Liberals being Pro-Choice :/

nozzferrahhtoo

yutta wrote: »

1. Surely we should err on the side of caution if a clump of cells may actually be a human person?

To which, if you bothered to read my post, I answered "I do".

yutta wrote: »

2. Roughly, what probability would you put on a clump of 6 week-old cells being human?

To which, if you bothered to read my post, I answered that at 6 weeks I do not see ANY reason to assign such a label to it. Ergo as near to zero as it is possible to get.

So both of your questions are answered, hence my accusation of lying and my taking exception to you accusing me of not answering when I in fact very much did.

yutta wrote: »

So what happens then exactly?

To answer "exactly" would require the length of several science texts books. So I will not answer "exactly" but generally. What happens is that two haploid cells merge to form one diploid cell. The contents of this cell, using the DNA within it, start to influence, create and break down proteins. The cell at some point will then split into 2, these 2 into 4, these for into 8 and so on.

At no point in this process does one need to invoke "god" so I am not entirely sure why you do so. Especially given there is not a scrap of even a modicum of even an iota of evidence, argument, data or reasons on offer to think there is such an entity. At all.

yutta wrote: »

Ok, let's assume that the miracle of life occurs at the moment of conception. That would be a good moral and ethical argument for making abortion illegal.

No. It would not. Mainly because the definition of "life" for the context is too broad. The cell at that moment of conception is no more alive than a goat. A tree. A flower. A bee. A platypus. A cow. A pig. Yet we chop down trees and kill to eat animals all the time.

So if simply being "alive" is your entire point then you should not be killing anything. Anytime. Ever. But since we do... clearly there is more to the conversation than the cell being "alive" and your point is not as "obvious" as you want it to be.

yutta wrote: »

Ah yes, personhood. Could you please define what that means?

Again this is context dependent as to what this means, just like "human" and "life" should be. However in this context any definition I would offer you would be inextricably linked to the faculty of human consciousness.

yutta wrote: »

You made the comparison of investing emotionally in things like cars. A sickening comparison.

I am not comparing the two things directly. I am comparing one aspect of them. Do not over extend my comparisons to make it look like I am saying what I am not. If I call a sports car yellow and a banana yellow for example, it would be a mistake to suggest I am calling bananas and cars the same.

My point is only to show that the thing they have in common is the human ability to emotionally invest oneself in something that is, on the face of it, not really worthy of it. What sense is there investing ones love in a pet dog or a car exactly? Yet we do it and the love is very real in people.

Similarly a woman can invest herself emotionally in a clump of cells that represents a union with her loving partner and a future of hopes and dreams for the child they want to have. The fetus, although not even a person yet, can become very real to people and the emotions of love they feel for a person yet to be are just as real as any you or I might feel for an actual person.

yutta

Mark200 wrote: »

I don't see why you labelled those three statements as 'wrong' when you said yourself that you don't see 'miracles' as problems to be cracked, but simply your god's "beauty".

That clearly illustrates that you don't care about answers.

Wrong again. I'm getting bored now. Yawn.

Ghost Buster

yutta wrote: »

If you're not able to, don't bother so.

wrong.
Wow this "debate like yutta' method works. Im now watching carefully for spelling mistakes and i'll nail you real goooooood!

Ghost Buster

yutta wrote: »

Wrong again. I'm getting bored now. Yawn.

Wring, sigh, yawn

Im getting the hang of this. Praise jesus.

mloc

yutta wrote: »

But if it's just a blob of cells, why is she getting upset? After all, it's not a child until it pops it head out of the womb...

She is getting upset because she wanted to have a child, was expecting to go to term, and now this is no longer happening.

I can cut down strawmen all day long, but there's no point in arguing with you. You simply just don't understand some of the words you are using.

saa

You're surprised that people you see as liberal are pro choice... really? really?
Nope don't believe that, don't even think this conversation happened, trolling or pushing an agenda I suspect.

iguana

yutta wrote: »

Why would someone get upset over a clump of cells that's not human? However, you said it "may not" be human. Surely we should err on the side of caution if a clump of cells may actually be a human person? Roughly, what probability would you put on a clump of 6 week-old cells being human? Please answer these questions.

Also, why would someone "emotionally invest" themselves in a clump of cells? Do men emotionally invest themselves in their sperm? Why don't women have breakdowns at the loss of an egg when they have their period?

