All arguments against abortion that I've encountered are exercises in begging the question. If a person doesn't like terminating pregnancies, then they need merely either not get pregnant, and if they do, not have an abortion. Anything else is minding someone else's business. (Which is not in itself wrong - if gone about in the right way for the right reasons.) The problems with the above lie in the words, and thereby in the ideas and thinking they represent. Shortest way: what life is created? And what is - what does it mean to say - "the premature state of an already existing life form."
At this point in the modern debate on abortion, a debate roughly a century in, with all of the pain on all sides, the sheer stupidity of this argument is unforgivable, and can only have been offered by a troll, or someone so green they have no real idea of what they're talking - writing - about. Go do some research and some thinking! — tim wood
Is this the question in question?Sounds like your the one trolling, Tim Wood. His question is completely legitimate. — christian2017
Abortion is either when you cancel the events that may lead to a creation of life or ending the premature state of an already existing life form. Why is this considered moral by human standards and not frowned upon? — EpicTyrant
Why is this considered moral by human standards and not frowned upon? — EpicTyrant
of all the useless posts I've answered in the past couple months, i'll answer this one in a couple of hours. — christian2017
when we make the decision to perform an abortion or not? — EpicTyrant
There are some people though, who do not recognise an unborn baby as a human being. I think that they have found an opportunity to disregard the perspective of the unborn because they do not see it's face, hear it's sounds, see it's reactions to environmental stimuli. — Serving Zion
You are only 2/3's correct though .. and furthermore, those two are not necessary definitions for qualifying life. It is meant to show that the immorality relies upon moving the goalposts for the definition of life, so that they can believe themselves innocent of putting life to death.A blastocyst does not have a face, hear sounds nor react to stimuli. — Banno
You would cut out any other cyst without hesitation. — Banno
What pisses me off most about the choice debate is the insincerity of the antagonists.
The reason you want to ban abortion is nothing to do with fair ethical consideration. It's because the people who tell you what your invisible friend wants say abortion is naughty.
The same misogynist folk who fight against child care, public education, maternity leave, and most other things that will actually benefit people. The ones who think giving guns to children is a good idea, and are shit scared of anyone who is slightly different, sexually, ethnically, geographically, politically or spiritually.
The folk who will not mention, let alone consider, the role of the potential mother; utter bullshit. — Banno
It is meant to show that the immorality relies upon moving the goalposts for the definition of life, so that they can believe themselves innocent of putting life to death. — Serving Zion
Morality doesn't have an author as such, so it's pointless to ask who set up the goalposts. The point is, they will believe it is immoral to kill a breathing baby for convenience, but not an unborn. In making that distinction, they shift the goalposts (where "killing" is to take the life of a living, and "baby" is the one who is not independent/self-supported).What goalposts though? Who set up the goalposts that are allegedly being moved? — Echarmion
Strict morality does condemn that though.It's not about "life" either. We kill lots of life all the time. No-one much cares about the billions of bacteria. — Echarmion
Strict morality does condemn that though. — Serving Zion
Morality doesn't have an author as such, so it's pointless to ask who set up the goalposts. — Serving Zion
The point is, they will believe it is immoral to kill a breathing baby for convenience, but not an unborn. In making that distinction, they shift the goalposts (where "killing" is to take the life of a living, and "baby" is the one who is not independent/self-supported). — Serving Zion
It is just judgement of the absolute truth. When one says "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", then the judge decides whether the complaint is credible or not.What is "strict morality"? — Echarmion
Actually, you are only able to say that because you do not acknowledge the complaint of the unborn: "they took my life".That's just one way to draw the line. No "shifting" is going on here. — Echarmion
Can you please explain why?You're also oversimplifying the issue to "killing is wrong, not killing is right". That's not a viable moral stance. — Echarmion
You said I would cut out any other cyst without hesitation, so I have asked you to give an example of why I might want to cut out a cyst.Why would you want to do what? — Banno
It is just judgement of the absolute truth — Serving Zion
