(December 8, 2017 at 4:18 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(December 8, 2017 at 4:15 pm)SteveII Wrote: What "relevant facts of a matter can change" on a moral question like abortion that does not involve "biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject"? Is there metaphysical reasoning you can employ? Is there scientific reasons you can trot out? Please be specific because it really seems the crux of the abortion issue always was, is, and always will change based on an opinion of relative value of the mother's reasons against that of the unborn baby.

You'd have to be more specific in asking the question and more specific in providing the exact justifications for a position yay or nay to get a meaningful answer to that question....and what happened last time you asked as much?

Ya failed to follow through, didn't ya?    Would you like another opportunity to provide an example of a victorian moral objection to abortion....so that we can assess whether or not it accurately reported any fact that was true then or now, and now..additionally..whether it reported some fact that might have been true then but is not true now?

And my contention is that there are no changes to the relevant facts from then until now that are not "biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject". I am not aware of any metaphysical reasoning nor relevant scientific understanding that would avoid the conclusion that the abortion issue always was, is, and always will be based on an opinion of relative value of the mother's concerns/desires against that of the unborn baby's life--a conclusion that is the very epitome of subjective.  Unless you can provide some, you have lost the debate. 

....Drops microphone and bows to applause. Bravo, Steve!

(December 8, 2017 at 4:59 pm)SteveII Wrote: And my contention is that there are no changes to the relevant facts from then until now that are not "biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject". I am not aware of any metaphysical reasoning nor relevant scientific understanding that would avoid the conclusion that the abortion issue always was, is, and always will be based on an opinion of relative value of the mother's concerns/desires against that of the unborn baby's life--a conclusion that is the very epitome of subjective.  Unless you can provide some, you have lost the debate. 

Difficult to maintain without mentioning what relevant facts to which you're referring.  

I already addressed the trivial subjectivity of opinions from the outset...so I guess we're at the point where you shit on your own board and strut off? That seems...counterproductive. Did you really intend to assert that the issue of the moral status of abortion is subjective? That would mean that declarations of it's immorality were also subjective. Is this what you're declaring victory over, is this your position? If, as this all began..the existence of objective morality was indicative of the existence of a god..and you are here at least...attempting to establish that there is no moral objectivity, where does that leave the assertion that from such objectivity comes a reason to believe in god?

Which one of us is a moral realist, and which one of us just declared victory in tearing down their own assertions?

(December 8, 2017 at 4:59 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(December 8, 2017 at 4:18 pm)Khemikal Wrote: You'd have to be more specific in asking the question and more specific in providing the exact justifications for a position yay or nay to get a meaningful answer to that question....and what happened last time you asked as much?

Ya failed to follow through, didn't ya?    Would you like another opportunity to provide an example of a victorian moral objection to abortion....so that we can assess whether or not it accurately reported any fact that was true then or now, and now..additionally..whether it reported some fact that might have been true then but is not true now?

And my contention is that there are no changes to the relevant facts from then until now that are not "biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject". I am not aware of any metaphysical reasoning nor relevant scientific understanding that would avoid the conclusion that the abortion issue always was, is, and always will be based on an opinion of relative value of the mother's concerns/desires against that of the unborn baby's life--a conclusion that is the very epitome of subjective.  Unless you can provide some, you have lost the debate. 

Abortion is here to stay, now and forever, at least until the human race is no more; it is a human right:

United Nations Committee Affirms Abortion As A Human Right

LOL it's a human right to kill humans...according to a diplomatic body representing mostly authoritarian regiemes.

How about a human right to be fucking born!

Hey, there's a good one....finally.  While it strays slightly from morality and into legality...would you consider that one the kind of thing that could be established as a true claim?  If so, has our opinion in that regard really changed much?  Since when, from what..to what?

(December 8, 2017 at 5:25 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(December 8, 2017 at 4:59 pm)SteveII Wrote: And my contention is that there are no changes to the relevant facts from then until now that are not "biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject". I am not aware of any metaphysical reasoning nor relevant scientific understanding that would avoid the conclusion that the abortion issue always was, is, and always will be based on an opinion of relative value of the mother's concerns/desires against that of the unborn baby's life--a conclusion that is the very epitome of subjective.  Unless you can provide some, you have lost the debate. 

Difficult to maintain without mentioning what relevant facts to which you're referring.  

I already addressed the trivial subjectivity of opinions from the outset...so I guess we're at the point where you shit on your own board and strut off?  That seems...counterproductive.  Did you really intend to assert that the issue of the moral status of abortion is subjective?  That would mean that declarations of it's immorality were also subjective.  Is this what you're declaring victory over, is this your position?  If, as this all began..the existence of objective morality was indicative of the existence of a god..and you are here at least...attempting to establish that there is no moral objectivity, where does that leave the assertion that from such objectivity comes a reason to believe in god?  

Which one of us is a moral realist, and which one of us just declared victory in tearing down their own assertions?

Ah, you bring up a good point (though not the one you intended). You can salvage your position but the price you will have to pay for your "objective morality" is to condemn elective abortion on the same grounds a theist would condemn it: all human life has intrinsic value--a position you can back up with both metaphysical and scientific reasoning AND is does not contain "biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject". There's your moral fact of the matter. Well, are you ready to march on a clinic? 

Where in any of my posts in this thread did I make the moral argument for the existence of God? You are deflecting.

You just said you agreed with that premise Wallym in this thread and other threads, so perhaps, clarify your viewpoint and stick to one.

(December 8, 2017 at 5:32 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(December 8, 2017 at 4:59 pm)SteveII Wrote: And my contention is that there are no changes to the relevant facts from then until now that are not "biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject". I am not aware of any metaphysical reasoning nor relevant scientific understanding that would avoid the conclusion that the abortion issue always was, is, and always will be based on an opinion of relative value of the mother's concerns/desires against that of the unborn baby's life--a conclusion that is the very epitome of subjective.  Unless you can provide some, you have lost the debate. 

Abortion is here to stay, now and forever, at least until the human race is no more; it is a human right:

United Nations Committee Affirms Abortion As A Human Right

You say that with some sense of satisfaction. Over 50,000,000 babies have died and you use it as a barb. Doesn't matter what your position on religion is, this should sicken you. You sicken me.

(December 8, 2017 at 6:30 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(December 8, 2017 at 5:32 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Abortion is here to stay, now and forever, at least until the human race is no more; it is a human right:

United Nations Committee Affirms Abortion As A Human Right

You say that with some sense of satisfaction. Over 50,000,000 babies have died and you use it as a barb. Doesn't matter what your position on religion is, this should sicken you. You sicken me.

Yeah, feel sorry for all those sperm, also!  After all, only 1 out of 100,000,000 get the big prize!  The rest of those poor suckers either end-up in the landfill or in the sewer!!  Pity, pity!!  And, what about those 30 to 40% of "unborn" who miscarry spontaneously???  The Jehovah, the great abortionist, must be a sick SOB to send all of those unborn infants to eternal hell.