Abortion is murder

AndyWarhol

Ok, I'd like to debate the classic thorny topic that is abortion. I'm sure it has been discussed before, but I'd like to restart the topic.

These days abortion is treated in such a trivial manner that it is used as a form of contraception. Innocent lives are being taken all over the world in the name of convenience. It is worse than any Nazi holocaust and I am sickened by society's tolerance for abortion.

We are living in an age where people are having children in their 30s and 40s to suit their own 'lifestyle choice' when in fact the European population is declining and we are failing to repopulate ourselves - an inherent disorder in the way we live. We should not be killing human life because we need human life. We should be encouraging healthy family values and promoting young couples into having large families, not discouraging family values by encouraging women into having abortions.

chillywilly

i am against abortion but their some issues i am unsure of.

andy, what are your views on traumatic related abortion such as rape victims wishing to have an abortion? i know its not the babys' fault but do you think the mother has a right to get an abortion due to stress trauma etc from her attack?

also what about very young barely pubecent(sp?) who wouldnt seem fit to give birth?

id like to hear your views as its something that i have always thought about when this issue comes up.

chilly.

ratboy

to compare abortion to the holocaust is unbelievable. The foetus that's killed is not a living human being like the people killed in the atrocious genocide of the 40's.

Rev Hellfire

ratboy wrote:

The foetus that's killed is not a living human being

And once more it begin. Its this point which is the dividing line in all of this.
If you think this is the case then its no more a case than putting your rubbish out or putting a dog down. If you think the opposite then its murder and his analogy stands.

Anyway we actually dont need anymore people because while the european birth rate is dropping the overall human population is increasing.

Tar.Aldarion

chillywilly wrote:

i know its not the babys' fault but do you think the mother has a right to get an abortion due to stress trauma etc from her attack?

A wrong does not mean another wrong should be done.If somebody is sexually abused when they young they do not get the right to go out and abuse somebody else because of it.If you become pregnant by a violent act why should an innocent child not be born.Broaching abortion with mother...She said after she had her first child abortion became so repugnant the thought of ever doing it made her ill.You do not know how much a loss a child is until you have one.It disgusted her that by her choice one or more of her children may just not exist....
Also it disgusts me that abortion can be done with permission of the father(in a relationship scenario),I dunno if I could handle it if my spousse decided to get an abortion ever :eek:

Karl Hungus

I don't believe it's right for society to force a woman through a pregnancy she's not prepared for, by denying abortions.

As for birth rates, I think the world is hideously over-populated as it is. We should have mass cullings tbh.

Tar.Aldarion

Rev Hellfire wrote:

And once more it begin. Its this point which is the dividing line in all of this.
If you think this is the case then its no more a case than putting your rubbish out or putting a dog down. If you think the opposite then its murder and his analogy stands..

For me,killing a dog and killing a human is no different whatsoever.Everybody has a different morality and view on what is right and wrong.My view on the above is the baby is just at a younger point in development and because it cannot laugh or cry etc yet people find it easier to do and a lot belief they are not alive.It's like how people find it harder and easier to kill animals due to their 'cuteness level'

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Anyway we actually dont need anymore people because while the european birth rate is dropping the overall human population is increasing.

The world is overpopulated and people are living longer.

Tar.Aldarion

Karl Hungus wrote:

I don't believe it's right for society to force a woman through a pregnancy she's not prepared for, by denying abortions..

A child who will die from going through with a pregnancy that was forced upon her should not have to.

Karl Hungus wrote:

As for birth rates, I think the world is hideously over-populated as it is. We should have mass cullings tbh.

It's alright,America is way ahead of you ^^

Dave!

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

For me,killing a dog and killing a human is no different whatsoever.

What about a cow?

Tar.Aldarion

DaveMcG wrote:

What about a cow?

same again.

