Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

[LuckyR]

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??

This topic is the classic "competing interests" subject. Thus any purportedly serious discussion of it that completely ignores one of the interests (survival for the fetus and autonomy for the mother) is by definition intellectually dishonest.

Such as this one.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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??

This topic is the classic "competing interests" subject. Thus any purportedly serious discussion of it that completely ignores one of the interests (survival for the fetus and autonomy for the mother) is by definition intellectually dishonest.

Such as this one.

You seem to miss out the moral element.
You seem to be intellectual bankrupt in discussing the above and ignorant of the big picture.

The OP ensure the survival of the fetus, thus the preservation of the human species on this point.

Autonomy for the mother[s]?? just like autonomy for Hitler and other murderers to do what they do?

The point of the OP is all humans has an inherent natural 'ought-not-ness to kill humans [born and unborn] with varying activeness within all humans with varying degrees of activeness.
The vision of morality in this case is to recognize this objective universal inherent moral fact and to ensure this natural 'ought-not-ness to kill humans [born and unborn] is highly activated in all [or majority of] humans.
The focus is also on the development of mindful sex to avoid unplanned birth.
If unplanned births are prevented as source, there is no need to consider the autonomy for the mother to decide whether to abort or not.

If abortion is necessary because of medical issues, then such medical issue need to be prevented at source.
All controllable factors related to abortion need to be managed.

When the above are addressed, abortion within humanity will be prevented at source by tackling the root causes rather fire-fighting like we do at present.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

I have read that long ago and since then have raised >30 threads on the contentious OUGHT-IS [NOFI - no ought from is] issue.

"Thoughts on Oughts," in PN 99 argued there are only moral oughts because a God exist.
But is a delusion to think God exists as real.
It is Impossible for God to exists as Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

Re 'ought' I have argued there should not be any enforceable 'ought' from any authority [the article said so] and more importantly from an illusory God [a non starter for morality].

What I have argued, is there are inherent, innate and natural oughtness [biological] within all humans and there those related to morality [defined as management of evil] which drives all humans to prevent evil from themselves and others.
It is the responsibility of the individual[s] and collective to enable the natural moral oughtness [a physical fact] to unfold expeditiously relative to one's psychological state.

This unfoldment of natural morality is already happening naturally with chattel slavery [which Christianity and Islam has not condemned outright] to the progress where chattel slavery is recognized as morally evil and banned in all sovereign countries.

Abortion is a more complex issue than slavery or murder; there is a natural ought-not-ness to intentional abortion which is a moral fact when dealt within the subject of morality [management of evil].

The arguments in "Thoughts on Oughts," in PN 99 is relatively too primitive philosophically and worst when argued on the basis that God exists as real in introducing moral oughts and enforcing it with a threat of HELL for non-compliance. This is so silly.

[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.

I have read that long ago and since then have raised >30 threads on the contentious OUGHT-IS [NOFI - no ought from is] issue.

That doesn't really matter, because you've not understood it at all.

"Thoughts on Oughts," in PN 99 argued there are only moral oughts because a God exist.

Quote exactly where it made that argument. I don't believe you.

At the same time, however, that would be true: in a world that has no God, nobody "ought" to do anything at all. There's nobody to "owe" any duty to...not even yourself, since you are nothing but an accidental creature in an accidental world.

But the point, if the author had made it rightly, would be the reverse of what you said: that if God does NOT exist, then moral oughts also do NOT exist. And that's the truth.

[Immanuel Can]

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??

This topic is the classic "competing interests" subject. Thus any purportedly serious discussion of it that completely ignores one of the interests (survival for the fetus and autonomy for the mother) is by definition intellectually dishonest.

The mother already has autonomy. Nobody makes her have sex with a partner to whom she is not committed. But once she makes that bad choice, and once she creates a human life, she's already chosen what's going to happen. She's responsible. Her choice has been fully actualized. So the mother's choice is not even involved in abortion: she had her choice. She has no further legitimate "interest" to compete with anybody else's anymore. We don't give people the right to kill other people, just because the first person made a stupid, immoral choice.

Now, when does the baby get his/her choice?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

I have read that long ago and since then have raised >30 threads on the contentious OUGHT-IS [NOFI - no ought from is] issue.

That doesn't really matter, because you've not understood it at all.

"Thoughts on Oughts," in PN 99 argued there are only moral oughts because a God exist.

Quote exactly where it made that argument. I don't believe you.

