A fetus is not alive? Waaah?

I get your point. It's using as a basis for a moral or ethical standard that I don't agree with.

Yours is no less arbitrary than the basis for my position that humanity trumps all animals. That said, I am most definitely pro-choice. But I require no mental gymnastics to defend my position. My position doesn't require that a fetus be of less value than a puppy. And it does not require any euphamisms to hide the fact that abortion kills a living thing. My position is quite simply that I have no right to force my morality on someone else if what they are doing causes me no harm. Pretty simple really.

Of course, following that logic says that you would ALSO believe that you have no right to "force your morality" on someone in the case of other acts like murder, assault, armed robbery . . . so long as you personally weren't the victim. I'm guessing, though, that you are in favor of the law prohibiting these acts toward people other than yourself.

Actually, all that strawman bullshit doesn't follow the logic at all. Quite the contrary in fact. But I know you already know what I meant and are being intentionally obtuse, so I'm not going to bother to explain.

No straw man. You're the one who said you wanted to judge morality of actions based on whether or not they hurt YOU. Abortion doesn't hurt YOU, so you have no right to say anything about it. But those other actions don't hurt YOU either.

I know what you meant. What you meant was that you want to apply one standard of morality to abortion and another to everyone else, so that you can feel like a "nice, openminded, compassionate" person without having to give any real thought to what you're advocating. And you're "not going to bother to explain" because you can't.
 
Because we've collectively declared it so, regardless of any judgements about the implicitness. There exists no objectively measurable criteria. A decidedly gray area if you will.

There's one objectively measurable criteria. We are ourselves humans, therefore we value ourselves and our own species over others.

I don't think it's intellectually difficult to distinguish between less moral behavior that causes direct harm to your fellow man and that which does not. To suggest otherwise is, quite frankly, insulting. No offense.

But you've already said that your morality is based solely on what's good for you personally, rather than any concern for anyone else outside yourself.

I most certainly did not.

Yup, you did.
 
There's one objectively measurable criteria. We are ourselves humans, therefore we value ourselves and our own species over others.



But you've already said that your morality is based solely on what's good for you personally, rather than any concern for anyone else outside yourself.

I most certainly did not.

Yup, you did.

Link where you think I said that and I'll show you why you are wrong.


I dare you. :eusa_whistle:
 
Of course, following that logic says that you would ALSO believe that you have no right to "force your morality" on someone in the case of other acts like murder, assault, armed robbery . . . so long as you personally weren't the victim. I'm guessing, though, that you are in favor of the law prohibiting these acts toward people other than yourself.

Actually, all that strawman bullshit doesn't follow the logic at all. Quite the contrary in fact. But I know you already know what I meant and are being intentionally obtuse, so I'm not going to bother to explain.
:blahblah: ...And you're "not going to bother to explain" because you can't.

That may be true. And if so, it only means that I overestimated your comprehension level.


Wouldn't be the first time I've made that mistake here and I'll wager my life savings it won't be the last.
 
Those who no nothing about being a parent have no right to judge those who decide to abort. Abortion is the right of every woman even a childless woman may want to remain childless.

Well, I have three children and a grandchild, so I think I qualify as "noing" something about being a parent, so I guess in your eyes, I qualify to judge those who decide to abort. And I say it's wrong. How many kids have YOU given birth to, and should you be shutting your cavernous piehole at this point?

So what. I'm a parent too, and I support the right of EACH woman to decide for herself whether to continue a pregnancy or not. The only time YOU get to make the choice is when you are the woman who is pregnant. When you aren't, your opinions aren't going to matter one bit to a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant, give birth or be a mother. For anti-choicers, that's gotta burn.
 
I most certainly did not.

Yup, you did.

Link where you think I said that and I'll show you why you are wrong.


I dare you. :eusa_whistle:

Are you sure you don't want to double-dog-dare me, while you're being so mature? :rolleyes:

It was post 298 in this thread, and this is what you said:

"Yours is no less arbitrary than the basis for my position that humanity trumps all animals. That said, I am most definitely pro-choice. But I require no mental gymnastics to defend my position. My position doesn't require that a fetus be of less value than a puppy. And it does not require any euphamisms to hide the fact that abortion kills a living thing. My position is quite simply that I have no right to force my morality on someone else if what they are doing causes me no harm. Pretty simple really."

So to you, morality is all about you.

