PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Abortion Debates
     Abortion not a womens choice

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Many say that abortion is the moms choice, this is simply plain wrong.  There is no choice.  What if we where to ask the child inside the mother if he could respond? i dont think he would say "sure by all means murder me, i dont care." No i dont the child would want to die.  Abortion is usually a way out of something that was wrong in the first place.  Abortion comes down to being one thing. MURDER.


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 6:31 PM on May 4, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Look, it's a terribly difficult situation. It's not like those of us who support a woman's right to abortion LIKE the fact that a child is killed, but ultimately, women should have the right to choose as to whether they want to go through pregnancy and, possibly, raising a child. Have you any idea how pregnancy can completely screw up a woman's life? Her dreams, her ambitions, her goals - they can be completely extinguished.  

Now, that's not to say that abortion doesn't need to be restricted in some cases (Partial Birth Abortion should not be an option unless the mother's health is in serious danger). But, basically, women will not stop having abortions simply because they're illegal - they will always find a way to end their pregnancy.

It is an unfortunate situation, but it is far better to have safe and regulated abortions, rather than backyard or self-induced abortions.
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 03:33 AM on May 5, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Plus its not murder, it is the prevention of life not the termination of life.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 3:07 PM on May 5, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Then tell me when does life begin for a child if aborting the child is not murder?


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 8:35 PM on May 6, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Look, there are other things in this world that are murder (by your definition) - war, death penalty, etc. Why don't you complain about them first, as those things are killing people who value their lives conciously unlike unborn children. Abortion should not be banned, as this is violating women's right to have a life - something that they value conciously.
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 04:02 AM on May 7, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Murder is be definition one human killing another. technically life begins before sex because sperm is technically alive, so is the egg. But the fetus isn't technically a human until it is fully developed. My point was not that it isn't wrong but that it isn't murder. I don't agree with abortion but I don't think it should be ilegal.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 08:17 AM on May 7, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

both of u dont know what murder is. murder is not just the killing of another human being.  

mur·der  Audio pronunciation of "murder" (műrdr ) n.

  1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.  

Last time i checked war and the death penalty where not in that catagory.   The only time i would agree with abortion is if the only way to save the mother was thru abortion but most of the time its simply a mother who doesnt want to live up  to consequences of playing around in bed.


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 4:28 PM on May 7, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Erm I think you will find that that is the definition and gave and then explained that technically a fetus is not a human and thuis it isn't murder but if you don't want to read posts then nether mind.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 10:16 PM on May 7, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from skins38 at 4:28 PM on May 7, 2005 :
both of u dont know what murder is. murder is not just the killing of another human being.  

mur·der  Audio pronunciation of "murder" (műrdr ) n.

  1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.  

Last time i checked war and the death penalty where not in that catagory.   The only time i would agree with abortion is if the only way to save the mother was thru abortion but most of the time its simply a mother who doesnt want to live up  to consequences of playing around in bed.


i didn't think you'd go for it, but ya did - abortion is not an unlawful killing, therefore it isn't murder. Thank you.

And btw, don't try to tell me that the mother needs to "live up to the consequences" of "playing around in bed" - what about the father? All they might have to do is pay a small amount towards child support, while the woman has to PUT HER LIFE ON HOLD and even look after the child afterwards. Frankly, until men develop a uterus and can bear children, don't try to tell me that women must bear the brunt of TWO PEOPLE'S action.

Plus, do you know that 2/3 women (in Australia at least) who have an abortion were using contraception at the time of conception? (i can't find the book i read it in, but it was something like "Abortion in Australia: Questions and Answers")
 

 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 11:04 PM on May 7, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i consider it a child not a fetus its a way to make society not treat it like its a child when it is.  So let me get this straight you think death penalty and war killings are murder but killing a innocent child is not.  now its just me but that sounds like u might have a loose screw.  did i say it was okay for the man to play around? no i didnt and its still just as wrong.  



