Abortion

[VFOURMAX1]

Do you think there is a right or wrong when it comes to murder of an adult?

Depends on what you define as murder! I can justify taking the life of an individual in certain circumstances and not regretting such choice one bit.

Since when is "life" important? We kill living things all the time. Mosquitos, trees, bacteria, mass-murdering humans, people in a persistent vegetative state, old dogs, dogs without homes, cows, pigs, fish...

"Life" is neither here nor there in this question.

If life is neither here nor there then what are you aborting the pregnancy for? To prevent the life of the unborn fetus coming to full term, that would be my reasoning. Otherwise feel free to revert to my first answer above about taking a life in general.

I'm pretty confused about how personal satisfaction can determine morality, even if morality is subjective to the level of the individual.

I would find it unusual that a person that makes a decision to be on one side or the other on an issue would not be satisfied in his reasoning for taking the position he has chosen.
As a result he does have personal satisfaction that in his mind anyway that he is supporting the correct side of the issue.

I do not see why such a simple concept would confuse you unless you constantly waver back and forth taking what may be the popular position at the time to take on sensitive issues.

 

[Danoff]

Depends on what you define as murder! I can justify taking the life of an individual in certain circumstances and not regretting such choice one bit.

How about killing an innocent person? Do you think there's a moral choice there, or is that just up to the individual?

If life is neither here nor there then what are you aborting the pregnancy for? To prevent the life of the unborn fetus coming to full term, that would be my reasoning.

I'm saying life is neither here nor there in the context of what constitutes a moral choice. We kill living things all the time.

I would find it unusual that a person that makes a decision to be on one side or the other on an issue would not be satisfied in his reasoning for taking the position he has chosen.
As a result he does have personal satisfaction that in his mind anyway that he is supporting the correct side of the issue.

I do not see why such a simple concept would confuse you unless you constantly waver back and forth taking what may be the popular position at the time to take on sensitive issues.

Let me put it this way, a serial killer who has murdered dozens of innocent people make take great personal satisfaction in it, does this make it moral?

 

[VFOURMAX1]

How about killing an innocent person? Do you think there's a moral choice there, or is that just up to the individual?



I'm saying life is neither here nor there in the context of what constitutes a moral choice. We kill living things all the time.



Let me put it this way, a serial killer who has murdered dozens of innocent people make take great personal satisfaction in it, does this make it moral?

And none of this has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of abortion. You take what personally defines morality as you see fit and I will do the same. End of discussion on the what defines morality front for me!

I have not wavered on my position or answers and am personally very satisfied that as far as my position on the morality issue concerning abortion and life is a position I am very at ease and comfortable with thank you.

 

[Danoff]

And none of this has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of abortion. You take what personally defines morality as you see fit and I will do the same. End of discussion on the what defines morality front for me!

I have not wavered on my position or answers and am personally very satisfied that as far as my position on the morality issue concerning abortion and life is a position I am very at ease and comfortable with thank you.

I'm not sure what being at ease or comfortable has to do with morality. I'm also not sure how you're failing to see the link between murder and abortion (ie: what some people think is murder). It is literally the subject at hand.

Murder is not the killing of a living thing, it is the killing of a human being with rights. Does abortion fit into that category? That's the question. The presumption here is that murder is immoral, I guess that's not a safe assumption for you, but it is for almost everyone else.

The question is not whether the aborted entity is alive, the question is whether it has rights. And to answer that, it makes sense to look at cases where humans don't have rights (such as criminals, and people in a persistent vegetative state). Incidentally, another group of humans that don't have all of their rights is children.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

The question is not whether the aborted entity is alive, the question is whether it has rights.

If it is does not have life or if it is not alive how can it possibly have individual rights or be considered a human which would then would negate the debate whether it was eligible for human rights as you are not dealing with human life?

. And to answer that, it makes sense to look at cases where humans don't have rights (such as criminals, and people in a persistent vegetative state).

