This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Oklahoma Introduces barbaric abortion law
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
203805
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I'm open to the idea that perhaps a fetus is not a human, and therefore it is not murder. However, since this cannot be determined, I think it is our responsibility NOT to condone abortion until it can be.
Post by
203805
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Juadism is not the same moral code as Christianity. There are plenty of issues about 'for the benefit of the majority'. For example - are there diminishing returns on utility?
My list was "Judaism, Christianity and Islam". I said they have "radically different beliefs about many things related to morals".
How was I unclear about them having different moral codes? Was it just because I specifically noted the massive difference among Christians? (an example of the differnce is myself and MyTie; I'm for the legalization, he's against it, but we're both Christians)
What God approves of is far less clear, since there are conflicting sources.
Apologies if I wasn't clear. I had two statements there, and it didn't come across terribly well.
1) If you believe in a religion, there are no conflicting sources; if you're Christian, the Jewish source isn't correct. There is only one true source, and that's what your religion is.
2) With respect to radically different beliefs within a single moral code, utilitarianism has a lot of subjective issues with it too, most notably, how do you measure 'benefit'?
Post by
Skreeran
I see where you are comming from there, what with it having gills (not working) and other non-human things during development, but, in my way of thinking, it has the same genetic sequence as a human therefore it is human.
I would also like to say that I am against holding back information about birth defects.A human red blood cell has the same genetic sequence as a human, but it is not a human.
An undeveloped embryo is just a roughly human shaped bunch of cells until it develops a brain. In my opinion, once it has a brain and can feel things, then it can be considered human. Before then, it is simply a growth of its mother.
Post by
pezz
2) With respect to radically different beliefs within a single moral code, utilitarianism has a lot of subjective issues with it too, most notably, how do you measure 'benefit'?
That, and, there's another subjective issue here. What validates utilitarianism as a moral code, but not Christianity?
For a code of morality, you need to get back to something
really
basic. A fundamental principle or two that you extrapolate to every instance. Something just like 'cultivate the highest forms of life, and never destroy without cause' would be fairly close to the fundamentals of my own view.
Things like religions in general are far to complex to form consistent moral codes. You have to discuss, at the very least, specifics within that religion. The Ten Commandments come close to this kind of first principle thinking, but even they are almost too complex.
Post by
129077
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
That, and, there's another subjective issue here. What validates utilitarianism as a moral code, but not Christianity?
Noone objects to Christianity as a valid moral code. The criticism is that it's flawed and overly reliant on a subjective interpretation of what's seen as 'right'.
Using your example of 'cultivate the highest forms of life, and never destroy without cause', even that is too complicated. What if destruction of a form of life wasn't the only way to achieve a higher form of life, but merely the fastest? There's cause, but is it just enough?
Utilitarianism, on the other hand, has only a single dimension - maximise happiness (utility). It eliminates all extraneous factors and focuses on a single measure of moral value (total happiness). Likewise with religion, it typically focuses on a single measure of moral value (approval from God). In this sense, both moral codes are actually coming closer to the basis of a universal moral code than your more complicated example :)
Post by
Squishalot
Damn, it looks like I missed out on a good debate.
Oh well, I still dont understand why this is even an issue when there is such an obvious flaw in the pro-choicers logic. If you are pro-choice: a fetus is a human, does it get a choice? Even if it was the result of a brutal rape of some such, it is still a human. Look it it the face if you are going to kill it.
So why isn't a normal ultrasound good enough?
Funny how everyone overlooked the other part of the bill.
Because the bill is a flawed attempt to intimidate people into avoiding getting abortions by shoving cameras into them, and not a serious measure to mitigate abortion by convincing parents that it's unwarranted.
Post by
Skreeran
That, and, there's another subjective issue here. What validates utilitarianism as a moral code, but not Christianity?
Noone objects to Christianity as a valid moral code. The criticism is that it's flawed and overly reliant on a subjective interpretation of what's seen as 'right'.
Using your example of 'cultivate the highest forms of life, and never destroy without cause', even that is too complicated. What if destruction of a form of life wasn't the only way to achieve a higher form of life, but merely the fastest? There's cause, but is it just enough?
Utilitarianism, on the other hand, has only a single dimension - maximise happiness (utility). It eliminates all extraneous factors and focuses on a single measure of moral value (total happiness). Likewise with religion, it typically focuses on a single measure of moral value (approval from God). In this sense, both moral codes are actually coming closer to the basis of a universal moral code than your more complicated example :)The difference is, one group seems to understand that all morality is subjective, and the other believes that there are objective principles that are universally true.
That, and that one group believes in faeries, while the other does not necessarily. but I won't get into that here.
Post by
Squishalot
The difference is, one group seems to understand that all morality is subjective, and the other believes that there are objective principles that are universally true.
Which is which? Utilitarianism's objective principle is that happiness = moral goodness. Religion's objective principle is that God's approval = moral goodness. I fail to see the subjectivity in the moral code, other than in the interpretation of how to act upon it, which both suffer from.
That, and that one group believes in faeries, while the other does not necessarily. but I won't get into that here.
If you really weren't going to get into that here, you wouldn't have brought it up. It's not relevant in any event, it's a complete strawman.
Post by
Skreeran
The difference is, one group seems to understand that all morality is subjective, and the other believes that there are objective principles that are universally true.
Which is which? Utilitarianism's objective principle is that happiness = moral goodness. Religion's objective principle is that God's approval = moral goodness. I fail to see the subjectivity in the moral code, other than in the interpretation of how to act upon it, which both suffer from.My stance is that I will do what I percieve as best for myself and those that I care about. I am biologically inclined to make these connection to people, just due to simple evolution.
However, this is my subjective view. I don't think that the universe objectively cares one way or the other about any decision that I make.
Every decision that I make, I make for my own subjective reasons, not because I think that there is any objective moral goodness or moral evil.
That, and that one group believes in faeries, while the other does not necessarily. but I won't get into that here.
If you really weren't going to get into that here, you wouldn't have brought it up. It's not relevant in any event, it's a complete strawman.I'm just saying. It is another reason that I find utilitarianism more appealing than religious moral objectivity.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
MyTie not responding to me = I win. Hell yes.
Or he ignores the derailing troll immature PITA.Damn, it looks like I missed out on a good debate.
Oh well, I still dont understand why this is even an issue when there is such an obvious flaw in the pro-choicers logic. If you are pro-choice: a fetus is a human, does it get a choice? Even if it was the result of a brutal rape of some such, it is still a human. Look it it the face if you are going to kill it.
So why isn't a normal ultrasound good enough?
Funny how everyone overlooked the other part of the bill.
Because the bill is a flawed attempt to intimidate people into avoiding getting abortions by shoving cameras into them, and not a serious measure to mitigate abortion by convincing parents that it's unwarranted.
That's pretty much it; like I said, taking away a choice from the mother.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
348028
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Maybe this will sound crude or "stupid" but here it goes:
Why not just leave the choice open? You religous people that hate it can convince your family and friends to not have an abortion and look down upon people who have abortions and those who want to have it can have it. Everybody wins?
Except the dead babies, of course. They lose.
Post by
348028
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Maybe this will sound crude or "stupid" but here it goes:
Why not just leave the choice open? You religous people that hate it can convince your family and friends to not have an abortion and look down upon people who have abortions and those who want to have it can have it. Everybody wins?
Except the dead babies, of course. They lose.
It won't affect you in any way, at all
So? What does this rationalize? Should we not have stopped the holocaust? Should we not feed the hungry? Should we not stop people from murdering people (babies included)?
Post by
348028
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.