Rather than get banned by responding to your ridiculous obtuseness in the way that it deserves I think perhaps you should have read of this and then stop being the way you are.

I've been pregnant. I planned for that baby and I loved it with everything I've got from as soon as it was conceived. I gave it a silly nickname, I talked to it, I bought it things. I got it a toy womble because I live in Wimbledon and I wanted it to have a memento of where it was conceived and would be born. I saw my baby's whole life, to me it was a boy, to my husband a girl. I pictured it playing with the womble and saving it when it was raggedy and one eyed, sitting on a shelf in my grown baby's teenage bedroom. And when I miscarried it ripped something out of me that's never come back.

It was 14 months ago but on Sunday when I was putting up my christmas decorations I sobbed the whole way through because it should have been my baby's first christmas. It should have been 7 months old, propped up in a seat watching me hang shiney things. (Or more likely wail the entire time so I got nothing done.) I still think about it everyday, Great Uncle Bulgaria sits on my locker (after a period of being banished to the back of the wardrobe because I couldn't look at it) and has become a memorial rather than a memento. If I have another baby he will be a gift from their big brother or sister. I still talk to my baby, I tell it what it should have been doing if it had lived. If I have a good night's sleep I am sad because I should have been kept up all night with it's crying. And there are still days that I just don't know how to get through without it.

But I saw what came out of me and it was not a human being, nor had it ever been. It was my baby but it was not A baby. It was a clump of something that sort of resembled a sea monkey. I felt like it was my baby, I saved it, put it in a box and cremated it. My husband and I scattered the ashes in a small ceremony in the marsh where we'd scattered our dog's ashes nearly two years before. I treated it like a baby because it was a baby to me. But it wasn't a person, it never could have been without me. Granted my foetus couldn't be a person even with me either. But I've seen lots of pictures of what my foetus should have looked like at that stage and it looked the same - so I know it wasn't deformed or disintegrated.

I feel like my baby died and in a way it did, but what really died was my dreams of a baby I created in my head and heart, not a little boy or girl. I would never dream of comparing how awful losing my baby is to what it is like for a parent who's baby dies after it has been born. It's just not comparable. Losing a baby who you've looked at and held in your arms, who's personality you have seen developing. Losing a child who has looked you in the eye and smiled or laughed at the sound of your voice or when you tickle it. It's not even close. It might be the same sport but it ain't the same league.

And that is because a foetus, certainly a first trimester foetus, is not a person. It is a cluster of cells with the probable potential to be a human being. But it isn't a living human yet.

yutta

Ok, so we're agreed that women get upset when they miscarry. That's only natural. Should we have sympathy for women who choose to "abort" their own flesh and blood? Yes, but more for the aborted life than for the woman herself. Is it any wonder that post-abortion counselling goes hand in hand with the phenomenon of abortion? The reason it's required is the same reason for the very same reason that men who cheat on their wives seek counselling - guilt.

To say that a first trimester foetus is not human is to deny the blatantly obvious so as to justify things like "expense", "loss of lifestyle", "loss of career", etc.

old hippy

yutta wrote: »

Wrong again. I'm getting bored now. Yawn.

Only the sound of your own voice, stedfast, immovable, un-erring keeps you awake.

You have no idea why people choose, do you? Instead you rattle off tired nothings like "expense", "loss of lifestyle", "loss of career".

I've got the measure of you, yutta. I'd rather be a careerist bleeding heart liberal than an unpleasant morally dubious individual - which is what you come across as.

Nasty.

yutta

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Interesting side note: Despite the linguistic propaganda tactics highlighted in this thread around people who use the term "pro-abortion" I see you are only too happy to keep using it. I hope this says as much about you to everyone else on the thread as it does to me.

Not very interesting at all actually. If you're for the death penalty, you're pro-death penalty, not "pro-choice". You can play linguistic gymnastics till the cows come home, but there's no getting away from moral wrong.

nozzferrahhtoo

yutta wrote: »

To say that a first trimester foetus is not human is to deny the blatantly obvious so as to justify things like "expense", "loss of lifestyle", "loss of career", etc.

And now you are back to this. This is what I meant by "point hoping". Whenever you are cornered on one thread of discourse you simply switch tack back to another one. Then from that to another one, always the moving target, never sticking to one point longer than you have to.

