(February 25, 2020 at 7:31 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Not sure I grasp your point.  You accuse us of being murderers, then ask us to justify the death of bacteria.  It seems as if that justification should come from the pro-life crowd.

My point should be clear, I think. Only a superior moral reference can settle this issue. Avoiding this fact runs into problems, abortion is one instance when one simply can't have a coherent justification for ending the infant's life without earning the murderer title.

(February 24, 2020 at 11:48 pm)Agnostico Wrote: Does it? Where?

Numbers 5:16-28

Quote: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.

What subjective facts have you seen anyone refer to in order to establish a position?   

Quote: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?

Negatron.  What makes something subjective, is a reference to a subjective fact.  Not the objective fact that you've had experiences.  We tend to think that our experiences are capable of stacking the deck, just as our properly subjective opinions can, though, sure.  

I think that abortion sucks and that math is tedious.  That doesn't make abortion immoral, and 5+5 is still 10.  

Quote:One persons objective may be the mothers well being, the other persons objective is the babies well being

Whose truth is truer?

That would be an equivocation.  There are objective facts about babies and mothers.  If some situation with moral import involves babies and mothers, both sets of facts will need to be accounted for if we wanted a complete picture of the moral field.  

Take the case of an abortion.  It's objectively true that when abortion is illegal, babies still die.  It's objectively true that when abortion is illegal, more women die in the process.  It's objectively true that both babies and mothers are worse off, if dying or being killed is the metric, when abortion is illegal.  

We can handily separate legality and morality here, if we like.  As a matter of policy, it would be immoral for us to make abortion legal - but that won't certify every abortion as a moral act.   Abortion can be employed in the process of ethnic cleansing, for example.  It can be employed at a lower intensity when the expected race of the child is not socially acceptable.  We can come up with any number of other blatantly immoral reasons to abort.  For some, this would be enough to call it a day...and even if we moved down the scale from legit villain level to moderate inconvenience, those people will tend to insist or imagine that every person or most people getting an abortion falls into those negatively weighted categories.

That, in and of itself, is likely to be highly immoral of us.  Though it could be simple ignorance.

Let's take a minor detour and address that, lets address the worst connection that forced birthers want us to make.  Infanticide.  People who have abortions all belong to that category.  Infanticide is bad.  There are stories all over the world.  Facing invasion, people will burn down their houses, sow their fields with salt, strangle their children, and disappear into the woods.  Facing crop loss and famine, people will poison their kids in their sleep.  Newborns, toddlers, tweens, even young adults.  We're not sure that there's any "there" there, until some time after birth - but no such ambiguity exists in these cases.  These people killed people, their children.  

If you can see why the heuristic "infanticide is bad" falls apart, above, then congratulations.  You're considering a larger body of relevant facts.  Infanticide can be the most moral decision in a field made entirely of sub-optimal outcomes.  The decision a mother makes today to abort her child in the case of an abusive parent, so, spouse or family member isn't much different than the choice those resistors made facing invasion.  A desperately poor mother makes a decision similar to poisoning kids in their sleep.  

Those are fairly common reasons that people get abortions.  Let's tackle another commonly assumed to have a negative weight by forced birthers.  Just don't wanna..aint ready.  At the very least, these people are indicating that they would be neglectful (if not utterly incompetent) parents.  That they will harm the child, as well as themselves, by having a child.  We can see the consequences play out in teen pregnancy, and in the cyclical nature of teen pregnancy.  We need only take a persons word (or reasonably expect) that they are a terrible parent or that conditions in their life are unsuitable for children to accept that they have made a moral decision not to have one.  That their motivation is to reduce the amount of suffering, yes...to themselves, but also the suffering they will cause another by a unilateral decision they've made.  It's useful to remember that none of us asked to be born.  Giving birth is a situation with moral import as well.

---

(February 25, 2020 at 7:38 am)Klorophyll Wrote:

(February 25, 2020 at 7:31 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Not sure I grasp your point.  You accuse us of being murderers, then ask us to justify the death of bacteria.  It seems as if that justification should come from the pro-life crowd.

My point should be clear, I think. Only a superior moral reference can settle this issue. Avoiding this fact runs into problems, abortion is one instance when one simply can't have a coherent justification for ending the infant's life without earning the murderer title.

Fine, if you say so.  Quick question then.  Is it possible for a murder, or a murderer, to have ethical or moral warrant?  Are there any stories in your magic book about good kills?

(February 25, 2020 at 7:38 am)Klorophyll Wrote:

(February 25, 2020 at 7:31 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Not sure I grasp your point.  You accuse us of being murderers, then ask us to justify the death of bacteria.  It seems as if that justification should come from the pro-life crowd.

