Abortion

Malari

JC 2K3 wrote: »

But what are pro-choice/abortion people supposed to do if faced with an unwanted pregnancy? Not abort because someone else thinks the life of the foetus is worth saving?

I agree with The Minister. But I think his point is not what should be done, rather the way that pro-choice people make their argument often misses the point completely about what anti-abortion people are saying.

I would argue (and have argued) that the mother has, or should have, more rights than an unborn child in any case. I'm never going to say "it's not a human until it's born". Of course it's human, why else would I want to terminate it. I just don't think it's life is as important as the woman, at a few weeks.

JC 2K3

I agree on that note. It's why the "abortion is only ok if the woman was raped" viewpoint baffles me. If you think abortion is murder then it's still murder even if conception occurred due to a rape.

philologos

stovelid wrote: »

Jurisdiction was probably the wrong word. I didn't mean jurisdiction as an area of care, rather a physical area of authority - an unborn child being inside the body of a woman, and whose existence is not viable outside that area.

Isn't the body of the mother also within a nation? Again "not viable outside that area". The life of anyone is not viable if their parents do not provide for them when they are born either?

stovelid wrote: »

Not able to survive outside of the body of its Mother before a certain age.

Surely they aren't able to survive outside of the body of it's mother without it's mother before a certain age either? Dependence can be applied both inside and outside of the womb. To be consistent one would have to see a change in how it is dealt with outside the womb also.

stovelid wrote: »

You see, the crux of it is that I do believe that the Mother's rights trump that of the child's.

I promote equality in respect to human rights, as such I cannot hold this understanding.

stovelid wrote: »

I also wish people would stop using the verb Kill so freely in the thread. It's public, and anybody could be reading, including people who could have made decisions that they deeply regret. Surely we can show some respect to each other?

Unfortunately we are talking about the truth of the situation here. It's a horrible decision to ever have to make and we all do things wrong in daily life. This is no different. It's only correct to call something as it is though.

The_Minister

When I was diggin up the post further up, I rediscovered this trainwreck.
Thank Og that this thread is going better.

The_Minister

Malari wrote: »

Of course it's human, why else would I want to terminate it.

Taken out of context, that is the most evil statement ever made on boards.

Malari

The_Minister wrote: »

Taken out of context, that is the most evil statement ever made on boards.

Some of my best quotes have been taken out of context

Sam Vimes

JC 2K3 wrote: »

But what are pro-choice/abortion people supposed to do if faced with an unwanted pregnancy? Not abort because someone else thinks the life of the foetus is worth saving?

What would you suggest a woman do if she answered the door to find that someone had left a baby in a basket?

JC 2K3

Phone social services.

The difference between that situation and having a developing foetus in the womb is that when in the womb, the baby can't be adopted or cared for by anyone else until birth.

philologos

JC 2K3: I have yet to see how that warrants death though?

Sam Vimes

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Phone social services.

The difference between that situation and having a developing foetus in the womb is that when in the womb, the baby can't be adopted or cared for by anyone else until birth.

This is true. In that case the woman finds herself in the unfortunate situation that there is a human being growing inside her who has just as much of a right to life as she does. Once she does what any decent member of the human race would do, ie not end this life because it's inconvenient to her, she can call social services. Not an ideal situation but better than mass murder terminations

WindSock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

How about this scenario:

You're in a war and you and your friend are both injured, him far more gravely than you. The doctor on site makes a split second decision and stitches the two of you together. You then find yourself in a situation where if you detach another human from your body, you'll survive but he'll die. Does he then forfeit his human rights?

Heh I wouldn't like the idea of having my friend being attached to me either. But I suppose i know my friend, I am their friend for a reason because I like them. They can stay as long as they don't laugh at me when I pee.

I don't know my foetus. I don't care about whats growing inside me, no-one else knows whats growing inside me. I have the potential to make plenty plenty more of that thing, if I do not want it to be in me for 9 months then have to squeeze it out my fanny then I will get rid of it one way or another. Unfortunatley the only current option in this country is one that will endanger my own life (bar travelling).
But the thing is, I am a Girlfriend, Sister, Daughter, Friend, Neice, etc....I am in society and will be missed if I die, the foetus isn't. Only I will suffer potential emotional consequences of it's termination.