Msfc

Andy, to say that women use abortion as contraception is rediculous!! we have more sense and know that its far easier physically and emotionally not to become pregnant than it is to terminate a pregnancy!

nesf

AndyWarhol wrote:

We are living in an age where people are having children in their 30s and 40s to suit their own 'lifestyle choice' when in fact the European population is declining and we are failing to repopulate ourselves - an inherent disorder in the way we live. We should not be killing human life because we need human life. We should be encouraging healthy family values and promoting young couples into having large families, not discouraging family values by encouraging women into having abortions.

You are arguing that human life is only human capital for a country here? That is a very cold view to take. I don't think declining birth rates are a product of abortion in this country tbh. They are a product of contraception.

I don't think that encouraging people to have large families is a good thing or "is natural". But that is just my opinion and I shouldn't force it on others. Neither should you. Family size should be upto the couple in question. I don't think they should be encouraged either way on the issue tbh.

Also having a large family has overtones of a "woman's place is having children and minding the home". I'm not saying that it is equivilant but just that it does conflict against a mother choosing to have a career or working if she has a large number of children. There is nothing wrong, in my mind, with a woman choosing to do this, but equally I don't see anything wrong with one choosing not to have children.

Closing Doors

Karl Hungus wrote:

I don't believe it's right for society to force a woman through a pregnancy she's not prepared for, by denying abortions.

You use the word deny as if it's something every woman should have a right to. So what if she's not prepared (I'll ignore rape etc. for the time being)? Should a child be killed because it's an inconvenience? Adoption's always an option.

ratboy wrote:

to compare abortion to the holocaust is unbelievable. The foetus that's killed is not a living human being like the people killed in the atrocious genocide of the 40's.

To compare it to the holocaust is perfectly acceptable. In countries where it's allowed, why is it acceptable to abort up to a certain number of weeks? When the baby crosses that boundary will it have changed hugely compared to the day before? What makes a living human being to you? Is is because they can't scream as they're being killed? Lethal injection is often considered a more humane manner of execution than electrocution etc, not because it's less painful (it's not!), but because it appears so. If we don't have to watch it, it's Ok....

For these kind of debates, I always like to use the analogy Tom Cruise made in...I forget the name actually...the one where he arrests people based on the crimes they're going to commit in the future. An inspector comes in very sceptical, and Tom Cruise lashes a ball along a ledge-type-thing and the inspector catches it. TC asks "why did you catch it?". Inspector replies "Because it was about to fall".
"But it didn't fall, did it? But you knew it would"

Ok not word perfect but you get the jist!

The Corinthian

ratboy wrote:

to compare abortion to the holocaust is unbelievable. The foetus that's killed is not a living human being like the people killed in the atrocious genocide of the 40's.

Wasn't their argument that they weren't really killing real people either?

Msfc wrote:

Andy, to say that women use abortion as contraception is rediculous!!

I believe that in some nations, such as Japan, it essentially is due to a reluctance to use the contraceptive pill (apparently for medical reasons).

Crucifix

I think the problem is where to make a line in the sand as to when a developing baby is a baby and not a tumor. I'd lean towards the 'pro-choice' side of things, but it's where to draw that line that bothers me.

Msfc

Closing Doors wrote:

To compare it to the holocaust is perfectly acceptable. In countries where it's allowed, why is it acceptable to abort up to a certain number of weeks? When the baby crosses that boundary will it have changed hugely compared to the day before? What makes a living human being to you? Is is because they can't scream as they're being killed? Lethal injection is often considered a more humane manner of execution than electrocution etc, not because it's less painful (it's not!), but because it appears so. If we don't have to watch it, it's Ok....QUOTE]


Its not acceptable to compare it to the holocaust,im sorry but i think thats stupid! to be honest i dont think a foetus is a human until it reaches a certin stage in the pregnancy,yea it has all the genetic material a human being needs,hair and eye colour etc.. of course the foetus is a potential human being,just as an acorn is a potential oak tree. All the genetic material an oak tree needs is in the acorn, the size of the tree etc..- but its not an oak tree. And a foetus is NOT a human being!

Nasty_Girl

I'd like to say I don't agree wit abortion, I wouldn't have one myself but then I don't know that because I've never been pregnant and I think that is something a lot of people don't consider when debating abortion.

Abortion is here and it always will be unfortunately; be it in clinics or with knitting needles in the backstreets.

So I think people need to be educated better on alternatives, for example I think that the Morning After Pill should sold over the counter in Ireland. But then the MOP is another debate, is that a form of abortion or not.

And by the way AndyWarhol, I don't think people should spit out babies in their twenties just to keep the population going, they should have them when they are ready physically, emotionaly and finacially to.

Tar.Aldarion

Msfc wrote:

Its not acceptable to compare it to the holocaust,im sorry but i think thats stupid! to be honest i dont think a foetus is a human until it reaches a certin stage in the pregnancy,yea it has all the genetic material a human being needs,hair and eye colour etc.. of course the foetus is a potential human being,just as an acorn is a potential oak tree. All the genetic material an oak tree needs is in the acorn, the size of the tree etc..- but its not an oak tree. And a foetus is NOT a human being!

There is a difference.An acorn has to 'mate' with the ground to become a tree.If you leave it as it is it is nothing(basically it is sperm) but if you leve a foetus alone what will happen...it gets older and well is a baby.A seedling tree and a tree is what you are trying to compare when you say foetus and baby and a seedling tree is most definately a tree.

Msfc

yeah anti-abortionists beleive that the morning after pill is a form of abortion and ive heard that some catholic gps wont supply it, which is so a thing of the past and here we are in 2005.

Rev Hellfire

Excellent use of caps there.

I'm curious as to how you determine at what point an unborn child becomes a qualified human.
Is it when a certain level of intellectual development has occurred?
If so where does that place children with profound disabilities, are they fully qualified humans ?

Or is it when they take on features which resemble us ?

Or is it some notional date picked ?

airetam_storm

Afaik, babies can feel pain from the 5th week after conception.

What dopeople think of the pill that causes a misscarriage? Is it alright if used in the first 5 weeks?

Mortmain

My view is that, given the fundamental opposition of the two camps involved, the issue of is the foetus a living being or not (and hence is abortion acceptable or not) will never be sorted. What it comes down to in my eyes is an argument based on the freedom to choose what should/should not be permitted in relation to one's own right to bodily integrity.

Every individual, in my mind anyway, should have an unfettered right to choose what happens to their own body - if they are screaming in agony from advanced cancer, or "locked in" from motor neuron disease they should have the right to choose to be allowed to die. Likewise if they wish to live and are going to die as the result of a dangerous pregnancy they should be allowed to at least have the right to choose to terminate.

Who are we to deny such people a choice - what if it were your mother/sister/girlfriend/best friend - what if the dangerous pregnancy was the result of a rape - would you watch them die? For those who would say that this is a different issue - I think not, the principles behind it (who's lfe takes precedence, that of the mother or the foetus) remain the same.

Those with a moral abhorrance to abortion will not choose the route even if freely available, those for whom it is not an issue should not be forced to conform to a belief that they d not share - is this not what happened in the Fascist states?

Dave!

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

same again.

I gather you're a vegetarian...

So, is it the same as killing a bison? Should a lion be condemned for eating its prey?

ie. what is wrong with killing a dog, or a cow, or a bison? Is nature (the food chain) wrong?

Rev Hellfire

Who are we to deny such people a choice?

All depends on your point of view as to if the foetus should be classed as a fully qualifier human or not.

Put it like this if you and I are on an airplane going down and I've the only parachute, but it's a tandem parachute. Do I save you or suit myself since it’s safer for me to go on my own. Hell it’s my parachute and I believe I should have the right to choice when it comes to my own safety, woot so long sucker.

The point is all your arguments are morally unsound if the foetus is a person.

Anyway I’m not aware of a case (but I’m open to been corrected) where the child is saved ahead of the mother in ireland. As far as I’m aware when both lives are imperilled the mother is saved at the expense of the child.

fififi

To me abortion is a nessicary choice for women experiencing crisis pregnancy. If there is a significant risk to the health of the mother, what right do others have to force her to sacrifice her health for a feteus? I have experience of a crisis pregnacy, I had the choice of travelling to the UK, and only got the option since it was not a financial issue for my parents. To a large extent the abortion issue has become a socio-economic issue, it's an option for those who can afford €900.
Rev Hellfire; it is true now that the medical profession will now preform procedures which will result in ending the pregnancy, but won;t do an actual abortion due to the states failure to legislate for X.( which has desregarded the will of the population)
Fi

fififi

Just to mention, I kept the baby and believe that having the option during my pregnancy has made me a better parent. I never felt forced into my parenting role.Surely better for my child?
Fi

OfflerCrocGod

Read my sig.

rainbow kirby

I'm pro-choice... I believe that abortion should be an option in the case of a crisis pregnancy. I know for a fact that if I became pregnant at this age (I'm 21) there's no way in hell I'd want to keep the baby. Why should a woman be forced to carry a child to term that she doesn't want?
Also, pro-choice doesn't necessarily mean pro-abortion. It means that you are in favour of women having the option of abortion in the case of a crisis pregnancy.

The Corinthian

I don’t think anyone is really suggesting that crisis or unplanned pregnancies don't occur. The debate is on whether abortion is murder or not. The pro-choice side of the argument seems to pin its moral position on the foetus not being considered human until some seemingly magical point in its pre-natal development. I say argument because even amongst the pro-choice camp there’s no agreement on how to define this and so frankly this alone should be sending off warning bells with people.

The simile of the holocaust and abortion is perhaps a little melodramatic, but not without merit. I’m reminded of a scene in Schindler’s List, where Amon Goethe tells his Jewish maid that she’s “not strictly speaking human”. After all dehumanisation was central to the justification of the Final Solution - they were not killing people but eradicating a disease. Slavery was justified with similar logic, and indeed specimens of Australian Aboriginals were being collected as late as the first half of the last century.

Ultimately within our Judeo-Christian moral framework, we actually have to dehumanise the foetus to make abortion morally acceptable. The moment that we accept the foetus is human then abortion becomes murder by definition. And so we begin to invent criteria, which allow us to dehumanise the foetus and make the procedure acceptable. Think of it as the ethical equivalent of rezoning.

My own study of it is that abortion can be moral, but only if you accept that it is acceptable to kill a human in certain circumstances. Forget the “foetus isn’t a human being” line, because it just fails to hold water and is simply an attempt to make something acceptable within our Judeo-Christian moral framework that frankly can’t be made acceptable unless we choose to fudge the definitions a bit.

So if you accept that the rights (including the right to life) of the woman / mother supersede those of the foetus / child, then that can be considered a consistent position. There’s nothing arbitrary - no magical X number of weeks or “does it look like a person?” - about your reasoning then. Ultimately, your position may be considered utilitarian, but at least it doesn’t relay upon some fudged definition to make it work.

However, if you do adopt such a moral framework, do bare in mind that it may be applied to your detriment in the future.

Macmorris

I know of very few people who could be considered anti-abortion. Although most people don't like the idea of killing unborn babies, when pressed on the issue, nearly everyone will admit that abortion is justified in some circumstances. Even the catholic church's position is that abortion is justified when the life of the mother is in danger. Because of this it's impossible to take an absolute moral position against abortion. It might be tasteless to say that it's a bit like being pregnant but you can't say that something is a bit wrong. Something is either wrong or it isn't wrong. People who believe that abortion is morally wrong therefore must believe that it's wrong in all circumstances or otherwise it's not wrong at all. Therefore abortion is not wrong by most people's (even the catholic church's) standards.

As for whether or not abortion is murder. Dictionary.com defines murder as the unlawful killing of one human by another. As murder is defined relative to the law and as the law in this country is that abortion is permitted in extreme cases, it seems a bit sad that we consider the killing of some babies as murder while other babies can be killed without generating any moral outrage.

