Abortion is murder

AndyWarhol

Wicknight wrote:

Why exactly?

Why is something morally wrong? I don't know the answer to this question. I'm from a religous background and get my moral teaching that I base my life around from there. You obviously have no moral guidance, perhaps only what the law tells you or perhaps what you think is right and wrong for yourself in a sort of 'anonymous Christian sense'.

Wicknight wrote:

I am not proposing anything, I am asking people to quantify and justify their views in a slightly more logical manner than "it is wrong" ...

Ok, I apologise for laying down my argument as if all of it were in direct response to yours.

Wicknight wrote:

Please read my posts properly ... :rolleyes:

You know, you did say "what makes a human being differnt than a wasp or a cow" and I paraphrased this as "To address your point that a child in the womb is no different from a wasp, a cow or a bacteria." in order to fit into the context of what I was trying to say. I never claimed to be quoting you and don't think I misrepresented your views.

Wicknight wrote:

True but then every single cell in your body contains the same information, yet it is not abortion when your hair falls out in the shower is it?

Actually I think you will find they are all very much "alive", by any medical or biological defintion of the term

So hair is alive all of a sudden? What sex is hair?

Wicknight wrote:

Finally, now we are getting some where ...

So, ignoring the soul for a minute, consciousness is a defining characteristic of humans that seperate us from other animals. And it is morally wrong to kill a conscious life form, but not wrong to kill one that is not?

So the question now becomes, not if the feotus is "alive", but if the feotus is conscious, and at what point does it become conscious. It would be pretty hard to argue that a single cell is conscious, it has no nerve system, no spinal cord, no higher brain functions, no brain.

A soul is a completely different matter, getting into religious beliefs. I am an athesist so I don't believe in the classical Christian soul, so there isn't much point in me arguing over the issue of does a feotus have a soul yet. I would point out that Christians used to believe that the soul did not enter the child under further down the development than conception, and that early term abortions were perfectly moral.

Consciousness is not the all-defining charachteristic of human life. Lots of other things come in to play. The fact is that the foetus is human life itself and that most foetus's will one day become babies. To deny life its potential to become a baby is inherently wrong and akin to murder.

You question why it is wrong to kill a foetus (that will become a baby). Why not then question why it is wrong to kill a child that will one day become a teenager? Your argument can be decoupled from that of abortion and reasoned under the banner 'why is it wrong to kill?'. You add animals into the cauldron: why not extend the argument to 'why is it logically wrong to kill human life as opposed to animal life?'. I haven't really thought about the answer to this (re: animals) in enough detail to warrant a good answer. Perhaps somebody else could deal with this?

Now, I'd like to talk about religous teachings. To address your point above: I don't know what kind of 'christians' said that "the soul did not enter the child under further down the development" - it was probably some hybrid religous sect that came up with this idea. The term 'christian' has broad unsatisfactory meaning these days. When it comes down to it, reasoning can never really be exclusive from theological grounding, all it takes is to ask 'Why?' to any question you can think of about 20 times and you'll eventually get back to god/belief. My teaching dictates that all humans have souls. To kill a foetus, is to kill a soul and given that the majority Irish people regard themselves as Catholics, the majority of this population would concurr.

AndyWarhol

Should the girl in question have an abortion, she'll be the mother of an unborn child. Will this nullify the fact that she and her sexual partner introduced a human into this world? Should she have her baby removed, she will have to deal with the consequences (psychological and physical) of undergoing such a proceedure.

Essentially, from your argument above, you are balancing the woman's career prospects against life and death. This is a sickening path and the reason why 50 million babies are killed each year in the name of 'choice'.

You go on to say how this hypothetical girl suffers because of what others belive in. It's called law. Those who make the law are made up of ourselves: religous believers (indeed aethists, gnostics etc.) who determine a legal/moral floor below which we cannot tread. Are you trying to suggest that we should allow, say, some woman whose life has been ruined by an adulterer who slept with her husband to kill?

My point really boils down to the fact that an inconvenient child that is killed does not solve the problem and only denies a child the right to grow, be loved, get educated and engage in life all in the name of 'convenience'.

If anything she has chosen to engage in self indulgent activities knowing full well the consequences which she therefore must accept and make the best out of the situation she finds herself in.

Snowball

AndyWarhol wrote:

Why is something morally wrong? I don't know the answer to this question. I'm from a religous background and get my moral teaching that I base my life around from there. You obviously have no moral guidance, perhaps only what the law tells you or perhaps what you think is right and wrong for yourself in a sort of 'anonymous Christian sense'.

