The practical morality of abortion

[NYcarbineer]

[

Good societies survive people doing immoral things, but a good society cannot survive if it calls immoral things moral.

---End transcript---

All morality is a judgment call.

Ex:

Can a society survive if it calls a woman's right to choose to abort a fetus 'moral'?

Yes or no?

So, why were so many Nazis executed after the war? Clearly laws were passed. Nazis followed those newly established laws ---- the Jews were at fault, or so it would seem were morality is a judgment call. I say Nazis were executed because God said, thou shall not murder. God and not government/society is the deciding factor.

What?!

lol, is that sarcasm or are you insane?

 

[PK1]

The fertilized human egg has no intrinsic value. If you insist that it does, for whatever reason,

then you must concede that the unfertilized human egg has intrinsic value, as then does the sperm cell.

Then where are you at, 'morally'?

No...fertilized the human life has begun, separate, the sperm and egg will never be a human life.

---
According to your definition of "human life", half of all "humans" die (due to natural abortion, aka miscarriage).
What a shame.
Isn't nature cruel? Get over it.
.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Practical morality"? Hollywood propaganda has promoted the "practical morality" of murder for the better part of a hundred years and Nazis had a dandy justification for the Holocaust that can be translated as "practical morality". What's next for the idiot generation raised on violent videos and disregard for the rule of law?

They'll likely become conservative and vote republican – thankfully they'll constitute but a small minority.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The fertilized human egg has no intrinsic value. If you insist that it does, for whatever reason,

then you must concede that the unfertilized human egg has intrinsic value, as then does the sperm cell.

Then where are you at, 'morally'?

Come on that's a slow roller back to the pitcher.unfertalized eggs and pecker trackes are not unique,when the two meet and a whole totally into itself DNA ya got your new little human if left to nature will live,or not,this is easy shit here.

I'm not the one claiming a fertilized egg has intrinsic value.

None of you REALLY want a whole new set of laws that take into account a legal premise that a fertilized human egg from that moment is no different under the law than you or I.

I don't know why you pretend you do.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

LITTLENIPPER SAID:

"So, why were so many Nazis executed after the war? Clearly laws were passed. Nazis followed those newly established laws ---- the Jews were at fault, or so it would seem were morality is a judgment call. I say Nazis were executed because God said, thou shall not murder. God and not government/society is the deciding factor."

This may come as a shock to you but many people don't believe in a 'god' as perceived by theists; and although other theists might believe in a 'god,' there is no consensus as to what a 'god' might 'want' and what it might 'decide.'

Consequently, 'god' and religious dogma are not deciding factors with regard to the law and public policy, as religion is personal, subjective, often wrong, and has been used to persecute and otherwise disadvantage those of other faiths, as well as those free from faith altogether.

Hence the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, reflecting the Framers' intent that church and state remain separate; you're at liberty to practice your 'morality' as you see fit, you may not seek to codify your perception of 'morality' in secular law, however.

 

[2aguy]

The fertilized human egg has no intrinsic value. If you insist that it does, for whatever reason,

then you must concede that the unfertilized human egg has intrinsic value, as then does the sperm cell.

Then where are you at, 'morally'?

No...fertilized the human life has begun, separate, the sperm and egg will never be a human life.

---
According to your definition of "human life", half of all "humans" die (due to natural abortion, aka miscarriage).
What a shame.
Isn't nature cruel? Get over it.
.

Yeah....murder vs. nature.....you are soon smart......your parents must be proud.....

 

[2aguy]

If one is going to kill a developing baby because the mother was raped, then the rapist who perpetrated the crime should also pay with his life. If we cannot execute the convicted rapist, why should we execute the baby who is innocent of any crime? And if a woman is willing to destroy a developing baby within her but unwilling to have the male perpetrator hung, electrocuted, thrown in acid, or dismembered ---- is she not as evil as the rapist --- if not more so?

Is there no pity for the innocent? And when there is, doesn't that make the rape victim more noble in the eyes of God if not society?

