Abortion

[ThetaOrionis01]

Even though I disagree with you, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

 

However, each and every mother making the choice whether or not to have an abortion is also entitled to her opinion, and should be able to make her choice without coercion by others.

[Domhnall]

Well, I will have to disagree. ;)

 

 

"Choice" and "Opinion" do not take precedence over Morality or Reason. We as a society or a race for that matter cannot abdicate morality to “Choice”. Choice is what we allow for your mate selection, or ice cream selection. We do not look at a criminal on the rampage and say, “Well, it’s his choice, therefore, it’s justified.”

 

Morality is a hard matter, I grant you. That’s what useful debate is about—discovering what is justified and what’s not. Reason and logic are useful guiding principles, not Churches or governments or even doctors. But “choice” has no footing when it comes to these issues.

 

But, I donno why we’re even bothering to type these words. We should just stick to CRPGs!

[ThetaOrionis01]

Since I don't want to repeat what I already posted in this thread I think that if you have not already done so you should really do people the courtesy of reading through all previous posts. :)

 

Morality and reason are human constructs, which, when applied to biological processes, will lead to dilemmas. And I would also say that morality is relative, and morals are constantly being redefined as societies evolve. To what degree are relative human constructs applicable to biologically processes? How do you judge the severity of psychological effects brought about by physiological changes, for instance?

 

 

You claim that choice should not take precedence over morality - but then that raises the question of the morality of denying others freedom of choice, and the freedom to exercise control over their own body.

 

 

It's easy to pontificate from the comfort of your armchair - which is why IMO the choice should be left to the person directly affected: the mother (and no, I don't consider the unborn as a person, but as a potential, which is perhaps another point where differences of opinion arise).

[Malchik]

Indeed you should. You talk of 'morality' as if it were something fixed or given. It is not. It is, I suppose, a code of ethics chosen by a group of people. As morality is of itself a choice how can it rank higher than choice in your argument? They are one and the same. One person chooses to live by this code of ethics, others choose not to. Right or wrong does not enter into it.

 

That assertion that morality is higher than choice means that you are taking a specific morality chosen by someone else (or other group) as a fixed unchallengable law and it can never be that. You may CHOOSE to think so but you cannot presume to impose your choice on others who disagree.

 

This post is in response to Domhnall not Theta.

[Domhnall]

All I can say to you guys is that logic is all that we have. It may be "constructed", but it is still all that we have to guide our lives. The very basics of A +B = C is how we can articulate why something is good or bad behavior.

 

If you wish to reduce all morality to the 'Choice' factor, then we surely fall to pieces. For, what grounds do you have to object to me coming to your house and destroying all your stuff.

 

"This is wrong!" you may yell, but what is 'wrong' but a construct of your desire. You don't want me to burn your books and smash your monitor. So what? I'm 'Choosing' to do it. By your argument, I am justified. If we are left with this relativisitic structure which you offer, then the Nazis are justified in WWII for doing whatever the hell they please. Whereas logic can draw conclusion about why it's wrong to murder Jews, wage aggressive war, etc. etc. (I know these are the extreme cases, but this is one of the tests of a useful guiding principles--can it handle the extremes?).

 

A society that lives without the structure of logic ("man-constructed" as it may be), falls to insanity.

[Malchik]

If you choose to come to my house and burn books you are infringing a law that society has chosen to enact in this country (the UK). If you are caught you will suffer the consequences. Also I may attempt to prevent you. You would be perfectly aware of this when you make your choice. Beyond that awareness there is nothing whatever stopping you from attempting to destroy my property if you choose.

 

Assuming that you had a reason for wanting to destroy my books, whether you chose to attempt to would depend on a) the probable risk of being caught and b) the perceived worst consequence that could happen to you. Both of those factors are judgemental and would be assessed according to your own logical processes, no one else's.

 

No one can dispute this.

 

Where the problem comes is in assuming that a law (and I am referring to those enshrined in in a constitition or through historical precedent) is a 'right'. It is a fundamental nonsense that we use the term 'right' to mean something immutable - and many people do - because that presupposes a law cannot be changed. Laws can be and often are changed. They vary between societies. And societies may choose to ignore them when they wish (take the US and the Geneva Convention for example).

 

The danger with moral or legal 'laws' is that people who believe in one set of ideals by which they live, will state that no other approach is acceptable and, however you look at it, there is no logic in that assertion at all.

[Marxist ßastard]

...Logic... logic... logic...

 

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[SonOfTheDevil]

Okay I'll just stick to abortion topic

 

Flesh and Blood, think about it.

A child has a heart, a mind, a body, and soul. So let me ask you this what if abortion could not only happen at birth, but maybe at a later time in life. What if your mother and father after fifteen years decided they just couldn't afford you! Boom they abort you. Now think about that. Now i know this could happen but its all the same at birth or 100 years down the road. Besides that, let me tell you a story from my home town.

 

Way back in 2004 a girl i knew for about 8 years committed suicide. Why? well the parents didn't know she was an outstanding kid in school. She didn't use drugs. So why well during the summer of 2003 she hooked up with a high school student. She was only 16. well two weeks later she got sick and was in the hospital. Turned out in a couple of months a baby would be on its way. Well at hearing this she decided to abort right away. That was the mistake that finaly killed here. Through the process the hospital kept it all underwraps as the girl wished. Afterwards she seemed fine, but really it tore her apart. She talked to me about it and a few others she told us to never to tell her parents and we kept it a secret. Then the sad news came during Jan. 10th 2004 aparently all the regrets got to her she hung her self in her room. I wish i could of done more and i regret never telling her parents.

 

So basicaly it's just plane wrong to play god with human life and the mental stress it causes warps the mind. Not to mention some people might lable you a murder. But that my opinion so don't take it personal i just know if i was put in this position i would except my mistake and not abort the child.

 

Further more what if Jesus was aborted.

[Peregrine]

OMG sad story.

 

Or how about this alternate cause? The problem is society's harsh judgement of people they find "immoral" and how it forces them to keep painful secrets. You said it yourself, the problem was the girl having to keep the secret and not being able to seek psychological help to deal with those regrets. If she didn't have to live in fear of a judgemental family, she would probably still be alive.

 

Further more what if Jesus was aborted.

 

 

Millions of people (or more, much more) would not have been murdered (often very painfully), and millions more would not have their lives ruined in the name of god. Our society would not be controlled by morality-obsessed fanatics who insist on imposing their morality on everyone else. We wouldn't have people forced to repress harmless feelings to avoid offending god/society. Our educational system would not be under attack by ignorant people who insist that their prefered book overrules all factual evidence. Overall, society would be a much better place I think.

 

 

Or, since you love using absurd arguments, what if Hitler had been aborted? Maybe now you understand why using examples of specific individuals is completely stupid?

[Switch]

This is getting a bit religioney here folks. SonOfTheDevil, please don't use religious examples or such in posts, as they will often incur a painfully ignorant response such as the above. This is why religious debating is banned here, please stick to those rules. Thanks.