Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

[accelafine]

I might have said 'paradoxically' child-hating but it's not a paradox. Their own 'God' character famously hated children. He's smiting children left, right and centre in the babble. A truly odious, nightmare of a creature. With a role model like that it certainly explains a lot...

[Impenitent]

overpopulation is double plus good

-Imp

[Veritas Aequitas]

The entire argument is ridiculous. If humans are programmed so they ought not kill, why have they killed so regularly throughout their existence? If it's all in the programming, why are there 50 million abortions?

If morals are based on this "programming", aren't humans programmed to have sex? Based on you notions of morality, why should they refrain?

We need not discuss the stock problem of whether fertilized eggs (or sperm, or unfertilized eggs) are "humans", because the rest of the argument is nonsensical.

You are too hasty in jumping to your narrow and shallow ideas.

I believe the term "programed" is the most suitable one-word to represent my intention of how humans ended up with certain universal instincts, drives and impulses out of 3.5 billion years of evolutions via adaptions.
This 'program' is also represented by the hardwired DNA codes.
If you apply some degree of the Principle of Charity, it should not be an issue?

Evolutionary wise, ALL humans are 'programed' to kill initially; this is essential that they kill living things for food to survive. This is the 'oughtness to kill' program which is universal in ALL humans active in varying degrees.
This 'oughtness to kill' is extended to killing humans in case of self-defense.
However as humans evolved more with greater awareness, this 'oughtness to kill' to kill could be extended to the killing of humans for all sort of reasons.
As such, there is an evolution of the 'ought-not-ness to kill human' [born and unborn] to inhibit and modulate the initial 'oughtness to kill' potential and program.

As with evolution, all the programs has varying degrees of strength, force and activeness. The original 'oughtness to kill' is strong and more active while the latter 'ought-not-ness to kill human' is not so strong and is being activated slowly in time.
This is why there had been killing over evolutionary time whilst there are protests by the majority as driven by their inherent 'ought-not-ness to kill human' program.

There are 'humans killing humans' and "50 million" abortions per year because the ought-not-ness to kill human' of humanity is not active yet.

But the trend since 10,000 years ago is there is a reduction of % and quantum of humans killed by humans. see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bette ... Our_Nature
The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined is a 2011 book by Steven Pinker, in which the author argues that violence in the world has declined both in the long run and in the short run and suggests explanations as to why this has occurred.[1] The book uses data documenting declining violence across time and geography. This paints a picture of massive declines in the violence of all forms, from war, to improved treatment of children.

Btw, I did not propose humans abstains from sex.
What I had accused is, at present the majority are driven to sex with an uncontrollable lusts thus ending with unplanned birth.
I am advocating humanity seek the approach to the best sexual experience [maybe 100 times better] while in control to avoid unplanned births.
This avoidance will include the need to cultivate [mental training] heavy mindfulness to avoid unplanned birth and very effective foolproof contraceptive measures with optimal sexual experiences.

Foetuses are living things and potential humans.
The maxim "Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!" [ZERO Abortion] made universal will be a fool proof measure to avoid the theoretical [possible] extermination of the human species.
It will also drive humanity to continually strive & seek the most effective contraceptive methods, train the mind not to have animal-lusts but rather very mindful sex with the best sexual experience [orgasm].

[Veritas Aequitas]

overpopulation is double plus good
-Imp

Good point.

Abortion is Not Permissible, Period! strategy means prevention is better than cure, i.e. human must prevent unplanned conception, so there is no consideration of 50 million abortions to deliberate on.

Humanity also has a moral duty to maintain an optimal population on Earth. That is another topic.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The usual strawman construction factory is very busy.

I am not proposing humans abstains from sex.

My charge is, at present the majority are driven to sex with an uncontrollable lusts thus ending with unplanned birth.

I am advocating humanity seek the approach to the best sexual experience [maybe 100 times better] while in control to avoid unplanned births.

This avoidance will include the need to cultivate [mental training] heavy mindfulness to avoid unplanned births and very effective foolproof contraceptive measures with optimal sexual experiences.

There are a 1000&1 ways to establish the above optimal sexual strategies.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My bad, it was actually better before he gave us his reasoning.

1 Humans are programmed with oughtness-not-to-kill-humans.
2 Therefore, humans killing humans is morally wrong.
3 Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

Strawman as usual.

You are unable to understand my detailed arguments [not the above one-liners] because you are grounding on an illusory 'what is fact'.

Your argument [MCO] - why morality cannot be objective;

• What is objective is grounded on facts [PH]
  Moral elements are not facts
  Therefore, morality cannot be objective

But your facts [PH] are grounded on an illusion.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
You have not provided a convincing counter to the above.

So, your argument [MCO] is unsound.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If humans are programmed so they ought not kill, why have they killed so regularly throughout their existence?

The logical conclusion would be, "Human beings do things they ought not to do."

And in fact, that's true. Whether or not abortion is one of them is not, however, answered by the given argument. I would say it is, and you would say it isn't: but not because of the OP's attempted reasoning, because that doesn't work.

'Programned" is the wrong word. Humans are not "programmed". They are taught. Certain desires (food, water, sex) may be innate, but even they are not programmed. A computer can do only what it is programmed to do; humans can abstain from food, drink, and sex, if they want to, like the Buddha or those IRA prisoners.

Expand your knowledge base.

Human Programming: Nature's Code At the core of every human lies the genetic code, DNA, a complex sequence that dictates physical traits, susceptibilities to diseases, and even aspects of our personality.
This biological "programming" is remarkably similar to computer code, which consists of instructions that guide computer operations.
Both systems rely on a language of codes—nucleotide sequences in DNA and binary code in computers—to execute complex processes, from creating life to running software.

Read more at: https://yourstory.com/2024/02/decoding- ... milarities

What I proposed for moral elements is a priori [not a posteriori], i.e. the moral functions and drives which are inherent and programed biologically via evolution.

Note, the ought-not-ness to kill humans is a noun, i.e. a physical thing [algorithm] represented by physical neurons in processes and actions.
This is different from the verb and command 'ought to do this or that'.

Why "YOU" and the majority do not go about killing humans is because your "ought-not-ness to kill humans" program or algorithm within you is reasonably active and effective. This is a biological facts and a moral fact when deliberated within a framework and system of morality.
Your [& others] physical "ought-not-ness to kill humans" can become defective if the inhibitors are damaged or made less active, e.g. when certain negative passion overwhelmed it or it could be physically damaged that will turn you into a malignant psychopath.

You need to expand your knowledge base, don't remain ignorant of real knowledge.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If humans are programmed so they ought not kill, why have they killed so regularly throughout their existence?

The logical conclusion would be, "Human beings do things they ought not to do."

And in fact, that's true. Whether or not abortion is one of them is not, however, answered by the given argument. I would say it is, and you would say it isn't: but not because of the OP's attempted reasoning, because that doesn't work.

To you, "Human beings do things they ought not to do" as God commanded.
But it is impossible for a God to exists as real.
Your proposition is unsound.

Yep, that's another problem whith the objection. There isn't any such thing as a "programmed" human being. Although we do have some instincts and pre-set inclinations, it seems we can resist all of them, if the incentive is sufficient to do so.

Whether you like it or not, as with all human beings you have "the oughtness to breathe" which is a physical algorithm in you that is supported by neurons in process and actions.
This is dealt within a biological and neuroscience framework and system.

It is only the mentally unsound with a damaged "the oughtness to breathe" who can resist the above physical oughtness. [e.g. the suicidal]
But resisting do not obviate its actual physical existence within the person.

Not as obvious as the above, there is the physical 'ought-non-ness to kill humans' within all humans which is a physical algorithm that is supported by neurons in process and actions.
This is dealt within a moral framework and system.

This moral physical 'ought-non-ness to kill humans' fact covers both unborn and born humans.

Theistic morality [e.g. thou shall not kill humans] is intuited by a group of human from the above biological and neuroscientific facts.

Within my moral thesis I am merely insisting this moral objective fact 'ought-non-ness to kill humans' be taken as a guide and not to be enforced on individual[s].
This is the ideal gold standard to guide moral progress within humanity from whatever its present base.

