Abortion dialogue I've been having...

[fr0d0]

You continually confuse morality with law tav. Your moral choice can never be removed. If the law says it's legal to keep animals in cruel conditions I still can make a moral decision as to whether that's right or not. If the law forbids you from being an atheist you still have a moral stance which cannot be denied.

You continually appeal to emotion. "Ban abortion" ...really?

As is every other person in history.

Your personal opinion. Irrelevant.

Sure it is. Within various religious positions, it is justified to take life in the context of:

1. Times of war
2. Self defense
3. Divine command
4. Blood sacrifice & martyrdom

You're widening the field to confuse the issue. From a specifically Christian viewpoint:
1. no
2. no
3. God is taking the moral choice
4. no

Actually I think I've been pretty clear. Taking away choice doesn't solve problems, and a certain morality is only necessarily good to the people that agree with it. Within a salad bowl society like ours, we don't sanction an absolute morality (whatever that is) within our laws, we promote freedom and try to act decently to others for the most part - based off a guiding tenet called the golden rule, which in itself, can be broken from time to time.

Bullshit and waffle.

"A certain morality" would be your movable secular morality again. Your position is amoral. Without balls. "I know this is wrong but I don't know what you think or your history dictates your actions to be so anything goes". We can make this moral observation and you don't have to be too scared to face it. Be reasonable and don't assume anyone is trying to force feed you dogma like you try to feed it to them.

---

Why does a person have to know anything to make a 'morally justified decision' to kill something? Also, morals are subjective... and what is not morally justifiable to you might be entirely justifiable to someone else. Justification doesn't even have to be 'right'... it is simply the reason(s) a person uses to defend their actions (perhaps from themselves at times).

You have to know every possible angle to justifiably take life. If you didn't know every possibility, how could you possibly arrive at a conclusive decision? Secular morals are changeable, yes. This isn't the subject tho'. We're talking about what we can judge to be always immoral.

Ethically the ability of our victim to feel pain can be a boundary. Self defence is legally just. Morally not always so. We are attacked for a reason, that we may not always be innocent of.

Why should it matter that it feels pain? It'll be dead soon anyway Or were you referring to what compassion may arise from witnessing a creature in pain (perhaps by one's own hands)? I don't see a thing's feeling pain (as a 'boundary') as a question of ethics, but as one of compassion. Simply, if you have no compassion for it, and have no particular reason to keep it comfortable: why would you make it comfortable at all?

It's an ethical question, and one that I agree with. How could you justify not treating another living creature as yourself that has the apparent facility as you have to sense pain and suffering? We do justify it.. but is that just forcing our demands onto creatures we think of as our inferiors? We practice it enough and remove the reality of it far enough away from our immediate attention and successfully ignore it. that doesn't make it ethically right.

Human procreation is a damaging process. So what. To suggest it shouldn't occur only in perfectly favourable circumstances is verging on the obscene. It's our species method of survival, not the preserve of the wealthy. Natural selection would suggest the opposite... that healthy genes stem from difficult circumstances.

Human procreation is a damaging process :: Fire is a damaging process.

We should procreate when it is unfavorable :: We should have fires when it is unfavorable.

Strange analogy! We light fires to cook food: The damage is outweighed by the benefit.

Actually, it is the preserve of the wealthy. Who would be wealthy if there's nobody left? If sex is our species method of survival... I should wonder: at what cost? And I should answer myself: a vast portion of a person's economy, unless they are rich, or lucky, or both.

so you would promote the extinction of a species because of the inconvenience. Not a very good model for survival is it? Wealth here is human terms vs nature's terms.

[Violet]

You have to know every possible angle to justifiably take life. If you didn't know every possibility, how could you possibly arrive at a conclusive decision? Secular morals are changeable, yes. This isn't the subject tho'. We're talking about what we can judge to be always immoral.

