this is proof, that logic can be subjective.

Science, math, and philosophy are all studied through rationality. Rationality takes known, objective facts, and builds logical arguments about various issues. Morality is one of the issues that rationality may explore in this manner. If a moral conclusion is reached through logic (based in objective fact), that moral statement is itself objective. It is quite possible to come to a moral statement through faulty logic, but then that is a flaw in your argument, not in objective fact.

If you go to war, killing the enemy may be the better option, but that doesn't make it good. You are still taking a life in an act of desperation. I realize that my stance that morality is based in what allows life to flourish has little support. If you want to base you ideas of morality on something else, you have every right to. It doesn't mean I'll agree with you, and I may even attempt to argue with you, but it is highly unlikely that such an argument would actually get anywhere, as both sides would be based in an unproven assumptions. What I am arguing is that you can't simply not have a basis for morality because there is objective reality, so you cannot derive claims of subjectivity from objectivity.

If your views have changed, that means that you have discarded your old views as incorrect. You believe your new views to be correct. That is an expression of objectivity. You believe that your new views are objectively correct, if you think that those other views are wrong.

The reason I said you are dictating over my opinions, is because of opinions like this:

No, it is not. You are not even expressing at an opinion in this point. You are expressing it as a fact. Or how about this?

At that point in time, there was very little logic at all in your posts. Most of it was screaming at me for being authoritarian and wrong.

You do not know this, yet you are expressing it, again, as a fact. I do have my own principles. And I am arguing, in part, on those principles. Have I adequately expressed those principles, if at all? Perhaps not. But that does not give you the right to assume about me. And that is what you have just done; assumed about what my principles are, then stated, as a fact, that I am not building my argument on those principles. Or further back.

It was wrong of me to assume that you did not have any fundamental principles. You were expressing an opinion of subjectivity, which, as I explained above, precludes the possibility of fundamental principles. As you have elaborated more on your point, you have expressed some strange principle that is halfway between objectivity and subjectivity, so now I know that you do have fundamental principles. I still disagree with them, and have provided arguments against them, but I know now that what I said at that point was not true.

I was never ignoring that. That was a flaw in my argument you made. I never ignored it, I simply disagreed with your position. Plus there were the implications that you made that I said or believed that people with terminal illnesses cannot lead happy lives and would be better off dead. Something I never stated nor believe; what I said was, some may consider that. Some may think that, about themselves.

You were portraying unwanted pregnancy as something that is wrong. I was pointing out that the pregnancy in-itself is not wrong when it comes of consensual activity and choosing to keep the child of an unwanted pregnancy is an option. Part of this you disagreed with, which is your prerogative, but part of this was not made clear in your argument.

You are not as good as you may consider yourself. Your argument is not as sound as you may think it is. You criticize what I said, but I have provided plenty of argument as to why morality is subjective. Because it does change; because it can vary from person to person; because it is a human invention, and we are a subjective species. We think of new ideas, we think of new possibilities; without subjectivity, we wouldn't be able to survive. If we ran on cold hard logic and only that, we wouldn't be capable of doing very much. Some form of subjectivity is required for us to process, it's required for us to actually be able to made decisions. That is my evidence. The most you've provided has been, summed up:

You haven't provided a logic answer as to how it changes. You have said that views on morality have changed over time, but I have argued back that this does not mean that morality has changed, but rather that views of it have.

Varying from person to person does not make it subjective. As I pointed out, this means that someone is wrong. I supported this statement by showing that there is objective reality and that morality is based on it.

Just because we are the only group to contemplate morality that we know of does not mean that it is a human invention. Mathematics is something that, to our knowledge, only humans are capable of, but we are searching for mathematical truth rather than inventing it. The same goes for science. There is a reason the word "discovery" is used rather than "invention" in those fields.