"If one fail to plan, one plan to fail" is applicable to morality.
To establish and execute a plan effectively, there is a need for an objective to start with.
The 'ought-non-ness to kill humans' maxim is one ideal moral objective within the moral model.

[Age]

Within a human-based morality-proper framework and system [FSERC] the moral standard and maxim is,
Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!
However, this is merely a moral standard to be used as a guide for moral progress and with anything morality, moral maxims are not to be enforceable on any individual[s].

Any issues with the above?

Discuss??
Views??

So, you "veritas aequitas" have made up, another, human beings made up rule, and then claim that your rule' is 'morality'. And, what I see as an issue here is:

you expect others to follow and abide by 'your rule'.
But, then say this 'rule of yours' here is not enforceable.
So, how and why would anyone want to follow and abide by 'your own personal made up rule'?

[Immanuel Can]

...it is impossible for a God to exists as real.

I know you keep saying this. It won't make it the truth, though.

Yep, that's another problem whith the objection. There isn't any such thing as a "programmed" human being. Although we do have some instincts and pre-set inclinations, it seems we can resist all of them, if the incentive is sufficient to do so.

Whether you like it or not, as with all human beings you have "the oughtness to breathe"

They don't. They only have the inclination to breathe. They don't "owe it" to keep living at all, actually, if their life is just a contingent happening within an uncaring universe. There's certainly no moral imperative for a human being, under those conditions, to do anything at all.

...there is the physical 'ought-non-ness to kill humans'

Actually, in that kind of universe, there isn't. Human beings do kill each other all the time. War is one of our oldest institutions, and abortion one of our newest. We kill people with impunity...what creates any "oughtness" not to?

Sorry...your line of argument doesn't work. You keep asserting "oughtnesses," but can't explain what makes them things we "owe it" to do. So your claims are all gratuitous and unfounded.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...it is impossible for a God to exists as real.

I know you keep saying this. It won't make it the truth, though.

Yep, that's another problem whith the objection. There isn't any such thing as a "programmed" human being. Although we do have some instincts and pre-set inclinations, it seems we can resist all of them, if the incentive is sufficient to do so.

Whether you like it or not, as with all human beings you have "the oughtness to breathe"

They don't. They only have the inclination to breathe. They don't "owe it" to keep living at all, actually, if their life is just a contingent happening within an uncaring universe. There's certainly no moral imperative for a human being, under those conditions, to do anything at all.

"the inclination to breathe"??
That is the wrong word which is associated with an impulse that can be easily be declined.

ALL normal human-beings being-human has the natural imperative to breathe and there is no room nor provision to refuse to breathe unless one in mentally unsound.
It is this 'imperative' that is translated to an oughtness that is inherent and innate in all human beings.
This is generally a biological fact.

...there is the physical 'ought-non-ness to kill humans'

Actually, in that kind of universe, there isn't. Human beings do kill each other all the time. War is one of our oldest institutions, and abortion one of our newest. We kill people with impunity...what creates any "oughtness" not to?

Sorry...your line of argument doesn't work. You keep asserting "oughtnesses," but can't explain what makes them things we "owe it" to do. So your claims are all gratuitous and unfounded.

There no question of 'owe it to do'.
It is just that being-human [essential to human nature], in all humans there is an inherent and natural obligation [imperative] of "oughtness to breathe."
This "oughtness to breathe" [noun] is represented by physical neurons in process and actions - this a a biological fact you are ignoring.

Just as there is a physical "oughtness to breathe" there is the more subtle physical 'oughtnot-ness to kill humans'.
Without this 'oughtnot-ness to kill humans' as a standard in all humans, then theoretically the human species will be extinct in time, this is not of nature and natural.
This 'oughtnot-ness to kill humans' is a biological and evolution element, but when inputted into a human-based moral framework and system [FS], it is is an objective physical moral fact.

As intuited and inputted into a human-based theistic moral FS, it is an objective theistic moral fact.
But this 'objective theistic moral fact' is grounded on an illusion, i.e. God, so its degree of objectivity is negligible but nevertheless is useful and had been effective so far being optimal to the present conditions. But being grounded on illusory grounds, it will not be effective in the future which has to rely on higher degrees of objectivity.

