Philosophy Now Forum

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:56 pm God made me suffer more than Christ...

This would be quite a claim, since nobody has suffered as Christ did.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:58 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:56 pm God made me suffer more than Christ...

This would be quite a claim, since nobody has suffered as Christ did.

Rather skewed or screwed ain't it?

The Life of Brian T ---> DO_U_BT

..who am I to make such a claim?

under_stand this...it was in a FAR different way. Many times I thought I'd take Christ's way over what I was being put thru. But Christ remains my..Lord...He was never required to go thru wot He did for any of us....BUT HE DID DO IT.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 2:15 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 10:33 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2024 2:53 am 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.

Oh boy, here we go again... You do understand that every Birth Control method has a failure rate, right? (Don't mind my tone, but it gets old educating folks who carry overly simplistic understandings of the issues involved).

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 3:26 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 10:33 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2024 2:53 am 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?

Huh? You do understand that plenty of married couples make the decision to not start (or expand) a family, right? Are you just coming up with this stuff off the cuff?

Are you not familiar with the concept that rape exists?

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2024 1:39 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 3:26 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 10:33 pm

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?

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

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2024 1:35 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 2:15 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 10:33 pm

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.

Oh boy, here we go again... You do understand that every Birth Control method has a failure rate, right? (Don't mind my tone, but it gets old educating folks who carry overly simplistic understandings of the issues involved).

I did not mention 'birth control method' as the main point but generally ways to avoid unplanned birth as source which could include controlled abstinence, etc.
Note there many other ways to avoid unplanned births other than birth control methods.

You missed my critical point.

What is critical is humanity must have a mission and vision of which one of the objective to strive for is:
"ZERO Abortion"
as I have argued this is to be used as a standard and guide only not to be enforced on any individual.

It is because we recognized the moral fact that we used it as a standard and guide only.
Sure there are failure rates everywhere including contraception at present.

But it is because we have an IDEAL standard and objective to strive for, that we will recognize the present failure rate and strive hard to achieve optimal results nearer and nearer to the IDEAL standard and objective.

Re Birth Control Methods:
You cannot deny there had been continuous improvement in contraception since 1000, 500, 100, 50 years ago,

The Oldest Methods
Some methods still used today have their roots in antiquity. The withdrawal method was recorded in the Bible's book of Genesis. Around 1850 B.C.
Egyptian women mixed acacia leaves with honey or used animal dung to make vaginal suppositories to prevent pregnancy.
The Greeks in the 4th century B.C. used natural ointments made with olive and cedar oil as spermicides. A popular Roman writer advocated abstinence. "Womb veils," a 19th-century phrase for diaphragms cervical caps, and condoms, often made from linen or fish intestines, have been in use for centuries.
In the 1700s, the famous seducer Giacomo Casanova told of using half a lemon rind as a cervical cap.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperi ... trol-pill/

Humanity is continually striving to improve on birth controls methods with lower failure rates.

However, I believe the need for abortion due to unplanned birth is more likely due to the non-use of birth control and uncontrollable lusts.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2024 4:15 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2024 1:35 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 2:15 am
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.

Oh boy, here we go again... You do understand that every Birth Control method has a failure rate, right? (Don't mind my tone, but it gets old educating folks who carry overly simplistic understandings of the issues involved).

I did not mention 'birth control method' as the main point but generally ways to avoid unplanned birth as source which could include controlled abstinence, etc.
Note there many other ways to avoid unplanned births other than birth control methods.

You missed my critical point.

What is critical is humanity must have a mission and vision of which one of the objective to strive for is:
"ZERO Abortion"
as I have argued this is to be used as a standard and guide only not to be enforced on any individual.

It is because we recognized the moral fact that we used it as a standard and guide only.
Sure there are failure rates everywhere including contraception at present.

But it is because we have an IDEAL standard and objective to strive for, that we will recognize the present failure rate and strive hard to achieve optimal results nearer and nearer to the IDEAL standard and objective.

Re Birth Control Methods:
You cannot deny there had been continuous improvement in contraception since 1000, 500, 100, 50 years ago,

The Oldest Methods
Some methods still used today have their roots in antiquity. The withdrawal method was recorded in the Bible's book of Genesis. Around 1850 B.C.
Egyptian women mixed acacia leaves with honey or used animal dung to make vaginal suppositories to prevent pregnancy.
The Greeks in the 4th century B.C. used natural ointments made with olive and cedar oil as spermicides. A popular Roman writer advocated abstinence. "Womb veils," a 19th-century phrase for diaphragms cervical caps, and condoms, often made from linen or fish intestines, have been in use for centuries.
In the 1700s, the famous seducer Giacomo Casanova told of using half a lemon rind as a cervical cap.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperi ... trol-pill/

Humanity is continually striving to improve on birth controls methods with lower failure rates.

However, I believe the need for abortion due to unplanned birth is more likely due to the non-use of birth control and uncontrollable lusts.

Oh, perhaps I misunderstood your position. If you're saying that currently there is a "need" for abortion but let's put our collective efforts to reduce that need as close to zero in the future, then I'm in agreement. Though that's not the message I got from your initial postings.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2024 2:19 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2024 1:39 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 3:26 am
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?

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.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2024 2:54 am Notes:

1. I am not proposing humans abstains from sex.
What I had accused is, at present the majority are driven to sex with an uncontrollable lusts thus ending with unplanned birth.

