Bacchus Posted October 12, 2004 Report Posted October 12, 2004 this is cute but you're avoiding the point. What exactly is murder refering to? What's your view on the fact that some think abortion is closely related to murder but killing while following orders isn't and some others, usually against war and unecessary killing by the way, won't see it that way? What's the difference? Do you think the pro-choicers are "morally misguided"?
Dr.Worthless Posted October 12, 2004 Report Posted October 12, 2004 this is cute but you're avoiding the point.I'm avoiding no point.. you're raising questions about "moral value" and I'm telling you that while morals may vary from person to person, Overall Moral view is dictated by the society in which we live. I might find it ok to !@#$%^&* little kids in the !@#$%^&* while they sleep.. but society sure doesn't.. so the action is wrong.. What exactly is murder refering to? mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)n. 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. What's your view on the fact that some think abortion is closely related to murder but killing while following orders isn't and some others, usually against war and unecessary killing by the way, won't see it that way?Thats fine.. folks can feel whatever way they wish about abortion.. but if you wish to make abortion a moral issue, the overall moral code is/must be created by society. Society has deemed murder wrong.. but killing in wars ok. In most cases I wouldn't put war in the catagory of "unecessary killing", that is if you enjoy speaking french.. because your country would be speaking german if not for the unnecessary killing during ww2. Do you think the pro-choicers are "morally misguided"? Personally I think the majority of pro-choicers are self centered and greedy. I wont discuss that though because it is an opinion, which im allowed to have. Do you think pro-lifers are "Religious fanatics" ?
Aileron Posted October 13, 2004 Report Posted October 13, 2004 Casualties are prima faci wrong and only justified under certain cir!@#$%^&*stances, though discussing those cir!@#$%^&*stances requires an in depth discussion on the morality of war. Suffice to say that the right to life of the victims of war still stands, but are overridden by some greater need. 1)That as far as human are concern, life true nature is moral.No, I don't need that !@#$%^&*umption. 2)Something moral answers to something grander than itself. You need a "guaranteeing" principle for moral to work, be it God or else. Hence the importance of the "future" in your argument.No, I don't need that !@#$%^&*umption either. The reason for the "future" is because that is why murder is wrong. Murder does not deny the victim their past or present. 3)Hence the fact that animal life is excluded from your argument; an animal is not a "moral agent". This state of being is reserved solely to privileged beings, humans.A moral agent is defined as a being with a concept of morality. It is used by SECULAR moralists to make the distiction between human and animal. A human can tell right from wrong, and animal can't. This isn't to say a moral agent will always act in a moral fashion, merely that they have the concept of right and wrong. 4)Your argument absolutely needs some kind of salvation to work. A "moral agent" will be judged by a higher instance that holds some kind of moral knowledge and thus can "appraise" a life's value. Again, this is essential for the "future" to hold a shred of sense and value.Its merely there as part of the definition of "person". Bacchus...it is a purely SECULAR arguement. I'll state it simply: Ducky, you are being stupid as usual. In order to come to the conclusion that making an omelet is abortion, you have to reject the idea of personhood. You already made the pre-!@#$%^&*umption to include chickens as persons. Thus, you are !@#$%^&*uming that killing an adult chicken is murder, and laughing at the concept of killing an egg as abortion. You've already thrown the distiction between human and animal out the window, then you criticise the conclusion you came to for that very same reason! I'll restate the arguement in a more simple fashion. Murder = Denying a person the future portion of their life. (The past portion of their life is unaffected by murder) Abortion = Denying a being a future portion of life as a person. Omelett making = Denying a future portion of their life as a chicken.
»Ducky Posted October 13, 2004 Report Posted October 13, 2004 *chuckle* I don't see 'persons' when I look to the streets after waking. I see animals that are still no better than the rabbit lying by the tree. If you support killing of one animal, why not the other? A basic question.My arguement has nothing to do with morality or any of the other various issues argued in your post. If we are no better than one another, why is one more acceptable than the other.It's the simple notion that you are the best, that you are superior in some way.Which is total bull!@#$%^&*. We have comprehension on a higher level, but that does not mean that we will get more enjoyment out of life than that chicken would have. That's the arguement right? It is better to live than to never have lived? You all don't think like me, I respect that. Half of you will eat that chicken and think nothing of it. I can live with that notion. I have no will to change you, because no matter how hard I try, it will not happen.Again, why dictate to other people that they must save a fetus, and yet watch you kill ones yourself. It makes no sense what so ever.
Petrajs_Killer Posted October 13, 2004 Report Posted October 13, 2004 [sarcasm]I agree with Ducky, killing any type of life form is murder! Don't dare murder an innocent fly! Don't even think about killing the lice on a child's hair, that's just cold-blooded murder. Cows, pigs, fishes, plants, etc., don't you dare murder them! They are all living things, and should all deserve the right to live.[/sarcasm]
Dr.Worthless Posted October 13, 2004 Report Posted October 13, 2004 Ducky.. please tell me you're a vegan.. If not you're arguement is shot. Oh btw.. turn your computer off and all your electricity.. Alot of power plants still run off oil, which is harvested from animals homes.. which in turn may cause them to die. Infact, don't eat at all. Most animals eat vegetables, what gives you the right to steal their food? They have to eat too... Yes, your arguement is just as ludicrous as above.. but if you truely believe that animals == humans, why arent you living your beliefs? It is impossible for a human to live without the destruction of something.
MasterDrake Posted October 13, 2004 Report Posted October 13, 2004 It was found that oil is not produced by fossils sorry
Dr.Worthless Posted October 13, 2004 Report Posted October 13, 2004 Huh? Ducky.. please tell me you're a vegan.. If not you're arguement is shot. Oh btw.. turn your computer off and all your electricity.. Alot of power plants still run off oil, which is harvested from animals homes.. which in turn may cause them to die. That says HOMES....
»Ducky Posted October 13, 2004 Report Posted October 13, 2004 How is my arguement shot?I support abortion, the killing of a fetus before it is born.I eat eggs, And I use alot of electricity. I am not contradicting myself.
Dr.Worthless Posted October 13, 2004 Report Posted October 13, 2004 They are all living things, and should all deserve the right to live. "Why don't they" Likely a mis-understanding, because taking the "every animal has the right to live" path kinda destroys your old arguement.. Anyway yeah.. likely a mis-understanding Though I still find it puzzling that you'll accept killing of unborn humans, because humans kill unborn chickens..
»Ducky Posted October 13, 2004 Report Posted October 13, 2004 Every life does desearve to live equally. I am no saint, I don't go out of my way far to keep things alive. I won't kill a spider, or a flee, but if something does not fit my fancy, it is killed. The groundhog in iraq is murdered so I can get my oil.Wasn't that mentioned before also? You live the same way. So why is killing one above the other? What I don't do is tell a vegetarian or a hunter what s/he should do because of what I think. I put up two arguements, though I agree with parts of both, they don't necessarily reflect my decision in the situation.I personally would not have an abortion, but I have little say towards those who do; I believe the option should be there along with the choice.
MonteZuma Posted October 13, 2004 Report Posted October 13, 2004 mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)n. 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.Using this definition, abortion is not murder. ...but if you wish to make abortion a moral issue, the overall moral code is/must be created by society. Society has deemed murder wrong.Given that >40% of women have had abortions, much of society (almost certaintly >50%) have decided that it is not morally wrong. Personally I think the majority of pro-choicers are self centered and greedy. I wont discuss that though because it is an opinion, which im allowed to have. Personally I think people who want to tell women what to do with their bodies, and want to decide for me what is right and wrong are the self-centred and greedy ones.
nikegurl637 Posted October 14, 2004 Report Posted October 14, 2004 Well, I see that no females have posted about this topic yet. As a female who can sympathize and who may one day be faced with the option of abortion, I am definitely pro-choice. Now, I'm not saying I support a woman who is in her 3rd trimester and suddenly decides to abort... I feel that that is just wrong. She's had months on top of months of caring this fat weight in her belly, how can you not be thinking about if you really want it? Things like how late the abortion is should be considered. Also, if a woman is raped, she should definitely have the option of abortion. Having the child of someone who would probably haunt you via nightmares is not a good thing. Heavy depression and whatnot will most likely come into play here, and then not only will you be losing one adult life, but the child will probably have a terrible life with a depressed (or dead) mother. (Sorry for bluntness, I'm pretty exhausted at the moment.) I could ramble on and on about other conditions you could set for abortion, but I think I'm going to go to bed.
»Ducky Posted October 14, 2004 Report Posted October 14, 2004 Well, I see that no females have posted about this topic yet.Omg, Females are real? They use the internet?!?!?! Your input of course is much appriciated, we just don't get many female posters around.
Bacchus Posted October 14, 2004 Report Posted October 14, 2004 true that. Should we clean up the mess?
Aileron Posted October 14, 2004 Report Posted October 14, 2004 Monte, I was answering the question "Why is murder wrong?" We all know what the definition is by legal sense, but we are debating the moral question here. Battery is wrong because it causes a person pain in the present. Murder is wrong because it causes pain in the present and causes a person non-existence in the future. Knifing a corpse is disrespectfull to the dead, but isn't murder - the person existed in the past, but has no present and future. Euthanasia is debatable, and if justified only so because the person would have no future of personhood anyway. (Sorry about this...I hate it when someone tries to use one controversal issue to argue another.) How does this relate to abortion? Abortion causes the fetus pain in the present, but the fetus and as a matter of fact small children are not persons by secular definitions. However, it does cause a person non-existence in the future. Thus abortion is atleast as wrong as murder minus battery. And Ducky...quit with the approach about animals. I covered that in my first post. I covered that in my second post. Now, I'm covering it again. I must me dense, because I know you are way to stupid to read my posts and recognize that your point was already countered. Look, read my posts, think about what I'm saying, then post. BTW Monte, the 40% figure is hypothetical in itself. It is "probably 40%", so you can't tack another 10% on to it.
Bacchus Posted October 14, 2004 Report Posted October 14, 2004 why are you calling names Aileron? Ducky's views are as legitimate as yours. You seem to see the world through black and white lenses whereas Ducky sees shades of gray. All your arguments are based on ideas and premisses that are necessary to the argument itself. Your theory about "future life" is cute but it can't account for anything. Sure it's easy to use some sort of prepaid prefab genial ethic structure like the one you're defending. But unless you think this theory is the end of all things, you have to face the facts that people won't always agree with you and you also have to respect that by the way or you forfeit any real will to discuss and enrich your own personal views on the matter at hand. How can you justify 10k civilian deaths in Iraq? tchechens being systematically raped? US embargos killing thousands of people? How can you justify any unecessary deaths using this theory?Or does it work only with abortions? What if your wife, girlfriend, one night stand, etc...want to abort your fetus? What if your in love with her and she decides she doesn't want it? What if she cries herself to sleep, loose appe-*BAD WORD*-e, bleeds for two weeks and all the after effects not mentionning remorses...How will you react? telling her she's a murderer? that she just threw a "future life" away? That she should have denied her own for the simple fact that she can be pregnant? Man, if this is how you see life with a woman i'd say you're a poor !@#$%^&*ing insensitive moron. not to mention stupid. So stop calling names, everyone can do that.
MasterDrake Posted October 14, 2004 Report Posted October 14, 2004 Sure it's easy to use some sort of prepaid prefab genial ethic structure like the one you're defending. But unless you think this theory is the end of all things, you have to face the facts that people won't always agree with you and you also have to respect that by the way or you forfeit any real will to discuss and enrich your own personal views on the matter at hand.This was too good to p!@#$%^&* up, now all of you Pro Life folks out there have just been !@#$%^&*ed by your own words. You say we should respect your opinion and yet you do not respect our views and beliefs. If you are really this enlightened and respect peoples views like you say then you would understand the pro choice persons view. Yes its probaly wrong to kill a "developing" human life but when you are faced with the consequences of having to give birth and take care of this child it can also be wrong. Even if your not raped there are still justified causes to have an abortion for example1. Your under the age of 18 2. You are not finacially secure enough to support this child and even if you manage it the child will most likely grow up in poverty.3. You say give it up for adoption, I would hate to have been adopted not knowning who my real parents are. Some children are never adopted and have to fend for themselves after they are kicked out of the ins-*BAD WORD*-ution they reside in at the age of 18 I could go on but if you havent got my point just comere and I will slap you around a bit till you realize it. Now I don't see how you can hold a human life so much higher then that of a animal. We are all classified as mammals last time I checked we were animals ourselves I believe they used to drowned unwanted to children back in the days of no abortion and farther back they would brutally beat it to death in primitive times. So there has always been some way to get rid of a unwanted pregnancy. Just give up I'm not gonna tell a woman what to do with the child unless its my child and neither should you.
