Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

[accelafine]

There's nothing for any woman to feel 'guilty' about. You are a ridiculous person, and thank friar tuck misogynistic religious turds like you don't hold any sway in modern, enlightened societies. Women no longer have to go begging to pompous, judgemental clergymen for charity so their children don't starve and don't you just hate that. You can't stand that women have access to safe, early abortions and don't have to die at the hands of backstreet abortionists. Mother and zygote BOTH dead. So much for being 'pro life'. The hypocrisy is off the charts.

[Peter Holmes]

Any problems with the soundness of the following valid argument?

P2 If my cult's invented god says abortion is morally wrong, then abortion is morally wrong.
P2 My cult's invented god says abortion is morally wrong.
C Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

And would substituting 'God', or any other agent, for 'my cult's invented god' salvage the argument?

[accelafine]

Any problems with the soundness of the following valid argument?

P2 If my cult's invented god says abortion is morally wrong, then abortion is morally wrong.
P2 My cult's invented god says abortion is morally wrong.
C Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

And would substituting 'God', or any other agent, for 'my cult's invented god' salvage the argument?

That's the entirety of Can's 'argument' in a nutshell. He could have saved himself a lot of bother.

[Peter Holmes]

Any problems with the soundness of the following valid argument?

P2 If my cult's invented god says abortion is morally wrong, then abortion is morally wrong.
P2 My cult's invented god says abortion is morally wrong.
C Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

And would substituting 'God', or any other agent, for 'my cult's invented god' salvage the argument?

That's the entirety of Can's 'argument' in a nutshell. He could have saved himself a lot of bother.

Agreed. But if the bothering continues, one trick is to ask a moral objectivist to complete the assertion: 'X is morally wrong because...'

If the reason given is another moral assertion, then rinse and repeat. But if it's a factual assertion, such as 'my cult's invented god says so', then that has a truth-value - which is why theistic moral objectivism is a joke - and it can't entail a moral conclusion anyway.

[accelafine]

Abortion isn't even mentioned in the babble and as the God character is slaughtering children and babies all over the place it stands to reason that he's not overly concerned about zygotes-- in fact he actively supports abortion because he aborts around 20 percent of pregnancies himself.
Why would anyone be against a woman taking a pill and inducing a period early on in a pregnancy (which is what most terminations consist of)? No one in their right mind would be, which is why religious nuts like Mr. Can have to scour religious nut websites with their horror stories of limbs flying around surgical theatres and demonic hospital staff ripping apart screaming foetuses and other ridiculous bullshit.
It's all about control. Christianity has always been obsessed with women's reproduction and strived to be in control of it. It can't stand the fact that it's the one thing men can't control and that drives misogynists like Mr. Can crazy.

[attofishpi]

..the thing that terrifies you is the thought that what you did is the worst thing a human being can do.

What planet R U on?

I could provide a very long list of things that are far worse than aborting a foetus. (ya know, sending a soul back for God to deal with some place else).

This one. What is worse than taking your own flesh-and-blood, your own precious child, and ripping her limb from limb, so you don't have to ever know her?

And the perp? Her own mother. All the evils of gulags and gas chambers are milder than that -- and smaller in number.

Oh you mere theist. U truly underestimate the power of God. ..and I just had a lovely time with IT

PS. You always seem to feel you have the right to chop off important things of what I am stating..

[Veritas Aequitas]

double posting

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, let's have it here and now.

That would be going off topic.
See: It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

I defined morality as the management of evil [as defined] to enable its related good to manifest.

See, you don't even realized that this totally begs the key question: you can't say anything is "evil" unless you are already using a moral standard. So you can't use reference to "evil" to explain your definition of morality. You need to have explained what makes things "good" or "evil" in the first place. And you haven't. So again, you've got nothing there.

Your thinking is outdated. I have researched on the subject of 'what is evil' extensively
see: The Concept of Evil
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/
There must be a definition of 'what is evil' related to Morality and that should be represented by an exhaustive list of human acts that fit the definition of 'what is evil' and applicable to morality.

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.

No, all you are saying is that there is BOTH "oughtness and ought-notness," and you have no way of being sure what applies to any of these cases. Maybe, we "ought" to enslave people, because it gives us free labour. Maybe we "ought" to rape, because it's the quickest route to gratification. Maybe we "ought" to murder people, because they're in our way. Your explanation gives us no reasons to believe it's "ought-notness" that attaches to these things at all.

But again, you don't even understand the problem; so that's why you can't deal with it.