My point should be clear, I think. Only a superior moral reference can settle this issue. Avoiding this fact runs into problems, abortion is one instance when one simply can't have a coherent justification for ending the infant's life without earning the murderer title.

Maybe I should have put it this way: abortion is a problem which atheists are trying to solve by contraception, education, better opportunities for people, etc.; while Christians are using abortion to act as some "moral" prima donnas.

That and to vent their hatred of women.

(February 25, 2020 at 8:08 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(February 24, 2020 at 11:48 pm)Agnostico Wrote: Does it? Where?

Numbers 5:16-28

Quote: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.

What subjective facts have you seen anyone refer to in order to establish a position?   

Quote: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?

Negatron.  What makes something subjective, is a reference to a subjective fact.  Not the objective fact that you've had experiences.  We tend to think that our experiences are capable of stacking the deck, just as our properly subjective opinions can, though, sure.  

I think that abortion sucks and that math is tedious.  That doesn't make abortion immoral, and 5+5 is still 10.  

Quote:One persons objective may be the mothers well being, the other persons objective is the babies well being

Whose truth is truer?

That would be an equivocation.  There are objective facts about babies and mothers.  If some situation with moral import involves babies and mothers, both sets of facts will need to be accounted for if we wanted a complete picture of the moral field.  

Take the case of an abortion.  It's objectively true that when abortion is illegal, babies still die.  It's objectively true that when abortion is illegal, more women die in the process.  It's objectively true that both babies and mothers are worse off, if dying or being killed is the metric, when abortion is illegal.  

We can handily separate legality and morality here, if we like.  As a matter of policy, it would be immoral for us to make abortion legal - but that won't certify every abortion as a moral act.   Abortion can be employed in the process of ethnic cleansing, for example.  It can be employed at a lower intensity when the expected race of the child is not socially acceptable.  We can come up with any number of other blatantly immoral reasons to abort.  For some, this would be enough to call it a day...and even if we moved down the scale from legit villain level to moderate inconvenience, those people will tend to insist or imagine that every person or most people getting an abortion falls into those negatively weighted categories.

That, in and of itself, is likely to be highly immoral of us.  Though it could be simple ignorance.

Let's take a minor detour and address that, lets address the worst connection that forced birthers want us to make.  Infanticide.  People who have abortions all belong to that category.  Infanticide is bad.  There are stories all over the world.  Facing invasion, people will burn down their houses, sow their fields with salt, strangle their children, and disappear into the woods.  Facing crop loss and famine, people will poison their kids in their sleep.  Newborns, toddlers, tweens, even young adults.  We're not sure that there's any "there" there, until some time after birth - but no such ambiguity exists in these cases.  These people killed people, their children.  

If you can see why the heuristic "infanticide is bad" falls apart, above, then congratulations.  You're considering a larger body of relevant facts.  Infanticide can be the most moral decision in a field made entirely of sub-optimal outcomes.  The decision a mother makes today to abort her child in the case of an abusive parent, so, spouse or family member isn't much different than the choice those resistors made facing invasion.  A desperately poor mother makes a decision similar to poisoning kids in their sleep.  

Those are fairly common reasons that people get abortions.  Let's tackle another commonly assumed to have a negative weight by forced birthers.  Just don't wanna..aint ready.  At the very least, these people are indicating that they would be neglectful (if not utterly incompetent) parents.  That they will harm the child, as well as themselves, by having a child.  We can see the consequences play out in teen pregnancy, and in the cyclical nature of teen pregnancy.  We need only take a persons word (or reasonably expect) that they are a terrible parent or that conditions in their life are unsuitable for children to accept that they have made a moral decision not to have one.  That their motivation is to reduce the amount of suffering, yes...to themselves, but also the suffering they will cause another by a unilateral decision they've made.  It's useful to remember that none of us asked to be born.  Giving birth is a situation with moral import as well.

---

(February 25, 2020 at 7:38 am)Klorophyll Wrote: My point should be clear, I think. Only a superior moral reference can settle this issue. Avoiding this fact runs into problems, abortion is one instance when one simply can't have a coherent justification for ending the infant's life without earning the murderer title.

Fine, if you say so.  Quick question then.  Is it possible for a murder, or a murderer, to have ethical or moral warrant?  Are there any stories in your magic book about good kills?

Understood

(February 24, 2020 at 1:14 am)Agnostico Wrote: One case is asking the mother to sacrifice one of her kidneys for the rest of her life
The other merely asks her to carry a child for 9 months
A tiny risk in pregnancy doesn't make it comparable to loosing a kidney

Alas, I told the story of my associate who needs a kidney transplant due to her pregnancy for nothing.