FunkmastaD Posted October 14, 2004 Report Posted October 14, 2004 The choice should be open to every woman who is in a condition where they have no possible way to support a child, or they've been raped etc... We as humans are biased on how we see ourselves compared to everything else. We see ourselves in some egotisitical spotlight and think that they are the stars of the show of life when this clearly isn't true. In the end we are just animals. If you think abortion is murder then what is eating a hamburger, or having a ham for supper, or roast duck. What happens when you get insects in your house? You call an exterminator, a person hired to kill them. So society will approve of Insect/Rodent Hitmen, and farm animals being slaughtered, but doesn't like preventing the life of a child before its really born. !@#$%^&*ed up is all I have to sayAnd no I'm not a vegan hippie who loves animals and !@#$%^&* like thatI eat meat, and kill insects, and really don't care what a person does with their child as long as its not mine.
Dr.Worthless Posted October 14, 2004 Report Posted October 14, 2004 We as humans are biased on how we see ourselves compared to everything else. We see ourselves in some egotisitical spotlight and think that they are the stars of the show of life when this clearly isn't true. In the end we are just animals. If you think abortion is murder then what is eating a hamburger, or having a ham for supper, or roast duck. What happens when you get insects in your house? You call an exterminator, a person hired to kill them. So society will approve of Insect/Rodent Hitmen, and farm animals being slaughtered, but doesn't like preventing the life of a child before its really born. !@#$%^&*ed up is all I have to sayAnd no I'm not a vegan hippie who loves animals and !@#$%^&* like thatI eat meat, and kill insects, and really don't care what a person does with their child as long as its not mine. Right Funk.. so when your child gets raped and killed by the pedophile down the street, just chalk it up to "Well, he was just another animal anyway.. cows get killed all the time, so what makes my kid so special..." Man.. what a hypocrite society is.. approves of the killings of animals, but not of humans.. OH THE INJUSTICE. Funk, if some thug knifes your !@#$%^&* to steal your wallet, make sure to pin a note on your chest that says "Don't press charges, we kill cows everyday, and since i'm just another animal my death really is insignifigant" Rediculous...
»Ducky Posted October 14, 2004 Report Posted October 14, 2004 Does that arguement hold though? Of course it is sad when someone is knifed, and that person is close to you.Had my dog been stabbed, I would be quite sad. But a person in australia who gets stabbed and dies.. Do I care? NahNot even remotely close to me.Or even that persons dog. I don't think the arguement fits.
MonteZuma Posted October 14, 2004 Report Posted October 14, 2004 Monte, I was answering the question "Why is murder wrong?" We all know what the definition is by legal sense, but we are debating the moral question here.Well if it is a moral question then lets leave legal definitions like 'murder' out of the debate. I stand by my argument that if 40% of women have had abortions, then clearly a significant portion of the population do not think that it is immoral. I speculate that the minority of people who do think that it is immoral have hijacked the debate in the US, and probably in other countries where religion and politics overlap. Abortion causes the fetus pain in the present, ...That is debatable. However, it does cause a person non-existence in the future.So does the pill. So does a condom. So does masturbation. Every time you spill your seed you've caused a person non-existence in the future. BTW Monte, the 40% figure is hypothetical in itself. It is "probably 40%", so you can't tack another 10% on to it.Its actually about 43%. The stats are reliable. This is not hypothetical.
MonteZuma Posted October 14, 2004 Report Posted October 14, 2004 But a person in australia who gets stabbed and dies.. Do I care? Nah<{POST_SNAPBACK}>OMG WTF?! [/wub]
Recommended Posts