you're wasting your time and your interlocutors — tim wood

I have not abandoned the argument - i have made the argument - i am abandoning re-statement after restatement after restatement of the argument - after yet one more completely unsupported objection that to date has had nothing at all to do with the propositions or the conclusions. Which is a waste of time.

I don't feel like sharing, by far the most highly regarded, most published and most used pro life argument that many on the site were un-aware of - was a waste of time.

the argument is there - agree - disagree is a personal choice.

Settle down. I’m not outraged, I’m amused at your blunder. Read my response again, I’ve answered your objection.

You cannot win a moral argument because there is no evidence of any moral facts.

If there were moral facts and rules nature breaks them all.

It's the "says you" defense. I say abortion is wrong and you say "says you," and I say sure, and because I say it, it is so for me but not for you, and then we just sort of end things there. — Hanover

We don't have to end things there. We could further discuss our respective views.

There are actually variations throughout the whole spectrum of opinions. A small minority find murder of children moral. Infanticide is practiced in some cultures. Are you committed to infanticide being moral for me if I say it is? — Hanover

What does it mean to be committed to infanticide being moral for you if you say it is? You can think or say whatever you want, but I don't share the view that infanticide is moral.

You don't think anything goes for you, but I don't see upon what basis you can force me to adhere to your moral standards unless you think there's something inherently correct about them and that's it not just a matter of personal preference. — Hanover

I can't force you either way. I can only tell you why I judge the matter as I do and try to convince of why you should adhere to my moral standards.

All in all, your response seems to amount to what I think is the mistaken belief that just because I don't accept that morality is objective, then discussion between us can't progress. But I don't think that you've successfully made that case.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Well no, because as I’ve said previously in this thread, a sperm is not a human being and neither is an egg cell. Once an egg cell is fertilised a human life is conceived, by which I mean something that, if not interrupted, will become a fully developed human being. This is not the case with a sperm or an egg cell; the human embryo is precisely that, an embryonic human being.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Perhaps you should quote me the remark you’re referring to.

You cannot win a moral argument because there is no evidence of any moral facts.

If there were moral facts and rules nature breaks them all. — Andrew4Handel

I am not interested in the abortion debate per se, but are there not facts in criminal cases and laws broken? It seems that that is analogous to moral laws and facts. Personally, I believe there are at least some moral truths, including that genocide is morally wrong. Act according to that maxim that you could will it to be a universal law. It seems the categorical imperative is a good guiding principle, in my opinion, and it conveys at least some moral truths. However, I differ from Kant in that context needs to be taken into account. For example, always lie to the murderer at the door.

against all the arguments I have made, with propositions and conclusions the counter arguments have been

Banno - a fetus is not a person, because it is not a person because, because of his CA argument which he is not supporting just putting it out there. - the fact that I have not made one argument based on personhood has escaped him for 6 pages. So not one of his objections on this thread has anything at all to do with my argument - which he dismisses as bad, without cause and ignores. Which it seems is a rather normal tactic.

he also occasionally make some reference to "what about the woman, which again i fully addressed - and he has so far ignored.

You on the other hand, have at least 3 times dismissed the FVOL argument on structure. such as this :

Dismissed because unargued and unsupported, merely assumed and asserted. It seems pretty clear that you can rant, but you can't argue - likely do not even understand what argument is. The FOVA depends on assuming what is in question - and that's not argument. The mistake is begging the question. I call it ranting

I have asked on each instance, and do again on the latest version, what specific part of the argument you are talking about in your dismissal, so I could possibly formulate a reply - i have yet to receive one.

Also - as I have pointed out, your first set of objections were addressed specifically in the argument - and as recently as yesterday - i gave you the best argument AGAINST the FVOL argument - whereby you took the 3 items AGAINST it and argued them back as if I was making an argument for. This with other items has lead me to believe you barely read, and if you do, do not even take the briefest of moments to understand the posts i have directed at you. You are writing you argument back in your head before you have reached the second word.

Every point you have raised to me on the issue has amounted to nothing more than an unsupported pronouncement, with a chaser of a personal barb.

Address the premises or the conclusion of the FVOL directly and with support of your counter opinion and I will address -

Address the premises or the conclusion of the use of the woman's body argument and support your counter opinion and I will address

However all future unsupported pronouncements will be regarded as one more opinion and ignored.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Why on earth would I be referring to all human cellular life there, as opposed to the life of a new human being? You’re being a pedant.

If you take a child to be the offspring of parents then of course it’s a child in there, right from the very start.

Personally, I believe there are at least some moral truths, including that genocide is morally wrong. — Noah Te Stroete

Where do these moral truths come from and what do they consist of?

