Abortion

[SuperBowser]

Why can't you just make a point without a scenario? Your scenarios are long-winded and just cloud the discussion when you introduce 5 of them at the same time. There's no need for them; I'm not a 6 year old that needs the whole world broken down into stories. I don't agree with the words you have chosen again - it is not always the woman's fault if she is pregnant, so you shouldn't be saying it is. It just confuses the discussion.

As I already said, the difference in your example is that baby is already a separate entity with its own rights. You cannot just pick up somebody's baby and do what you like with it.

But yes. You just summarized my argument. That is how the law currently is. In an ideal world abortion wouldn't exist. But in the world we live in, you have to look at the owner's rights first.

Just to give you a real world example: When a full term mother is in a medical crisis, the medical management is primarily to serve her first not the soon-to-be-born baby. Obviously, when medications can be used that do not harm the baby, they are preferrable. But rarely there are situations that this is not the case. The mother's rights trump the fetus'.

 

[Sieguest]

I stated that wrong. I don't deliberately rebell against my culture, because I would be in fact doing what you've said. What I do is make sure that none of my convictions are purely a result of my culture. If some of my convictions are in agreeance with those of the culture, then that is fine, as long i odn't have them simply because of the culture itself. So no I'm not really influenced by the culture.

Fair enough, I'm skeptical due to the impressionability one has in his/her infant stages from their parents, but I consider that as one matures they can develop their own ideas. Correct?

It's not a universal belief, but it is universal in the sense that in believing it, you are conceding that your personal logic does not suffice for the acquisition of true knowledge, so instead you are applying to a universal grouding for belief.

So about those who choose not to believe in it, or do not believe in these natural laws you've put forward? How can you explain having an objective truth. If there are so many "truths" in existence?

The difference is though is that relativism emerges as appeals to one's own logic. There are several theories which transcend culture, but because natural theory is an attempt to live naturely, through natural inclinations, the fact that it does transcend cultures suggests that these natural inclinations and goods do exist.

This still doesn't account for those who disagree with these natural goods.
Those who believe sex is the original sin. Those who have sworn to celibacy. They're are not inclined to have sex, because it is against their belifs. Their "truths" and their natural inclination are to avoid sex.. Are they "wrong"? Or is it because their inclination is natural that they are "right" in your terms?

But relativism still cannot escape the contradiction of positing an incorrect belief. Take these two statements-

There is an objective morality
There is no objective morality

Both cannot be right, and both cannot be wrong. One must be right and one must be wrong. The problem is that relativism then contradicts itself, because you have to say that there is no objective morality, and belief in one is a wrong belief. You have therefore admitted there is a right and a wrong. It doesn't matter if you endorse people developing their own moral codes, you still think the belief that that code is the universal standard which all humanity is to obide by is incorrect.

And this is where the cause of "wrong" and wrong is brought to light.
To be "wrong" is to be morally incorrect.
To be wrong is to be factually incorrect.

You assume that moral relativism says that it is objectively "wrong" to believe there is an
objective "right" and in that context, contradicts itself by putting forward an objective "right" when it said there can be none.

Actually, moral relativism says it's wrong to say there is an objective "right."
There is no contradiction there. It's basically saying that declaring there is an absolute "right" is factually false.

But yeah as I said before it extends beyond Abrahamic religions.

I agree with you here, but the whole world doesn't adhere to a religion.

Firstly, the purpose of living is human flourishing. What in fact constitues this flourishing is debateable, and that I do not know, the point is that human living is an end in itself. Humans are unique in that we are the only creatures that were created as means to an end, as all beings that aren't self-necessary (ie. God or the atheist singularity that initiated the big bang) are, but flourish as ends in themselves.

I could say that is an opinion. I could say the purpose of human life is to just control the populations of other species. Am I wrong in saying that?

Animals are means to ends, this is evidenced by the fact that they do not exhibit the capacity to alter their goals, they are constantly stuck in the cyle of their ecosystem. What animals desire and contribute will never change on their own accord, they can only be changed by what governs them. Humans are distinct however, we bear the moral capacity to alter our desires, motivations and goals on our own accord. We can change what end we want to contribute to, this makes us an end in ourselves. Of course, the fact that we can change what we desire, or what we perceive perfection to be doesn't mean that what is human flourishing or perfection actually changes, just our ideal of it.

I agree what you've said is true, but I don't see how this disproves the fact that we're just another species on this planet. We just have more advanced characteristics that increase our survival capacity.

Secondly, I never said human extinction was an unnatural state. The world is overpopulated in terms of what the human social system can handle. The grand urbanisation, the heavy reliance on technology etc. means that catering for X people costs far more than catering for X people in another social system.

I'm saying that if every baby from this point on was terminated, humanity would be in danger of extinction.

Assuming you're a sane human being, that is not desirable, so measures have to be taken to prevent that. But if abortion was morally permissible, what's stopping us from getting into that position? And then once we're in that position where we nearly go extinct, people would have to start procreating, but how do you discriminate which people those are?

You may say that this example is not relevant, but I'm showing that it is not natural to abort children, because it can result in a clearly unnatural state for human civilisation. Something natural should be able to be universialsied, but as we've seen, if you universialise abortion it is clearly unnatural.

You've clearly contradicted yourself here.
Also, the world as it is right now is overpopulated beyond the handle of the social system. And that's with abortion. Without abortion, we would clearly enter into a state where we would not have the resources to support adequate life, and with our resources eventually depleted, we would go extinct, which you have in fact labeled as "unnatural."

That's a result of that person not having sufficient knowledge of how to live there. The fact that beings of the same species can live in those places suggests that is not an ecosystemal barrier, for in the case of animals, certain animals just can't naturally live in different climates.

The point still stands that we are not completely ungoverned by our ecosystems.

Because logic itself, and applications of logic are universal. Logic isn't influenced by culture. On a grand scale, the fact that art, history, philosophy, science etc. are prominent in all cultures suggests that logic develops the same way everywhere.

You said logic isn't influenced by culture, yet you've mentioned many articles of culture and said that logic develops the same way because of that.
That seems contradictory. Could you elaborate on that?

Take for example human testimony. Young babies and children, despite cultural differences, all learn the same way, they all learn understand and accept human testimony.

Do you agree that you also fit into the category you specified above?

So now let's take the issue of the sun rising. Applying inductive logic and suggesting the sun will rise tomorrow is far more logical than saying it won't, and this statement would be accepted in all cultures. What you have are two competing statements, one which is unversally accepted to be more logical than the other, it could only be unviersally accepted if there was a universal mode of logic.

I believe this statement is false. Not all cultures believe the sun will rise tomorrow. Some believe that at any moment a higher being will appear and cause the changing or destruction of the world. They believe that they are never guaranteed another sunrise, much less another sunset.

Teenage pregnancy is a result of sex outside of marriage, which is something I am also against. This is because I have reasons, deriven from nature, that you should only be having sex with someone you are willing to have children with, therefore you should be willing to stay with that person for the rest of your life, for a father and a mother together is the best way to raise a child.

Ah, but you just said that inclination to have sex is natural, and therefore is right. This is a clear contradiction to your previous posts:

Contraception however is different. The natural process of sex is sexual stimulation entices the couple into the act, resulting in procreation. Cotnraception attempts to remove the procreation, and makes the sexual stimulation or gratification the end or goal. That is a corruption, because you are using an artificial means to corrupt a natural process. If casual sex was supposed to happen, we would be naturally able to do it without any artifical agents.

as well as the statement you just made.
VVV

But the whole point of natural law is to suggest that morality is adhering to what is natural.

I expect you would then reference that you said something along the lines of this:

For example, in Catholicism, theological morals are things such as going to Church every Sunday, and natural morals are things such as abstanation from sex outside of marriage, anti-abortion etc. These are natural morals they are derived from what is natural, and they feel abandoning these morals is to violate human nature.

And assert that natural law.
But that natural law is in direct contradiction to your assetion natural inclination to have sex. In that case being also contradictory to your assertion that these natural inclinations are universal and "good."

The development of technology was always a natural thing, so it itself is a good. Transport is also natural, so it is good too. Considering that transport is a good, and the purpose of flying is for efficient transport, it is not corrupting a good at all, so it is fine by my criteria.