---

(February 24, 2020 at 8:24 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(February 24, 2020 at 7:47 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: Belacqua
it's unethical to force a woman to carry a fetus if she doesn't want to.

Suppose the father doesn't want to pay to support the child after it's born. Is it ethical for the government to force him to pay? 

How do we decide when a parent should be forced to support and when he or she shouldn't be forced?

It's ethical to force the father to pay child support. It is not ethical to force the father to give the child a kidney. Bodily autonomy comes into play in one of those scenarios.

(February 25, 2020 at 8:08 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Fine, if you say so.  Quick question then.  Is it possible for a murder, or a murderer, to have ethical or moral warrant?  Are there any stories in your magic book about good kills?

Of course there are. Wars happen, you know. And remember that everything in the Qur'an presupposes the existence of God, as an ultimate source of morality.

(February 25, 2020 at 9:28 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Maybe I should have put it this way: abortion is a problem which atheists are trying to solve by contraception, education, better opportunities for people, etc.; while Christians are using abortion to act as some "moral" prima donnas.

No pal, abortion is a really dark spot in your worldview as atheists. There is no way for you to defend it in a coherent way and, deep down, you know it's immoral to end a human life, which includes foetuses.

(February 24, 2020 at 11:00 am)FlatAssembler Wrote:

(February 24, 2020 at 8:24 am)Belacqua Wrote: Suppose the father doesn't want to pay to support the child after it's born. Is it ethical for the government to force him to pay? 

How do we decide when a parent should be forced to support and when he or she shouldn't be forced?

Well, I think it's unethical for a government to force a father to pay alimentation. Unless the father stole the money from the mother. The father might have legitimate reasons for refusing to pay. Maybe he needs that money more than the mother does, maybe he needs that money to pay for his medication which he will die if he doesn't manage to pay. The government can't be expected to always have the information it needs to make such decisions.

All those are the kinds of things family courts routinely make decisions about; and if the father doesn't make the court aware of the relevant information, that's hardly the court's fault. Maybe where you're from the father must pay child support if he's penniless and at death's door but in these parts the courts will make allowances for the father's situation; and the mother's as well; not all women need child support to meet their child's needs.

---

(February 24, 2020 at 11:08 am)Fierce Wrote: I do agree that if a woman can make the decision on her own what to do with her own body, the man should have a viable option of not providing care for a child he never wanted. There are two people to consider, and the law favoring the woman in a time when women are keen on equality and independence makes no sense. If the woman wants autonomy over her body, let her alone take care of the child she wants to keep when the father wants no part.

There are three people to consider: the father, the mother, and their child. The government and society have a vested interest in ensuring the child's material needs are adequately met.

---

(February 24, 2020 at 11:48 pm)Agnostico Wrote:

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?

Numbers 5: 11-31

You know, the Bible is a highly influential book, I recommend you read the whole thing when you can find the time, front to back. You don't have to be a Jew or Christian to get insight into modern religious thinking from it. Not everyone's cup of tea, though.

---

(February 25, 2020 at 7:07 am)Klorophyll Wrote: It's amusing to see atheists rationalize abortion with all kinds of analogies, the underlying reasoning being that the infant's life is less worth than the mother's. All this just to comfortably have more sex. You are senseless murderers at the baby scale. The more mature murderers who understood atheism better are the kind of exemplary leaders like Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, etc. and the pyramids of skulls associated with their names.

How can you justify killing millions of bacteria when you shower, atheists? Aren't they life too?

A fetus is not an infant. Check your dictionary.

And why would you think killing bacteria would be an issue for atheists?

(February 25, 2020 at 10:57 am)Klorophyll Wrote:

(February 25, 2020 at 8:08 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Fine, if you say so.  Quick question then.  Is it possible for a murder, or a murderer, to have ethical or moral warrant?  Are there any stories in your magic book about good kills?

Of course there are. Wars happen, you know. And remember that everything in the Qur'an presupposes the existence of God, as an ultimate source of morality.

Excellent, I'm glad that we both agree that there is such a thing as a good kill, even if we disagree over the contents of that set.  I don't personally care what magic book presupposes, or what a god's wishes and attitudes might be. 

I'm willing to state with confidence that killing bacteria in the shower is a good kill. Your objection is incoherent not just with respect to my objective moral system, but also incoherent with respect to your own subjective moral system.

(February 25, 2020 at 11:11 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I'm willing to state with confidence that killing bacteria in the shower is a good kill.  Your objection is incoherent not just with respect to my objective moral system, but also incoherent with respect to your own subjective moral system.

Your system can't possibly make the distinction between the human life and any other form of life, and if you try and do that you're just borrowing religious ideals.

From a materialist point of view nothing makes one more special than any virus or bacteria or living cell out there. And we can't do better than that unless we start elevating our own status.