But there is no question whether the criminal or people in a vegetative state is alive or has life which is an initial requirement to have rights.

Murder is not the killing of a living thing, it is the killing of a human being with rights. Does abortion fit into that category? That's the question. The presumption here is that murder is immoral, I guess that's not a safe assumption for you, but it is for almost everyone else.

So you actually answered your first and second question with your third question, no life in the womb how could individual rights be an issue as you have no living individual. If it is alive and a living human then the question of rights and whether the parents rights or wishes overrode the child's comes into play.

But then not everyone will always consider the taking of a life depending on the circumstances as murder. Was Osama bin Laden murdered or executed for crimes against humanity through terrorism? Again that will be personal opinion regarding who you ask.
Was ending his life a moral or immoral act?

 

[Danoff]

If it is does not have life or if it is not alive how can it possibly have individual rights or be considered a human which would then would negate the debate whether it was eligible for human rights as you are not dealing with human life?

Granted that if we could prove an embryo or fetus is not alive that it would not have rights. But of course you'd have a hard time proving that of a sperm. So it's not particularly helpful in this conversation.

But there is no question whether the criminal or people in a vegetative state is alive or has life which is an initial requirement to have rights.

And yet they don't have rights... which is instructive here. I'm not entirely on board with the notion that living is a requirement of having rights, but it's impossible to satisfy those requirements while you're dead, so it's a philosophical point at best.

So you actually answered your first and second question with your third question, no life in the womb how could individual rights be an issue as you have no living individual. If it is alive and a living human then the question of rights and whether the parents rights or wishes overrode the child's comes into play.

Certainly not. Otherwise you'd have to consider the host's rights over the tapeworm, or the cancerous growth, or the mosquito. "Life" is not a helpful metric in this conversation.

But then not everyone will always consider the taking of a life depending on the circumstances as murder. Was Osama bin Laden murdered or executed for crimes against humanity through terrorism? Again that will be personal opinion regarding who you ask.
Was ending his life a moral or immoral act?

Osama bin Laden did not have rights (because he murdered innocent people), and so it as a moral act.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

Murder is not the killing of a living thing, it is the killing of a human being with rights.

Osama bin Laden did not have rights (because he murdered innocent people), and so it as a moral act.

Did bin Laden pull the trigger and actually commit murder with his own hand to make him be devoid of his rights?

Or does bin Laden not have rights because he crossed a line that you feel put him below YOUR personal morality threshhold?

Can you say for a fact that bin Laden did not personally feel his actions were moral and justified and he was striking back at the infidels that were waging war against his people?

You see where this goes, just because you or I see something one way and someone else sees the same situation in a different light or from the opposite viewpoint morality is a personal view and not in anyway black or white.

If you are being attacked by an individual and seriously beaten and you shoot such individual did you murder that person because as a human he had the right to live?

How do you decide what the line is to be crossed before a humans individual rights are voided?
Suppose someone else does not agree with your placement of the line does that make them wrong and you right?

Again easy to see you are always going to deal with changing dynamics and different viewpoints and no way can you say for all involved one answer is always the correct one.

 

[Danoff]

Did bin Laden pull the trigger and actually commit murder with his own hand to make him be devoid of his rights?

Yes, bin Laden committed murder. You don't have to pull the trigger to kill someone.

Or does bin Laden not have rights because he crossed a line that you feel put him below YOUR personal morality threshhold?

It's because he violated the rights of others.

Can you say for a fact that bin Laden did not personally feel his actions were moral and justified and he was striking back at the infidels that were waging war against his people?

Doesn't matter whether he thinks it's justified.

If you are being attacked by an individual and seriously beaten and you shoot such individual did you murder that person because as a human he had the right to live?

That person has violated the rights of others, and therefore has forfeit their own. This is why self-defense is valid. Rights are reciprocal.

How do you decide what the line is to be crossed before a humans individual rights are voided?