It's not natural for humans to fly, yet we fly using airplanes. You attempt to condone this with the above statement. But it clearly contradicts these statements that you've posted earlier:

I don't have a problem removing pain, as long as it doesn't corrupt the natural process.

If casual sex was supposed to happen, we would be naturally able to do it without any artifical agents.

Your criteria contradicts itself.

I never said something undesirable is morally wrong. Mutilation of the body is undesirable because it is not natural, therefore bad. Being mutilated against your will is not morally wrong, for you do not will the evil which is occuring. Inflicting mutilation, or consenting to it, is immoral, for you are willing that which is evil.

Once more, What is "natural" and what is "moral" are not the same thing.

Also, being tripped is not natural, and it leads to pain, which is not desirable. Does that mean that the one tripped is "bad"?

But a zygote is a unified entity in the sense in that if one body part such as the brian is damaged, the whole person is comprised. This is because of the unity between the brain and other parts of the body. This is different from the sperm and egg stage, for damage to an egg does not affect the wellbeing of the sperm.

A house is also a unified entity. Take out a support beam and the whole house is compromised. Due to the coherence of the support beams and other aspects of the foundation of the house.
Just like the fetus.

The whole point of natural law is that it reduces personal opinion, unlike relativism, which is a result purely of such an opinion. The natural lawyer concedes that it is foolish to assume that he/she can conclude all of the truths of the world with his/her own logic, unlike a relativist, who believes that they can conclude with their logic the truth of the world- that there is no truths. So instead, they submit to nature, they follow what is natural, and the fact that this submission transcends culture, and the fact that in surrendering one's logic, people conclude very similar ideas about what is natural, suggests there are natural goods.

And yet there are those who believe opposite, many people have concluded the opposite of this as well. To be blunt, I don't see what point you're trying to make.

You see, it's not about logic or opinion like relativism is, it's just 'going with the flow' so to speak, and noticing that you end up at the same place as everyone else who decided to do the same thing,

In your own words...
VVV

I can just say that's your opinion.

But that's just one opinion. If you're going to say that a fetus is not human until X weeks, then you are saying that there are certain traits that are required to be human. Considering that personhood is entirely exclusive to mature humans, why is that not one of them? I don't see how you justify requiring X traits, but not personhood.

Likewise, I can consider what you said as
"that's just one opinion."

Do you see the point I'm trying to make with this reciprocation?

I don't get what you're saying. Natural law doesn't imply that people can't do wrong things, the whole point is that doing right is what is natural

Once again, I've all ready shown how what is "natural" doesn't equate to what is "moral".

You seem to be missing the point that technology is fine unless it corrupts a natural goal. Walking is fine, and because the development of artificial agents is natural (otherwise we wouldn't be inclined to do it), developing an artificial agent that allows walking is fine.

See above.

I'm not saying that humans always do the right thing, the whole point is that being moral is doing what is natural. The fact is, you, like every other human, have inclinations. All human inclinations are the same. We are all inclined to be social, to desire sex, food etc.

Your last sentence adds to one of your contradictions I pointed out earlier. As to your first sentence, you may reference earlier where I addressed it.

If things such as sex and food weren't objective goods, it would make no sense to be inclined towards them.

Explain that to the clergy and those who say sex is the original sin.

I've already covered most of these but again, because I acknowledge my personal logic is limited, I surrendered that for nature, which is not individual. In adhering to nature, I am following what we were designed to do, what we were designed to think right and wrong is. I can get a general idea of what right and wrong is by looking at what is natural and what isn't. Despite the length of my posts, it' just really a matter of common sense. One of the schools of thought which follows natural inclination is literally called "The School of Common Sense".

Once again, "moral"=/="natural" it leads to too many contradictions.

Another example of your contradictions.
Child Birth-
The mother feels pain, pain is undesirable, yet the object of child birth is natural.
So something that is natural and by your standards "moral" brings pain?
Transitively this means that child birth is undesirable, yet natural.
The mention of Cesarean Section then brings to light the contradiction that you attempt to condone with technology, even though the C-section is just like humans flying. Unnatural, and through your standard "wrong".

 

[Dre89]

Why can't you just make a point without a scenario? Your scenarios are long-winded and just cloud the discussion when you introduce 5 of them at the same time. There's no need for them; I'm not a 6 year old that needs the whole world broken down into stories. I don't agree with the words you have chosen again - it is not always the woman's fault if she is pregnant, so you shouldn't be saying it is. It just confuses the discussion.

I'm not sure how much reading you've done on bioethics, but usually the greatest arguments are those which apply abstract thought experiments to indicate the implications of a flawed theory. That's what I'm doing here, I'm using thought experiments to show that using your logic leads to permitting undesireable acts such as the surgical implantation abortion.

That's what the surgical implantation example was about. You said it doesn't matter how the baby got there, so I showed that an implication of that logic is that it would allow me to abort a surgically implanted baby.

And yes the woman is physically responsible for the baby's SOD, I don't even understand why you are denying that when pro-choicers themselves would accept that. That's a simple fact, the difference is pro-lifers don't think it is just grounds to put the baby's needs before the mother's.

Telling me to argue without examples is like telling me to fight with my hands behind my back. If you are having difficulty understanding these arguments dont' shift the blame on me, because these are no more abstract than others, and you're the first person I've encountered whose had difficulty with them.

Thought experiments are at the heart of bioethical philosophy. You're arguing for the woman's right to her body, and yet the most famous argument in favour of that is Judith Thompson's violinist thought experiment, which is just as abstract as mine.

As I already said, the difference in your example is that baby is already a separate entity with its own rights. You cannot just pick up somebody's baby and do what you like with it.

Oh so now it does matter how the baby gets there?

What difference does it make if the baby was already a separate entity? Yes the kidnapping is immoral, but that doesn't matter, because as you said, it doesn't matter how the baby got there.

The only way you can forbid the SI abortion is by saying that I used immoral means to put the baby in my body, but in doing that, you are saying that the way the baby got there influences whether it has a right to life or not, contradicting your previous statement.

But yes. You just summarized my argument. That is how the law currently is. In an ideal world abortion wouldn't exist. But in the world we live in, you have to look at the owner's rights first.

Just to give you a real world example: When a full term mother is in a medical crisis, the medical management is primarily to serve her first not the soon-to-be-born baby. Obviously, when medications can be used that do not harm the baby, they are preferrable. But rarely there are situations that this is not the case. The mother's rights trump the fetus'.

What does this have to do with the morality of abortion? Just because modernity favours the mother doesn't mean its right.

 

[SuperBowser]

Pro choicers do not believe it is always the woman's fault for her pregnancy. This is a lie and the language you are using is obviously incorrect here. **** is the most glaring example.


Let me rephrase my previous statement (I have implicitly implied this throughout the debate). It doesn't matter how the fetus got there because it had no rights before conception. Nothing was denied from this fetus when it was created. In fact, it is the one denying the woman of a right. Different to your scenario.


When I countered the first 3 scenarios, you just stopped mentioning them and provided more scenarios. Then after a few more posts you suddenly brought up the old scenarios. I find it confusing, sorry. But I don't think I'd be the only one. You shouldn't need 5 stories to present an argument. Personally, I think some of your scenarios could have been summarized in 2 lines. Two stories at a time is enough, or at least let us discuss two at one time instead of flitting between each one and getting nowhere? It will be more productive and I can follow your logic then.


For your last question, I'd like to ask one thing before I continue. Do you believe doctors are wrong to treat the mother first and baby second in such situations?

 

[Dre89]

Fair enough, I'm skeptical due to the impressionability one has in his/her infant stages from their parents, but I consider that as one matures they can develop their own ideas. Correct?

Yeah I don't deny I was impressioned in my infant stages, but I've changed now.

So about those who choose not to believe in it, or do not believe in these natural laws you've put forward? How can you explain having an objective truth. If there are so many "truths" in existence?

Is the belief that the sun will not rise tomorrow equally logical as the belief that it will? Clearly not. Simply because the belief has not achieved universal acceptance doesn't mean it is not superior to other beliefs.