At the same time, however, that would be true: in a world that has no God, nobody "ought" to do anything at all. There's nobody to "owe" any duty to...not even yourself, since you are nothing but an accidental creature in an accidental world.

But the point, if the author had made it rightly, would be the reverse of what you said: that if God does NOT exist, then moral oughts also do NOT exist. And that's the truth.

Don't doubt me of not reading it when you have not read it yourself;

In contrast to all this, as Joseph Kaipuyil has observed, “always, ontology precedes ethics, both in theory and in practice.” (Critical Ontology, 2002, p.28.)
What he is saying is that Morality is based not on just any kind of neutral observations, but rather on what we believe to be true about the basic nature of reality.

Moral conclusions begin with fundamental premises about existence.

For example, if we believe in the existence of some kind of Supreme Being (and most particularly, one concerned with Morality) then it becomes reasonable to speak of a supreme Moral order reflecting this Being’s identity, character and expressed wishes, or perhaps with natural laws established by that Being.

Not only so, but on this basis appeals may be made by individuals and minorities for concessions against the majority, and talk of things like natural rights and Moral duties becomes possible.

On the other hand, if we believe in no such thing – that is, if we believe that physics is all there is – then all we can do is describe the features of various kinds of Morality sociologically – as things that different groups of people happen to have done, in different periods of history.
But then the problem is that we have no basis to say whether or not they should continue to do those things.
There’s nothing inherent in a description of a historical phenomenon that magically converts it into an ethical imperative.

In the absence of any ultimate Guarantor, then, Morality itself becomes permanently provisional and dependent on the coercive force available to arbitrary authorities or majorities.
They can, and will, continue to command the sort of force to control others that is denied to individuals and minorities.
What ought to disturb us even more, is the realization that there is no longer a basis for a Moral appeal outside of these arbitrary power-brokers, given that the ultimate truth of Morality is now simply power.
Then it would be just as Nietzsche maintained: all Morality is simply a play for power, disguised in self-interested language games.
Life’s ‘winners’ then make all the rules.
And no examination of the facts will ever give us any reason to believe it ought to be otherwise.

Obviously, the matter cannot rest here.
And so the philosophical quest for an incontestable link between ‘is’ and ‘ought’ continues.

..................................
Note Morality is confined within humans and humanity.

• Human nature "is".
  There are oughtness within human nature.
  Therefore there are oughts within is.

Why Hume is wrong is because, he is equivocating "oughtness from the external world of fact" with "oughtness from the fact of the internal world of human nature".

The PN article recognized the different types of oughtness, prudential, power, godly, etc.
I have shown there are inherent natural oughtness and ought-non-ness within human nature, e.g. the biological oughtness-to-breathe.
This oughtness-to-breathe is a moral issue if any human is deliberately stopped from breathing i.e. humans killing of humans.
As such, as subject and matter of morality within a moral framework and system, the initial biological "oughtnot-ness to kill humans" is a moral fact.
The initial biological oughtness can be verified and justified via the science-biological framework and system.

As such, there are inherent, innate, natural moral oughtness a feature of human-nature existing as real within all humans.

[Immanuel Can]

Don't doubt me of not reading it when you have not read it yourself;

I read it. But now I made sure you did, too.

But did you understand it? Apparently not. For what the author argues is that there are different kinds of "oughts," and most kinds have nothing to do with moral "oughtness." He gives the example of something like, "The Sun ought to come up in the morning." It does not mean, "The Sun is morally obligated to rise in the morning." It only means "it will probably happen."

Moral oughts are what we are considering. And you can't get a moral "ought" from a mere empirical fact, particularly in a universe that has no Authority behind its existence at all. Thus, I see nothing untrue about what he says. Where do you take issue with him?

Note Morality is confined within humans and humanity.

Why "note" something that isn't, and which can't show to be true? If morality was merely invented by humans, then it doesn't have any authority. It doesn't even follow that the guy who invented the particular moral precept "ought" to follow it. It certainly doesn't follow that you "ought" to. So you get no "oughtness" from human beings. Like I said, they're just contingent, perishable, fallible, temporary beings within an accidentally-created universe. How can any one such, or even any group of them, rightfully impose an "ought" on anybody?

You say, "There are oughtness within human nature." Ignoring the obvious grammatical error, the claim still is totally illogical and without basis. Where is this "oughtness" derived from? Human beings are nothing, in the universe the Materialist or Physicalist believes we exist in: he's an accidental fact of an accidental universe. That's all.

