Philosophy Now Forum

It seems like this thread has mostly gone its course. We've gone from Kant and the Categorical Imperative to "piccaninnies" (to quote Dachshund), Thomas Jefferson and white supremacy. Is there anything left to discuss regarding abortion?

Dachshund wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:34 pmThis is just a quick and dirty introduction to the relevant bioscience. The point they( the bioscients specialising in this field) would make is that when an abortionist destroys, say, a one - week - old embryo he is indeed destroying a human life; and this is a demonstrable scientific fact.

Fair enough. Why then does a fertilised human egg have the right to impose itself on a fully formed human being for the next couple of decades?

Dachshund wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 6:15 pm

DPMartin wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:31 pm

Dachshund wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:06 pm

(1): If you don't understand how abortion is a moral issue, you shouldn't be wasting your time on a philosophy forum. Best stick to something more commensurate with your IQ like Batman Comics or such like.

(2): Just because Kant is dead, it doesn't mean that his ethical theory is of no value in helping us think more rationally about human morality in 2019. (Quite the opposite, in fact). It's like saying that because Shakespeare is long dead, we shouldn't bother to use the texts of his dramas and poetry to help us justify/evaluate what is, or is not, exemplary use of the English language.

Regards


Dachshund

nope, the law is the set of morals agreed on, the struggle (in this case) is what that law should be, or shouldn't be, in accordance to the agreed method of establishing law. where have you been, listing to TV and religious rhetoric and believing what they tell you?

"IT IS NEVER PERMISSIBLE TO KILL AN INNOCENT HUMAN BEING."


Modern science argues, as I say, that the embryos and foetuses carried by pregnant women are living human beings. The leaders of the Pro-Choice movement who disagree , are not expert scientists, rather, they are a motley crew of leftist political activists, many of whom are fanatical feminists. Given feminism is a failed movement, and this is because most leaders of the feminist movement were/are utter morons, I am inclined to trust the conclusion of the scientists, as opposed to the likes of Gloria Steinem and Andrea Dworkin (!! ).


The last point is that the relevant Natural Law in this case: "IT IS NEVER PERMISSIBLE TO KILL AN INNOCENT HUMAN BEING" was not enacted by the Justices presiding in Roe vs Wade in 1973, it was determined and ordained by a much higher authority - GOD


And guess what "DP"? I' can assure you that GOD TRUMPS "Roe vs Wade" - BIG TIME!


Regards


Dachshund

its a theory the thoughts of men, nothing natural about that.

also, to show how shallow this info is, if it be unnatural to kill the innocent then why do animals kill the innocent. a male lion taking over a pride has been known to kill the young of the previous male. its natural for predators to eat the young of prey while they are still alive. your theory isn't true in all cases therefore not true. there are no morals applied here because there is no law, no agreement. just power to do.

there is no morals without agreement between living entities that are aware of each other and the agreement to be in agreement. man like any other beast is intricacy a beast. being able to come into agreement with each other and hold one another to that agreement is the difference.

hence morals.


and yes it is permeable to kill innocent human beings, just what do you think war is?

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 2:48 pm

Dachshund wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:34 pmThis is just a quick and dirty introduction to the relevant bioscience. The point they( the bioscients specialising in this field) would make is that when an abortionist destroys, say, a one - week - old embryo he is indeed destroying a human life; and this is a demonstrable scientific fact.

Fair enough. Why then does a fertilised human egg have the right to impose itself on a fully formed human being for the next couple of decades?

Because kristians like dachshund want women to to suffer for their 'sinful ways'. I'm sure he doesn't seriously expect us to believe he actually cares about the week-old emybryos of complete strangers.

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 2:48 pm

Dachshund wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:34 pmThis is just a quick and dirty introduction to the relevant bioscience. The point they( the bioscients specialising in this field) would make is that when an abortionist destroys, say, a one - week - old embryo he is indeed destroying a human life; and this is a demonstrable scientific fact.

Fair enough. Why then does a fertilised human egg have the right to impose itself on a fully formed human being for the next couple of decades?

A wonderful question.

Dachshund wrote:...
Dachshund - WOOF, WOOF !!