That cliche about 'cherishing all the nation's children equally' would seem to make a case for legalising abortion on anti-discrimination grounds. If we're going to allow abortion in this country for some children then we should allow it for all children. I know that sounds facetious, but I think this is a point that few people seem to pick up on. Why do all these pro-lifers never point out that their outrage over the killing of unborn babies is selective. It's only some children's lives that they want to defend. I'm sure there are dozens of unborn babies killed in this country every year just so that the mother's life can be saved. Where's the indignation over their deaths?

Personally, I'm in favour of legalising abortion in Ireland but at the same time I think AndyWarhol has a point when he mentions the problem of Europe's falling birth-rates and our shrinking populations. I've often wondered if the ban on abortion was one of the reasons why Ireland has maintained a relatively high birth-rate in comparison with other European countries. Whatever the reason, I would hate to see Ireland's birth-rate reach European levels.

Tar.Aldarion

DaveMcG wrote:

I gather you're a vegetarian...

So, is it the same as killing a bison? Should a lion be condemned for eating its prey?

ie. what is wrong with killing a dog, or a cow, or a bison? Is nature (the food chain) wrong?

This is going way off topic, If you have questions like these take them to vegan/ vegetarian forum and i will gladly answer them.

Tar.Aldarion

Macmorris wrote:

I know of very few people who could be considered anti-abortion. Although most people don't like the idea of killing unborn babies, when pressed on the issue, nearly everyone will admit that abortion is justified in some circumstances. Even the catholic church's position is that abortion is justified when the life of the mother is in danger. Because of this it's impossible to take an absolute moral position against abortion. It might be tasteless to say that it's a bit like being pregnant but you can't say that something is a bit wrong. Something is either wrong or it isn't wrong. People who believe that abortion is morally wrong therefore must believe that it's wrong in all circumstances or otherwise it's not wrong at all. Therefore abortion is not wrong by most people's (even the catholic church's) standards.

I disagree, What you are pointing out is that people believe that some wrongs must be committed and not that peoples belief falls apart under closer inspection.It is not impossible to take an absolute moral position against abortion, you can be for a young girl getting an abortion so that she does not die but still know what is happening is wrong.It is not 'justified' in some circumstances-it is 'accepted',even by those that think it is wrong.You can not be sure a young mother and her child will die but you can be nearly sure so people take the stance of definately saving one life.Just because you think something is wrong does not mean you do not do it,who would tell that little girl she must die,I wouldn't.I know the abortion is wrong but I'm not goona see a young rape victum and her baby both die.I'll let her decide what to do.

To quote a medice lecturer from last year,any race that is killing thousands of it's own species every year is in a very sad state of affairs indeed.

The Corinthian wrote:

don’t think anyone is really suggesting that crisis or unplanned pregnancies occur. The debate is on whether abortion is murder or not. The pro-choice side of the argument seems to pin its moral position on the foetus not being considered human until some seemingly magical point in its pre-natal development. I say argument because even amongst the pro-choice camp there’s no agreement on how to define this and so frankly this alone should be sending off warning bells with people.

The simile of the holocaust and abortion is perhaps a little melodramatic, but not without merit. I’m reminded of a scene in Schindler’s List, where Amon Goethe tells his Jewish maid that she’s “not strictly speaking human”. After all dehumanisation was central to the justification of the Final Solution - they were not killing people but eradicating a disease. Slavery was justified with similar logic, and indeed specimens of Australian Aboriginals were being collected as late as the first half of the last century.

Ultimately within our Judeo-Christian moral framework, we actually have to dehumanise the foetus to make abortion morally acceptable. The moment that we accept the foetus is human then abortion becomes murder by definition. And so we begin to invent criteria, which allow us to dehumanise the foetus and make the procedure acceptable. Think of it as the ethical equivalent of rezoning.

My own study of it is that abortion can be moral, but only if you accept that it is acceptable to kill a human in certain circumstances. Forget the “foetus isn’t a human being” line, because it just fails to hold water and is simply an attempt to make something acceptable within our Judeo-Christian moral framework that frankly can’t be made acceptable unless we choose to fudge the definitions a bit.

