Roe v Wade is on deck

[Lion IRC]

Well, in that case, like any threat to the unborn baby's life, we have a moral obligation to act.

Where did this "moral obligation" come from?

From a belief that we are obliged to act morally - I'm a moral realist.

I think there are things which are objectively wrong notwithstanding the fact that there exist people who claim those things aren't really wrong.

I'm told that most atheist philosophers are also moral realists.

Do Atheists Need a Moral Theory to be Moral Realists? » Internet Infidels

Despite the power and influence of the Euthyphro dilemma, many apologists maintain that theism alone has the resources to account for objective moral properties. These authors dispute the commonly held view that the argument of the Euthyphro demonstrates that morality must be independent of God...

infidels.org

 

[Lion IRC]

It is frankly none of your business what someone decides to do with their body.

That's the argument right there in a nutshell.
Not only do I think it's my business to argue against abortion, I think it's my moral obligation.

Why?

Because there is an innocent human whose life is at stake. Is that enough of a reason?

Whose?

Don't make me start posting graphic content.

 

[ZiprHead]

Well, in that case, like any threat to the unborn baby's life, we have a moral obligation to act.

Where did this "moral obligation" come from?

From a belief that we are obliged to act morally - I'm a moral realist.

I think there are things which are objectively wrong notwithstanding the fact that there exist people who claim those things aren't really wrong.

What makes your idea of objectively wrong better than the idea of those who think it's not wrong?

 

[Ford]

Well, in that case, like any threat to the unborn baby's life, we have a moral obligation to act.

Where did this "moral obligation" come from?

From a belief that we are obliged to act morally - I'm a moral realist.

You keep missing the point, don't you? You can act as morally as you want in your own life.

You cannot force others to act as morally as you want in their life.

Yet that is exactly what you want to do. You are demanding that some women be forced to use contraception (which you think - wrongly - fails half of the time), and if it fails or they don't want to use it, must be forced to bear a pregnancy to term.

You want to impose YOUR will on others, and what THEY want means nothing to you.

You have no right to do this. I mean, if I were a Mormon, and considered it my "moral obligation" to not drink caffeinated beverages, would that give me the right to walk up to you and smack a Diet Coke out of your hand?

 

[Lion IRC]

Well, in that case, like any threat to the unborn baby's life, we have a moral obligation to act.

Where did this "moral obligation" come from?

From a belief that we are obliged to act morally - I'm a moral realist.

I think there are things which are objectively wrong notwithstanding the fact that there exist people who claim those things aren't really wrong.

What makes your idea of objectively wrong better than the idea of those who think it's not wrong?

Start a thread in the philosophy sub forum and find out.

...I mean if you're sufficiently bored to start a discussion with a biblical theist about objective moral ontology and euthyphro and moral compasses, and whether you need God to be good and transcendental arguments for God and I'm sure the holocaust will come up eventually as well as biblical slavery and whether pedophile clergy are secretly atheists.

 

[ZiprHead]

Well, in that case, like any threat to the unborn baby's life, we have a moral obligation to act.

Where did this "moral obligation" come from?

From a belief that we are obliged to act morally - I'm a moral realist.

I think there are things which are objectively wrong notwithstanding the fact that there exist people who claim those things aren't really wrong.

What makes your idea of objectively wrong better than the idea of those who think it's not wrong?

Start a thread in the philosophy sub forum and find out.

No.

...I mean if you're sufficiently bored to start a discussion with a biblical theist about objective moral ontology and euthyphro and moral compasses, and whether you need God to be good and transcendental arguments for God and I'm sure the holocaust will come up eventually as well as biblical slavery and whether pedophile clergy are secretly atheists.

Stop the fucking dodge. Answer the simple question.

 

[ZiprHead]

Louisiana governor signs bill making two abortion drugs controlled dangerous substances

The measure affects the drugs mifepristone and misoprostol, which are used in medication abortions, the most common method of abortion in the U.S..

www.opb.org

First-of-its-kind legislation that classifies two abortion-inducing drugs as controlled and dangerous substances was signed into law Friday by Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry.

The Republican governor announced his signing of the bill in Baton Rouge a day after it gained final legislative passage in the state Senate.

The measure affects the drugs mifepristone and misoprostol, which are used in medication abortions, the most common method of abortion in the U.S..

Opponents of the bill included many physicians who said the drugs have other critical reproductive health care uses, and that changing the classification could make it harder to prescribe the medications.

Supporters of the bill said it would protect expectant mothers from coerced abortions, though they cited only one example of that happening, in the state of Texas.

The bill passed as abortion opponents await a final decision from the U.S. Supreme Court on an effort to restrict access to mifepristone.

The classification would require doctors to have a specific license to prescribe the drugs, and the drugs would have to be stored in certain facilities that in some cases could end up being located far from rural clinics.

In addition to inducing abortions, mifepristone and misoprostol have other common uses, such as treating miscarriages, inducing labor and stopping hemorrhaging.

More than 200 doctors in the state signed a letter to lawmakers warning that the measure could produce a "barrier to physicians' ease of prescribing appropriate treatment" and cause unnecessary fear and confusion among both patients and doctors. The physicians warn that any delay to obtaining the drugs could lead to worsening outcomes in a state that has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the country.

 

[Toni]

It is frankly none of your business what someone decides to do with their body.

That's the argument right there in a nutshell.
Not only do I think it's my business to argue against abortion, I think it's my moral obligation.

Why?

Because there is an innocent human whose life is at stake. Is that enough of a reason?

Whose?

Don't make me start posting graphic content.

Really? Afraid I might be squeamish? Sorry, but. Not only do I have a degree in biology but I’ve had years and years of lab experience, including dissection, years of cleaning fish and game and yep, I’ve given birth to four children and have helped a number of people recover from surgeries.

Don’t attempt to play gross out with me.

 

[bilby]

I think there are things which are objectively wrong

You are incorrect to think this; It is logically unsupportable*.

Objectivity deals with what is; Morality deals with how things should be. You cannot derive the one from the other.

The problem with the idea of a purely objective morality is that the people who are the most sure that such a thing exists, cannot agree on what that objective morality actually is, making any claim of objective morality wholly subjective to the person making the claim.

I understand that the idea that there are no objective rules that must be obeyed by everyone at all times can be utterly terrifying; But unfortunately, reality is under no obligation whatsoever to avoid scaring simpletons.

It might help for you to consider the fact that there are many widely agreed moral and ethical rules for humans, which (though ultimately subjective) are shared due to our evolutionary and cultural history; However many of the "big questions" don't fall into this category, and are hotly disputed.

In short, if morality were objective, and abortion were objectively immoral, it should be fairly easy to prove that this was the case. That not only you, but everyone else in history who has argued your position, has failed to come up with such a proof, strongly suggests that no such proof is possible.

Humanity can't even agree on a single set of universal rules for when it is permissible to kill adult humans.

*As is most of your thinking, if your posting history on this board is any guide.

 

[Lion IRC]

You keep missing the point, don't you? You can act as morally as you want in your own life.

That's not "the point".
That's just your opinion.

You cannot force others to act as morally as you want in their life.

I'm pretty sure democracy functions exactly in this way - telling people what they can and can't do in their life.

If I'm not mistaken pedophiles are almost universally told by others what they can't do in their life. Paedophilia, like abortion, is yet another form of child abuse by people who think they can do what they like with children.

I would even go so far as to say the abortion industry desensitizes some people into believing that child welfare doesn't matter so much.

We aren't that far removed in time from a Dickensian era when children were treated as simultaneously usable and disposable.

Yet that is exactly what you want to do. You are demanding that some women be forced to use contraception (which you think - wrongly - fails half of the time), and if it fails or they don't want to use it, must be forced to bear a pregnancy to term.

I thought we were talking about women who don't want to get pregnant and don't want to have an abortion but are unable to stop themselves.

Such women should be helped with mandatory interventions - for their own benefit - to help them avoid inintended pregnancy. (With the coincidental benefit of preventing unwanted abortions.)

Now, if we are talking about educated, modern women living in the wealthiest country on earth, who ARE capable of avoiding inintended pregnancy but neglect to do so, then I think the State is entitled to say to them, NO - you can't kill your unborn baby.

You have to take responsibility for the consequences of your own actions - not try to evade them by imposing an even more severe consequence on an innocent human being.

You want to impose YOUR will on others, and what THEY want means nothing to you.

What they want - to kill an innocent unborn baby - means absolutely everything in this debate.

If it meant nothing to me, I wouldn't care what they want.

You have no right to do this.

I can do whatever I please and I'm not asking anyone for permission to speak. Least of all permission from the people who think theres some automatic default entitlement to kill unborn babies without being challenged.

I don't accept there's a supposed 'right' to do so.

I mean, if I were a Mormon, and considered it my "moral obligation" to [...] smack a Diet Coke out of your hand...

If you think it's your moral obligation and you DONT do so that would make you a gutless hypocrite.

If the State made it illegal to disagree with abortion on demand, I would continue to act according to my moral obligation.

...but that's because 'legal' doesn't equal 'moral'.

 

[bilby]

It is frankly none of your business what someone decides to do with their body.

That's the argument right there in a nutshell.
Not only do I think it's my business to argue against abortion, I think it's my moral obligation.

Why?

Because there is an innocent human whose life is at stake. Is that enough of a reason?

Whose?

Don't make me start posting graphic content.

Reasoning doesn't require graphic content. What you are contemplating is an appeal to emotion, and such an appeal would be wrong because it's logically fallacious, rather than because of its being graphic, confronting, or shocking.

And a picture of a fetus is not only unreasonable as an argument; It's also disingenuous.

Show

 

[bilby]

I'm pretty sure democracy functions exactly in this way - telling people what they can and can't do in their life.

I'm pretty sure that democracy is an attempt to prevent any one person from telling people what they can and can't do in their life.

It isn't very good at it, but as they say, it's the worst way to run a country, apart from all of the others.

 

[Lion IRC]

Well, in that case, like any threat to the unborn baby's life, we have a moral obligation to act.

Where did this "moral obligation" come from?

From a belief that we are obliged to act morally - I'm a moral realist.

I think there are things which are objectively wrong notwithstanding the fact that there exist people who claim those things aren't really wrong.

What makes your idea of objectively wrong better than the idea of those who think it's not wrong?

Start a thread in the philosophy sub forum and find out.

No.

...I mean if you're sufficiently bored to start a discussion with a biblical theist about objective moral ontology and euthyphro and moral compasses, and whether you need God to be good and transcendental arguments for God and I'm sure the holocaust will come up eventually as well as biblical slavery and whether pedophile clergy are secretly atheists.

Stop the fucking dodge. Answer the simple question.

Seems like you're the one who dodged the issue.

I invited you to start a thread in the philosophy sub forum and you said "no".

If you can get a Mod to explicitly approve a derail right here in this thread I'll happily embark on a journey of discovery exploring what makes my idea of "objectively wrong" better than the idea of those who think it's not wrong.

An exploration traversing objective moral ontology and euthyphro and moral compasses, and whether you need God to be good and transcendental arguments for God and I'm sure the holocaust will come up eventually as well as biblical slavery and whether pedophile clergy are secretly atheists....

 

[Lion IRC]

It is frankly none of your business what someone decides to do with their body.

That's the argument right there in a nutshell.
Not only do I think it's my business to argue against abortion, I think it's my moral obligation.

Why?

Because there is an innocent human whose life is at stake. Is that enough of a reason?

Whose?

Don't make me start posting graphic content.

Really? Afraid I might be squeamish?

No. You asked a question as if you werent clear about whose life pro-lifers are concerned about. I didn't think I'd have to draw you a picture to help you understand.

Sorry, but. Not only do I have a degree in biology but I’ve had years and years of lab experience, including dissection, years of cleaning fish and game and yep, I’ve given birth to four children and have helped a number of people recover from surgeries.

Don’t attempt to play gross out with me.

I'll take it as read that pictures of mutilated, aborted human bodies don't move you emotionally.

 

[Ford]

You keep missing the point, don't you? You can act as morally as you want in your own life.

That's not "the point".
That's just your opinion.

You almost had it when you said "that's just your opinion."

You're essentially insisting that YOUR opinion is the correct one, and everyone else must follow it.

As for democracy, I'd agree with Bilby, but add that here in 'Murica, we don't have a pure democracy. We have a democratic republic, where a simple majority is not enough to impose an opinion on the rest of society. It wasn't so long ago that a clear majority of Americans felt that black people should be kept as second class citizens. But then that whole "Constitution" thing got in the way.

I'm gonna snip out most of your hyperbole, and focus on this bonkers bit:

I thought we were talking about women who don't want to get pregnant and don't want to have an abortion but are unable to stop themselves.

Such women should be helped with mandatory interventions - for their own benefit - to help them avoid inintended pregnancy. (With the coincidental benefit of preventing unwanted abortions.)

(emphasis added)


You really, really do think women are inferior beings, don't you? "Oh, you poor dear. You think you don't want that unintended pregnancy? You're wrong, and I should know, because I'm a man. Let me help you by intervening in your life and forcing you to carry that little bundle of joy to term. You stupid, stupid woman. Why did you think you could oppose what I want for you?"