Malari

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In that case the woman finds herself in the unfortunate situation that there is a human being growing inside her who has just as much of a right to life as she does.

Well that's just the point isn't it? It's not accepted that the human inside her has as much rights. Otherwise abortion wouldn't be acceptable anywhere.

WindSock

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
Number of abortions per year: Approximately 42 Million
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 115,000

42 million 'lifestyle choices' per year.

In a population of 6 billion, does anyone really give a **** about that amount of aborted potential lives?

Sam Vimes

WindSock wrote: »

Heh I wouldn't like the idea of having my friend being attached to me either. But I suppose i know my friend, I am their friend for a reason because I like them. They can stay as long as they don't laugh at me when I pee.

I don't know my foetus. I don't care about whats growing inside me, no-one else knows whats growing inside me. I have the potential to make plenty plenty more of that thing, if I do not want it to be in me for 9 months then have to squeeze it out my fanny then I will get rid of it one way or another. Unfortunatley the only current option in this country is one that will endanger my own life (bar travelling).
But the thing is, I am a Girlfriend, Sister, Daughter, Friend, Neice, etc....I am in society and will be missed if I die, the foetus isn't. Only I will suffer potential emotional consequences of it's termination.

Now that's a different point altogether. Now you're arguing that it's ok to kill a human being as long as you don't know it and it doesn't effect others, which brings back the question of is it ok to kill homeless people or people who live alone in the woods?

And now you'll of course have to admit now that it's not as simple as abortion is ok because it can't survive outside your body?

I have a response that invalidates pretty much every one of these arbitrary lines people draw

philologos

Malari wrote: »

Well that's just the point isn't it? It's not accepted that the human inside her has as much rights. Otherwise abortion wouldn't be acceptable anywhere.

The global South seems to reject barbarism more than the the global North.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/AbortionLawsMap-NoLegend.png

It may not be accepted by certain societies. Then again several things weren't accepted by certain societies that we now find appalling. It's not much of an argument. People are able to justify vile things when they want to.

WindSock: 42 million deaths. It's the Holocaust 7 times over in a single year.

JC 2K3

Sam Vimes wrote: »

there is a human being growing inside her who has just as much of a right to life as she does.

I don't agree that it has as much a right to life as she does.

I don't think a minimally sentient human being, who is very early in development, should be considered more important than an adult.

I think that to be a person, to be granted human rights, requires more than to be alive by biological definition.

Dave!

There was a thread in PI a while ago about a couple that agreed that if the girl should get pregnant, she would have an abortion, as neither of them were ready to have a child.

She got pregnant, but changed her mind about the abortion, and now the chap is f*cked.

Hope that doesn't put you off sex

Sam Vimes

Malari wrote: »

Well that's just the point isn't it? It's not accepted that the human inside her has as much rights. Otherwise abortion wouldn't be acceptable anywhere.

People used to convince themselves that it was ok to enslave black people because they weren't really people. Back in the day the majority of people saw nothing immoral with it at all

My point being that just because there's a debate doesn't mean both sides have equal merit. The way I see it, people convince themselves that a foetus doesn't really have rights not based on any kind of evidence but on the fact that they simply don't want it to have rights

Sam Vimes

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I don't agree that it has as much a right to life as she does.

I don't think a minimally sentient human being, who is very early in development, should be considered more important than an adult.

I think that to be a person, to be granted human rights, requires more than to be alive by biological definition.

Why is that though other than that definition makes life a lot easier? I prefer to go with what's actually true rather than what I want to be true, regardless of how inconvenient that might be

Edit: no one's saying the foetus is more important, it's as important

JC 2K3

But "rights" are not scientific or evidence based in any way. They're a bunch of arbitrary ideals. Why shouldn't they then be conferred in an equally arbitrary manner?

EDIT: There's no universal truth that says all humans should have human rights from the moment of conception.

Goduznt Xzst

Ok pro-lifers, I'm going to open up a question to you which I'd be interested in getting as many answers as possible.

Say you get your way and all the abortion clinics are closed down and abortion is made illegal.

If it was found that a woman had had an illegal abortion what should happen to her? How should she be punished for her crime?

Sam Vimes

JC 2K3 wrote: »

But "rights" are not scientific or evidence based in any way. They're a bunch of arbitrary ideals. Why shouldn't they then be conferred in an equally arbitrary manner?