---
4 Q's.
A1: The embryo or fetus is not yet a person.
A2: No.
A3: Yes, if a person.
A4: WTF?
.

The embryo or fetus is not yet a person.------------------- By WHOS definition?

---
By my practical definition.
Also, by law.
No SSN. No inheritance rights until born.
Like the adult/minor distinction ...
Minors have no rights to xx until a certain age.
A fetus has no rights until ... it becomes a person at birth.
.

So you can murder minor children now too.....?

 

[mamooth]

It doesn't seem to. Either a human fetus has worth, or it doesn't

Worth isn't all or nothing. There's a sliding scale of worth. So, you've got a type of false dichotomy fallacy there.

On what moral grounds does the mother alone decide the fetus's worth?

She didn't decide alone. All of humanity over all of human history has made that decision. On what moral grounds do you discard that?

Or, to put in another way, on what moral grounds do you alone decide that killing a cow for your own selfish convenience is justifiable?

When your arguments use exactly the same logic as the arguments of PETA, you've got a problem.

It is a separate body.

Obviously not. Separate things aren't attached to and inside of something else.

No one asks a pregnant woman "how's your body?" when asking about the fetus, people ask, "how's the baby?"

Argument by colloquialism is not impressive.

But deliberately killing it a few months before birth is considered no more morally problematic than extracting a tooth!

Strawman

Would it be moral to abort a female fetus solely because the mother prefers boys to girls, as has happened millions of times in China and elsewhere?

Probably. Or, more precisely, the immorality of forcing a woman to breed outweighs any other immorality when considering what actions to allow.

Let's say science develops a method of determining whether a child in the womb is gay or straight. Would it be moral to kill a gay fetus because the mother didn't want a gay child

Same.

The idea prioritizing liberty is just really big with pro-choicers. It would have to be some kind of "humanity will become extinct if we don't do this" kind of scenario before we'd try to force women to breed unwillingly.

 

[idb]

She's the one carrying it around for nine months. See how one sided that is?

No. If not for the man, she wouldn't be carrying anything, Bro.

Don't put the baby in her in the first place and then you won't need to worry about it. It's called responsibility.

I agree with this. No need for abortions if you practice responsibility.

What does that even mean?

I think he's explaining where babies come from.
The man puts the baby in the lady's tummy and it goes from there.

 

[NYcarbineer]

She's the one carrying it around for nine months. See how one sided that is?

No. If not for the man, she wouldn't be carrying anything, Bro.

Don't put the baby in her in the first place and then you won't need to worry about it. It's called responsibility.

I agree with this. No need for abortions if you practice responsibility.

What does that even mean?

I think he's explaining where babies come from.
The man puts the baby in the lady's tummy and it goes from there.

It's a useless statement. It's like saying there's no need for seat belts and traffic signs if everyone would just drive carefully.

What does that even mean?

 

[NYcarbineer]

99% of the anti-abortionists are really just in the business of shaming, trying to make people anti-abortion with emotional appeals,

all because they don't really want the kind of laws that would be put in place if abortion were really murder.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Worth isn't all or nothing.

Yes it is. It can't be "sort of" valuable or "sort of" nothing, now can it?

Or, to put in another way, on what moral grounds do you alone decide that killing a cow for your own selfish convenience is justifiable?

Funny, that's the last thing I think about when I go out for a burger. I'm not the one who kills the cow, so I get no input in the matter. So why bother with the red herring, mamooth?

Obviously not. Separate things aren't attached to and inside of something else.

Obviously so. When that baby is born, we all recognize it as a new life. But so long as that baby is in the womb, just moments from birth, it is still part of the woman's body.

Say what now? If I recall how the birthing process works, the umbilical is still attached when that baby leaves the womb. At that moment we call it a human being, still with the cord attached.

Now, there's a flaw in your logic. The child still can't be part of the woman's body when it is born, can it?

Argument by colloquialism is not impressive.