You are too hasty on this with your narrow thinking.
Point is whatever and every of the oughtness or oughtnot-ness must be verified and justified objectively by science via the scientific framework and system [FSERC] and subsequently by the human-based morality FSERC.
I have already given you some leads related to the the biological oughtness of breathe and transmuting it to a moral fact.
Here is clue on the significance of FSERC reality, truths and objectivity:
viewtopic.php?p=719258#p719258

It is not mere necessary, it is an imperative thus more appropriate an 'oughtness to breathe'.

It's not an imperative at all. It's merely useful to the continuation of life. But we don't know if we "ought" to continue to live, either.

I say again, this biological 'oughtness to breathe' is represented by a physical mechanisms operated by physical neurons in process and actions.
There is no question that it is imperative rather than necessary [too general].

First you have missed out on what is morality-proper.

Ironic. You don't have any explanation of what makes something moral at all.

This is easy with a generally acceptable definition of 'what is morality'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

Your basis of what is morality is grounded on theism which is delusional.
Theistic morality is useful in a way but it is not objective.

Again you missed my critical points.

They weren't critical. They weren't even coherent or relevant. They deserved to be ignored, because they had no rational value to the discussion.

But I didn't ignore them: I pointed out that people do, in fact, love to kill. They do it tons.

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

So this is just rubbish.
First of all, #1 just says that some people don't feel they like to do it, and some do. The second is irrelevant, because some laws are good and some are evil, and we can't yet tell why we would assume killing was evil. The third one is manifestly untrue, in cases like Islam or Marxism.

You've got nothing again. But I'll give you one more chance to figure it out, and then I'm moving on: because it's clear to me that so far, you don't even understand the Is-Ought problem, let alone have any relevant answer to it. And my time's too short to waste on going around in empty circles like you do.

"#1 just says that some people don't feel they like to do it, and some do."
This is ridiculous.

Note the contrast to the trigger of the sexual desire in the majority, then they have to resist it or don't feel like doing it due to various reasons.
For the majority, the thought of wanting to kill humans do not spring to mind at all for consideration that they do not feel they like to do it.
This is because the 'oughtnotness to kill humans' mechanism is much stronger than the sexual triggers.

The establishment of laws to prevent killing of humans with very high consequences is due to the manifestation of 'oughtnotness to kill humans' mechanism. If this is not dominant, it would not be serious crime.

Marxism is not a religion, all religions condemn killing of humans in general and some allowance for exceptions.
Again, this is because the 'oughtnot-ness to kill humans' is dominant and serious threat to humanity.

You will move on [running away and you have to] because your refutations are all grounded on the delusional idea [albeit useful] of an impossible-to-be-real God.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Agreed. But if the bothering continues, one trick is to ask a moral objectivist to complete the assertion: 'X is morally wrong because...'

If the reason given is another moral assertion, then rinse and repeat. But if it's a factual assertion, such as 'my cult's invented god says so', then that has a truth-value - which is why theistic moral objectivism is a joke - and it can't entail a moral conclusion anyway.

You are sweeping 'moral objectivism' under one brush which is a generalization fallacy.

Theistic moral objectivism is not a joke but has been very useful to humanity since the past to the present but not necessary for the present.
The problem with Theistic moral objectivism is its low degree of objectivity because its FSERC is ultimately grounded on an illusory God.

The other inefficiency with Theistic moral objectivism is its moral maxim are not taken as guide but enforced in individual believers with a threat of Hell for non-compliances.

Theistic moral objectivism cannot be considered on a wholesale basis but rather on a piecemeal basis for each moral element.
The moral maxim within a theistic moral FSERC e.g. 'Thou Shall Not Kill [humans]' is intuited from the real biological oughtnotness to kill humans existing physically within all human beings.

This has worked and the majority of believers-X with such a maxim had been deterred from killing of humans.
Some believers-X may have killed humans but that has nothing to do with the religion nor were the killing done in the name of the religion; they killed on their own volition and as such has sinned awaiting judgment by God.

With Moral Objectivism proper, the maxim "Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!" is merely a standard and guide for moral progress.
If people need abortion at present, then go ahead and do it, but as a matter of moral progress, the individual[s] and humanity must be mindful to strive to prevent abortion [at source] in the future to align with the natural and physical oughtnotness within.

[FlashDangerpants]

Agreed. But if the bothering continues, one trick is to ask a moral objectivist to complete the assertion: 'X is morally wrong because...'

If the reason given is another moral assertion, then rinse and repeat. But if it's a factual assertion, such as 'my cult's invented god says so', then that has a truth-value - which is why theistic moral objectivism is a joke - and it can't entail a moral conclusion anyway.

With Moral Objectivism proper, the maxim "Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!" is merely a standard and guide for moral progress.

Lemme help you out there... you chose the "another moral assertion" option (via "moral progress") so you failed.

