When's the baby born?

1234568

Comments

  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    No, my premise is that some women abort their fetuses and some do not. If one woman believes that aborting her fetus is morally wrong and the other woman believes that aborting her fetus is morally right, both of them cannot be right. One must be right all of the time and the other must be wrong all of the time, according to moral objectivism. Moral relativism is proven false.

    With that said, you can sufficiently respond to the argument.

    so the woman who things abortion is morally wrong is wrong. but that does not mean we ought to force her to have an abortion.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    IWillLiveForeve wrote:
    Really, you think we should define that term? Are you sure? I mean you're not just saying that because the Supreme Court of the US has been trying to define it since Roe vs. Wade? Not because it's usually the most heated arguement in every conservative election? You're a fucking genius. You grip on the obvious is undeniable.

    Courts have an interesting way of dragging things out. It would be a lot easier to use the clinical definition.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Too many pro-choice people use this argument:

    I know what's best for me and no one else can judge my choices with what I do with my own body.

    This argument assumes objective moral truth does not exist

    Actually, the opposite is true.
  • IWillLiveForeve
    IWillLiveForeve Posts: 427
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Of course there is. There are plenty of people in Texas that don't believe in capital punishment, but the state does it anyway. As long as the majority agrees, there isn't much else you can do.

    In what world does that constitute an answer. That's a bunch of sounding smart and saying nothing. To paraphrase Ice-T.
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    soulsinging wrote:
    so the woman who things abortion is morally wrong is wrong. but that does not mean we ought to force her to have an abortion.

    Why? It's the morally right thing to do! Are you saying society shouldn't attempt to maximize the moral outcomes of its people?
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • IWillLiveForeve
    IWillLiveForeve Posts: 427
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Why? It's the morally right thing to do!

    "Walking tightrope high, over moral ground,
    Having visions of, falling up somehow."
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    IWillLiveForeve wrote:
    In what world does that constitute an answer. That's a bunch of sounding smart and saying nothing. To paraphrase Ice-T.

    You can't please everyone.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Why? It's the morally right thing to do! Are you saying society shouldn't attempt to maximize the moral outcomes of its people?

    Not if it means resulting to the immoral, no.
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Not if it means resulting to the immoral, no.

    Wait, are you telling me that by doing the morally right thing, it can result in an immoral thing?

    Ha! Paradoxical!
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • IWillLiveForeve
    IWillLiveForeve Posts: 427
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Wait, are you telling me that by doing the morally right thing, it can result in an immoral thing?

    Ha! Paradoxical!

    It probably would be if you could define 'moral'.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Wait, are you telling me that by doing the morally right thing, it can result in an immoral thing?

    No. I'm telling you the opposite. Doing an immoral thing cannot result in a moral thing.

    Regardless of how you want to slice the abortion issue, it is not your "moral obligation" to deny the free choices of potential mothers. Those choices cannot harm you and you have no say in them. That is unless you want them making your choices for you.

    You are right to search for an non-contradictory, objective morality. It does exist. However, it exists in the free will of people, not in the subjective definitions of life they hold.
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    farfromglorified wrote:
    No. I'm telling you the opposite. Doing an immoral thing cannot result in a moral thing.

    Regardless of how you want to slice the abortion issue, it is not your "moral obligation" to deny the free choices of potential mothers. Those choices cannot harm you and you have no say in them. That is unless you want them making your choices for you.

    You are right to search for an non-contradictory, objective morality. It does exist. However, it exists in the free will of people, not in the subjective definitions of life they hold.

    I'm glad we agree that there is objective morality.

    I have trouble believing that subjective definitions of life cannot be morally true. I think that my subjective view that eating humans is immoral is morally true. Isn't it possible that it could be?

    The free will of the people is most certainly not where objective morality exists, my friend. Democracy is not inherently morally righteous. The people can allow slavery to exist, as you know.

    I think that moral truth lies solely in the divine creator.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • IWillLiveForeve
    IWillLiveForeve Posts: 427
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    I'm glad we agree that there is objective morality..

    Um, the problem is that morality IS subjective.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    I'm glad we agree that there is objective morality.

    Me too.
    I have trouble believing that subjective definitions of life cannot be morally true.

    They can be. They can also be untrue, depending on what that definition of life is.
    I think that my subjective view that eating humans is immoral is morally true. Isn't it possible that it could be?

    Yes.
    The free will of the people is most certainly not where objective morality exists, my friend. Democracy is not inherently morally righteous. The people can allow slavery to exist, as you know.

    I never said democracy is inherently morally righteous. Typically, it is not. When I say "the people", I don't mean some pathetic collective, I mean each individual among them.
    I think that moral truth lies solely in the divine creator.

    Yikes. Where does this "divine creator" fit into your objective beliefs?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    IWillLiveForeve wrote:
    Um, the problem is that morality IS subjective.

    Then why do you imprison murderers?
  • IWillLiveForeve
    IWillLiveForeve Posts: 427
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Then why do you imprison murderers?
    Because murder is not subjective.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    IWillLiveForeve wrote:
    Because murder is not subjective.

    Neither is abortion.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    IWillLiveForeve wrote:
    Because murder is not subjective.

    Hehe...neither is baking. Why don't you imprison bakers?
  • IWillLiveForeve
    IWillLiveForeve Posts: 427
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Neither is abortion.

    Um, ok.
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Me too.



    They can be. They can also be untrue, depending on what that definition of life is.



    Yes.



    I never said democracy is inherently morally righteous. Typically, it is not. When I say "the people", I don't mean some pathetic collective, I mean each individual among them.



    Yikes. Where does this "divine creator" fit into your objective beliefs?

    I worry that each individual is not perfect and they will most certainly make immoral decisions that could possibly premature end the life of another person: a fetus for example.

    In my view, as well as that of Saint Thomas Aquinas, faith and reason are linked inseparably. Reason eventually leads one to faith in the divine. This is better known as Thomism.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_objectivism#The_divine_and_reason
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell

Categories