[accelafine]

Don't doubt me of not reading it when you have not read it yourself;

I read it. But now I made sure you did, too.

But did you understand it? Apparently not. For what the author argues is that there are different kinds of "oughts," and most kinds have nothing to do with moral "oughtness." He gives the example of something like, "The Sun ought to come up in the morning." It does not mean, "The Sun is morally obligated to rise in the morning." It only means "it will probably happen."

Moral oughts are what we are considering. And you can't get a moral "ought" from a mere empirical fact, particularly in a universe that has no Authority behind its existence at all. Thus, I see nothing untrue about what he says. Where do you take issue with him?

Note Morality is confined within humans and humanity.

Why "note" something that isn't, and which can't show to be true? If morality was merely invented by humans, then it doesn't have any authority. It doesn't even follow that the guy who invented the particular moral precept "ought" to follow it. It certainly doesn't follow that you "ought" to. So you get no "oughtness" from human beings. Like I said, they're just contingent, perishable, fallible, temporary beings within an accidentally-created universe. How can any one such, or even any group of them, rightfully impose an "ought" on anybody?

You say, "There are oughtness within human nature." Ignoring the obvious grammatical error, the claim still is totally illogical and without basis. Where is this "oughtness" derived from? Human beings are nothing, in the universe the Materialist or Physicalist believes we exist in: he's an accidental fact of an accidental universe. That's all.

You have admitted that you are god-bothering which has nothing to do with philosophy so why are you god-bothering here? Go and god-bother somewhere else. Stop pretending to care about zygotes. Trust me. 'God' isn't reading this website. Your brownie points won't be affected.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Don't doubt me of not reading it when you have not read it yourself;

I read it. But now I made sure you did, too.

But did you understand it? Apparently not. For what the author argues is that there are different kinds of "oughts," and most kinds have nothing to do with moral "oughtness." He gives the example of something like, "The Sun ought to come up in the morning." It does not mean, "The Sun is morally obligated to rise in the morning." It only means "it will probably happen."

Moral oughts are what we are considering. And you can't get a moral "ought" from a mere empirical fact, particularly in a universe that has no Authority behind its existence at all. Thus, I see nothing untrue about what he says. Where do you take issue with him?

If the author is realistic, he would have critiqued that God is not real, i.e. impossible to exists as real. Thus there are no real moral oughts from a God.

What the author missed in this [if he allow God to exists as real];

• God is
  God established oughts
  Therefore there are oughts from is.

This counter his agreement, there are no oughts from is.

Note Morality is confined within humans and humanity.

Why "note" something that isn't, and which can't show to be true? If morality was merely invented by humans, then it doesn't have any authority. It doesn't even follow that the guy who invented the particular moral precept "ought" to follow it. It certainly doesn't follow that you "ought" to. So you get no "oughtness" from human beings. Like I said, they're just contingent, perishable, fallible, temporary beings within an accidentally-created universe. How can any one such, or even any group of them, rightfully impose an "ought" on anybody?

You say, "There are oughtness within human nature." Ignoring the obvious grammatical error, the claim still is totally illogical and without basis. Where is this "oughtness" derived from? Human beings are nothing, in the universe the Materialist or Physicalist believes we exist in: he's an accidental fact of an accidental universe. That's all.

Surely you are not that ignorantly.
Empirically the subject, feature and activities related to morality are ubiquitous to humans activities thus arising from human nature. This is confirmed by empirical evidences.
For example, what happened in Oct 7 is instantly regarded as immoral.
There is no activity that is labelled as 'morality' in non-humans or the physical world.
Morality is solely a human thing, thus inherent in human nature.

That humans are relatively insignificant in relation to the size of the universe is irrelevant to the topic of Morality within humanity.
What is relevant with morality is the possible extermination of the human species and all the related sub-threats to it.

Do you deny within ALL humans there is an 'oughtness' to breathe.
Just because it is universal and natural does not mean there is no 'oughtness' to it.

Just as the above, there is the ought-not-ness to kill humans.
This is evident from the following;
1. that you and the majority do not seeming go about killing humans either naturally, or due to some internal restraining forces.
2. the killing of humans by humans is a serious crime in all countries.
3. all religions generally condemn the killing of humans
The above are all traceable to the biological 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' and therefrom as an objective moral fact.

Despite the above, the killings of humans had been going on, but that is because of the weakness or damage to the neural inhibitors related to that ought-not-ness to kill humans algorithm in the brain and body.

[Immanuel Can]

Don't doubt me of not reading it when you have not read it yourself;

I read it. But now I made sure you did, too.

But did you understand it? Apparently not. For what the author argues is that there are different kinds of "oughts," and most kinds have nothing to do with moral "oughtness." He gives the example of something like, "The Sun ought to come up in the morning." It does not mean, "The Sun is morally obligated to rise in the morning." It only means "it will probably happen."

Moral oughts are what we are considering. And you can't get a moral "ought" from a mere empirical fact, particularly in a universe that has no Authority behind its existence at all. Thus, I see nothing untrue about what he says. Where do you take issue with him?

Note Morality is confined within humans and humanity.

Why "note" something that isn't, and which can't show to be true? If morality was merely invented by humans, then it doesn't have any authority. It doesn't even follow that the guy who invented the particular moral precept "ought" to follow it. It certainly doesn't follow that you "ought" to. So you get no "oughtness" from human beings. Like I said, they're just contingent, perishable, fallible, temporary beings within an accidentally-created universe. How can any one such, or even any group of them, rightfully impose an "ought" on anybody?

You say, "There are oughtness within human nature." Ignoring the obvious grammatical error, the claim still is totally illogical and without basis. Where is this "oughtness" derived from? Human beings are nothing, in the universe the Materialist or Physicalist believes we exist in: he's an accidental fact of an accidental universe. That's all.

You have admitted that you are god-bothering which has nothing to do with philosophy...

You're going ad hominem, in the hope of getting away from the obvious. The obvious is this: the woman has had her choice. She used it very badly. Now you want to let her murder her child in order to cover up her inability to make good choices.

So "choice" is not the issue. She's had hers. "Baby murder" is the only issue.

[accelafine]

I read it. But now I made sure you did, too.

But did you understand it? Apparently not. For what the author argues is that there are different kinds of "oughts," and most kinds have nothing to do with moral "oughtness." He gives the example of something like, "The Sun ought to come up in the morning." It does not mean, "The Sun is morally obligated to rise in the morning." It only means "it will probably happen."

Moral oughts are what we are considering. And you can't get a moral "ought" from a mere empirical fact, particularly in a universe that has no Authority behind its existence at all. Thus, I see nothing untrue about what he says. Where do you take issue with him?
Why "note" something that isn't, and which can't show to be true? If morality was merely invented by humans, then it doesn't have any authority. It doesn't even follow that the guy who invented the particular moral precept "ought" to follow it. It certainly doesn't follow that you "ought" to. So you get no "oughtness" from human beings. Like I said, they're just contingent, perishable, fallible, temporary beings within an accidentally-created universe. How can any one such, or even any group of them, rightfully impose an "ought" on anybody?

You say, "There are oughtness within human nature." Ignoring the obvious grammatical error, the claim still is totally illogical and without basis. Where is this "oughtness" derived from? Human beings are nothing, in the universe the Materialist or Physicalist believes we exist in: he's an accidental fact of an accidental universe. That's all.

You have admitted that you are god-bothering which has nothing to do with philosophy...

You're going ad hominem, in the hope of getting away from the obvious. The obvious is this: the woman has had her choice. She used it very badly. Now you want to let her murder her child in order to cover up her inability to make good choices.

So "choice" is not the issue. She's had hers. "Baby murder" is the only issue.

Go away you ridiculous little phony. Remember that your 'god' is omnicient. He's well aware of your phoniness.

[Immanuel Can]

Don't doubt me of not reading it when you have not read it yourself;

I read it. But now I made sure you did, too.

But did you understand it? Apparently not. For what the author argues is that there are different kinds of "oughts," and most kinds have nothing to do with moral "oughtness." He gives the example of something like, "The Sun ought to come up in the morning." It does not mean, "The Sun is morally obligated to rise in the morning." It only means "it will probably happen."

Moral oughts are what we are considering. And you can't get a moral "ought" from a mere empirical fact, particularly in a universe that has no Authority behind its existence at all. Thus, I see nothing untrue about what he says. Where do you take issue with him?

If the author is realistic, he would have critiqued that God is not real, i.e. impossible to exists as real.

Why? Because you keep saying it? That's not a good reason to believe it.

Give your evidence that there's no God. Let's see what you've got.

But let's look even beyond that, too. If there's no God, it wouldn't imply that there ARE "oughts." There still wouldn't be any "oughts." Getting rid of God wouldn't give you any justification for a single moral precept: in fact, it would mean you have none at all, and no hope of any.

Note Morality is confined within humans and humanity.

Why "note" something that isn't, and which can't show to be true? If morality was merely invented by humans, then it doesn't have any authority. It doesn't even follow that the guy who invented the particular moral precept "ought" to follow it. It certainly doesn't follow that you "ought" to. So you get no "oughtness" from human beings. Like I said, they're just contingent, perishable, fallible, temporary beings within an accidentally-created universe. How can any one such, or even any group of them, rightfully impose an "ought" on anybody?

You say, "There are oughtness within human nature." Ignoring the obvious grammatical error, the claim still is totally illogical and without basis. Where is this "oughtness" derived from? Human beings are nothing, in the universe the Materialist or Physicalist believes we exist in: he's an accidental fact of an accidental universe. That's all.

Empirically the subject, feature and activities related to morality are ubiquitous to humans activities thus arising from human nature.[/quote]
That wouldn't make them right, and it wouldn't mean we "ought" to do them. It would plausibly be like many other things human beings have done ubiquitously...slavery, rape, war, prostitution, genocide...just things we do, but we have no "ought" to do.

Do you deny within ALL humans there is an 'oughtness' to breathe.

This is why I wanted you to read the article. To say "A human ought to breathe," would only be to say, "It is necessary for humans to continue to breathe in order to live." What it would not show is that they "owe it" to anybody to continue to live, or that they are morally wrong if, for some reason, they hold or cease their breath.

So you're being irrelevant. You don't understand what a moral "ought" is.

...there is the ought-not-ness to kill humans.
This is evident from the following;
1. that you and the majority do not seeming go about killing humans either naturally, or due to some internal restraining forces.
2. the killing of humans by humans is a serious crime in all countries.
3. all religions generally condemn the killing of humans

Killing other people is something humans do all the time. Right now, Ukrainians and Russians are killing each other. And nations are funding the killing, rejoicing in it, and hoping to exterminate the other side. The Gazans who invaded Israel, raped women, killed old men, put babies in ovens, and still hold hostages...do they look to you like people who have any reluctance to kill? And Marxists killed 140 million in the last century...where was their sense of "oughtness"?

You've got nothing. You talk, but only because you've never understood the problem, not because you've ever had any response that makes sense.

[accelafine]

Killing other people is something humans do all the time. Right now, Ukrainians and Russians are killing each other. And nations are funding the killing, rejoicing in it, and hoping to exterminate the other side. The Gazans who invaded Israel, raped women, killed old men, put babies in ovens, and still hold hostages...do they look to you like people who have any reluctance to kill? And Marxists killed 140 million in the last century...where was their sense of "oughtness"?

You've got nothing. You talk, but only because you've never understood the problem, not because you've ever had any response that makes sense.

Unforgivable to pretend to care about people and their suffering, based solely on religious indoctrination and sycophancy. 'God' will be well aware of this hypocrisy, Mr. Can. What if the raped Israeli women got pregnant by those monsters (if they actually survived)? Would you force them to continue with those pregnancies?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I read it. But now I made sure you did, too.

But did you understand it? Apparently not. For what the author argues is that there are different kinds of "oughts," and most kinds have nothing to do with moral "oughtness." He gives the example of something like, "The Sun ought to come up in the morning." It does not mean, "The Sun is morally obligated to rise in the morning." It only means "it will probably happen."

Moral oughts are what we are considering. And you can't get a moral "ought" from a mere empirical fact, particularly in a universe that has no Authority behind its existence at all. Thus, I see nothing untrue about what he says. Where do you take issue with him?

If the author is realistic, he would have critiqued that God is not real, i.e. impossible to exists as real.

Why? Because you keep saying it? That's not a good reason to believe it.

Give your evidence that there's no God. Let's see what you've got.

I have provided the link above.

But let's look even beyond that, too. If there's no God, it wouldn't imply that there ARE "oughts." There still wouldn't be any "oughts." Getting rid of God wouldn't give you any justification for a single moral precept: in fact, it would mean you have none at all, and no hope of any.

Do you understand the general meaning of the term 'morality' that is ubiquitous to humanity and part of human nature?
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
I defined morality as the management of evil [as defined] to enable its related good to manifest.
Morality is not something that is to be enforced like legal laws or threatened with God laws.
Morality is about allowing the moral function that is already inherent to unfold naturally that enable the moral agent to act morally spontaneously without any form of coercion or incentives.
This is already happening when the majority spontaneously do not go about killing humans arbitrarily, but we want more out it.

