FILL IN THE BLANK: It's okay to kill a baby in the womb when ________ (difference, choice)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Abortion is morally wrong . . . but can be ethically and legally acceptable. Morality only exists if there is a God (a God-less morality is an oxymoron). Enforcing God's laws without an accompanying compelling societal reason is unacceptable. Ethics and legality only require a society and consensus. But any discussion of why this is so would be a hijack.
Says you. Let us not mistake your opinion for a statement of fact. I see no argument at this time to have any moral concerns towards a 20 week old fetus at all, let alone when compared to... say.... a tree or a cow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Morality only exists if there is a God
False. Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation among intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong).
Where an OBJECTIVE morality might only exist if there is a god, subjective human assigning of actions as bad or good therefore gives us the ability to differentiate among things as being good or bad. Therefore you can have a morality without a god. There is at this time no evidence on offer for either a god or an objective morality.
At the end of the day we are a social species. We have to find the best ways in which to live together successfully. "Morality" is merely the list of actions we deem to be "good" or "bad" within that scenario.
Those claiming an objective morality, given their lack of evidence for any such thing, are likely just creating their own moral preferences like any other person would, then inventing a god entity they can then rubber stamp their own opinions with by pretending that entity agrees with them.
I have to agree. Abortion is morally wrong on a sliding scale related to human development and at the lower end is no less unpleasant and no more morally wrong than having a tooth out. The only valid points for debate are when it gets beyond the stage where cutting off development of an embryo is a greater lesser evil (as it is called) than forcing a woman to go all the way through to birth, without regard to her wishes, and what method we could adopt to try to make such an invidious choice as infrequent as possible. Sweeping sex under the carpet and wringing our hands at the failure of the Chastity appeal to work is part of the problem, not the solution.
Morality can certainly exist without a god. There is absolutely no valid reason to suppose that a god is necessary for morality. In fact, that there is so much argument about what is moral and what isn't tends to be strong evidence against such a belief.
The problem here is that "physical viability for mental viability" is the same as 'trading viabilty for actual humanity' or 'trading organic life for human life' or trading actual human life in any reasonably meaningful way for technical life on paper simply to support your rather extreme rejection of termination at any time.
If you then insist a blob of cells - or even one cell, once fertilized - is a 'human being' then of course it follows that it is entitled to the same rights as any other human. But, to repeat you previous point, just because you say so doesn't magically mean that it is. If it isn't then that should never automatically override the rights of the host.
You are right AREQUIPA.
BUT!...I don't just say it's so...I go with what the near universal consensus of scientific experts say about it.
I do what the "objective proof/empirical evidence only" crowd on this board says to do...I am going with the proven facts...not my arbitrary opinion based on "attributes and abilities" I selectively assign as a prerequisite to be considered a "human being".
People just do that to be able to claim it's NOT a human being...so they can kill him/her, and pretend they didn't kill a human being.
The findings are clear...an NEW-SEPARATE-DISTINCT FROM ANY OTHER (including the mother) life, that is human, and has different DNA from any other entity what-so-ever...is there from conception.
Not just "cells containing human DNA" (like a tumor or "snot"), or something that is merely "alive" (like trees or cows)...but a NEW HUMAN BEING.
And furthermore...it's the SAME ONE that will exist at ANY stage of his/her existence...even if she/he lives to be 100 yrs old--Which blows out Nozzs' "can't be somethingandbecoming that something at the same time" argument. Because, if it is the SAME entity that always existed (just less developed)...and it could EVER later be considered a "human being"...then, by Nozzs' logic...it must have necessarily ALWAYS been a human being. His own premise defeats his argument.
I say it's NOT a "moral issue"...but a LEGAL one: If your society protects human beings with rights and laws, it should protect ALL of them...regardless of development, maturity, abilities, or location.
Mystic acknowledges the moral wrongness...but cuts the legal slack by figuring that only "members of society" get legal coverage...and that "membership" doesn't occur until birth.
I say that protection should extend to ALL human beings.
I should certainly give some weight to what the concensus of relevant authority has to say about it, but I should need to be convinced that this is the case, given that the only consensus against any kind of termination at any time seems to be outside the medical or scientific fraternity.