Then they have neuronal patterns in the brain that make this lust objectively moral. If the neuroscience finds morality - as you have claimed for years - by looking at what is in the brains of humans, they will and have found neuronal patterns that lead to the behavior your condemn. But we must, according to your protocols, accept human tendencies led to by existent neuronal structures - such as mirror neurons, but obviously not restricted to them. Even if we dislike what we find, we must go by what is present in human brain structures and the patterns of behavior these lead to.

We can't just pick one part of the brain, one neuronal structure and say this is what leads to objectively moral attitudes but those neurons over there do not. That is hypocrisy or inconsistent application of a rule.

If we are deciding that those patterns are to be enhanced and those patterns are to be inhibited, then moraIty is not coming from brain structures. It is coming from somewhere else.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2024 2:53 am 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.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:58 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:56 pm God made me suffer more than Christ...

This would be quite a claim, since nobody has suffered as Christ did.

Talk about 'quite a claim'.

Only 'weak and immature' adult human beings 'suffer', the rest have full control over what emotions remain. So, if that human being that you are referring to here "immanuel can" 'suffered', then that one was certainly not as great and powerful as some of human beings think or believe it was.

By saying what you did here you are admitting to "jesus christ" being nothing more than just another one if you 'weak and immature' adult human beings, and so even 'less than' some of you more 'stronger and more mature' ones.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 5:02 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:58 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:56 pm God made me suffer more than Christ...

This would be quite a claim, since nobody has suffered as Christ did.

Rather skewed or screwed ain't it?

The Life of Brian T ---> DO_U_BT

..who am I to make such a claim?

under_stand this...it was in a FAR different way. Many times I thought I'd take Christ's way over what I was being put thru. But Christ remains my..Lord...He was never required to go thru wot He did for any of us....BUT HE DID DO IT.

Would you like to share with 'us' what you, supposedly, had to 'suffer' with and/or 'suffer' from, exactly, and thus what you had to 'endure' through as well?

If no, then why not?

And, if you do not, then any claim that "poor old attofishpi" had to 'suffer' more than that other human being known as "jesus christ" could all well be in 'your own imagination' for all 'we' know "attofishpi".

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 11:36 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2024 2:53 am 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.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 5:33 pm

Humanity is continually striving to improve on birth controls methods with lower failure rates.

However, I believe the need for abortion due to unplanned birth is more likely due to the
Oh, perhaps I misunderstood your position. If you're saying that currently there is a "need" for abortion but let's put our collective efforts to reduce that need as close to zero in the future, then I'm in agreement. Though that's not the message I got from your initial postings.

Note I wrote this in the OP and explained in subsequent posts:

OP wrote: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].

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 7:50 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2024 2:54 am Notes:

1. I am not proposing humans abstains from sex.
What I had accused is, at present the majority are driven to sex with an uncontrollable lusts thus ending with unplanned birth.

Then they have neuronal patterns in the brain that make this lust objectively moral. If the neuroscience finds morality - as you have claimed for years - by looking at what is in the brains of humans, they will and have found neuronal patterns that lead to the behavior your condemn. But we must, according to your protocols, accept human tendencies led to by existent neuronal structures - such as mirror neurons, but obviously not restricted to them. Even if we dislike what we find, we must go by what is present in human brain structures and the patterns of behavior these lead to.

We can't just pick one part of the brain, one neuronal structure and say this is what leads to objectively moral attitudes but those neurons over there do not. That is hypocrisy or inconsistent application of a rule.

If we are deciding that those patterns are to be enhanced and those patterns are to be inhibited, then moraIity is not coming from brain structures. It is coming from somewhere else.

Ignorance with arrogance.

The basic principles of the working of the brain is based on activators and inhibitors that has been ongoing since humans [& living things with brain] emerged.

1. The neuronal patterns [connectivity] that trigger [activators dominant] the sexual drive is a biological thing via the science biology FSERC.

2. It is the same with the neuronal patterns [connectivity] that trigger the 'to kill living things' impulse.

3. There is also an impulse control system mainly of inhibitors to modulate various instincts and the above.

4. To ensure the above is not a free-for-all things, humans are evolved [later] with a specific neuronal patterns [connectivity] re morality [as defined] to modulate [inhibitors] the above impulses. This moral system will have linkages to the other related neural patterns.

4. Based on the evolutionary time-line, because the moral pattern is later than 1 & 2, it's inhibitors may not very strong in contrast to the earlier evolved neuronal patterns. Also the activeness of the moral function will varying within individuals.
At present the majority's inherent moral system is not very active, this is the reason for the pervasive evil acts that are going on at present.
This is the argument that morality emerged from the brain.

The critical and effective approach is thus to recognize [in general not yet with precision] this moral functions represented by neuronal patterns of physical neurons in actions in the brain; this is the moral facts contingent upon the moral FSERC.

The recognition of moral facts via a collective FSERC deduces moral objectivity which will enable effective moral progress towards ZERO 'humans killing of humans' and ZERO Abortion progressing gradually.

In contrast,
-moral relativism -to each their own, respect & tolerate individual and group moral wishes, regardless it is deemed evil[as defined].
-moral skepticism and nihilism - morality is non-existent,
are indirectly complicit to all the continual evil without abatement in the future.

Caveat:
"Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!" is a moral fact but to be adopted as merely to guide moral progress, and not be enforced upon individual[s].