(June 17, 2014 at 4:18 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Hello, I am new to these forums and am interested in engaging in fruitful and intellectual stimulating conversations! Today, I am interested in the topic of abortion. I believe it to be morally wrong for non-religious reasons. Simply put, a fetus is a human being from the moment of conception since it belongs to the species homo-sapiens and is genetically complete in its information. I look forward to any responses!

Kindest Regards,

Pro birth does not mean pro quality of life after birth. Most of us here, because I don't speak for everyone, could care less if you think it is moral, that is your religion telling you that. But since we do not live in a theocracy, it doesn't matter what your religion tells you, and on top of that we can find plenty of people even within your religion who would side with us. You stupidly assume that only atheists are pro choice?

Bottom line is unless you have a vagina, you have no say, and not even other women have the right to tell another women not to have an abortion.

It is that simple.

Brian my argument has nothing to do with religion and is based on the right or wrongness of an action. Me being a male and not having a vagina commits the genetic fallacy. You also commit the fallacy of appealing to popular belief

Bullshit, do you really think this is the first time we have seen a theist say "it isn't about my religion".

You say you are a Christian, at least that is what your description says next to your picture. So now are you arguing that you do not get your moral compass from your religion?

Fine, you are not basing it on Christianity(don't believe you) but fine. still none of your fucking business. Clear enough?

---

My mother is Catholic and I am an atheist and both of us are pro choice. And the reason is simple, NOT OUR BODY. It does not matter what you or I think, we are not raising the kid.

Morally impermissible actions is everyone's business. And if you believe my argument is based on Christianity please show me where, exactly I use it as a premise.

(June 21, 2014 at 4:10 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Esquilax, this response will be limited I'm on my break at work typing this on my phone so bear with me if this response is rather limited in scope and content.
Most of your post focuses on a dead human body and that killing that would also be morally wrong. However, I don't belie I need to add anything per se to my definitional argumentation. Your modus ponens is self-referentialy defeating as I stated in my earlier post. The idea of killing a dead human being is philosophically unintelligible and contradictory. It's not that a corpse dosent have rights ( the right to a proper burial, the right not to be mutilated) it's that the very concept of killing necessarily can't apply to dead corpses. Therefore, I believe your objection has no merit.

Well, what I see here is you admitting that "genetically human" is not the same thing as "alive," and only living things can be murdered. Obviously, things that are genetically human can be alive, but aren't always, which is why "genetically human" isn't great as the only characteristic of a living human being.

(June 21, 2014 at 4:31 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Brian my argument has nothing to do with religion and is based on the right or wrongness of an action. Me being a male and not having a vagina commits the genetic fallacy. You also commit the fallacy of appealing to popular belief

NOT MY BODY, just like it would be wrong for government to force a man to fuck a woman to make a baby, that too would be wrong because it would be his body.

Now that we have the sexism out of the way, NEXT.

---

Oh and just so you know idiot, "conception" is an arbitrary starting point YOU picked. The sperm and eggs are still alive before they meet. Otherwise masturbation is an act of genocide.

No, I believe being genetically human is all that matters. When you say kill inherent in that sentence is that something is already alive because it is philosophically unintelligible to kill something that is already dead.

---

Brian involved in my definition is a genetically complete human. This needs all the chromosomes a sperm has half same as an oocyte. Only when they are fertilized the genetic information is complete

(June 21, 2014 at 4:36 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Morally impermissible actions is everyone's business. And if you believe my argument is based on Christianity please show me where, exactly I use it as a premise.

Where do you get your morals from? If I called myself a Christian I'd say I got them from the bible. If I was a Muslim I would say I got them from the Koran. What is the point in calling yourself a Christian if you don't get your morals from that religion?

You do or you do not.

---

Don't you lecture any of us here about morality considering the history of the Christian religion. I do think it IS my business when religion tries to dictate to me what our common law is. Do you really want us to review the history of the Christian religion? The vile stories in the bible, because we CAN go there if you wish.

---

The Christian bible depicts genocide of already born babies, on MULTIPLE occasions. And has a god who also does nothing but watch while Lot fucks his daughters. So please lecture us about morality, we love it.

I'm using objective morality and values that we would all agree with. In this case killing an innocent human being. This should be a no religious issue if it is to have any civic efficacy

That is what you claim, still don't give one flying fuck. You do not get to decide for everyone in a civil society what WE do. And especially since your label says you DO believe in a Christian God, considering all the vile stories in it, you really have no room to talk.

No sane girl/woman I know that is pro choice sets out to fuck just to have one. So instead of making bullshit arguments and trying to claim to be "objective" just do everyone a favor and STAY TH FUCK OUT OF SHIT THAT YOU HAVE NO SAY OVER.