Or, "I have no counterpoint, so I will cite an argumentative fallacy" fallacy

Your logical fallacy is the fallacy fallacy

Strawman

Explain.

Probably. Or, more precisely, the immorality of forcing a woman to breed outweighs any other immorality when considering what actions to allow.

Now, this is a big can of worms. And a deflection. Answer the question. It is a simple yes or no question.

The idea prioritizing liberty is just really big with pro-choicers. It would have to be some kind of "humanity will become extinct if we don't do this" kind of scenario before we'd try to force women to breed unwillingly.

Same here. A deflection.

 

[mamooth]

Yes it is. It can't be "sort of" valuable or "sort of" nothing, now can it?

That's exactly what is can be, sort of both. A goldfish sort of has some value. Or sort of doesn't.

Funny, that's the last thing I think about when I go out for a burger. I'm not the one who kills the cow, so I get no input in the matter. So why bother with the red herring, mamooth?

Because it was a solid argument that destroyed your argument. I thought that was obvious. Looks like I'll need to explain it to you.

You say it's okay to kill a cow, because we've decreed a cow has little moral worth.

Others, such as PETA, say that you're just rationalizing murder.

You use the same logic as PETA to declare abortion is wrong.

Either you and PETA are both correct with that use of logic, or both wrong. You can explain which it is.

Say what now? If I recall how the birthing process works, the umbilical is still attached when that baby leaves the womb. At that moment we call it a human being, still with the cord attached.

Now, there's a flaw in your logic. The child still can't be part of the woman's body when it is born, can it?

No, that's a major flaw in your logic. The fact that a dividing line is a bit fuzzy doesn't mean there isn't a dividing line.

Or, "I have no counterpoint, so I will cite an argumentative fallacy" fallacy

Some people call it "a bun in the oven". Therefore, by the standards that you're doubling down on, a fetus is really a pastry.

So, do you still want to stick with your "colloquialism is absolute truth!" argument?

Explain

You seem to the only person here saying a six month old fetus has no worth.

Back in the real world, everyone thinks an unfertilized egg/zygote/embryo/fetus/baby grows more morally important as it grows. It's just a matter of whether they're honest enough to admit it.

Now, this is a big can of worms. And a deflection. Answer the question. It is a simple yes or no question.

Yes, it's moral. For some reason, you can't process that answer. Prioritizing liberty seems to be beyond the scope of your programming.

Interesting, how you deny conflicting morality exists. Thousands of years of human philosophy, and you call it a "deflection", just because you're incapable of addressing the concept of conflicting morality.

 

[PK1]

The fertilized human egg has no intrinsic value. If you insist that it does, for whatever reason,

then you must concede that the unfertilized human egg has intrinsic value, as then does the sperm cell.

Then where are you at, 'morally'?

No...fertilized the human life has begun, separate, the sperm and egg will never be a human life.

---
According to your definition of "human life", half of all "humans" die (due to natural abortion, aka miscarriage).
What a shame.
Isn't nature cruel? Get over it.
.

Yeah....murder vs. nature.....you are soon smart......your parents must be proud.....

---
I don't think in black or white. Reality is not that simple; that's why nature is full of color.

Murder has a legal definition with gray areas too. It also has an ethical/moral perspective, and we have individual feelings about that.
In my case, it's despicable to kill dogs, cats, chimps, pigs, but it's not ... when a pregnant woman chooses to terminate her embryo.
.

 

[PK1]

If one is going to kill a developing baby because the mother was raped, then the rapist who perpetrated the crime should also pay with his life. If we cannot execute the convicted rapist, why should we execute the baby who is innocent of any crime? And if a woman is willing to destroy a developing baby within her but unwilling to have the male perpetrator hung, electrocuted, thrown in acid, or dismembered ---- is she not as evil as the rapist --- if not more so?

Is there no pity for the innocent? And when there is, doesn't that make the rape victim more noble in the eyes of God if not society?

