(April 15, 2019 at 3:21 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Moral-amoral-immoral.  Calling something amoral removes it from moral consideration.  It would be the neutral state, neither right nor wrong.

Thanks, corrected, my apologies, I was too busy fixing my atrocious quoting

It's nbd, honestly, people use the term that way all the time...it just seems like there's already so much confusion when it comes to these things that a pedantic commitment to accurate communication might be useful, lol.

(April 15, 2019 at 3:11 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: The only situation in which an abortion isn't justifiable in the specifics is when there's nothing wrong with the child, no compelling reason other than the halth of the child to abort,  and everyone wants to or is willing to have and can care for the child.

If that's your position then you're not pro-choice.  You fall closer to pro-life on this spectrum.  Well... provided I'm correctly interpreting your grammatically garbled paragraph.

"...is when there's nothing wrong with the child, no compelling reason other than the halth of the child to abort..."

Uh... what?  Is the child halthy or not?  There's nothing wrong with the child other than its halth?  What else do you evaluate in a fetus?  Its math test scores?

The pro-choice position is that a woman can abort her child for absolutely any reason she sees fit.  It's called an elective abortion. Welcome to the debate, here's your introductory pamphlet.

Quote:IOW, when no one is looking to justify an abortion, lol.

-and even in that situation, it's still justifiable in principle as a policy of avoidance.

So now you are in favor of allowing a halthy fetus to be aborted?  What the fuck are you even saying?

Quote:If you're looking for someone to convince you to have an abortion, then so be it - but if what you wanted to know was how abortion could be justified..that question has already been answered.

That question was never asked. Remember, this is "sometimes" vs "always."

Quote:It doesn't follow that the mere existence of justifications for abortion will convince you or anyone else to have one, and if you don't want to have one..-that- problem is easily solved.  Don't.

K.

(April 15, 2019 at 3:15 pm)tackattack Wrote:

(April 11, 2019 at 11:52 am)Nihilist Virus Wrote:

---

Ok. Well you're still avoiding the question.

Christianity stands or falls on one issue: the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That's it. If I proved that Jesus never performed any miracle whatsoever except the miracle of rising from the dead, I'd still prove Christianity true even while showing the majority of the gospels to be false.  And the converse is true also: if you proved that Jesus did perform every miracle attributed to him in the gospels except for rising from the dead, and you inadvertently proved with absolute certainty that he did not rise, either physically or spiritually, then you would still be disproving Christianity.

Christians dodge questions, lie, and twist things around.  But there's no reason for that. Just admit that the genocides of Joshua were immoral, because they quite obviously were.  That will be a blow to your religion, sure, but it won't be the death knell. At the very least just admit that you disagree with the decision but that you trust God. But when you dodge and lie, or play stupid games, you're not advertising your beliefs with nobility. I don't think to myself, "I want to be a part of that group! Look how dishonest and underhanded they are! Sign me up!"

If Christians would just be honest and honorable in debate then we'd respect your opinion. So until you guys can do that, you'd be of better service to the unborn by saying nothing because when you open your mouth about abortion you're just going to piss people off.

---

Bolding by me. In case you skimmed I did admit genocide was immoral. I didn't dodge, I didn't twist. The rest of your post was just biased opinion and is worth just as much as you attribute to mine so you can just say nothing unless you'd like to actually read and discuss a topic.

I didn't skim. I was just assuming that you would never admit that God issued immoral commands. Interesting.

(April 15, 2019 at 5:06 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: If that's your position then you're not pro-choice.  You fall closer to pro-life on this spectrum.  Well... provided I'm correctly interpreting your grammatically garbled paragraph.

"...is when there's nothing wrong with the child, no compelling reason other than the halth of the child to abort..."

Uh... what?  Is the child halthy or not?  There's nothing wrong with the child other than its halth?  What else do you evaluate in a fetus?  Its math test scores?

The pro-choice position is that a woman can abort her child for absolutely any reason she sees fit.  It's called an elective abortion. Welcome to the debate, here's your introductory pamphlet.

That's not exactly the pro choice position, but the pro choice position is a comment on legality, anyway.  You asked for moral justifications.  

Quote:So now you are in favor of allowing a halthy fetus to be aborted?  What the fuck are you even saying?

The same thing I've been saying since I first answered the question you asked.  That there are -many- moral justifications for abortions, from at least three major categories of moral consideration. 

Quote:That question was never asked. Remember, this is "sometimes" vs "always."

-and when I remind you that I've already answered this one, will you kick the goalposts a few feet back, or?  

I've given you three categories of moral justification, these three categories describe the breadth of any other moral consideration.  Moral goods, final moral goods, and avoidance.

Try to think of any other thing you consider morally justified, and why.  You'll find that if it can be justified, -even if your justification were in factual error, as it was with the vegan example- it falls into at least one of those three categories.  Since examples and elaboration don't seem to have any use for you, your question could be answered more simply without reference to any of them.

Abortion can be justified in any and all of the ways that any other thing is.

-To answer your question. I acknowledge that the abortion of a healthy fetus can be morally justified, yes, ofc. The health of the fetus isn't the only morally relevant fact (depending on the schema, it may not be a morally relevant fact at all).

That doesn't mean that I would do it or that I would personally accept that justification if it were me making the choice.

In my opinion, your confusion on this issue is down to misunderstandings of key terms you've attempted to employ in support of a position called moral absolutism. You posit that killing life is absolutely wrong. Most of us do not. In an absolutists value schema you'd be asking for the impossible, but in any other value schema you'll find any number of rational and lucid answers to that question that, again imo, better reflect reality.

