Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

[Harbal]

There was nothing "snarky" about my last few replies to you.

Your snark wasn't what my last post was about.

You referred to it. And your summary of my attitude was simplistic and shallow, btw.

[Iwannaplato]

Your opinion is pretty much worthless, in context.

You deny personhood. You deny objective morality. You deny the moral claim one has on himself.

By your own measure: offing a human being is neither good or bad, right or wrong.

Sure, you don't like [insert topic of your choice] but, to you, by your own measure, it's just a preference, just a feeling. If today you feel rape is wrong, great; and if tomorrow you feel rape is a-ok, great.

Worst of all: you aspire to nuthin'. You are content to be rudderless, amoral, to go along to get along.

But hey, you do you. If snappy comebacks and snark is your meat, have at it.

As for me: I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia.

but anyone can see general trends - essentially party affiliation - in what Harbal reacts to and criticizes and what he does not. He clearly has preferences for how the world and society are run. He doesn't believe in objective morals, but he clearly thinks some things are abhorrant and some things are not that other people consider abhorrant - these latter often consider their reactions to be objectively moral.

You are content to be rudderless, amoral, to go along to get along.

This is obviously not true. There are clear patterns of critique and approval - with 'that doesn't matter to me in the middle. You know he disagrees with you on the kinds of changes in societal policy and social mores. You know where his sympathies lie and the patterns therein.

Let's abuse the shipping metaphor: rudderless.

A rudderless person would never sail in any particular direction. Perhaps heading to the north pole on day, then just randomly swinging south. His sailing itinerary clearly prefers certain kinds of ports and not others. Harbal, on the other hand, has on many occasions made it clear that he is not content with the political and moral positions of you, Walker, Wizard, Alexis Jacobi. He has as much of a pattern as anyone else. He doesn't have the same metaethical opinion as most people. He's not a moral objectivist, but that doesn't leave him in some random state: ooh, he hates X one day, only to the next day feel good about it.

People see themselves, often, as containers for ideas. I am the conclusions I have in words in my head and I consider these to be objective and my value as a person. It's connected to representational ideas of true, though here it's more in the moral world.

But you can also, and I think we should, look at what happens, what are the effects. What are the effects of his reactions to people here and people he meets in real life? What do his acts and attitudes lead to?

You may not like these? But there are patterns in these, just as there are patterns in your effects. Each of you striving, in your own ways, to make things a bit more as you'd like and/or consider morally correct.

We all know people who assert things, who have ideas in their heads that we might even agree with, but they are toxic monsters, even if they 'behave' in ways we like. And of course they can be hypocrites with what you are some other moral objectivist thinks are the right moral conclusions in the head, but act in other ways.

Words in the heads and correct objective moral positions.
Effects of a person when they interact with the world and other humans.

Of course there are causal interconnections between these two, but I think the second is the better sense of a person.

I don't really care what their meta-ethical stance is.

I think also what grates is that he's fairly humble about what the thoughts in his head are going to lead to in the world. He's no budding messiah, greatest philosopher, deontological oracle, of which we have many here.

And that stance which I label humble parallels moral realists' stances and has effects. It's another pattern. A rudder with a particular position. And that stance, I think, is related to his patience. Yes, he gets snarky. However I see almost no one who is as able to continue to wade through the strangeness and even rudeness of other posters and keep trying to understand or shift something (you're actually pretty patient also.) That has effects and is not rudderless. They do get to see where he stands, but he's patient.

[henry quirk]

Nice defense: I want you as my advocate when the trials start.

Anyway...

This...

I don't know why I care, I just know that I do care

...is the sum of him.

I'll waste no more of my time with him.

[seeds]

Me, I'm not lookin' for anyone to prove anything. I just wanna know when folks in this conversation (any who care to answer) believe the mass of human cells in a woman's womb becomes a person.

At birth.

And the main reason I oppose abortion (except under dire conditions) is based on my cosmic vision of reality, and that if everyone truly understood the vast and eternal potential of what it is they are aborting, and what the gift of human life truly entails, it might change some attitudes.
_______

Huh? You "oppose abortion, except..."?