[Peter Holmes]

With Moral Objectivism proper, the maxim "Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!" is merely a standard and guide for moral progress.
If people need abortion at present, then go ahead and do it, but as a matter of moral progress, the individual[s] and humanity must be mindful to strive to prevent abortion [at source] in the future to align with the natural and physical oughtnotness within.

Look up the naturalistic fallacy in moral theory: the false claim that nature - including 'human nature' - comes supplied with built-in moral rightness and wrongness. You merely repackage that fallacy, with your 'natural and physical oughtnotness within'. As did Kant with 'the moral law within me'.

[Veritas Aequitas]

With Moral Objectivism proper, the maxim "Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!" is merely a standard and guide for moral progress.
If people need abortion at present, then go ahead and do it, but as a matter of moral progress, the individual[s] and humanity must be mindful to strive to prevent abortion [at source] in the future to align with the natural and physical oughtnotness within.

Look up the naturalistic fallacy in moral theory: the false claim that nature - including 'human nature' - comes supplied with built-in moral rightness and wrongness. You merely repackage that fallacy, with your 'natural and physical oughtnotness within'. As did Kant with 'the moral law within me'.

I have been researching on the 'Naturalistic Fallacy' from G E Moore from a long time. It is an old fashion theory which has lost its bite at present in the light and emergence of Ethical Naturalism theories.
You need to catch up on this which I am aware you are very ignorant of.

Classic Arguments Against Moral Realism is Losing Force
viewtopic.php?t=42510

Metaethics - Moral Naturalism 1
Moore's Arguments against Moral Realism has lost its bite
Kane B - a reputable YouTuber on Morality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw_a8NXZwMw

now Moores argument was highly influential for many decades and many took it to raise a serious challenge to Moral Naturalism
[25:44] these days it's not considered so powerful
there are a number of different ways of defusing Moores challenge
but I'll just note a couple of the more important responses
first of all one major objection to Moore's argument at least if it's presented as an argument against Moral Naturalism is that it confuses a question of semantics with a question of metaphysics

Advice!
Whenever you come across any theories you favor, you must ensure you cover all the criticisms against it to determine does it still stand up to the existing criticisms.
You need to do that for the Naturalistic Fallacy, Open-Question-Argument and also Hume's IS-OUGHT fallacy.

[Immanuel Can]

What planet R U on?

I could provide a very long list of things that are far worse than aborting a foetus. (ya know, sending a soul back for God to deal with some place else).

This one. What is worse than taking your own flesh-and-blood, your own precious child, and ripping her limb from limb, so you don't have to ever know her?

And the perp? Her own mother. All the evils of gulags and gas chambers are milder than that -- and smaller in number.

Oh you mere theist.

Nothing I said has anything to do with that. If a child is a human being, then my being a Theist will not cause that. If she is not, my being a Theist will not make it so. The truth will be the truth, either way. But it's a statistical reality that far more babies have been killed by their mothers than Hitler or Stalin killed.

[Immanuel Can]

No, let's have it here and now.

That would be going off topic.

Your brought up a criticism dependent on it. So you're the one off topic. Answer, or quit.

I defined morality as the management of evil [as defined] to enable its related good to manifest.

See, you don't even realized that this totally begs the key question: you can't say anything is "evil" unless you are already using a moral standard. So you can't use reference to "evil" to explain your definition of morality. You need to have explained what makes things "good" or "evil" in the first place. And you haven't. So again, you've got nothing there.

Your thinking is outdated.

And your 'answer' is nonsense. "Evil" is not a datable concept.

But again, you don't even understand the problem; so that's why you can't deal with it.

You are too hasty on this with your narrow thinking.

The evidence it in. You don't even understand the problem: it's apparent from your attempted answers.

I'm sorry -- you just don't know enough even to be having this discussion. You don't understand the problem, so you have zero ability to solve it, it seems. And I'm very bored with watching you link to irrelevant threads, in the hope that you'll lose the critique in a vast amount of empty blather.

I'm moving on. The well of wisdom is clearly dry in present company.

[attofishpi]

This one. What is worse than taking your own flesh-and-blood, your own precious child, and ripping her limb from limb, so you don't have to ever know her?

And the perp? Her own mother. All the evils of gulags and gas chambers are milder than that -- and smaller in number.

Oh you mere theist.

Nothing I said has anything to do with that. If a child is a human being, then my being a Theist will not cause that. If she is not, my being a Theist will not make it so. The truth will be the truth, either way. But it's a statistical reality that far more babies have been killed by their mothers than Hitler or Stalin killed.

Never mind. God made me suffer more than Christ for abortion...just so U under_stand me.