• 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!

[W:560] Abortion 101

Lursa said:
Who says?

Source?

Who knows, there may be some philosophy somewhere that says that....let's see it.
Click to expand...

This is the view of moral realism.

The Definition of Morality
“Morality”, when used in a descriptive sense, has an important feature that “morality” in the normative sense does not have: a feature that stems from its relational nature. This feature is the following: that if one is not a member of the relevant society or group, or is not the relevant individual, then accepting a certain account of the content of morality, in the descriptive sense, has no implications for how one should behave. On the other hand, if one accepts a moral theory’s account of moral agents, and the specifications of the conditions under which all moral agents would endorse a code of conduct as a moral code, then one accepts that moral theory’s normative definition of “morality”. Accepting an account of “morality” in the normative sense commits one to regarding some behavior as immoral, perhaps even behavior that one is tempted to perform.

Those who use “morality” normatively hold that morality is (or would be) the code that meets the following condition: all rational persons, under certain specified conditions, would endorse it. Indeed, this is a plausible basic schema for definitions of “morality” in the normative sense. Although some hold that no code could meet the condition, many theorists hold that there is one that does; we can call the former “moral skeptics” and the latter “moral realists”.
Click to expand...
The Definition of Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

And see moral intuitionism as well:
Intuitionism in Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
This is the view of moral realism.

The Definition of Morality

The Definition of Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Click to expand...

So it is one theory then. One which you follow.

Those who use “morality” normatively hold that morality is (or would be) the code that meets the following condition: all rational persons, under certain specified conditions, would endorse it. Indeed, this is a plausible basic schema for definitions of “morality” in the normative sense. Although some hold that no code could meet the condition, many theorists hold that there is one that does; we can call the former “moral skeptics” and the latter “moral realists”.
The Definition of Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Click to expand...

Certainly, abortion is tough to nail down like that, as is killing of any kind.

Is killing always murder? Is it ever justifiable? No moral consensus on that...many people hold different views on that for war, self-defense, abortion, assisted suicide.

Even looking at abortion...widespread disagreement on when it's acceptable during the pregnancy, if it's acceptable after rape, if it's acceptable to preserve the mother's life and health and if so, to what degree....etc etc etc.

So I'd say that while you are welcome to hold that particular theory in philosophy dear, it's not something I find true or even useful in reality.
 
Angel said:
There is no such implication. Moral intuitions may differ, but if the moral agent does not feel universally bound, then it's not a moral intuition, but a personal predilection.
The "implication" you find in the OP is read into the OP by you.
Click to expand...
Um no...re-reading it, my statement still stands.
 
Angel said:
People often cling to mistaken views out of pride, close-mindedness, lack of critical thinking, etc.
Click to expand...

Yes...I hope you keep that in mind the next time you post a blog and then try to shut down all the commenters that dont agree with you.
 
Lursa said:
Yes...I hope you keep that in mind the next time you post a blog and then try to shut down all the commenters that dont agree with you.
Click to expand...
Were you a fan of Pee Wee Herman? I'm surprised.
 
Lursa said:
Um no...re-reading it, my statement still stands.
Click to expand...
Angel said:
People often cling to mistaken views out of pride, close-mindedness, lack of critical thinking, etc.
Click to expand...
Lursa said:
Yes...I hope you keep that in mind the next time you post a blog and then try to shut down all the commenters that dont agree with you.
Click to expand...
Angel said:
Were you a fan of Pee Wee Herman? I'm surprised.
Click to expand...
Lursa said:
"This does not compute"
Click to expand...
I'm not surprised by that.
 
Angel said:
I'm not surprised by that.
Click to expand...
I am! I'd think you above some nonsense about a low-brow comedian with a reputation for perversion....but who knew? It's your jollies.
 
Lursa said:
I am! I'd think you above some nonsense about a low-brow comedian with a reputation for perversion....but who knew? It's your jollies.
Click to expand...
Pee Wee Herman was not "a low-brow comedian with a a reputation for perversion"; Pee Wee Herman was a fictional character. I guess that didn't compute either.
I'm starting to understand why you had such difficulty understanding the OP.
 
Angel said:
Pee Wee Herman was not "a low-brow comedian with a a reputation for perversion"; Pee Wee Herman was a fictional character. I guess that didn't compute either.
I'm starting to understand why you had such difficulty understanding the OP.
Click to expand...

I gladly admit that you know more about that character...who's low-brow comedy and perversions apparently were attractive to you.
 
Lursa said:
I gladly admit that you know more about that character...who's low-brow comedy and perversions apparently were attractive to you.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I don't doubt your capacity for sarcasm; just your capacity for understanding.
Have a nice evening.
 
Northern Light said:
Ok now we're getting really semantic.

Consent to sex is consent to risk of pregnancy, but not consent to pregnancy. Does that make sense?
Click to expand...
Did you not read the second part of that post?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
Keridan said:
Your analogy leaves out the fact that you gave that person the disease and put them in a position where their life is completely dependent on you. You made choices knowing you might give this disease to someone and that a possible consequence would be them being utterly dependent on you to live.

Changes the formula a bit.
Click to expand...

I will say at first I thought you misread my example, but I think that you are trying to equate giving the person the disease with getting pregnant to make the analogy more complete. Is that correct?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
I will say at first I thought you misread my example, but I think that you are trying to equate giving the person the disease with getting pregnant to make the analogy more complete. Is that correct?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes. Essentially, I'm saying that it isn't some random person off the street with a disease you are being forced to make sacrifices to treat. Your choices led to them being the position where they needed the treatment.

I'm not saying your analogy is bad, but if you are making a moral argument, it stands to reason that you should acknowledge choices made that created the situation.
 
