Quote: (08-05-2015 12:15 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:14 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:12 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:10 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Quote: (08-05-2015 11:39 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Bullshit, it's actually very logical. If you think murder is wrong then abortion is wrong because it violates the life of another being.

Murder can be wrong, but it can also be excusable in certain circumstances: self-defence, for one, whether in defence of one's own life or in defence of another. However for that we need to clarify the term: are you talking about murder as defined by law, or murder as defined morally?

I'm speaking morally. And yes, I should have included the word "innocent." Abortion is wrong because it violates the life of another innocent being.

I edited after you posted, sorry ... but the question remains. If it's violation of the life of an innocent being, what intrinsically makes going out to pick up a few herring on the bay any less reprehensible than abortion?

Only humans have rights.

On what intrinsic rationale does that proposition rest? Can something not be murdered if it does not have a right? Were someone to shoot the last lion, would that still not be murder and not be reprehensible on a scale akin to abortion?

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:18 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:15 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:14 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:12 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:10 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Murder can be wrong, but it can also be excusable in certain circumstances: self-defence, for one, whether in defence of one's own life or in defence of another. However for that we need to clarify the term: are you talking about murder as defined by law, or murder as defined morally?

I'm speaking morally. And yes, I should have included the word "innocent." Abortion is wrong because it violates the life of another innocent being.

I edited after you posted, sorry ... but the question remains. If it's violation of the life of an innocent being, what intrinsically makes going out to pick up a few herring on the bay any less reprehensible than abortion?

Only humans have rights.

On what intrinsic rationale does that proposition rest?

Animals have no reason or soul. Not only that, but they cannot give humans rights so there is no reason to give them rights as humans.

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:21 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:18 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:15 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:14 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:12 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I'm speaking morally. And yes, I should have included the word "innocent." Abortion is wrong because it violates the life of another innocent being.

I edited after you posted, sorry ... but the question remains. If it's violation of the life of an innocent being, what intrinsically makes going out to pick up a few herring on the bay any less reprehensible than abortion?

Only humans have rights.

On what intrinsic rationale does that proposition rest?

Animals have no reason or soul. Not only that, but they cannot give humans rights so there is no reason to give them rights as humans.

Show me that part of the human wherein the soul rests, and then you can conclusively say that an animal does not have one. And animals are capable of reason given they are capable of understanding cause and effect. What do you define as reason?

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:23 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:21 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:18 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:15 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:14 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

I edited after you posted, sorry ... but the question remains. If it's violation of the life of an innocent being, what intrinsically makes going out to pick up a few herring on the bay any less reprehensible than abortion?

Only humans have rights.

On what intrinsic rationale does that proposition rest?

Animals have no reason or soul. Not only that, but they cannot give humans rights so there is no reason to give them rights as humans.

Show me that part of the human wherein the soul rests, and then you can conclusively say that an animal does not have one. And animals are capable of reason given they are capable of understanding cause and effect. What do you define as reason?

Reason is the ability for abstract thought and imagination. Animals have never been shown to have either. Cause and effect is but one part of reason.

The soul exists outside of the observable world but is inextricably linked to the material world. We haven't developed any way to measure or see it yet. Doesn't mean it's not there. Likewise, I know I am a conscious being, but I could never show you where my consciousness exists.

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:39 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:23 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:21 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:18 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:15 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Only humans have rights.

On what intrinsic rationale does that proposition rest?

Animals have no reason or soul. Not only that, but they cannot give humans rights so there is no reason to give them rights as humans.

Show me that part of the human wherein the soul rests, and then you can conclusively say that an animal does not have one. And animals are capable of reason given they are capable of understanding cause and effect. What do you define as reason?

Reason is the ability for abstract thought and imagination. Animals have never been shown to have either. Cause and effect is but one part of reason.

The soul exists outside of the observable world but is inextricably linked to the material world. We haven't developed any way to measure or see it yet. Doesn't mean it's not there. Likewise, I know I am a conscious being, but I could never show you where my consciousness exists.

That being so, I don't think we can profitably discuss the subject of logic as it relates to abortion any further, because the premises upon which the arguments are based are not capable of resolution purely by logical debate.

I should underline I am not disagreeing with you: abortion is intrinsically wrong, but I think it can be established so on more bases than logic alone. I was only trying to illustrate that.

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:44 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:39 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:23 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:21 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:18 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

On what intrinsic rationale does that proposition rest?

Animals have no reason or soul. Not only that, but they cannot give humans rights so there is no reason to give them rights as humans.

Show me that part of the human wherein the soul rests, and then you can conclusively say that an animal does not have one. And animals are capable of reason given they are capable of understanding cause and effect. What do you define as reason?

Reason is the ability for abstract thought and imagination. Animals have never been shown to have either. Cause and effect is but one part of reason.

The soul exists outside of the observable world but is inextricably linked to the material world. We haven't developed any way to measure or see it yet. Doesn't mean it's not there. Likewise, I know I am a conscious being, but I could never show you where my consciousness exists.

That being so, I don't think we can profitably discuss the subject of logic as it relates to abortion any further, because the premises upon which the arguments are based are not capable of resolution purely by logical debate.

I should underline I am not disagreeing with you: abortion is intrinsically wrong, but I think it can be established so on more bases than logic alone. I was only trying to illustrate that.

First of all, logic by itself cannot establish anything. ALL arguments start with assumptions which cannot be proven. That is the jist of Aristotle's "First Principles" discourse. Therefore it is a moot point to say abortion is evil cannot be established on mere logic.

Likewise, just because something is not logical does not mean it cannot be reasonable or true. Again, logic is but a tool but reason can identify things without using logic, and we do it all the time.

For example, when you move your body 'you' 'know' you are the one who moved your body, but how can you logically prove it was really 'you' and that you actually 'know' you moved your body? Both 'you' and 'know' are premises you've identified without being able to prove yet are obviously true.

Likewise, human life is sacred compared to any other form of life; the life begins in the womb; these are all easily identifiable and therefore logically it is murder to kill the unborn.

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:39 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Reason is the ability for abstract thought and imagination. Animals have never been shown to have either. Cause and effect is but one part of reason.

The soul exists outside of the observable world but is inextricably linked to the material world. We haven't developed any way to measure or see it yet. Doesn't mean it's not there. Likewise, I know I am a conscious being, but I could never show you where my consciousness exists.

Yes, they have. Some animals are capable of using language, creating and using tools, among other abilities. On humans this ability is far, far, superior, but one thing doesn't take away the other.

For example, all great apes can laugh, grieve, have emotions, develop strong family bonds, make and use tools, and think about the past and future. A famous gorilla named Koko learned to communicate with humans using sign language and even kept cats as pets, which she gave names to. Coming up with those names would require imagination.

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:39 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

First of all, logic by itself cannot establish anything. ALL arguments start with assumptions which cannot be proven. That is the jist of Aristotle's "First Principles" discourse. Therefore it is a moot point to say abortion is evil cannot be established on mere logic.

Likewise, just because something is not logical does not mean it cannot be reasonable or true. Again, logic is but a tool but reason can identify things without using logic, and we do it all the time.

For example, when you move your body 'you' 'know' you are the one who moved your body, but how can you logically prove it was really 'you' and that you actually 'know' you moved your body? Both 'you' and 'know' are premises you've identified without being able to prove yet are obviously true.


Likewise, human life is sacred compared to any other form of life; the life begins in the womb; these are all easily identifiable and therefore logically it is murder to kill the unborn.

"Sacred" on what grounds? All mammals have a similar reproductive system to humans, it's not exactly commendable or morally outstanding to reproduce when this ability is shared by all living organisms.

Quote: (08-05-2015 02:03 PM)Killer Joe Wrote:  

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:39 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Reason is the ability for abstract thought and imagination. Animals have never been shown to have either. Cause and effect is but one part of reason.

The soul exists outside of the observable world but is inextricably linked to the material world. We haven't developed any way to measure or see it yet. Doesn't mean it's not there. Likewise, I know I am a conscious being, but I could never show you where my consciousness exists.

Yes, they have. Some animals are capable of using language, creating and using tools, among other abilities. On humans this ability is far, far, superior, but one thing doesn't take away the other.

For example, all great apes can laugh, grieve, have emotions, develop strong family bonds, make and use tools, and think about the past and future. A famous gorilla named Koko learned to communicate with humans using sign language and even kept cats as pets, which she gave names to. Coming up with those names would require imagination.

To the extent that one remarkable ape was able to cross out of the animal threshold into more human like areas says nothing about the entire species. Fact is, 99.9% of those apes cannot be like Koko.

Quote:Quote:

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:39 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

First of all, logic by itself cannot establish anything. ALL arguments start with assumptions which cannot be proven. That is the jist of Aristotle's "First Principles" discourse. Therefore it is a moot point to say abortion is evil cannot be established on mere logic.

Likewise, just because something is not logical does not mean it cannot be reasonable or true. Again, logic is but a tool but reason can identify things without using logic, and we do it all the time.

For example, when you move your body 'you' 'know' you are the one who moved your body, but how can you logically prove it was really 'you' and that you actually 'know' you moved your body? Both 'you' and 'know' are premises you've identified without being able to prove yet are obviously true.


Likewise, human life is sacred compared to any other form of life; the life begins in the womb; these are all easily identifiable and therefore logically it is murder to kill the unborn.

"Sacred" on what grounds? All mammals have a similar reproductive system to humans, it's not exactly commendable or morally outstanding to reproduce when this ability is shared by all living organisms.

Sacred because it has the capacity for abstract thought and imagination.

Quote: (08-05-2015 12:18 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

On what intrinsic rationale does that proposition rest? Can something not be murdered if it does not have a right? Were someone to shoot the last lion, would that still not be murder and not be reprehensible on a scale akin to abortion?

Only human's have rights, because the purpose of rights is social cooperation. Humans are endowed with rights by reason of their humanity; that is because to function as a social species, we must assume that all humans are capable of cooperation. I.e. "to peacefully coexist".

It is for this reason that we often later withdraw rights from people due to refusal to cooperate socially (e.g. crime and war). We do kill people in severe cases of social noncooperation (e.g. serial killers). However the unborn baby is the most pure of innocence, since it is impossible for it to have done any wrong.
It is impossible to achieve social cooperation with animals. For this reason they are merely material to be shaped at will by our hands, the same as plants and earth.

Murder refers to the crime of killing another human person with malice aforethought. Slaughter is the correct term for killing an animal with malice aforethought. Words have specific meanings for a purpose.

Is it morally right to bring a child into existence without their consent knowing that they will inevitably endure suffering during their life?

Tiger: It would depend on what kind of suffering you're talking about.

Quote: (08-05-2015 04:42 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Tiger: It would depend on what kind of suffering you're talking about.

Any kind. Everyone loses family members, has health issues to some extent, cancer strikes, unemployment, hunger etc. Not to mention the financial burden of bringing up a child in today's world. You yourself have written extensively on the economic situation and how it's only going to get worse, so why bring more people into it then? Is that not morally wrong?

Your reasoning is "human life is sacred" and that overrules any other considerations. I say bullshit.

On another note, reproduction is a biological process and is not "moral" in and of itself, regardless of whether or not God, aliens, or evolution started life on earth.

First of all, it is impossible to know the future so saying we shouldn't have children because of some hypothetical event isn't a valid argument.

But, even assuming we can know or highly suspect if an event will happen, such as the collapse of America or major wars (which have happened every century for the last 20 centuries of recorded history), it still doesn't follow you shouldn't have children to avoid this suffering because:

a.) Avoiding suffering isn't the ultimate purpose of life, and some suffering is good and helps people become stronger.

b.) Your kids may be the winners of such a conflict and then will be in a much better position afterwards to carry the family bloodline.


Now, if we're talking about health issues a child may be born with, then I would say it depends on what extent the of the problem is. Down syndrome? I would abort. A cleft ear or eye problem? Easily fixable with surgery. If a problem can be fixed then the suffering is worth it but if it's not fixable it shouldn't be brought into the world. In general the impetus is to bring life in unless there are extraordinary circumstances.

Reproduction is indeed a moral question and the fact that civilizations based around strict guidelines for reproduction have lasted the longest and become the most powerful is proof positive that it is a moral question to be taken seriously. Good morals lead to strong societies; the entire point of a moral calculus is to create the best possible world for everyone (but not in a reductionistic utilitarian sense of just pleasure).

Just to be particularly pedantic: both humans and animals have souls.

HOWEVER, there's an important difference. Humans, unlike anything else, have rational souls. Animals have what is called the sensitive soul, and plants technically have something called the nutritive soul. Yet, the sensitive soul and nutritive soul do not survive death. The rational soul does.

Quote: (08-05-2015 05:17 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Reproduction is indeed a moral question and the fact that civilizations based around strict guidelines for reproduction have lasted the longest and become the most powerful is proof positive that it is a moral question to be taken seriously. Good morals lead to strong societies; the entire point of a moral calculus is to create the best possible world for everyone (but not in a reductionistic utilitarian sense of just pleasure).

Following your logic then, has Western civilization, arguably the greatest to ever exist, always had "strict guidelines" for reproduction? I'm genuinely curious because you're more knowledgeable on this than I am. If that is the case, that Western European society values reproduction, then why are Western countries falling so far behind on birthrates and still doing exceptionally well? I suspect it may have to do with the unique nature and creativity of this particular civilization and not much to do with its stance regarding reproduction.

Quote: (08-05-2015 05:36 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

Quote: (08-05-2015 05:17 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Reproduction is indeed a moral question and the fact that civilizations based around strict guidelines for reproduction have lasted the longest and become the most powerful is proof positive that it is a moral question to be taken seriously. Good morals lead to strong societies; the entire point of a moral calculus is to create the best possible world for everyone (but not in a reductionistic utilitarian sense of just pleasure).

Following your logic then, has Western civilization, arguably the greatest to ever exist, always had "strict guidelines" for reproduction? I'm genuinely curious because you're more knowledgeable on this than I am. If that is the case, that Western European society values reproduction, then why are Western countries falling so far behind on birthrates and still doing exceptionally well? I suspect it may have to do with the unique nature and creativity of this particular civilization and not much to do with its stance regarding reproduction.

I suspect you two are talking past each other at this point. Aside from samseau's definition of a 'good' or 'strong' society as not being defined in a reductionist utilitarian sense of just pleasure, neither of you have defined what a good and/or strong society is and what hallmarks it would have. Indeed 'doing exceptionally well' is not really well defined either. Respectfully, until you both define your terms better, you're both committing category errors.

Quote: (08-05-2015 04:33 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

Is it morally right to bring a child into existence without their consent knowing that they will inevitably endure suffering during their life?

Good question. Regardless of her hamstering, a woman makes this potential choice when she has sex. That is after all, the purpose of her desire to have sex. I suppose they balance the expected suffering of the child with their own suffering from not having one. 'Life must go on' after all, even if it isn't all peaches and cream.

However this doesn't affect the abortion debate. If hardship justified killing offspring (like with some kinds of wild animals) the 'fourth trimester abortion' and 'extra late term abortion' wouldn't be jokes.