Firstly, no one is "in favor of abortion". That's like saying I'm "in favor" of everyone having open heart surgery. Rather, folks are "in favor" of open heart surgery being safe, legal and available to those who, in consultation with their health care professionals, determine that open heart surgery is in their best interest.

If you are in need of open-heart surgery, then it implies that you will probably die if you don't undergo the procedure. And in that sense, it coincides with a pregnant woman needing an abortion because it has been determined that she might die if she tries to give birth.

However, the vast majority of abortions are not life threatening (except for the fetus, of course).

So, it's a bad analogy.

I'm assuming that since there are exceptions to your opposition, that you propose that abortion should not be illegal.

First of all, no, it should not be "illegal" (as in some kind of state or federally mandated punishment for it). And that's because I believe it's a "moral" issue and not a legal issue.

And secondly, accelafine's response and your response is precisely why in my initial post I said I was "hesitant" to offer my own feelings on the issue of abortion. And that's because to understand where I'm coming from, it requires that you understand my deeper theory of reality.

But seeing how no one here seems to give a crap about said theory, I'll simply repeat what I said earlier...

"...if everyone truly understood the vast and eternal potential of what it is they are aborting, and what the gift of human life truly entails, it might change some attitudes..."

_______

[Harbal]

Nice defense: I want you as my advocate when the trials start.

Anyway...

This...

I don't know why I care, I just know that I do care

...is the sum of him.

I'll waste no more of my time with him.

In that case, I will try not to waste any more of my time with you, henry, but my self control is probably not as good as yours.

[Harbal]

Your opinion is pretty much worthless, in context.

You deny personhood. You deny objective morality. You deny the moral claim one has on himself.

By your own measure: offing a human being is neither good or bad, right or wrong.

Sure, you don't like [insert topic of your choice] but, to you, by your own measure, it's just a preference, just a feeling. If today you feel rape is wrong, great; and if tomorrow you feel rape is a-ok, great.

Worst of all: you aspire to nuthin'. You are content to be rudderless, amoral, to go along to get along.

But hey, you do you. If snappy comebacks and snark is your meat, have at it.

As for me: I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia.

but anyone can see general trends - essentially party affiliation - in what Harbal reacts to and criticizes and what he does not. He clearly has preferences for how the world and society are run. He doesn't believe in objective morals, but he clearly thinks some things are abhorrant and some things are not that other people consider abhorrant - these latter often consider their reactions to be objectively moral.

You are content to be rudderless, amoral, to go along to get along.

This is obviously not true. There are clear patterns of critique and approval - with 'that doesn't matter to me in the middle. You know he disagrees with you on the kinds of changes in societal policy and social mores. You know where his sympathies lie and the patterns therein.

Let's abuse the shipping metaphor: rudderless.

A rudderless person would never sail in any particular direction. Perhaps heading to the north pole on day, then just randomly swinging south. His sailing itinerary clearly prefers certain kinds of ports and not others. Harbal, on the other hand, has on many occasions made it clear that he is not content with the political and moral positions of you, Walker, Wizard, Alexis Jacobi. He has as much of a pattern as anyone else. He doesn't have the same metaethical opinion as most people. He's not a moral objectivist, but that doesn't leave him in some random state: ooh, he hates X one day, only to the next day feel good about it.

People see themselves, often, as containers for ideas. I am the conclusions I have in words in my head and I consider these to be objective and my value as a person. It's connected to representational ideas of true, though here it's more in the moral world.

But you can also, and I think we should, look at what happens, what are the effects. What are the effects of his reactions to people here and people he meets in real life? What do his acts and attitudes lead to?

You may not like these? But there are patterns in these, just as there are patterns in your effects. Each of you striving, in your own ways, to make things a bit more as you'd like and/or consider morally correct.

We all know people who assert things, who have ideas in their heads that we might even agree with, but they are toxic monsters, even if they 'behave' in ways we like. And of course they can be hypocrites with what you are some other moral objectivist thinks are the right moral conclusions in the head, but act in other ways.

Words in the heads and correct objective moral positions.
Effects of a person when they interact with the world and other humans.

