Abortion Poll - Yes or No.

Unless your forefathers have been poking the goat too often with success both sperm and egg are 100% human (excluding some possible viral contamination).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Surely not.

Morality in the first and last instance is a matter of minding your own actions with regard to the consequences, and that applies with or without a social context. Good and bad habits make the difference anyway, with nobody but yourself involved.

The argument itself is moral, a rejection of the often repeated maxim that if nobody else is affected it is not possibly immoral. I disagree with that, just as I claim the right to disagree that anybody else would know better than me what is good for me, and if it is not good for me than I am not so likely to be any good to anybody else.

The woman has the right to chose, as a practical fact, whatever the vehemence against her, from me or from anybody else, like it or not.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

PRINCE JAMES,

I understand you don't want to lay out your whole structure of ethics here (thank God), but you MUST answer one question - why is YOUR ethical system more valid than anyone else's? You've rejected societal norm as a valid gauge, so, what then?

I want the honest answer, i.e. your system is most valid because it is yours, but I don't expect I will get that.
Or surprise me, and give me a good response that makes sense and isn't about norms or subjective validation.

If you have no answer to my question, your system is useless as a "system" although some points within it may be valid.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Does this bother you?

 

Cole Grey:

Although I fear this is terribly vague, in order to dodge the need to write out my moral theory in a short essay (which I do not have time to write out for a while), my theory of ethics is rooted in an objective basis that is linked to the Platonic/Wollstonecraftian notion of "No man can voluntarily do evil."

Sauna:

Consequences are either a matter of physics of ethics. If you have no basis for one or the other, it ceases to be either a physical or an ethical issue. In regards to the former, only fantasies and other products of the imagination are so restrained, whereas an ethical system without any basis but whim is not a moral system at all, but a whim system.

She may do as she wills, but she must live with the consequences, either physical or ethical.

 

Roman:

Yes, it does. I do not accept arbitrary systems.

 

I know there is a fat chance of that but what if female would want to abort a child that you would love to keep?

 

Aren't most of our laws "arbitrary"? Or at least to a large degree?

Not to change the subject, but aren't speed laws arbitrary? And do you accept those laws?

Baron Max

 

I'm open to the possibility that all moral systems are necessarily arbitrary to some degree.

I'm interested in your objective basis. "No man can voluntarily do evil" is a good start, but how do you define evil?

 

So what?

What has that got to do with subjectivitity?

What is wrong with a subjective basis?

Because of what do you equate individuality with whim?

Which is exactly the need for the ethic to be subjective.

Thank you for making my point.

Voluntarily, of course.

The Devil is in the detail.

 

Baron Max:

Most - although not all - are based at least on an attempt at ethics, so no.

I accept them only in so much as they generally accord with what is reasonable to drive at on that type of road. I do not give them any moral weight.

Pete:

An evil would be the negative consequences of anything. An example I find fruitful: Even a masochist does not choose pain for the evil it brings those who do not love it, but rather for the pleasure it helps them attain.

 

Sauana:

"1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric."

It is unphilosophic to affirm that which cannot backed by reason. To claim "it is morally good to eat pie on Sundays" is to commit to an absurdity.

 

Exactly, the responsibility belongs to the thinking subject, so there the ethic is, ther being no ethic without the thought. The more you impose an ethic the more you relieve the responsibility.

Exactly, as I pointed out before the ethic applies and thus pertains in the first and last instance to the individual's own actions.

Excessive emphasis presumably implies a lack of morality, but does no more than that, continuing to beg the question.... what has excess got to do with subjectivity?

Is the individual excessively moral or excessively immoral?

If the law represents an average of moral values, those of any individual would equally well be more or less excessive than those of the law.

So what has that got to do with subjectivity?

If the law represents an average of moral reason, the reason of any individual would equally well be more or less reasonable than the reason of law.

If your intention is to continue as if to assume that most of us are beneath your notion of a good objective standard that is not going to be popular because a good number of them rather like to think themselves above it.

 

Exactly, the responsibility belongs to the thinking subject, so there the ethic is, there being no ethic without the thought. The more you impose an external ethic the more you relieve the responsibility.

