nice post, 777. however, regarding the above quote, my issue is " is there a possibility that a fetus, regardless of stage, is a human life?" my answer is yes and as long as that possibility exists, abortion is potentially murder.
best,
surf
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Should the Supreme Court overturn Roe V. Wade?
- Thread starter dgabriel
- Start date
nice post, 777. however, regarding the above quote, my issue is " is there a possibility that a fetus, regardless of stage, is a human life?" my answer is yes and as long as that possibility exists, abortion is potentially murder.
best,
surf
Quote from marketsurfer:
nice post, 777. however, regarding the above quote, my issue is " is there a possibility that a fetus, regardless of stage, is a human life?" my answer is yes and as long as that possibility exists, abortion is potentially murder.
best,
surf
I understand you position surf, and it is like the subjectivity of religious beliefs, it is personal, and not provable without the exercise of faith.
My point is that law has to be objective and based on principles that cut beyond that subjectivity when there is not an overwhelming consensus among the rational citizens of a society.....and that is why Roe versus Wade will stand until such time that personal bias among the members of the Supreme Court overturn it....or society as a whole changes its perspective to a resounding and overwhelming view that coincides with your perspective. That is how a civilized society works.
To revoke a woman's right to choose is the primary issue, and until there is evidence to swing the "probability" of a fetus constituting human life as defined by science, to beyond a 50/50 proposition, I have to side with human rights, a woman's right to choose.
Until you can prove murder---which we agree you cannot, she is innocent of murder till proven guilty if she decided to abort a fetus.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
Who wants to die? What percentage wants their own life to end?
99% of the healthy population of this world chooses to live, not die.
Life is valued, cherished, sought after to extend it.
So to suggest that termination of human life is not wrong, is nonsensical.
so your position is then, "killing is wrong because people prefer to live"?
but if we are to maintain consistency here, we must acknowledge that people prefer a lot of things; is denial of a preference then inherently wrong?
and i notice you aren't one of the peacenik brigade, so what then of the people whose death you think would suit 'the world's' purposes; wouldn't THEY express a prefence for life too?
wouldn't killing them be wrong?
if your answer is "yeah it's wrong, but we need to do it anyway", then i would say you don't REALLY consider it immoral to kill.
if killing becomes acceptable when it SUITS you, then that proves my point entirely: you only THINK kiling is wrong.. it is not ACTUALLY wrong
The issue of this thread is whether or not a fetus is human life, not whether murder is morally wrong.
ok, and if it's determined that it is in closer in form to a life than not, we'll need to decide whether killing it is permissible.
i maintain that whether it is a life or not, it would be OK to kill it.
Yes, life is valuable, because most of us think it is. If you don't really understand that, you have no concept of morality that will fit any rational model of the concept of morality.
LOL. get your head out of your ass you dope!
"rational model" he tells me... hahahaha TOO FUNNY
a rational model is precisely what i'm after you doorknob.
all YOu have given me is your own subjective moral position on the value of life. nothing more.
and actually, i happen to agree with you.
BUT, what if someone disagrees? what if he thinks, "nah, fuck that, i think killing is A OK?"
ON WHAT BASIS do you call him wrong?
it doesn't get anymore IRrational than "well, it's wrong cos _I_ think it's wrong" or even "it's wrong cos WE think it's wrong".
in fact, that it is ALL morality reduces to: human feelings regarding a matter. nothing more.
Even if you take a pure atheistic perspective, if the majority, vast and overwhelming majority--not just a simple majority--deem the mores of that society to be valuation and preservation of life, then it is immoral to murder.
thank you. that is exactly what i happen to think too.
morality is nothing more than people's FEELINGS.
nothing objective about it at all.
ps - i wonder if you're aware of medieval japan's position on the taking of life. a society in which the majority -- the vast and overwhelming majority -- didn't see anything 'wrong' with killing at all. guess that many people couldn't have been wrong...
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
My point is that law has to be objective and based on principles that cut beyond that subjectivity when there is not an overwhelming consensus among the rational citizens of a society.....
oh yeah. do you happen to have any examples of these "objective laws" (regarding murder) that AREN'T based on society's SUBJECTIVE feelings?
i'd LOVE to see them...
Quote from daniel_m:
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
Who wants to die? What percentage wants their own life to end?
99% of the healthy population of this world chooses to live, not die.
Life is valued, cherished, sought after to extend it.
So to suggest that termination of human life is not wrong, is nonsensical.
so your position is then, "killing is wrong because people prefer to live"?
but if we are to maintain consistency here, we must acknowledge that people prefer a lot of things; is denial of a preference then inherently wrong?
and i notice you aren't one of the peacenik brigade, so what then of the people whose death you think would suit 'the world's' purposes; wouldn't THEY express a prefence for life too?
wouldn't killing them be wrong?
if your answer is "yeah it's wrong, but we need to do it anyway", then i would say you don't REALLY consider it immoral to kill.
if killing becomes acceptable when it SUITS you, then that proves my point entirely: you only THINK kiling is wrong.. it is not ACTUALLY wrong
The issue of this thread is whether or not a fetus is human life, not whether murder is morally wrong.
ok, and if it's determined that it is in closer in form to a life than not, we'll need to decide whether killing it is permissible.
i maintain that whether it is a life or not, it would be OK to kill it.
Yes, life is valuable, because most of us think it is. If you don't really understand that, you have no concept of morality that will fit any rational model of the concept of morality.
LOL. get your head out of your ass you dope!
"rational model" he tells me... hahahaha TOO FUNNY
a rational model is precisely what i'm after you doorknob.
all YOu have given me is your own subjective moral position on the value of life. nothing more.
and actually, i happen to agree with you.