You do not need to know everything to justly take life... and your knowledge does not even have to be accurate in any way to do so. We can never be proven to know every possibility of anything... yet we make conclusive decisions all the time. All morals are changeable. I know of nothing I can judge to always be immoral... even things that are commonly viewed as such might on occasion not be immoral, though for some (ie: rape) I know not what such an occasion might be.

so you would promote the extinction of a species because of the inconvenience. Not a very good model for survival is it? Wealth here is human terms vs nature's terms.

A few less births would hardly extinct our species. In fact: a lot fewer births would hardly extinct this species. Overpopulation is not a good model for survival of a species... all the more so when much of that population lives either in poverty or without a fairly large surplus of money.

I might even on some occasions promote extermination of a species if it inconveniences us far more than it gains us.

[tavarish]

You continually confuse morality with law tav. Your moral choice can never be removed. If the law says it's legal to keep animals in cruel conditions I still can make a moral decision as to whether that's right or not.

FUCKING EXACTLY.

Although your analogy misses the mark a bit, that's what pro-choice is about - giving the person every choice available to them, including the choice of whether to terminate the pregnancy. Your morality remains intact, and you don't have to do anything if you don't want to. Easy, huh?

If the law forbids you from being an atheist you still have a moral stance which cannot be denied.

And?

You continually appeal to emotion. "Ban abortion" ...really?

Emotion? Read what he fucking wrote.

"Consider a far more effective method: ban all abortions except for those related to rape, incest, the health of the mother or that of her unborn;"

Yes, ban abortions is what he said.

As is every other person in history.

Your personal opinion. Irrelevant.

People don't have varying moral values? Do we, as a society have the same morals as one founded 3 thousand years ago?

You're widening the field to confuse the issue. From a specifically Christian viewpoint:
1. no
2. no
3. God is taking the moral choice
4. no

You said "the religious", not some subset of an interpretation of a doctrine of a denomination you particularly belong to.

Words mean things.

Actually I think I've been pretty clear. Taking away choice doesn't solve problems, and a certain morality is only necessarily good to the people that agree with it. Within a salad bowl society like ours, we don't sanction an absolute morality (whatever that is) within our laws, we promote freedom and try to act decently to others for the most part - based off a guiding tenet called the golden rule, which in itself, can be broken from time to time.

Bullshit and waffle.

"A certain morality" would be your movable secular morality again.

Yes, I'm certainly pushing my personal morality on others by wanting to present all the choices a woman has, rather than prohibiting ones I don't like. What a Nazi I am. Shit, I might as well be mandating abortions.

My position isn't a moral one. It's not hard to understand. Morals are largely irrelevant in the legality of this issue and its prevention.

Your position is amoral. Without balls.

Morality = balls. So is a ballsy action a moral one? Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about? Proofread for context, then hit "reply".

"I know this is wrong but I don't know what you think or your history dictates your actions to be so anything goes".

Actually, it's more like "I consider this unfavorable based on my experience, but as I'm not in a situation for it to directly affect me in any tangible or practical way, I'm in no position to prohibit others from doing it based on my particular ideology, no matter how strongly I may feel about it."

We can make this moral observation and you don't have to be too scared to face it. Be reasonable and don't assume anyone is trying to force feed you dogma like you try to feed it to them.

Here's a distinction.

1. Banning abortion based on religious doctrine is force-feeding dogma.
2. Making propagandizing shock videos that appeal to emotion, based on religious doctrine is force-feeding dogma.
3. Telling someone that their morals are inferior and their arguments are "without balls" because they don't agree with you, then advocating that everyone must conform to your standards is force-feeding dogma.
4. Providing choices in a matter that is multifaceted and allowing people to come to their own conclusions is not force feeding dogma.
5. Approaching the abortion issue with the realistic and demonstrably true notion that education trumps prohibition is not force feeding dogma.

[fr0d0]

You continually confuse morality with law tav. Your moral choice can never be removed. If the law says it's legal to keep animals in cruel conditions I still can make a moral decision as to whether that's right or not.

FUCKING EXACTLY.

Although your analogy misses the mark a bit, that's what pro-choice is about - giving the person every choice available to them, including the choice of whether to terminate the pregnancy. Your morality remains intact, and you don't have to do anything if you don't want to. Easy, huh?