That's what rights are.

Suppose someone else does not agree with your placement of the line does that make them wrong and you right?

You're arguing that human rights do not exist.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

Doesn't matter whether he thinks it's justified.

So basically someone that takes on an opinion, stance or is support of an issue or has a totally different viewpoint from yours you are insinuating they are automatically wrong and you are right and they do not have the same rights as you do to form their own position on the matter?

That's what rights are.

But who actually has the right to tell another individual what their rights are? Someone somewhere has decided what a persons rights are to be, what supreme being are they they that gives them that right to lord over another equally created human individual?

You're arguing that human rights do not exist.

No my argument is that viewpoints do differ and are from different perspectives and different sides of a situation and the person on the other side of that issue may feel just as strongly about his position or whatever actions are involved being morally right as the guy on the opposite side.
What makes one viewpoint be the high road and the other be low road and the person on both sides think they have the high road.

 

[Danoff]

So basically someone that takes on an opinion, stance or is support of an issue or has a totally different viewpoint from yours you are insinuating they are automatically wrong and you are right and they do not have the same rights as you do to form their own position on the matter?

No, opinion (mine or theirs) doesn't come into play.

But who actually has the right to tell another individual what their rights are? Someone somewhere has decided what a persons rights are to be, what supreme being are they they that gives them that right to lord over another equally created human individual?

Rational thought. If you want more reading on the subject, visit the thread entitled "Human Rights".

No my argument is that viewpoints do differ and are from different perspectives and different sides of a situation and the person on the other side of that issue may feel just as strongly about his position or whatever actions are involved being morally right as the guy on the opposite side.
What makes one viewpoint be the high road and the other be low road and the person on both sides think they have the high road.

Human rights are rights that all humans have regardless of personal opinion. It's what they are, and you're arguing that they don't exist by arguing that different viewpoints determine rights. That's not a right, it's an opinion.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

No, opinion (mine or theirs) doesn't come into play.

Human rights are rights that all humans have regardless of personal opinion.

But the determination of what is and what is not those undeniable rights are have to originate from somewhere.

Again everyone is born supposedly as an equal and within nature the only rights are everyone has the right to do their best to survive and everyone has the right at some point they are going to die.

Any rights other than those will be rights decided by man and then we fall back to the all born equal problem so what gives one the right to dictate to another what rights they do and do not have.

I understand totally the society thing but this goes deeper as we are including the actual human rights to life and the issue of choice and beliefs.

 

[Danoff]

But the determination of what is and what is not those undeniable rights are have to originate from somewhere.

Again everyone is born supposedly as an equal and within nature the only rights are everyone has the right to do their best to survive and everyone has the right at some point they are going to die.

Any rights other than those will be rights decided by man and then we fall back to the all born equal problem so what gives one the right to dictate to another what rights they do and do not have.

Rational thought. You can derive a self-consistent objective framework for human rights.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

You can derive a self-consistent objective framework for human rights.

While group A considers that self consistent objective framework for human rights acceptable group B does not find that framework acceptable so now you are right back where it started.
Which group is right and which group is wrong and why does one group have the right to dictate its desires over the other group?

Remember they are all born equal and therefore all have the exact same rights.

 

[Danoff]

While group A considers that self consistent objective framework for human rights acceptable group B does not find that framework acceptable so now you are right back where it started.

It's not back where it started, there's a group of people that presumably adheres to a self-consistent objective framework for human rights, and a group that doesn't.

Which group is right and which group is wrong and why does one group have the right to dictate its desires over the other group?

Each group will consider the other group from within their own framework. So for example, you have the human rights group, which will see some 'hat who is killing people to get his way as not observing the rights of others, and so the human rights group will not observe his rights. Meanwhile, he'll go around killing people because he can (unless the other group stops him) and he'll see them like he sees everyone else, as people who can be subordinated if he is powerful enough.

If we're to have an actual meaning for the word "morality", one of these groups has a claim to it, and other other has to claim that it does not exist.

Remember they are all born equal and therefore all have the exact same rights.

Rights are reciprocal, they depend on your actions.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

So for example, you have the human rights group, which will see some 'hat who is killing people to get his way as not observing the rights of others, and so the human rights group will not observe his rights.

So the "'hat" is supposed to submit to the will of the human rights group because that's what they decided and as a result he has no say in the matter?

Meanwhile, he'll go around killing people because he can (unless the other group stops him) and he'll see them like he sees everyone else, as people who can be subordinated if he is powerful enough.

And in all actuality he is actually living the rights we are born with which in reality is the survival of the fittest.

The human rights group is actually doing the same thing and is pack hunting the hat which they consider to be a threat but doing so under the guise of human rights rather than just murdering what they consider to be the threat to their pack.

How is the human rights group claiming the high road and high moral behavior out of those actions.

 

[Danoff]

So the "'hat" is supposed to submit to the will of the human rights group because that's what they decided and as a result he has no say in the matter?

I don't know that there's anything he's "supposed" to do, he doesn't believe in morality.

And in all actuality he is actually living the rights we are born with which in reality is the survival of the fittest.

Survival of the fittest is a lack of rights. It's a system which values "fitness" over all else, which is an arbitrary qualification (even if it is an arbitrary qualification that DNA selects for in order to obtain stability through time).

The human rights group is actually doing the same thing and is pack hunting the hat which they consider to be a threat but doing so under the guise of human rights rather than just murdering what they consider to be the threat to their pack.

There's a key difference, which is reciprocity.

How is the human rights group claiming the high road and high moral behavior out of those actions.

Reciprocity. The human rights group treats our might makes right friend according to his own principle, while they treat each other according to their own. This is as objectively fair as fair gets, since it doesn't pick an arbitrary value to weigh over all else.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

, he doesn't believe in morality.

The question still arises who has the god given right to define what is considered to be morally acceptable or moral period and in who's eyes or opinions?

Reciprocity. The human rights group treats our might makes right friend according to his own principle, while they treat each other according to their own. This is as objectively fair as fair gets, since it doesn't pick an arbitrary value to weigh over all else.

Still bottom line is they the human rights group plan to murder the the outsider under the guise of human rights.

 

[BobK]

The question still arises who has the god given right to define what is considered to be morally acceptable or moral period and in who's eyes or opinions?

Nobody. God doesn't give rights.

 

[Danoff]

The question still arises who has the god given right to define what is considered to be morally acceptable or moral period and in who's eyes or opinions?

Rationality. In the eyes of the rational.

Still bottom line is they the human rights group plan to murder the the outsider under the guise of human rights.

"Under the guise", is not really appropriate there. It's not human rights that enables killing, it's a lack of it. And it's not something you can strip from someone else, it's something they willingly remove from themselves. In this case, the might-makes-right person removes any rights from himself by murdering those around him.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

"Under the guise", is not really appropriate there. It's not human rights that enables killing, it's a lack of it. And it's not something you can strip from someone else, it's something they willingly remove from themselves. In this case, the might-makes-right person removes any rights from himself by murdering those around him.

Again acceptable if you agree and accept another humans rules over your own free will.

A cannabal uses humans as a food source, are they subject to being forced into accepting human rights as supreme when it does not coincide with the society they live in?

You can twist your words all you want but any laws or rules or standards made by humans and imposed on other humans without their willing consent does not make it trump another human rights given by birth.

The only natural human rights is the right to try and survive another day of life. That same criteria is for all living creatures not just humans.
We may think the concept of "human rights" is guaranteed and the same for all but in reality it is a product of society and civilization which has existed in many different forms and eras and each with its own rules and challenges.