This still doesn't account for those who disagree with these natural goods.
Those who believe sex is the original sin. Those who have sworn to celibacy. They're are not inclined to have sex, because it is against their belifs. Their "truths" and their natural inclination are to avoid sex.. Are they "wrong"? Or is it because their inclination is natural that they are "right" in your terms?

You're keep confusing objective natural inclination with subjective desires and beliefs. Just because someone is sexually inclined towards goats doesn't mean that is natural. I'm saying that common sense allows one to look at nature and incur how we are meant to live our lives. My point is that mlst people who take this path end up concluding the same morals.

And this is where the cause of "wrong" and wrong is brought to light.
To be "wrong" is to be morally incorrect.
To be wrong is to be factually incorrect.

You assume that moral relativism says that it is objectively "wrong" to believe there is an
objective "right" and in that context, contradicts itself by putting forward an objective "right" when it said there can be none.

Actually, moral relativism says it's wrong to say there is an objective "right."
There is no contradiction there. It's basically saying that declaring there is an absolute "right" is factually false.

That is a very good point, but I still have a case. I never said MR assumes that it is immoral to assert an objective morality, I said that relativism (not specifically moral relativism) asserts that there are no right and wrongs, or good and bads. These aren't just moral good and bads, just good and bads in general. Relativism argues that there are no right and wrongs, positing an objective morality is a wrong, not a moral wrong, just a wrong in general.

To reiterate, the contradiction is that relativism argues there are no rights and wrongs, yet positing objective morality is a wrong in itself.

I agree with you here, but the whole world doesn't adhere to a religion.

The religion example was just used to highlight that natural law mroals transcend culture.

I could say that is an opinion. I could say the purpose of human life is to just control the populations of other species. Am I wrong in saying that?

You assume that my arguments have no evidence behind them, when in fact I have natural observation behind them, not just the appreciation of my own logic.

The problem with your opinion here is that if we were purely a means to the end you've mentioned, we would be like other animals in that we could not alter our goals and what we contribute to, yet we can. It's the fact we can alter what we contribute to that suggests we are designed to flourish as ends in ourselves.

I agree what you've said is true, but I don't see how this disproves the fact that we're just another species on this planet. We just have more advanced characteristics that increase our survival capacity.

You're assuming that enhanced intelligence necessitates the traits I've highlighted (willing extinction etc.), but it doesn't. It was perfectly possible for humans to have had the same intelligence, but still adhere to an ecosystem, unable to escape it.

You've clearly contradicted yourself here.
Also, the world as it is right now is overpopulated beyond the handle of the social system. And that's with abortion. Without abortion, we would clearly enter into a state where we would not have the resources to support adequate life, and with our resources eventually depleted, we would go extinct, which you have in fact labeled as "unnatural."

My point is that it is the social system at fault. What we don't realise is the social systems deprives us of a right to life. It sounds bizarre, but I'll save it for now because I'm considering starting a separate thread on it later.

The point still stands that we are not completely ungoverned by our ecosystems.

Even if this is to be the case, you are still conceding that humans are unique in that our ecosystem is the globe itself, or it is an ecosystem that encompasses several entire ecosystems. Our ecosystem/s, if we even have one/them, is not one in which we contribute, but rather exploit and harm. In truth even if you are right, you are still conceding ground regardless.

You said logic isn't influenced by culture, yet you've mentioned many articles of culture and said that logic develops the same way because of that.
That seems contradictory. Could you elaborate on that?

What I'm implying is that there is a consistency in the logic of all cultures. Culture affects particular ideals beliefs etc. but if it affected logic itself, how we attain beliefs would differ, or certain cultures would not even have beliefs or ideals etc.

Do you agree that you also fit into the category you specified above?

As in accepting testimony as a young child? Yes I did that, but I have justified my acception of testimony through the fact that it is a natural inclination, and that the denial of testimony as credible leads to impractical implications, leading to an unnatural state of being.

I believe this statement is false. Not all cultures believe the sun will rise tomorrow. Some believe that at any moment a higher being will appear and cause the changing or destruction of the world. They believe that they are never guaranteed another sunrise, much less another sunset.

Even if that is the case, you cannot deny there are certain statements which all cultures accept to be true.

Ah, but you just said that inclination to have sex is natural, and therefore is right. This is a clear contradiction to your previous posts:

The inclination to have sex shows that sex is a natural good, but that doesn't justify excessive lust. Without artificial agents, sex becomes a means of procreation, and consideirng that contraception is artificial and not natural, it's evident that procreation is the natural end of sex. Also considering that the best way to raise a child is the unison of a father and mother, it becomes evident that sex should only be practised with someone you are willing to have children with, which means committing your life to them.

as well as the statement you just made.
VVV





I expect you would then reference that you said something along the lines of this:


And assert that natural law.
But that natural law is in direct contradiction to your assetion natural inclination to have sex. In that case being also contradictory to your assertion that these natural inclinations are universal and "good."

I covered you're misunderstanding of my idea of the natural inclination to have sex.

It's not natural for humans to fly, yet we fly using airplanes. You attempt to condone this with the above statement. But it clearly contradicts these statements that you've posted earlier:



Your criteria contradicts itself.

Could you elaborate on where the contradiction is? None of the practices involving technology than I condone corrupt a natural process, so I don't see where the contradiction is.

Once more, What is "natural" and what is "moral" are not the same thing.

Also, being tripped is not natural, and it leads to pain, which is not desirable. Does that mean that the one tripped is "bad"?

You keep saying this and I keep answering this. Pain is good in that alerts you that something undesirable has happened. What is undesirable, and what you are being alerted to is not the pain itself, but the damage that has been done to the body. The pain is an unpleasant sensation so you are aware that something is not right. I don't understand why you keep using this argument.

A house is also a unified entity. Take out a support beam and the whole house is compromised. Due to the coherence of the support beams and other aspects of the foundation of the house.
Just like the fetus.

So then what's your argument? You've just shown that a fully developed house can be as easily comprised as an undeveloped house, so a mature human is as easily comprimised as a fetus. How does this permit the terminating of a fetus, when there is no distinction between the mature human and the fetus?

And yet there are those who believe opposite, many people have concluded the opposite of this as well. To be blunt, I don't see what point you're trying to make.

The ones who disagree are the ones who still believe they can discover all the truths about the world purely with their own personal logic. I've moved on beyond that stage, and everyone else who has too has concluded the same morals as me.

In your own words...
VVV



Likewise, I can consider what you said as
"that's just one opinion."

Do you see the point I'm trying to make with this reciprocation?

But what I argue is not than just an opinion, it is evidenced in nature, that's the whole point of natural law.

Once again, I've all ready shown how what is "natural" doesn't equate to what is "moral".

Despite your intelligence, the fact you keeping throwing the 'tripping over' example at me gives me the idea you may not properly understand my notion of natural good.

See above.

Your last sentence adds to one of your contradictions I pointed out earlier. As to your first sentence, you may reference earlier where I addressed it.

What you considered contradictions were really your misunderstanding of my notion of natural goods.

Explain that to the clergy and those who say sex is the original sin.

The morality of the Church is based on natural law, just liek mine, which is why they have the same take on sex as I do. The Catholic Church is not against sex, just the misuse of it, you saying that makes me assume you haven't read the Theology of The Body or other theological writings on sex.

Once again, "moral"=/="natural" it leads to too many contradictions.

Another example of your contradictions.
Child Birth-
The mother feels pain, pain is undesirable, yet the object of child birth is natural.
So something that is natural and by your standards "moral" brings pain?
Transitively this means that child birth is undesirable, yet natural.
The mention of Cesarean Section then brings to light the contradiction that you attempt to condone with technology, even though the C-section is just like humans flying. Unnatural, and through your standard "wrong".

C-section is used to achieve the same goal as normal pregnancy- that is pregnancy itself, so there is no contradiction there.

 

[Roxas M]

Abortion is a subject that in my opinion as you break it down becomes a debate where you must define what is considered life.

why?

because a abortion debate is asking weather or not what is inside a woman's stomach is alive or not if and if it should be removed/killed.

If you believe that a fetus is a unborn child that is alive and living then you will most likely be against abortion.

But if you believe that a fetus is just a cell that has not yet begun the process of becoming a living baby then you will most likely be for abortion.

The bridge between what is considered life and what is not considered life is a whole thing by itself.

If indeed a fetus is alive and is human then abortion is not only wrong is is murder. On the other hand, if a fetus is just another cell then abortion in most respects, would not be a problem.

In the end, it comes down to personal belief/choice until further research as gone into the development of a child to the point that a conclusion can be reached to say weather or not a fetus is alive at the point of conception or later on in time in the womb.

In my opinion, i believe abortion is wrong unless there are special circumstances. By special circumstances i mean in cases of of **** or if the mother gives birth to the child she could die in the process. Then and only then, i believe abortion should be considered.

And even that could be made into another thread & another debate.

 

[Sieguest]

Is the belief that the sun will not rise tomorrow equally logical as the belief that it will? Clearly not. Simply because the belief has not achieved universal acceptance doesn't mean it is not superior to other beliefs.

Then again, is the sun rising a moral?

As to the point you are driving towards- moral beliefs dont' have this logic to back them up. They are based on an entity which some follow and some do not. In that sense what is logical to you based from your entity may not be logical to another because they do not acknowledge that entities existence. This is not saying that nature doesn't exist. But the essence of nature that you put forward may not be acknowledged by all others.

You're keep confusing objective natural inclination with subjective desires and beliefs. Just because someone is sexually inclined towards goats doesn't mean that is natural. I'm saying that common sense allows one to look at nature and incur how we are meant to live our lives. My point is that mlst people who take this path end up concluding the same morals.

But did you not just say earlier that our natural inclinations are tell us what is right?

If there are no natural goods, what's the point of us having certain inclinations then? Why do we only have certain inclinations, if there was no good, we wouldn't be designed to move towards certain things. We would either have no inclinations or be equally inclined to every single posslbe action we're physically capable of.

That is a very good point, but I still have a case. I never said MR assumes that it is immoral to assert an objective morality, I said that relativism (not specifically moral relativism) asserts that there are no right and wrongs, or good and bads. These aren't just moral good and bads, just good and bads in general. Relativism argues that there are no right and wrongs, positing an objective morality is a wrong, not a moral wrong, just a wrong in general.

To reiterate, the contradiction is that relativism argues there are no rights and wrongs, yet positing objective morality is a wrong in itself.

To be honest, I think relativism outside of moral relativism is contradictory for the exact same reason.

I'm not relativist in every respect of existence. Just when it comes to morals (and through that cultures). To be relativist anywhere outside of that is like me trying to argue that 2+2=/=4 in every area of the world. Even though I could think of an argument for why someone would believe that.

The only things I see as relative are morals and cultures. Anything else I think is also contradictory for the exact same reason you posted. I don't remember posting that I was strictly relativist in every facet, but if I did, then I was clearly wrong in saying so. For this argument I'm only defending moral relativism.

The religion example was just used to highlight that natural law mroals transcend culture.

I see. Fair enough.

You assume that my arguments have no evidence behind them, when in fact I have natural observation behind them, not just the appreciation of my own logic.

The problem with your opinion here is that if we were purely a means to the end you've mentioned, we would be like other animals in that we could not alter our goals and what we contribute to, yet we can. It's the fact we can alter what we contribute to that suggests we are designed to flourish as ends in ourselves.

I'm not assuming that we're not different from animals, but I don't see why we are superior to them in the way you've put forward?

You're assuming that enhanced intelligence necessitates the traits I've highlighted (willing extinction etc.), but it doesn't. It was perfectly possible for humans to have had the same intelligence, but still adhere to an ecosystem, unable to escape it.

That just means that we can adapt to different ecosystems, I don't see where your point here is either.

My point is that it is the social system at fault. What we don't realise is the social systems deprives us of a right to life. It sounds bizarre, but I'll save it for now because I'm considering starting a separate thread on it later.

All right, I'll save this for your thread, as it seems now, I don't quite agree with you as I'm not sure how the social system can do anything to stop our depletion of resources if we over populate the earth.

Even if this is to be the case, you are still conceding that humans are unique in that our ecosystem is the globe itself, or it is an ecosystem that encompasses several entire ecosystems. Our ecosystem/s, if we even have one/them, is not one in which we contribute, but rather exploit and harm. In truth even if you are right, you are still conceding ground regardless.

That's true, I do concede that point. But what exactly does this do to justify any natural law you've asserted or such like that?

What I'm implying is that there is a consistency in the logic of all cultures. Culture affects particular ideals beliefs etc. but if it affected logic itself, how we attain beliefs would differ, or certain cultures would not even have beliefs or ideals etc.

Isn't the way we attain our beliefs different. I've seen no art concerning moral relativism anywhere I've gone.

Was Christianity derived the same way as the beliefs of some African tribes. Even though they completely differ in thought.

As in accepting testimony as a young child? Yes I did that, but I have justified my acception of testimony through the fact that it is a natural inclination, and that the denial of testimony as credible leads to impractical implications, leading to an unnatural state of being.

So it is natural to be influenced by one's culture when one is young. Am I correct in saying this?

Even if that is the case, you cannot deny there are certain statements which all cultures accept to be true.

Actually, I've yet to see any one statement that all cultures agree upon. I've studied Human Geography for about a year, and with all the cultures and beliefs I've come across, I haven't seen a common facet among any.

The inclination to have sex shows that sex is a natural good, but that doesn't justify excessive lust. Without artificial agents, sex becomes a means of procreation, and consideirng that contraception is artificial and not natural, it's evident that procreation is the natural end of sex. Also considering that the best way to raise a child is the unison of a father and mother, it becomes evident that sex should only be practised with someone you are willing to have children with, which means committing your life to them.

What if no artificial agents are used?
Also before I expand more on this point, what do you consider prerequisites (if any) to being married?

I covered you're misunderstanding of my idea of the natural inclination to have sex.

Maybe... I'm not quite convinced.

Could you elaborate on where the contradiction is? None of the practices involving technology than I condone corrupt a natural process, so I don't see where the contradiction is.

Flying is a natural process.
It is not natural for humans to fly
Therefore by your logic, for humans to fly would be wrong.
Yet we have airplanes which you have tried to condone.

Undersea living is a natural process
It is not natural for humans to live undersea.
Therefore by your logic, for humans to live underwater would be wrong.
Yet we have undersea gear which you have tried to condone.

Also the fact that technology leads to things such as smog and other pollution which creates an undesirable and unnatural effect in the environment, in turn creating and undesirable effect in humans, and transitively unnatural effect in humans. Therefore by your logic, it is wrong.
Yet you try to condone it.

That's where the contradiction is.

You keep saying this and I keep answering this. Pain is good in that alerts you that something undesirable has happened. What is undesirable, and what you are being alerted to is not the pain itself, but the damage that has been done to the body. The pain is an unpleasant sensation so you are aware that something is not right. I don't understand why you keep using this argument.

When you put it like this, I understand what you're saying. But then, this isn't a moral application of pain and it's causes.

So then what's your argument? You've just shown that a fully developed house can be as easily comprised as an undeveloped house, so a mature human is as easily comprimised as a fetus. How does this permit the terminating of a fetus, when there is no distinction between the mature human and the fetus?

Because house without any of those parts can't be called a house, Just like a human can't be called a human without all of its parts. And you just made the distinction between a fetus and a human.
A fetus incomplete. A human is complete. A foundation is incomplete. A house is complete.
Both say that X=/=Y . Just like a foundation lacks finality. A fetus lacks finality, being human life.

Also, I remember you saying earlier that when a child develops personhood is of opinion. If that's the case, then how can you throw the personhood argument out, if the criteria is subjective?

The ones who disagree are the ones who still believe they can discover all the truths about the world purely with their own personal logic. I've moved on beyond that stage, and everyone else who has too has concluded the same morals as me.

Now account for those who haven't. Can you claim an objective truth when there are multitudes who also oppose your morals, having their own entitiy as their source?

But what I argue is not than just an opinion, it is evidenced in nature, that's the whole point of natural law.

And what I argue is also evidenced in the world? What's your point?

Despite your intelligence, the fact you keeping throwing the 'tripping over' example at me gives me the idea you may not properly understand my notion of natural good.

After understanding more of your explanation of pain, I don't see how your explanation even pertains to a natural good, as it now only seems to cover a strictly physical plane.

