Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[texasdave]

passivist is correct. If you claim there is no absolute right or wrong then you are claiming that you can do anything you want because the sole arbiter of truth is the one doing the action. That makes rapists moral. that makes Hitler moral. However, if you agree that there is even ONE moral absolute then you must deal with absolutes, investigate their source, and be accountable to that source. Now, we're talking God.

[pikatore]

Quote by: texasdave passivist is correct. If you claim there is no absolute right or wrong then you are claiming that you can do anything you want because the sole arbiter of truth is the one doing the action. That makes rapists moral. that makes Hitler moral.

That makes rapists and Hitler moral in THIER OWN MINDS.

If enough people think something is right, it will become accepted as morally acceptable in society. It's not rocket science.

Quote by: texasdave However, if you agree that there is even ONE moral absolute then you must deal with absolutes, investigate their source, and be accountable to that source. Now, we're talking God.

Stop bringing God into this. This argument has nothing to do with religion. You are trying to use your God as an excuse for yourself, to convince yourself that you are correct. You are yourself living proof that morailty is subjective.

And by the way, you seem to be ignoring quite a lot of decent material that I, and others have put forward to you. It won't dissappear because you don't want to address it.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Passivist If no claim of morality is valid, doesn't this mean that there actually is no morality (beyond the claim)?

I disagree with the statement 'no claim of morality is valid'. We do indeed need a moral code that suits and benefits us as a community, and most of those codes can be agreed upon pretty quickly (such as punishment given to those who kill or steal etc).

However, I, like everyone, should treat and weight every moral issue on a case by case basis. Morality is definetely a dynamic thing. I've done a complete about turn on several morally relevant issues, and at the end of the day, if we can trust everyone else to be as reasonable and critical of themselves and each other, we can hope for a morally healthy society to emerage from it.

There is no 'perfect' set of morals to abide by. Morals are definetely contextual things, and it is silly to say that they are absolute. Some may be ingrained very strongly into culture, but no moral will ever be absolute. It is that very ignorant, elitist attitude that BREEDS adverse reactions towards those that hold it, and ironically, further bolsters the validity of my argument.

[Passivist]

Quote by: pikatore I disagree with the statement 'no claim of morality is valid'. We do indeed need a moral code that suits and benefits us as a community, and most of those codes can be agreed upon pretty quickly (such as punishment given to those who kill or steal etc).

It wasn't my intention to say that there is no valid claim of morality (and hence no morality, let alone one to bear any weight). I said that texasdave's statement that Hitler could not be judged would refer to moral nihilism rather than to cultural relativism.

The difference, I feel, is the validity of the foundations on which morals are based. If Nihilism holds all foundations invalid, cultural relativism holds all valid to a dagree (but only with regards to the foundations, it does not leave one indifferent to other morals, which is what texasdave asserts). Goddidditism, on the other hand, ony acknowledges one valid foundation: god.

There is a problem with god as foundation, however. Either something is good because god wills it so, or god wants something because it is good. If it is the first, what is good is arbitrary (for dependent on gods will, which can change with his moodswings or with the testament); if it is the latter, apparently there is something above god that really is the foundation of good. If that be the case, god is not really a valid foundation, for he is no foundation at all.

[Matt W]

Let's get back on-topic, folks.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[texasdave]

Yeah, let's get back to trashing the baby killers. LOL

[pikatore]

Quote by: texasdave Yeah, let's get back to trashing the baby killers. LOL

Oh stop, please, you're a riot.

I've throughly proven that my stance is more reasonable, economically practical, and also places a priority on the actual living breathing HUMANS involved.

I've also debunked anti-abortionists' contant appeal to emotion fallacies, showing how an embryo isn't even sentient for most of it's time, let alone awake and aware of things.

I draw the line at 20-22 weeks, or whenever a brainwave is detected by a doctor.

[texasdave]

pikatore,
So, you draw the line at 20-22 weeks? Really? So, which is it? 20 or 22 weeks? Is it O.K. at 19 but murder at 20? Tell me. Why is that line not so solid?

[pikatore]

Quote by: texasdave pikatore, So, you draw the line at 20-22 weeks? Really? So, which is it? 20 or 22 weeks? Is it O.K. at 19 but murder at 20? Tell me. Why is that line not so solid?

It is around that time when a brainwave appears. The actual checking of a brainwave should of course be done before an abortion is considered.

[texasdave]

So, with brainwaves they are human beings worthy of protection but without them they are less than human?

