HUMAN PERSONHOOD - THE CASE AGAINST ABORTION

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I am [a]theist and I don't believe in any God.

It's not my fault you are illiterate.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You have missed many of my points above.

They are all rubbish.

I was responding to what you actually said.

Where?
I stated above, right in front of you, the rule on Zero Abortion should not be enforced, i.e. within jurisprudence.

Where you said abortion was a threat to the human species.
Abortion is and always has been perfectly moral.

I define morality is the establishment of secular moral rules as Guides.
In this sense, ZERO Abortion is morally right.
To permit any abortion is immoral.

Horseshit.
Pressuring a woman to carry a child she is unwilling or unable to carry is immoral. Pressuring a woman to carry the bastard of her rape is thoroughly immoral

Morality and Ethics are personal affairs like making personal resolutions to improve oneself, in this case by adopting absolute moral rules as a GUIDE only.

Since when were you ever in danger of getting pregnant?
NEVER!
Make your own bloody rules and stop trying to impose your will on others.

If one breaks one's own rules out of critical necessity [e.g. rape, etc.], there is no punishment, but the standard set should spur one/others to avoid and improve later.

What arrogance. Trying to impose your rules on others in matters you will never has to face personally.

In practice, it may not seem to be the case, the human species will be threatened.

More horse sh1t. There are plenty of babies born already. Giving women power over their own bodies has slowed down the massive population increase worldwide.
...
Telling a woman she is wrong to have an abortion under any circumstance is immoral.

You missed my point.
In Morality and Ethics, there is no one telling a woman she is wrong to have an abortion.

It is what you have said. You can't hide behind your moral facade. You are only kidding yourself.

...
Maybe you should take you half baked ideas to the church, because they are the ones banning other forms of birth control.

Can't you see the logic?

Yes the logic of a moral bigot dispensing rules they shall never have to uphold.

You missed my point again and again.
Your above are straw-man[s].

Note I stated, Morality and Ethics is not about telling woman she is wrong nor pressuring the woman to keep the unwanted unborn.

Morality and Ethic is a self-development and management program where the woman has the freewill to do whatever she wants but subject to striving towards a moral ideal.
As such, if a woman makes a mistake, she can decide whatever, but subsequently must strive to learn to avoid and improve on past mistakes.

You missed my point.
In Morality and Ethics, there is no one telling a woman she is wrong to have an abortion.

The effective approach is for each women and man to develop a self-program in voluntarily accepting with understanding and realization, the standard of ZERO abortion is a win-win for all. However this is only a guiding standard and thus critical exceptions are acceptable. If one made a mistake, the guiding standard will guide one to improve to avoid one own standard.

I am not proposing a deontological model of morality and ethics with some kind of punishment in regard to abortion or anything relating to morality and ethics.

You are the real moron and your philosophical thinking is too shallow and narrow, i.e. stuck in a one-track thought.

[Sculptor]

You have missed many of my points above.

They are all rubbish.

I was responding to what you actually said.

Where?
I stated above, right in front of you, the rule on Zero Abortion should not be enforced, i.e. within jurisprudence.

Where you said abortion was a threat to the human species.
Abortion is and always has been perfectly moral.

I define morality is the establishment of secular moral rules as Guides.
In this sense, ZERO Abortion is morally right.
To permit any abortion is immoral.

Horseshit.
Pressuring a woman to carry a child she is unwilling or unable to carry is immoral. Pressuring a woman to carry the bastard of her rape is thoroughly immoral

Morality and Ethics are personal affairs like making personal resolutions to improve oneself, in this case by adopting absolute moral rules as a GUIDE only.

Since when were you ever in danger of getting pregnant?
NEVER!
Make your own bloody rules and stop trying to impose your will on others.

If one breaks one's own rules out of critical necessity [e.g. rape, etc.], there is no punishment, but the standard set should spur one/others to avoid and improve later.

What arrogance. Trying to impose your rules on others in matters you will never has to face personally.

In practice, it may not seem to be the case, the human species will be threatened.

More horse sh1t. There are plenty of babies born already. Giving women power over their own bodies has slowed down the massive population increase worldwide.
...
Telling a woman she is wrong to have an abortion under any circumstance is immoral.

You missed my point.
In Morality and Ethics, there is no one telling a woman she is wrong to have an abortion.

It is what you have said. You can't hide behind your moral facade. You are only kidding yourself.

...
Maybe you should take you half baked ideas to the church, because they are the ones banning other forms of birth control.

Can't you see the logic?

Yes the logic of a moral bigot dispensing rules they shall never have to uphold.

You missed my point again and again.
Your above are straw-man[s].

Note I stated, Morality and Ethics is not about telling woman she is wrong nor pressuring the woman to keep the unwanted unborn.

Morality and Ethic is a self-development and management program where the woman has the freewill to do whatever she wants but subject to striving towards a moral ideal.
As such, if a woman makes a mistake, she can decide whatever, but subsequently must strive to learn to avoid and improve on past mistakes.

You missed my point.
In Morality and Ethics, there is no one telling a woman she is wrong to have an abortion.

The effective approach is for each women and man to develop a self-program in voluntarily accepting with understanding and realization, the standard of ZERO abortion is a win-win for all. However this is only a guiding standard and thus critical exceptions are acceptable. If one made a mistake, the guiding standard will guide one to improve to avoid one own standard.

I am not proposing a deontological model of morality and ethics with some kind of punishment in regard to abortion or anything relating to morality and ethics.

You are the real moron and your philosophical thinking is too shallow and narrow, i.e. stuck in a one-track thought.

Not only are you a hypocritical moral bigot you are also a fantasist it seems.
Until you address the massive flaw in your premise, you can't expect anyone to take you seriously.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You missed my point again and again.
Your above are straw-man[s].

Note I stated, Morality and Ethics is not about telling woman she is wrong nor pressuring the woman to keep the unwanted unborn.

Morality and Ethic is a self-development and management program where the woman has the freewill to do whatever she wants but subject to striving towards a moral ideal.
As such, if a woman makes a mistake, she can decide whatever, but subsequently must strive to learn to avoid and improve on past mistakes.

You missed my point.
In Morality and Ethics, there is no one telling a woman she is wrong to have an abortion.

The effective approach is for each women and man to develop a self-program in voluntarily accepting with understanding and realization, the standard of ZERO abortion is a win-win for all. However this is only a guiding standard and thus critical exceptions are acceptable. If one made a mistake, the guiding standard will guide one to improve to avoid one own standard.

I am not proposing a deontological model of morality and ethics with some kind of punishment in regard to abortion or anything relating to morality and ethics.

You are the real moron and your philosophical thinking is too shallow and narrow, i.e. stuck in a one-track thought.

Not only are you a hypocritical moral bigot you are also a fantasist it seems.
Until you address the massive flaw in your premise, you can't expect anyone to take you seriously.

If you do not present what is the flaw you accused me of, how can I respond to that?

The model I am proposing is not a fantasy, rather the process is ongoing and progressing within human evolution at the present. The task is for humanity to formalize the system and implementing the strategies systematically.

[Walker]

A wild cheetah mother will hide her kits and then risk her own body, her own being and existence, as a decoy target to capture the attention of predators and lure them away from the youngins.

This biological imperative perpetuates the species.

Humans are the same, but in humans the biological overriding of self-cherishing must be powerful enough to silence the secondary problems that support a decision to abort, and because conceptual delusion has become so habitual the biological imperative gets diluted.

You still don't get it.

Why don't you reframe the point it would be more efficient that there should no thing [fetus] to abort than to be in a position of deciding to abort or not.

Pregnancy cannot be factored out of a relevant demographic equation.

[Sculptor]

You missed my point again and again.
Your above are straw-man[s].

Note I stated, Morality and Ethics is not about telling woman she is wrong nor pressuring the woman to keep the unwanted unborn.

Morality and Ethic is a self-development and management program where the woman has the freewill to do whatever she wants but subject to striving towards a moral ideal.
As such, if a woman makes a mistake, she can decide whatever, but subsequently must strive to learn to avoid and improve on past mistakes.



I am not proposing a deontological model of morality and ethics with some kind of punishment in regard to abortion or anything relating to morality and ethics.

You are the real moron and your philosophical thinking is too shallow and narrow, i.e. stuck in a one-track thought.

Not only are you a hypocritical moral bigot you are also a fantasist it seems.
Until you address the massive flaw in your premise, you can't expect anyone to take you seriously.

If you do not present what is the flaw you accused me of, how can I respond to that?

The model I am proposing is not a fantasy, rather the process is ongoing and progressing within human evolution at the present. The task is for humanity to formalize the system and implementing the strategies systematically.

You are mired in an objectivist fallacy.
It is false to say that abortion is immoral.

[Sculptor]

A wild cheetah mother will hide her kits and then risk her own body, her own being and existence, as a decoy target to capture the attention of predators and lure them away from the youngins.

This biological imperative perpetuates the species.

Humans are the same, but in humans the biological overriding of self-cherishing must be powerful enough to silence the secondary problems that support a decision to abort, and because conceptual delusion has become so habitual the biological imperative gets diluted.

You still don't get it.

Why don't you reframe the point it would be more efficient that there should no thing [fetus] to abort than to be in a position of deciding to abort or not.

Pregnancy cannot be factored out of a relevant demographic equation.

It can be, but like all moral questions the issue is ought it?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Not only are you a hypocritical moral bigot you are also a fantasist it seems.
Until you address the massive flaw in your premise, you can't expect anyone to take you seriously.

If you do not present what is the flaw you accused me of, how can I respond to that?

The model I am proposing is not a fantasy, rather the process is ongoing and progressing within human evolution at the present. The task is for humanity to formalize the system and implementing the strategies systematically.

You are mired in an objectivist fallacy.
It is false to say that abortion is immoral.

I have already given my argument.

I stated 'abortion is immoral' from the theoretical perspective and I have given my reasons for it.

• Morality (from Latin: moralis, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.
  -wiki

According to my argument, theoretically, abortion is immoral [as defined above].
Thus abortion is not proper [immoral] in the perspective of the whole of humanity and within the individual's moral function.
I stated this principle is only to be used as a guide for improvement, not to be enforced legally.
There is no forcing woman to keep their unwanted unborn.
The point 'abortion is immoral' should only be adopted as a resolution voluntarily in aligned with the individual or couple's natural maternal and paternal instinct in alignment with the goals of the human species.

In addition, I have explained how the above theory 'Pure' principle 'Abortion is immoral' is to be applied to the practical [ethics], i.e. the Applied, to produce efficient results of morality and ethics.

You are merely accusing and condemning my point but shown no arguments why it is wrong and not practical.

Note the model I proposed is naturally evolving within humanity slowly. The problem is this natural evolution is slow in its progress. Thus we need to establish a model for this natural evolution of morality so that we can expedite its progress.

[Sculptor]

If you do not present what is the flaw you accused me of, how can I respond to that?

The model I am proposing is not a fantasy, rather the process is ongoing and progressing within human evolution at the present. The task is for humanity to formalize the system and implementing the strategies systematically.

You are mired in an objectivist fallacy.
It is false to say that abortion is immoral.

I have already given my argument.

It's not an argument, just the opinion of a bigot.

[Atla]

Fundamentally, abortion is immoral.
In theory if abortion is made universal, the human species would be threatened.
Thus the absolute moral rule is 'No Abortion is permitted', ZERO Abortion.
But this is merely a guide for improvement, it should not be enforced.

The abortion equation is;

Humans + sex + lust + bad impulse controls = unwanted conception or babies.

Humans + sex + good impulse controls = no unwanted conception or babies.

Thus to achieve ZERO Abortion, humanity need to deal the loose variables of lust and impulse control. Humans and sex are permanent variables but lust and impulse control can be improved.
The above are the major variables and there are minor ones to be considered.

At present we cannot expect nor demand no abortion.
At present with the current state of the average humans, the lust would be great and impulse controls are weak.

Thus instead of passing legal laws on abortion, humanity must set to modulate the lust factor with improving impulse control.
The improvement in these two variables will be slow and thus we can only expect the number of abortions to reduce gradually.

The question is how to implement the above efficiently which will be another topic.

It doesn't matter what kind of global birth control will become necessary, under no circumstances should abortion be seen as immoral. At all. But a solipsist like you wouldn't care about making women feel guilty about such an important, sometimes life-changing thing.

[Dachshund]

This thread has gone completely off track: carnal lust; "self-cherishing" ; God; positive law; poor impulse control; the "biological imperative" (whatever that means); contraception; the overpopulation/depopulation of the planet, etc; - none of this has any bearing on the content of my OP (?)

I posted the OP to argue that abortion in fundamentally a moral issue that is grounded in whether the conceptus (fertilized ovum) bears the status of PERSONHOOD.


I argued that PERSONHOOD is a quality all human beings possess, and that A HUMAN PERON is the subject of certain rights and duties. Among the rights is possesses is the right to life.

In my post I explained what PERSONHOOD entails and why I believe PERSONHOOD is an attribute of the conceptus (which is biologically speaking a fully fledged Homo sapien)

So far there have been no posts that have responded to any of the points I made in my argument.

Therefore there have been no objections; and if I do not receive any, I will take it that as far as this forum is concerned my case against abortion is water-tight.


Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)

[Atla]

This thread has gone completely off track: carnal lust; "self-cherishing" ; God; positive law; poor impulse control; the "biological imperative" (whatever that means); contraception; the overpopulation/depopulation of the planet, etc; - none of this has any bearing on the content of my OP (?)

I posted the OP to argue that abortion in fundamentally a moral issue that is grounded in whether the conceptus (fertilized ovum) bears the status of PERSONHOOD.


I argued that PERSONHOOD is a quality all human beings possess, and that A HUMAN PERON is the subject of certain rights and duties. Among the rights is possesses is the right to life.

In my post I explained what PERSONHOOD entails and why I believe PERSONHOOD is an attribute of the conceptus (which is biologically speaking a fully fledged Homo sapien)

So far there have been no posts that have responded to any of the points I made in my argument.

Therefore there have been no objections; and if I do not receive any, I will take it that as far as this forum is concerned my case against abortion is water-tight.


Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)

As noted earlier, your OP, just like all your other posts, is merely an argument for more sterilization and/or abortion. In order to decrease the number of people who will probably grow up to be like you. Thus improving the long-term welfare of humanity, and the planet in general; a noble cause.

[Dachshund]

As noted earlier, your OP, just like all your other posts, is merely an argument for more sterilization and/or abortion. In order to decrease the number of people who will probably grow up to be like you. Thus improving the long-term welfare of humanity, and the planet in general; a noble cause.

In other words you cannot counter my argument.

Yawn...You're such a fucking bore, buddy; even your attempts at insult are cliche.


Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)

[Atla]

As noted earlier, your OP, just like all your other posts, is merely an argument for more sterilization and/or abortion. In order to decrease the number of people who will probably grow up to be like you. Thus improving the long-term welfare of humanity, and the planet in general; a noble cause.

In other words you cannot counter my argument.

Yawn...You're such a fucking bore, buddy; even your attempts at insult are cliche.


Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)

You would have to present something even remotely resembling a valid argument, if you wish for it to be crushed properly. And not totally distort things already in the first sentence.

[Dachshund]

You would have to present something even remotely resembling a valid argument, if you wish for it to be crushed properly. And not totally distort things already in the first sentence.

How have I distorted anything "in the first sentence." ?


Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)