Maybe I'm being too nitpicky here, but we cannot be a subjective species. There is no truth value to the concept of human. It exists or it doesn't (it happens to), but "human" is not a fact. You cannot say the word human and have people agree or disagree. You have to make a statement about this thing known as human. :P

Thinking of new ideas is not subjectivity, but growth and creativity. Merely coming up with new ideas is not a moral or immoral act. There is no moral quality to a painting; it simply is. You can argue about its aesthetic qualities, but that is a whole other discussion.

I think that we would survive just fine running on logic where it is needed. Logic is needed in philosophical matters, including morality. Logic is not needed to the same degree in painting, for instance. There are plenty of acts that have nothing to do with morality and do not require logic. You can use logic in the form of consciously making use of technique when you paint, but there is nothing wrong with having at it without any thought to methodology. You can be as emotional as you wish when you paint, and it is often more beneficial to be emotional. You seem to be incorrectly extrapolating from my argument on morality that I think morality applies to everything and everything must be totally logical.

Subjectivity isn't required for progression; pure logic combined with empirical evidence is required for progression, at least in terms of morality. Pure logic involves a willingness to change one's stances when a more logical stance presents itself, but also an ability to effectively argue against less logical stances. Empirical evidence provides more knowledge about the world, allowing for more accurate base assumptions. These are the things that have progressed us morally throughout history.

1. My logic came to the conclusion that I have stated, therefore, I am probably correct.

Your logic also came to your conclusion and you think that you are right. You have not pointed to any serious flaws in my logic. Doddibot has provided a few well directed questions and comments on my posts, but your comments have generally missed the mark.

2. Actions are either always right, or always wrong. They can be a lesser wrong, but a wrong nonetheless.

Are you so afraid of this possibility? Our actions have bad consequences all the time. It is something that can't be helped. Morality is a guideline that say hey, you should try to do things that have good consequences and don't have bad consequences. Sometimes this isn't possible. Your actions may have bad consequences no matter how much you want then to have good consequences. It means that you have failed, but in a way that is unavoidable. It doesn't mean you're a horrible person. It is only when you repeatedly choose the worse outcome or intentionally choose the worse outcome that you really need to reconsider your actions.

3. Those who practice otherwise, even as an entire society, is wrong about their morals. Those who disagree with my conclusions of morality, are false.

Yes, an entire society can be wrong about their moral stances. Slavery is a key example. We know now that it is wrong, but it was believed to be okay in the past. That means that people in the past were wrong.

I think that people who disagree with me are wrong unless they provide a compelling argument to sway me. What really matters, though, is whether people agree with the objective standard. I attempt to agree with the objective standard, have not found anyone to dissuade me of my current views, and have not found flaws in my current viewpoint through self-examination, so I think that I am right. Other people should go through the same process. I don't think that I am the standard, I think that I comply closely to the standard. Having others comply with me as a standard would be like making a copy of a copy: it is likely to turn out flawed and of lower quality. My attempt in arguing is to point out that there is an objective standard and to help others test the logic in their own arguments.

That is the sum of our argument as I have seen it, and that is a piss-poor argument. And I have stated why: I said it was dangerous because it is dogmatic, authoritarian; I have said it does not take context into account; I have said that morals require, by their very nature, opposing opinions to exist, which your argument ignores; I have said that for morals to be unchangeable and universal, it requires something beyond humans because that is what morality is.

Dogmatism requires that something be given from authority; morality comes of logic. Therefore, it is not dogmatic. It doesn't matter whether it is dangerous for humans to believe in objective morality, because that fact does not mutate the properties of the universe. Further, I must stress that it is only once humans become involved that it holds any possibility of danger. It is not the objective standard itself that is dangerous.

I explained why it does take context into account. You don't like the way that it takes context into account, but you can't say that it doesn't.

Morals do not require opposing opinions because one can act morally without checking to see whether there is someone else acting immorally. If the whole world decided that killing was wrong, it is still possible to know that there is a thing called killing and it shouldn't be done. Your argument is based off of the assumption that we as a species forget all views that we do not currently hold. That is not true, as most of us don't practice slavery or have any exposure to the practice, yet we know that it did exist at one point and it is wrong.