They bible is not a good source because it is contradictory along with other problems

If genocide is "wrong" then how come nature freely allows it? I think unfortunately unless we can find some rule book outside of nature then what nature allow nature allows. You can't break the laws of nature.

I would like someone on here to come out and admit to being religious and try and defend the bibles morality and these two quotes that I put in a previous thread.

.................

"But most fortunate of all are those who are not yet born. For they have not seen all the evil that is done under the sun." Ecclesiastes 6:3

"A man may father a hundred children and live for many years; yet no matter how long he lives, if he is unsatisfied with his prosperity and does not even receive a proper burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he." Ecclesiastes 6:3

Where do these moral truths come from and what do they consist of? — Andrew4Handel

The categorical imperative comes from the power of reason. Why are you bringing the Bible up with me? It’s a Kantian argument, not a religious one.

I am bringing the bible up in the context of these debates and asking whether or not people that are opposed to abortion have a hidden religious motive beyond their allegedly "rational" arguments.

I said "I would like someone(..)" I didn't say you in particular. I just attached the comment to your post for convenience.

I see no evidence reason leads to morality and you can't derive an ought from an is.

And if reason did lead to a morality it is not clear who's position that morality would favour. At the least however you can point out flaws in peoples argumentation though and common fallacies such as appeal to emotion, shifting the goal post etc.

Is a dead person a human? At what stage after death do they stop being human?

Ethics is all about ought. If you can will that everyone ought to lie to the murderer at the door to save an innocent person, then it is a moral truth. If you can will genocide to be a universal law, then committing genocide is not morally wrong. It seems to me that there are at least some moral truths.

Do you understand that an argument - most arguments, all that I can think of - comprise premises and a conclusion. One argues for and supports the premises, and then exhibits the conclusion as following from the premises as a matter of form, with flourishes as desired. — tim wood

I see the problem - you were out of philosophy class the day they taught philosophy ( love movie quotes don't you)

One does not argue or support ones premises they are:

"A premise or premiss[a] is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion. In other words, a premise is an assumption that something is true"

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE NOTE THE WORD "ASSUMPTION"

The person making the argument ( marquis ) in this case declares the premise, which by definition he proposes is true. Than based on these things he believes are true he make a conclusion. This is not begging the question, this is argument.

It is incumbent on those who believe his premises or conclusions are false ( you for instance ) to say they are and why - I have been waiting.

in your example

Look. The sky is filled with purple flying unicorns. I prove it thus: premise: the sky is filled with purple flying unicorns. I assume that's true. Therefore, the sky is filled with purple flying unicorns. — tim wood

I dispute your proposition the the sky is full of purple flying unicorns because it is not. - Argument over.

Can't believe that is your issue. Amazed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I can't force you either way. I can only tell you why I judge the matter as I do and try to convince of why you should adhere to my moral standards. — S

Alright, why is murdering infants wrong other to you?

I guess I would argue that you cannot will that all abortion should be outlawed because there are cases where it should be permissible: the health of the mother or even the ability of the parents to care for the child are factors to take into account. So, I guess I believe that abortion is wrong is not a moral truth.

I think if there were "ought's" that would be problematic. For example should we give all excess wealth that we have away to save starving children? Should we rescue as many animals as possible from natural harm?

It could be argued like Peter Singer does on an ought's framework we would be compelled to do a lot more than we do currently and sacrifice a lot more. And then the following argument is that, that puts an impossible burden on us.

Also if morality involves choice then we can't simply be compelled to do something it would seem, and retain freewill.

I think one thing you can objectively say about genocide is that it is extremely harmful and causes massive suffering. That really should be an incentive not to do it but yet humans have done it unfortunately.

I am not convinced abortion causes any suffering to the aborted child mainly because we have no memory of being in the womb or suffering the womb or having desires in the womb etc.

I don't think abortion is right or wrong. I don't think it is ideal or great for sure.

I think it is the lesser of two evils. But I don't accept most premises made by anti-abortionists

Personally, I believe there are at least some oughts. Just because we don’t always perform them is besides the point.

Mate, you’re just being a pedant. I could be referring either to all cellular life in the human body, or in particular to a new human being there, and there is no reason why it should be the former; remember this thread is about abortion. But look, if that’s the straw you want, then grasp away.

My argument in this thread has simply been this: If we’re going to value the lives of our fellow human beings at all, then we must do so from the beginning. Otherwise people, when it suits them, will come up with arbitrary reasons we’re allowed to end life, as they do.

Ethics is all about ought. If you can will that everyone ought to lie to the murderer at the door to save an innocent person, then it is a moral truth. If you can will genocide to be a universal law, then committing genocide is not morally wrong. It seems to me that there are at least some moral truths. — Noah Te Stroete

That's pretty funny. As if merely willing something makes it so. That's a one way ticket to absurdity.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.