@ Sae : yes how does that apply to all life and not just human life. All I accept is the fact that this is the taking of life. I think it's impossible for anyone to knowingly take any life and be morally blameless for it. There are no circumstances where anyone could possibly know enough to make a morally justified decision. For me, that only works with God.
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.
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.
@ Tav : I think Ryft addressed everything of relevance that you said.
What he clearly says is that the mother has the moral right to decide what happens to her body, but not what happens to a separate life dependent on her body. She cannot terminate that life without bearing the moral responsibility.
He clearly states that your moral compass is, by it's secular nature, movable. Yes the religious position is firm: it isn't moral to take life. You display what Arcanus accuses you of: a confused conception of the POV. One that mirrors your own shifting basis.
His viable solution is to make law what is morally observed. It works for every other aspect of human society.
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.
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.
@ Tav : I think Ryft addressed everything of relevance that you said.
tav Wrote:He made the case that he would be in favor of abortion if it was in the case of rape, incest, or bodily harm to the mother.
Aristophrenium Wrote:By Marc:
Ryft,
Have I misunderstood your stand here: Do you hold abortion acceptable in situations where the mother has been raped etc?
By Ryft:
Personally? No, as those circumstances still qualify as elective, that is, abortions that are not medically necessitated (such as an ectopic pregnancy).
What he clearly says is that the mother has the moral right to decide what happens to her body, but not what happens to a separate life dependent on her body. She cannot terminate that life without bearing the moral responsibility.
He clearly states that your moral compass is, by it's secular nature, movable. Yes the religious position is firm: it isn't moral to take life. You display what Arcanus accuses you of: a confused conception of the POV. One that mirrors your own shifting basis.
His viable solution is to make law what is morally observed. It works for every other aspect of human society.
