The ethics of morality

[Filthy_Tugboat]

I’m using the word “choice” as the pro-aborts use it: pro-abortion. Choice, in the greater sense, means what decisions we make. I’m concerned with moral and immoral choices or decisions. Don’t you agree that when you make a bad choice, it affects not only yourself, but others? For example, killing one’s child affects the whole family throughout all generations. That child is lost and so is a great part of the future.

Well, no, none of the future is lost because the abortion occurred and that event led to shape the actual future rather than the abortion not occurring and shaping a potential future. I do agree that such events and decisions do effect others as well as yourself, whether or not it’s for the better is unknown to me and appears to change depending on the situation.

BTW, in my post I made a typo. I meant that the term “fetus” means “little one” NOT a “blob of tissue.” Sorry!

I thought as much. It’s ok anyway, I screw up half the things I write and only realise after I can’t edit.

What is “derogatory” is the rudeness and illiteracy of the pro-aborts who refer to the unborn child as a “fetus” in the derogatory sense, although it is scientifically correct after the embryonic stage.

How is referring to the fetus by the “pro-choice” group derogatory? How do they use it in this manner?

Did you actually click on the link? You’d learn something which would clarify the issue of the evil involved in killing unborn human beings. Aren’t you glad your mom was pro-life?

My mum is pro-choice. I did check out the link, perhaps you could specify exactly what i am looking at…

Oh pleeease! How do you figure an embryo and fetus are not alive. And what is the definition of life in your opinion?

I gave the definition of life earlier but this is the established definition of life.

“Opinion of truth?” Truth is still objective. What is your opinion of it?

Yes, truth is objective but our opinion of what is true is most certainly subjective. Regarding the second question, you may have to specify, that question is way too broad for me to answer in any kind of concise manner.

What if the “majority” announces: Kill the Jews! Or, kill all the disabled and elderly? Or kill all the kindergartners, or teens, or anybody we don’t like?

That’s just it though, if the majority really did want to kill everyone and spare no expense in doing so, they probably would. But they don’t. Society has developed and evolved into the state it is now and it’s development was dependent on the survival of it’s inhabitants. Even when slavery was around a slave’s life still had some value, even if only to work for non-slaves.

Our opinions are subjective ideas about truth.

Correct.

Objective truth was codified by God’s Revelation in the Ten Commandments and further understood in the New Testament as the Law of Love. (“Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God with your whole heart, soul, mind and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself.”) Then there’s the Golden Rule to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I disagree.

But before Revelation, people in early social groups had to come to an understanding of what is objectively moral and immoral, which is the law written into our hearts.

I disagree, we can see that morality has developed throughout history, hell, the idea of equality hasn’t been around that long and slavery used to be massively supported by almost everyone. Morality is still developing.

The use of porn is a disordered act. Because we can make choices regarding morality, of course only humans can degrade themselves. We can choose to reach for sublime heights (as the great saints by imitating their virtues) or lower ourselves into the sewer of filth. A hellish thought!

This seems nothing more than an opinion.

 

[tonyrey]

This seems nothing more than an opinion.

That explains why you ignored my post stating that the addiction to porn is a form of escapism which stems from boredom and dissatisfaction with life as it is - and like any addiction it is slavery to a perverted desire for an artificial and unnatural stimulus…

What isn’t an opinion in **your **opinion?!

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

That explains why you ignored my post stating that the addiction to porn is a form of escapism which stems from boredom and dissatisfaction with life as it is - and like any addiction it is slavery to a perverted desire for an artificial and unnatural stimulus…

I must have missed that post, I apologise but would be more than happy to respond here.

Indeed! The addiction to porn is a form of escapism which stems from boredom and dissatisfaction with life as it is. Like any addiction it is slavery to a perverted desire for an artificial and unnatural stimulus…

I don’t know if escapism is the right way to put it. The addiction to porn is certainly unhealthy as is similar to most addictions many sacrifices are often made in order to satisfy oneself with the addictive “substance”, whether it is “escapism” is unclear to me.

I find the ultimate goal of watching porn is self satisfaction.

What isn’t an opinion in **your **opinion?!