The fetus is not a human in any way that is relevant to the discussion of "killing" "rights" or any of the terms relevant to the discussion on abortion. It is merely a clump of cells containing human DNA. That is all. Things like personhood, conciousness, awareness, sensing pain, subjective experience and more are entirely absent in it at certain stages of development according to all our knowledge on the subject.

To call it "human" therefore in terms of a person deserving rights and protection is just fantasy however and has nothing to do with "lifestyle" or "career".

What point will you hop off to next?

nozzferrahhtoo

yutta wrote: »

Not very interesting at all actually. If you're for the death penalty, you're pro-death penalty, not "pro-choice". You can play linguistic gymnastics till the cows come home, but there's no getting away from moral wrong.

I will leave the lingustic gymnastics to you. The fact remains if you are pro having an option available, be it abortion or the death penalty, you can still be pro doing everything in our power to prevent that option being used.

That is the fact that you try to hide when you do the linguistic propaganda of calling people "pro abortion".

Most people, myself included, who are pro choice also are very much pro doing everything we can to make sure women do not NEED abortions, including sex education improvement in schools and increased access to contraception.

old hippy

yutta wrote: »

Not very interesting at all actually. If you're for the death penalty, you're pro-death penalty, not "pro-choice". You can play linguistic gymnastics till the cows come home, but there's no getting away from moral wrong.

No. There's no getting away from the pious finger pointers and those that concentrate on the non-living, compared to those who actually live on the planet.

yutta

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I will leave the lingustic gymnastics to you. The fact remains if you are pro having an option available, be it abortion or the death penalty, you can still be pro doing everything in our power to prevent that option being used.

That is the fact that you try to hide when you do the linguistic propaganda of calling people "pro abortion".

Most people, myself included, who are pro choice also are very much pro doing everything we can to make sure women do not NEED abortions, including sex education improvement in schools and increased access to contraception.

Let's kick the liberal indoctrination agenda to one side for now.

The propaganda is by use of the obtuse description "pro-choice". Pro-abortion is calling it what it is. Perhaps I should go one step further and label you as pro-death?

yutta

old hippy wrote: »

No. There's no getting away from the pious finger pointers and those that concentrate on the non-living, compared to those who actually live on the planet.

Do you think a child in the womb isn't alive or something?

yutta

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And now you are back to this. This is what I meant by "point hoping". Whenever you are cornered on one thread of discourse you simply switch tack back to another one. Then from that to another one, always the moving target, never sticking to one point longer than you have to.

You're the one who brought sex education and contraception into the discussion.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The fetus is not a human in any way that is relevant to the discussion of "killing" "rights" or any of the terms relevant to the discussion on abortion.

In your uninformed, blinded opinion. I realise you have invested a lot of time into this issue, and realise how hard it must be to admit that you are wrong.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is merely a clump of cells containing human DNA. That is all.

How arrogant of you. It's a lot more than "merely" a clump of cells. It's a potential human life that came about miraculously.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Things like personhood, conciousness, awareness, sensing pain, subjective experience and more are entirely absent in it at certain stages of development according to all our knowledge on the subject.

Interesting how you define (or at least attempt to) human life. Do people in a vegetative state qualify?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

To call it "human" therefore in terms of a person deserving rights and protection is just fantasy however and has nothing to do with "lifestyle" or "career".

In the vast majority of cases, children in the womb are aborted for lifestyle reasons. Worse than the holocaust.

old hippy

yutta wrote: »

Do you think a child in the womb isn't alive or something?

I'm talking about terminating cells.

Accidents happen. People are people, despite the best efforts to avoid said accidents.

You may not like it but you have no right whatsoever to dictate to anyone else your murky little philosophies.

yutta

old hippy wrote: »

You may not like it but you have no right whatsoever to dictate to anyone else your murky little philosophies.

Abortion is illegal in this country and for good reason. Law should be rooted in what is morally right, not in subjective or populist opinion. Long may it continue.

philologos

I think people are being harsh on yutta. It's rather conceivable that people would have serious objections to abortion-by-choice (as opposed to abortion-by-medical-necessity).