Keridan said:
Yes. Essentially, I'm saying that it isn't some random person off the street with a disease you are being forced to make sacrifices to treat. Your choices led to them being the position where they needed the treatment.

I'm not saying your analogy is bad, but if you are making a moral argument, it stands to reason that you should acknowledge choices made that created the situation.
Click to expand...
The second part of the analogy effectively does that. By volunteering to initially provide the treatment the same point is achieved. And the ability to withdraw is still within ones rights and is about bodily autonomy.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
The second part of the analogy effectively does that. By volunteering to initially provide the treatment the same point is achieved. And the ability to withdraw is still within ones rights and is about bodily autonomy.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I have to disagree about the second point being the same thing. Agreeing to care for a random individual is not the same as taking responsibility for giving a life-threatening disease to a person.

You would not go to jail for failing to save someone at risk because of someone else due to believing the risk was too great to yourself. You would go to jail if you were the person endangering their life in the first place and then felt the risk was too great to save them from the situation you created.

I don't think women should go to jail for abortions. I am pro-life in the sense that I think it is morally reprehensible in a majority of situations to end a life.

A woman who is raped shouldn't be forced to have her life or next 10 months at least be ruled by what is likely the worst moment of her life. A woman whose life is in unreasonable danger shouldn't be forced to carry to term.

So much time and energy is spent by pro-choice folks trying to absolve women of the blame for ending a life. Whether it's autonomy or pretending it's just a clump of cells and not a real person or claiming it's some sort of slavery where the victim is the mother. It's all treating the situation as if there is only one life that matters. There are at least 2 real people involved in the decision and, personally, I think the father should at least be considered, too.

I'm not saying dump Roe V Wade or punish the women, but I really hate it when an act that is ending a life is treated like having a tumor removed. Once the DNA is mapped and genetics started down the path that would naturally lead to a person if not interrupted by this procedure, it should be considered that there are now 2 people involved.

I think we'd see a lot fewer abortions and maybe fewer unwanted pregnancies if it was just treated with the weight it deserves.
 
Hmm.
I posted a milestone post here, but am thinking that a separate thread may be in order at this point.
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
The Argument

The taking of a human life for any reason other than self-defense is immoral.

Except where the pregnant woman's life is at risk, abortion is immoral.

But human beings have a right to be immoral.

Therefore women have a right to be immoral.

Therefore women have a right to abort pregnancies.

​

That's the issue settled morally.
Morally, one may be both pro-life and pro-choice.

The legal settlement of the issue is another matter.
The legal settlement of the issue is political.
The political question is how, as a society, to rationalize the taking of human life in abortion as a legal right.
Click to expand...

Taking a person's life other than to protect yourself or your loved one can be immoral and illegal.

abortion is not immoral when it happens early in the pregnancy or when it is done to save the life of the mother or if the fetus is so deformed that it will be incompatible with sustained life.

people have very different views of what immoral is, that totally depends on people's definition of what people think is immoral, abortion in my view is not immoral but I do agree with you that people have the right to be immoral to a certain degree.

women have the same right that men have to be immoral to a certain degree.

Women always have the right to abort a ZEF early in the pregnancy.
 
minnie616 said:
Actually the vast majority of Jewish clergy and members believe in God but also believe that life begins with live birth as does a large segment of Protestant religions.

In fact the Supreme Court recognized our sincere beliefs when they decided Roe v Wade.

From part IX of Roe v Wade:
Click to expand...

Angel said:
"Human life" is not a matter of a poll; it's a matter of DNA.
Click to expand...

I was posting about sincere religious beliefs not a poll.


Here is a <SNIP> from an article about soul competency.

From a Huffington Post article:

Most Women Under 40 Haven’t Heard the Pro-choice Moral Argument



Our faith tradition teaches soul competency, a Baptist principle that is violated in restricting the right to choose an abortion.
Our forebears suffered greatly, even to the point of death, to express their conviction that no one stands between the individual and God.

Furthermore, it is a it is God-given right to hold your own belief and to reject state-sponsored religion.

This is the core Baptist principle of soul competency -- belief in the ability of each person to "rightly divide the word of God" (2 Timothy 2: 15) and act accordingly.

Each person and each community of believers has the right to follow the dictates of their conscience, without compulsion from authoritative structures.
Therefore, current legislation restricting women's reproductive choice also restricts moral choice.

To restrict a woman's choice is to refuse her soul freedom.
Click to expand...

Read more:

Most Women Under 40 Haven't Heard the Pro-choice Moral Argument | HuffPost
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
No, if you decide something is immoral, you decide this for everybody. Otherwise morality is meaningless.
Click to expand...

Nope if for example you decide homosexuality is immoral it doesnt mean anyone else has to decide homosexuality is immoral
 
Angel said:
subjective, adj.
1.1 Dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.
objective, adj.
1.1 Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.
subjective | Definition of subjective in English by Oxford Dictionaries
objective | Definition of objective in English by Oxford Dictionaries
Click to expand...
True
But everything is dependent on the mind or on perception
Click to expand...
False and absurdly so


[Therefore, everything is subjective.
What we choose to call "objective" are so called by way of inference and argument, but in actuality is inescapably subjective.
Click to expand...
False because your claim that everything is dependent on the mind or on perception is absurdly false
The distance between Points A and B doenst cease to exist just because no one is there to percieve it.
A rock exists outside your mind. Kepler 186F existed before any mind percieved it and its size, mass, orbit etc all existed before it was discovered.
Now back to your failed OP
If morality is subjective(which you admit) then the morality cannot be settled.
 
Lursa said:
The implication he's making is that if you dont agree with his morality, you dont have 'a moral heart and mind.'
Click to expand...

Nah he just thinks his are the correct ones and others have been led astray by their lack of beleif in his version of God (which he will never define because that woudl box him in)
He is increadibly arrogant in his ignorance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom