User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 104

  1. #71
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by murkrow View Post
    A society that accepts the acquisition of resources from unwilling parties to support social programs designed to ameliorate human life should have no problem enforcing the donation of a female's bodily resources for the cause of keeping a human being alive.
    If A, then B.
    Because B, then C.

  2. #72
    Branded with Satan murkrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    1,635

    Default

    Umm, no.

    The entire legal system is based on precedents, and we have precedent for forced acquisition of resources to support life.
    wails from the crypt.

  3. #73
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by murkrow View Post
    Umm, no.

    The entire legal system is based on precedents, and we have precedent for forced acquisition of resources to support life.
    Yes.

    The legal system is based on precedent. On logical occurrence; ethical structure.

    So too is the counterargument to your point.
    If A, then B. Because B, then C.

    Legal opinions aren't falsifiable unless judicial insight tells us they are. What was once dissent is now theory.

  4. #74
    Senior Member sketcheasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    101

    Default

    if someone doesn't want her baby, she can just throw it away. the logic is the following.

    all things are real. babies are real, therefore, all babies are things. things have no inherent worth other than what is given to them. if a baby/fetus isn't wanted by her parents, then they ought to do it because they can do it.

    what's the difference between throwing away a baby, aborting a fetus with a beating heart, a human organism, or shooting you in the face? nietzsche was the one who said morality was an illusion. yet we still have laws, and many of the people who love neitzshe will also cry foul if anyone killed or threw away their baby. ultimately, abortion is nothing more than state permitted murder. people don't want to face the responsibilities of their actions. the reason it is easier to kill a fetus than to throw away a baby, or even why we are more appalled by the latter than the former, is because it is easier to detach yourself from something as alien and unfamiliar as a human fetus.

    so yeah, maybe pro lifers are illogical, but unless a pro choicer is willing to say she would throw away or kill a baby then they are hypocrites, and if they are willing, then they are morally bankrupt.

  5. #75
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sketcheasy View Post
    all things are real. babies are real, therefore, all babies are things. things have no inherent worth other than what is given to them.
    By your reasoning, eating a carrot could be classified as murder.

    what's the difference between throwing away a baby, aborting a fetus with a beating heart, a human organism, or shooting you in the face?
    Too many to itemize.

    nietzsche was the one who said morality was an illusion. yet we still have laws,
    We have laws because they make it possible to coexist with other people.


    ultimately, abortion is nothing more than state permitted murder.
    A "justified" killing is not murder.

    a pro choicer is willing to say she would throw away or kill a baby then they are hypocrites, and if they are willing, then they are morally bankrupt.
    Your supporting arguments were completely problematic, so your conclusion does not logically follow.

  6. #76
    Senior Member sketcheasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    By your reasoning, eating a carrot could be classified as murder.



    Too many to itemize.



    We have laws because they make it possible to coexist with other people.




    A "justified" killing is not murder.


    Your supporting arguments were completely problematic, so your conclusion does not logically follow.
    but IS eating a carrot murder? besides, that argument operates under the presupposition that there is NO objective morality to begiin with, so what's right for me may not be right for you, killing a carrot is worse than killing a baby. sounds like nonsense, that's how i feel about it.

    the prisoners in concentration camps were numbered in the millions and yet they were itemized using a similar kind of logic.

    are laws there so we can co-exist, or are laws in place to carry out justice? if they exist to carry out justice, then that implies that someone did something wrong, which becomes not just a legal issue but a moral one. if it is just so we can co-exist, then fine, i will concede. but if is there to administer justice, then our laws aren't merely a code of co-existence but also a way of determining what is right and what is wrong. therefore, because it has now become an issue of ethics, which is in turn an issue of philosophy, laws also have philosophical implications, one being if an issue of ethics breaks the law of contradiction, it cannot therefore be true or reasonable. i believe abortion contradicts itself on ethical issues.

    what makes a killing justified? a madman can justify his killings and yet we can still call it a murder. murder is a term with a moral implication, so where does that morality come from? is it determined by culture or is it an individual issue? or is there a pre-programmed ethical standard that is absolute that we must abide by?

  7. #77
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sketcheasy View Post
    but IS eating a carrot murder? besides, that argument operates under the presupposition that there is NO objective morality to begiin with, so what's right for me may not be right for you, killing a carrot is worse than killing a baby. sounds like nonsense, that's how i feel about it.
    If you do not accept religion, then the only basis for moral principles is social harmony. If you were the only one alive, moral principles would not exist.

    We cannot have social harmony if we do not agree on a common value system. We can't have everyone's behavior governed solely by what feels right to them. Society would collapse.

    So the notion that morality cannot be evaluated objectively is absolutely wrong.

  8. #78
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    We cannot have social harmony if we do not agree on a common value system. We can't have everyone's behavior governed solely by what feels right to them. Society would collapse.

    So the notion that morality cannot be evaluated objectively is absolutely wrong.
    As many before me have, I'd take it a step further and say what's generally accepted as moral is tentatively ingrained in our biology. It can, however, be dissuaded or ruined by external sources.

  9. #79
    Senior Member sketcheasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    If you do not accept religion, then the only basis for moral principles is social harmony. If you were the only one alive, moral principles would not exist.

    We cannot have social harmony if we do not agree on a common value system. We can't have everyone's behavior governed solely by what feels right to them. Society would collapse.

    So the notion that morality cannot be evaluated objectively is absolutely wrong.
    i agree with you. i guess my purpose is trying to debase the existential argument for abortions, a lot of which apply similar logic and philosophical justification as i have presented. personally, because i AM religious i believe that all morality is governed in turn by and absolute truth. the reason i am against a lot of existential beliefs is the self-contradicting nature and implications within its own arguments.

    so you are right, morality CAN be evaluated and, at the VERY least for social harmony if you do not want to concede the notion of a Moral Giver, should be evaluated. if our laws permitting or forbidding certain acts are not moral and furthermore impede the rights given to us with the Constitution (if i do not agree with the moral implications of a law but it does not break constitutional rights i am "willing" to possibly overlook it). however, i will re-iterate the freedom to choose to essentially kill a human organism, on the basis of merely philosophically speculative arguments that may or may not be correct seems humanly irresponsible. if someone can argue the right to kill a human organism without resorting to question the "humanity" of a so called "human organism" or questioning morality itself i will concede that abortion is okay, but until such a time then no.

  10. #80
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sketcheasy View Post
    because i AM religious i believe that all morality is governed in turn by and absolute truth. the reason i am against a lot of existential beliefs is the self-contradicting nature and implications within its own arguments.
    Actually, a logic based ethical system is much less contradictory than religious ones. The latter simply asserts that you must obey, or else suffer the consequences.

    [/quote]
    i will re-iterate the freedom to choose to essentially kill a human organism, on the basis of merely philosophically speculative arguments that may or may not be correct seems humanly irresponsible.
    [quote]

    It is widely accepted that killing a person, if necessary, to prevent him from depriving you of your goodies, is perfectly moral. Most religions even approve. Otherwise, we would have no cops or soldiers.

    In the case of abortion, the zygote is not even a person. It's a potential person.

    if someone can argue the right to kill a human organism without resorting to question the "humanity" of a so called "human organism" or questioning morality itself i will concede that abortion is okay, but until such a time then no.
    See above.

Similar Threads

  1. At what point do you stop trying to grow and just accept your type?
    By Usehername in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-29-2011, 12:28 AM
  2. How one becomes a human being?
    By Hine in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-09-2011, 11:27 AM
  3. At what point does a good person...
    By Kiddo in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 08-07-2008, 10:43 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO