Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

[Age]

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?

Huh? You do understand that plenty of married couples make the decision to not start (or expand) a family, right?

You mean, they make the decision to murder the children they created?

Exactly, like when you made and keep making the decision to murder the children, which you say and claim God created.

Every day you make 'the decision' to murder children "immanuel can", even if you do not want to 'look at' this and be honest about it.

Yes, I'm sure that's true. Take ten seconds, and get a new perspective on that.

Maybe you also would like to take some time, and get a new perspective also.

But, then again, you may just want to keep living in your own delusion, and keep keep judging others, while believing it is always 'the other's who is doing the most Wrong here and never 'you'.

'We' shall wait, and see

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4ZhIi4C57xA

[Impenitent]

not permissible except for the trained (and licensed) medical professionals who do it...

-Imp

[LuckyR]

not permissible except for the trained (and licensed) medical professionals who do it...

-Imp

Most terminations are performed with medications, not surgery.

[bahman]

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??

Abortion is allowed if the life of the mother is in danger due to pregnancy.

You missed my point like what you missed in the other thread.
Your view is too loose without consideration for the better in the future.

To be effective towards the future, we need to establish an ideal standard "Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!" within a human based moral framework and system.

However, at present as constraint by current psychological conditions [e.g. uncontrollable sexual lusts and other reasons], abortion is permitted up to whatever the wishes of the mother, spouse, relative and society.

BUT as I had proposed, humanity must expedite the inherent moral function in all individuals and therefrom cultivate the mindfulness [mission] of the ideal standard so that abortion be prevent at source and the root causes as much as possible.
This will enable humanity to progress towards the ideal goal of ZERO Abortion progressively in the future.

We are not living in an ideal world and perhaps we can never. What I said is unconditionally correct. What you said is not unconditionally correct.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Abortion is allowed if the life of the mother is in danger due to pregnancy.

You missed my point like what you missed in the other thread.
Your view is too loose without consideration for the better in the future.

To be effective towards the future, we need to establish an ideal standard "Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!" within a human based moral framework and system.

However, at present as constraint by current psychological conditions [e.g. uncontrollable sexual lusts and other reasons], abortion is permitted up to whatever the wishes of the mother, spouse, relative and society.

BUT as I had proposed, humanity must expedite the inherent moral function in all individuals and therefrom cultivate the mindfulness [mission] of the ideal standard so that abortion be prevent at source and the root causes as much as possible.
This will enable humanity to progress towards the ideal goal of ZERO Abortion progressively in the future.

We are not living in an ideal world and perhaps we can never. What I said is unconditionally correct. What you said is not unconditionally correct.

There you go again, not reading properly and overlooking the critical points I posted.
Where did I insist an ideal world is possible?

I wrote in the OP and repeated the point in later posts;

[OP]Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!
However, this [ideal] is merely a moral standard to be used as a guide for moral progress and with anything morality, moral maxims [standards] are not to be enforceable on any individual[s].

[Alexiev]

[OP]Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

Good point! If a woman has her period, an abortion is not permissable because she is not pregnant.,

[Veritas Aequitas]

[OP]Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

Good point! If a woman has her period, an abortion is not permissable because she is not pregnant.,

Wow, so intelligent!

I stated the OP refers only to deliberate abortion not natural ones.

[Alexiev]

[OP]Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

Good point! If a woman has her period, an abortion is not permissable because she is not pregnant.,

Wow, so intelligent!

I stated the OP refers only to deliberate abortion not natural ones.

Anyone who writes the word "period" to suggest finality and emphasis should be mocked for it.

[accelafine]

'Permissable' by whom? The universe?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Good point! If a woman has her period, an abortion is not permissable because she is not pregnant.,

Wow, so intelligent!

I stated the OP refers only to deliberate abortion not natural ones.

Anyone who writes the word "period" to suggest finality and emphasis should be mocked for it.

It is a Categorical Imperative.
It is merely a justified standard that is a guide and not enforceable to ensure idiot proofing.

The principle in problem solving is, if there is no fixed goal post to start with a guide, then things will go haywire, i.e. to each their own standards.
A fixed goal post in necessary to act as a standard to guide improvements.

[Veritas Aequitas]

'Permissable' by whom? The universe?

By the individual only; this is applicable to individuals in the future not at present*.
The individual must align with its own natural laws within.
In this case, the individual [no external authority] is the legislature, the prosecutor, the jury and the judge.