[banko]

Quote by: texasdave So, with brainwaves they are human beings worthy of protection but without them they are less than human?

Well look at it this way is it better to have a brain dead person in a vegatative state stay alive for as long as possible with machines breathing for the person? If that person couldn't survive on their own then is it wrong to pull the plug? Without brain activity the body can't survive.

[texasdave]

But a person with no brain activity from an accident or disease has no hope. The unborn do unless someone rips them limb from limb and sucks them out of the womb.

[pikatore]

Quote by: texasdave But a person with no brain activity from an accident or disease has no hope.

I'm sure one day they will, knowing how fast our medical ability advances. Regardless, it isn't about hope or potential here. I concentrate on what is.

[texasdave]

" What is" is a human being just in a developmental stage that has no less value than any other stage. We go from zygote to embryo to fetus to infant to child to teenager to adult to elderly. It is a continuous process that is valuable and worth protecting at every stage.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: texasdave " What is" is a human being just in a developmental stage that has no less value than any other stage.

You're right, it has no less value. It does have less rights, though -- none, in fact, being a non-person.

Quote by: texasdave We go from zygote to embryo to fetus to infant to child to teenager to adult to elderly. It is a continuous process that is valuable and worth protecting at every stage.

And at one particular point in that continuous process, we move from parasitism to independence. At that point, one becomes a person and gains the right to life, and the potential to have that right defended without infringing on the rights of another person.

We call that point "birth."

Prior to that point, even if the state takes a hand in defending the infant's life, it is not defending a person with a right to life. It is defending a potential person because the state has an interest in seeing that potential realized through the carrying of the infant to term. Two different reasons for the state to be involved. A case can be made for the second reason -- state interest in the unborn child -- but not for the first -- protection of an unborn infant's right to life.

[againstthewind]

Quote by: pikatore Oh stop, please, you're a riot. I've throughly proven that my stance is more reasonable, economically practical, and also places a priority on the actual living breathing HUMANS involved. I've also debunked anti-abortionists' contant appeal to emotion fallacies, showing how an embryo isn't even sentient for most of it's time, let alone awake and aware of things. I draw the line at 20-22 weeks, or whenever a brainwave is detected by a doctor.

Brainwaves are detected far before that, a heartbeat also is detected far before a woman knows she's pregnant. If we use heartbeat & brainwaves to detect the end of life, the two can be used to detect the presence of life

[pikatore]

Quote by: againstthewind Brainwaves are detected far before that, a heartbeat also is detected far before a woman knows she's pregnant. If we use heartbeat & brainwaves to detect the end of life, the two can be used to detect the presence of life

Wrong. Key neural connections are made around that time, and a sinusoidal wave pattern emerges that is synonymous with a functioning human brain.

The heart is just a muscle that pumps blood. It has little value in this context compared to the brain.

[Kuldeep]

Long back, I said first kick felt the mother is a clear indication of start of brain functioning through motor nerves. Probably, sensory nerves might be active by that time only. So, till mother has not felt the first kick she could go for abortion, if she wants it that way. This is around 10-12 weeks pregnancy.

[Huck1919]

Hi there, I'm new at this so here goes.

According to the Cell Theory, the basic building block of life is the cell, therefore, a single cell (zygote) IS life.

However, after losing both of my grandmothers to lung cancer, it is unfair to compare a single cell (who has no ability to feel pain due to the lack of a nervous system) to my grandmothers who suffered immensely before they died. A human being is made up of trillions of cells, therefore, a single cell cannot be a human, and SHOULD NOT be given MORE respect than the human beings we have on earth right now (those dying in Darfur, people suffering liked my loved ones, etc etc).

I don't care as much about abortion as I do about embryonic stem cell research, because neocons keep claiming that they are pro-life when after the child is born they could care less if they are homosexual, liberal, of a different race, or dying of a debilitating disease that could one day be cured through the use of cells (comparable to the billions of skin cells that one sheds every day except they do not have a function in the body yet) that would otherwise be thrown away.

Abortion should be looked at on a case to case basis, due to the fact that I am sure someone is going to ask me when in the process a cell becomes human. I am prone to side with the mother until the "being" is able to feel pain, and then after that more factors must be taken into consideration. I wish our world was so black and white as conservatives view it so that every decision was so easy.

[texasdave]

Perhaps the neolibs need to consider that the neocons really do believe that embryos are human beings and ,as such, it makes no sense to kill a human being to save another. Sorry about you grandmother.