What you considered contradictions were really your misunderstanding of my notion of natural goods.

I don't think so, they seem like pretty evident contradictions.

The morality of the Church is based on natural law, just liek mine, which is why they have the same take on sex as I do. The Catholic Church is not against sex, just the misuse of it, you saying that makes me assume you haven't read the Theology of The Body or other theological writings on sex.

This says otherwise.
In fact with further reading, it seems the the Catholic Church contradicts itself.

C-section is used to achieve the same goal as normal pregnancy- that is pregnancy itself, so there is no contradiction there.

Yeah, I came to realize it more as I was finding definitive contradiction to what your point was making. Which is why you will see I did not use child birth as an example above.

Abortion is a subject that in my opinion as you break it down becomes a debate where you must define what is considered life.

why?

because a abortion debate is asking weather or not what is inside a woman's stomach is alive or not if and if it should be removed/killed.

If you believe that a fetus is a unborn child that is alive and living then you will most likely be against abortion.

But if you believe that a fetus is just a cell that has not yet begun the process of becoming a living baby then you will most likely be for abortion.

The bridge between what is considered life and what is not considered life is a whole thing by itself.

If indeed a fetus is alive and is human then abortion is not only wrong is is murder. On the other hand, if a fetus is just another cell then abortion in most respects, would not be a problem.

In the end, it comes down to personal belief/choice until further research as gone into the development of a child to the point that a conclusion can be reached to say weather or not a fetus is alive at the point of conception or later on in time in the womb.

I made a post earlier concerning this. You may view it here.

In my opinion, i believe abortion is wrong unless there are special circumstances. By special circumstances i mean in cases of of **** or if the mother gives birth to the child she could die in the process. Then and only then, i believe abortion should be considered.

And even that could be made into another thread & another debate.

You should read the other posts in this thread, Dre and SuperBowser are discussing whether abortion is still justifiable in **** at the moment, and see if you can add anything to that.

 

[Dre89]

Sorry for not qouting it properly, I don't have enough time at the moment for I am at work. I may edit it later.

PS. Some of my parts are in blue as well.

Then again, is the sun rising a moral?

As to the point you are driving towards- moral beliefs dont' have this logic to back them up. They are based on an entity which some follow and some do not. In that sense what is logical to you based from your entity may not be logical to another because they do not acknowledge that entities existence. This is not saying that nature doesn't exist. But the essence of nature that you put forward may not be acknowledged by all others.

I hope when you say entity you don't mean God, because morality isn't just about pleasing God. Even if I was atheist I would still hold the same morals. Morality no longer becomes an end in itself if you solely uphold it to please a higher being.





But did you not just say earlier that our natural inclinations are tell us what is right?


I did, but I distinguished between what appears to be natural and what is just purely excessive desire. I showed that not all impulses are right, because humans are able to put themselves in unnatural states (extinction, destroying the planet etc.), meaning we can corrupt human nature.



To be honest, I think relativism outside of moral relativism is contradictory for the exact same reason.

I'm not relativist in every respect of existence. Just when it comes to morals (and through that cultures). To be relativist anywhere outside of that is like me trying to argue that 2+2=/=4 in every area of the world. Even though I could think of an argument for why someone would believe that.

The only things I see as relative are morals and cultures. Anything else I think is also contradictory for the exact same reason you posted. I don't remember posting that I was strictly relativist in every facet, but if I did, then I was clearly wrong in saying so. For this argument I'm only defending moral relativism.

The problem I have with the moral relativist argument is that it assumes that simply saying 'that's just one opinion' to objecdtive morality is sufficient evidence for relativism, but I disagree a refutation of an opposing theory justifies belief in the opposite.

Secondly, as I've tried to show throughout this debate, I disagree with moral relativism because I believe it is evident humans are designed to appreciate certain goods over others, that we are inclined towards certain practices etc. when if we were morally relative, this would not be the case, for no act would be more significant than any other.

It seems to go against nature, because even animals have certain inclinations that move them towards particular actions. This doesn't make them moral, for unlike humans they can't corrupt their natures.




I see. Fair enough.




I'm not assuming that we're not different from animals, but I don't see why we are superior to them in the way you've put forward?

Because it is evident we flourish as ends in ourselves, not just as means to ends as animals do. Even if you don't believe in God, we are still closer to the ideal of God than an animal is. We encompass in our essence everything than an animal does, plus personhood. So it's not just that we are different, we are everything they are but more.

That just means that we can adapt to different ecosystems, I don't see where your point here is either.

Let's call the ability to corrupt our nature (extinction, wrong acts, global destruction etc.) personhood, for it is exclusive to humanity. You assume that personhood is simply a result of our enhanced intelligence, meaning we aren't necessarily superior to them.

What I'm saying is that we could have had enahnced intelligence without personhood, personhood is not a necessity for enhanced intelligence. The fact we have it when we don't need to suggests we are superior and that we were created for a different purpose than animals (ie. to flourish as ends in ourselves).



All right, I'll save this for your thread, as it seems now, I don't quite agree with you as I'm not sure how the social system can do anything to stop our depletion of resources if we over populate the earth.

I'm not saying the social system can stop it now, I'm just saying it caused the problem.



That's true, I do concede that point. But what exactly does this do to justify any natural law you've asserted or such like that?

I'm showing that humans are superior to animals. If I've successfully established that humans are superior, I've established that there must be something intrinsically differently about us. This compliments my natural law argument, for natural law argues we have intrinsic good that we are designed to pursue.



Isn't the way we attain our beliefs different. I've seen no art concerning moral relativism anywhere I've gone.

Moral relativism is popular in modern society, and personally I attribute that to Western society losing its moral integrity. WS only cares about not harming others against their will, so it simply becomes a matter of what is socially agreeable, rather than becoming intrinsic to human nature. This catalyses relativism because seculars think that morality is only about social agreeability, which varies from culture to culture, so they assume morality is relative.

This is why morality is no longer considered and end it itself, because it is no longer deemed intrinsic to human nature, people no longer want to uphold moral principles simply for that principle's own sake.


Was Christianity derived the same way as the beliefs of some African tribes. Even though they completely differ in thought.


The logic is still universal though.


So it is natural to be influenced by one's culture when one is young. Am I correct in saying this?

You are.


Actually, I've yet to see any one statement that all cultures agree upon. I've studied Human Geography for about a year, and with all the cultures and beliefs I've come across, I haven't seen a common facet among any.


I'm pretty sure every culture would agree that an ideal such as love exists, they would just differ on how it works or how it is to be applied.


What if no artificial agents are used?
Also before I expand more on this point, what do you consider prerequisites (if any) to being married?

The prerequisite doesn't have to some form of religious officiation (because I'm not religious), but a promise of commitment to that person, for if you want to have sex with someone without corrupting the process with artificial agency, then you are likely to procreate, therefore you should be willing to procreate with that person. As a resul, you should stay with that person in order to raise the kids in a healthy manner.

As a result of this process, this is where love comes from, that's why I don't have an issue with infertile couples being together, for as long as they are still content to have children (even if they can't) they are not corrupting the natural process.


Maybe... I'm not quite convinced.



Flying is a natural process.
It is not natural for humans to fly
Therefore by your logic, for humans to fly would be wrong.
Yet we have airplanes which you have tried to condone.

Undersea living is a natural process
It is not natural for humans to live undersea.
Therefore by your logic, for humans to live underwater would be wrong.
Yet we have undersea gear which you have tried to condone.

You're missing the point. What is the goal of flying? Transportation. This is a natural goal. Flying increases the efficiency of transport, which is an already natural goal, so there is no problem.

Also the fact that technology leads to things such as smog and other pollution which creates an undesirable and unnatural effect in the environment, in turn creating and undesirable effect in humans, and transitively unnatural effect in humans. Therefore by your logic, it is wrong.
Yet you try to condone it.


That's where the contradiction is.

That's just the specific type of technology we've developed.





When you put it like this, I understand what you're saying. But then, this isn't a moral application of pain and it's causes.

The point is that the object of pain is to alert us to natural bads.

Take mutilation for example. If you're relative in the moral sense, then you'd accept that mutilation is bad, for it causes an undesirable sensation.

So if you mutitlate someone, you are inflicting an objective bad on another person. So unless you are a complete relativist, you have just conceded I have commited a bad act.



Because house without any of those parts can't be called a house, Just like a human can't be called a human without all of its parts. And you just made the distinction between a fetus and a human.
A fetus incomplete. A human is complete. A foundation is incomplete. A house is complete.
Both say that X=/=Y . Just like a foundation lacks finality. A fetus lacks finality, being human life.

Also, I remember you saying earlier that when a child develops personhood is of opinion. If that's the case, then how can you throw the personhood argument out, if the criteria is subjective?

But we know personhood exists, and a baby lacks it. This is the problem of the subjective criterias, when saying that the unified entity only becomes human at a certain point, you are applying a subjective criteria to answer the question. So in this sense, you still need to justify the exclusion of personhood as a necessity, for it seems there is an inconsistency.


Now account for those who haven't. Can you claim an objective truth when there are multitudes who also oppose your morals, having their own entitiy as their source?


Again, my entity has nothing to do with it. How I account for that is by showing that humans are flawed and that they can corrupt their own natures. All those that oppose my morals, or at least the natural law theory, assume that their logic is sufficient to answer all the questions to the world, or appeal to some form of religion as their guide.

And what I argue is also evidenced in the world? What's your point?

I'd disagree that the idea that are no goods and bads is evidenced in the world. Inclinations seem to suggest otherwise.


After understanding more of your explanation of pain, I don't see how your explanation even pertains to a natural good, as it now only seems to cover a strictly physical plane.

I covered this with the mutilation example above. Establishing the existence of wrongs which are designed to avoid suggests that inflicting these wrongs are a natural wrong in itself.


I don't think so, they seem like pretty evident contradictions.

I disagree lol.


This says otherwise.
In fact with further reading, it seems the the Catholic Church contradicts itself.

I'll read this later, I'm currently on a break at work, but I will read it.

Yeah, I came to realize it more as I was finding definitive contradiction to what your point was making. Which is why you will see I did not use child birth as an example above.

 

[Sieguest]

Sorry for not qouting it properly, I don't have enough time at the moment for I am at work. I may edit it later.

PS. Some of my parts are in blue as well.

Lol it's all right. I'll reference each part as I get to it.

By higher being, I don't necessarily mean God, if I meant that, I would've put Him. By entity, I mean some idea that is central to one's belief. My point being that the presence of these different entities, supports moral relativism. I do remember you earlier saying that natural law transcends religion, the base premise of the idea is the same. Not all adhere to the natural laws you've put forward.


Considering your third response, there is something I wish to clarify before we go too much further, you do believe that what is natural equates to what is moral correct? Judging from your response here, I feel this is where we are snared.

If you consider what is natural to equal what is moral then that is where our crux is. I've explained earlier that moral relativism isn't saying that it is morally wrong to make an objective "right" it is saying that to make an objective "right" is just factually wrong. Now this objective "right" is the objective moral "right" not the objective natural right.
To make the point: you agree it is natural to have sex correct? but you do not think that it is right to have sex outside of marriage. Sex is a natural act in any case, but it may be considered "right" or "wrong" depending on the situation of being married or unmarried. Or female genital mutilation. It may be unnatural because it purposefully inhibits one of the goals of life. But it my be considered "right" or "wrong" depending on if you are on of the tribe or not. I'll have further examples as I continue.

The contradictions I called you out earlier on:

I don't have a problem removing pain, as long as it doesn't corrupt the natural process.Take footwear for example, it's designed to remove pain from walking. The point of walking is to get from one point to another, the pain is not the goal, it's just a side-effect. In this instance removing the pain is not wrong, because it doesn't alter the natural goal.

Contraception however is different. The natural process of sex is sexual stimulation entices the couple into the act, resulting in procreation. Cotnraception attempts to remove the procreation, and makes the sexual stimulation or gratification the end or goal. That is a corruption, because you are using an artificial means to corrupt a natural process. If casual sex was supposed to happen, we would be naturally able to do it without any artifical agents.

Due to your response in this post, I believe I can remedy this. The reason I called you out on the contradiction was because of your word choice. You used the word "process" instead of "goal" as you do now.
The contradiction only lies within you saying "as long as it doesn't corrupt the natural process"
This is much different than saying "as long as it doesn't corrupt the natural goal"
Reason being is the examples I used.

Flying is a natural process.
It is unnatural for humans to fly.
So through your logic the use of airplanes is wrong.

That shows the contradiction, but only because of the word "process".

Flying isn't a natural goal. As you said, transportation is the natural goal.
Airplanes don't corrupt that goal, so there is no contradiction there.

This difference also shows how what is natural does not equate to what is moral. Look at the first one showing the contradiction of process. It is undeniable that there are natural processes in the world, but that first contradiction of process shows that it doesn't equate to a moral, due to the second resolved example of natural goal where the same object in question has a change in resulting logic.

Also consider the undersea living example.
As a process it fits the contradiction.

Undersea living is a natural process.
It is unnatural for humans to live underwater.
So through your logic scuba gear must be wrong.

However as a goal, it's not a contradiction.
It isn't a natural goal to live undersea. To explore is a natural goal.
Scuba gear doesn't corrupt that goal.

Following the same path as the flying example, the undeniable presence of natural processes and goals. With the contradiction of process ending in one course of logic, while the resolution of the goal provides another ending in another course of logic. It shows that what is natural does not equal what is moral once again.

If you do not equate what is natural to what is moral, then there is no crux at all.

In essence, I don't see how natural law is against moral relativism.

All the other facets we've branched out upon come back to what is natural and what is moral. I feel that if we can boil this down to a consensus, that we may be able to move forward from there.

 

[Dre89]

Sorry couldn't quote properly again.

Lol it's all right. I'll reference each part as I get to it.

By higher being, I don't necessarily mean God, if I meant that, I would've put Him. By entity, I mean some idea that is central to one's belief. My point being that the presence of these different entities, supports moral relativism. I do remember you earlier saying that natural law transcends religion, the base premise of the idea is the same. Not all adhere to the natural laws you've put forward.


Considering your third response, there is something I wish to clarify before we go too much further, you do believe that what is natural equates to what is moral correct? Judging from your response here, I feel this is where we are snared.

If you consider what is natural to equal what is moral then that is where our crux is. I've explained earlier that moral relativism isn't saying that it is morally wrong to make an objective "right" it is saying that to make an objective "right" is just factually wrong. Now this objective "right" is the objective moral "right" not the objective natural right.
To make the point: you agree it is natural to have sex correct? but you do not think that it is right to have sex outside of marriage. Sex is a natural act in any case, but it may be considered "right" or "wrong" depending on the situation of being married or unmarried. Or female genital mutilation. It may be unnatural because it purposefully inhibits one of the goals of life. But it my be considered "right" or "wrong" depending on if you are on of the tribe or not. I'll have further examples as I continue.

This is a very good point but you're missing something crucial, you're overly focusing on the act of sex itself. What you're saying is that sex is a natural good, but it can be applied in either a morally good or bad way, therefore it doesn't equate to a moral good correct? You are trying to seperate what is natural from what is moral. Here's the problem; If have sex outside of marriage, then not only am I morally corrupting a natural good (sex), in doing so, I am not sleeping with someone I wish to have kids with, or at least I do not intent to care for them. Now, sleeping with someone who I don't want to have kids with, or not wanting to care for kids are natural wrongs in themselves.

Too reiterate, the reason why morally corrupting a natural good doesn't separate what is natural from what is moral is because in doing so, you are commiting other natural wrongs outside the act of sex itself. That was probably confusing so I understand if you're confused.



The contradictions I called you out earlier on:


Due to your response in this post, I believe I can remedy this. The reason I called you out on the contradiction was because of your word choice. You used the word "process" instead of "goal" as you do now.
The contradiction only lies within you saying "as long as it doesn't corrupt the natural process"
This is much different than saying "as long as it doesn't corrupt the natural goal"
Reason being is the examples I used.

Flying is a natural process.
It is unnatural for humans to fly.
So through your logic the use of airplanes is wrong.

That shows the contradiction, but only because of the word "process".

Flying isn't a natural goal. As you said, transportation is the natural goal.
Airplanes don't corrupt that goal, so there is no contradiction there.