Something that can be reasonably demonstrated is what I would consider more than “just an opinion” and often is considered a “reasonable argument”. I would also like to note, reasonable arguments can still be false but they are often more than “just an opinion”.

 

[4Horsemen]

I have been - in a varied career.

Then I presume, you have both the key of knowledge and the key of wisdom!

 

[tonyrey]

Then I presume, you have both the key of knowledge and the key of wisdom!

The more you know the more you know the less you know! And only a fool thinks he’s wise…

 

[tonyrey]

I must have missed that post, I apologise but would be more than happy to respond here.

No need. I’ve been reminded today I didn’t reply to two posts.

I don’t know if escapism is the right way to put it. The addiction to porn is certainly unhealthy as is similar to most addictions many sacrifices are often made in order to satisfy oneself with the addictive “substance”, whether it is “escapism” is unclear to me.

Porn-viewers usually watch alone - which make it likely to be a substitute for sexual activity.

I find the ultimate goal of watching porn is self satisfaction.

In my previous post I pointed out:

Like any addiction it is slavery to a perverted desire for an artificial and unnatural stimulus…

 

[4Horsemen]

Well, no, none of the future is lost because the abortion occurred and that event led to shape the actual future rather than the abortion not occurring and shaping a potential future. I do agree that such events and decisions do effect others as well as yourself, whether or not it’s for the better is unknown to me and appears to change depending on the situation.

Imagine if you had been aborted. None of those that would come after you would be in the world. The friends and relatives you have now would not have the pleasure of your company. You can think that your being in the world, allowed to be born, has benefited those around you. The same is true for all those conceived. Those in their mothers’ wombs are destined to make a mark in the world, unless their lives are cut short. In they die a natural death, that is within God’s will.

I thought as much. It’s ok anyway, I screw up half the things I write and only realise after I can’t edit.

Thanks for understanding.

How is referring to the fetus by the “pro-choice” group derogatory? How do they use it in this manner?

Being involved in a pro-life organization, I know something about how anti-lifers/pro-aborts think. Just like we use terminology to characterize their false beliefs, they try to mischaracterize true beliefs. The pro-aborts refer to right to life people as “anti-choice” and never unless by accident, refer to the child in the womb as “baby,” “unborn child,” “pre-born baby.” They prefer terminology that isn’t very warm and fuzzy for unborn children.

My mum is pro-choice. I did check out the link, perhaps you could specify exactly what i am looking at…

In order to bring you to birth, your mum was pro-life at the time whether she realizes it or not. I think I gave you the link to abort73.com/. It has medical testimony, prenatal development, abortion pictures, tales of abortion regrets. . . Or try www.priestsforlife.org for information. And you can even do your own Google search!

I gave the definition of life earlier but this is the established definition of life.

I read it, and noticed it applies to human beings in their mothers’ wombs as well as all bilogical life.
Life is a “characteristic that distinguishes objects that hve signaling and self-sustaining processes (i.e. living organisms) from those that do not either because such functions have ceased (death) or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.” If the human being in any stage of development is not dead or inanimate, therefore, it must be alive.

Yes, truth is objective but our opinion of what is true is most certainly subjective. Regarding the second question, you may have to specify, that question is way too broad for me to answer in any kind of concise manner.

Since you admit that truth is objective, consider how and why. Why are we even concerned about truth being objective? Where does it come from? What meaning does it have for us and all people whoever lived? How are we supposed to live our lives in light of it?

All I asked was what is your “opinion” of it (objective truth).

That’s just it though, if the majority really did want to kill everyone and spare no expense in doing so, they probably would. But they don’t. Society has developed and evolved into the state it is now and it’s development was dependent on the survival of it’s inhabitants. Even when slavery was around a slave’s life still had some value, even if only to work for non-slaves.

So you think society is “evolving” socially? One thing I’ll admit is that with the rise of Christianity, many of the old, savage, primitive, cannibalistic, pagan, human-sacrificing religions were won over. (Thanks to Our Lady of Guadelupe who appeared to Juan Diego, an Aztec Indian, to remove the evil of human sacrifice). However, evil seems to pop up unexpectedly. Think: Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin and the various philosophies that arise through the ages to thwart the Christian Way.