Please tell me your not trying to say that one can only recive monal guidance from teh christian faith or some other religion. Because I got my moral guidance from my family, friends life it's self.

AndyWarhol wrote:

The fact is that the foetus is human life itself and that most foetus's will one day become babies...

My that argument I could say that "Every sperm is sacred". One could also say that protected sex, masturbation, a woman’s monthly cycles, Vasectomy (male or female) and so on are all murder and are wrong and should be stopped.

AndyWarhol wrote:

The term 'christian' has broad unsatisfactory meaning these days.

I always though it was someone who beloved in the Christian faith and followed its practices. But anyways.

AndyWarhol wrote:

To kill a foetus, is to kill a soul and given that the majority Irish people regard themselves as Catholics, the majority of this population would concurr.

The problem is that that is not the case. When asked, the majority of people believe that the current state does not reflect the opinion of the majority and it needs to be looked at. What the majority actually believe? Well that’s for a census or a referendum. But the point is that most ppl believe that what is in place currently does not reflect the Irish current state of mind.

Snowball

AndyWarhol wrote:

Should the girl in question have an abortion, she'll be the mother of an unborn child. Will this nullify the fact that she and her sexual partner introduced a human into this world? Should she have her baby removed, she will have to deal with the consequences (psychological and physical) of undergoing such a proceedure.

Exactly but that should be the choice of her and her partner. Not yours and mine. Or anyone else’s for that matter. You make a decision for someone else and its not you that has to live with the consequences. People should be able to make an informed decision and then live with the consequences (psychological and physical) of that decision.

AndyWarhol wrote:

You go on to say how this hypothetical girl suffers because of what others belive in. It's called law. Those who make the law are made up of ourselves: religous believers (indeed aethists, gnostics etc.) who determine a legal/moral floor below which we cannot tread. Are you trying to suggest that we should allow, say, some woman whose life has been ruined by an adulterer who slept with her husband to kill?

A law that put in place by a state who made most of its moral decisions based on what the church thought and not the people. It's painfully obvious that the church is not in touch with the people anymore.

AndyWarhol

Snowball wrote:

Please tell me your not trying to say that one can only recive monal guidance from teh christian faith or some other religion. Because I got my moral guidance from my family, friends life it's self.

I receive the moral framework for my life from God. You and your family/friends obviously know better and decide morals for yourself. I find this hard to comprehend.

Snowball wrote:

My that argument I could say that "Every sperm is sacred". One could also say that protected sex, masturbation, a woman’s monthly cycles, Vasectomy (male or female) and so on are all murder and are wrong and should be stopped.

Sperm is sacred?! This is rubbish. That's like saying the e-coli bug is sacred. We couldn't (as I said earlier) type on our keyboards for fear of killing one if this were the case. Life begins at the moment of conception. This is the miracle of life and nearly all doctors/scientists agree that something miraculous occurs when a child is conceived. Are you and your family/friends trying to argue otherwise?

Snowball wrote:

I always though it was someone who beloved in the Christian faith and followed its practices. But anyways.

'Christian faith' to me is rather arbitrary and comes in many colours. There are 'christian' groups in American that even condone abortion.

Snowball wrote:

The problem is that that is not the case. When asked, the majority of people believe that the current state does not reflect the opinion of the majority and it needs to be looked at. What the majority actually believe? Well that’s for a census or a referendum. But the point is that most ppl believe that what is in place currently does not reflect the Irish current state of mind.

So you've decided that the state does not reflect the majority of people's opinions? There was a referendum on the 25th amendment of the constitution (Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy Bill) 2002 taken on 26th March 2002 which was defeated. The majority spoke. You'd probably advocate having another referendum until you get the result you want, right?

Technically in a democracy we could have a referendum on anything: for example, as was mentioned earlier, 'should we make anti-Semitism legal?'. If it were legal and the majority concurred, does this make it right? Similarly if we asked the people 'Is killing babies ok in inconvenient circumstances?', do you honestly think people would vote 'yes'? Does this make it right? There is a severe and disgusting break-down in Irish society as to what is right and what is wrong, and this individualistic, 'my way is right, to hell with everyone else' way of looking at life is not only flawed, but unhappy and vain where, for them, life is reduced to but a cosmic joke.

AndyWarhol

Snowball wrote:

Exactly but that should be the choice of her and her partner. Not yours and mine. Or anyone else’s for that matter. You make a decision for someone else and its not you that has to live with the consequences. People should be able to make an informed decision and then live with the consequences (psychological and physical) of that decision.

A law that put in place by a state who made most of its moral decisions based on what the church thought and not the people. It's painfully obvious that the church is not in touch with the people anymore.

I'm sorry, but when someone decides to kill somebody else, the state must intervene to prevent this. Say it was your personal choice to kill the man who abused your 10 year old boy, and you decided, as an idividual, that you wanted him killed. Does this give you the right to perpetrate this act? Definitely no.

You can go on a Church bashing rant all you like. The fact is that the Church is not dictated to by popular opinion, liberal opinion or politically correct consensus. The majority of Irish people respect this Church and see it as an ideal for which to base their lives on (sinners that they are). They say abortion is inherently evil, which it is, and who are you to say otherwise?

Crucifix

AndyWarhol wrote:

What sex is hair?

I don't know a great deal about genetics, but as far as I know it has as much gender as the zygote(2 X or an X & a Y?).

I just want to say that Wicknight's posts have been very interesting. The angle he's coming at it from is the way I would tend to look at it.

AndyWarhol

Crucifix wrote:

I don't know a great deal about genetics, but as far as I know it has as much gender as the zygote(2 X or an X & a Y?).

I just want to say that Wicknight's posts have been very interesting. The angle he's coming at it from is the way I would tend to look at it.

It's all very fine talking about why anything is 'wrong' indeed 'right' from a meta-physical point of view.
Most people (including myself) cannot talk metaphysics without bringing God into the equation. Trying to justify this topic in terms of metaphysical deduction, in the absence of morals, is to reduce life to a nothingness or cosmic joke.
So the cororally of why I can't explain exactly why something is wrong (or right), is that nothing is wrong and nothing is right. Anarchy prevails, and it's every man for himself. This is exactly why I have such a problem with nihilism and aethists.

This is not the way the world ought to be.

The Corinthian

Snowball wrote:

That’s not what I was getting at and you know it.

With respects if you’re not citing quality of life as a justification for abortion, then I’ve missed your point.

How right is it to force a unhappy life on a small teenager because of your beliefs. So her life suffers because of what you believe in (no one specific targeted there btw)

And another teenager whose parents are paralyzed is essentially left to care for them for the rest of their lives - that’s bound to put a dampener on his or her college career. Perhaps that is justification enough for their euthanasia?

And then I could cite one of my best friends who, in his youth, found his parents had gone bankrupt when he first went to college. Forced him to drop out (mid term), get a job and make ends meet. To the best of my knowledge this did not prompt him to poison his folks for the insurance money.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that it can be a pretty ****ty situation to end up in; however that in itself is not a justification for homicide. And so what you’re suggesting can only hold water morally if the foetus is not human (in which case there’s no issue there) - otherwise you’re on very thin moral ground, or none.

Snowball

AndyWarhol wrote:

I'm sorry, but when someone decides to kill somebody else, the state must intervene to prevent this. Say it was your personal choice to kill the man who abused your 10 year old boy, and you decided, as an idividual, that you wanted him killed. Does this give you the right to perpetrate this act? Definitely no.

But the question is abortion murder?

You said earlier that doctors over the world say that something miraculous happens at the moment when a child is conceived. But yet in America most states (and I say most because I am not 100% sure if it’s all or not) have legalised abortion up till the 7th month because the foetus is not considered to be self aware, conscience or to have a soul (or what ever way you want to put it) till then.

AndyWarhol wrote:

You can go on a Church bashing rant all you like.

If that’s what you want to call it, fine. But it's not what I was getting at. What I was trying to say is that in my opinion what is in the law today does not reflect the view of the majority. I am not, I might point out, trying to say that most ppl in Ireland are pro-abortion. I am saying that the current view is different to what is in law.

I think that Pat Kenny hit the nail on the head when he did the survey on the Late Late Show last Friday and asked: "Could the audience please answer, Do you think that there is any circumstances where someone should be allowed to abort a foetus?" (not sure exactly off the top of my head of its 76% but it was close to that) When the answer was 76% of people saying YES then he said: This is a randomly selected group of 200 ppl and if there is 76% of them saying Yes, then the whole thing needs to be revisited

AndyWarhol wrote:

They say abortion is inherently evil, which it is, and who are you to say otherwise?

An Irish citizen with an opinion and a voice. One which I am perfectly entitled to voice.

Crucifix

Snowball wrote:

...up till the 7th month...

Wow, that seems quite high.

AndyWarhol wrote:

It's all very fine talking about why anything is 'wrong' indeed 'right' from a meta-physical point of view.
Most people (including myself) cannot talk metaphysics without bringing God into the equation. Trying to justify this topic in terms of metaphysical deduction, in the absence of morals, is to reduce life to a nothingness or cosmic joke.
So the cororally of why I can't explain exactly why something is wrong (or right), is that nothing is wrong and nothing is right. Anarchy prevails, and it's every man for himself. This is exactly why I have such a problem with nihilism and aethists.

This is not the way the world ought to be.

Em, I thought I should point out I didn't mean to direct the second paragraph of my post at you, just saying it in general.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean about Atheists and Nihilists; do you have a problem with them suggesting that your value system is wrong, or do you mean that they are themselves without morals?

Snowball

The Corinthian wrote:

And another teenager whose parents are paralyzed is essentially left to care for them for the rest of their lives - that’s bound to put a dampener on his or her college career. Perhaps that is justification enough for their euthanasia?

Euthanasia is all about quality of life all be it about the parent’s, not the teenager. But euthanasia is probably outside the scope of this thread.

The Corinthian wrote:

With respects if you’re not citing quality of life as a justification for abortion, then I’ve missed your point.

I am, but I am on about the quality of life of the child as well as the parents

The Corinthian wrote:

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that it can be a pretty ****ty situation to end up in; however that in itself is not a justification for homicide. And so what you’re suggesting can only hold water morally if the foetus is not human (in which case there’s no issue there) - otherwise you’re on very thin moral ground, or none.

Actually I believe the argument of abortion surrounds the time at which it becomes morally wrong to abort a foetus. I am not entirely convinced that 5 mins after a baby is conceived (while there is no medical way of really being sure the woman is even pregnant) that aborting that could be considered murder.
I have not heard of any case where (in Ireland or any other place for that matter) someone got convicted of murder after a baby that is only a few weeks old (or days for that matter) was miscarried due to an outside action either due to carelessness (or neglect) or the mother or some other reason.


Please don't take any offence but...

AndyWarhol wrote:

So the cororally of why I can't explain....

"cororally"???

Snowball

Crucifix wrote:

Wow, that seems quite high.

Yea, and I completly agree. I think it is very high. But thats the way it is over there.

Wex1

Abortion is not about God or religion, and in any morally correct person should not be about convienence - but we are living in a disposable society and childern are more and more a commodity to be had only when we have decided the time is right to accessorise our perfect homes. (Ok i'll get slaughtered for that one! extreme or what!!!!!)(seriously, only trying to impress a point)

I had 4 accidental conceptions, the last of which I was on the ferry across the water to deal with! Only I couldn't and though his birth wasn't conveinent or ideal at the time, life goes on and though he's a handful at 2 and yes a lot of plans had to be brought back to the drawing board, we are all very happy!

If choice is too readily available it can make an irreversible action far too convienent - all for convienence sake.....

Snowball

Wex1 wrote:

...we are living in a disposable society and childern are more and more a commodity to be had only when we have decided the time is right to accessorise our perfect homes.

Although there is an element of that I am not sure if that is completely right. I think its more about getting done what you want to do first.
I have a close friend that has 2 kids from 2 different guys. No real support from either guy. She is so unbelievably stressed for tonnes of reasons but 99% of them are cause because she is on her own and on welfare. She recently has a heart attack. She is 26.
If she had of waited (or had a choice) till later she might have found someone to settle down with and had a completely different life. Probably a better quality of life for her and her kids. She is a great mother and loves her kids but her life is as hard as I have seen in a long time.

I believe in choice. Maybe some people's life would be differant if not better with that choice

Wex1

Some people are better at making choices than others - ever see that ad where they're all going "Em..." To have an abortion or to let the child be born is not exactly as easy as picking a bank or what underwear to buy.... but yet it is a decision that you will have to live with forever - either way

Ever bought something for a special occassion and a few months later seen the pictures and thought "What was I thinking?" Stressful situations make us make choices and somepeople deal with this better than others. Throw hormonal shifts into this equation and you have extra difficulty.

Choice is great, but support around these choices is totally essential.

We'd all love to give our children more, and life can be hard with unplanned kids happening along - but remeber much of this is around a state of mind....

Snowball

Wex1 wrote:

Choice is great, but support around these choices is totally essential.

100% agree. I think that even on the outside chance that Ireland does legalise abortion it will be extremely closely monitored and I believe that more than enough support will be given (as the case should be and is not in other places)

When Ireland makes big and hard choices like this we do it well, for some unknown reason (when we cant seem to get anything else right:D). Take Divorce. Its there and possible to do just not easy and can’t be done on a whim

The Corinthian

AndyWarhol wrote:

Most people (including myself) cannot talk metaphysics without bringing God into the equation.

God is a moral shortcut in such arguments far too often.

Trying to justify this topic in terms of metaphysical deduction, in the absence of morals, is to reduce life to a nothingness or cosmic joke. So the cororally of why I can't explain exactly why something is wrong (or right), is that nothing is wrong and nothing is right. Anarchy prevails, and it's every man for himself.

There’s no such thing as anarchy, only patterns that we can’t see yet, and we can either work them out for ourselves or blindly accept a pre-prepared explanation.

Faith is the TV dinner of morality.

This is not the way the world ought to be.

Get over it.

Snowball wrote:

Euthanasia is all about quality of life all be it about the parent’s, not the teenager. But euthanasia is probably outside the scope of this thread.

Euthanasia is simply another word to describe the killing of another human. Oddly, that is the topic being discussed.

I am, but I am on about the quality of life of the child as well as the parents

Then I’ll repeat the my earlier point (that you at the time claimed was not what you were discussing) that by the same logic we probably should euthanize the homeless or handicapped on the basis that they would otherwise be unable to enjoy a certain quality of life.

Actually I believe the argument of abortion surrounds the time at which it becomes morally wrong to abort a foetus. I am not entirely convinced that 5 mins after a baby is conceived (while there is no medical way of really being sure the woman is even pregnant) that aborting that could be considered murder.

Why? Because it is justified or because you’re not killing a human being? Simply saying you’re not convinced is really not good enough as it essentially means you are happy enough to play Russian roulette with someone else’s life.

I have not heard of any case where (in Ireland or any other place for that matter) someone got convicted of murder after a baby that is only a few weeks old (or days for that matter) was miscarried due to an outside action either due to carelessness (or neglect) or the mother or some other reason.

Just because something is not illegal does not make it moral or vice versa – otherwise we could all simply agree that it must be immoral (in Ireland at least) on the basis that it is illegal, which of course would be nonsensical argument.

Snowball

[edit] soz The Corinthian, that was a little bitchie [/edit]

The Corinthian wrote:

Euthanasia is simply another word to describe the killing of another human. Oddly, that is the topic being discussed.

Ok, so lets discuss Capital punishment

The Corinthian wrote:

Just because something is not illegal does not make it moral or vice versa – otherwise we could all simply agree that it must be immoral (in Ireland at least) on the basis that it is illegal, which of course would be nonsensical argument.

No but Morality is a personal thing. Law is (supposed to anyways) a reflection of the moral oppinion of the mayority. My point is that I dont think it does atm

Vangelis

Wex1 wrote:

Abortion is not about God or religion, and in any morally correct person should not be about convienence - but we are living in a disposable society and childern are more and more a commodity to be had only when we have decided the time is right to accessorise our perfect homes. (Ok i'll get slaughtered for that one! extreme or what!!!!!)(seriously, only trying to impress a point)

I had 4 accidental conceptions, the last of which I was on the ferry across the water to deal with! Only I couldn't and though his birth wasn't conveinent or ideal at the time, life goes on and though he's a handful at 2 and yes a lot of plans had to be brought back to the drawing board, we are all very happy!

If choice is too readily available it can make an irreversible action far too convienent - all for convienence sake.....

I just can't express how irritating it is when somebody screams out "It's not like this, it's like that!" I think you are a person with no concern for anybody but yourself and your own good. And such people aren't capable of debating. Debating is about listening to different views, comparing, and REASONING and giving warranted arguements. Four "accidents"?`You could have stopped yourself girl or used contraception! It was your choice! We're human beings with the ability to CHOOSE! Everything happens for a reason. So grow up!

The Corinthian

Snowball wrote:

Ok, so lets discuss Capital punishment

Sure, it’s relevant. As an act murder and capital punishment are essentially identical, in that a human being is killed in both cases. Yet, for many, one is justified and the other is not. So if the foetus is human then this is relevant to justify its killing or at the very least that killing can be justified in the first place.

No but Morality is a personal thing. Law is (supposed to anyways) a reflection of the moral oppinion of the mayority. My point is that I dont think it does atm

Morality is not a personal thing. That’s just a line that’s used to sell more consumer goods.

If morality were a personal thing, sociopaths would very happy people indeed. In reality it’s an anthropological set of rules that tends to evolve naturally in all Societies.

AndyWarhol

The Corinthian wrote:

God is a moral shortcut in such arguments far too often.

God is a moral shortcut to what, the Truth? Ok, so seeing as you have all the answers, perhaps you can explain why something is actually wrong or right?

The Corinthian wrote:

There’s no such thing as anarchy, only patterns that we can’t see yet, and we can either work them out for ourselves or blindly accept a pre-prepared explanation.

There's no such thing as anarchy? Well should you have misinterpreted me, I meant anarchy in a broad sense. By this I mean that if there is actually no such thing as right and wrong (as proposed), then society breaks down and it's every man for himself. No morals, no law, no concept of family, no compassion, nothing and we live like lonely soldiers on a road to death and nothingness.

The Corinthian wrote:

Faith is the TV dinner of morality.

That is an insulting comment. You are opining that God is but an opinion, a natural reflex to man's incomprehension of the world around him. If this were the case and God was just mans way of comforting himself in the darkness that surrounds him, then what's the point in God at all?

The Corinthian wrote:

Get over it.

Get over it, as in that's just the way it is and accept it? No. An acceptance of your idea of reality is to accept a false, meaningless God that will ultimately lead to misery.

Shewhomustbe...

Quoted from: Page 352 & 353 Linda Goodman’s STAR SIGNS – The secret codes of the Universe

"Are abortions morally defensible – or a sin against defenceless human life? Are abortions murders? As always, the word itself possesses the answer, as it defines its own true meaning, hidden within the alphabetical letters comprising it. The word ‘abortions’ offers us a coded solution to the raging abortion issue, seeded by the recent emancipation of women. Some of you will be greatly comforted by the answer given so clearly in the word’s Lexigram; others of you will be resentful of that answer. Speaking to the latter group, please keep in mind that the answer has no relation whatsoever to my own personal feelings, prejudice or lack of prejudice. The answer comes directly from the wisdom of the word druids.

The Lexigram of ABORTIONS does not quibble about the answer to this issue. Its revelation is quite emphatic, leaving no room for doubt or dispute.

ABORTIONS

It lexigrams into the following words:

IT IS TORN. IT IS NOT BORN. IT IS A ROBOT.
A ROBOT IS NOT BORN – NO SIN.
IS ABORTION A SIN? NO. IT IS NOT A SIN.

Read the Zebra Rule again. When a negative word appears and the letters N and O – or N and O and T also appear, as negating words, while the letters Y and E and S do not appear – it means that the person (or word) will have been accused of whatever the negative word implies, but is not guilty."

nesf

AndyWarhol wrote:

God is a moral shortcut to what, the Truth? Ok, so seeing as you have all the answers, perhaps you can explain why something is actually wrong or right?

Ok how about this.

You accept your religions answers for morality. You choose to follow them because you have faith that they are correct. This is fine, I can respect that. Personally, I don't agree with you. I agree with quite a lot of moral values held by christian religions but I don't have faith and I don't believe them to be immutable truths. They, to me, are good ideas and nothing more.

Do you think that you have a right to force this morality on others who do not share your faith? Can you justify this? Do I have a right to force my moral beliefs on you?


If you want an answer as to what is right and what is wrong first look at what right and wrong mean. Then rephrase the question. Right and wrong are terms that while useful in the rearing of children and inadequate when applied to the real world.

Do you mean to ask what is ethical/unethical? Lawful or unlawful? Just or unjust? Moral or immoral? These all can mean different things and give different answers.

embee

Shewhomustbe... wrote:

Quoted from: Page 352 & 353 Linda Goodman’s STAR SIGNS – The secret codes of the Universe

"Are abortions morally defensible – or a sin against defenceless human life? Are abortions murders? As always, the word itself possesses the answer, as it defines its own true meaning, hidden within the alphabetical letters comprising it. The word ‘abortions’ offers us a coded solution to the raging abortion issue, seeded by the recent emancipation of women. Some of you will be greatly comforted by the answer given so clearly in the word’s Lexigram; others of you will be resentful of that answer. Speaking to the latter group, please keep in mind that the answer has no relation whatsoever to my own personal feelings, prejudice or lack of prejudice. The answer comes directly from the wisdom of the word druids.

The Lexigram of ABORTIONS does not quibble about the answer to this issue. Its revelation is quite emphatic, leaving no room for doubt or dispute.

ABORTIONS

It lexigrams into the following words:

IT IS TORN. IT IS NOT BORN. IT IS A ROBOT.
A ROBOT IS NOT BORN – NO SIN.
IS ABORTION A SIN? NO. IT IS NOT A SIN.

Read the Zebra Rule again. When a negative word appears and the letters N and O – or N and O and T also appear, as negating words, while the letters Y and E and S do not appear – it means that the person (or word) will have been accused of whatever the negative word implies, but is not guilty."

WTF??

Abortion - I'm pro choice. I don't have a moral objection to it. I don't think I would do it myself, but I certainly wouldn't condemn any woman who chose it.

Snowball

Shewhomustbe... wrote:

Quoted from: Page 352 & 353 Linda Goodman’s STAR SIGNS – The secret codes of the Universe

"Are abortions morally defensible – or a sin against defenceless human life? Are abortions murders? As always, the word itself possesses the answer, as it defines its own true meaning, hidden within the alphabetical letters comprising it. The word ‘abortions’ offers us a coded solution to the raging abortion issue, seeded by the recent emancipation of women. Some of you will be greatly comforted by the answer given so clearly in the word’s Lexigram; others of you will be resentful of that answer. Speaking to the latter group, please keep in mind that the answer has no relation whatsoever to my own personal feelings, prejudice or lack of prejudice. The answer comes directly from the wisdom of the word druids.

The Lexigram of ABORTIONS does not quibble about the answer to this issue. Its revelation is quite emphatic, leaving no room for doubt or dispute.

ABORTIONS

It lexigrams into the following words:

IT IS TORN. IT IS NOT BORN. IT IS A ROBOT.
A ROBOT IS NOT BORN – NO SIN.
IS ABORTION A SIN? NO. IT IS NOT A SIN.

Read the Zebra Rule again. When a negative word appears and the letters N and O – or N and O and T also appear, as negating words, while the letters Y and E and S do not appear – it means that the person (or word) will have been accused of whatever the negative word implies, but is not guilty."

WTF???

I didn't even see that go over my head, just felt the shockwave.

Snowball

The Corinthian wrote:

Morality is not a personal thing. That’s just a line that’s used to sell more consumer goods

That has to be the dumbest thing I have read on boards in a long time. And I'm surprised it’s coming from you.
In case you didn't know.
Morality, moral compos, a persons morals, moral beliefs and so on are what guide us through life and help us make choices. It forms the core belief system by which we judge ourselves and others by. It is what shows us if we have made a mistake or done good. It is part of our conscience.

AndyWarhol wrote:

The Corinthian wrote:

Faith is the TV dinner of morality

That is an insulting comment.

I agree. I don’t think u have the right to belittle someone’s beliefs like that. Uncalled for.

The Corinthian

AndyWarhol wrote:

God is a moral shortcut to what, the Truth? Ok, so seeing as you have all the answers, perhaps you can explain why something is actually wrong or right?

Why don't you work it out for yourself and stop asking other people to tell you?

There's no such thing as anarchy? Well should you have misinterpreted me, I meant anarchy in a broad sense. By this I mean that if there is actually no such thing as right and wrong (as proposed), then society breaks down and it's every man for himself. No morals, no law, no concept of family, no compassion, nothing and we live like lonely soldiers on a road to death and nothingness.

Had you considered that if the truth is not as you see it then neither does it automatically have to be doom and gloom either?

Get over it, as in that's just the way it is and accept it? No. An acceptance of your idea of reality is to accept a false, meaningless God that will ultimately lead to misery.

But neither is that an excuse to go into denial. If the World is not how you think it should be then you should really go back to the drawing board and ask why it is not and how it can be made better.

Snowball wrote:

I agree. I don’t think u have the right to belittle someone’s beliefs like that. Uncalled for.

He turned around and rubbished other people's belief in reason and humanism then got upset when they retorted in kind. As such I really have no sympathy for him or the offence he now feels.

That has to be the dumbest thing I have read on boards in a long time. And I'm surprised it’s coming from you.
In case you didn't know.
Morality, moral compos, a persons morals, moral beliefs and so on are what guide us through life and help us make choices. It forms the core belief system by which we judge ourselves and others by. It is what shows us if we have made a mistake or done good. It is part of our conscience.

Of course I know, and that is also pretty much irrelevant to what I wrote. What you seem to have neglected to notice is that there's very little in morality which is truly that personal. If it were, why do people in one Society all seem to magically have broadly similar moral values and people from another Society have another set of values - yet still magically similar to others within their Society?

But if it makes you feel better, you are an individual. Just like everyone else.

Zombrex

AndyWarhol wrote:

Why is something morally wrong? I don't know the answer to this question. I'm from a religous background and get my moral teaching that I base my life around from there.

Well then, no offense, but if you don't understand the justifications and reasoning behind the morals you follow, is it not hard to argue for them?

AndyWarhol wrote:

You obviously have no moral guidance, perhaps only what the law tells you or perhaps what you think is right and wrong for yourself in a sort of 'anonymous Christian sense'.

:rolleyes:
I do have moral guidance, its just I understand my morals, I don't blindly follow someone elses. I know why I believe killing someone is generally wrong. My personal views on abortion are less clear cut. I believe that it is wrong to kill a conscious being except in self defense (I don't believe in capital punishment), but whether a feotus has become conscious is harder to tell. I think very early term abortions, when the feotus is still a handfull of cells is fine, but i have stronger objections to later term abortions.

Of course there is also the question of whether the woman has a right to remove something from her body (body integraty) even if it is another human being. But that is beyond the scope of this thread.

AndyWarhol wrote:

So hair is alive all of a sudden? What sex is hair?

Parts of your hair are completely "alive" in that the cells that make them up are alive (though not sure if this holds true for all your hair, any biologists want to clarify). The "sex" of your hair is the same sex as every other cell in your body, ie male or female depending on what sex you are: (XX female or YX male)

AndyWarhol wrote:

Consciousness is not the all-defining charachteristic of human life. Lots of other things come in to play.

Such as? Conscious is just my determining factor, if you have others please share them. This is supposed to be a discussion after all ...

AndyWarhol wrote:

The fact is that the foetus is human life itself and that most foetus's will one day become babies. To deny life its potential to become a baby is inherently wrong and akin to murder.

That is a perfectly valid point, shared by a lot of pro-life campaigners. There is no denying that a single cell feotus will, if left alone from human interference, grow into a baby, where as a sperm or egg cell must be joined through human interaction. The fact that the cell will grow into a full developed human is not in question. Not allowing that to happen, while not necessarily murder if the cell is not a human being, could still be a moral crime in itself. I personally don't believe so, but I would be more than willing to discuss the idea if the arguements can be put forward in a constructed fashion.

AndyWarhol wrote:

You question why it is wrong to kill a foetus (that will become a baby). Why not then question why it is wrong to kill a child that will one day become a teenager?

Well, in my view, because the child is a conscious entity. Do you believe it is morally justifiable to turn off life support for people who are completely brain dead? If so, what is the difference between that and killing (or allowing to die) someone who is has a fully functioning brain (ie me )

AndyWarhol wrote:

You add animals into the cauldron: why not extend the argument to 'why is it logically wrong to kill human life as opposed to animal life?'.

I think that is exactly what I have been asking ...

AndyWarhol wrote:

I don't know what kind of 'christians' said that "the soul did not enter the child under further down the development" - it was probably some hybrid religous sect that came up with this idea. The term 'christian' has broad unsatisfactory meaning these days.

Judaism originally taught that prior to about 1 1/2 months the feotus was just "water" so abortion was allowed. The Catholic church taught that the soul did not enter the body of the child before the "quickening", which is when the unborn child is first felt to move. These are hardly ideas from "hybrid religious sects"

Both these views are not well maintained by either church today, but I thought it interesting to point out that the religious idea of the soul and "life" starting at conception is not as clear cut and as static an idea as people believe today.

AndyWarhol wrote:

When it comes down to it, reasoning can never really be exclusive from theological grounding, all it takes is to ask 'Why?' to any question you can think of about 20 times and you'll eventually get back to god/belief.

Not if you are an athesist

AndyWarhol wrote:

My teaching dictates that all humans have souls. To kill a foetus, is to kill a soul and given that the majority Irish people regard themselves as Catholics, the majority of this population would concurr.

Possibly .. we do live in a Catholic country. But the Catholic church also states that sex should only be used with in marriage and to produce a child, not for pleasure. And if everyone followed that teaching we wouldn't need to be having this discussion in the first place :rolleyes:

Dades

AndyWarhol wrote:

So the cororally of why I can't explain exactly why something is wrong (or right), is that nothing is wrong and nothing is right. Anarchy prevails, and it's every man for himself. This is exactly why I have such a problem with nihilism and aethists.

Thank you for that unfettered revelation of your piousness.

No god = no morals. I think I'll go drown a puppy.