               * Day 1 - conception takes place.
               * 7 days - tiny human implants in mother’s uterus.
               * 10 days - mother’s menses stop.
               * 18 days - heart begins to beat.
               * 21 days - pumps own blood through separate closed circulatory system with own blood type.
               * 28 days - eye, ear and respiratory system begin to form.
               * 42 days - brain waves recorded, skeleton complete, reflexes present.
               * 7 weeks - photo of thumbsucking.
               * 8 weeks - all body systems present.
               * 9 weeks - squints, swallows, moves tongue, makes fist.
               * 11 weeks - spontaneous breathing movements, has fingernails, all body systems working.
               * 12 weeks - weighs one ounce.
               * 16 weeks - genital organs clearly differentiated, grasps with hands, swims, kicks, turns, somersaults, (still not felt by the mother.)
               * 18 weeks - vocal cords work – can cry.
               * 20 weeks - has hair on head, weighs one pound, 12 inches long.
               * 23 weeks - 15% chance of viability outside of womb if birth premature.*
               * 24 weeks - 56% of babies survive premature birth.*
               * 25 weeks - 79% of babies survive premature birth.*

1. Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman of the Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, said: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

2. Dr. McCarthy de Mere, a medical doctor and law professor at the University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

Dr. Jerome Lejeune, known as "The Father of Modern Genetics," also testified that human life begins at conception before the Louisiana Legislature's House Committee on the Administration of Criminal Justice on June 7, 1990.

sounds like a child to me.




-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 12:30 AM on May 8, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i don't think war or the death penalty are murder at all - they are not unlawful killings. I was just pointing out that you claim that abortion is murder, and i said that, if you feel that way, then you must also think that war and the death penalty are murder as well.

You said you don't, as they are not unlawful. Then i said, you shouldn't therefore say that abortion is murder as it is not an unlawful killing. That's all.
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 02:28 AM on May 8, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

sorry about that little confusion there. no i dont think that death penalty and war is murder.  to me its just that a child in the stomch is a human being in nearly every way that you and i are. i just cant and help and think of what was just killed. maybe he was going to be a great president, doctor that found the cure for cancer or the next babe ruth or ya know stuff like that. to me its a child not a fetus


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 9:06 PM on May 8, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Basically, abortion will never be criminalized. It's just one of those things that people will never agree on - compromise is the only way, yet most pro-lifers refuse to compromise, as it still means babies are being killed.

I personally am torn about the situation, but my passion for women's rights slightly outweighs my concern for the unborn children being killed. I am certainly against 'late' abortions (particularly of PBA nature), and believe such things need to be regulated by the law. But women should have access to safe abortions, as they will always find a way to kill their baby if they really want to no matter what services are or are not available to them.
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 03:52 AM on May 9, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is why we should encourage people not to have abortions, use adoption etc, however abortion should still be legal as a final solution.
I have said it before and I will say it again. Change opinions not laws.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 10:51 AM on May 9, 2005 | IP
got_dooie

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am certainly against 'late' abortions (particularly of PBA nature), and believe such things need to be regulated by the law.


Why?  You confuse me in almost all of your posts.  You are against 'late' abortions simply because they are human beings?  When is life defined then?  Better yet when is human life defined?  Are you the arbitor of such difinition or is does the definition belong intrinsically to the child who demands that you acknowledge his/her life at conception whether you like it or not?  Do not argue from a human rights point because I'm sorry to tell you but ALL human lives have rights not just the women.  You presume human life doesn't exist at conception, but there have been no proofs of such notion.  If definition of human person is man made, how can the law be criticized as unjust and inhumane?  The demand transcends man-made laws and values.  Don't fool yourself with feminist thoughts.  It is not in the competence of science to define when human life begins, but it is rather a question that should be approached with philosophy and theology.


-------
I always live in the past, the present is not not, the future is not yet, therfore only the past.
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 11:47 PM on June 1, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Did i ever state the reason i was against 'late' abortions (particularly PBAs)? No, so don't put words in my mouth. You confuse yourself through my posts as you make no reasonable attempt to understand my point of view. So, read the following s..l..o..w..l..y and caaarefully:

I disagree with late term abortions as i feel there may be (i'm not certain of the scientific facts) an increased chance of physical pain endured by the unborn child.  This is especially true for Partial Birth Abortions due to the horrendous nature of the procedure. I also believe that a woman shouldn't be waiting that long to have an abortion, as it puts her in increased physical, emotional and psychological danger. Got that?

