• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

An example of what happens when you make abortions hard to get.

Bestowed by society. If abortion was illegal it would be declared murder and I would work to change that law

So you don't believe the idea that personhood is bestowed upon live birth is objectively correct because that idea is completely subjective to society? But at the same time you do believe that that idea is objectively correct because you wouldn't go along with society if they deemed abortion to be wrong? Kinda contradictory if you truly do view society as the ultimate arbiter and the highest rung on the ladder...
 
So you don't believe the idea that personhood is bestowed upon live birth is objectively correct because that idea is completely subjective to society? But at the same time you do believe that that idea is objectively correct because you wouldn't go along with society if they deemed abortion to be wrong? Kinda contradictory if you truly do view society as the ultimate arbiter and the highest rung on the ladder...
Not at all. My views are completely consistent
 
Not at all. My views are completely consistent

You're telling me that you believe personhood is bestowed at live birth by society. You're telling me that you believe society to be the final arbiter.

But yet you also say that if society were to suddenly reverse course, you would not reverse course along with society. Thus you are now making "something else" the final arbiter instead of society, whatever that something else may be.
 
Bestowed by who? Who is this objective (not subjective) arbiter that has decided for every single person who was, is, and is to be born that personhood begins at live birth?

And you're saying that you need to see the child come out of the womb before you consider the child to be a person? At 8 months pregnant, you don't consider the child inside the womb to be a person?

There are many things involved the decision to base personhood on birth. They are objective criteria (biology, medicine, physiology, the Constitutional rights of others, etc) that are judged subjectively to give them value. Value is always subjective.

Our society and the legal system chose birth for a variety of reasons. The result is that the unborn do not have rights, whereas that same legal system, in a Supreme Court decision (in RvW), also confirmed that. The same court entity that found, decades before, that blacks and women WERE equal to men and recognized their/our rights.

It is not possible to legally treat...or value...the unborn equally with the born. One or the others' rights would be superseded in several key areas.

I concur with using birth as the point at which someone is considered a 'person, because while I do value the unborn, I value the born more.

If you think the mother's will should be overcome to give birth, you really do not value both equally. You are valuing the unborn over women.


Which again leads to my question that you conveniently didn't answer... If abortion instantly became illegal, would you then instantly change your view on the topic and consider abortion to be murder, even though a moment ago it wasn't murder?

It would be murder...that's a legal definition.

Would it be wrong? IMO yes. It is definitely wrong to demand that a woman give birth against her will. To place her life and future at risk to prioritize that instead, for the unborn. It once again makes women 2nd class citizens without equal rights. I dont think it will happen tho, as SCOTUS already explained in its decisions why we are not. And why it did not consider the same for the unborn.
 
You're telling me that you believe personhood is bestowed at live birth by society. You're telling me that you believe society to be the final arbiter.

But yet you also say that if society were to suddenly reverse course, you would not reverse course along with society. Thus you are now making "something else" the final arbiter instead of society, whatever that something else may be.

I am my own arbiter of right and wrong. Society just determines the law
 
Bestowed by who? Who is this objective (not subjective) arbiter that has decided for every single person who was, is, and is to be born that personhood begins at live birth?

Sorry, not sure if you ever saw this or not. It is, as I wrote previously, based on objective criteria (biology, medicine, physiology, the Constitutional rights of others, etc) that are judged subjectively. But it provides the legal basis for the authority which you seemed to be looking for.

U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

If you are looking for a 'moral' authority, each individual woman has *choice* and can decide that for herself, no subjective values or beliefs are forced on her.
 
Bestowed by who? Who is this objective (not subjective) arbiter that has decided for every single person who was, is, and is to be born that personhood begins at live birth?

And you're saying that you need to see the child come out of the womb before you consider the child to be a person? At 8 months pregnant, you don't consider the child inside the womb to be a person?



Which again leads to my question that you conveniently didn't answer... If aborthion instantly became illegal, would you then instantly change your view on the topic and consider abortion to be murder, even though a moment ago it wasn't murder?