Now that's a very dangerous road to go down..........

Sam Vimes

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Ok pro-lifers, I'm going to open up a question to you which I'd be interested in getting as many answers as possible.

Say you get your way and all the abortion clinics are closed down and abortion is made illegal.

If it was found that a woman had had an illegal abortion what should happen to her? How should she be punished for her crime?

We already have laws to cover such a circumstance. It's called murder. The point you're trying to make only works if you assume that a woman getting an abortion is doing nothing wrong, just like all pro choice arguments

Edit: sorry to clarify, I'd treat them the same way a woman who kills her new born is. They're considered less responsible because their heads are a mess from hormones.

KeyLimePie

I'm 100% against abortion unless there's a case where the child will be stillborn, or by giving birth both the mother and/or child will die.

But then again I haven't a womb so I can't really be telling women what to be doing with themselves.

WindSock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Now that's a different point altogether. Now you're arguing that it's ok to kill a human being as long as you don't know it and it doesn't effect others, which brings back the question of is it ok to kill homeless people or people who live alone in the woods?

And now you'll of course have to admit now that it's not as simple as abortion is ok because it can't survive outside your body?

A homeless loner can survive without the need to be attached to me. A person outside of my body is abstract from me. I wouldn't kill a person unless they posed a threat to me.

A foetus is not a person. A person is shaped by the society and environment it lives in.

A foetus is somethig that grows in a womb. It has a life, the same way a piece of chicken I ate for lunch did, and the fly that hit my windscreen last week.

Goduznt Xzst

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We already have laws to cover such a circumstance. It's called murder. The point you're trying to make only works if you assume that a woman getting an abortion is doing nothing wrong, just like all pro choice arguments

So the woman should be charged with first degree murder in the situation that she hires a doctor to abort her fetus?

Vimes, where do you stand on ECPs?

philologos

WindSock wrote: »

A foetus is not a person. A person is shaped by the society and environment it lives in.

This is baseless though, this is just saying because the foetus is less developed than me it isn't a human life. The entire thread is full of these kind of notions. They don't have any bearing on what is actually a human though. Just because a toddler mightn't be able to play the piano doesn't mean that it isn't a human deserving of equal respect to the rest of humanity.

WindSock wrote: »

A foetus is somethig that grows in a womb. It has a life, the same way a piece of chicken I ate for lunch did, and the fly that hit my windscreen last week.

Animal life != human life. Chicken and flies aren't a part of humanity. The foetus is. If anyone wants to argue about vegitarianism feel free, I personally won't be for obvious reasons

Sam Vimes

WindSock wrote: »

A homeless loner can survive without the need to be attached to me. A person outside of my body is abstract from me. I wouldn't kill a person unless they posed a threat to me.

I know that. I brought up the homeless person idea to show that it's not ok to kill someone as long as it doesn't affect anyone and I brought up the injured friend attached to you idea to show that it's not ok to kill someone just because they can't survive without you. I'm trying to show how each of the pro choice arguments is flawed in it's own special way

WindSock wrote: »

A foetus is somethig that grows in a womb. It has a life, the same way a piece of chicken I ate for lunch did, and the fly that hit my windscreen last week.

why do you think that though, other than that's what you want to be the case?

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

So the woman should be charged with first degree murder in the situation that she hires a doctor to abort her fetus?

Vimes, where do you stand on ECPs?

Sorry I edited my post to say she should be treated the same way as a woman who kills her new born. Culpable but less so based on the fact that their head is messed up

I don't know what an ECP is

Election commission of pakistan? :P

WindSock

Jakkass wrote: »

This is baseless though, this is just saying because the foetus is less developed than me it isn't a human life. The entire thread is full of these kind of notions. They don't have any bearing on what is actually a human though. Just because a toddler mightn't be able to play the piano doesn't mean that it isn't a human deserving of equal respect to the rest of humanity.

A toddler or a disabled person are people that are in society. They have the ability to survive by those who can and want to help them. They are not inside someones body.

Animal life != human life. Chicken and flies aren't a part of humanity. The foetus is. If anyone wants to argue about vegitarianism feel free, I personally won't be for obvious reasons

I'm just saying that a life is a life. Life as a biological concept. I am not saying a chicken or a fly are as important as a human. They are living organisms that can die as easily as they were created.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I know that. I brought up the homeless person idea to show that it's not ok to kill someone as long as it doesn't affect anyone. I'm trying to show how each of the pro choice arguments is flawed in it's own special way

There are no single areas in which a pro-choice argument can tackle, they are a collection of many different areas, imo.