---
4 Q's.
A1: The embryo or fetus is not yet a person.
A2: No.
A3: Yes, if a person.
A4: WTF?
.

The embryo or fetus is not yet a person.------------------- By WHOS definition?

---
By my practical definition.
Also, by law.
No SSN. No inheritance rights until born.
Like the adult/minor distinction ...
Minors have no rights to xx until a certain age.
A fetus has no rights until ... it becomes a person at birth.
.

So you can murder minor children now too.....?

---
Do you know how to think logically?
If so, please explain how you deduced your conclusion/question?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You say it's okay to kill a cow, because we've decreed a cow has little moral worth.

Because cows are food, not human beings in the womb. Or is it wrong to place value on human life?

Others, such as PETA, say that you're just rationalizing murder.

Seems to me you're doing just that with your argument.

So, do you still want to stick with your "colloquialism is absolute truth!" argument?

You aren't even refuting the point. Going to stick with the "you're making an argumentative fallacy, therefore you are wrong" argument?

Back in the real world, everyone thinks an unfertilized egg/zygote/embryo/fetus/baby grows more morally important as it grows. It's just a matter of whether they're honest enough to admit it.

Back in the real world, people think life is valuable no matter what stage of development it might be in. You don't have the guts to admit that.

Yes, it's moral. For some reason, you can't process that answer. Prioritizing liberty seems to be beyond the scope of your programming.

Only you can equate murder with liberty.

What if we gave serial killers the same liberties we give women regarding abortion? Hmm? "My body my choice?"

Life and Liberty, just not liberty. When you take a life, you take the liberty along with it. No, I have my priorities just fine, thank you. Your liberal mind cannot process that liberty works both ways. There are no one edged swords here.

Interesting, how you deny conflicting morality exists. Thousands of years of human philosophy, and you call it a "deflection", just because you're incapable of addressing the concept of conflicting morality.

Okay, I'll acknowledge "conflicting morality" by pointing out the conflicts in yours.

Being the standard run of the mill leftist that you are, take these two issues for example and some of the arguments I've heard in apropos:

Gun Control - For the liberty of the child.

Abortion - for the liberty of the woman to abort the child

Tell me, why is liberty pertinent for the child in one instance but not the other? Why is liberty more important for the woman than the child? How can you care for a child in one instance and not the other? Looks like this represents a major conflict of interest in the liberal philosophy. You say "it is moral that we control gun usage to protect the children" but that "it is immoral to deny a woman the right to kill her unborn child." So, how are you protecting children? How can you reconcile this double standard? Hmm?

 

[Davros]

What you don't understand is that most people don't consider an early stage embryo to be a person/child/human being, especially when it literally has no brain yet.

 

[chikenwing]

If a woman chooses to have an abortion it's nobody else's business except her's and that of the doctor performing the procedure.

It is kinda the babies business......isn't it?

First trimester it is not a baby. Has no consciousness or thoughts. Reacts to stimuli in only a very primitive manner very late in the first trimester.

so,little reliance and pointless,thee ability to f pain has no bearing on the worth of ones life.

 

[Davros]

If a woman chooses to have an abortion it's nobody else's business except her's and that of the doctor performing the procedure.

It is kinda the babies business......isn't it?

First trimester it is not a baby. Has no consciousness or thoughts. Reacts to stimuli in only a very primitive manner very late in the first trimester.

so,little reliance and pointless,thee ability to f pain has no bearing on the worth of ones life.

Not the ability to feel pain in and of itself. But the essence of being human is not the human heart, the human liver, the human nose, the human hands ... but it is the human brain. When the brain is so undeveloped that the embryo has no ability to have thoughts, feelings, and emotions, it is not correct to attribute to it human concepts such as rights, business, desires, etc ...

 

[PK1]

What you don't understand is that most people don't consider an early stage embryo to be a person/child/human being, especially when it literally has no brain yet.

---
Without scientific definitions & testing, I'd bet that a pig or even a cat has more of a "brain" than an early stage "human" embryo!
.