Welcome back, btw...fun times ahead!
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 01:43 AM on June 2, 2005 | IP
got_dooie

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I apologize and may have missed the your point of fact.  Yet, I in saying that there might be an increase in physical pain in an unborn child you are giving that unborn child some kind of "life" definition because otherwise how would such a child feel pain?  Secondly, you, again, failed to address the problem of life and when it begins.  Can you give me a specific time when human personhood actually begins?

And thank you for the welcome back

(Edited by got_dooie 6/2/2005 at 2:52 PM).


-------
I always live in the past, the present is not not, the future is not yet, therfore only the past.
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 2:28 PM on June 2, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I can't give any specific time when human personhood actually begins, as i cannot state for certain what constitutes human personhood - i won't be so naive as to try.

I only FEEL there may be an increased chance of the unborn child experiencing pain in late term abortions, i don't know for sure at all. Late term abortions, to me, seem like the mother has waited far too long and perhaps shouldn't be making this decision so late. Of course, certain circumstances might warrant such a procedure (i've heard of foetal deformities and danger to the mother's life and such being reasons). This is only my personal opinion - i just wouldn't have such a late one for the pure reason of 'not wanting a child'. I would hope i would have made such a decision as early as possible.

 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 11:31 PM on June 2, 2005 | IP
got_dooie

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is a very HUGE problem because a life is cheated out if one mistakenly takes it for non-life.  This is why there are debates.  Human life, again, does not need recognition from anyone in order for it to be human life.  Rather human life is intrinsic to itself and demands recognition whehter one acknowledges or not.  Philosophically speaking, is it not more logical to suppose the positive instead of risking the positive and end up with a negative?


-------
I always live in the past, the present is not not, the future is not yet, therfore only the past.
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 11:00 AM on June 3, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But the thing is, even if those in society who do not believe the human foetus to be a 'person' were to somehow be convinced otherwise, i sincerely doubt that abortion would be looked on much differently. I can imagine that people would maybe feel a little more guilty, but probably still refer to the procedure as a 'necessary evil'.  
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 02:00 AM on June 4, 2005 | IP
got_dooie

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well as long as the society acknowledge such action as evil, they are therefore recognizing that they are going against what is right.  And furthermore, the argument would stop being if abortion is wrong, but it would carry further into how are abortions justifiable and why they are a "necessary evil."


-------
I always live in the past, the present is not not, the future is not yet, therfore only the past.
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 5:18 PM on June 4, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

true
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 01:34 AM on June 5, 2005 | IP
Raelian1

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from skins38 at 8:31 PM on May 4, 2005 :
Many say that abortion is the moms choice, this is simply plain wrong.  There is no choice.  What if we where to ask the child inside the mother if he could respond? i dont think he would say "sure by all means murder me, i dont care." No i dont the child would want to die.  Abortion is usually a way out of something that was wrong in the first place.  Abortion comes down to being one thing. MURDER.


There is no life until the baby is developed in about 5 months. So how can you call this murder?
Also, children should not be brought in this world unless one the parents (especially the mother) decides to have this child and two the parent are conscious enough to know how to care for this baby. More abortions mean less crime and better population control.


-------
Proud member of rael.org
 


Posts: 68 | Posted: 11:20 PM on June 21, 2005 | IP
got_dooie

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is no life until the baby is developed in about 5 months. So how can you call this murder?


Based on what verification?

More abortions mean less crime and better population control.


Equivocation fallacy.  Unwanted children are not the source of crime population problem.  Maybe it's the problem of WANTED children.

Also a problem with this argument is that fact that it argues on a consequentialist point of view.  This means that it assumes the child is already a child in the womb, because how else is a "non-child" the source of all crimes and population problem?  So this argument gives personhood to the unborn already, which, I believe is not your point of view...yeah?

So you contradict yourself in your argument.


-------
I always live in the past, the present is not not, the future is not yet, therfore only the past.
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 9:40 PM on June 22, 2005 | IP
LvDaPrsnH8DaSin

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

who said having a abortion is safe? a women is designed to have babies, i'm not saying her purpose in life is to have babies but her body is made too. Her body however, is not designed to have a abortion, a abortion is very dangerous and not to mention it is killing her child. I got a good idea, how about having some freakin morals in life and do the right thing by giving the baby up for adoption, there are plenty of familes in the world who would love and care for the child. Give the child a chance in life that is the least one can do. don't be shallow and grow up!
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 7:02 PM on September 19, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from skins38 at 7:30 PM on May 7, 2005 :
                * 42 days - brain waves recorded, skeleton complete, reflexes present.


this is when the fetus is human.  the cells making up the fetus are alive the entire time, but until this point, there are no central nervous system processes to consciously control those cells.

if abortion was deemed murder, then it would still be legal before this point, considering the fact that you would not be killing a human, but a collection of living cells.

but abortion is not illegal, so it is, lawfully, not murder at all.

and what about rape victims, are you against women who have been raped having abortions?


 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 12:27 PM on September 28, 2005 | IP
Quardon7

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It would seem that there are several people on this thread who would assert that a woman has a right to choose, a right to pursue her happiness, etc.  I have a question for you that will seem, I'm sure, terribly simple and foolhardy--but please, I am sincere.  Would you be willing to articulate for me, in as developed reasoning as you can, what it is that gives a woman this right to her body, right to choose, right to pursue her happiness?  Don't just write me off by quoting the constitution or some other legal document or piece of literature.  I want to know your reasoning, the fundamental assumptions (we all have them, there's no insult in that), emotional building blocks, the reasoning by which you have come to accept that right so strongly.  If it helps, remove it from women and make it humans in general; assume that all humans have the same set of rights (unless you don't believe that, which is another thing I would be curious to hear about) and articulate for me why there exists this right to choice and why it is so strong.


-------
-Quardon
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 08:49 AM on September 29, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Quardon7 at 03:49 AM on September 29, 2005 :
It would seem that there are several people on this thread who would assert that a woman has a right to choose, a right to pursue her happiness, etc.  I have a question for you that will seem, I'm sure, terribly simple and foolhardy--but please, I am sincere.  Would you be willing to articulate for me, in as developed reasoning as you can, what it is that gives a woman this right to her body, right to choose, right to pursue her happiness?  Don't just write me off by quoting the constitution or some other legal document or piece of literature.  I want to know your reasoning, the fundamental assumptions (we all have them, there's no insult in that), emotional building blocks, the reasoning by which you have come to accept that right so strongly.  If it helps, remove it from women and make it humans in general; assume that all humans have the same set of rights (unless you don't believe that, which is another thing I would be curious to hear about) and articulate for me why there exists this right to choice and why it is so strong.



if a woman is pregnant, and there is no society to stop her, she can do whatever she wants.  that is my reasoning.  laws are the product of environmental conditioning throughout ones life reflected in the desire to force that conditioning on others.

a person's 'right' is just a human concept.  a person can do whatever they please.  though in a society like ours they must face the consequences of their actions, because everything pisses someone off in this nation.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 12:06 PM on September 29, 2005 | IP
Quardon7

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You hold then that rights have no grounding at all, but are the arbitrary representation of a person's desire?  Or perhaps you would say, rights are another way of saying that a person will do whatever they want barring social constraints?  This is interesting, but I don't think it's the traditional conception of rights.  When most people posit a right to something, don't they mean that there is some inherent grounding that justifies the exercise of that right?  Something beyond a capricious exercise of will?
For example, the writers of the constitution arrived upon rights by indicating that they were endowed upon man by God.  But it seems that many in the pro-choice camp are atheists.  What then is their basis from which rights are derived?


-------
-Quardon
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 12:15 PM on September 29, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Quardon7 at 07:15 AM on September 29, 2005 :
You hold then that rights have no grounding at all, but are the arbitrary representation of a person's desire?  Or perhaps you would say, rights are another way of saying that a person will do whatever they want barring social constraints?  This is interesting, but I don't think it's the traditional conception of rights.  When most people posit a right to something, don't they mean that there is some inherent grounding that justifies the exercise of that right?  Something beyond a capricious exercise of will?
For example, the writers of the constitution arrived upon rights by indicating that they were endowed upon man by God.  But it seems that many in the pro-choice camp are atheists.  What then is their basis from which rights are derived?



just what i said before, "product of environmental conditioning throughout ones life reflected in the desire to force that conditioning on others."

this has been going on since before man was human.  and because it has been going on for so long, human morals are very complex and tied directly to our emotions.

the traditional conception of rights holds no ground in the actual conception of rights.  in my view, tradition is only holding us back from our full potential.  rights are based on our emotions and how they are affected by the environment we grew up in.

by the belief of christians, do we really need to worry about abortion?  the child has not sinned, therefore will it not go to heaven?  is heaven not a better place than earth?

also, the fetus does not have a consciousness of any kind till the 42nd day.  there is no soul, as one could say, in the child.  all it is is a jumble of organized cells working together.  to call it murder would include the killing of all living organisms, no matter what size or complexity, in murder.  i think it is arrogant of the human race to make such a seperation.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 6:02 PM on September 29, 2005 | IP
Quardon7

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So if I understand you correctly, the concept of rights--and all other moral judgments for that matter--have no actual grounding in reality beneath the external outworkings of society.  There is no right or wrong, and morality is in fact an empty word.  In the true nature of things people have no rights at all, but simultaneously we might say that they have the right to anything they wish to do.  Rights and responsibilities, good and evil, all these things are arbitrary justifications we have constructed.  There is no action to which I have a right, nor is there any action where you could say I do not have a right to it; my actions are merely the actualization of my will, and moral judgments upon them, either praising and justifying them or condemning and denying them, are worthless.  Would you say that is so, or have I misread your position?


-------
-Quardon
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 9:19 PM on September 29, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Quardon7 at 4:19 PM on September 29, 2005 :
So if I understand you correctly, the concept of rights--and all other moral judgments for that matter--have no actual grounding in reality beneath the external outworkings of society.  There is no right or wrong, and morality is in fact an empty word.  In the true nature of things people have no rights at all, but simultaneously we might say that they have the right to anything they wish to do.  Rights and responsibilities, good and evil, all these things are arbitrary justifications we have constructed.  There is no action to which I have a right, nor is there any action where you could say I do not have a right to it; my actions are merely the actualization of my will, and moral judgments upon them, either praising and justifying them or condemning and denying them, are worthless.  Would you say that is so, or have I misread your position?


yes, pretty much on the dot.

 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 11:48 AM on September 30, 2005 | IP
Quardon7

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sir, will you still resonate with this argument if taken down from the lofty realm of philosophical abstracts and put in experiential terms?
Supposing a man came and took from you whatever person it is you love most in all this world.  Suppose he proceeded to torture and execute that person.  In your philosophy he had a right to this, while he had not a right to it.  The person you loved had a right to expect better treatment...yet they also had no right to expect it.  In the framework of our society we would capriciously punish that person who did such a thing.  But in reality, you would have to admit that the murderer had done nothing wrong?  Can you truly admit that, wholeheartedly, without any feeling of disgust within yourself that it was not at all wrong for them to arbitrarily torture and kill the person you most loved?


-------
-Quardon
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 1:57 PM on September 30, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Quardon7 at 08:57 AM on September 30, 2005 :
Sir, will you still resonate with this argument if taken down from the lofty realm of philosophical abstracts and put in experiential terms?
Supposing a man came and took from you whatever person it is you love most in all this world.  Suppose he proceeded to torture and execute that person.  In your philosophy he had a right to this, while he had not a right to it.  The person you loved had a right to expect better treatment...yet they also had no right to expect it.  In the framework of our society we would capriciously punish that person who did such a thing.  But in reality, you would have to admit that the murderer had done nothing wrong?  Can you truly admit that, wholeheartedly, without any feeling of disgust within yourself that it was not at all wrong for them to arbitrarily torture and kill the person you most loved?


you can't explain it that way.  if that occured to me, i would seek out the person and get revenge in any form i could, i have that right.  it is the natural born 'right' as you put it, of a person to kill another person for whatever reason.  why do i say this?  because he can.  it doesnt matter what you think of it, or what i think of it, or what all of society thinks of it.  he is physically able to do this thing.  it doesnt make the act wrong or right in any way, it just happens.  i use the word right, not because he is morally justified in doing such a thing (rather the opposite), but because he has the ability to do it.

i have this view because i think that there should be actual reasoning behind the morals that we have, and not just ties to emotions and instinct.  the situation you describe has no point, there is nothing anyone gets out of it besides the satisfaction of the killer.

if a woman wants to have an abortion i say good for her.  she can do more good for society working than bringing another child into the world.  especially if she does not want to have that child.  can you imagine the kind of messed up childhood the kid would have if his mother didn't really want him, and didn't care for him as much as she should?
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 5:10 PM on September 30, 2005 | IP
Quardon7