Oh, and in - I believe - your very next post, you said that it would be different if you were talking about protecting YOUR child, as opposed to someone else's child. So clearly, your morality is based solely on personal convenience.
 
Actually, all that strawman bullshit doesn't follow the logic at all. Quite the contrary in fact. But I know you already know what I meant and are being intentionally obtuse, so I'm not going to bother to explain.
:blahblah: ...And you're "not going to bother to explain" because you can't.

That may be true. And if so, it only means that I overestimated your comprehension level.


Wouldn't be the first time I've made that mistake here and I'll wager my life savings it won't be the last.

You overestimated my comprehension level by refusing to explain your position and running like a scalded dog? I don't think so, sweetie. The problem here isn't that you said something too lofty for me to understand. The problem is that I understood it and called you on it, and you can't debate unless your opponent first accepts the premise that your worldview is the true one.

So by all means, keep up these cute little attempts at saving face. They aren't working, but they're damned amusing. Go ahead, tell me again how I should have just intuitively known that your position was correct without having you explain it, and the fact that I demanded that you spell it out just means that I don't deserve an answer. That was the best laugh I've had all day. :lol:
 
Yup, you did.

Link where you think I said that and I'll show you why you are wrong.


I dare you. :eusa_whistle:

Are you sure you don't want to double-dog-dare me, while you're being so mature? :rolleyes:

It was post 298 in this thread, and this is what you said:

"Yours is no less arbitrary than the basis for my position that humanity trumps all animals. That said, I am most definitely pro-choice. But I require no mental gymnastics to defend my position. My position doesn't require that a fetus be of less value than a puppy. And it does not require any euphamisms to hide the fact that abortion kills a living thing. My position is quite simply that I have no right to force my morality on someone else if what they are doing causes me no harm. Pretty simple really."

So to you, morality is all about you. Oh, and in - I believe - your very next post, you said that it would be different if you were talking about protecting YOUR child, as opposed to someone else's child. So clearly, your morality is based solely on personal convenience.

Again, so what. Not every woman wants to be pregnant, give birth or be a mother. Which simply means you can't FORCE her to give birth if she doesn't want to be pregnant.
 
Fetus meets all the criteria for life

en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Life

A fetus is human and distinctly o

therefore, a fetus is a distinct human life with all the protections stemming therefrom
 
Fetus meets all the criteria for life

en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Life

A fetus is human and distinctly o

therefore, a fetus is a distinct human life with all the protections stemming therefrom

Just out of curiosity......if there is no nervous system in the embryo (doesn't happen until after 40 days btw), then how in the fuck can you POSSIBLY consider it "human"?

Calling an embryo (without a nervous system) "human" is almost as stupid as believing in the right to life of each individual sperm and egg.

Sorry......but a couple of pistons and a steering wheel alone don't make a car.
 
Look up the definition of 'human' it Is the genome that determines the species of life. If I were to sever your spinal cord at the brainstem, then- when combined with your obvious lack of a brain- yuou would have no nervous system. Since you're no longer a human, am I free to do with you as I wish?

Life and Sentience are two different things. I wonder if many of your ilk could pass the Turing test.

Because i know it's coming, the argument of 'viability' breaks down. if the right to life is determined by self-sustenance, one is not alive until one if 5-8 years old. Ne2born children, the elderly, and the sick all fail to survive without care. hell, we all fail to survive as soon as we lose earth- no life is viable outside of the bioshpere
 
No.......in order to do what you propose, you would have to remove ALL nerves (including the brain) from the body.

Then....it's no longer "human". As long as the brain is active, and the body's nervous system is capable of supporting life, they are still "human".
 
You're not human y my definition, anyway. You lack the ability to reason, so you aere clearly ot intelligent life. Humans are intelligent life. Erego, you are not a human

See, I can make up definitions, just like you.


Back to reality, though, did you know your hair is human, even though it doesn't have a nervous system?
 
You couldn't possibly be more wrong, no offense. You are comparing apples to oil filters.

False assumptions about a geocentric solar system, for example, can be disproven by factual evidence. Good luck finding any factual evidence that disproves the general opinion that humans are worth more than ants. You're better off sticking with things like slavery. At least that's in the ball park.

This is not an entirely accurate depiction of ethical analysis. Moral reasoning, is not, as inaccurately understood, based on subjective speculation. Rather, it is based on the use of arguments to support an ethical statement. Hence, "factual evidence" can have an entirely pertinent bearing on moral reasoning also.

Sure, it's possible that, like slavery, people eventually and collectively decide that ants should be given equal consideration to humans, but I wouldn't bet on it.

A mere majority opinion of a doctrine has no bearing on morality. As previously mentioned, this is a logical fallacy known as the argumentum ad populum, or the "appeal to the people."

It is if public policy is to ensure the survival of the species, no? I don't think you can compare public policy with the wants of one particular parent.

We can if our focus is on the nature of subjectivity as opposed to objectivity. Return to the example of racial distinctions if that example is preferable.

I don't believe that other species have any bearing on what we do with our own species when it comes to abortion...or anything much else but an overall attempt to ensure a balance in nature.

There's not been a defense of even making irrelevant distinctions of species between beings with similar levels of sentience and self-awareness offered in this thread.

{rambling imbecility)

Actually, you're laughing at yourself, considering that you've revealed your extensive ignorance of ethics even further. Whilst your copying and pasting is very impressive (;)), I'm afraid it has no conceivable relevance to the topic at hand, which you would have at least a dim comprehension of were you aware of Kantianism's focus on the "rational agent." You've also still not presented an argument in support of your original statements.

In short, your incoherent idiocy has grown rather tiresome.
 
You're not human y my definition, anyway. You lack the ability to reason, so you aere clearly ot intelligent life. Humans are intelligent life. Erego, you are not a human

See, I can make up definitions, just like you.


Back to reality, though, did you know your hair is human, even though it doesn't have a nervous system?

You make up a lot of shit dirtbag.......some of the shit you were making up (your own definition of the rules) was fun to watch when Shogun stomped a mudhole in your tender newby ass.
 
Actually, you're laughing at yourself, considering that you've revealed your extensive ignorance of ethics even further. Whilst your copying and pasting is very impressive (), I'm afraid it has no conceivable relevance to the topic at hand, which you would have at least a dim comprehension of were you aware of Kantianism's focus on the "rational agent." You've also still not presented an argument in support of your original statements.

In short, your incoherent idiocy has grown rather tiresome.




riiight right... because when ethicists use any given ethical paradigm it's not THEIR PERSONAL RATIONAL AGENT SELVES THAT ARE MAKING THE ETHICAL DECISIONS AT ALL! No no.. it's the subject, ITSELF! :rofl: Here, let me get comfy so I can really drive this point home, motherfucker..

A fetus is not THE rational agent making the ethical choices, fuck nugget. Period. Point. Blank. No more with Kantian paradigms than with utilitarian paradigms. How much utility does a fucking BABY MONKEY or FETUS assign to THEMSELVES, you dumb fuck? They don't. Because YOU are the one using utilitarianism just like I am the one using Kantianism. What IS fucking funnier than shit though is that you'd even dive into this shallow tangent for the sake of a bullshit strawman defense anyway. For real, dude. Did you think Utilitarianism is the ONLY ethical philosophy? Did you think that accusing someone of copying and pasting deflects how fucking HILARIOUS it is to see your otherwise loquacious self, instead of clarifying an error, pretty much pull a peewee herman style "nuh HUH!"? :rofl: You've been fucking punked, dude. YOU know it. I know it. and, now that I know who you are, pedobear, it makes a whole lot of sense why you keep eating a giant spoonful of Fail.




ps... it's fucking hilarious that you needed to disguise yourself behind another account, dude.. Lemme guess.. this is the kind of thing you HAVE to do after making your customary "adults should fuck children" speech at a new forum, eh?
 
You're not human y my definition, anyway. You lack the ability to reason, so you aere clearly ot intelligent life. Humans are intelligent life. Erego, you are not a human

See, I can make up definitions, just like you.


Back to reality, though, did you know your hair is human, even though it doesn't have a nervous system?

You make up a lot of shit dirtbag.......some of the shit you were making up (your own definition of the rules) was fun to watch when Shogun stomped a mudhole in your tender newby ass.

Shogun brand Mudholes:

Like a crater-licious donkey punch from god

(theme song)
Deep and wide
Deep and wide
There's a MUDHOLE STOMPED deep and wide
Deep and wide
Deep and wide
There's a MUDHOLE STOMPED deep and wide
 
What's the definition of a PIZZA PIE? An ABORTION on TOAST !!!



hahahahahahahahahahahahahaaha
 

Forum List

Back
Top