Quote: (08-05-2015 05:36 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

Quote: (08-05-2015 05:17 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Reproduction is indeed a moral question and the fact that civilizations based around strict guidelines for reproduction have lasted the longest and become the most powerful is proof positive that it is a moral question to be taken seriously. Good morals lead to strong societies; the entire point of a moral calculus is to create the best possible world for everyone (but not in a reductionistic utilitarian sense of just pleasure).

Following your logic then, has Western civilization, arguably the greatest to ever exist, always had "strict guidelines" for reproduction?

During times of growth and accomplishment, yes. But in the run up to the Dark Ages there was widespread decadence of the Romans that lead to utter collapse of civilization in Western Europe.

Quote:Quote:

I'm genuinely curious because you're more knowledgeable on this than I am. If that is the case, that Western European society values reproduction, then why are Western countries falling so far behind on birthrates and still doing exceptionally well?

We won't be doing well for much longer if our current rate of reproduction continues. Either society pulls it back together and creates a solid structure for families or the people who live after us will be in a dark age as culture regresses into barbarism.

The problem with sexual decadence is that the negative effects aren't felt until generations later. The sinners get to have all the fun and the world after their death is hell.

Defunded Planned Parenthood Reassures Supporters It Has Enough Fetus Cash To Keep Going

Planned Parenthood satire, via The Onion:

Quote:Quote:

WASHINGTON—Following the announcement by Texas state officials to cut Medicaid funding for the nonprofit organization, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards assured supporters Tuesday that it has plenty of fetus cash to keep going for a while.

“While the decision by Texas to eliminate taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood is unfortunate, I want everyone to know that we have an ample supply of sweet baby-organ cabbage to continue providing our services,” said Richards, adding that the reproductive and maternal health organization had enough fetal-tissue scratch to keep the doors open for the foreseeable future.

“Lawmakers remain determined to deny reproductive health care to women in need, and if not for our golden baby-parts goose, they well may have succeeded. But rest assured that with our mad stacks of aborted-fetus bucks, the future of Planned Parenthood is as secure as ever.”

Richards added that even as she was speaking, Planned Parenthood employees were busy squeezing some extra green out of whatever embryos they had left in the back.

Obama is using the latest Planned Parenthood shooting to push for gun control. Not one word about mental health care.

Quote: (11-28-2015 10:32 AM)rpg Wrote:  

Obama is using the latest Planned Parenthood shooting to push for gun control. Not one word about mental health care.

If there is a president that use local news to make it national, this is, a man that said Travon Martin would have been his son, when the case was still n going, yet no a single mention of the beheading in Oklahoma by an ISIS sympathizer, the media called "workplace violence".

I'll be waiting to see if the same people who were tripping themselves to remind everyone that not all Muslims are violent and that the Paris attacks was a freak black swan event that has no bearing on their ideology will be coming to the defense of pro-lifers.

Quote: (11-28-2015 10:32 AM)rpg Wrote:  

Obama is using the latest Planned Parenthood shooting to push for gun control. Not one word about mental health care.

He gets these opportunity windows whenever a white male shoots up someone/something.

It works though. The attention whoring goes through the roof as well with dumbass chicks with "OMG you guys so awful, we need more gun control...Christian terrorists just as bad as Muslims." These instances of a white guy shooting up something are extremely rare but are broadcast as if they are daily occurances; marauding whites killing blacks, beating Mexicans to a pulp, and raping girls.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that democracy is not always the best form of government. Universal suffrage within a nation can only work if everyone is more or less on the same page with the same interests. The U.S. is now various agitation groups fighting over flesh from the feds in DC whilst TPTB use random events to further expand DC's power.

The reaction to the shootings made me see that people see the Eugenics Society/ Planned Parenthood as a religion.

The gunman has desecrated a temple where women sacrifice their children (usually the firstborn) for financial benefit and so that their SMV is not undermined by single mother status.

NSFW. For anyone on the fence about the morality of abortion, have a look at this page to see what it actually looks like. Don't click unless you have a strong stomach - they are horrible images.