So if you accept that the rights (including the right to life) of the woman / mother supersede those of the foetus / child, then that can be considered a consistent position. There’s nothing arbitrary - no magical X number of weeks or “does it look like a person?” - about your reasoning then. Ultimately, your position may be considered utilitarian, but at least it doesn’t relay upon some fudged definition to make it work.

However, if you do adopt such a moral framework, do bare in mind that it may be applied to your detriment in the future.

Thought that was a good post.

The Corinthian

Macmorris wrote:

People who believe that abortion is morally wrong therefore must believe that it's wrong in all circumstances or otherwise it's not wrong at all. Therefore abortion is not wrong by most people's (even the catholic church's) standards.

Modern morality is not defined solely upon the act, but also upon the intention behind it. Classical morality might agree with you - Oedipus was punished for two sins that he was unaware of, for example. Modern morality would reject this as it the intention to sin was missing. In the same light attempted murder is considered immoral even though no murder was actually carried out, primarily because of the intention.

So to suggest that murder or any act is either right or wrong regardless of the circumstances is flawed. You might as well argue that rape is acceptable, as sex would have to be unacceptable in all circumstances for it to be wrong.

As for whether or not abortion is murder. Dictionary.com defines murder as the unlawful killing of one human by another. As murder is defined relative to the law and as the law in this country is that abortion is permitted in extreme cases, it seems a bit sad that we consider the killing of some babies as murder while other babies can be killed without generating any moral outrage.

Technically correct, if pedantic. However law generally should reflect morality and not the reverse, and this is the debate. Is it murder or is it not? And by extension, is it defined erroneously in this country or abroad?

base2

Whats the point?

I believe that a foeteus isn't a live person whilst others think it is. Who's to say who is right or wrong.

Gazza22

AndyWarhol wrote:

Ok, I'd like to debate the classic thorny topic that is abortion. I'm sure it has been discussed before, but I'd like to restart the topic.

These days abortion is treated in such a trivial manner that it is used as a form of contraception. Innocent lives are being taken all over the world in the name of convenience. It is worse than any Nazi holocaust and I am sickened by society's tolerance for abortion

I must agree with you on how abortion is used in modern times a trivial matter. I have heard of many cases where people are just having unprotected sex with little or no thought for it's consequences. It is seen as a form of contraception for many people particularly in countries that have legalised abortion.

Tbh i wouldn't compare it to the Nazi holocaust. If i were to prioritise life, i would choose to keep the life of a mature human over a few week old foetus. I'm not proud of this mind-set but it is shared all over the world.

I am pro-choice for women and believe they should be able to make their own decision but in limited circumstances. I totally agree that woman who have become pregnant due to abuse should have the right to abortion. I also agree that young teenagers who become pregnant should have the right to abortion. But i totally condone woman who as AndyWarhol said, see abortion as a method of contraception and nothing too serious.

One thing that i don't agree with is the period of time that abortion is an option. England in particular have an up-to 24 week policy in which abrtion is legal and i think this is completely wrong. It should be up to a month max imo.

I know this would clash with some of my earlier opinions, a teenager could find out three months in that she is pregnant, a woman could be raped and be so traumatised that she doesn't know what to do until it's too late ect ect but abortion is such a diverse topic that you could contradict yourself and change your opinions, go on for hours and hours and never be completely satisfied with your views.

It is a traumatic experience to go through and should not be taken lightly, but of course the option should always be there. I'm sure most people aren't proud that we as humans have this practice in place.

AndyWarhol wrote:

We are living in an age where people are having children in their 30s and 40s to suit their own 'lifestyle choice' when in fact the European population is declining and we are failing to repopulate ourselves - an inherent disorder in the way we live. We should not be killing human life because we need human life. We should be encouraging healthy family values and promoting young couples into having large families, not discouraging family values by encouraging women into having abortions.

Women are entitled to have their kids when they want and no woman is thinking of the future population of Europe when deciding to start a family.
We're not going to notice the difference in population, it is growing steadily but because of the Asian population, we seem very slow at reproducing.

