unapologetic

Belle Rose wrote:
I’m pretty curious to know if there has ever been any point in human history when men have been so incredibly invested in making sure women do not abort their babies.

Yes, it’s framed as protection for the unborn, yet it’s always the most patriarchal factions that are most against abortion.  It’s just another way for society to…[Read more]

TheEncogitationer wrote:
If one holds that Nature, specially, human nature, determines what is Good and Evil, then that doesn’t exist merely in human minds and is something objectively discoverable and demonstrable.

That’s true.  I think the structure is objective in that sense, but the details of how it is implemented are subjective/relative/plural.

Autumn wrote:
There isn’t a scenario where one side is imposing consequences and the other is not.

That’s true.

Autumn wrote:
You are seemingly talking about what choice is hypothetically better. I am talking about a) moral imposition, and b) the inescapability of consequences from decisions made by a parent regarding the fate a foetus.

I’m talking about how it looks from the point of view of an anti-abortionist.  If I believe that it’s morally acceptable…[Read more]

Autumn wrote:
no matter what you do the foetus unwillingly is subject to such consequences. It’s not a situation where someone deciding to terminate is imposing consequences on a foetus and someone deciding not to terminate is not imposing consequences.

But the consequences are not indifferently felt by the foetus.  There’s a world of di…[Read more]

@strega – that’s true, I can see your point.

Autumn wrote:
As I stated, if all he means is that the foetus is impacted by your moral position, that was always the case where you were, hypothetically, in a position to make the decision regarding termination.

OK, then I propose to hypothetically impose the consequences of my moral belief (necessarily hypothetically, since I can’t give birth)…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
to the extent that they stand behind an action or belief as moral, it’s very hard to justify them as such without reference to something outside themselves as a standard. In other words, something objective.

That’s true I think.  But the structure of what we need to do in order to cooperate, and hence, the ideals of cooperation, ar…[Read more]

Autumn wrote:
Setting aside the unborn child bit which has already discussed, what morality is imposed?

I think he meant, my moral belief that abortion is acceptable.

In terms of whether the foetus is going to be impacted by someone else’s moral decision, well that was always the case. Parents will make decisions which impact offspring in many s…

[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
Morality doesn’t work without morals (objective standards). But the fact is there are no such objective standards. Common beliefs give the appearance of being objective standards, but the fact is they vary from place to place.

But surely if we follow your logic, morality doesn’t work since it is not objective because there are no o…[Read more]

TheEncogitationer wrote:
And according to Abrahamic legend, their God JHVH-1 punished Adam and Eve and, by inheritance all humanity afterwards, because Adam and Eve partook of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. How can the words of such a Nihilistic God be a valid guide for anything?

I’ve never understood what the lesson of that story is…[Read more]

Strega wrote:
If morals were objective, they would be rules.

But some values are so important, they’re as-if rules.  For example, care towards children; not committing rape; not causing unnecessary harm; sharing fairly with one’s collaborative partners; reciprocating a favour.

Unnecessary murder, or murder out of cruelty and enjoyment, are…[Read more]

jakelafort wrote:
William Lane Craig? Professional charlatan. Professional sophist.

He tends to have fixed views about things, yes.  But he’s a humane guy who tolerates different points of view.  I’ve been made a Top Fan a few times.  I respect him as a philosopher, or at least, his professionalism.

The old chestnut is objective morality.  The…[Read more]

jakelafort wrote:
And when they are in power it really counts.

Since religion is patriarchal, I think that being anti-abortion is really about controlling women’s rights and their sexuality.

Craig wants to impose his arbitrary morality on all of us.

At least, the right wing.  Pro-choice people don’t try and impose abortion onto everyone, they…[Read more]

jakelafort wrote:
No, morality requires our JUDGMENT.

I don’t think that’s necessarily the problem.  I find that people like WLC do use judgment and discrimination like anyone else.  I think the real problem is elevating certain principles, like anti-abortionism, absurdly above others, like simple benefit and harm and human dignity.

Strega wrote:
Unborn baby is an invention to try to attach pseudo-objective emotion.

You’re right – it’s not a baby, below a certain age, it’s just a lump of stuff.  “Unborn child” or “unborn baby” is an emotionally loaded term designed to elicit undue alarm for a termination.

I didn’t want to get into debating abortion with a right-wing…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
So where does our morality come from then?

I was having a conversation with a Christian guy recently on the William Lane Craig Facebook page.  He was saying, if your morality isn’t objective, then how can you justify imposing it on other people?  I was saying, I don’t.  This was in the context of the recent ov…[Read more]