Yet again - as the wise philosopher The Dude said - "yeah, well that's just your opinion, man."

 

[Lion IRC]

Actually god gave the priests instruction on performing an abortion in the test for the unfaithful wife in Numbers.

Is that true, @Lion IRC ?
I’m SHOCKED!

Its not true. You can relax now.

What the hell was He thinking, murdering an unborn child? Right, Lion?

Wrong.
That's not true.
You can relax.

And in any case, you dont need the bible to be opposed to abortion.

There's more than enough secular arguments against abortion to allow non-theists into the pro-life lobby.

Neither does being a woman prevent you from thinking it's wrong to kill unborn babies.

Neither does being a man prevent you from asserting a position on abortion. (Most abortion practitioners are men last time I checked.)

 

[Toni]

It is frankly none of your business what someone decides to do with their body.

That's the argument right there in a nutshell.
Not only do I think it's my business to argue against abortion, I think it's my moral obligation.

Why?

Because there is an innocent human whose life is at stake. Is that enough of a reason?

Whose?

Don't make me start posting graphic content.

Really? Afraid I might be squeamish?

No. You asked a question as if you werent clear about whose life pro-lifers are concerned about. I didn't think I'd have to draw you a picture to help you understand.

Sorry, but. Not only do I have a degree in biology but I’ve had years and years of lab experience, including dissection, years of cleaning fish and game and yep, I’ve given birth to four children and have helped a number of people recover from surgeries.

Don’t attempt to play gross out with me.

I'll take it as read that pictures of mutilated, aborted human bodies don't move you emotionally.

No: I don’t think you are clear at all about who it is the pro-forced birthers want to ‘save.’ Or why.

 

[ZiprHead]

Well, in that case, like any threat to the unborn baby's life, we have a moral obligation to act.

Where did this "moral obligation" come from?

From a belief that we are obliged to act morally - I'm a moral realist.

I think there are things which are objectively wrong notwithstanding the fact that there exist people who claim those things aren't really wrong.

What makes your idea of objectively wrong better than the idea of those who think it's not wrong?

Start a thread in the philosophy sub forum and find out.

No.

...I mean if you're sufficiently bored to start a discussion with a biblical theist about objective moral ontology and euthyphro and moral compasses, and whether you need God to be good and transcendental arguments for God and I'm sure the holocaust will come up eventually as well as biblical slavery and whether pedophile clergy are secretly atheists.

Stop the fucking dodge. Answer the simple question.

Seems like you're the one who dodged the issue.

I invited you to start a thread in the philosophy sub forum and you said "no".

If you can get a Mod to explicitly approve a derail right here in this thread I'll happily embark on a journey of discovery exploring what makes my idea of "objectively wrong" better than the idea of those who think it's not wrong.

An exploration traversing objective moral ontology and euthyphro and moral compasses, and whether you need God to be good and transcendental arguments for God and I'm sure the holocaust will come up eventually as well as biblical slavery and whether pedophile clergy are secretly atheists....

Answer the question: what makes your idea of morality on the subject of abortion better than someone elses?

 

[ZiprHead]

Actually god gave the priests instruction on performing an abortion in the test for the unfaithful wife in Numbers.

Is that true, @Lion IRC ?
I’m SHOCKED!

Its not true. You can relax now.

Here it is from Numbers:

And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled; Or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him, and he be jealous over his wife, and shall set the woman before the LORD, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law. Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity.5:27-31

According to the NIV the belly swell and thigh rot means "cause you to be barren and have a miscarrying womb."

 

[Lion IRC]

You're essentially insisting that YOUR opinion is the correct one, and everyone else must follow it.

No. That would be special pleading.

If I'm not asking anyone for permission to speak I'm not going to assert that my opponent needs my permission to put a contrary position.

If I'm not going to accept abortion lobby polemics I don't assert that they MUST defer to my polemics.

But if I am part of a democratic process which allows me and others who agree with me to create laws which represent the collective will of the people - The State - then I'm going to do exactly what my opponents would do if they had their way.

In the United States it is a simple fact that the democratic legislated will of the majority PREVENTS abortion on-demand at any time.

The abortion lobby's position is that this should be legal. It's not. Moreover, public opinion is shifting in the direction of pro-lifers. The gestational of viability is winding back. Heartbeat bills. Response to external stimulii (pain). These (scientific issues) are increasingly informing the political/legislative process.