I disagree, we can see that morality has developed throughout history, hell, the idea of equality hasn’t been around that long and slavery used to be massively supported by almost everyone. Morality is still developing.

And I will agree that at least the idea of slavery has been added to the dustbin of history, but maybe not all over the world.

Originally Posted by 4Horsemen
The use of porn is a disordered act. Because we can make choices regarding morality, of course only humans can degrade themselves. We can choose to reach for sublime heights (as the great saints by imitating their virtues) or lower ourselves into the sewer of filth. A hellish thought!

This seems nothing more than an opinion.

I thought you were all about opinions. So an opinion of something objectively disordered doesn’t really count for much does it, unless it’s the correct opinion that matches the facts.

 

[4Horsemen]

The more you know the more you know the less you know! And only a fool thinks he’s wise…

“Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, all is vanity. . . And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly; I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit. For in much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.”
(KJV, Chapter 1:2; 1:17-18)

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

No need. I’ve been reminded today I didn’t reply to two posts.

Porn-viewers usually watch alone - which make it likely to be a substitute for sexual activity.

In my previous post I pointed out:

Like any addiction it is slavery to a perverted desire for an artificial and unnatural stimulus…

I think we generally agree on this subject.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

None of those that would come after you would be in the world. The friends and relatives you have now would not have the pleasure of your company. You can think that your being in the world, allowed to be born, has benefited those around you. The same is true for all those conceived. Those in their mothers’ wombs are destined to make a mark in the world, unless their lives are cut short. In they die a natural death, that is within God’s will.

The fact that they were aborted means that they were not ‘destined’ to to anything other than be an aborted fetus. My impact on the world would not exist if I were aborted and whether that would be better or worse, I have no idea.

Being involved in a pro-life organization, I know something about how anti-lifers/pro-aborts think.

I doubt that.

Just like we use terminology to characterize their false beliefs, they try to mischaracterize true beliefs.

Your opinion of false and true beliefs*.

The pro-aborts refer to right to life people as “anti-choice” and never unless by accident, refer to the child in the womb as “baby,” “unborn child,” “pre-born baby.” They prefer terminology that isn’t very warm and fuzzy for unborn children.

Are you suggesting that your position on the matter is not “anti-choice” which would render it as “pro-choice”. The reason the pro-choice is called that is because it is supporting women’s right to choose, they don’t want every baby to be aborted, that’s why your characterization of “pro-aborts” is false.

In order to bring you to birth, your mum was pro-life at the time whether she realizes it or not.

Using this terminology in this manner is deceitful, I don’t know why you are doing it but it would be much better for the discussion if you stopped. Pro-choice means that she supports women having the right to choose whether they want to abort or not.

I think I gave you the link to abort73.com/. It has medical testimony, prenatal development, abortion pictures, tales of abortion regrets. . . Or try www.priestsforlife.org for information. And you can even do your own Google search!

I don’t need to, I know plenty about this topic.

I read it, and noticed it applies to human beings in their mothers’ wombs as well as all bilogical life.

No, here is the definition I tried to link you to but it didn’t do it properly:
wiki:

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive, where life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena:[14][16]

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.

Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.

Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.

Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism’s heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.

Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.

Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.

A fetus is incapable of most of these.

Since you admit that truth is objective, consider how and why. Why are we even concerned about truth being objective? Where does it come from? What meaning does it have for us and all people whoever lived? How are we supposed to live our lives in light of it?

Truth is a property of existence.

All I asked was what is your “opinion” of it (objective truth).

I don’t know. The only thing that I can guarantee to be true is that I exist and I have consciousness.

So you think society is “evolving” socially? One thing I’ll admit is that with the rise of Christianity, many of the old, savage, primitive, cannibalistic, pagan, human-sacrificing religions were won over. (Thanks to Our Lady of Guadelupe who appeared to Juan Diego, an Aztec Indian, to remove the evil of human sacrifice). However, evil seems to pop up unexpectedly. Think: Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin and the various philosophies that arise through the ages to thwart the Christian Way.

It’s sad that those evils used Christianity to accomplish genocide. Stalin and Hitler being the most obvious. It seems less like they want to “thwart the Christian way” and more like they want to use any means possible to accomplish their goals.

I thought you were all about opinions. So an opinion of something objectively disordered doesn’t really count for much does it, unless it’s the correct opinion that matches the facts.

How is it objectively disordered?

 

[4Horsemen]

The fact that they were aborted means that they were not ‘destined’ to to anything other than be an aborted fetus. My impact on the world would not exist if I were aborted and whether that would be better or worse, I have no idea.

The fact that you and every child in the womb existed (though dependent on its mother) is proof of his/her destiny to be born and live life to the fullest. God doesn’t predestine (foreordain, predetermine) a person’s choices though. Thank God you weren’t aborted.

Are you suggesting that your position on the matter is not “anti-choice” which would render it as “pro-choice”. The reason the pro-choice is called that is because it is supporting women’s right to choose, they don’t want every baby to be aborted, that’s why your characterization of “pro-aborts” is false.

“Choice” has become a misnomer. When you think of the term “pro-choice”, it means to choose something. The pro-aborts choose death. So they are also “pro-death.”

BTW, I’m pro-choice about breakfast cereals and other things as well. A useful word has been co-opted just like the word “gay.”

Using this terminology in this manner is deceitful, I don’t know why you are doing it but it would be much better for the discussion if you stopped. Pro-choice means that she supports women having the right to choose whether they want to abort or not.

It’s deceitful of the abortion side all right! They have a very limited view as in tunnel vision. What would be helpful is seeing a sonogram of an unborn child. Over 90% of women who see their baby on the screen choose life. Support life!

I don’t need to, I know plenty about this topic.

Give life a chance.

The unborn are included in the human family in spite of physiological dependence on his/her mother and are separate individuals with their own blood type and DNA. Think of it this way. We are all dependent to some extent on someone as part of living. We are all challlenged in one way or another. I can’t play basketball because I’m not tall enough.

Life is a continuum from the womb to the tomb, so to speak. All human beings are somewhere on this continuum. When we are very young and very old we are still human beings even if we become more and more dependent.

A fetus is incapable of most of these.

A newborn and a toddler are dependent. So is a teen. Which requirements on the Wiki definition doesn’t a child in the womb fit. Explain how the “fetus” is incapable, as you say, of most of these. Take “Response to stimulii,” for example. It is well-known that the unborn baby moves away from a needle or knife, just like a little bug retracts from an instrument of death. See the video: The Silent Scream.

Truth is a property of existence.

Why? Isn’t there a reason for everything?

I don’t know. The only thing that I can guarantee to be true is that I exist and I have consciousness.

That’s a start. Can you consider that other people may exist, as well, and have consciousness too?

It’s sad that those evils used Christianity to accomplish genocide. Stalin and Hitler being the most obvious. It seems less like they want to “thwart the Christian way” and more like they want to use any means possible to accomplish their goals.

Good observation! Throughout history evil people used religion to effect their evil intentions. However, there were times when some evil people wanted to wipe out Christians and Jews. The Israelites had a long history of trying to maintain their lives and their faith. Today, radical Islamists like Hamas and other groups want to rid the world of both Jews and Christians.

How is it objectively disordered?

Porn can lead to acts that are sins against nature and nature’s God, and, in itself, stems from disordered passions.

 

[Sair]

The OP asked for objective, ethical reasons why abortion, casual sex and porn are immoral. Isn’t it enough to say they undermine society by harming “the other” as well as “the self?” Abortion kills a human being and deadens the soul; casual sex belittles the sacredness of marriage and is often cause for divorce harming the children; porn robs an individual of his integrity and others (women and children) of their humanity.

I don’t think morality can be objective in the sense of being independent of a sentient mind. Law can be, once it’s laid down, but not morality. Morality, so far as I understand it, depends upon the ability of sentient beings to relate to each other, something that requires us to have feelings, to have imagination and to be able to internalise the feelings of others such that we may put ourselves in their position and consider how certain actions might affect them.

In that sense, I think the objective reasons the OP was requiring were either reasons that hold for all sentient beings, or reasons that exist independently of sentient beings. As regards morality, I don’t think there are any of the latter - the morality of any action is judged according to its fundamental effects upon sentient beings.

With that in mind, I would venture to address the issue of abortion, in particular. Abortion is an issue fraught with difficulty, primarily because there is conflict between those who consider a human life valuable in and of itself, regardless of sentience, and those who consider that only the interests of sentient beings matter. Those in the latter camp will tend to value the interests of the mother above those of the foetus, certainly up until about the halfway point of pregnancy - and quite possibly also the life experience the foetus is likely to have, when considering those who abort because the foetus is gravely ill or malformed.

Those in the former camp tend to prefer an approach that treats human life as sacred from the moment of conception, specifically because it’s human life. I would suggest that the former are more legalistic in their approach, the latter more moralistic. The objective fact, looking in from the outside, is that the majority of aborted human foetuses suffer far less (if they even suffer at all) than factory-farmed chickens, pigs and sundry other sentient animals that are exploited for the sake of human consumerism - yet the outcry against factory farming is often far less vociferous than the outcry against abortion. I would suggest that legalism, rather than morality, is at work here.

I should probably follow this up with observations on pornography and casual sex, but it’s late in my part of the world, so I’ll need time to sleep and collect my thoughts…

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

The fact that you and every child in the womb existed (though dependent on its mother) is proof of his/her destiny to be born and live life to the fullest.

Not really as destiny implies an exact ad unchanging “plan” or “sequence of events”. A fetus that is aborted was always going to be aborted in the same sense that they were always going to be conceived. The universe is deterministic, it follows a causal chain.

God doesn’t predestine (foreordain, predetermine) a person’s choices though. Thank God you weren’t aborted.

I have doubts about every aspect of this “God” you mention, even your concept of predestination.

“Choice” has become a misnomer. When you think of the term “pro-choice”, it means to choose something. The pro-aborts choose death. So they are also “pro-death.”

This only shows ignorance on your part regarding the stance of people who support giving women the right to choose to abort.

It’s deceitful of the abortion side all right!

How?

They have a very limited view as in tunnel vision.

Could you support this claim?

Give life a chance.

I was under the impression that I am giving life a chance.

The unborn are included in the human family in spite of physiological dependence on his/her mother and are separate individuals with their own blood type and DNA. Think of it this way. We are all dependent to some extent on someone as part of living. We are all challlenged in one way or another. I can’t play basketball because I’m not tall enough.

Life is a continuum from the womb to the tomb, so to speak. All human beings are somewhere on this continuum. When we are very young and very old we are still human beings even if we become more and more dependent.

Indeed, this does not however mean a fetus is “alive”.

A newborn and a toddler are dependent. So is a teen. Which requirements on the Wiki definition doesn’t a child in the womb fit. Explain how the “fetus” is incapable, as you say, of most of these. Take “Response to stimulii,” for example. It is well-known that the unborn baby moves away from a needle or knife, just like a little bug retracts from an instrument of death. See the video: The Silent Scream.

Homeostasis, controlled by the mother.

Metabolism: controlled by the mother.

Adaptation: The fetus does not change or adapt in response to the environment, it simply keeps growing.

Why?

Truth describes things that are, it accompanies existence and events.

Isn’t there a reason for everything?

Depends on how you’re using the term reason.

That’s a start. Can you consider that other people may exist, as well, and have consciousness too?

I can and do consider this but I am well aware that it is based on the assumptions that my senses are accurate.

Porn can lead to acts that are sins against nature and nature’s God, and, in itself, stems from disordered passions.

Your concepts of God and disordered passion have nothing to with whether there is anything objectively right or wrong with porn.

 

[Sair]

There’s sometimes a very fine line between pornography and what might more appropriately be called erotica or erotic art. The term ‘pornography’ itself implies that there is some kind of objectification and even exploitation going on, whilst ‘erotica’ doesn’t generally carry those implications. However, the appellation of each term seems to vary between individuals - one person’s pornography might be another’s tastefully artistic nude.

I don’t see that there is anything inherently wrong with appreciating the naked human form, or even depicting sex acts in any given medium, but there is, on the other hand, a problem when the means used to do such things are abusive or exploitative - if the participants are coerced or deceived into displaying themselves, and treated as objects or commodities rather than persons, then I think we are dealing with unethical actions.

