Abortion not allowed

[fr0d0]

That's because you're gorgeously lovely Losty.

---

I would think that considerations of the effects of our actions on other people form the cornerstone of our morals, given that morality relies upon the interactions of thinking beings to even exist. That said, we don't even need to go to the moral argument; my point is that we make determinations about life and whether it's worth saving, that life is not automatically presumed to be worth preserving merely because it is life. We don't generally have any qualms about taking a brain dead person off life support, for example, or of allowing a person with fatal injuries beyond the help of medicine to pass away peacefully rather than extending their life futilely for them to experience more pain. There's more to our evaluations of life than its unthinking preservation, and I think that's at the crux of the abortion issue, that fetuses don't possess those qualities that would make that life worth preserving.

We do have qualms about taking people off life support. The UK health service could save millions if that weren't the case. If we could disregard human life like we disregard other animal life. We're obsessed with keeping people alive. My mum signed a no resuscitate agreement but they still keep her alive as a vegetable. We have no choice in that. I guess a fetus's worth is in it's potential, which doesn't differ from a sentient humans potential. The only difference is pain. That's all we're talking about here: our classifying worth on pain receptors.

Personally I'm against all war. What's your stance on that? It's legal to kill thousands of people to defend your liberty. It's globally defined as moral too.

I think stuff like war is a more pragmatic concern than we usually give it credit for; it may be a morally acceptable method of conflict resolution, but I don't think that necessarily makes it morally preferable. It's in a hierarchy: we think of peaceful resolution as more morally correct than violent conflict, and even within war itself we don't celebrate the death. It's an unfortunate means to an end.

This is pretty easy to see, because if we picture a hypothetical nation that uses war as its first resort to any potential conflict, I doubt any of us would consider that nation to be morally correct in its dealings, nor morally superior to more peaceful nations.

So it's still 'moral'?

I see the USA as a prime example of a nation that uses war as its first resort to any potential conflict. In fact I suspect it manufactures it to divert attention from it's real issues of rampant capitalistic meltdown. Citizens of the US are mostly convinced of their moral correctness in that. As are the majority of the western world who follow suit. We demonise small nations as terrorists.

But then I see terrorism as war and quite often wholly justified. Lives are sacrificed for good reason. Moral? I'd say so. Justified taking of life.

As for God, the point is that he would have the knowledge to know if the taking of life was really justified, if as defined, he has knowledge of everything. Omniscience. I believe, and I've outlined the reasons why I think he is purely good, and the Jews and ancient Hebrews certainly agreed. You don't have to agree. That is not your belief. I understand that.

I'm just wary of people adding more premises to their claims than they've demonstrated. These things can get pretty complex once you start stripping back the assumptions; for example, even in your claim of an all knowing, purely good god, there's no reason to assume consistent morally good actions from that god. Maybe his judgment gets clouded by emotion on occasion, and he acts rashly. Being able to make a perfectly well informed decision, and acting upon that ability, are two different things.

In my claim of a purely good god, there are strong reasons for me to assume that his actions are consistently morally good. He is unable to be susceptible to human frailties. He's not just unable, he is naturally unable. He cannot act contrary to his nature. If he could, he wouldn't be the God that I believe in.

You don't understand that God or concept, and that's accepted. I don't expect you to. I simply state that that is my belief, based upon my consideration of the information presented, my acceptance and trust of that information, and my active participation acting upon that information. Without that exact same route to conclusion it would be impossible for you to believe the same. And I respect your position.