Evil used as a synonym for immoral, which you judge it to be by your own admission. However, you also admit to viewing morality as subjective. By that reasoning our view that it's moral would be just as valid. You can't really argue both that your subjective opinion is objectively true and that being objectively true or false is impossible.
Except through the majority of human history, slavery was considered "moral".
Burning people for witchcraft was considered "Moral".
Killing people for being gay was considered "Moral".
Spare me the "morality" bullshit.
The reality is, morality is based on what is practical. Abortion is legal because women who don't want to be pregnant WILL find a way to not be pregnant.
Humans aren't property. That applies to all humans, including the ones you think you own.
Humans have an inherent right not to be deprived of their life. This applies to all humans, including the ones you want to murder.
Women are not pregnant by default, including the ones you got pregnant.
You don't get to speak to me about morality when you argue against human rights. You don't get to tell me what's right and what's wrong when you oppose feeding the poor and giving medical aid to the needy. You had your chance at being a decent human being. You blew it. Now get the **** out of my and Daws' dialogue,
sergeant.
Math is also separate from moral philosophy. Humor me. How can something be objectively immoral if the morality of a thing cannot be objective? How can something be either good or evil if they're interchangeable? Specifically our view that infanticide is immoral. You consider that view wrong because morality is subjective, but you also consider it immoral. I'm simply asking how you can hold two mutually contradictory viewpoints at the same time.
It's not hard most mature and intelligent people can do it with ease.
As far back as I can remember it's never been a problem for me.
If you were looking for a more detailed answer , you've got the wrong guy .
I learned a very long time ago some things just are and no explanation or there is not an accurate one.
So basically what you're saying is that you've never had a problem holding two incompatible views at the same time? It's a shame you can't explain to me how that works. I'd love to see a coherent explanation for how this is reasonable.
What's reasonable is relative and cultural.
Until you understand and accept that , no explanation will satisfy.
I understand the concept of two different cultures holding incompatible views. For instance, we (as in many Americans) consider stoning rape victims horrid. In Afghanistan it's simply justice for her adultery, however unwilling it may have been, against her future spouse. That doesn't mean that their view is correct in any eyes but their own. I don't accept the possibility that it could be.
Humans aren't property. That applies to all humans, including the ones you think you own.
Humans have an inherent right not to be deprived of their life. This applies to all humans, including the ones you want to murder.
Women are not pregnant by default, including the ones you got pregnant.
You don't get to speak to me about morality when you argue against human rights. You don't get to tell me what's right and what's wrong when you oppose feeding the poor and giving medical aid to the needy. You had your chance at being a decent human being. You blew it. Now get the **** out of my and Daws' dialogue, sergeant.
Quite the contrary, mutant, fetuses are property because they can't exist outside a woman's body.
Her body. Her choice.
For the last time, you illiterate, dishonest little weasel, we aren't talking about a fetus inside her mother's body. We're talking about infanticide after birth has occurred. The newborn (whom you consider to be medical waste) is existing entirely outside of her mother's body at the moment the doctor kills her.
Fetus still doesn't mean what you're trying to make it mean by the way.
so really, abortion makes up for the fact that the things that kept the population down- war, famine, pestilence - have been controlled. You have a baby when you want one, not a bunch of babies hoping one survives to take care of you when you are old.
And there we go. He finally tells us his actual motivation for denying medical care to those he considers expendable: population control.
LOL! What you have constructed there is a beautiful example of a 'Non Sequitur'.
That the distinct life developing in her body cannot survive outside her body, in no way establishes the life as her property.
It is her SOLE R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y .
There's a distinction... take a few years to ponder what the distinction is and get back to us, if ya ever figure it out.
It's not her sole responsibility. It takes two to make a baby. She's responsible for stepping up and taking responsibility as a parent, but so is he. They both contributed. They both share it.