Of course, there are some who would say that one can’t appreciate nudity or become aroused by watching sexual acts without objectifying the persons involved, but this seems to me to be an undue compartmentalising of human emotions - it’s quite possible to respect a person as an individual and find them arousing at the same time. Sometimes these two things are interdependent.

Based on my admittedly very limited experience, a lot of the pornographic material peddled online and in video stores is far from being anything that could properly be called erotic art, however. The words cheap, tawdry and tasteless tend to spring readily to mind in this association, and overall, I find this kind of thing profoundly uninteresting. This is my own subjective response, of course, and it doesn’t necessarily follow that there was exploitation or abuse involved in the creation of such material, but I would find it quite eccentric to refer to most commercial pornography as in any way artistic. Then again, a lack of artistic merit doesn’t, in itself, make something unethical.

 

[4Horsemen]

I don’t think morality can be objective in the sense of being independent of a sentient mind. Law can be, once it’s laid down, but not morality. Morality, so far as I understand it, depends upon the ability of sentient beings to relate to each other, something that requires us to have feelings, to have imagination and to be able to internalise the feelings of others such that we may put ourselves in their position and consider how certain actions might affect them.

Well, we need our “sentient” minds to reason that which is good or bad for us. Much of law is based on objective morality. Some moral issues can’t be legislated. Fornication and masturbatioon come to mind. That seems obvious. In so far as morality is dependent upon sentient beings relating to one another, I agree that most law is inspired by the Commandment to love our neighbor, including the least, which nowadays are the unborn.

Abortion desensitizes people to the plight of their fellow humans and dehumanizes all who susbmit to its lies.

In that sense, I think the objective reasons the OP was requiring were either reasons that hold for all sentient beings, or reasons that exist independently of sentient beings. As regards morality, I don’t think there are any of the latter - the morality of any action is judged according to its fundamental effects upon sentient beings.

The moral law holds for all human beings and exists independently as God’s frame of reference for living our lives. Laws (both moral and civil) are meant to protect ourselves from others with evil intentions. You seem to agree with that aspect.

With that in mind, I would venture to address the issue of abortion, in particular. Abortion is an issue fraught with difficulty, primarily because there is conflict between those who consider a human life valuable in and of itself, regardless of sentience, and those who consider that only the interests of sentient beings matter. Those in the latter camp will tend to value the interests of the mother above those of the foetus, certainly up until about the halfway point of pregnancy - and quite possibly also the life experience the foetus is likely to have, when considering those who abort because the foetus is gravely ill or malformed.

Before 1973, when Roe vs. Wade was imposed upon the public by the Supreme Court, even the feminists of the time were against abortion, including Margaret Sanger, who wrote in the December 1918 issue of The Birth Control Review: ". . . I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization . . ."

Those in the former camp tend to prefer an approach that treats human life as sacred from the moment of conception, specifically because it’s human life. I would suggest that the former are more legalistic in their approach, the latter more moralistic. The objective fact, looking in from the outside, is that the majority of aborted human foetuses suffer far less (if they even suffer at all) than factory-farmed chickens, pigs and sundry other sentient animals that are exploited for the sake of human consumerism - yet the outcry against factory farming is often far less vociferous than the outcry against abortion. I would suggest that legalism, rather than morality, is at work here.
.

There is evidence of fetal pain. One state even ended funding to Planned Parenthood on the grounds that unborn children suffer when they are cut into pieces. Doctors testified to this. Abortionist Lisa Harris wrote an article for Reproductive Health Matters that describes the heart-wrenching details of an abortion she committed against an innocent 23week-old child in the womb. I won’t detail the gore, but she makes this brazen admission:
"Of course, acknowledging the violence of abortion risks admitting that the stereotypes that anti-abortion forces hold of us are true – that we are butchers."

 

[4Horsemen]

Not really as destiny implies an exact ad unchanging “plan” or “sequence of events”. A fetus that is aborted was always going to be aborted in the same sense that they were always going to be conceived. The universe is deterministic, it follows a causal chain.

Many abortive mothers who enter the abortion mill come out changing their minds after a sidewalk counsellor talked to them and gave them literature. I suppose you’ll say that it was destined for them to be born. Not if the sidewalk counsellor were not there.

I have doubts about every aspect of this “God” you mention, even your concept of predestination.

So you think that every move you make is not done with your own free will?

This only shows ignorance on your part regarding the stance of people who support giving women the right to choose to abort.

“Right to choose” what? To have their own flesh and blood mercilessly killed. That’s what abortion does. At the Senate hearings on partial-birth abortion, abortionist testified how they twisted the legs and used forcepts to squeeze the head, etc. . . and, of course, the knife to chop off lega and arms. Abortionist Haskell even put babies in jars (why? trophies?), and nurses said he let some be born first before killing them. What difference does it make whether a baby is killed in the womb or a minute later after taking his/her first breath?

I was under the impression that I am giving life a chance.

How do YOU support this claim?

Indeed, this does not however mean a fetus is “alive”.

As discussed before, if it’s not alive, it’s either dead or inanimate.

Homeostasis, controlled by the mother.

Metabolism: controlled by the mother.

Adaptation: The fetus does not change or adapt in response to the environment, it simply keeps growing.

At one time or another, all of us are dependent on something. You were dependent on your mum. People who’ve been in car accidents are often dependent on ventilators and feeding tubes for a time. Some disabled and elderly too. So how do you feel about euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide?

I can and do consider this but I am well aware that it is based on the assumptions that my senses are accurate.

Your senses may be accurate in their perception, but your reason could be faulty. You might see a shadow on a wall like in Plato’s cave and think that is reality. That’s what I mean by tunnel-vision.

Your concepts of God and disordered passion have nothing to with whether there is anything objectively right or wrong with porn.

It has everything to do with it.

 

[4Horsemen]

There’s sometimes a very fine line between pornography and what might more appropriately be called erotica or erotic art. The term ‘pornography’ itself implies that there is some kind of objectification and even exploitation going on, whilst ‘erotica’ doesn’t generally carry those implications. However, the appellation of each term seems to vary between individuals - one person’s pornography might be another’s tastefully artistic nude.

I don’t see that there is anything inherently wrong with appreciating the naked human form, or even depicting sex acts in any given medium, but there is, on the other hand, a problem when the means used to do such things are abusive or exploitative - if the participants are coerced or deceived into displaying themselves, and treated as objects or commodities rather than persons, then I think we are dealing with unethical actions.

Of course, there are some who would say that one can’t appreciate nudity or become aroused by watching sexual acts without objectifying the persons involved, but this seems to me to be an undue compartmentalising of human emotions - it’s quite possible to respect a person as an individual and find them arousing at the same time. Sometimes these two things are interdependent.

Based on my admittedly very limited experience, a lot of the pornographic material peddled online and in video stores is far from being anything that could properly be called erotic art, however. The words cheap, tawdry and tasteless tend to spring readily to mind in this association, and overall, I find this kind of thing profoundly uninteresting. This is my own subjective response, of course, and it doesn’t necessarily follow that there was exploitation or abuse involved in the creation of such material, but I would find it quite eccentric to refer to most commercial pornography as in any way artistic. Then again, a lack of artistic merit doesn’t, in itself, make something unethical.

If the art is meant to titilate, then it’s porn.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Many abortive mothers who enter the abortion mill come out changing their minds after a sidewalk counsellor talked to them and gave them literature. I suppose you’ll say that it was destined for them to be born. Not if the sidewalk counsellor were not there.

Yes, if you accept the concept of destiny and determinism then the counselor was always going to be there due to his own convictions that are a result of previous occurrences in his life. The problem with the position that the universe is not deterministic means that events can occur that have no relation to past events. Like deciding for absolutely no reason whatsoever that you should start collecting stamps, not because you like them or have any motive to do so, just because.

So you think that every move you make is not done with your own free will?

Define how you’re using freewill. As far as I’m aware, what and who I am is the result of the past, what has happened to me and those before me including my genetic structure are determined by events such as conception, how I was raised, whether I had parents or not. There are a multitude of causes for behavior and everything that relates to a person and I’m yet to see one cause that is not determined by previous causes. Most people that support the Cosmological argument agree that the universe is deterministic.