To have a successful society requires rules but all that depicts is a group makes the rules and imposes their will on others if they have the power to enforce those rules. If not it can easily revert back to natures survival of the fittest which is the only rules actually that is the way it is and equal for all regardless.

 

[Danoff]

Again acceptable if you agree and accept another humans rules over your own free will.

Not at all. The might-makes-right person doesn't have to accept anything. They can go on living by the sword, and dying by it. They've chosen their own moral code, and the human rights group treats them according to that choice.

A cannabal uses humans as a food source, are they subject to being forced into accepting human rights as supreme when it does not coincide with the society they live in?

Who is forcing them? Using people as a food source doesn't necessarily constitute a rights violation either, for all I know the food source is willing (it has happened in reality, guess which country btw... it's not that hard to guess).

But let's say it was forced. Let's say they capture someone and eat them. The cannibal's life is implicitly hinging on not being captured and eaten, that's their bargain when they capture someone and eat them. If they're put to death as a result, it's what they did to others.

Of the various groups, it's the human rights group that treats others according to their own choice. That's the distinction.

You can twist your words all you want but any laws or rules or standards made by humans and imposed on other humans without their willing consent does not make it trump another human rights given by birth.

It's like you're trying to argue my side and doing a bad job of it here. From the perspective of rationality, your only choices (that I know of anyway) are "human rights" or "other". If you choose other you get other.

The only natural human rights is the right to try and survive another day of life.

That statement makes no sense from one side to the other. You're trying to describe might makes right, which is precisely that you don't have the right to try to survive another day. You can be murdered (denied the right to try to survive) any day by someone with greater might. That's part of the framework of might makes right. In other words, there are no human rights in that system, just what you're able to do and what you're not.

Might makes right inherits DNA's preference for the ability to produce force. And it's an arbitrary preference set in motion by nature's ultimate preference, which is stability over time. Your DNA's best chance for remaining in existence has (up until this point) always been to ride along in a body best capable of producing force, being mighty. And that's only in existence now because only the things which are stable in time endure over time. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, and it's one that carries with it no meaning.

That same criteria is for all living creatures not just humans.

Well I agree, the same is true for rights. It's just that every creature besides humans (that we know of) elects might makes right (because DNA) rather than reciprocity when it comes to force.

We may think the concept of "human rights" is guaranteed and the same for all but in reality it is a product of society and civilization which has existed in many different forms and eras and each with its own rules and challenges.

It's a rational construct. It existed before humans and would exist if humans were to cease to exist. It's like 1+1=2. It exists regardless of whether humans go around saying 1+1=3, or not knowing how to add, or not even existing at all.

To have a successful society requires rules but all that depicts is a group makes the rules and imposes their will on others if they have the power to enforce those rules. If not it can easily revert back to natures survival of the fittest which is the only rules actually that is the way it is and equal for all regardless.

It doesn't matter, human rights would still exist. It's a rational construct. It doesn't cease to exist just because people behave differently.

 

[Dotini]

I find it difficult to believe that rational contructs and humans rights would exist if humans didn't exist.

In any case, I paid for an abortion 50 years ago. Do I regret it? Not at the time, but I do think it over again from time to time. I think human life begins at conception, so it's a hard choice to take that innocent life. Only in a rich, competitive society of selfish individuals could such an option be contemplated.

 

[Danoff]

I find it difficult to believe that rational contructs and humans rights would exist if humans didn't exist.

You think, for example, the abstract shape of a triangle would not exist if humans ceased to exist. A triangle is a rational construct like any of it. Any creature that obtains sufficient intelligence to think abstractly can derive a triangle. That means it exists as a rational construct regardless of whether there is a creature out there deriving it.

For example, pretend that somewhere out there in rational construct land there is a unifying theory of physics waiting to be discovered. Now, humans might never discover it. In fact no creature might ever discover it, and of course the universe doesn't care. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Logic and mathematics exist (in our universe anyway). And that means that all of it exists. Not just the bit human beings have discovered or deduced, all of it. All of the implications of it. It doesn't pop into existence once it is discovered.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

It's a rational construct

What is considered to be rational for one may be considered to irrational to another.
Again differences in who considers which concept does not change that individuals right to have their own beliefs and follow such.

