Is abortion really wrong?

Scott777ab wrote:

The mother CAN ALWAYS put the baby up for adoption.

If only someone had thought of that before !!!

Scott, you really need to go away and think about this stuff. Just spouting stupid rhetoric isn't convincing anybody of anything.

First of all, you need to realise that just because you believe something, that doesn't mean everybody else has to share them, or obey your orders.

Yeah, i know Brandon--you're never wrong. A good deal of the wrangling you get into, which leads you to accusations that people have "attacked" you and a declaration that you have "won" a discussion arises from the ineptitude with which you commonly express yourself. Too bad your pride won't let you see that.

Brandon9000 wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

If all ethics are equivalent to personal esthetic tastes, then saying that you deem late-term abortions to be wrong is the equivalent to saying that you find late-term abortions to be personally distasteful. And if that's the case, how can you say that someone (besides yourself) shouldn't have a late-term abortion?

The same way that I can say that someone other than me shouldn't hold up a liquor store.

If you're expressing merely an esthetic judgment, then the statement "you shouldn't hold up that liquor store" has the same moral value as the statement "you shouldn't wear black socks with white pants." Both express nothing more than a subjective opinion on a matter of taste. To say, then, that late-term abortions are the equivalent of murder is not to say that one would be properly subject to moral condemnation either for having a late-term abortion or for committing a murder, but rather that you find both acts to be personally displeasing. That may be sufficient for you, but I don't see why anyone else should feel inclined to respect your judgment in these matters.

MY VIOLENCE pfft what about the EVIL WOMAN who commit MURDER.
Not just MURDER but 1st DEGREE MURDER.
They think about it, then do it.
That is premediated MURDER.......

Because, except for people who base their ethics on religious doctrine, which doesn't include me and I assume doesn't include you, no one else's ethics are based on anything more than that either. I guess someone might base his ethics purely on pragmatic considerations, but I really wouldn't call that morality.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Because, except for people who base their ethics on religious doctrine, which doesn't include me and I assume doesn't include you, no one else's ethics are based on anything more than that either. I guess someone might base his ethics purely on pragmatic considerations, but I really wouldn't call that morality.

That's fine. I think you're wrong, but at least you're being consistent, which is saying quite a lot. I'm just pointing out that your ethics are, at most, descriptive, not prescriptive. You can't say late-term abortions are wrong, you can only say that you find late-term abortions distasteful.

Scott777ab wrote:

It is MORALLY SANE and MORALLY JUST to put to death all MURDERS.

Why is the absurdity of that statement not obvious to you?

Please add to your list of achievements...

Declared by Eorl...."not very bright"

Neither can anyone else say that anything is right or wrong morally except in terms of his basic aesthetics, or logically derived from simpler moral principles based on aesthetics, other than people who adopt the ethics espoused in some religion's doctrine. Everyone's ethics come down to aesthetics. Do you get it yet, or should I repeat it a few more times?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Neither can anyone else say that anything is right or wrong morally except in terms of his basic aesthetics, or logically derived from simpler moral principles based on aesthetics, other than people who adopt the ethics espoused in some religion's doctrine. Everyone's ethics come down to aesthetics. Do you get it yet, or should I repeat it a few more times?

Are you saying it would be wrong for me to impose my ethics on someone else?

[No. How could you possibly get that out of anything I've said?

Brandon9000 wrote:

[No. How could you possibly get that out of anything I've said?

Just attempting to understand your position. Honestly, I don't see why you're getting all huffy, Brandon. You say that your ethical judgments are the equivalent of esthetic judgments, and I agree. No reason to get your undies in a bunch.

Brandon9000 wrote:

[No. How could you possibly get that out of anything I've said?

Just attempting to understand your position. Honestly, I don't see why you're getting all huffy, Brandon. You say that your ethical judgments are the equivalent of esthetic judgments, and I agree. No reason to get your undies in a bunch.

You guys gay? Sounds like alot of gay talk to me.

"Huffy", "Undies": Do real men talk like a Piss-Siss?

Eorl wrote:

Scott777ab wrote:

It is MORALLY SANE and MORALLY JUST to put to death all MURDERS.

Why is the absurdity of that statement not obvious to you?

Please add to your list of achievements...

Declared by Eorl...."not very bright"

Why is Scott777ab's statement absurd? If all persons who commit murder should be put to death, and all persons who perform abortions commit murder, then it follows logically that all persons who perform abortions should be put to death. Now, to be sure, one can argue that all murderers shouldn't be put to death, or that abortion isn't murder, but one can't argue with the logic of Scott's statement.

All ice cream is poison, and all people who eat ice cream are immune to poison. Of course, you could argue that all ice cream isnt poison, and that all people who eat ice cream aren't immune to poison, but you can't argue with that logic, can you?