Goduznt Xzst

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sorry I edited my post to say she should be treated the same way as a woman who kills her new born. Culpable but less so based on the fact that their head is messed up

Yes but that has to be ascertained on a person by person basis does it not? Unless diminished capacity is proven should the law state that a woman who has aborted a fetus be charged with Murder in the first degree?

Do you think every woman who has an abortion does so because "their head is messed up" and for the same reason as a woman who kills their babies after birth?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't know what an ECP is

Emergency Contraceptive Pill (aka morning-after-pill)

Sam Vimes

WindSock wrote: »

There are no single areas in which a pro-choice argument can tackle, they are a collection of many different areas, imo.

The way I see it there are so many pro choice arguments because they're trying to rationalise to themselves something they know deep down is wrong. People have an amazing ability to convince themselves of something when they desperately want it to be true

WindSock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The way I see it there are so many pro choice arguments because they're trying to rationalise to themselves something they know deep down is wrong. People have an amazing ability to convince themselves of something when they desperately want it to be true

The way I see it, there are no black and white answers to topics like these. Thats why there will always be argument. You are either on one side or the other. I've engaged with you before on this subject, and I think we both resolved to agree to disagree (bit of a cop-out on my behalf, but I must get back to work)

Sam Vimes

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Emergency Contraceptive Pill (aka morning-after-pill)

Ah I see. That's a bit of a grey area to me. It's been shown that it generally takes a few days for the sperm to actualy fuse with the egg so I'd be tentatively for it. I can even see some merit in the idea of abortion before the foetus has the capacity to feel pain but there are two problems there, the first being that we have no idea when that point is and the second being that the one thing we're pretty sure of is that it's before the point that most women actually go through with the abortion

Sam Vimes

WindSock wrote: »

The way I see it, there are no black and white answers to topics like these. Thats why there will always be argument. You are either on one side or the other. I've engaged with you before on this subject, and I think we both resolved to agree to disagree (bit of a cop-out on my behalf, but I must get back to work)

I on the other hand think that it's very much black and white but there is argument because many people wish it wasn't so black and white so they convince themselves it's not

But I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree

Wait I don't agree to that!!1!1!

Gazza22

Right and wrong doesn't come into the equation, it's a personal choice and one which is made on the basis of where you are in life and whether this pregnancy has come at a time when you are emotionally, financially etc secure.

ilikerashers

Is abortion not about choice? Choice of the individual responsible for what is their own body. How can you dictate someone else’s decisions on something which at that point is wholly part of them?

The poll's interesting above, shows 2 thirds in favour of abortion yet this thread is dominated by long and well defined if not misguided points in favour of what is a denial of human rights of the mother. And a foetus does not have rights, a child is born at birth. You can spend as long as you want arguing that a sperm or an egg or foetus with a heart or a liver or a finger or 2 legs or whatever qualifies in your own brain.
As for the comments on rape victims having to give birth, I’m glad I don’t live in such a sheltered world. It’s embarrassing to live in a country which harbours such backward notions.

Ciaran500

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The way I see it there are so many pro choice arguments because they're trying to rationalise to themselves something they know deep down is wrong. People have an amazing ability to convince themselves of something when they desperately want it to be true

Bull****. Complete and utter bollocks, the same argument is trotted out by religious people cause they can't see the other side of an argument. Just cause you feel so strongly one way about something doesn't mean someone else can't feel just as strongly the other way.

philologos

WindSock wrote: »

A toddler or a disabled person are people that are in society. They have the ability to survive by those who can and want to help them. They are not inside someones body.

We have no reason to suggest that existence within society has ever defined human life before and it certainly doesn't biologically. This is just another attribute x that people put on what is human life so as to justify it's destruction.

WindSock wrote: »

I'm just saying that a life is a life. Life as a biological concept. I am not saying a chicken or a fly are as important as a human. They are living organisms that can die as easily as they were created.

Humans can actually die rather easily outside of the womb too. It certainly doesn't mean that we should be the ones carrying it out though on others of our own species. Human life as a biological concept is also distinct from chicken life or fly life unless you are a vegitarian that is.