Of course there are causal interconnections between these two, but I think the second is the better sense of a person.

I don't really care what their meta-ethical stance is.

I think also what grates is that he's fairly humble about what the thoughts in his head are going to lead to in the world. He's no budding messiah, greatest philosopher, deontological oracle, of which we have many here.

And that stance which I label humble parallels moral realists' stances and has effects. It's another pattern. A rudder with a particular position. And that stance, I think, is related to his patience. Yes, he gets snarky. However I see almost no one who is as able to continue to wade through the strangeness and even rudeness of other posters and keep trying to understand or shift something (you're actually pretty patient also.) That has effects and is not rudderless. They do get to see where he stands, but he's patient.

Thank you, it seems there is more to me than I realised.

[Will Bouwman]

...to understand where I'm coming from, it requires that you understand my deeper theory of reality

But seeing how no one here seems to give a crap about said theory...

Don't take it too hard, me old China, nobody gives a crap about anyone else's theory.

I'll simply repeat what I said earlier...

"...if everyone truly understood the vast and eternal potential of what it is they are aborting, and what the gift of human life truly entails, it might change some attitudes..."

_______

At what point do we become seeds, seeds? How much superwombal living do we need to do?

[seeds]

...to understand where I'm coming from, it requires that you understand my deeper theory of reality

But seeing how no one here seems to give a crap about said theory...

Don't take it too hard, me old China, nobody gives a crap about anyone else's theory.

I'll simply repeat what I said earlier...

"...if everyone truly understood the vast and eternal potential of what it is they are aborting, and what the gift of human life truly entails, it might change some attitudes..."

_______

At what point do we become seeds, seeds? How much superwombal living do we need to do?

Like I said to henry, at "birth."

We need for that final and special "light" to come on in our minds at the moment of birth for the "seed" to become officially formed.

The challenge is in trying to understand what the "seed" is actually a seed of.

Even Christ said that in order to enter into the kingdom of God, one must experience 2 births.

The first one "of water" (as in birthed [alive] from the amniotic water of the human womb). And the second birth is "of the spirit" (as in birthed from the body and into true reality).

Abortion circumvents the first step in that 2-step process.
_______

[Will Bouwman]

At what point do we become seeds, seeds?

Like I said to henry, at "birth."

Sorry, I missed that.

We need for that final and special "light" to come on in our minds at the moment of birth for the "seed" to become officially formed.

The challenge is in trying to understand what the "seed" is actually a seed of.

Even Christ said that in order to enter into the kingdom of God, one must experience 2 births.

The first one "of water" (as in birthed [alive] from the amniotic water of the human womb). And the second birth is "of the spirit" (as in birthed from the body and into true reality).

Abortion circumvents the first step in that 2-step process.

I see your dilemma. It's a wonderful theory, seeds. It might even be true.

[Dubious]

It's the existence of the child she's trying to eradicate, not a mere "cluster of cells." A mere "cluster of cells" could never demand anything of her.

...you mean possibly the same cluster of cells doomed...

There is no such thing as "doomed." We all choose what we get.

Without necessarily in each case having to quote complete posts, do you think you could ever at least quote in complete sentences?

It's beyond ironic that you're so concerned with preventing abortions while at the same time not finding anything wrong with committing those to hell because they neglected to give Jesus his due in belief levies.

[Immanuel Can]

...you mean possibly the same cluster of cells doomed...

There is no such thing as "doomed." We all choose what we get.

Without necessarily in each case having to quote complete posts, do you think you could ever at least quote in complete sentences?

I'll quote anything worth commenting on. Rhetoric, repetitions, babble, illogic, or personal insults...no, I won't bother to include such detritus.

It's beyond ironic that you're so concerned with preventing abortions while at the same time not finding anything wrong with committing those to hell because they neglected to give Jesus his due in belief levies.

They choose what they choose. They accept the consequences of their choice. So will you, whether you want to or not. That's justice. There isn't a thing to complain about in that. It's perfectly fair. You will have whatever it is you have chosen...an eternity with God, or an eternity without God.

Don't whine. It's not adult. Accept responsibility for what you do. And if you don't like where you're going, change it.

[Harbal]

You will have whatever it is you have chosen...an eternity with God, or an eternity without God.

I'll have mine without God, please, and a side order of oblivion.

[Immanuel Can]

You will have whatever it is you have chosen...an eternity with God, or an eternity without God.

I'll have mine without God, please, and a side order of oblivion.

Oblivion's not an option, of course. But you if you ask for the first thing, you will receive it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If that were true, then you would have to say the murder of Jews, gypsies, the handicapped or dissenters by the Third Reich was not murder at all. It was their laws that let them do it.

So that's clearly not the case.

Even if the Nazis did not define the killing of Jews and others as murder, but the Laws within the International Court of Justice defined the killing of Jews and others as murder.

What makes the one court the eliminator of the ruling of the other? You'd need a principle that transcends both, in order to say that the ICJ was "more just" than the Judenrein laws. And from where would you get that all-transcending principle? You don't believe any such thing can exist.

What is critical here is pragmatism, the culprits are evidently punished as an example to warn others genocide is not to be tolerated within humanity.
If there is no ICJ, it is free for all and many [more than existing] will commit genocide.
But this ICJ is limited which at present is better than nothing.

The supposed all-transcending principle you are arguing for is from a divine authority which is a fiction and an illusion. This will only deter specific believers who are afraid of hell which I agree does work but it is limited nevertheless which at present is better than nothing.
It does not work with all divine authorities, e.g. as in Islam.

What we need is to cultivate and develop the natural universal moral standard;
'the killing of humans by humans is not permissible period!'
that is inherent and innate in all human beings, albeit with varying degrees of activeness & inactiveness and perhaps dormant in some.
To do this, we must first recognize this potential, then understand its mechanisms so that humanity can expedite its competencies in the future [not possible at present] generations of human beings.
When this potential is developed [next 50, 75, 100 or >], humans will be indifferent to the killings of humans naturally without any need for the threats of legal punishments nor hellfire from an illusory God.

On the subject of dormancy and inactiveness of human potentials, note, e.g.
-puberty which are DNA-hardwired in ALL and expressed appx around 10 year old.
-intelligence DNA-hardwired in the prefrontal cortex and expressed slowly into adulthood.

the other is the potential for morality-proper which is an evolutionary latecomer and expressed very slowly which is evident.
This slowness of the unfoldment of the moral potential is due to various necessary reasons, but 'morality' thence was covered by limited theistic morality, customs and political laws.
But rationally, there is a critical need for humanity to expedite the unfold of the natural moral potential ASAP [take over naturally from theistic and political approaches] given the impending global threats we are likely to face.

[Immanuel Can]

Even if the Nazis did not define the killing of Jews and others as murder, but the Laws within the International Court of Justice defined the killing of Jews and others as murder.

What makes the one court the eliminator of the ruling of the other? You'd need a principle that transcends both, in order to say that the ICJ was "more just" than the Judenrein laws. And from where would you get that all-transcending principle? You don't believe any such thing can exist.

What is critical here is pragmatism,

"Pragmatism" tells us nothing. A "pragmatic" case can be made for either option.

The supposed all-transcending principle you are arguing for is from a divine authority which is a fiction and an illusion.

No, I did not stipulate you had to get it from God...if you have a different source for such a transcending principle, go ahead and name it, instead. If you don't have a principle higher than the courts, then you've got no way to arbitrate between the Nazis pragmatics and the ICJ's pragmatics.

What we need is to cultivate and develop the natural universal moral standard;

Sure: but which one?

'the killing of humans by humans is not permissible period!'

You'll have to say why we should believe it. Because lots of people want to kill. If you can't make a case for a moral standard that all can recognize as condemning them, then your "standard" is not only arbitrary but actually just a power play.

that is inherent and innate in all human beings,

It's not, actually. If it were, people would never kill. But as you already noted, Islamists do. So do Nazis. So do Communists -- more than anybody. So do abortionists, and advocates of euthanasia, and warmongers of all kinds, and psychopaths...

You can see that your "answer" won't work.