Morality is beyond humans, but it doesn't require a being to pass down the moral laws. There is no god of math, yet we have math, something that transcends physical existence.

And apparently, either I didn't go into this or I missed it (I could haveve sworn I did; perhaps I took it out before posting), so I will now. In order for morality to be objective and universal, there has to be something above humans to set those values or actions as wrong or right. They just are not are. They don't simply exist. Morality is an idea, a concept. Ideas and concepts simply do not exist on their own; they require something to think them up. And for something to come up with the rights and wrongs that all humans should follow or be wrong in their actions require something of a deity, or someone who rules over all (and yes, that can be another person; but since that's not the case, and never was...). I have established reasons why I believe the way I do, why I think morality is subjective. Whether you ignore then or not, willingly or otherwise, is your fault, not mine. The things in this world that are objective is good science, math, physical evidence, and that we humans are not all-knowing.

There is something above humans that sets laws: nature. Nature is not a conscious entity, though. Nature simply possesses rule, just be the mere fact of its existence. Nature just is, without requiring any other agency. We try to learn the rules of nature, which is where the flaw comes in. We cannot tap into nature directly to see all there is to know about it, so we have to rely on faulty perceptions.

Morality is both a concept and a fact. It is a fact, in that it is an aspect of nature and it is a concept in that we can have ideas about our perceptions of morality. Facts exist on their own, ideas require a thinking mind.

Plato came to the conclusion that there must be a supreme being dictating the laws of nature, but this is one place that I disagree with him. Do you really require that there be a god for you to believe in science? Can't science simply be the act of studying the laws of nature, without there being a sapient being to dictate what those laws are?

Your last statement seems to place you as an empiricist. Empiricists believe in only what they can find solid physical evidence for. Anything born of rationality is not to be trusted until it can be backed up by hard fact. The problem with this stance is that you have to make assumptions to be able to even interpret the hard fact. We perceive that there are three spacial dimensions, so there is empirical proof that there are three spacial dimensions. Could there be more that we simply can't perceive? You say that humans are not all-knowing, so do you accept that even in empirical matters, we can be wrong?

And no, a debate is NOT to establish that you, as a debater, are correct. A debate is merely an argument. You can take up a contradictory position but not have any intention to "prove" anything. You can simply disagree with a stated position, and still debate. I could have said, " I don't know for sure, but I still think you are wrong in your position" and we could still hold a debate. I may disagree but not seek to prove anything; rather, provide information to consider. To think a debate is to establish a correct answer is naive.

If a debate is not undertaken with the attempt to establish a position as right, then it quickly devolves into the type of arguments that are observable among young children: "I'm right!" "No, I'm right!" "No, I'm right!" Ad infinitum. If the point of a debate was simply to raise a point, there would be no reason to participate after throwing in your opinion. You would make one post, speech, or whathaveyou outlining what you think and then you're done. That's not how debate works. Debate is a back and forth between two or more participants who are each trying to prove that their argument is more logical, as you and I have been doing.

And lastly, good for you. I still hold really harsh opinions of both of you; think the same of me if you wish, it'd only make it mutual. But I was sick of her crap of stretching what I actually said and making actual baseless assumptions (such as her superior logical thinking), with the best evidence she could make being her argument itself, was pissing me off. Yeah, I have a short temper, I know that. At least I apologized, although trust me, it wasn't for either of you to like me. I don't really even give a damn if you want to actually accept it or not.

I don't dislike you. I simply disagree with you. I don't have to agree with a person to get along with them. Just one example: Many of my college friends are Christian. I am agnostic. We don't see eye to eye, but it doesn't mean we hate each others' guts.

[fragglerocks]

Can we start a new thread about subjective vs. objective morals? :)

Because I do have a few things to say on the matter, but I truly feel this discussion would take this thread too far away from the original topic.

[kiwi_tea]

Potential really isn't enough. Would you feed the masses on apple seeds just because they're potential apples?