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is a certain charm, I will grant, to espousing a sort of "Jack Sparrow" mentality; what a man can do and what a man can't do, that's all there is to it.  I suggest, however, that ultimately this understanding of morality will prove to be out of touch with reality.
You claim that your view hinges upon a sort of enlightenment need for rationality behind our morals.  I won't debate that that need is there, although you might consider meditating on the value of emotions, as they are as much a part of the human being as our rationality.  Let us take that line though, morals need to be grounded in reason--true enough!  But taking this as the basis for discarding traditional systems of morality shows a flawed understanding of their operations.  Take two of the most prominent ways for understanding right and wrong; humanistic natural law asserts that good is what benefits humans and evil is what harms them.  That is perfectly rational.  Theistic revelation of the divine nature asserts that good is what is in keeping with God's attributes and evil is what is contradictory to them.  That also is rationally based, providing an individual accepts revelation.  While one cannot accept both of these moral systems as truth I must admit that both have rational founding.  Neither is arbitrarily based upon "emotions and instinct" but both were arrived at by reasoning with the data they understood themselves to have.
Your moral system seems quite the opposite.  When confronted with an irrational murder you said you would respond with similar irrationality; you would get revenge by whatever means you could.  This is not a reasoned social working; such would seek justice for the crime.  You indicated a powerful drive for vengeance that would motivate you--none other than the emotions and instinct you have sought to avoid.  When it comes to "reasoning behind morals we have" the Jack Sparrow mentality is the very poorest, because there is no reasoning.  Everything is capricious.  It is justifiable to actualize any instinct, any desire that an individual has with no reasoned inhibitions.  All those things that are offensive to an individual are justifiable; rape, murder, theft...and the only motivation required is a want of instinct or emotion, the only limiting factor is the ability.  Reason is not involved in your morals.
You say we cannot look at this issue on the experiential level.  But ultimately we must, that is where it will be tested.  Abstract rationality only works abstractly (although the Jack Sparrow mentality is, as noted above, in fact a dose of abstract irrationality) when we actually begin to work things out we discover that we cannot give a reasoned answer for why reason should be the authority.  That is an emotional assumption, like the belief that we can determine things emotionally.  The human being is holistic, and our understanding of reality comes most fully through experience.  On that note, since you did not like my simple example let's go to history, where we find the true atrocities without point.  Could you stand beside me in the ruins of Auschwitz or Birkenau, looking on the wall of death or the black pool, and say that what was done there was not wrong?  Could you say "Hitler was able, and that's that"?  Could you glimpse through the pages of history, pausing on Chenghis Khan, the Caesars, and Stalin and say that they did nothing wrong in their massacres?  Follow the events of humanity, the Crusades, the Rwanda genicide, the Sept 11 bombings, can you say to the friends and families of the victims that it was not wrong what was done to them?  We must look at it this way.  This is where humans live, this is where the question has always been.
One of the most powerful arguments against theism is the problem of evil.  If I (likely under great duress) were to convince you to join a debate as an advocate of theism, and the question of "why does God, if there is one, allow so much evil" came to you, would you give the response of your philosophy, "what evil?"  I imagine sir, that they should look at you and wonder how such a creature should come to be as a member of the human race in this world.  All the world around a given person would look at you and wonder what possibly happened to you that you could possibly say "there is no evil."  Who would understand and resonate with you?  A few would.  A few who likely consider themselves the elites, the enlightened, perhaps even the more evolved.  But without acknowledging evil, they have no hope to offer anyone.  For all your enlightenment, I assert that this life will eventually bring to you the conviction that there is such a thing as wrong and evil--realizing the existence of good is, I think, where more of us stumble.  I say you will find this because all of the various moral theories agree that evil does not do men good.  Suppose, as an abstract but perfectly plausible example, that you sleep with your girlfriend.  This behavior is one of a vast number of otherwise immoral behaviors that is perfectly moral under your code.  Were I to counsel you against it, I should not try to condemn you or make you feel guilty, but rather insist that this behavior will eventually hurt you.  Like all Jack Sparrow-justified actions, it relies purely on instinct mediated by ability, and has no mind for considering the long term implications (to tie in further with this thread, the risk that the girl will get pregnant and be confronted by the painful choice between bringing a child into the world without a father and getting an abortion, which--if not morally wrong--certainly has the danger of being physically and emotionally shattering to the woman).  Immoral actions hurt people; whether that is the cause of our moral system or merely something that coincides with it, that is something moral systems (rightly understood) agree upon, and it is a means by which we most often come to realize the truth of evil in the world.  This I think you will agree to eventually, though it may take more living first.