Dear oh dear I must be getting old. So what brought you back to the forum yet again pooch, took you a while to find a kennel with a new IP address?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 8:49 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 2:48 pm

Dachshund wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:34 pmThis is just a quick and dirty introduction to the relevant bioscience. The point they( the bioscients specialising in this field) would make is that when an abortionist destroys, say, a one - week - old embryo he is indeed destroying a human life; and this is a demonstrable scientific fact.

Fair enough. Why then does a fertilised human egg have the right to impose itself on a fully formed human being for the next couple of decades?

Because kristians like dachshund want women to to suffer for their 'sinful ways'. I'm sure he doesn't seriously expect us to believe he actually cares about the week-old emybryos of complete strangers.

I rather be a Kristian than a Kiwi Kunt.

Regards

Dachshund

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 8:14 am

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 2:48 pm

Dachshund wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:34 pmThis is just a quick and dirty introduction to the relevant bioscience. The point they( the bioscients specialising in this field) would make is that when an abortionist destroys, say, a one - week - old embryo he is indeed destroying a human life; and this is a demonstrable scientific fact.

Fair enough. Why then does a fertilised human egg have the right to impose itself on a fully formed human being for the next couple of decades?

A wonderful question.

An immature lining human being and a more mature human being (e.g.) are both living examples of of homo sapiens. Parents are legally obliged to properly care for and not harm (or kill) their children. A "fertilized embryo" is an immature living human being, the same legal duty of care ought apply it him/her as applies to a new-born infant until it is 18 years old (i.e. legally an adult)

Regards

Dachshund

Dachshund wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:28 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 8:14 am

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 2:48 pm Fair enough. Why then does a fertilised human egg have the right to impose itself on a fully formed human being for the next couple of decades?

A wonderful question.

An immature lining human being and a more mature human being (e.g.) are both living examples of of homo sapiens. Parents are legally obliged to properly care for and not harm (or kill) their children. A "fertilized embryo" is an immature living human being, the same legal duty of care ought apply it him/her as applies to a new-born infant until it is 18 years old (i.e. legally an adult)

Regards

Dachshund

A six week old lentil is not a child you moron. And why didn't you answer imp's question.
You have already shown that you don't have a clue what safe, legal abortion involves for the vast majority of women who have it.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:48 am

Dachshund wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:28 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 8:14 am

A wonderful question.

An immature lining human being and a more mature human being (e.g.) are both living examples of of homo sapiens. Parents are legally obliged to properly care for and not harm (or kill) their children. A "fertilized embryo" is an immature living human being, the same legal duty of care ought apply it him/her as applies to a new-born infant until it is 18 years old (i.e. legally an adult)

Regards

Dachshund

A six week old lentil is not a child you moron. And why didn't you answer imp's question.
You have already shown that you don't have a clue what safe, legal abortion involves for the vast majority of women who have it.

What would a dumb, KIWI bitch like you know? Most of the white males in Nisland are too busy shagging sheep for human abortion to be an issue for white females there. And the big, fat Wahinis don't have an issue with unwanted pregnancy because they're all so butt-ugly even the Mongrol Mob wouldn't be game to "do the dirty" with any of them

Regards

Dachshund

Dachshund wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:45 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:48 am

Dachshund wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:28 am

An immature lining human being and a more mature human being (e.g.) are both living examples of of homo sapiens. Parents are legally obliged to properly care for and not harm (or kill) their children. A "fertilized embryo" is an immature living human being, the same legal duty of care ought apply it him/her as applies to a new-born infant until it is 18 years old (i.e. legally an adult)

Regards

Dachshund

A six week old lentil is not a child you moron. And why didn't you answer imp's question.
You have already shown that you don't have a clue what safe, legal abortion involves for the vast majority of women who have it.

What would a dumb, KIWI bitch like you know? Most of the white males in Nisland are too busy shagging sheep for human abortion to be an issue for white females there. And the big, fat Wahinis don't have an issue with unwanted pregnancy because they're all so butt-ugly even the Mongrol Mob wouldn't be game to "do the dirty" with any of them

Regards

Dachshund

Typical feral Aussie cocksucker. No surprises there

ps. Your surname isn't Milat by any chance?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:15 am

Dachshund wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:45 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:48 am

A six week old lentil is not a child you moron. And why didn't you answer imp's question.
You have already shown that you don't have a clue what safe, legal abortion involves for the vast majority of women who have it.