What we're talking about is a small structure of human tissue several weeks away from what might even loosely be termed "proto-sentience", let alone sapience! (Under the abortion laws of most developed nations, ie, no abortions after about 12 weeks). In fact, what might be recognisably deemed sapience probably does not even occur until some point after birth. You're really stretching things here.


Do you think that it should be legal to kill a 1-year-old, knowing that a 1-year-old is barely, if at all, sapient?

No. But let me stress, I feel we should not because: (a) 1-year-olds feel pain and can suffer, unlike foetuses (b) We place a remarkably high societal value on infants that need not extend to foetuses.

[Doddibot]

I suppose it isn't a particularly strong argument without agreement on the base assumption I have put forth that life should only be taken out of dire necessity. Let me put this question to you: do you think that it should be legal to kill a 1-year-old, knowing that a 1-year-old is barely, if at all, sapient?
I think it probably should be legal. As long as the child doesn't suffer. I've been a proponent of legal infanticide in every abortion thread I've participated in on this forum.

Consider a sea sponge. The only reason I choose this animal is because it is essentially as simple as animals get, and it is highly doubtful that it has even the barest hint of sapience. A good life for a sea sponge is one that provides adequate food and possibly one that allows for reproduction. A sea sponge that does not get these things does not have a good life because those conditions are aversive to life. It isn't aware of the fact that it has or hasn't had a good life, but the condition applies nonetheless.
It's not wrong to give a sea sponge a horrible environment, or kill it outright. They can't feel, so can't suffer, so can't be wronged.

Just like an embryo.

[J. M. Pescado]

It's not wrong to give a sea sponge a horrible environment, or kill it outright. They can't feel, so can't suffer, so can't be wronged.So how much cruelty can I commit against a sea sponge before people start an outcry about it? If, for instance, I torture a sea sponge with electric shocks, at what point am I asked to stop? The sea sponge won't care very much either way, being that it lacks a nervous system.

Can we start a new thread about subjective vs. objective morals? :)Morality is just a set of arbitrary rules people have invented in the belief that others following them will maximize the quantity and quality of their survival. Some of them make sense, others are a load of horse puckey.

[ivan17]

No. But let me stress, I feel we should not because: (a) 1-year-olds feel pain and can suffer, unlike foetuses (b) We place a remarkably high societal value on infants that need not extend to foetuses.

How can you know that foetuses don't feel pain?
When we are talking about animals (somewhere), we agreed that we can't know are they inteligent, emotional, have they soul, etc.

Doddibot, well in America and UK, everything is natural and what is natural it's right.

[kiwi_tea]

How can you know that foetuses don't feel pain?

Because the components by which a foetus would feel pain do not connect up and start working properly until considerably after the 12th week. I recall an average of 22 weeks, but I could be misremembering. I doubt I'll be able to find a reliable figure on the internet of all places. Bits of the nervous system exist earlier than that in non-working forms, and some components are firing, but not to any effect as the various connections just aren't linked up. At any rate, the 12 week mark is very conservative, and ensures we're not hurting a thing. Even then, how much pain the foetus feels - if it does - is open to a lot of debate, given the broad lack of a truly functioning mind it has at any given point in gestation. Certainly, there is a line to be drawn somewhere. Personally, I think a very conservative 12 weeks is perfectly appropriate.

We know from the various components of the brain and body quite a lot about adult animal intelligence. We unlock more mysteries all the time, for example for the longest time we thought birds were a lot stupider than they were because we failed to recognise the neurological seat of bird intelligence because it's in a different place to that of mammals. Don't underestimate neurology's expositions of the intelligence of other animals. All the ones we interact with regularly have forms of limbic systems, and it's from the limbic system that a lot of our emotions originate.

[grumpy_otter]

Thank you Nekowolf for stating the bolded part, because this puts into words exactly why I believe Oaktree's argument is flawed. Survival instincts guide most of what life does, but that is not morality.