“Right to choose” what? To have their own flesh and blood mercilessly killed. That’s what abortion does.

So you’ve ignored previous discussion about why abortion is not “killing”.

At the Senate hearings on partial-birth abortion, abortionist testified how they twisted the legs and used forcepts to squeeze the head, etc. . . and, of course, the knife to chop off lega and arms. Abortionist Haskell even put babies in jars (why? trophies?), and nurses said he let some be born first before killing them. What difference does it make whether a baby is killed in the womb or a minute later after taking his/her first breath?

These methods I disagree with, I wouldn’t recommend aborting after the first trimester.

How do YOU support this claim?

Should I have to? I’m telling you right now, I enjoy life and encourage the act of bringing life into this world. It is not my place to tell others if they should or shouldn’t but I personally recommend having children to committed couples.

As discussed before, if it’s not alive, it’s either dead or inanimate.

Indeed and a fetus is apart of the mother, it’s life is not individual nor recognized as a separate form of life as it cannot control most of the functions that life is determined by, the mother has to do that for the fetus.

At one time or another, all of us are dependent on something. You were dependent on your mum. People who’ve been in car accidents are often dependent on ventilators and feeding tubes for a time.

Indeed but the requirements for something to be considered alive are not met by a fetus.

Some disabled and elderly too. So how do you feel about euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide?

I agree that people should have the right to choose but if it were legalized it would have to be heavily restricted so as to ensure people going through bouts of depression did not abuse it. There are many other concerns with it’s legalization but I respect someones right to choose death.

Your senses may be accurate in their perception, but your reason could be faulty. You might see a shadow on a wall like in Plato’s cave and think that is reality. That’s what I mean by tunnel-vision.

Indeed, as could yours.

It has everything to do with it.

According to you and your subjective opinions on God and morality. I mentioned objective for a reason.

 

[samiam1611]

…preborn babies being labeled derogatorily as fetuses (which really means “little one” in Latin) [not] “blobs of tissue.”

Um, those are the scientific/medical, not to mention commonly used terms. Why would little one be derogatory? They are little.

The pro-aborts refer to right to life people as “anti-choice” and never unless by accident, refer to the child in the womb as “baby,” “unborn child,” “pre-born baby.” They prefer terminology that isn’t very warm and fuzzy for unborn children.

True, I do not call an embryo or fetus a child. I see them as a potential human being. I have no problem with it being removed if that’s what someone wants to do. However, I think I use the word baby sometimes when referring to the potential human being present in the womb of a woman.
What’s so bad about terminology that is not warm and fuzzy? They remind me of aliens. And they’re covered in icky stuff when they come out. Gross.
What’s so wrong about calling a pro-life person anti-choice? I mean they suggest the choices of raise it yourself and giving it up for adoption, but they are purposely rejecting another choice available - to end the pregnancy. Anti-choice seems like an accurate term to use, although I would not use it myself, bc it’s not like anyone (in countries where abortion is legal) can really stop the woman from getting an abortion. They can just dissuade her. They can’t literally take away the choice.

Sorry for not actually addressing the point of this thread, objectivity etc. Just felt like responding to these couple of statements.

 

[Sair]

If the art is meant to titilate, then it’s porn.

That would considerably expand the range of material classified as pornography.

In regard to abortion, a couple of things struck me about your response. You mentioned Margaret Sanger’s views on abortion, without, I note, adding that she was a major advocate of birth control. Of course avoidance of unwanted pregnancy is always to be preferred to abortion. But it’s a telling detail that so many anti-abortion folks are also against the use of birth control - one suspects their goal is not to reduce the numbers of abortions, but to restrict bodily and sexual autonomy, particularly for women.

Secondly, the majority of abortions, by a long stretch, are performed during the first trimester of pregnancy, before foetal development has progressed to the point that it would be capable of experiencing pain. This, of course, makes no difference to those who see it as an issue of the sanctity of (specifically human) life, but is an important factor for anyone who sees sentience as a key criterion for moral consideration.