It's estimated that Europe has a current world population share of 12% while this will drop to 7% in 2050. The French and Irish are on top with birth rates at the moment with 198 children per 100 women in Ireland with France just a little behind.

I understand what you are getting at, we are decreasing in population but it will never be to the point of despair. We are over populated as it is and any decrease will be healthy.

Unfortuneately promoting young couples to have large families is not going to work. Sure we can now afford to have large families comfortably but we are not living in the 70's anymore and that just doesn't suit young peoples lifestyles anymore.

My 2c...

The Corinthian

base2 wrote:

Whats the point?

I believe that a foeteus isn't a live person whilst others think it is. Who's to say who is right or wrong.

There are two points, the first is that this forum is for discussions on matters that are relevant to the humanities - and a debate on morality would certainly be relevant. If this bores you go to the After Hours forum and knock yourself out there.

The second is that moral questions should be debated. A lot of people may believe that the foetus isn't a live person whilst others think it is, but you’ll find that most haven’t really worked out why. You certainly don’t seem too bothered by why.

Why is this important? If for no other reason because it may come back to bite us in the ass some day. Popular morality is not static and what we consider to be right and wrong today may have implications doe the future.

So if someone someday decides that you’re no longer a human being because of age, infirmity, race or some other arbitrary condition and decides to put you to sleep, don’t come whinging to us about it.

base2

See you're getting all hostile and worked up about this. Do you want me to disagree with you would that make you feel better?

Abortion isnt murder.

What are peoples opinions on this?

http://www.redrag.net/2004/04/12/abortion-again/

base2

base2 wrote:

Whats the point?

I believe that a foeteus isn't a live person whilst others think it is. Who's to say who is right or wrong.

I believe that a jew isn't a live person whilst others think it is. Who's to say who is right or wrong.

base2

None of your anti-semitic remarks here man this is a discussion about abortion.

I'm making the point that you could that rationale to legitimize anything. It is redundant and has no bearing on the truth of any issue.

The Corinthian

base2 wrote:

See you're getting all hostile and worked up about this. Do you want me to disagree with you would that make you feel better?

I don’t mind people disagreeing with me.

I do mind people who don’t know (or want to know) why they disagree or agree with me.

Abortion isnt murder.

I’ve no intention of dissuading you from that opinion, if only for the good of the gene pool.

None of your anti-semitic remarks here man this is a discussion about abortion.

He’s just following your logic. As I said don’t come whinging to us now about it.

base2

Except that you won't find many that agree with your statement. In these cases there is consensus, but with my argument there isnt. Unless that changes there can be no percieved right or wrong.

The Corinthian

base2 wrote:

Except that you won't find many that agree with your statement. In these cases there is consensus, but with my argument there isnt.

So anti-Semitism would be all right if there was a consensus?

Unless that changes there can be no percieved right or wrong.

And how exactly do you think a consensus is formed?

base2

So anti-Semitism would be all right if there was a consensus?

Yep.

Who decides moral issues? One person? Everybody? What if one person disagrees with everyone else. Who is right.

Discussing this stuff is a joke. Now science is worth discussing because at least there can be a winner talking about actual facts.

You're a moral relativist?

The Corinthian

base2 wrote:

Discussing this stuff is a joke.

Not if you actually understand it. I suggest you read up on ethics and philosophy before forming another informed opinion.

Now science is worth discussing because at least there can be a winner talking about actual facts.

You don’t appear to know a lot about science either.

base2

**** just realised this is in the humanities folder. Relativist? Don't know what that is. I've been caught out. If only I'd been given an education in 'grey' thinking I could stay around and talk the talk with you lads.

The Corinthian

It’s not every day that you see ignorance held up as virtue.

Yes it is. Problem #431728 with modern Ireland

base2

You don’t appear to know a lot about science either.

Is this one of your informed opinions that you were telling me about? Funny stuff this. You have no answers to me. I've just destroyed all your arguments.