Also, do you form your worldview around every single Canadian law that gets passed? You have no objective personal beliefs which differ from Canadian law? Seems rather odd to me...

Obviously you and I have opposing worldviews and morals.

Do you believe that your moral standards and worldviews are superior to Scrabaholic’s, or perhaps even mine, because they might oppose yours? There’s so many different individual moral and worldviews subscribed to, that they probably can’t be numerically defined.

I value the born over the yet to be born, regardless of any laws that are applicable to abortion and/or reproduction. Humanity is not an endangered species. But if it was and every woman on the planet declared that they would never reproduce again. I would respect and support their decision.

About “Personhood”...

Open up your Constitutional Hymn Book and scan over the Bill of Rights. While it doesn’t specifically define the individual characteristics necessary to qualify as a person (as related to “personhood” itself) it does state who qualifies for all of the rights and privileges contained in the Constitution: “PERSONS BORN within the jurisdiction of the United States of America.

Additionally, Congress has defined the specific criteria necessary to qualify as “a person”:

1 U.S. Code › Title 1 › Chapter 1 › § 8

Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant


(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)

You can claim that the definition/characteristics of person “is subjective”, but they were created long before Congress published these characteristics in Federal Code. - but we are a nation ruled by law. You have the right to disagree with a law. We all have that right. But if we choose to violate a law then we do so consciously knowing that we will be subject to consequences. When persons inside our government attempt to use their given power to oppress individuals or a specific group within our national society - outside of the parameters of the law - then they need to be subject to consequences.

“Currently, the charge of murder” applies to born persons with the exceptions stated in the “Unborn Victims Act”. A special definition was created for the yet to be born for the purpose of creating and enforcing the provisions stated in the language of the law. Women who have legal abortions are excluded from legal consequences.
 
Sorry, not sure if you ever saw this or not. It is, as I wrote previously, based on objective criteria (biology, medicine, physiology, the Constitutional rights of others, etc) that are judged subjectively. But it provides the legal basis for the authority which you seemed to be looking for.

U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8



If you are looking for a 'moral' authority, each individual woman has *choice* and can decide that for herself, no subjective values or beliefs are forced on her.

Apparently I was in the process of posting to the member you replied to and made reference to the same Federal Code. And perhaps I made similar points, but you said more than my post, “with much less words” than my post.

Well stated post. :thumbs:
 
Objective morals would not exist without God creating them.
That is ignorant bull crap. Morality has existed and exists with or without God.

If that's not the case, then all morals would be subjectively rooted and change with the political winds
More ignorant zealotry. Fat remains that morals exist independently of any God. Secular societies are the most successful ones, while theocracies are the most abusive ones.

such as this case where society has deemed abortions to be legal and morally acceptable.
That is because society has set aside ignorance in favor of rational reasoning and science.

I root my morals in the objective nature of God
Goos for you. why is anyone else supposed to abide by your decisions?

1. He/she is a person from the time that he/she is conceived.
Why, because out of ignorance you decided so?

From conception, the "lump of cells" is life
Yea, so?

and is changing appearance from a "lump of cells"
Yet it is not appearance that matters but function.

I don't understand why it is acceptable to kill a person a day or a week after conception, but not okay to kill a person who is a day or a week after birth.
Your limitations do not concern anyone but you. How about educting yourself a bit at least?

2. But illegal abortion IS murder
More ignorant drivel.
 
Objective morals would not exist without God creating them.

Ouch! I missed this.

This is false, many societies have morals without recognizing a deity.

Esp. when you are discussing 'objective' morals which do not exist but perhaps you mean 'globally recognized?' As in common to most societies? The very fact that global societies recognize a wide variety of authority yet do have many common moral precepts is solid evidence that morals are not only religiously dictated.

But...I suppose if they were...they would be based on 'your' religion?
 
Apparently I was in the process of posting to the member you replied to and made reference to the same Federal Code. And perhaps I made similar points, but you said more than my post, “with much less words” than my post.

Well stated post. :thumbs:

The person is new and I didnt want to presume he was familiar.
 
