caliber66 Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Aside from offending an individuals moral sensibilities, I think you would be hard pressed to provide demonstrable, scientific evidence pointing to abortions negative effect on society as a whole.Why does it have to be demonstrably detrimental to society as a whole for it to be "wrong"? It's demonstrably bad for the fetus, anyway. Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Why does it have to be demonstrably detrimental to society as a whole for it to be "wrong"? It's demonstrably bad for the fetus, anyway.Utilitarianism vs. deontology. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Most abortions aren't performed on fetuses, btw. Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Why does it have to be demonstrably detrimental to society as a whole for it to be "wrong"? It's demonstrably bad for the fetus, anyway. And, in most instances, demonstrably beneficial for the woman seeking an abortion. Utilitarianism vs. deontology. You sir, are correct Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Utilitarianism vs. deontology.Yes, I understand that not everyone feels that abortion is wrong - I also happen to know that not everyone feels that it's not. That is why I took exception to nickerson's post. I suppose, on further reflection, his assertion was only that the four activities were ALL not wrong, and thus he did not need to include abortion in his rebuttal to El Famous after all. And, in most instances, demonstrably beneficial for the woman seeking an abortion.Ok, perhaps I'm not quite done. It is demonstrably beneficial in many instances for a person to murder his or her spouse for insurance money. Is that right or wrong? Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Yes, I understand that not everyone feels that abortion is wrong - I also happen to know that not everyone feels that it's not. That is why I took exception to nickerson's post. I suppose, on further reflection, his assertion was only that the four activities were ALL not wrong, and thus he did not need to include abortion in his rebuttal to El Famous after all. Ok, perhaps I'm not quite done. It is demonstrably beneficial in many instances for a person to murder his or her spouse for insurance money. Is that right or wrong? That Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 considering i'm pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, i'm finding little need to argue against and/or prove/disprove negative/postive affects of either. as usual, what i take offense to, is the lack of respect for those who may have issues, moral or not, w/ those things. they're flippantly cast aside as stupid biblebangers and/or shirtless hillbillys...entire geographic areas of the US are stereotyped...by the same folks who'd flip out over a stereotyped gay joke. hypocrites dogging on hyprocrites, but it's okay because you're always smarter than everybody else. pffft. Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 considering i'm pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, i'm finding little need to argue against and/or prove/disprove negative/postive affects of either. as usual, what i take offense to, is the lack of respect for those who may have issues, moral or not, w/ those things. they're flippantly cast aside as stupid biblebangers and/or shirtless hillbillys...entire geographic areas of the US are stereotyped...by the same folks who'd flip out over a stereotyped gay joke. hypocrites dogging on hyprocrites, but it's okay because you're always smarter than everybody else. pffft. I don Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 what i take offense to, is the lack of respect for those who may have issues, moral or not, w/ those things. I have two issues with this. First, you casually mention "moral or not" but I have yet to hear an example of "not" that is compelling. If someone has moral objections to it, that's fine. But so far as I know, all of these objections are moral objections. And second, it seems to me that the people with moral objections to it, can just as easily choose for themselves not to engage in same sex marriage and abortions, and leave other people to choose for themselves what they should and shouldn't do. So, you criticize the lack of respect for people with moral objections, but the folks with moral objections (oftentimes, not always) try to impose their morals in these respects on others. Where's the respect there? It appears that no one has respect for anyone in these issues. Link to post Share on other sites
sweetheart-mine Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 . . . And second, it seems to me that the people with moral objections to it, can just as easily choose for themselves not to engage in same sex marriage and abortions, and leave other people to choose for themselves what they should and shouldn't do. So, you criticize the lack of respect for people with moral objections, but the folks with moral objections (oftentimes, not always) try to impose their morals in these respects on others. Where's the respect there? It appears that no one has respect for anyone in these issues.well said. who thinks badly of anyone for not having an abortion or not being gay and engaging in a same-sex marriage? no one. it's just when those who disapprove of these other individuals want to dictate what they're allowed to do, then . . . well, folks get a little defensive about rights and all. Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 It appears that no one has respect for anyone in these issues. absolutely. i'm not absolving anybody of anything here. that's my point. however, you can't knock somebody for stereotyping and badmouth them for respecting others beliefs/lifestyle and then do the same thing without, IMO, it being equally disrespectful. as far as the whol 'moral' thing goes...i'm probably getting caught up in semantics and replacing 'religious' w/ 'moral', because they are so oft interchangeable on here. meaning, my stance on abortion is in no way grounded in my religious beliefs. that said, taking issue w/ either subject in regards to the possible psychological impact and the possible finanical impact of insurance/tax reforms for legally recognized same-sex marriages would be two possible non-religious aka 'moral' issues someone could throw out there. i'm just saying the pigeonholing either issue into a christian vs. atheist debate seems counterproductive...no matter how much one says there isn't religion involved, each sides have an overaching agenda. Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 well said. who thinks badly of anyone for not having an abortion or not being gay and engaging in a same-sex marriage? no one. it's just when those who disapprove of these other individuals want to dictate what they're allowed to do, then . . . well, folks get a little defensive about rights and all. i call bullshit. i've seen it time and time again on here...it's not just about expressing your beliefs, it's about expressing your beliefs as the only ones possible. it's so evil when the religious folks and/or right-wingers do it...but not the other way around. no one thinks badly of anyone for not having an abortion or not being gay and engaging in a same-sex marriage...but they do seem to think badly of those who don't think it's okay. Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 No really, aside from religious dogma, there is not a single piece of scientific, empirical evidence to support the claim that same sex marriage is detrimental to society Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 There's scientific evidence for right and wrong? I guess we need to do a randomized, double-blind clinical trial on the morality of gay marriage. When phrased that way, no. But if you Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 And second, it seems to me that the people with moral objections to it, can just as easily choose for themselves not to engage in same sex marriage and abortions, and leave other people to choose for themselves what they should and shouldn't do. So, you criticize the lack of respect for people with moral objections, but the folks with moral objections (oftentimes, not always) try to impose their morals in these respects on others. Where's the respect there? It appears that no one has respect for anyone in these issues.I have a moral objection to murder. Should those who want to engage in it be allowed to choose for themselves to commit murder? And before I get myself pigeonholed here, I am not anti-choice. I think abortion of convenience should be avoided, but I am opposed to legislating against it. Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 I have a moral objection to murder. Should those who want to engage in it be allowed to choose for themselves to commit murder? And before I get myself pigeonholed here, I am not anti-choice. I think abortion of convenience should be avoided, but I am opposed to legislating against it. Once someone has committed a murder, they Link to post Share on other sites
sweetheart-mine Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 i call bullshit. i've seen it time and time again on here...it's not just about expressing your beliefs, it's about expressing your beliefs as the only ones possible. it's so evil when the religious folks and/or right-wingers do it...but not the other way around. no one thinks badly of anyone for not having an abortion or not being gay and engaging in a same-sex marriage...but they do seem to think badly of those who don't think it's okay.what?? people can think or say anything they want, right? i agree with that. no one has to like it, from any perspective, and anyone can argue about it. is that bullshit? it's when people believe they have the moral high ground and *should be able to prevent others from going their own way* that there's a real problem with basic respect. p.s. it's hard to believe that religious folks and right-wingers are innocents suffering from demonization via the label "evil." in my humble experience, that's a favorite word of *some* religious folks and right-wingers, and they don't hold back in using it to describe those who don't live and breathe their beliefs. Link to post Share on other sites
explodo Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Why can't all of those be wrong?That was my point. The question being, how do you quantify evil? How do you preach moral superiority on the grounds that you (obviously this is a generic you, not Ikol) oppose something like a same sex marriage or an abortion while enabling war crimes or raping your children's future to save a dollar or two? Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 When phrased that way, no. But if you Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 i call bullshit. i've seen it time and time again on here...it's not just about expressing your beliefs, it's about expressing your beliefs as the only ones possible. it's so evil when the religious folks and/or right-wingers do it...but not the other way around. no one thinks badly of anyone for not having an abortion or not being gay and engaging in a same-sex marriage...but they do seem to think badly of those who don't think it's okay. Here Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 So, now the government has to have scientific data to back up its policies? Where's the data that says higher incomes should have higher taxes? What scientific study says we shouldn't drill in ANWR? Yes, good government policies are usually supported by good, solid research. Otherwise, why not just throw some arbitrary laws and bills together and call it a day? ANWR I Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Yes, good government policies are usually supported by good, solid research. Otherwise, why not just throw some arbitrary laws and bills together and call it a day? Maybe good government policies are supported by research, but how many government policies are actually good? I think throwing together some arbitrary laws is a pretty accurate description of how the government works. Link to post Share on other sites
austrya Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 with overpopulation an extremely serious but now rarely mentioned problem, i wonder which people who are not pro-choice will step up and care for children whose 15-year-old parents can't care for them (or vote to fund their care). yes, sex education and abstinence or birth control and great guidance from adult parents ought to prevent almost any abortion from being considered -- but they don't (although they've brought the number down, which is great). in fact, i've noticed it's often the anti-choice folks who are also anti-sex education and/or anti-birth control. where is the logic and the end of that vicious circle? in any case, it seems fairly obvious that war -- going out and willingly (even happily) slaughtering thousands or millions of people of all ages or cultures -- doesn't much resemble a private and early-term abortion. It would be a lot easier for someone to step up and care for children whose 15-year-old parents can't care for them if there wasn't so much red tape and headache when it comes to adoption. I have a friend who is trying to adopt and has to seek an international adoption because domestic adoptions are too hard and they're too expensive. She's been on a waiting list for a couple of years for a baby and has yet to get a call. And I would vote to fund their care. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts