• 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!

Abortion Culture

Angel

Angel

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2017
Messages
18,001
Reaction score
2,909
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Abortion Culture
The Moral Decline of a Nation

hwjF892.jpg
​


A CULTURE is a matter of social behavior and norms, beliefs, laws, customs, and habits in human societies.

ABORTION CULTURE is the social behavior and norms, beliefs, laws, customs, and habits involved in the promotion of abortion as a way of life that has developed in the USA (and the world over) over the course of the last fifty years.

Abortion Culture is a form of moral madness that has afflicted American society, a madness brought on by radical feminist propaganda, abortion apologetics, the sexual revolution, the decline of family values, and the fundamental gullibility of humankind.


Character and Consequences​

1. Death Toll: Upwards of 50 million lives lost in 50 years, the greatest slaughter of humanity in the history of the world

2. Dehumanization of human life

3. Death sentences by committee

4. The conflation of legalism and morality

5. Radical feminist villainization of men, ostracism of men, destruction of family life

6. Vilification of anti-abortion conscientious objection

7. Rationalization of killing by way of legal fictions

8. Propaganda for unnecessary abortions

9. Politicization of morality

10. Vindication of the Culture of Narcissism



Comments?
Confessions?
Testimonials?​



qDgOah2l.jpg


Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Anti-Abortion
The only reasonable point of view​


Be sure to check out the other threads in Angel's Tetralogical Deconstruction of Abortion Culture
Abortion Apologetics
"The Unborn"
Personhood
 
Last edited:
I can certainly agree that legal obligations and moral obligations are constantly (often wrongly) equated in the abortion debate. Law is rigid, but does not necessarily convey universal moral truth, whereas moral truth, if real, would be universal. The first step would be to abolish the link between the norms and imperatives. What we are doing is not the same as what we should be doing. And for the record, appealing to the Constitution or the dictionary to define key terms ("murder", "person(hood)", "human", etc.) is simply an appeal to authority. Many of these definitions were put in place for pragmatic reasons, and within the constraints of an argument or debate, it is fine to use your own definitions, as long as you make them clear. This happens constantly in non-political debates. It is only necessary that both parties agree on a working definition for the time being.

The second step would be to agree on a common Great Goal, which I'll define to mean "something that both parties strive towards". Only then can you have a meaning discussion on ethics: If your Great Goal is to exterminate the human race, and fine is progress and flourishing, then how could we ever agree on whether genocide is moral or not, except for maybe an extreme utilitarian case? I find, on this forum, that the Great Goal among participants varies greatly, and it is quite obvious that those with opposing goals tend to disagree. Some advocate free rights for women as their Great Goal, whereas others retort to religious imperatives as the Great Goal. Unsurprisingly, they never seem to agree. If there is a significant discrepancy between these Great Goals, then you will never honestly agree.

I suppose this is more of a general note on the ethics debates, but it is certainly relevant to your case.
 
Angel said:
Abortion Culture
A CULTURE is a matter of social behavior and norms, beliefs, laws, customs, and habits in....
Be sure to check out the other threads in Angel's Tetralogical Deconstruction of Abortion Culture
Click to expand...

Be Warned...

Angel’s threads are vile and are unwelcome bait.

He is even using the DP forum to advertise his past threads.

I can feel the flush into the basement already.
 
Triton said:
I can certainly agree that legal obligations and moral obligations are constantly (often wrongly) equated in the abortion debate. Law is rigid, but does not necessarily convey universal moral truth, whereas moral truth, if real, would be universal. The first step would be to abolish the link between the norms and imperatives. What we are doing is not the same as what we should be doing. And for the record, appealing to the Constitution or the dictionary to define key terms ("murder", "person(hood)", "human", etc.) is simply an appeal to authority. Many of these definitions were put in place for pragmatic reasons, and within the constraints of an argument or debate, it is fine to use your own definitions, as long as you make them clear. This happens constantly in non-political debates. It is only necessary that both parties agree on a working definition for the time being.

The second step would be to agree on a common Great Goal, which I'll define to mean "something that both parties strive towards". Only then can you have a meaning discussion on ethics: If your Great Goal is to exterminate the human race, and fine is progress and flourishing, then how could we ever agree on whether genocide is moral or not, except for maybe an extreme utilitarian case? I find, on this forum, that the Great Goal among participants varies greatly, and it is quite obvious that those with opposing goals tend to disagree. Some advocate free rights for women as their Great Goal, whereas others retort to religious imperatives as the Great Goal. Unsurprisingly, they never seem to agree. If there is a significant discrepancy between these Great Goals, then you will never honestly agree.

I suppose this is more of a general note on the ethics debates, but it is certainly relevant to your case.
Click to expand...
Would that more posts like yours, Triton, make it into this thread/ A very thoughtful posts indeed. I particularly like the concept of the "Great Goal." Without a shared Great Goal on any issue there is not likely to be a meeting of minds, as you say. Where do people get their Great Goal on any particular issue, do you think? Is there a Great Goal in general, like happiness for example, that can serve to facilitate discussion when the particular Great Goals are at odds?
 
minnie616 said:
Be Warned...

Angel’s threads are vile and are unwelcome bait...
Click to expand...
Yes, the call to think critically about things may seem that way to those who are unaccustomed to the practice. Minnie is probably right in warning such members away from my threads. Critical thinking is often rather uncomfortable.
 
Angel said:
Would that more posts like yours, Triton, make it into this thread/ A very thoughtful posts indeed. I particularly like the concept of the "Great Goal." Without a shared Great Goal on any issue there is not likely to be a meeting of minds, as you say. Where do people get their Great Goal on any particular issue, do you think? Is there a Great Goal in general, like happiness for example, that can serve to facilitate discussion when the particular Great Goals are at odds?
Click to expand...

The problem is that happiness doesn't look the same for everyone. What makes one person happy might make you miserable. Maybe having access to abortion is essential for some people's happiness. Would you accept that?
 
Irredentist said:
The problem is that happiness doesn't look the same for everyone. What makes one person happy might make you miserable. Maybe having access to abortion is essential for some people's happiness. Would you accept that?
Click to expand...
Would you distinguish between happiness in the sense of euphoria and happiness in the sense of flourishing as a human being? For example, the happiness of a crack addict lies in the next fix, but this is happiness as euphoria, not happiness as flourishing.
 
Angel said:
Would that more posts like yours, Triton, make it into this thread/ A very thoughtful posts indeed. I particularly like the concept of the "Great Goal." Without a shared Great Goal on any issue there is not likely to be a meeting of minds, as you say. Where do people get their Great Goal on any particular issue, do you think? Is there a Great Goal in general, like happiness for example, that can serve to facilitate discussion when the particular Great Goals are at odds?
Click to expand...
I would be lying if I said that I knew for sure. Although, we can say that it is a tautology that we attempt to pursue the positive and we attempt to avoid the negative, but even then, it is not exactly a straight path, and our individual definitions of positive and negative obviously differ greatly in some respects. Anecdotally, something that seems to be more or less universally disliked is pain (in its different forms), and avoiding it thus constitutes some sort of common Great Goal, but even then, some types of pain could very well be equated to the tautological negative, and we aren't any closer than we were before. It's complex, man. Volumes are written on this issue.
 
Triton said:
I would be lying if I said that I knew for sure. Although, we can say that it is a tautology that we attempt to pursue the positive and we attempt to avoid the negative, but even then, it is not exactly a straight path, and our individual definitions of positive and negative obviously differ greatly in some respects. Anecdotally, something that seems to be more or less universally disliked is pain (in its different forms), and avoiding it thus constitutes some sort of common Great Goal, but even then, some types of pain could very well be equated to the tautological negative, and we aren't any closer than we were before. It's complex, man. Volumes are written on this issue.
Click to expand...
Avoidance of pain is certainly universal (excepting aberrant masochism). I notice you don't take the next step and include pleasure in the calculus. The pleasure-pain calculus is of course the basis of a utilitarian morality. What is we substitute life-death for the terms in a utilitarian calculus. Would that avoid the problem of "individual definitions" that you foresee in a strictly pain-avoidance calculus? What is the Great Goal is survival?
 
Angel said:
Avoidance of pain is certainly universal (excepting aberrant masochism). I notice you don't take the next step and include pleasure in the calculus. The pleasure-pain calculus is of course the basis of a utilitarian morality. What is we substitute life-death for the terms in a utilitarian calculus. Would that avoid the problem of "individual definitions" that you foresee in a strictly pain-avoidance calculus? What is the Great Goal is survival?
Click to expand...
I don't think you can necessarily equate pleasure and pain with life and death. Sometimes death is preferable to life unless you equate death with the possibility of Hell (eternal unrelenting suffering).
 
Angel said:
Would you distinguish between happiness in the sense of euphoria and happiness in the sense of flourishing as a human being? For example, the happiness of a crack addict lies in the next fix, but this is happiness as euphoria, not happiness as flourishing.
Click to expand...

I would define happiness more as a state of being, rather than a temporary pleasure such as drug use provides.
 
Triton said:
I don't think you can necessarily equate pleasure and pain with life and death. Sometimes death is preferable to life unless you equate death with the possibility of Hell (eternal unrelenting suffering).
Click to expand...
All right. But can we replace the terms without equating them? Can we agree on survival as the Great Goal universally?
 
Irredentist said:
I would define happiness more as a state of being, rather than a temporary pleasure such as drug use provides.
Click to expand...
I agree. What about flourishing? Would a flourishing state of being pass muster as happiness for you?
 
Angel said:
All right. But can we replace the terms without equating them? Can we agree on survival as the Great Goal universally?
Click to expand...
It might work well enough as a general value, but it doesn't explain suicide, severely self-destructive behavior or general devaluement of life.
 
Triton said:
It might work well enough as a general value, but it doesn't explain suicide, severely self-destructive behavior or general devaluement of life.
Click to expand...

Sure, but survival does explain most human behavior, wouldn't you agree? We can deal with the exceptions to the rule once we've fleshed out this business of survival as the universal Great Goal, no?
 
Fetuses are not unborn children.
 
Angel said:
Sure, but survival does explain most human behavior, wouldn't you agree? We can deal with the exceptions to the rule once we've fleshed out this business of survival as the universal Great Goal, no?
Click to expand...
Sure. My own survival (and thriving) is certainly part of my Great Goal and many of my life decisions are reflected by that.
 
Triton said:
Sure. My own survival (and thriving) is certainly part of my Great Goal and many of my life decisions are reflected by that.
Click to expand...
What's more, you've given us a couple of categories to work with in your earlier mention of the exceptions to the rule: "self-destructive behavior or general devaluement of life."
To wit: the self and life as value.
 
Angel said:
What's more, you've given us a couple of categories to work with in your earlier mention of the exceptions to the rule: "self-destructive behavior or general devaluement of life."
To wit: the self and life as value.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's generally understood that life can assume a value.
 
Triton said:
Yes, it's generally understood that life can assume a value.
Click to expand...
So our task then is to derive the fundamental universal Great Goal from the integrity of the self and the value of life in such a way that it overrides any differences in particular subjective Great Goals that stand in the way of fruitful discourse, as described in your initial post to this thread, yes?
 
Angel said:
So our task then is to derive the fundamental universal Great Goal from the integrity of the self and the value of life in such a way that it overrides any differences in particular subjective Great Goals that stand in the way of fruitful discourse, as described in your initial post to this thread, yes?
Click to expand...
If we derive a universal Great Goal which is true across the entire relevant demography, then you could in theory figure out what is ethically correct for that demography. No easy task, though.
 
Triton said:
If we derive a universal Great Goal which is true across the entire relevant demography, then you could in theory figure out what is ethically correct for that demography. No easy task, though.
Click to expand...
Let's sleep on it and tomorrow see what we come up with, yes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom