(February 24, 2020 at 3:03 pm)Agnostico Wrote:

(February 24, 2020 at 10:15 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: What the fuck is wrong with you?

Knowledge i guess...  Some cesarian births are done for the sole reason of pussy stretch. Look it up if u don't believe me. A vagina changes totally after childbirth

The Grand Nudger Wrote:I'm glad that we're establishing more specific grounds for an immoral act.

I established that conscious act was a part of it in my argument already

The Grand Nudger Wrote:It may even be that consciously causing pain isn't enough to establish that something is an immoral act

I made this clear in my argument. It must be a conscious act that causes harm for it to be immoral. Yes there are some rare acceptations
An unconscious act causing harm is usually an accident

I tend to still follow the morals of scripture seeing its got western society this far and there isn't much wrong with it. 
Some atheist want to scrap all that. How then would we define what is moral without it just becoming peoples subjective opinions?

3 minutes into this video has a good explanation of how to discern a moral act from an immoral one without using religion.

BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:Of course inflicting pain can be immoral. But since we agree that it isn’t ALWAYS immoral, your assertion fails, as it becomes evident that not all abortions are immoral

I didn't assert that all abortions were immoral, Im just showing how some can be viewed by people as immoral
Your statement that not all abortions are immoral shows me that you are aware how some abortions can be immoral

We won't change each others minds but it looks like we understand each other i think. That's really all i can hope to achieve, understanding

Don’t weasel out. You said that inflicting pain is immoral, therefore abortion is immoral. Since the pain argument fails, it cannot be claimed - on this ground - that abortion is an immoral act. 

Boru

BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:Don’t weasel out. You said that inflicting pain is immoral, therefore abortion is immoral. Since the pain argument fails, it cannot be claimed - on this ground - that abortion is an immoral act.

Weasel out of what? U said not all abortions are immoral, so some are, now ur changing it

An argument doesn't fail cos u provided examples where it does. If that were the case then the assertion that stabbing an innocent person is immoral also fails
All you've done is now declare that causing pain is never immoral, an obvious error

And your changing what u said just before, why? Cos im happy to accept your understanding
Anyway your contention obviously exceeded's your ability to understand an opposing view. Back to the cotton fields for me I guess...

The Grand Nudger Wrote:"Following the rules of scripture" a whole hell of alot would be forbidden - but that's no indication that their taboo status is warranted by some ethical provision. Abortion, though...fine by scripture. Suspicious of your wife? Put her through the ordeal of the bitter waters. She has no choice in the matter. As far as problems with scriptural morals.....history and the present moment is a running account

You've confused magic book and it's necessarily subjective morality for moral realism.

Here we go, triggered. Calm down mate we can talk about your hatred of "the magic book" another time. It has nothing to do with the issue

All I was saying is without a "magic book" y'all need a way to discern morality from immorality.
A lot of you guys really need some kind of framework for morals and the video provides it. Looks like u didn't watch it and got triggered by my mentioning "the magic book"

Anyway im starting to realize that reason and understanding isn't your objective making this conversation pointless really.
I like to understand the opposing view, you guys don't. That's the difference between us

U guys should go toe to toe. Brian u were so outraged at me adding the "after birth abortion" option. 
Well he supports it... Unleash the same indignant outrage on him then if your true to your word

(February 24, 2020 at 4:45 pm)Agnostico Wrote:

BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:Don’t weasel out. You said that inflicting pain is immoral, therefore abortion is immoral. Since the pain argument fails, it cannot be claimed - on this ground - that abortion is an immoral act.

Weasel out of what? U said not all abortions are immoral, so some are, now ur changing it

An argument doesn't fail cos u provided examples where it does. If that were the case then the assertion that stabbing an innocent person is immoral also fails
All you've done is now declare that causing pain is never immoral, an obvious error

And your changing what u said just before, why? Cos im happy to accept your understanding
Anyway your contention obviously exceeded's your ability to understand an opposing view. Back to the cotton fields for me I guess...

No, what I said was that based on your 'pain' argument, not all abortions are immoral.  But since the argument is so deeply, desperately flawed, you have no grounds (on that basis) to conclude that ANY abortions are immoral.

Get a better argument.

Quote:U guys should go toe to toe. Brian u were so outraged at me adding the "after birth abortion" option. 

Well he supports it... Unleash the same indignant outrage on him then if your true to your word

lol, WHAT 'indignant outrage'?  Here's what I said about it:

Quote:‘After birth abortion’ comes from a philosophical paper published several years ago in which the authors argue that there is no qualitative difference between a foetus still in utero and a newborn up to a few days old. As far as I can tell, it isn’t practiced anywhere in the world and, if it were, would qualify as infanticide.

It’s a buzz word scare tactic, nothing more.

Boru

Quote:It was an argument made years ago and has been pretty roundly refuted on both philosophical and medical grounds.

If you have information that this sort of infanticide is being performed in the US, I’d be happy to look at it. It’s my understanding that the ‘born alive’ laws protect newborns after a failed abortion.

Quote:Sorry, why is this suddenly about how Barack Obama voted on a bill 17 years ago?

No, I'm not going to vote. 

You still don't seem to understand my comment about slavery, so I'll explain it.  Slavery is a way of negating human rights.  Indentured servitude is a way of partially negating human rights.  Abortion, for me, is primarily about a woman's right to bodily autonomy.  Any restrictions on abortion, such as the ones you proposed,  are a partial negation of that right.

Quote:1. I was wondering why you brought up Mr. Obama's position on the bill.  I'm sure plenty of other people voted against it. And apparently, you haven't looked into it deeply enough - it's been the law in the US since 2002. So the 'keep rejecting it' isn't true.

2.  No, it wasn't intended as a 'gotcha'.  Does Obama's stance on abortion affect yours (it certainly doesn't affect mine)?

3.  LOL, I'm not indignant about your poll. And I come across as entitled and privileged because I'm entitled and privileged.  Happy now?
4.  'Popular' and 'correct' aren't often the same thing.

5. *indulgent chuckle* No, you haven't offended me.  I was already familiar with the facts (which don't make me uncomfortable) and I've heard opinions identical to yours for years.

6.  You understand that slavery was an analogy, correct?

That's - literally - everything I addressed to you in that thread.  Where do you see ANYTHING that qualifies as indignation or outrage? Pointing out your mistakes and politely disagreeing with you makes me neither indignant nor outrageous.

Boru

Not all...

Nuff said. Im happy

LOL, Agnostico, with or without a magic book we need a way to determine our moral propositions that doesn't reduce to subjective opinion, as magic book does. This is confusing magic book for moral realism.

Is your position on this matter of abortion a product of confusing magic book for realism?

I ask, because as moral realist, there is no "opposing view", only a collection of wrong and ignorant views. It takes moral subjectivism for there to be opposed and equally valid "sides" to an issue.

(February 24, 2020 at 8:01 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: LOL, Agnostico, with or without a magic book we need a way to determine our moral propositions that doesn't reduce to subjective opinion, as magic book does.  This is confusing magic book for moral realism.    

Is your position on this matter of abortion a product of confusing magic book for realism?

I ask, because as moral realist, there is no "opposing view", only a collection of wrong and ignorant views.  It takes moral subjectivism for there to be opposed and equally valid "sides" to an issue.

Hehe i never heard of that term "the magic book". Since u dropped it i v had it stuck in my head. That's a classic
U know that hip hop song "the magic stick"? I think 50 cent sings it. Ive been singing the magic book along to that. LoL

Anyway abortion isn't mentioned in the Christian magic book but they oppose abortion of any kind.
Ive said a few times that i think abortion in the 1st trimester is ok along with extreme cases. It's what i voted on that poll. It doesn't align with the magic books

Moral realism, moral subjectivism. I had to look up the definitions and i was like what... So i have no idea what u mean by those term. Explain them to me in simple terms if u want

But ur definition of a moral realist makes u sound like Joseph Stalin, "no opposing views" doesn't exactly make u sound like a rational person that someone can ever reach an understanding with. 
What determines an incorrect view to a correct one? Isn't it just your opinion? Or do u have a different magic book? Is there a formula?

So if u want to elaborate feel free cos i only know and see the magic book and opinions. 
Engineering is my thing not the social sciences so if ur gonna use complex terms i'll tune out. 

Knowing now that u consider all my opinions that differ to yours to be false without even understanding them or knowing what they even are...
Man... U just sound like a narcissist... LoL... U should disclose that to everyone u speak to first. It would save a lot of wasted time

So i dunno. I can't imagine i'll be tuned in for too long but go on... Elaborate

Yes, abortion is mentioned in magic book, as I already explained to you. Magic book is fine with it, magic book recommends it. What magic book says is a shitty reason to do anything, but it's fun to know what's actually in there.

Moral realism - right and wrong are determined by objective facts.

Moral subjectivism - right and wrong are determined by subjective facts.

Who cares what my explanation of moral realism makes me sound like? I don't. It's simply a consequence of the realist position that some set of moral propositions is right, and the rest are wrong. The trouble isn't that a person fails to understand "the other side" - they understand them fine...and think they are wrong.

(February 24, 2020 at 9:44 am)Agnostico Wrote:

BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:A man is beating a six year old with a stick. Is bashing him immoral?

Another man is raping a woman. Is stabbing him immoral?

A third man is hold a bus load of people hostage. Is shooting him immoral?

Uv shown that inflicting pain isn't immoral in a few cases
It doesn't mean that inflicting pain is never immoral cos most of the time it is

BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:You can look up a definition of morality for yourself. It’s a little more complicated than inflicting pain.

It can be more complicated but it can also be very simple. Causing harm is usually immoral, not always but most of the time

BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:But I’m more interested in an answer to my question. If a fetus is anesthetized so that it feels no pain during the abortion, does that abortion become moral?

You have to cause pain to deliver the anesthetic. I've never had an injection that didn't hurt

The Grand Nudger Wrote:All this talk about causing pain, seems to me the little fucker is going to cause mommy more pain regardless. Seems to me that you would like to cause mommy some pain as well

It has to be a conscious act for it to be immoral. The baby doesn't consciously hurt the mother

The Grand Nudger Wrote:It's not just that your moral condemnation is childish, Agno..it's that you're not going to apply it to the bay-bee or yourself

Resorting to ad hominem. We all know what that means. 
An honest person would admit that it's not a bad argument
A dishonest person acknowledges the good argument by resorting to ad hominem

The baby is incapable of committing a conscious act so it's not being immoral.
Myself? I have nothing to do with it. I didn't fuck her... LoL... Its not mine im not paying alimony

The woman put herself in this position. She is the only one to blame for being in this situation, not the baby

But if ur still simpin many women opt for cesarean births these days
If u don't want to stretch out your womans vagina its a good option  


@SUNGULA
Hehehe man u are a classic. Notice how no one is responding to u. Its cos ur always a step or two behind mate.
I bet u can't identify the post we are all talking about.

Actually the reason no one is responding to me is because most of them agree with me .So why would they respond ?.I already know what post it is seriously you freaking hilarious pretending your somehow ahead of me when your eating my dust.

---

Quote:Not all...

Not an argument 

Quote:Nuff said.

Not enough i'm afraid 

Quote: Im happy

Ignorance is bliss

---

Quote:Anyway abortion isn't mentioned in the Christian magic book but they oppose abortion of any kind.

Abortion is mentioned in he bible 

Quote:Ive said a few times that i think abortion in the 1st trimester is ok along with extreme cases.

Which is too restrictive 

Quote: It's what i voted on that poll. It doesn't align with the magic books

Yes i actually does 

Quote:Moral realism, moral subjectivism. I had to look up the definitions and i was like what... So i have no idea what u mean by those term. Explain them to me in simple terms if u want

Then you have no business discussing morality 

Quote:But ur definition of a moral realist makes u sound like Joseph Stalin, "no opposing views" doesn't exactly make u sound like a rational person that someone can ever reach a
n understanding with. 

Objective facts are up for dispute one does not' become Stalin because they acknowledge reality 

Quote:What determines an incorrect view to a correct one? Isn't it just your opinion? Or do u have a different magic book? Is there a formula?

So your a postmodernist 

Quote:So if u want to elaborate feel free cos i only know and see the magic book and opinions. 

Your blindness is your issue 

Quote:Engineering is my thing not the social sciences so if ur gonna use complex terms i'll tune out. 

Again hat's your problem 

Quote:Knowing now that u consider all my opinions that differ to yours to be false without even understanding them or knowing what they even are...

I think he understands enough
 

Quote:Man... U just sound like a narcissist... LoL... U should disclose that to everyone u speak to first. It would save a lot of wasted time

And you sound dodgy 

Quote:So i dunno. I can't imagine i'll be tuned in for too long but go on... Elaborate

Why the hell should he ? 

---

(February 24, 2020 at 9:12 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Yes, abortion is mentioned in magic book, as I already explained to you.  Magic book is fine with it, magic book recommends it.  What magic book says is a shitty reason to do anything, but it's fun to know what's actually in there.

Moral realism - right and wrong are determined by objective facts.

Moral subjectivism - right and wrong are determined by subjective facts.

Who cares what my explanation of moral realism makes me sound like?  I don't.  It's simply a consequence of the realist position that some set of moral propositions is right, and the rest are wrong.  The trouble isn't that a person fails to understand "the other side" - they understand them fine...and think they are wrong.

It's hilarious that a man who doesn't even understand basic moral philosophy has the balls to make metaethical statements about abortion

The Grand Nudger Wrote:Yes, abortion is mentioned in magic book, as I already explained to you. Magic book is fine with it, magic book recommends it

Does it? Where?

The Grand Nudger Wrote:Moral realism - right and wrong are determined by objective facts.

Moral subjectivism - right and wrong are determined by subjective facts.

Such convoluted definitions i came across and its simply that... Ok 

The Grand Nudger Wrote:Who cares what my explanation of moral realism makes me sound like?  I don't.  It's simply a consequence of the realist position that some set of moral propositions is right, and the rest are wrong.  The trouble isn't that a person fails to understand "the other side" - they understand them fine...and think they are wrong.

Take the the abortion poll we had. There were 4 or 5 options. 
Tell me what makes your opinion objective cos i only see subjective opinions here.

Mainly the opinion of when it should be legal to kill an unborn child. A persons opinion is influenced by his/hers experiences making it subjective,  right?

Abortion: 22 years an atheist and I haven't had one.