What would a dumb, KIWI bitch like you know? Most of the white males in Nisland are too busy shagging sheep for human abortion to be an issue for white females there. And the big, fat Wahinis don't have an issue with unwanted pregnancy because they're all so butt-ugly even the Mongrol Mob wouldn't be game to "do the dirty" with any of them

Regards

Dachshund

Typical feral Aussie cocksucker. No surprises there

ps. Your surname isn't Milat by any chance?

Ivan Milat was an uneducated, brain dead, psychopath - pure white trash of the very lowest order. He should have been given the death penalty (but, unfortunately, due to a fusillade of Leftist political campaigns during the 1960's, it was abolished in Australia in 1967). I , FYI, am totally unlike Milat in that am I a respectable, law-abiding, gentleman, retired professional and proud member of the British Conservative Party since the early 1990's;. Moreover, I am unlike YOU in that I am not a vulgar , foul-mouthed, ill-mannered "urchin" living in a 3rd world economy in a country over-run by primitive savages !

So you can stick that in your pipe and smoke it, darling!

Dachshund

Dachshund wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:53 am

Ivan Milat was an uneducated, brain dead, psychopath - pure white trash of the very lowest order.
Dachshund

Exactly.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:56 am

Dachshund wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:53 am

Ivan Milat was an uneducated, brain dead, psychopath - pure white trash of the very lowest order.
Dachshund

Exactly.

I take a very dim view of bad-mannered women in general, and in particular when they hurling revolting insults/lies at my good, self-respecting self. If you continue to antagonise me, I tell you , I will materialise through your computer screen in an instant and give you the most ferocious birching you could ever image. I am sure that would help to whip some civility, good manners and sorely needed social graces into your skanky butt. (You vile, little pleb !)

You have been warned.

Dachshund

I consider myself a reasonable expert on Kant.

Per Kant's Category Imperative[s] Kant will present the following absolute maxim;

• "No Abortion Shall be Permitted" period, no ifs nor buts.

But Kant's moral system does not propose that the Category Imperative be enforced on anyone at all nor should it be made into legislative laws which is political, i.e. not morality.
To Kant, the Category Imperative is merely an ideal moral guide to enable further improvements.

On the ethical side [the applied] humans need to find strategies to strive towards the ideal and where necessary provide for exceptions.

In this case the moral absolute 'No Abortion Shall be Permitted is not compromisable, i.e. rigidly fixed [as a fixed goal post] but not enforceable.
The justification is, if abortion is permissible as a universal value, then the human species by reason could be jeopardy and face extinction.

But in reality, of all the 7 billion+ humans being human, it is inevitable that abortions will need to be done for unplanned births.
The main reasons for unplanned births are due to the lack of impulse controls by the majority of their sexual lusts without consideration for contraceptions methods.

With Kant moral absolute in contrast to reality in ethics, there will be a moral gap, i.e. the number of abortions done in a year or period.
As such the efficiency of Kant's Category Imperative is the generation of a moral gap that can be objectively managed to reduce the gap to as close as possible to the ideal.

As present the majority of humans are like animals with uncontrollable lusts when it comes to the sex drive.
Therefore the focus on this issue should be focused on the 'lack of impulse control on one's sexual lusts.'
With the trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology, especially in the neurosciences, I am confident humanity will be able to come up with strategies to inculcate a spontaneous modulation of one's sexual lust and will plan for children wisely while enjoying sex as much as needed.

While the moral rule on abortion is fixed, there are many other strategies to improve on the ethical abilities of each person within the brain and mind, e.g. improving one's empathy, compassion, conscience, and responsibility to humanity.

Kant's Category Imperative is not for enforcement but merely to use as a guide for continuous improvements in practical ethics.
As such there is still room for abortion based on medical necessity and other justifiable reasons but they need to be grounded on improved higher wisdom of the average person.

When one view Kant's Category Imperative one should not jump to the conclusion they are to be enforced through legislation or any other means. The Categorical Imperative is to be planted within the mind of each individual person as a guide for improvement.

In addition, we only expect to see results in Kant Moral and Ethical System in the future, provided we start implementing it now with all the necessary conditions at their least. What is essential is the improvement in the average mental capacity in all aspects of humanity.