For the present majority, it is Que Sera Sera, whatever will be will be; they can fuck even if recklessly and abort as many times as need to, but somewhere the collective must sprout and nurture the path to reduce abortion optimally in a positive trend in the future.

[Immanuel Can]

Huh? You do understand that plenty of married couples make the decision to not start (or expand) a family, right?

You mean, they make the decision to murder the children they created?

Yes, I'm sure that's true. Take ten seconds, and get a new perspective on that.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4ZhIi4C57xA

A not uncommon, yet minority viewpoint/opinion.

It's only "minority" because only a vast "minority" of babies survive the abortion mill. If we were able to poll the hundreds of thousands or millions murdered worldwide every year, I think we could arrive at much higher numbers. Unfortunately, killing people does rather end their chances to cry out in their own defense.

[Peter Holmes]

The thing about what we call facts and objectivity - and why we value them - is because they liberate us from the delusion that believing, thinking and saying something is so makes it so. And I guess that's an evolved attitude - if only very lately and variably - in human societies. For example, consider this claim:

Water is H2O because I/we/all of us believe/think/say it is.

I think most of us would say that's wrong. I/we/all of us may well believe/think/say something is the case - but that can never be the reason why it's the case. (For now, I want to leave aside VA's and other so-called anti-realist arguments against this prejudice or assumption in favour of facts and objectivity.)

Given the above, consider the following claim:

X is morally wrong because I/we/all of us/my cult's god/God believe(s)/think(s)/say(s) it is.

The point is this. If we think there are such things as facts and objectivity, we can't then offer subjective reasons - what anyone believes, thinks or says - for something being a fact. That road is closed.

PS: I use the word 'cult', because a religion is just a big old cult with good PR.

[LuckyR]

You mean, they make the decision to murder the children they created?

Yes, I'm sure that's true. Take ten seconds, and get a new perspective on that.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4ZhIi4C57xA

A not uncommon, yet minority viewpoint/opinion.

It's only "minority" because only a vast "minority" of babies survive the abortion mill. If we were able to poll the hundreds of thousands or millions murdered worldwide every year, I think we could arrive at much higher numbers. Unfortunately, killing people does rather end their chances to cry out in their own defense.

You bring up an important point, though not perhaps the one you were supposing. Namely, that opinions differ on when "personhood" should be conferred. You're acting casually as if fetuses (which are not "babies" as you know) equate to people. Many agree, but again it's a minority opinion.

BTW, what's your opinion on In Vito Fertilization?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The thing about what we call facts and objectivity - and why we value them - is because they liberate us from the delusion that believing, thinking and saying something is so makes it so. And I guess that's an evolved attitude - if only very lately and variably - in human societies. For example, consider this claim:

Water is H2O because I/we/all of us believe/think/say it is.

I think most of us would say that's wrong. I/we/all of us may well believe/think/say something is the case - but that can never be the reason why it's the case. (For now, I want to leave aside VA's and other so-called anti-realist arguments against this prejudice or assumption in favour of facts and objectivity.)

Given the above, consider the following claim:

X is morally wrong because I/we/all of us/my cult's god/God believe(s)/think(s)/say(s) it is.

The point is this. If we think there are such things as facts and objectivity, we can't then offer subjective reasons - what anyone believes, thinks or says - for something being a fact. That road is closed.

PS: I use the word 'cult', because a religion is just a big old cult with good PR.

You got it wrong because you are relying on whatever is fact and objectivity that is grounded on an illusion.
The road is not closed.

What is morality is conditioned upon a moral Framework and System [FS].
In say the Christian moral FSERC, God commanded killing of humans is forbidden, thus immoral.
So, if X kill humans, then X is morally wrong as qualified to the Christian moral FS.

A Christian can insist 'whatever is fact is contingent upon a Framework & System [independent of a subject's opinion, beliefs and judgments] which is objective.
The Christian moral FS from an independent God is factual and objective.
Therefore the command thou shall not kill human is an objective moral fact as qualified to the Christian-moral FS.

However, a rational, critical thinking person will insist the objective moral fact as qualified to the Christian-moral FS, is merely of negligible credibility and objective relative to the scientific FS as the gold standard.

My presentation above grounded on rationality and critical thinking is reasonable.