Ouch! I missed this.

This is false, many societies have morals without recognizing a deity.

Esp. when you are discussing 'objective' morals which do not exist but perhaps you mean 'globally recognized?' As in common to most societies? The very fact that global societies recognize a wide variety of authority yet do have many common moral precepts is solid evidence that morals are not only religiously dictated.

But...I suppose if they were...they would be based on 'your' religion?

You can have morals without believing in a God, but they aren't rooted in anything objective. They are purely subjective...
 
You can have morals without believing in a God, but they aren't rooted in anything objective. They are purely subjective...

All morals are subjective. Every single one.

And there is nothing objective about God. One believes in God based on faith, not fact.
 
All morals are subjective. Every single one.

Morality isn't subjective, nor is it arbitrary. The things we know in our gut to be immoral, such as murder and incest, are things that decrease the evolutionary fitness of a human population; our revulsion towards them is biological in origin and objectively verifiable. The problem is that our moral compass is only as accurate as the biological system it's based on, so it's often compromised and doesn't handle complexity very well. Ethics is an attempt to abstract the principles of morality and rationalize them. The problem with ethics is that it often detaches itself from the underlying biology, which is when things become subjective and arbitrary.

And there is nothing objective about God. One believes in God based on faith, not fact.

God definitely exists at the psychological level, but ought not to be considered below that. I make this assertion based on fact, not faith.
 
Morality isn't subjective, nor is it arbitrary. The things we know in our gut to be immoral, such as murder and incest, are things that decrease the evolutionary fitness of a human population; our revulsion towards them is biological in origin and objectively verifiable. The problem is that our moral compass is only as accurate as the biological system it's based on, so it's often compromised and doesn't handle complexity very well. Ethics is an attempt to abstract the principles of morality and rationalize them. The problem with ethics is that it often detaches itself from the underlying biology, which is when things become subjective and arbitrary.

Please use a dictionary for "objective." Here:
expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations objective art an objective history of the war an objective judgment
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

Our natural leaning towards laws and rules (which are based on morals) has its biological foundation in the fact that we are social animals and depend on a hierarchical social structure for survival. This necessitated developing concepts such as morals and laws to enable us to live together. But they are by no means objective nor are they 100% globally consistent. For example, for some groups, killing was perfectly acceptable if they were from outside your tribe. For others, 'wrong.' Another would be slavery. Very common and 'morally' supported in some groups, but not morally acceptable in others.

The problem with ethics, for you, is that it is subjective.

Never said morals were arbitrary.


God definitely exists at the psychological level, but ought not to be considered below that. I make this assertion based on fact, not faith.

So then ghosts also exist at the psychological level? Let's see a legitimate source for your statement please.
 
Our natural leaning towards laws and rules (which are based on morals) has its biological foundation in the fact that we are social animals and depend on a hierarchical social structure for survival. This necessitated developing concepts such as morals and laws to enable us to live together.

My point is that morality wasn't "developed", it evolved.

But they are by no means objective nor are they 100% globally consistent. For example, for some groups, killing was perfectly acceptable if they were from outside your tribe. For others, 'wrong.' Another would be slavery. Very common and 'morally' supported in some groups, but not morally acceptable in others.

Murdering and enslaving your own kin is wrong in every culture. The problem is that humans are a tribal species, so morality only applies within our own tribe. People from other tribes have no loyalty to us, so why shouldn't we kill and enslave them? They'd do the same to us if they could. This mindset holds true in every culture and even today. We still go off to war and kill other tribes, or exploit them for cheap labour. We still have one rule for us and one rule for them - politics is a prime example of this. We may consider it unethical to kill innocent people in the other tribe, but our condemnation is purely intellectual. Nobody actually gives a sh** about starving children in Africa unless they've been there.

Never said morals were arbitrary.

The implication was there.

So then ghosts also exist at the psychological level?

I never said anything about ghosts.

Let's see a legitimate source for your statement please.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdrLQ7DpiWs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_GPAl_q2QQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ifi5KkXig3s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44f3mxcsI50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNjbasba-Qw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gFjB9FTN58
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoQdp2prfmM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmuzUZTJ0GA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y6bCqT85Pc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKzpj0Ev8Xs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUP40gwht0
 
Bestowed by who?

Society, in the form of govt and laws. Who do YOU think bestows it?


And you're saying that you need to see the child come out of the womb before you consider the child to be a person? At 8 months pregnant, you don't consider the child inside the womb to be a person?

If it's inside the woman's UTERUS, it's not a person.

Which again leads to my question that you conveniently didn't answer... If abortion instantly became illegal, would you then instantly change your view on the topic and consider abortion to be murder, even though a moment ago it wasn't murder?

I answered it, you just don't like the answer.


Also, do you form your worldview around every single Canadian law that gets passed? You have no objective personal beliefs which differ from Canadian law?

Did I say any such thing?
 
My point is that morality wasn't "developed", it evolved.

Murdering and enslaving your own kin is wrong in every culture.

Agreed to the first statement, but the second is wrong, even now.

Muslim extremists STILL kill their females all the time for indiscretions. They kill their gay sons.

And if you have ever read any Pearl S. Buck, like the Good Earth, not only did they enslave their women, they REFERRED to them as slaves.

So again, not universal.
 
Last edited:
I never said anything about ghosts.

If you dont believe in God, how is He any different from a ghost??? I asked you to source "existing at a psychological level" as something objective. As was the conversation at the time.

Please do so. By the way, I wont watch the videos. The first one was obviously religious...please provide real science, not some belief system. By definition, a belief system is subjective, not objective.
 
Agreed to the first statement, but the second is wrong, even now.

Muslim extremists STILL kill their females all the time for indiscretions. They kill their gay sons.

And if you have ever read any Pearl S. Buck, like the Good Earth, not only did they enslave their women, they REFERRED to them as slaves.

So again, not universal.

I said "culture", not "cancer", so Islam doesn't count.

If you dont believe in God, how is He any different from a ghost??? I asked you to source "existing at a psychological level" as something objective. As was the conversation at the time.

Please do so. By the way, I wont watch the videos. The first one was obviously religious...please provide real science, not some belief system. By definition, a belief system is subjective, not objective.

They're not religious videos at all. Jordan Peterson's entire argument is based on psychology. If the first video alone doesn't make a believer out of you, then nothing I say will.

By the way, if you're going to quote me, please do it all in the one response.
 
I said "culture", not "cancer", so Islam doesn't count.



They're not religious videos at all. Jordan Peterson's entire argument is based on psychology. If the first video alone doesn't make a believer out of you, then nothing I say will.

By the way, if you're going to quote me, please do it all in the one response.

So your willfully ignorant dismissal of Islamic CULTURE, whether you like it or not, is noted. It is a completely valid example, as is the Chinese one.

If you dont want to acknowledge it, that's fine. It's still here for others.

And I'm not watching a bunch of videos. Please provide source links or at least summarize in your own words to indicate that you have mastery of the subject.
 
So your willfully ignorant dismissal of Islamic CULTURE, whether you like it or not, is noted.

I see that humour isn't your thing.

By my estimation, honour killings in Islam are equivalent to the Western practice of disowning one's child, except with follow-through. Natural selection programmed us to care for our kin, since they share our genes, but also installed an "off" switch in case our kin turned hostile and tried to eliminate us. Having annulled our kinship, we no longer have an obligation to protect or spare them. In the case of honour killings, the disowned child is now a stranger who has wounded the family's pride, and social norms make it acceptable to take revenge.

I doubt many Muslims kill their chaste and obedient daughters for no reason, since this would have led to their rapid extinction, but feel free to correct me. Like I said, Islam is cancer.

It is a completely valid example, as is the Chinese one.

Are you referring to the practice of killing girl children? That would be infanticide, not murder. Infanticide is often necessary when resources are scarce, so that behaviour would have faced different selective pressures. Biologically speaking, infanticide and murder are different. That's why people can abort their unborn children so callously, yet flinch at the thought of executing a hardened criminal (that, or they're just left-wing ideologues).