This difference also shows how what is natural does not equate to what is moral. Look at the first one showing the contradiction of process. It is undeniable that there are natural processes in the world, but that first contradiction of process shows that it doesn't equate to a moral, due to the second resolved example of natural goal where the same object in question has a change in resulting logic.

Also consider the undersea living example.
As a process it fits the contradiction.

Undersea living is a natural process.
It is unnatural for humans to live underwater.
So through your logic scuba gear must be wrong.

However as a goal, it's not a contradiction.
It isn't a natural goal to live undersea. To explore is a natural goal.
Scuba gear doesn't corrupt that goal.

Following the same path as the flying example, the undeniable presence of natural processes and goals. With the contradiction of process ending in one course of logic, while the resolution of the goal provides another ending in another course of logic. It shows that what is natural does not equal what is moral once again.

If you do not equate what is natural to what is moral, then there is no crux at all.

I'm not sure I fully understand your argument. Are you saying the separation of nature and morality lies in the fact that natural processes can be corrupted/altered whilst remaining morally permissable? It seems like what you're saying is a good argument but I need to understand it more completely before I can adequately attempt to refute it.

In essence, I don't see how natural law is against moral relativism.

All the other facets we've branched out upon come back to what is natural and what is moral. I feel that if we can boil this down to a consensus, that we may be able to move forward from there.


I think we are stretching this debate to its limits. With that in mind, I think it's been a very interesting, civilised and dare I say, a very even debate (don't know if others agree, people here generally believe I lose most of my debates, but they usually disagree with what I argue).

 

[Sieguest]

Sorry couldn't quote properly again.

It's cool.

Yeah, we're going pretty deep into personal business (probably me moreso than you, my apologies). I must say that I've learned a lot from debating you. I've never had moral relativism challenged to such an extreme before. I honestly think you made well supported points. A very good debate.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Well, I'd say that Dre and Guest 438 really did very well here. Some of Dre's arguments seemed a bit weird, but after elaboration they're alright.

Mind you though, the whole natural = good thing is a bit odd... As is the humans > animals, and the essences and animals being means to ends, but these have room for another debate. I guess I find it odd probably because I disagree with them though, so you could disregard that entirely, if you really wish.

Aside from that, Dre you could try to make what you're saying a bit clearer, it'd work a charm. Sometimes I have to read over you writing a couple of times before I have an idea of what you're saying.

Guest 438, you've done quite well, pretty much overall.

I believe both of you guys are DH material. Imma gonna vouch for you guys to get in the DH.

 

[Dre89]

Thanks Bob.

I think the barrier in communication between me and other people is perhaps a result of different fields of study. If you're not familiar iwth philosophy, alot of what I'd say will probably sound odd and confusing.

Take the natural=good example, it probably sounds strange to the average person, but a philosophy student who's done moral philosophy will instantly know I'm talking about natural law, and when I talk about the universalisation of practices as a criteria, they'd know I'm talking about deontology.

I probably am guilty of not being diverse in my explanations but that probably comes as a result of not used to having to re-explain myself continuously because normally its philosophy students I'm talking to, but that's something I'll have to learn I guess.

By the way Guest, I checked that source about Catholic morality you gave me. I wasn't aware of that stuff, but to be honest it wasn't relelvant to your point, because whether a priest marries or not is a theological moral, not a natural one. Just pointing that out.

 

[Sieguest]

Many thanks Bob.

@Dre-All right, I can accept that. I didn't consider the difference between theological and moral. Thanks for clarifying.

And I take it you're a philosophy major. That's pretty neat. I took philosophy this past semester as an elective. Probably nowhere near as intimate as what you are doing, but I found it to be a very interesting class.

 

[Dre89]

Yeah I'm a philosophy undergraduate, but I don't apply myself very well to my own frustration, so I'm not as knowledgeable as I'd like to be.

Put it this way, I'm more knowledgeable that most people here because they're not doing a degree on it, but if someone came here who studied phil, they'd almost definitely know more than me.

Anyway that was a pretty good debate, despite it changing to mooal relativism, although I guess it did relate to your argument.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Personally I do not have an opinion on abortion because I do not plan on getting pregnant and there for I shall not judge however I do have a question.

If the baby is malformed and will kill its self and the mother or the mother can have an abortion and save her self is it then morally ok to have an abortion?

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

That's a huge bump.

 

[Dre89]

Personally I do not have an opinion on abortion because I do not plan on getting pregnant and there for I shall not judge however I do have a question.

Personally, I do not have an opinion on serial killing because I do not have sadistic sexual perversions, and therefore I shall not judge those who sadistically murder women for sexual gratification.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Personally, I do not have an opinion on serial killing because I do not have sadistic sexual perversions, and therefore I shall not judge those who sadistically murder women for sexual gratification.

let me restate that then. I-CAN-NOT-GET-PREGNANT (for reasons I would like to keep to myself.) Every single person here is capable of murder any of us are more than capable to pull a trigger, stab with a knife, put our hands around the neck and crush. We are all capable of that but we imagine the pain that the other person would go though and feel sympathy, and sadness and thus form a negative opinion about such people who enjoy it. It is wrong to deprave some one of there life that I am sure we can all agree on that. That does not mean we are incapable of doing so, there are some people among us who can not get pregnant regardless how hard they try. We can all murder and we, after thinking about it, realize how horrible and sinful such a crime is. I am not capable of getting pregnant there for I can not put my self in that situation and there for not make a opinion that would be 100% moral. That is why I can not have a personal opinion on the subject.

Now, can you please answer the question.

That's a huge bump.

Colorful...Shiny...Must...Obey...Shiny.

 

[Dre89]

let me restate that then. I-CAN-NOT-GET-PREGNANT (for reasons I would like to keep to myself.) Every single person here is capable of murder any of us are more than capable to pull a trigger, stab with a knife, put our hands around the neck and crush. We are all capable of that but we imagine the pain that the other person would go though and feel sympathy, and sadness and thus form a negative opinion about such people who enjoy it. It is wrong to deprave some one of there life that I am sure we can all agree on that. That does not mean we are incapable of doing so, there are some people among us who can not get pregnant regardless how hard they try. We can all murder and we, after thinking about it, realize how horrible and sinful such a crime is. I am not capable of getting pregnant there for I can not put my self in that situation and there for not make a opinion that would be 100% moral. That is why I can not have a personal opinion on the subject.

Now, can you please answer the question.

So let me get this straight, If I'm not capable of something I can't judge?

Well then technically, I still can't judge the serial killer. I can kill, but I can't kill for sexual gratification, because I am not sexually perveted in that manner, so I cannot judge him. In fact, the murderer should not be brought before a court, for they also cannot derive sexual pleasure for murder, so they have no right to judge and subsequently punish him for his actions.

Also, according to your logic, I'm not allowed to say that abortion is wrong because I am a man, yet a woman is allowed to say abortion is wrong, for the exact same reason as I have?

The flaw in your logic is that you assume we are judging the person, not the act. This is why men excuse a woman's moodswings during pregnancy, because there is a hormone imbalance. The act itself is still wrong, but slightly more understandable. Just like a woman who is ***** and decides to abort the fetus. The pro-lifers still have sympathy for the girl, they still understand her motives, they just think what she did was wrong.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

So let me get this straight, If I'm not capable of something I can't judge?

Well then technically, I still can't judge the serial killer. I can kill, but I can't kill for sexual gratification, because I am not sexually perveted in that manner, so I cannot judge him. In fact, the murderer should not be brought before a court, for they also cannot derive sexual pleasure for murder, so they have no right to judge and subsequently punish him for his actions.

Also, according to your logic, I'm not allowed to say that abortion is wrong because I am a man, yet a woman is allowed to say abortion is wrong, for the exact same reason as I have?

The flaw in your logic is that you assume we are judging the person, not the act. This is why men excuse a woman's moodswings during pregnancy, because there is a hormone imbalance. The act itself is still wrong, but slightly more understandable. Just like a woman who is ***** and decides to abort the fetus. The pro-lifers still have sympathy for the girl, they still understand her motives, they just think what she did was wrong.