Exactly, as I pointed out before the ethic applies and thus pertains in the first and last instance to the individual's own actions.

Excessive emphasis presumably implies a lack of morality, but does no more than that, continuing to beg the question.... what has excess got to do with subjectivity?

Is the individual excessively moral or excessively immoral?

If the law represents an average of moral values, those of any individual would equally well be more or less excessive than those of the law.

So what has that got to do with subjectivity?

If the law represents an average of moral reason, the reason of any individual would equally well be more or less reasonable than the reason of law.

If your intention is to continue as if to assume that most of us are beneath your notion of a good objective standard that is not going to be popular because a good number of them rather like to think themselves above it.

 

Exactly, the responsibility belongs to the thinking subject, so there the ethic is, there being no ethic without the thought. The more you impose an external ethic the more you relieve the responsibility.

Exactly, as I pointed out before the ethic applies and thus pertains in the first and last instance to the individual's own actions.

OK. So is the individual excessively moral or excessively immoral?

If the law represents an average of moral values, those of any individual would equally well be more or less excessive than those of the law.

So what has that got to do with subjectivity?

If the law represents an average of moral reason, the reason of any individual would equally well be more or less reasonable than the reason of law.

If your intention is to continue as if to assume that most of us are beneath your notion of a good objective standard that is not going to be popular because a good number of them rather like to think themselves above it.

 

Sauna:

And reave it from the only standard by which the individual could affirm reasonably what good and evil is.

It must certainly be made by individual human beings, but to base it on such whims of thought remove from it any reason.

There would be no morality - just simply what this person or is not predisposed to do. The actions would have no moral evaluation.

No subjective assertion can be in accords with reason. Assertion does not rest on fact - hence it is fallacious.

 

Fraggle Rocker:

Delete all ethical considerations on:

Murder.
Rape.
Theft.
Child abuse.
Arson.
War.

Unless you have participated in the above!

 

Not quite true. I favor the "Plan B" pill now finally freely available to people (males can buy it) over 17 years of age. I mention this fact so any girl 17 or under "in trouble" knows she does not need to pay a doctor for a prescription (which by time she gets to see doctor etc would be too late) if she has a friend, of either sex, 18 or older.

As I own considerable shares of Barr Pharmaceutical, maker of "Plan B" pill, I think I also have the right (and some financial interest) to state my views: I am glad pill is now available and hope for pill's eventual OTC availability to all who may need it quickly and wish to get it in confidence. (I would be glad Plan B is now available to all 18 or older even if I did not own Barr stock.)

I advise all women who are sexually active and fertile and do not want to have a child, to buy the two-pill box NOW and keep it your home (or car etc.) for immediate use if the "rubber" should break; you get too drunk one night; or raped; etc. It is far better to use it than bring a child into the world you do not want or to have an expensive legal or dangerous illegal abortion as thousands do each month in US.

PS- I do not want to discuss whether or not Plan B pill use is "abortion" as that depends mainly on your definition of abortion. Hundreds of fertilized human eggs go into the toilet each hour as they failed to properly implant. (Do you consider that to be "abortions"?) - As I understand it, this is what the Plan B pill can insure, if taken soon (half a day or less - read lable, but pill gives more effective protection the sooner you use it.) after sex. Also because of STDs, don't have unprotected sex with anyone who might be doing that. Enjoy sex - God or evolution made it a pleasure.*
-------------------------------
*It is obvious that women and men who did not enjoy sex left fewer children in the next generation, on average, so If God did not do this, as I think the case, evolution quickly would select for "sexual pleasure." (Thank god

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

Look around, James; except that whichever megalomaniac may care to say so there is no one standard, and if there were I'd doubt your chance to be appointed to determine it.

Do you mean to suppose that women have abortions because of a whim?

What experience do you have of this to be so silly about it?

How then do you evaluate morality except from experience?

From some sort of divine guidance?

So, put to a double blind test, would you know that an assertion is subjective according to your opinion of it being reasonable, not knowing from whence the assertion came, on the strength of the assertion itself and whatever argument to support it?

An assertion is an asertion, on its own merit, rested on fact or otherwise.