(April 15, 2019 at 10:38 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: That's not exactly the pro choice position, but the pro choice position is a comment on legality, anyway.  You asked for moral justifications.

I've already made it clear that I accept that it should be legal.  Pro-choice advocates think abortion is morally acceptable. You aren't following the conversation.

Quote:The same thing I've been saying since I first answered the question you asked.  That there are -many- moral justifications for abortions, from at least three major categories of moral consideration. 

And I've asked you to fuck off with that as it is not relevant. But you don't get it. Wall, meet forehead.

Quote:-and when I remind you that I've already answered this one, will you kick the goalposts a few feet back, or?  

I've given you three categories of moral justification, these three categories describe the breadth of any other moral consideration.  Moral goods, final moral goods, and avoidance.

Not relevant.

Quote:Try to think of any other thing you consider morally justified, and why.  You'll find that if it can be justified, -even if your justification were in factual error, as it was with the vegan example- it falls into at least one of those three categories.  Since examples and elaboration don't seem to have any use for you, your question could be answered more simply without reference to any of them.

Abortion can be justified in any and all of the ways that any other thing is.

Not relevant.

Quote:-To answer your question.  I acknowledge that the abortion of a healthy fetus can be morally justified, yes, ofc.

Not fucking relevant for fuck sake.

This thread.

Is not about.

Whether.

Abortion.

CAN BE.

Moral.

It's about whether.

Abortion.

IS ALWAYS.

Moral.

No matter the circumstances.

Quote:The health of the fetus isn't the only morally relevant fact (depending on the schema, it may not be a morally relevant fact at all).  

That doesn't mean that I would do it or that I would personally accept that justification if it were me making the choice.

In my opinion, your confusion on this issue is down to misunderstandings of key terms you've attempted to employ in support of a position called moral absolutism.

I'm not the one who is confused.

Quote:You posit that killing life is absolutely wrong.  Most of us do not.

And I gave reasons for that. Reasons which I know you saw since you replied to the post containing them. But reasons which you nevertheless failed to address.

Quote:In an absolutists value schema you'd be asking for the impossible, but in any other value schema you'll find any number of rational and lucid answers to that question that, again imo, better reflect reality.

We don't ask what is practical first, and then what is moral second.  That is backward, and it has led to your appeal to consequences logical fallacy. Which you don't even understand. But never mind that for now.  It's clear you don't understand the main point, so I'm out. You have nothing to offer to me. 

As commented on before, you don't know what the term "appeal to consequences" means.  

If abortion can be morally justified by a variety of means, yes..that is very much relevant to whether or not abortion can always be morally justified, which isn't the question you asked, but is a question I answered regardless. If you have a problem with any of those many ways to justify an abortion that doesn't reduce to some misconception you have about a logical fallacy, cool, let's hear it.

Your reasons for being an absolutist aren't relevant to whether or not abortion can be morally justified. It's your a priori belief, which isn't actually a reason, either, but hey... how many terms can we misunderstand while we throw a fit about abortion, right?

Someone concerned with overpopulation can very easily explain to you why abortion is -always- a moral good, a moral imperative. They may take a softer stance, describing abortion as a final moral good, and so a strongly incentivized moral elective. They can always remind you that any stigma, legal or moral, to the contrary is a moral bad to be avoided.

You can, ofc, disagree with their justification, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid, or that the justification doesn't exist. You can also agree with their justification and decide to have the child anyway. None of the many possible avenues of justification are likely to end with you running out, convinced, to have an abortion. Absolutism, however, doesn't afford the level of granularity required to make rational and informed decisions about real world situations with moral content. It's used as a deontological teaching aide for small children who, we presume, lack the developed agency required to make cogent decisions of their own.

We say things like "Billy, stealing is bad, it's always bad, no matter what" - not because this is true, but because it's best for children (and to an extent adults as well) to act as though it is. The same is true of killing. Is killing or stealing always bad? In a word..no. The heuristic is levied because we posit that at least some killing or stealing is bad, perhaps even most killing or stealing, and if we did all act as though all killing and stealing were bad there would be fewer instances of killing or stealing that satisfy the moral content that absolutist deontology seeks to exclude through conformity or compliance. This is a position commonly referred to as pseudo-realism, though psuedo realists are usually much more careful than to fall into the trap of an infantile absolutist deontology.

Why would an absolutist say abortion is a moral good? Couldn't one say that abortion is a "moral better" than bad? I understand your point about the low resolution solving power of black and whites, I'm just trying to see what camp you perceive me to fall in.

If it's best for children and adults to act as though all killing is bad, and if we did all act as though all killing and stealing were bad there would be fewer instances of killing or stealing is that a positive reason for accepting a lie to better society?

An absolutist could say abortion is good or bad, in this case our absolutist thinks it's bad, because killing absolutely bad. IDK if you're an absolutist, though I doubt it.

To your question, more an explanation of why we do so, not a reason to accept the lie. When we tell our kids these things we do so with full knowledge of the conceit, and all of us eventually have to walk it back when our kids come up with some novel question. In doing so they begin to show awareness of exclusively sub-optimal fields or exceptions and this is usually when we begin to gently lead them away from absolutists deontology into moral reason.

Well then I guess I'm on the absolutist side. I believe abortion is morally bad. I believe abortion can be sometimes societally necessary, or the lesser of evils, but still not morally good. The question still stands:
If it's best for children and adults to act as though all killing is bad, and if we did all act as though all killing and stealing were bad there would be fewer instances of killing or stealing wouldn't that be societally good? Is that a positive reason for accepting a lie to better society?