Good points, after thinking about it I can not come up with a reasonably good counter on it. (I did think of a response but I felt it to be left field and it would side track the question.) However my original reason I posted on this thread is because I wanted a moral question answered which it has still not been answered. I am curious to see your response.

Edit: Just to save both me and you time money and effort I will repost my question.

If the baby is malformed and will kill its self and the mother or the mother can have an abortion and save her self is it then morally ok to have an abortion?

 

[Fuelbi]

If the baby is malformed and will kill its self and the mother or the mother can have an abortion and save her self is it then morally ok to have an abortion?

So here is me jumping into the debate

I say yay to this. If you're gonna die, I don't think it's fair that just because you're gonna have a kid, you're gonna have to die to do it. And well, aborting a malformed baby is like finding a deformed cat in the street. You gonna have to run over it to just put it out of it's misery. The only thing I can find wrong with the first part is that the mother can develop an emotional attachment with the deformed baby, thus she won't want to abort it.

It happens all the time. Mothers get a child who's born without arms or legs or something, and they just can't bring themselves to abort the baby because they've developed an attachment to their child. Not to mention mothers can be well... motherly. There's no way that a woman would wanna kill their child if it came out deformed/mentally ********.

Now, there ARE those few cases where you can fix the deformation (if it's at least a minor one), so there's another reason to not abort the baby.

So in all, I guess I'm for abortion, though I'm not the sort of person to abort their child. I mean, there ARE benefits to abortion. Stem cell research, saving lives, etc.

That, and I agree with those stereotypical arguments about the body of the woman being hers and they can do whatever they want to it.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Here I go, jumping into the fire.

So I heard this argument about easing it's suffering. Doesn't matter if it's justified, it's still bloody murder.

And I also heard an argument were the persons body is hers, and she can do whatever she wants. This is a human being were talking about. A person should not have complete control over another human being.

Just my 3 and a half cents.

 

[Kirbyoshi]

DH, excellent point about a fetus being a human being in and of itself. It's not the woman's body; it is another body inside of hers.

Fuel, you mentioned stem cell research from aborted babies. Show me one major medical breakthrough that has come through embryonic stem cell research. (Notice I said embryonic. Adult stem cells have been used, and with a degree of success)

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Just my 3 and a half cents.

Why is your opinion 3 cents while most say two cents? (I know completely off topic I am just wondering why he chose that wording.)

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Why is your opinion 3 cents while most say two cents? (I know completely off topic I am just wondering why he chose that wording.)

Because I market up my knowledge.

 

[Kirbyoshi]

@DH: More like inflation.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Oh well, my knowledge is still more expensive.

 

[Sieguest]

Here I go, jumping into the fire.

And I also heard an argument were the persons body is hers, and she can do whatever she wants. This is a human being were talking about. A person should not have complete control over another human being.

Just my 3 and a half cents.

You have made the same opening argument as Dre. so I'll ask you to respond to these previous posts I've made in this thread concerning this.

My opening argument.

How I've defined life.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

You have made the same opening argument as Dre. so I'll ask you to respond to these previous posts I've made in this thread concerning this.

My opening argument.

How I've defined life.

Technically, it will become a human, sans abortion. In most cases, you can call something changing to a certain stage the final stage, such as call a seed in the soil being called a plant.

Off-topic, but isn't it strange that we're always on opposing sides?

 

[Kirbyoshi]

Maybe this is just a personal thing, but I don't like dictionaries being brought into debates except to clarify definitions of uncommon words. Challenging the accepted (and therefore canonized) definition of life is a key part in any abortion debate.

Now, for my 5 cents' worth (lol DH):
Dr. Jerome LeJeune, a well-known geneticist from France, scientifically defines life as such:
"Now we can say, unequivocally, that the question of when life begins is no longer a question of theological or philosophical dispute. It is an established, scientific fact [that] all life, including human life, begins at conception....Each of us has a unique beginning: the moment of conception..." (Source: Davis v. Davis, Blount County, Tennessee Circuit Court, 1989)

This establishes that the issue of the definition of life is not one of philosophical, religious, or even grammatical debate. It is scientifically proven that life begins at conception, at the moment when the sperm touches the egg.

 

[Sieguest]

Technically, it will become a human, sans abortion. In most cases, you can call something changing to a certain stage the final stage, such as call a seed in the soil being called a plant.

Off-topic, but isn't it strange that we're always on opposing sides?

But it's not in the present. If it's not killing a human in the present, then nothing wrong has happened.

That seems to happen a lot. It's mostly because of the way I view morals. Most people quickly jump to a right or wrong conclusion, I always say that you can't call it wrong but that it isn't necessarily right either.

Maybe this is just a personal thing, but I don't like dictionaries being brought into debates except to clarify definitions of uncommon words. Challenging the accepted (and therefore canonized) definition of life is a key part in any abortion debate.

Now, for my 5 cents' worth (lol DH):
Dr. Jerome LeJeune, a well-known geneticist from France, scientifically defines life as such:
"Now we can say, unequivocally, that the question of when life begins is no longer a question of theological or philosophical dispute. It is an established, scientific fact [that] all life, including human life, begins at conception....Each of us has a unique beginning: the moment of conception..." (Source: Davis v. Davis, Blount County, Tennessee Circuit Court, 1989)

This establishes that the issue of the definition of life is not one of philosophical, religious, or even grammatical debate. It is scientifically proven that life begins at conception, at the moment when the sperm touches the egg.

The dictionary is my best friend.

Anyway, the biggest problem I see here is that she provided no proof as to why life begins at conception. She just has a title. It's like my math teacher could say 2+2=5. Does that make it automatically correct? Any one can say something is a fact, doesn't mean it is true, and with no evidence or research to back it up, it holds no water.

 

[Kirbyoshi]

Sooooo...why would your math teacher say 2+2=5, in court, under penalty of perjury, when she is obviously knowledgeable on the subject of arithmetic? Makes no sense to me.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I have a personal opinion about abortion. A very strong personal opinion. But you know what? I can't prove that it has any basis in fact. None of us can prove that life begins at conception, or that it doesn't for that matter. No matter what our opinion is, we're all just speculating.

In the end, it comes down to personal belief and personal decisions. I think that everyone should be left to make that personal decision for themselves. More importantly, I believe the abortion "debate" is really just a 40-year-old culture war masquerading as a political and legal issue. At it's heart, it's one group of people trying to tell another what's right and wrong with no real proof either way.

 

[Kirbyoshi]

Jam, what is your "very strong personal opinion" on abortion?

 

[Jam Stunna]

I either believe very strongly in a woman's right to choose, or I believe very strongly in protecting unborn life!

I basically said that to make clear that yes, I have an opinion on this matter, but it's irrelevant because I can't prove it. And since no one can prove their opinion, it's best to leave the matter up to individuals.

 

[Kirbyoshi]

The whole point of this forum is to prove your opinion...>.>

 

[Jam Stunna]

The whole point of this forum is to prove your opinion...>.>

How? How do you prove an opinion on abortion?

 

[Kirbyoshi]

Same way you prove any other opinion. You find facts to back up your claim and post them. What I quoted was basically the equivalent of Dwight Eisenhower propagating a certain military strategy. Can it be absolutely proven? No. However, it can be tested. Different people use different criteria for what constitutes life. I'd be interested to find out what you think constitutes life, Jam.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Well, since you asked, I'll tell you.

Honestly? I really don't know what constitutes life. I don't know when it starts. Does a zygote contain the spark that we recognize as sentience, or does it come at some point later? Your guess is as good as mine.

What I do know is this: if my wife and I had decided to get an abortion, then my son wouldn't be sitting on my lap right now as I type this. That's what forms the basis for my opinion on abortion. At some point, that clump of cells will exhibit all of the qualities that we ascribe to life. It just has to be given a chance to reach that point.

That said, I also understand that abortions exist to prevent exactly what I just described. Despite how I feel about it, I recognize that there is a real difference between preventing a life and taking a life. We all agree that a newborn is alive, but can we all agree that a zygote is alive? Or a blastocyst? Or even a fetus?

You said yourself that different people use different criteria for what constitutes life. If that's so, then where do the facts lie in this debate? We can't even agree on the terms of the debate. That's why I don't think we can take people's beliefs on this topic (because that's all they really are), and say, "This is absolutely right," because we just don't know.