And I'm not watching a bunch of videos.

Dude, you're missing out. Jordan Peterson's lectures are basically changing the world right now. If you're not gonna watch those videos, at least watch some of the 10-minute clips on other channels for your own enlightenment.

Please provide source links or at least summarize in your own words to indicate that you have mastery of the subject.

I pretty much said it already. God is a psychological concept and is very real in that sense, but has no relevance to discussions about harder science.
 
By my estimation, honour killings in Islam are equivalent to the Western practice of disowning one's child, except with follow-through. Natural selection programmed us to care for our kin, since they share our genes, but also installed an "off" switch in case our kin turned hostile and tried to eliminate us. Having annulled our kinship, we no longer have an obligation to protect or spare them. In the case of honour killings, the disowned child is now a stranger who has wounded the family's pride, and social norms make it acceptable to take revenge.

I doubt many Muslims kill their chaste and obedient daughters for no reason, since this would have led to their rapid extinction, but feel free to correct me. Like I said, Islam is cancer.


So your opinion, your 'theory,' was incorrect. I'm not interested in your opinion of their culture overall, that's just detracting from the discussion.
Are you referring to the practice of killing girl children? That would be infanticide, not murder. Infanticide is often necessary when resources are scarce, so that behaviour would have faced different selective pressures. Biologically speaking, infanticide and murder are different. That's why people can abort their unborn children so callously, yet flinch at the thought of executing a hardened criminal (that, or they're just left-wing ideologues).

No, not about killing baby girls but that does show how little they are valued even today. I was specific in my reply about a reference for you and the labelling of women as slaves as common practice.

I provided solid examples of things that show that even the most basic mores and taboos, "morals" are not globally consistent and not always ordained by attributing them to a deity.



Dude

I pretty much said it already. God is a psychological concept and is very real in that sense, but has no relevance to discussions about harder science.


I'm not a dude and I'm not watching a bunch of videos. If you cant summarize the concept yourself, then you may not understand it yourself.
 
So your opinion, your 'theory,' was incorrect. I'm not interested in your opinion of their culture overall, that's just detracting from the discussion.

I just explained how my theory accommodates this. It's not my fault if you choose to ignore my reasoning.

No, not about killing baby girls but that does show how little they are valued even today. I was specific in my reply about a reference for you and the labelling of women as slaves as common practice.

I'm not familiar with the specific example you're talking about.

I provided solid examples of things that show that even the most basic mores and taboos, "morals" are not globally consistent and not always ordained by attributing them to a deity.

Now you're just making a strawman. I never said God imbued us with morality, nor that God is moral (the Bible proves the opposite, as does the sheer amount of suffering in the world).

I did say that morality is inaccurate, being based off a biological system and not a legalistic one. Everybody knows that murder is wrong, but we're all fuzzy on which killings are "murder" and which aren't. Laws have to be precise and not fuzzy. Different societies eliminate the fuzziness in different ways.

I'm not a dude

Okay, dude.

and I'm not watching a bunch of videos.

Your loss. Praise Kek.

If you cant summarize the concept yourself, then you may not understand it yourself.

I did summarize it. Twice.
 
I just explained how my theory accommodates this. It's not my fault if you choose to ignore my reasoning.

I'm not familiar with the specific example you're talking about.

Now you're just making a strawman. I never said God imbued us with morality, nor that God is moral (the Bible proves the opposite, as does the sheer amount of suffering in the world).

I did say that morality is inaccurate, being based off a biological system and not a legalistic one. Everybody knows that murder is wrong, but we're all fuzzy on which killings are "murder" and which aren't. Laws have to be precise and not fuzzy. Different societies eliminate the fuzziness in different ways.

Okay, dude.

Your loss. Praise Kek.



I did summarize it. Twice.

OK never mind. You can cling to your premise, even tho I provided examples why it's not correct.

Doesnt matter to me.

(And no, renaming it twice doesnt 'summarize' it.)
 
Back
Top Bottom