BUT, what if someone disagrees? what if he thinks, "nah, fuck that, i think killing is A OK?"
ON WHAT BASIS do you call him wrong?
it doesn't get anymore IRrational than "well, it's wrong cos _I_ think it's wrong" or even "it's wrong cos WE think it's wrong".
in fact, that it is ALL morality reduces to: human feelings regarding a matter. nothing more.
Even if you take a pure atheistic perspective, if the majority, vast and overwhelming majority--not just a simple majority--deem the mores of that society to be valuation and preservation of life, then it is immoral to murder.
thank you. that is exactly what i happen to think too.
morality is nothing more than people's FEELINGS.
nothing objective about it at all.
ps - i wonder if you're aware of medieval japan's position on the taking of life. a society in which the majority -- the vast and overwhelming majority -- didn't see anything 'wrong' with killing at all. guess that many people couldn't have been wrong...
dude,
you are extremely bright, it's fun to read your posts. do you believe that everything comes down to perceptions ? that there is no right and no wrong except in one's own mind ?
best,
surfer
Quote from daniel_m:
oh yeah. do you happen to have any examples of these "objective laws" (regarding murder) that AREN'T based on society's SUBJECTIVE feelings?
i'd LOVE to see them...
Human beings have survied as a species because, unlike animals, they have the ability of choice to terminate their own existence.
Some might point to the salmon, who die trying to swim upstream, but this is not suicide, it is not a rational choice to terminate their own lives.
Humans on the whole, as a majority, have shown a tendency to live versus dying.
This is an objective, observable fact that anyone can verify.
Why has this always been the case? (and No, Jonestown and Jim Jones's mass suicide doesn't counter the fact that survival is the primary choice of rational human beings, nor do the isolated incidents of those who die trying to blow up buildings or falling on their swords out of shame).
Because living is preferable to dying. Hence, if we are going to use terminology, living is good, dying is bad.
It is moral to perserve life, it is immoral to terminate life.
You can intellectually masturbate as much as you want on this issue, but everyone knows that you are full of nonsense.
It is morally wrong to murder, and we all know it. When we see the majority of a society or the leaders of a society choosing to be murdered, then we will talk.
Quote from marketsurfer:
dude,
you are extremely bright, it's fun to read your posts. do you believe that everything comes down to perceptions ? that there is no right and no wrong except in one's own mind ?
best,
surfer
surf, that's exactly what i think.
and i am asking right here for people that believe otherwise, that think there is some EXTERNAL measure of whether something is 'right' or 'wrong', 'good' or 'bad', to please explain why, and support their position.
optional has tried to, but it's obvious that, with his 'shoot (post) first, think later' mentality, he has fallen comically short. i guess he thinks i just whipped up my position in the couple of minutes it took me to read this thread. i don't think it's really worth my time going through the motions with such a dunce..
Quote from daniel_m:
surf, that's exactly what i think.
and i am asking right here for people that believe otherwise, that think there is some EXTERNAL measure of whether something is 'right' or 'wrong', 'good' or 'bad', to please explain why, and support their position.
optional has tried to, but it's obvious that, with his 'shoot (post) first, think later' mentality, he has fallen comically short. i guess he thinks i just whipped up my position in the couple of minutes it took me to read this thread. i don't think it's really worth my time going through the motions with such a dunce..
Name calling, that is your response?
Shows your true intellectual ability clearly.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
Because living is preferable to dying. Hence, if we are going to use terminology, living is good, dying is bad.
"good" you say? good for WHOM? good for WHAT?
is it 'good' if the (your beloved) 'vast majority' wants him dead? how is it 'good' for them?
why is human life, in total, ACTUALLY good? what makes it good?
surely it hasn't been good for OTHER life, ie animals, plants, the planet...
have you actually thought about this stuff before today dude? or is this just typical optional running off at the mouth? let me know, because if it's the latter, i can't be bothered..
ps - if your plan is to dismiss any contrary evidence -- just like the voluntary suicides of those you mentioned -- simply because it refutes your attempts to form the universal constants you so desperately seek, then you've made it very clear that you have no desire whatsoever to arrive at a consistent, logical position.
Quote from daniel_m:
"good" you say? good for WHOM? good for WHAT?
is it 'good' if the (your beloved) 'vast majority' wants him dead? how is it 'good' for them?
why is human life, in total, ACTUALLY good? what makes it good?
surely it hasn't been good for OTHER life, ie animals, plants, the planet...
have you actually thought about this stuff before today dude? or is this just typical optional running off at the mouth? let me know, because if it's the latter, i can't be bothered..
ps - if your plan is to dismiss any contrary evidence -- just like the voluntary suicides of those you mentioned -- simply because it refutes your attempts to form the universal constants you so desperately seek, then you've made it very clear that you have no desire whatsoever to arrive at a consistent, logical position.
We both have to be rational to have a discussion.
Can we agree on a definition of "good" as being what the vast majority of a society agree with, that anyone who was observing that society could agree with as "good" by definition, based on the actions of that society?
You can try to take shelter that the term "good" is subjective, but when a condition exists universally, it can objectively stated that something is "good" in that it is sought after by well over 95% of the people in this world today and throughout all times.
So, extending this to the history of mankind, the vast majority (over 95%) of all those people who have ever lived preferred to live versus die.
If something is that universal throughout the course of history, is that dominant in a species, anyone would have to conclude that choice of life is the preference over death.
Does that fact that the history of mankind choosing life over death mean that living is good?
I say yes, but if you don't agree with that, there is no ground for discussion.
Even an alien could see what has happened over the course of human events, and conclude that this human race thinks living is good, and dying is bad.
Hence, it only follows that murder is bad, and preservation of human life is good.
And, from a moral perspective, it easily follows that murder is wrong.