I know that you referred to 'scientific studies' but they were carefully selected (not to say cherry -picked) by a pro - life site to suit their views and the pro choice view was repeated only to be dismissed as biased through pro - abortion propaganda, so I wonder whether your claim here really stands up.
I guess I can Google, but I can well imagine whose views are going to be represented in a myriad private websites.
Well actually it's pretty even - in number. What is not even is that half give both sides and the other half engage in ranting personal attacks and accusations about conspiracies and or combine it with declarations of their particular religious adherence and /or requests to consider the likelihood of the existence of God.
Well...
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-21-2011 at 01:02 PM..
I should certainly give some weight to what the concensus of relevant authority has to say about it, but I should need to be convinced that this is the case, given that the only consensus against any kind of termination at any time seems to be outside the medical or scientific fraternity.
I know that you referred to 'scientific studies' but they were carefully selected (not to say cherry -picked) by a pro - life site to suit their views and the pro choice view was repeated only to be dismissed as biased through pro - abortion propaganda, so I wonder whether your claim here really stands up.
I guess I can Google, but I can well imagine whose views are going to be represented in a myriad private websites.
Well actually it's pretty even - in number. What is not even is that half give both sides and the other half engage in ranting personal attacks and accusations about conspiracies and or combine it with declarations of their particular religious adherence and /or requests to consider the likelihood of the existence of God.
Regardless of its "slant", it gave links to Embryology and Teratology textbooks and journals...and lots of science and medical experts.
It don't see how it could possibly get much better than that.
If someone has some other evidence that could reasonably dispute the science cited in those links...I'd like to see it.
We need to remove the "moral" and "religious" issue...and deal with the matter on a scientific and legal basis.
From what I can see, it is pretty much settled...at conception a new human being comes into existence.
From that point it is just a matter of applying the rights and protections under the law a particular jurisdiction grants to human beings.
No "bias", "prejudice", "religious dogma", or "morality issue headtrips" needed...just current law applied to current science (not 1973 science)...so as to determine "what is" and "how rights/laws typically apply to what is".
For you. We can't generalise nor should we control other people's lives or bodies.
Laws, ordinances, and regulations enacted by some "control the lives" and "control the bodies" of others in many, many different ways.
Heck...in most places, you aren't even allowed to put your body in the minor risk of operating a vehicle absent the use of a seatbelt, without suffering legal sanctions and penalties...let alone the restrictions put on us relative to harming others.
When it comes to others, you can be legally sanctioned for something as light as upsetting them (emotional distress), never mind doing them physical harm.
Are you saying we should have no "controls" put upon us by the law over our lives and our bodies?...or would you just prefer a "free-for-all" society? Though I feel the concept is completely unacceptable for a civilized people, some do feel that way...do you?
Laws, ordinances, and regulations enacted by some "control the lives" and "control the bodies" of others in many, many different ways.
Heck...in most places, you aren't even allowed to put your body in the minor risk of operating a vehicle absent the use of a seatbelt, without suffering legal sanctions and penalties...let alone the restrictions put on us relative to harming others.
When it comes to others, you can be legally sanctioned for something as light as upsetting them (emotional distress), never mind doing them physical harm.
Are you saying we should have no "controls" put upon us by the law over our lives and our bodies?...or would you just prefer a "free-for-all" society? Though I feel the concept is completely unacceptable for a civilized people, some do feel that way...do you?
My political leanings are libertarian, so I see almost all restrictions as an infringement of personal rights.
As long as you aren't hurting anyone else with your actions.
"Ahhhhh" you may say, but abortion IS hurting someone else. The product of conception is not viable without the Mother's uterus until 24 weeks at the earliest. Up until that point I see it entirely as the woman's choice whether to abort or not.
Abortion is morally wrong . . . but can be ethically and legally acceptable. Morality only exists if there is a God (a God-less morality is an oxymoron). Enforcing God's laws without an accompanying compelling societal reason is unacceptable. Ethics and legality only require a society and consensus. But any discussion of why this is so would be a hijack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djuna
For you. We can't generalise nor should we control other people's lives or bodies.
The morality is what it is . . . not what any of us choose to believe it is. I agree we should not control others lives just for moral reasons. There has to be some compelling societal interest in doing so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