Sorry I missed out this other diversion: secular morality.

The point is... you still have an actual moral choice despite what the law says. Secular morality should be pretty much in line with secular law don't you think?

Pro choice then would be the right to disregard the law as well? Surely we should all have the right to act on our own morality based on our own history that could conceivably include every option... after all who are you to limit what someone else thinks?

Pro choice means ignore morality, in your definition.

If the law forbids you from being an atheist you still have a moral stance which cannot be denied.

And?

And you still have the choice on what you consider to be moral. No one can take that away from you.

You continually appeal to emotion. "Ban abortion" ...really?

Emotion? Read what he fucking wrote.

"Consider a far more effective method: ban all abortions except for those related to rape, incest, the health of the mother or that of her unborn;"

Yes, ban abortions is what he said.

His context was level headed discussion. Yours is hate fuelled idiocy.

As is every other person in history.

Your personal opinion. Irrelevant.

People don't have varying moral values? Do we, as a society have the same morals as one founded 3 thousand years ago?

1. it's an appeal to popularity.
2. It's factually incorrect: "every other person"
3. It addresses Secular Morality - not the subject here

You're widening the field to confuse the issue. From a specifically Christian viewpoint:
1. no
2. no
3. God is taking the moral choice
4. no

You said "the religious", not some subset of an interpretation of a doctrine of a denomination you particularly belong to.

Words mean things.

The subject here is Christian morality. Did you forget that?

Typical obfuscation from you there as usual.

Morality = balls. So is a ballsy action a moral one? Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about? Proofread for context, then hit "reply".

Yeah. Real morality is about declaring a position. Your vague bullshit is pitiful.

"I know this is wrong but I don't know what you think or your history dictates your actions to be so anything goes".

Actually, it's more like "I consider this unfavorable based on my experience, but as I'm not in a situation for it to directly affect me in any tangible or practical way, I'm in no position to prohibit others from doing it based on my particular ideology, no matter how strongly I may feel about it."

Quite right. I wouldn't want your twisted view of morality imposed on anyone either. If that's how you concoct this, I'm in total agreement.

Confusion : Secular Morality isn't the subject

We can make this moral observation and you don't have to be too scared to face it. Be reasonable and don't assume anyone is trying to force feed you dogma like you try to feed it to them.

Here's a distinction.

1. Banning abortion based on religious doctrine is force-feeding dogma.
2. Making propagandizing shock videos that appeal to emotion, based on religious doctrine is force-feeding dogma.
3. Telling someone that their morals are inferior and their arguments are "without balls" because they don't agree with you, then advocating that everyone must conform to your standards is force-feeding dogma.
4. Providing choices in a matter that is multifaceted and allowing people to come to their own conclusions is not force feeding dogma.
5. Approaching the abortion issue with the realistic and demonstrably true notion that education trumps prohibition is not force feeding dogma.

1. If it's universally true that killing is immoral, how is this anything to do with religion? Your shifting fashionable view agrees with it, but you want to leave open everything to make it above the law, so that there can still be a choice, as you see it.
2. Making propagandizing statements that appeal to emotion, based upon a declared non stance is force feeding dogma.
3. If it's a universally accepted position, why not face up and state the position?
4. You think making a statement lessens anybody's choice and the compassion towards those making them?
5. Promoting anarchy is irresponsible. You actually are force feeding the notion that no one has any responsibility.

Your constant jibberish is both childish and sensationalist.

[tavarish]

LOL!

Sorry I missed out this other diversion: secular morality.

The point is... you still have an actual moral choice despite what the law says. Secular morality should be pretty much in line with secular law don't you think?

You have a choice to do what you want based on your personal circumstances. Why should a certain morality be representative in law? What exactly is secular morality? Please define it.

Pro choice then would be the right to disregard the law as well? Surely we should all have the right to act on our own morality based on our own history that could conceivably include every option... after all who are you to limit what someone else thinks?