Empirically the subject, feature and activities related to morality are ubiquitous to humans activities thus arising from human nature.

That wouldn't make them right, and it wouldn't mean we "ought" to do them. It would plausibly be like many other things human beings have done ubiquitously...slavery, rape, war, prostitution, genocide...just things we do, but we have no "ought" to do.

Just like elsewhere, "Oughts" and "ought-not-ness" are features of a moral system and the subject of morality.
So there is the oughtnot-ness to enslave, to rape, to kill another person.

Do you deny within ALL humans there is an 'oughtness' to breathe.

This is why I wanted you to read the article. To say "A human ought to breathe," would only be to say, "It is necessary for humans to continue to breathe in order to live." What it would not show is that they "owe it" to anybody to continue to live, or that they are morally wrong if, for some reason, they hold or cease their breath.

So you're being irrelevant. You don't understand what a moral "ought" is.

It is not mere necessary, it is an imperative thus more appropriate an 'oughtness to breathe'.
It is not uncommon to hear 'you ought to breathe' when one is short of breathe, e.g. after a hard exercise, etc.

First you have missed out on what is morality-proper.
You false think what is morality must be related to a God only.

...there is the ought-not-ness to kill humans.
This is evident from the following;
1. that you and the majority do not seeming go about killing humans either naturally, or due to some internal restraining forces.
2. the killing of humans by humans is a serious crime in all countries.
3. all religions generally condemn the killing of humans

Killing other people is something humans do all the time. Right now, Ukrainians and Russians are killing each other. And nations are funding the killing, rejoicing in it, and hoping to exterminate the other side. The Gazans who invaded Israel, raped women, killed old men, put babies in ovens, and still hold hostages...do they look to you like people who have any reluctance to kill? And Marxists killed 140 million in the last century...where was their sense of "oughtness"?

You've got nothing. You talk, but only because you've never understood the problem, not because you've ever had any response that makes sense.

Again you missed my critical points.

Analogy:
What are sexual facts are the physical features that trigger the sexual drive, the feeling of being sexy is subjective.
There are millions who do not have a sexual drive and are indifferent to sex at present.
This does not obviate the existence of the facts of the physical genitals and defective neural sexual mechanisms in their body and brain.

It is the same with moral facts i.e. the ought-not-ness to kill humans which is represented by the physical connected neuron in process and actions.
It is the physical mechanism and algorithm that is the moral fact not the feelings that arise from it. They exist regardless they are defective or not.

The presence of the moral fact is evident from the following;
1. that you and the majority do not seeming go about killing humans either naturally, or due to some internal restraining forces.
2. the killing of humans by humans is a serious crime in all countries.
3. all religions generally condemn the killing of humans

As I had stated, that there are many who had killed humans and that is because of the weakness and damage to the inhibitors within the "ought-not-ness to kill humans" mechanism.
But what is critical is the existence of the physical mechanisms which is active or is damaged.
So despite the evidence of killings of humans, there is still the existence of an objective moral fact of an algorithm supporting .

The task of morality is for humanity and individual[s] to increase the strength and efficiency of the inherent moral facts [the physical mechanisms] supporting the ought-not-ness to kill humans.
The test of the workings of the moral fact within a moral system is this;
2024 - 10 million humans killed by humans
2100 - 1000 humans killed by humans
the above reduction indicate the existence of the moral fact is working.

[Immanuel Can]

Killing other people is something humans do all the time. Right now, Ukrainians and Russians are killing each other. And nations are funding the killing, rejoicing in it, and hoping to exterminate the other side. The Gazans who invaded Israel, raped women, killed old men, put babies in ovens, and still hold hostages...do they look to you like people who have any reluctance to kill? And Marxists killed 140 million in the last century...where was their sense of "oughtness"?

You've got nothing. You talk, but only because you've never understood the problem, not because you've ever had any response that makes sense.

Unforgivable to pretend to care about people and their suffering, based solely on religious indoctrination and sycophancy.

This, even if it were entirely true, would have zero to do with the truth of the argument. Don't waste our time.

What if the raped Israeli women got pregnant by those monsters (if they actually survived)? Would you force them to continue with those pregnancies?

I'll tell you what: if you agree that the 99% of abortions that are elective are wrong and are murders, I'll discuss what we should do to help these poor Israeli women. If you won't, then don't you think it's pretty shameful of you to drag those hapless victims up merely to use them to try to justify the gratutious murders of children?

Want to do that?