[Immanuel Can]

...it is impossible for a God to exists as real.

I know you keep saying this. It won't make it the truth, though.

Whether you like it or not, as with all human beings you have "the oughtness to breathe"

They don't. They only have the inclination to breathe. They don't "owe it" to keep living at all, actually, if their life is just a contingent happening within an uncaring universe. There's certainly no moral imperative for a human being, under those conditions, to do anything at all.

"the inclination to breathe"??

Yep. That they want to, or that they have to in order to live, does not make it an "ought." If you think it does, you have no idea what a moral "ought" is.

It's not even a moral imperative that we survive, either individually or as a species. In our world, species go extinct all the time...why should human beings think they're any different?

...there is the physical 'ought-non-ness to kill humans'

Actually, in that kind of universe, there isn't. Human beings do kill each other all the time. War is one of our oldest institutions, and abortion one of our newest. We kill people with impunity...what creates any "oughtness" not to?

Sorry...your line of argument doesn't work. You keep asserting "oughtnesses," but can't explain what makes them things we "owe it" to do. So your claims are all gratuitous and unfounded.

There no question of 'owe it to do'.

That's where you're dead wrong. "Ought" is an old word, a contraction of two words: "owe" +"it". That's exactly what it means.

You're wrong again. But you're wrong so often that I'm sure you're getting quite used to it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I know you keep saying this. It won't make it the truth, though.


They don't. They only have the inclination to breathe. They don't "owe it" to keep living at all, actually, if their life is just a contingent happening within an uncaring universe. There's certainly no moral imperative for a human being, under those conditions, to do anything at all.

"the inclination to breathe"??

Yep. That they want to, or that they have to in order to live, does not make it an "ought." If you think it does, you have no idea what a moral "ought" is.

It's not even a moral imperative that we survive, either individually or as a species. In our world, species go extinct all the time...why should human beings think they're any different?

Actually, in that kind of universe, there isn't. Human beings do kill each other all the time. War is one of our oldest institutions, and abortion one of our newest. We kill people with impunity...what creates any "oughtness" not to?

Sorry...your line of argument doesn't work. You keep asserting "oughtnesses," but can't explain what makes them things we "owe it" to do. So your claims are all gratuitous and unfounded.

There no question of 'owe it to do'.

That's where you're dead wrong. "Ought" is an old word, a contraction of two words: "owe" +"it". That's exactly what it means.

You're wrong again. But you're wrong so often that I'm sure you're getting quite used to it.

You are too pedantic with the term 'ought'.
There is no absoluteness with words and its meaning.
Note I am using the term 'oughtness' [noun] not ought [verb].

• Ought:
  used to indicate duty or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.
  natural expectation
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ought

There is no issue with using the term 'ought' thus oughtness when it is sufficiently qualified to a specific human-based framework and system, e.g.
a legal ought, organizational ought, social ought, political ought, etc. thus it is a not a problem to qualify an oughtness to the moral framework and system.

[accelafine]

The usual strawman construction factory is very busy.

I am not proposing humans abstains from sex.

My charge is, at present the majority are driven to sex with an uncontrollable lusts thus ending with unplanned birth.

I am advocating humanity seek the approach to the best sexual experience [maybe 100 times better] while in control to avoid unplanned births.

This avoidance will include the need to cultivate [mental training] heavy mindfulness to avoid unplanned births and very effective foolproof contraceptive measures with optimal sexual experiences.

There are a 1000&1 ways to establish the above optimal sexual strategies.

I have a feeling that 'uncontrolled lust' has never been an issue in your life. If you think 'uncontrolled lust' is the only reason for unplanned pregnancies then why the fuck have you written a thread like this? You clearly don't have a clue about anything--let alone women's (because this ONLY affects women) reproductive choices and contraception. It's none of your business what women do.

[Immanuel Can]

You are too pedantic with the term 'ought'.

Nope. But don't take my word for it. Go and read "Thoughts on Oughts," in PN 99.