Actually, you are only able to say that because you do not acknowledge the complaint of the unborn: "they took my life". — Serving Zion
Can you please explain why? — Serving Zion
I think it's better to say "how can we know the absolute truth?" .. is that what you meant?How do we know the absolute truth? — Echarmion
Yes, that is true. I also am not the only one who makes that complaint on their behalf. There is a spiritual reality that speaks, pricking our conscience. Whenever we fall foul of the judgement of the absolute truth, we must wrestle those voices. To achieve peace of mind, some people refuse to hear those voices (eg: 1 John 4:6), or they might adjust their moral compass to deceive themselves (thereby rejecting their conscience in favour of an alternative spirit). Neither of those options is good for us, but it is what we choose to do when we are unable to confess our errors.The unborn cannot lodge such a complaint, even in theory, though. So really it's you making the complaint, — Echarmion
In those cases, the absolute truth yields itself to our support, because the aggressor was doing immorality to begin with - they were transgressing the moral law "do unto others as you would have them do to you".It is sometimes necessary to kill in order to protect other rights. Like when we are acting in defense of ourselves or others. — Echarmion
I think it's better to say "how can we know the absolute truth?" .. is that what you meant? — Serving Zion
Some people refuse to hear those voices (eg: 1 John 4:6), sometimes they adjust their moral compass to deceive themselves (thereby rejecting their conscience in favour of an alternative spirit). — Serving Zion
In those cases, the absolute truth yields itself to our support, because the aggressor was doing immorality to begin with - they were transgressing the moral law "do unto others as you would have them do to you". — Serving Zion
Ok, well we just need to see what prevents a person from accepting the absolute truth. Then, by removing those barriers, they can advance to know the truth.Yes, that'd be the more basic question. — Echarmion
I am sorry, I have reworded it to try and soften the blow. I don't know if that will be enough for you, but let's see.Sounds awfully condescending. — Echarmion
What, seriously? .. that people can kill babies for unrestrained sex? You would work yourself to death while trying to adjust that compass, I can assure you.Perhaps it's your moral compass that's in need of adjustment? — Echarmion
We will need to part ways over this. Nobody is born demonic, they become demonic by yielding their mind to the thinking that shields them from the conviction of the truth.A lot has been written on the topic, some of it very thorough. It's not a matter of willful ignorance or denial. — Echarmion
Who does? .. don't get me wrong, the parasite takes a risk by invading a host. I do not grant the same terms to describe pregnancy, one would be severely warped to arrive at that.But, given that we accept limitations even to the right to life — Echarmion
It doesn't make a difference though, to the judgement. The fact is, that it is taking life, and the question in the judgement is whether it is morally justified.it's no longer a simple question of whether or not the unborn child is indeed alreay a child or still a foetus. — Echarmion
Those considerations are in fact justifications for adjusting the moral compass, and they don't have any strength when faith is involved. So it does remain a black and white issue, IMO.It's also a matter of what circumstances we are going to accept as justification for ending that life. It's not a black of white issue. Plenty of people who are "pro life" accept special circumstances, like danger to the mother or pregnancy as a result of rape. — Echarmion
It would be useful to analyse some of those differences.On the other side, plents of "pro abortion" people accept limits to the right of abortion based on the state of the pregnancy or the circumstances of the decision. — Echarmion
Ok, well we just need to see what prevents a person from accepting the absolute truth. Then, by removing those barriers, they can advance to know the truth. — Serving Zion
that people can kill babies for unrestrained sex? — Serving Zion
We will need to part ways over this. Nobody is born demonic, they become demonic by yielding their mind to the thinking that shields them from the conviction of the truth. — Serving Zion
and they don't have any strength when faith is involved — Serving Zion
Do you have a problem with unrestrained sex? — Echarmion
If you're going to refuse every counterargument as demonic, what's the use talking to you, exactly? — Echarmion
That question is loaded with a false premise. There are many times I observe counterarguments as not being demonic. But, even if a person does speak to me in a demonic spirit, the words can be useful to produce a better knowledge of the truth. — Serving Zion
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.