Abortion not allowed

[Esquilax]

There's no denying esq that we can feel something when a human dies. We have empathy because this is our species and we have a very good idea of what they feel and what other people might feel if they experience loss. That has nothing to do with morals, apart from it being a consideration if we were to decide to take that life. That is: is it still right to kill them even though people that know them will suffer.

I would think that considerations of the effects of our actions on other people form the cornerstone of our morals, given that morality relies upon the interactions of thinking beings to even exist. That said, we don't even need to go to the moral argument; my point is that we make determinations about life and whether it's worth saving, that life is not automatically presumed to be worth preserving merely because it is life. We don't generally have any qualms about taking a brain dead person off life support, for example, or of allowing a person with fatal injuries beyond the help of medicine to pass away peacefully rather than extending their life futilely for them to experience more pain. There's more to our evaluations of life than its unthinking preservation, and I think that's at the crux of the abortion issue, that fetuses don't possess those qualities that would make that life worth preserving.

Personally I'm against all war. What's your stance on that? It's legal to kill thousands of people to defend your liberty. It's globally defined as moral too.

I think stuff like war is a more pragmatic concern than we usually give it credit for; it may be a morally acceptable method of conflict resolution, but I don't think that necessarily makes it morally preferable. It's in a hierarchy: we think of peaceful resolution as more morally correct than violent conflict, and even within war itself we don't celebrate the death. It's an unfortunate means to an end.

This is pretty easy to see, because if we picture a hypothetical nation that uses war as its first resort to any potential conflict, I doubt any of us would consider that nation to be morally correct in its dealings, nor morally superior to more peaceful nations.

As for God, the point is that he would have the knowledge to know if the taking of life was really justified, if as defined, he has knowledge of everything. Omniscience. I believe, and I've outlined the reasons why I think he is purely good, and the Jews and ancient Hebrews certainly agreed. You don't have to agree. That is not your belief. I understand that.

I'm just wary of people adding more premises to their claims than they've demonstrated. These things can get pretty complex once you start stripping back the assumptions; for example, even in your claim of an all knowing, purely good god, there's no reason to assume consistent morally good actions from that god. Maybe his judgment gets clouded by emotion on occasion, and he acts rashly. Being able to make a perfectly well informed decision, and acting upon that ability, are two different things.