I think that is rather how morality developed though--as an evolutionary trait to insure the successful survival of a species. Helping one another, close bonding of families, not randomly killing the members of your family--all "moral" and all contribute to survival.

[fragglerocks]

But to say there is objective morality, would be to say that morality would exist even without humans around. Self preservation is a natural instinct, and it never changes. It just can't be compared to morality which is always changing because we learn and adapt. Societies change their views, and moral behavior varies widely. If being immoral is harming life, then humans take the cake on that. Should we not even be here then?

[grumpy_otter]

But to say there is objective morality, would be to say that morality would exist even without humans around. Self preservation is a natural instinct, and it never changes. It just can't be compared to morality which is always changing because we learn and adapt. Societies change their views, and moral behavior varies widely. If being immoral is harming life, then humans take the cake on that. Should we not even be here then?

I don't think "self-preservation" is a moral issue as I tend to think of "morality" as how we relate to others. Maybe that should be the first step--to define it.

I think morality can exist without humans--I think---but again, it depends on the definition. I think "morality" is an evolutionary trait that helps the survival of a species.

You ought to start your objective-subjective thread. :)

[Doddibot]

Doddibot, well in America and UK, everything is natural and what is natural it's right.
I doubt it.

So how much cruelty can I commit against a sea sponge before people start an outcry about it? If, for instance, I torture a sea sponge with electric shocks, at what point am I asked to stop? The sea sponge won't care very much either way, being that it lacks a nervous system.
I'd imagine you could give as many electric shocks as you wanted. I don't see any reason why that would be wrong.

[kiwi_tea]

Pescado should probably stop before he gets symptoms of OOS, though.

[fragglerocks]

Pescado should probably stop before he gets symptoms of OOS, though.

Morally speaking, the sea sponge would definitely be in the wrong if that happened. :lol:

[tjstreak]

There is a recent book dealing with some of the issues: Red Families v. Blue Families http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Law/LawSociety/LawandSocialScience/?view=usa&ci=9780195372175

Ross Douthat at the New York Times writes (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/opinion/10douthat.html):

"The authors depict a culturally conservative “red America” that’s stuck trying to sustain an outdated social model. By insisting (unrealistically) on chastity before marriage, Cahn and Carbone argue, social conservatives guarantee that their children will get pregnant early and often (see Palin, Bristol), leading to teen childbirth, shotgun marriages and high divorce rates."

"This self-defeating cycle could explain why socially conservative states have more family instability than, say, the culturally liberal Northeast. If you’re looking for solid marriages, head to Massachusetts, not Alabama.... "

"More important, Cahn and Carbone also acknowledge one of the more polarizing aspects of the “blue family” model. Conservative states may have more teen births and more divorces, but liberal states have many more abortions."

"Liberals sometimes argue that their preferred approach to family life reduces the need for abortion. In reality, it may depend on abortion to succeed. The teen pregnancy rate in blue Connecticut, for instance, is roughly identical to the teen pregnancy rate in red Montana. But in Connecticut, those pregnancies are half as likely to be carried to term. Over all, the abortion rate is twice as high in New York as in Texas and three times as high in Massachusetts as in Utah."

"So it isn’t just contraception that delays childbearing in liberal states, and it isn’t just a foolish devotion to abstinence education that leads to teen births and hasty marriages in conservative America. It’s also a matter of how plausible an option abortion seems, both morally and practically, depending on who and where you are."

-------

The issue may transcend morality. If you want greater prosperity, stronger families, less divorce, and fewer teen pregnancies, you may have to tolerate more abortions. The price of a middle class lifestyle may be an acceptance of abortion. There may be very real, practical and economic consequences that come with any policy on abortion.

[ToadPurse]

Have any of you ever had an abortion? For most of the logical/non-religious reasons above, I had one... Best decision I ever made.

Never say never. I didn't think i'd ever get one, or for that matter need one. But I did and I think it's very important that this option is available for women.