WindSock wrote: »

There are no single areas in which a pro-choice argument can tackle, they are a collection of many different areas, imo.

When they start to give a decent reason for permitting killing that cannot be reasoned outside the womb I will be all ears (or eyes given that it is a forum). All of the reasons that people give can be justified outside of the womb too in circumstances that most reasonable people would reject.

Sam Vimes

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Yes but that has to be ascertained on a person by person basis does it not? Unless diminished capacity is proven should the law state that a woman who has aborted a fetus be charged with Murder in the first degree?

Do you think every woman who has an abortion does so because "their head is messed up" and for the same reason as a woman who kills their babies after birth?

It'd have to be decided on a case by case basis just like all crime. But one thing I always note in these debates is that the overwhelming majority of woman go through an awful lot of emotional turmoil and soul searching before going through with it. And it usually stays with them for the rest of their lives, many women regret it and many even commit suicide

But the position of pro choice people is generally that it's just a clump of cells that can be removed with no moral problems. Their actions and their statements don't match up, no one has ever soul searched over having an in grown toe nail removed or committed suicide over a haircut, unless it was a particularly bad one :P

The way I see it if a woman feels an ounce of guilt or regret over an abortion then she didn't actually believe what she was saying but went ahead anyway, and that makes her culpable

Goduznt Xzst

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's a bit of a grey area to me.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I on the other hand think that it's very much black and white

What???

You clearly don't think it is black and white, as you said you are gray on the subject of ECPs. Some pro-lifers would be appalled at this stance. You are saying that there is merit in aborting a fetus before it can feel pain.

The only difference between your stance and mine is where the lines in the sand are drawn. Your stance is just another shade of gray to mine. Which is why pro-choice is the only acceptable option as no one person should enforce their shade of gray on another persons individual freedoms.

Sam Vimes

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Bull****. Complete and utter bollocks, the same argument is trotted out by religious people cause they can't see the other side of an argument. Just cause you feel so strongly one way about something doesn't mean someone else can't feel just as strongly the other way.

I don't know if you're calling me religious but I'm a steadfast atheist

People can of course believe the opposite to me very strongly but when there are multiple different, often contradictory definitions coming out and everyone has their own opinion on when they personally think it's ok, it has an air of clutching at straws to me

Sam Vimes

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

What???

You clearly don't think it is black and white, as you said you are gray on the subject of ECPs. Some pro-lifers would be appalled at this stance. You are saying that there is merit in aborting a fetus before it can feel pain.

The only difference between your stance and mine is where the lines in the sand are drawn. Your stance is just another shade of gray to mine. Which is why pro-choice is the only acceptable option as no one person should enforce their shade of gray on another persons individual freedoms.

I said I can see how the argument has some merit, not that it's right

Edit: and this is the point where I bring up NAMBLA, the north american man boy love association. They see nothing wrong with having sex with young boys. Should we enforce our shade of grey on them?

philologos

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Bull****. Complete and utter bollocks, the same argument is trotted out by religious people cause they can't see the other side of an argument. Just cause you feel so strongly one way about something doesn't mean someone else can't feel just as strongly the other way.

Emotional response. Nobody has mentioned God in this thread so far. Infact as a Christian I could have argued this from a God point of view if I wanted to, but I want to show as many people as possible why it is wrong it is best to employ a secular view. I do have religious beliefs, and I don't deny this and I won't deny this. It is clear to me that this is clearly irrational and that pro-choice views make little or no sense.

Goduznt Xzst

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't know if you're calling me religious but I'm a steadfast atheist

Well you can see why they'd be confused. You are arguing about as effectively as a Christian. For example

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But the position of pro choice people is generally that it's just a clump of cells that can be removed with no moral problems. Their actions and their statements don't match up, no one has ever soul searched over having an in grown toe nail removed or committed suicide over a haircut, unless it was a particularly bad one :P

The way I see it if a woman feels an ounce of guilt or regret over an abortion then she didn't actually believe what she was saying but went ahead anyway, and that makes her culpable

A Christian might say:

But the position of Atheists is generally that belief in God can be removed with no moral problems. Their actions and their statements don't match up, no one has ever soul searched over having not believed in fairies or committed suicide by not believing in Santa, unless it was a particularly bad Christmas :P

The way I see it if an Atheist feels an ounce of guilt or regret over leaving Christianity then they didn't actually believe what they where saying but went ahead anyway, and that makes them culpable in the eyes of God

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I said I can see how the argument has some merit, not that it's right

Precisely, you aren't saying it's wrong either, you are on the fence which makes you "gray"... which you already admitted to. I am neither for nor against abortion myself, my opinion on abortion is gray. I am however for individual freedom of choice in this matter. I want the freedom to choose for myself and thus I wish for all of humanity to be given this freedom of choice also.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I want to show as many people as possible why it is wrong it is best to employ a secular view.

This is true. As soon as you mention god you've lost the debate. "It's wrong cos god says so" doesn't fly anymore thankfully

Sam Vimes

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Well you can see why they'd be confused. You are arguing about as effectively as a Christian. For example



A Christian might say:

But the position of Atheists is generally that belief in God can be removed with no moral problems. Their actions and their statements don't match up, no one has ever soul searched over having not believed in fairies or committed suicide by not believing in Santa, unless it was a particularly bad Christmas :P

well that wouldn't be true. Many people have searched their soul over the non existence of god

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

The way I see it if an Atheist feels an ounce of guilt or regret over leaving Christianity then they didn't actually believe what they where saying but went ahead anyway, and that makes them culpable in the eyes of God

That would be true. If they don't believe in god then there is no reason to feel guilt for having rejected christianity

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Precisely, you aren't saying it's wrong either, you are on the fence which makes you "gray"... which you already admitted to. I am neither for nor against abortion myself, my opinion on abortion is gray. I am however for individual freedom of choice in this matter. I want the freedom to choose for myself and thus I wish for all of humanity to be given this freedom of choice also.

I said the contraceptive pill was a grey area because it's a contraceptive, as in it prevents conception. I have no problem with preventing conception, that's the same thing a condom does

I then went on to say that I can see some merit in doing it before the foetus is aware, ie I can see their point but then I outlined several problems with that stance and I don't agree with it. Sorry for the confusion

Ciaran500

Jakkass wrote: »

Emotional response. Nobody has mentioned God in this thread so far. Infact as a Christian I could have argued this from a God point of view if I wanted to, but I want to show as many people as possible why it is wrong it is best to employ a secular view. I do have religious beliefs, and I don't deny this and I won't deny this. It is clear to me that this is clearly irrational and that pro-choice views make little or no sense.

Religion was just another example of a subject that has people completely divided, I wasn't trying to bring it into the abortion argument at all, I wasn't even trying to get into the abortion argument.

The "I'm right, everyone else is just fooling themselves" argument is what pissed me off and got me to post, I see it brought out so often and its ridiculous.

JC 2K3

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The way I see it if a woman feels an ounce of guilt or regret over an abortion then she didn't actually believe what she was saying but went ahead anyway, and that makes her culpable

Guilt can be societally induced.

In a hardcore Catholic society, one might feel guilt for masturbating, or taking the name of the "lord" in vain, even if they didn't really feel that what they were doing was wrong, because of the effect societal consensus has on people.

Sam Vimes

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Guilt can be societally induced.

In a hardcore Catholic society, one might feel guilt for masturbating, or taking the name of the "lord" in vain, even if they didn't really feel that what they were doing was wrong, because of the effect societal consensus has on people.

But I have to ask myself how someone can bring themselves to end another human life if they're not absolutely convinced that there's nothing wrong with it. It's not quite the same as rattling off a few knuckle children

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This is true. As soon as you mention god you've lost the debate. "It's wrong cos god says so" doesn't fly anymore thankfully

Well, it flies in Christian societies, however not when people don't share your beliefs.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Guilt can be societally induced.

Fair enough. Laws in the State can also be societally induced this doesn't make them any less valid.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

In a hardcore Catholic society, one might feel guilt for masturbating, or taking the name of the "lord" in vain, even if they didn't really feel that what they were doing was wrong, because of the effect societal consensus has on people.

I disagree here. You have guilt precisely because you think that doing those things were wrong. The conscience is an indicator of the moral opinions that are held by individuals. Suppressing it isn't really something that should be encouraged. If people are guilty for saying the name of the Lord in vain, or masturbating it is because they do feel it was wrong.