You have really started to bore me with your blinders on that only one viewpoint can hold validation or a different viewpoint from a different individual is automatically discounted because you do not agree with the concept being presented.

You show your blinders well in not just this conversation but in others as well so I will not continue to waste my time with you.

 

[Danoff]

What is considered to be rational for one may be considered to irrational to another.

Not correctly no. Incorrectly yes.

You have really started to bore me with your blinders on that only one viewpoint can hold validation or a different viewpoint from a different individual is automatically discounted because you do not agree with the concept being presented.

I agree that one of us isn't listening to the other.

You show your blinders well in not just this conversation but in others as well so I will not continue to waste my time with you.

Feel free not to listen.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

What is considered to be rational for one may be considered to irrational to another.

Not correctly no. Incorrectly yes.

Well if nothing else you supported my opinion about you wearing blinders concerning any alternatives but your own personal viewpoints!

Different individuals both equally have a right to their own viewpoints and beliefs and when involving morality or human rights issues do in concept have personal equal rights believing the way they do.

Now one may consider their viewpoint to be correct and the opposing viewpoint to be incorrect but that is their opinion only and not actually a factual right or wrong.

They may debate as to why one opinion may be better for the greater good than the other opinion but an intelligent person recognizes and even acknowledges the difference in just having different viewpoints does not dictate one is right and one is wrong.

It is easy to see that you do not listen or acknowledge both sides of a position but immediately jump on the other viewpoint is incorrect and wrong bandwagon.

 

[Danoff]

Well if nothing else you supported my opinion about you wearing blinders concerning any alternatives but your own personal viewpoints!

Interesting takeaway from that. You seem determined to make this narrative work. Rationality is a bit like math. You can have differing opinions on what the right answer is, but (at least) one of you is wrong. Rationality is not subjective, if it were we'd stop calling it rationality and use the word we already have for that, which is opinion.

Different individuals both equally have a right to their own viewpoints and beliefs and when involving morality or human rights issues do in concept have personal equal rights believing the way they do.

That's fine. There are entire irrational sets of human rights. The EU is vary fond of theirs. Here's the problem, words have meaning. The word "right" has a meaning. It's not the same meaning as "opinion", or "wish", or "preference". And when the EU, for example, codifies a set of human rights that is not self-consistent it ends up being a "wish" or "preference" rather than a "right".

Having an opinion doesn't make you rational. And thinking something is true doesn't make it right.

Now one may consider their viewpoint to be correct and the opposing viewpoint to be incorrect but that is their opinion only and not actually a factual right or wrong.

It depends on the subject. There are (many) subjects where right and wrong exist.

It is easy to see that you do not listen or acknowledge both sides of a position but immediately jump on the other viewpoint is incorrect and wrong bandwagon.

Says the guy not listening and telling me I'm wrong.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

It depends on the subject. There are (many) subjects where right and wrong exist.

I agree but this is not one of them!

 

[Danoff]

I agree but this is not one of them!

Rational thought is not one of them?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Rationality is a bit like math. You can have differing opinions on what the right answer is, but (at least) one of you is wrong. Rationality is not subjective, if it were we'd stop calling it rationality and use the word we already have for that, which is opinion.

It takes more than one human to agree on what is rational in the context of rights and wrongs. One human on its own can act according to its own logic but might find upon assimilation with a group that its actions are considered entirely irrational by that group. Behaviour (and the rights and wrongs thereof) are part of groupthink, they don't apply to a human living and operating on its own and without the burden of societal surveillance.

Consider a man who deep fries a turkey every year and then moves to Britain. His thanksgiving antics would be consider irrational. Frivolous example but it illustrates the point.