As a society, we have built laws that reflect what we value as rights and uphold the ways we want to be treated and coexist with one another. These are imperfect laws and subject to change. They are not moral guidelines, they are societal framework that we must accept at a basic level in order to be a part of the society. We're not moving towards an absolute, but changing with the environment and adapting laws to fit certain circumstances. You certainly have the right to disregard the law, but there are certain consequences to these actions. You're painting a caricature of my argument in which I propose some kind of anarchy in which we should respect everyone's beliefs just for the sake of their feelings being hurt or something.

I'm advocating a woman's right to choose what she does with her body and the organisms necessarily developing from that body.

Pro choice means ignore morality, in your definition.

Pro-choice means to allow the woman the choice of what she does with her body. Morality can still be a part of the equation, no one's taking that away from you. You think abortion's immoral? Don't do it. It's just that easy.

If the law forbids you from being an atheist you still have a moral stance which cannot be denied.

And?

And you still have the choice on what you consider to be moral. No one can take that away from you.

And how is this relevant?

You continually appeal to emotion. "Ban abortion" ...really?

Emotion? Read what he fucking wrote.

"Consider a far more effective method: ban all abortions except for those related to rape, incest, the health of the mother or that of her unborn;"

Yes, ban abortions is what he said.

His context was level headed discussion. Yours is hate fuelled idiocy.

A level headed discussion in which he calls to ban 93 percent of abortions as a viable option. Let's take this into context here. We outlaw rape and murder - does that stop them from happening?

Please explain to me where I'm fueled by hate - anywhere.

As is every other person in history.

Your personal opinion. Irrelevant.

People don't have varying moral values? Do we, as a society have the same morals as one founded 3 thousand years ago?

1. it's an appeal to popularity.
2. It's factually incorrect: "every other person"
3. It addresses Secular Morality - not the subject here

It addresses the fact that morality is only as good as the society administering it. You fail to realize that values for human to human interaction evolves and changes over time. Morals entirely depend on a subjective interpretation of societal norms. Whether you think that it's a God-given attribute is on you, but the fact remains that criminalizing something for the sake of a certain group's moral value is not something that is advocated in a secular society such as ours, however you may practice your morality however you see fit - just don't impose it on anybody else as an objective reality.

You're widening the field to confuse the issue. From a specifically Christian viewpoint:
1. no
2. no
3. God is taking the moral choice
4. no

You said "the religious", not some subset of an interpretation of a doctrine of a denomination you particularly belong to.

Words mean things.

The subject here is Christian morality. Did you forget that?

Which is why I said "words mean things", and you said "the religious". Would you like me to contest the nonsensical claim that "God is taking the moral choice" perhaps, and get off to an even further tangent?

The subject is the unrealistic and impractical nature of the pro-life campaign and how banning something doesn't solve the problem. I honestly do not care what you, or any ohter Christian considers moral, because that was never my fucking argument, nor will it be.

Morality = balls. So is a ballsy action a moral one? Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about? Proofread for context, then hit "reply".

Yeah. Real morality is about declaring a position. Your vague bullshit is pitiful.

LOL @ Real morality. Give me a fucking break. Would you actually like to ADD anything to the conversation, or just menstrate all over the thread parading your babynuts around?

"I know this is wrong but I don't know what you think or your history dictates your actions to be so anything goes".

Actually, it's more like "I consider this unfavorable based on my experience, but as I'm not in a situation for it to directly affect me in any tangible or practical way, I'm in no position to prohibit others from doing it based on my particular ideology, no matter how strongly I may feel about it."

Quite right. I wouldn't want your twisted view of morality imposed on anyone either. If that's how you concoct this, I'm in total agreement.

Confusion : Secular Morality isn't the subject

Which is exactly why I say morality is irrelevant. What exactly is your argument then?

We can make this moral observation and you don't have to be too scared to face it. Be reasonable and don't assume anyone is trying to force feed you dogma like you try to feed it to them.

Here's a distinction.

1. Banning abortion based on religious doctrine is force-feeding dogma.
2. Making propagandizing shock videos that appeal to emotion, based on religious doctrine is force-feeding dogma.
3. Telling someone that their morals are inferior and their arguments are "without balls" because they don't agree with you, then advocating that everyone must conform to your standards is force-feeding dogma.
4. Providing choices in a matter that is multifaceted and allowing people to come to their own conclusions is not force feeding dogma.
5. Approaching the abortion issue with the realistic and demonstrably true notion that education trumps prohibition is not force feeding dogma.

1. If it's universally true that killing is immoral, how is this anything to do with religion? Your shifting fashionable view agrees with it, but you want to leave open everything to make it above the law, so that there can still be a choice, as you see it.

What the fuck are you talking about? Universally true that killing is immoral? Of course - because we don't live in a society that advocates wars and capital punishment. Not to mention that "universally true" implies universal morality - and you still have not demonstrated if such a thing exists. Moreover, morality has nothing to do with it, and your reply does nothing to contest my claim about religious individuals force feeding their dogma to those who don't want to hear it.

If I tell you that me and a bunch of my friends think eating lettuce is wrong, and we convince enough people that it's wrong, to the point where we try to ban the selling of lettuce in grocery stores, would that be justified on the grounds that we believe it to be an objective moral truth?

2. Making propagandizing statements that appeal to emotion, based upon a declared non stance is force feeding dogma.

How the fuck can you spread propaganda about something in which you have no stance?
What exactly would the dogma of a non-stance be?

I actually have fun reading vacuous crap like this.

I'd like you to cite anywhere in this text or any previous text in which I impose anything on anyone and prohibit anyone from doing anything.

3. If it's a universally accepted position, why not face up and state the position?

If it was universally accepted, we wouldn't be having this dialogue and it would be a non-issue. Fortunately, we don't live in a goddamn fantasy world driven by a single moral doctrine. Unfortunately, some people think we do.

4. You think making a statement lessens anybody's choice and the compassion towards those making them?

I don't care about lessening their burden, and I don't feel I have to be compassionate in this situation. My point is necessarily prohibiting a woman from making choices regarding her own body based on someone else's morality isn't a practical way to address the issue of abortion. Illustrating choices and educating the public is without a doubt the best method to preventing pregnancy and abortion.

5. Promoting anarchy is irresponsible. You actually are force feeding the notion that no one has any responsibility.

And yet another post in which you make a way off strawman of my argument. Did I say no one has responsibility? I'm actually advocating that people have the responsibility to safeguard themselves against unwanted pregnancies, so elective abortion doesn't happen, and I'm realistic enough to know that banning something doesn't solve a fucking thing.

But bravo, you made the connection between pro-choice and anarchy. It's like a game of six degrees of seperation, but Kevin Bacon is replaced with a heaping bowl of shit.

Your constant jibberish is both childish and sensationalist.

Here's a tip - don't read it then. You haven't contributed a damn thing to this conversation other than obfuscations and assertions that your morality is somehow universal. Get off your high horse for a second and stop trying to refute arguments no one fucking made.

I'm childish? Be the more mature one and walk away in that case. Certainly don't waste your time replying to my emotional tirades with your highly intellectual, point-filled arguments, I fear I won't be able to keep up with all the logic involved.

...

[Meatball]

Laws shouldn't enforce morality, they should protect rights and freedoms. Big difference.

[lrh9]

I think there are some compelling ethical reasons to have an abortion.

That's really all I have to say about the topic at the moment.

[Violet]

I think there are some compelling ethical reasons to have an abortion.

Why should ethics enter into it...? The economics and desires (or lack there of, in regards to both) of the poor sod who would have to go through the abortion seem enough of a reason to me

[tackattack]

Why sae? Unfortunately where societies perceptions are concerned, Reasons behind a decision, and thus ethics, are integral in judging our fellow man. I think there's far too much of it going on most of the time, but that's just me.

[Violet]

Why sae? Unfortunately where societies perceptions are concerned, Reasons behind a decision, and thus ethics, are integral in judging our fellow man. I think there's far too much of it going on most of the time, but that's just me.

Are ethics really based off of reasoning? It seems to me that more often reasoning is based off of ethics At least that's how it is often portrayed to me