-------
-Quardon
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 1:17 PM on October 3, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

yes,  i see what you are saying.  my revenge would be no more rational than the first killing, though it would have more merit.  and it is a way of saying that emotion can get to the best of us, because that is what i would do in that situation, no matter how i think of morality now.

as humans, we cannot circumvent the impact of emotion on our actions (unless buddhists are right in asserting that enlightenment can be reached).  I have a problem with this thinking because much of our modern law revolves around emotion, and yet emotion is individualistic, everyone's morals are different, if not ever so slightly.  yes, we do need an inherent ability to judge right and wrong in terms of how it affects humanity as a whole, but that judgement is vastly affected by our individualistic emotions.  people do not generally think about others, we are naturally self-centered, though some more than others, obviously.
i try, most of the time, to think empathetically rather than solely on my own needs and wants.  though this tends to make me more apathetic, i don't have any enemies, or any people around me who dislike me.  the last time i had any agressive confrontation with anyone (verbally or otherwise) was over 7 years ago.
all your historic examples would strike bitter sadness in me; yes i would view them as wrong, but wrong in the sense that they are detrimental to humanity, as you said.
but i also view human actions as the yin and yang.  without suffering, there is nothing to compare happiness to.  so without evil, there is no good.  good and evil are our own words.  there is no good or evil outside of human understanding.  an animal kills another animal to survive.  this is not good nor is it bad.  but a human can kill just to kill.  there is no reason, and i think that is the definition of evil; doing something for the sole reason of doing it, or sometimes doing something for an irrational reason that (through rational thinking) would otherwise not have been done.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 4:28 PM on October 3, 2005 | IP
Quardon7

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am glad for your evident desire to see consistency behind moral judgments, and you make very apt points about how our perspectives influence our moral judgments.  It would be better for some of us to consider that more frequently.  Forgive me if I was too harsh or focused too much on the percieved issue of there being no evil, as you have clarified that you believe there is evil, if only in the realm of humans.  


-------
-Quardon
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 5:10 PM on October 3, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Quardon7 at 12:10 PM on October 3, 2005 :
I am glad for your evident desire to see consistency behind moral judgments, and you make very apt points about how our perspectives influence our moral judgments.  It would be better for some of us to consider that more frequently.  Forgive me if I was too harsh or focused too much on the percieved issue of there being no evil, as you have clarified that you believe there is evil, if only in the realm of humans.  



no need to apologize.  i'm glad you said things the way you did, because i think you made a few things more clear to me.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 12:13 AM on October 4, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just a comment - one could say there really is no fundamental 'rights and wrongs' in this world as what one person may believe to be wrong may be deemed right by another and vice versa. (this may not have any relevance to the majority of the discussion, but reading the last 10 or so posts gave me that thought).
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 03:19 AM on October 4, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from K8 at 10:19 PM on October 3, 2005 :
Just a comment - one could say there really is no fundamental 'rights and wrongs' in this world as what one person may believe to be wrong may be deemed right by another and vice versa. (this may not have any relevance to the majority of the discussion, but reading the last 10 or so posts gave me that thought).

yeah this would be true for individuals (or differing cultures) and/or complex situations, but the majority of the population has a similar view of what is right and what is wrong.  



(Edited by RoyLennigan 10/4/2005 at 4:38 PM).
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 11:30 AM on October 4, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But there are still no fundamental rights and wrongs.
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 01:44 AM on October 5, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from K8 at 8:44 PM on October 4, 2005 :
But there are still no fundamental rights and wrongs.


yep
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 11:48 AM on October 5, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

cool
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 02:52 AM on October 8, 2005 | IP
bluefin

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i really can understand
the child inside has to die without its fault just because its parents made a small mistake of not using contraceptives
taking contraceptives is not a difficult thing to do is it but killing a child....
have a look at this very informative thread that i found at global threads
http://www.globalthreads.com/forum/ShowPost-18658.aspx
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 01:40 AM on November 13, 2005 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.