Unlike yutta I do think that contraceptives are one way to tackle this. But only one way due to the possibility of failure. I think that ultimately they right to life is more important than anyone's conjugal rights.

Let's put this into perspective, we can do this without hysteria or idle rhetoric.

old hippy

yutta wrote: »

Abortion is illegal in this country and for good reason. Law should be rooted in what is morally right, not in subjective or populist opinion. Long may it continue.

Laws should not be routed in ancient religions which have no bearing on people's lives.

Time to get out there and face the real world, warts and all.

philologos

old hippy wrote: »

yutta wrote: »

Abortion is illegal in this country and for good reason. Law should be rooted in what is morally right, not in subjective or populist opinion. Long may it continue.

Laws should not be routed in ancient religions which have no bearing on people's lives.

Time to get out there and face the real world, warts and all.

One can be entirely atheist and be pro-life rather than pro-choice-for-abortion.

yutta

old hippy wrote: »

Time to get out there and face the real world, warts and all.

You should take a lesson from yourself.

I could post far worse pictures, but this is where the unwanted babies end up:

Mickeroo

yutta wrote: »

Do you think a child in the womb isn't alive or something?

A Child is alive yes, an undeveloped foetus devoid of sex, internal organs, emotions, hopes, dreams, capacity for even a slight bit of thought is not.

yutta wrote: »

How arrogant of you. It's a lot more than "merely" a clump of cells. It's a potential human life that came about miraculously.

Potential human life? So not an existing one? So you agree? Glad thats sorted. :pac:

yutta wrote: »

Interesting how you define (or at least attempt to) human life. Do people in a vegetative state qualify?

If they are legally brain-dead then they don't qualify, if there is still brain activity and they might possibley wake up then they qualify.

yutta wrote: »

In the vast majority of cases, children in the womb are aborted for lifestyle reasons. Worse than the holocaust.

good one.

yutta wrote: »

Abortion is illegal in this country and for good reason. Law should be rooted in what is morally right, not in subjective or populist opinion. Long may it continue.

What is morally right is generally dictated by populist opinions.

philologos

Mickeroo wrote: »

What is morally right is generally dictated by populist opinions.

That's mad. There has been so many times in history when majorities have done what was clearly wrong.

Mickeroo

philologos wrote: »

That's mad. There has been so many times in history when majorities have done what was clearly wrong.

Wrong by our standards.

Mark200

yutta wrote: »

Abortion is illegal in this country and for good reason. Law should be rooted in what is morally right, not in subjective or populist opinion. Long may it continue.

And how have you decided what is objectively morally right?

philologos

Mickeroo wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

That's mad. There has been so many times in history when majorities have done what was clearly wrong.

Wrong by our standards.

Wrong by any standards. Morality isn't something we create for ourselves. Rather it simply is.

Moral relativism at best is bad philosophy.

At worst is extremely dangerous and will lead to a repeat of the worst our past.

Mark200

philologos wrote: »

That's mad. There has been so many times in history when majorities have done what was clearly wrong.

Morality is completely subjective. That is quite obvious if you look at things that have been done throughout history - morality has changed with societies.

Mr. Incognito

From a purely biological point of view, a distinct and disparate human individual begins life at fertilisation. Their life does not begin at some arbitrary "x" number of weeks. There's no ambiguity as far as i'm concerned. Changing the conditions surrounding an individual organism to ensure it does not survive is killing regardless of how long said organism has been alive for.

The point at which said human being becomes viable and highly likely to survive is what clinicians and scientists debate. It's an inaccurate euphemism to call abortion anything but the termination of a life. Killing if you will.

This is confusing theological debate with Biology which is a science.

The same definition of life that you'll find in most biology textbooks, i.e. the one that most of the world seem to agree on

Supplement http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Life

There is no consensus regarding the answer to the question as to when does life begin. Does it begin at the time of fertilization or the time before or after that? The origin of life is also contestable. Despite of the irresolute answer for questions about life, the basic characteristics of a living thing are as follows:

•with an organized structure performing a specific function
•with an ability to sustain existence, e.g. by nourishment
•with an ability to respond to stimuli or to its environment
•capable of adapting •with an ability to germinate or reproduce

A foetus is not "alive" by any accepted biological definition.

Excellent article here http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/life/

At fertilisation a foetus is a parasite that depends on its host for nutrician, warmth, and somewhere to gestatate. It cannot repoduce. It cannot survive independently and thus does not fulfill any scientic criteria for being "alive"

When it is fully developed it is still not capable of independent life until born.

This thread is a troll excercise and should really be locked as no-one is going to change anyones minds only argue blue nonsense and sensationaist ****e

Consider the below.

I was talking to blonde people today and they seem fairly happy. I thought happy people would be all for keeping babies alive instead of killing them.

The OP is obviously baiting.

People need to learn the definition of Murder, Killing and other extremist language. People have a right to do with their own bodies what they want.

That is a Pro-Life Stance. It is NOT Pro Abortion. It is the belief that everyone has the right to make up their own damn minds and do what they damn well want- that is Liberalism.

If anti abortionists want to ban abortion let them adopt the kids. oh wait- not your problem no all of a sudden?

More telling eveyone else what to do nonsense.

philologos

Mark200 wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

That's mad. There has been so many times in history when majorities have done what was clearly wrong.

Morality is completely subjective. That is quite obvious if you look at things that have been done throughout history - morality has changed with societies.

Not at all. Just people have done what was wrong and found ways to justify it. Our moral codes for the most part are similar but people often do what is wrong out of expediency either on a national, societal or individual level.

Mickeroo

philologos wrote: »

Wrong by any standards. Morality isn't something we create for ourselves. Rather it simply is.

I disagree, morals generally have to be learned to a point, what I find moral you may find immoral and so on, what you are saying implies that what is and is not moral is always a black and white issue and never changes, I really don't see how that is the case when there is so much variation between cultures today let alone cultures of the past.

Mr. Incognito

yutta wrote: »

Abortion is illegal in this country and for good reason. Law should be rooted in what is morally right, not in subjective or populist opinion. Long may it continue.

Even a cursory study of the law will show you that it is changable dependent on the government which is elected by the people which is.........populist opinion. We haven't had any divine "moral" law in the entire history of Ireland. The constitution was based on the US Constitution and the erosion of Church doctrine has been very sharp in the last 20 years.

What is morally right in any epoc is subjective. 200 years ago it was morally right to sell your 14 year old daughter for a dowry.

Mickeroo

philologos wrote: »

Not at all. Just people have done what I believe to be wrong according to my own personal moral code and found ways to justify it. Our moral codes for the most part are similar but people often do what I think is wrong out of expediency either on a national, societal or individual level.

fyp

You're making the mistake of assuming everyone thinks the same way you do.

Mark200

philologos wrote: »

Not at all. Just people have done what was wrong and found ways to justify it. Our moral codes for the most part are similar but people often do what is wrong out of expediency either on a national, societal or individual level.

End to Slavery
Womens Rights
Animal Rights
Gay Rights

All of which have come about (or are coming about) quite recently. Christianity has not caused these advances. In fact, Christianity was one of the hurdles for many of these advances (and still is for gay rights).

You can easily examine other societies - such as those in the Middle East - where different moralities exist.

philologos

Mickeroo wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

Wrong by any standards. Morality isn't something we create for ourselves. Rather it simply is.

I disagree, morals generally have to be learned to a point, what I find moral you may find immoral and so on, what you are saying implies that what is and is not moral is always a black and white issue and never changes, I really don't see how that is the case when there is so much variation between cultures today let alone cultures of the past.

Morality isn't dictated by culture either. When we're wronged we don't say that wet were subjectively wronged and we don't regard all things as right. Rather we argue that it is after violation ofm what was right - universally right.

Hence we call human rights universal not subject to a given environment.

Mr. Incognito

philologos wrote: »

Wrong by any standards. Morality isn't something we create for ourselves.

Correct


Rather it simply is.

False

Moral relativism at best is bad philosophy.

At worst is extremely dangerous and will lead to a repeat of the worst our past.

Your version of what is Moral is predicated on factors such as parental values, societal norms and indoctrination.

A study of history will show that it is or was moral in some countries to

Commit bigamy
Commit Genocide
Commit what we would now call rape and paedophilia

If you think you have some internal moral compass that you are intrinsically born with, think again. You are a product of your society and are effectively brainwashed in the same vein as the majority of people. If it was elseways society would not function.

Mickeroo

philologos wrote: »

Morality isn't dictated by culture either. When we're wronged we don't say that wet were subjectively wronged and we don't regard all things as right. Rather we argue that it is after violation ofm what was right - universally right.

Hence we call human rights universal not subject to a given environment.

Humans only have the rights society(ie other humans) allows them to have. Human rights are neither equal nor universal from country to country.

philologos

Mickeroo wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

Not at all. Just people have done what I believe to be wrong according to my own personal moral code and found ways to justify it. Our moral codes for the most part are similar but people often do what I think is wrong out of expediency either on a national, societal or individual level.

fyp

You're making the mistake of assuming everyone thinks the same way you do.

I think you're wrong about the reality of ethics. I argue that it is external to our mind. It's called moral universalism. I don't believe its based on my thoughts or yours and I think there's good logical reason as to why.

I also think moral relativism / subjectivism as caused some of the worst atrocities in recent memory.

What is right is right.
What is wrong is wrong.

Mark200

philologos wrote: »

I think you're wrong about the reality of ethics. I argue that it is external to our mind. It's called moral universalism. I don't believe its based on my thoughts or yours and I think there's good logical reason as to why.

I also think moral relativism / subjectivism as caused some of the worst atrocities in recent memory.

What is right is right.
What is wrong is wrong.

The fact that society can't agree on abortion would suggest otherwise.

Mr. Incognito

philologos wrote: »

I think you're wrong about the reality of ethics. I argue that it is external to our mind. It's called moral universalism. I don't believe its based on my thoughts or yours and I think there's good logical reason as to why.

I also think moral relativism / subjectivism as caused some of the worst atrocities in recent memory.

What is right is right.
What is wrong is wrong.[/QUOTE]

Dear Lord. It is like speaking with a child.

Consider the following exchange in court.

Well your honour I ask that you commit the accused to prision. I know he did not break any laws, but it is obviously wrong.

FAIL.

Laws are the "rules" that govern society. They are changeable dependent on prevailing attitudes and opinions. As societies IQ steadily rises, liberalism is on the rise too. This is not a co-incidence. The reason we have laws is that "right" and "wrong" are subjective, have always been subjective and will always be subjective. Different ethnic groups have different moral values depending on their cultures and histories. Look no further than traveller culture and their perceived championship of strong Catholic values or the identity of the family unit before the society as a whole.

You seem to think that just because you agree with a particular law that it is based on "morals". By this any laws you do not agree with are "immoral?" No- Society would not function like this. We agree as a democracy what is and is not acceptible even though some of us will not agree with it. This includes abortion. Once a majority, and current polls show a sizable majority, decide to push this agenda it will become legal, whether the vocal minority like it or not.

You don't like democracy, well try China. I hear there are loads of jobs there.

Mickeroo

philologos wrote: »

I think you're wrong about the reality of ethics. I argue that it is external to our mind. It's called moral universalism. I don't believe its based on my thoughts or yours and I think there's good logical reason as to why.

I also think moral relativism / subjectivism as caused some of the worst atrocities in recent memory.

What is right is right.
What is wrong is wrong.

I don't think things like the holocost were caused by subjectivism or relativism but rather peoples readiness to bow to authority regardless of their own morals.

I don't understand why you are not willing to admit that a lot societies both in the present and the past have or had different ideas of what is right and wrong.

nozzferrahhtoo

yutta wrote: »

Let's kick the liberal indoctrination agenda to one side for now.

Maybe when you kick the bible bashing agenda to one side. However I am not aware of having any liberal agendas or any such notions you want to invent and assign to me. I am merely giving my opinions on THIS topic and THIS topic only. If you want to start hiding behind labels, then so be it.

yutta wrote: »

The propaganda is by use of the obtuse description "pro-choice". Pro-abortion is calling it what it is. Perhaps I should go one step further and label you as pro-death?

You can do what labelling you like. It wont make it true. The fact remains that being pro an option does not mean you want people to take that option. No matter what labelling or name calling you hide behind.

I am also pro people being able to have heart bypass. That does not mean I WANT anyone to have a heart bypass. I would much prefer people eat healthily and exercise and never need one.

Similarly I want people to have access to abortion. I would prefer people do all that is required to mean they never need one however. No amount of hiding behind linguistic tricks or labels will change that, no matter how much you try.....

yutta wrote: »

uninformed... blinded.....arrogant

...nor will hiding behind name calling.

yutta wrote: »

It's a potential human life that came about miraculously.

Ah! So you agree its NOT a human life then. It is a POTENTIAL one. My point exactly! You can not be X and be potentially X at the same time. You either are a human life or you are not. IF you concede its only a POTENTIAL human life then you have conceded that it is not a human life. QED. You just made my point for me.

Yes it is a potential human life. I never denied that. The point however is that it is not one yet. That is all my point was and I am so glad you now agree.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

Wrong by any standards. Morality isn't something we create for ourselves.

Actually it appears that is EXACTLY what it is.

skregs

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

A foetus is not "alive" by any accepted biological definition.

If you knew anything about biological science, you'd know there's really no accepted definition of life, with tons of exceptions and stuff that doesn't really fit in with the general difinitions, despite being obviously 'alive'.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

When it is fully developed it is still not capable of independent life until born.

It's capable of independant life, it's just not possible to have independant life when the child is still in vitro.

RichieC

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Actually it appears that is EXACTLY what it is.

Wrong, God made them.

this is literally the argument being made by philogos.

K-9

philologos wrote: »

Wrong by any standards. Morality isn't something we create for ourselves. Rather it simply is.

Moral relativism at best is bad philosophy.

At worst is extremely dangerous and will lead to a repeat of the worst our past.

That really is silly. Homosexuality used to be punished by imprisonment. Now it's legal and we even had a gay Presidential candidate. Using your logic homophobes could argue that's wrong and moral relativism.

Lollipops23

I can only hope that the vast, vast majority of people who think like yutta etc will either emigrate to a more conservative place or that the older ones die off soon.

Honestly, without hateful and downright evil attitudes from them the world can only be a better place.

Wildlife Actor

Yaaay abortion debate!
T bloody L; D bloody R.

Terry wrote: »

God helps those who help themselves.
Foetii are fairly helpless.
Praise Jesus.

Foetii. Nice...

philologos

Mickeroo wrote: »

I don't think things like the holocost were caused by subjectivism or relativism but rather peoples readiness to bow to authority regardless of their own morals.

It showed how people were willing to ignore what was right on the basis of rhetoric. There is no worse an idea than the idea that individuals devise what is right and wrong for themselves as far as I see it. This idea means that people can define whatever suits their own goals and purposes as "right" and whatever doesn't as "wrong". It doesn't matter if what is "right" hurts other people. Humans have an inherent ability to twist what is clearly wrong and make it look like what is right. Essentially good could be bad, and bad could be good. The idea that anything we want could be good, and anything we want could be bad is dangerous as a result. No moral accountability is possible in such a system.

I studied moral philosophy to quite a big extent at university. I found logical flaws in relativistic ethical systems because essentially they offer a moral free-for-all which isn't really doing morality at all.

Mickeroo wrote: »

I don't understand why you are not willing to admit that a lot societies both in the present and the past have or had different ideas of what is right and wrong.

They've constructed their own ideas of what is right and wrong in order to deny the ultimate truth about what is right and what is wrong. Particularly in respect to Mr.Incognito's point: There's nothing childish about the philosophy that good and evil are mind independent, it's been around for centuries. There's also nothing childish about reasonable disagreement.

Good and evil are beyond us. It's why I can say that human rights are inalienable. They are unalienable because they are not given by you or me, they simply are by virtue of external reality. I suspect this is why Thomas Jefferson wrote this powerful line in the US Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Another point that people have misunderstood is that they assume that because people disagree about things that there is no moral universalism. That's not a good argument - as all that moral universalism puts forward is that there is right and wrong which is independent of the mind. Ultimately, I think most people do know deep down what is right and what is wrong, but there is no stopping people from running away from the truth due to expediency.

K-9

It also suits your belief that what is in the bible is the truth right. In one way I admire that but even theologians argue over meanings of the bible.

Put it this way, Catholicism was ostracised and banned at one stage. Attitudes change.

The problem with believing in what is right is different religions have their version of right. Mormons, Catholics, Presbyterians, Muslims and all their various breakaway groups. To give a more Irish example, there's a group of Republicans who still believe they are the true Irish Government based on the 1916 Proclamation or something like that! It gets absurd when taken to an extreme.