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.