Is the US turning more conservative??

[MTm7]

1. When cells start multiplying, somethings happening. If scientists could create that chemistry with raw materials they would say they created life at that point.

2. If you're worried about getting pregnant, you need to find new friends. If you become pregnant, it's not your body that others are trying to tell you that you can't kill.

good points!

 

[MTm7]

very, very well said..

I am pro choice.. The mother should have a right to choose.. The government has enough control over our lives.. The whole guilt thing from people that have aborted is just one side. There are also people that have, and are ok with it, and have gone on to start families later in their life.

A couple of thing to consider. Contraceptives and birth control are not 100 percent effective. The only thing that is close, is Depo, I think it is called, and that is only 98 or 99 percent effective. Just something to keep in mind. My gf has heard many many stories of, we were using condoms, I was on the pill.... from people that were pregnant.. This issue deals with what happens after. Preventive methods should be used, it is unresponsible not too.

The question of life and death of a unborn child has very large implications.. Along the same order as what is good for the species for an evolutionary standpoint, and what is good for the people from a morality standpoint..

i agree with that... the implications/consequences are far reaching. though to me the main point to be argued is missed regarding abortion... that being it is not a matter of preference but of morality. to argue its a matter of preference is just intellectually dishonest... i mean its not like im saying vanilla ice cream tastes better than chocolate.

so if in fact it is a matter of morality and not preference than lets argue from that, correct, standpoint.

 

[ruffryder]

so if in fact it is a matter of morality and not preference than lets argue from that, correct, standpoint.

Not sure if I understand the morality vs. preference. You mind defining with an example what you mean by preference?

 

[MTm7]

i guess what im saying is is it morally wrong/right/neutral not do i like/dislike(preference...like say a particular ice cream) abortion?

i think that there is some confusion regarding a moral claim as opposed to a preferential claim... that make sense?

 

[opus]

Why would we force a person that doesn't want the kid to have it?

Its known as responsibility, grow up

You can argue religion, but you have to throw that out because our country doesn't push any religious view/rule onto anyone. I think it is sad to get an abortion, but if the parent is unable or doesn't want to take care of the child, why should we say they have to? All circumstances are different (rape babies, drug babies, babies expected to not live well or long, etc.), but perhaps abortion will prevent a child from growing up in a life of drugs, hate, murder, crime, anomisity and prevent them from pushing all of this onto your kids!

Ever hear of adoption? Who gave you/us the right to decide who lives or dies?

Your post is consistent with what a majority of people would say. What a disgusting shame! Grow up and accept some responsibility is what it boils down to, regardless of what the govt says.

[disclaimer: not an attack on you personally.]

 

[ruffryder]

i guess what im saying is is it morally wrong/right/neutral not do i like/dislike(preference...like say a particular ice cream) abortion?

i think that there is some confusion regarding a moral claim as opposed to a preferential claim... that make sense?

Is a preferential claim not based upon morals? I am not sure it is possible to decouple the two arguments. Your preference example seems dependent upon the subject matter.

Make sense? I don't think I am getting it. I think you are making my brain hurt..

 

[Ollie]

I think you are making my brain hurt..

Wow, WAY to easy a target.

 

[MTm7]

Is a preferential claim not based upon morals? I am not sure it is possible to decouple the two arguments. Your preference example seems dependent upon the subject matter.

Make sense? I don't think I am getting it. I think you are making my brain hurt..

i think now my brain is hurting!

let me see if i can try again.... if i say that abortion(elective) is morally wrong i am not saying i personally dislike(preference) abortion or would prefer that people not have one. no, rather i am saying that abortion is objectively wrong for everyone regardless of how one feels about it. how about this for an example... 'dont like slavery? dont own one!'(borrowed example) you see its not a matter of preference or feelings but is objectively wrong to own a slave.

can you evaluate preferential claims based on evidence or is it just personal feelings? can you evaluate moral claims based on evidence or is it likewise just personal feelings? or are they the same?

ahh shoot i have a headache now!

 

[ruffryder]

i think now my brain is hurting!

let me see if i can try again.... if i say that abortion(elective) is morally wrong i am not saying i personally dislike(preference) abortion or would prefer that people not have one. no, rather i am saying that abortion is objectively wrong for everyone regardless of how one feels about it. how about this for an example... 'dont like slavery? dont own one!'(borrowed example) you see its not a matter of preference or feelings but is objectively wrong to own a slave.

wow... dang you got me all twisted up. In short.. to the top paragraph, I don't know. Can you say something is morally wrong but preferentially are ok with it? I don't think so. Can you say something is morally right but preferentially not ok with it? I guess that is the question you are asking. I think it comes down to the order of morals or the hierarchy of them. Some people view personal choice higher then killing an supposed unborn child (depends upon definition of life and all that). It is a moral question of if the woman has the right, yet it is a moral question as to if the woman should use that right.

I think the prefereble / preferential claims or in fact based upon morality, so maybe they should be considered as such. When dealing with rights and freedoms, people (me including) put the rights of others to screw there lives up, higher then trying to protect everyone from themselves.

It is a free choice vs. no choice argument.

Is this any clearer? Or are we just going in circles?

can you evaluate preferential claims based on evidence or is it just personal feelings? can you evaluate moral claims based on evidence or is it likewise just personal feelings? or are they the same?

ahh shoot i have a headache now!

Preferntial claims can be based on evidence, but I am sure personal feelings are also based on evidence too. The same with moral claims.. Well wait, maybe not. Maybe more accuratly is to state that it can be based upon personal feelings of evidence or interpretations of events.

I guess here would be a nice example

One person sees a tree cut down. They crie. From this experience they view it is morally wrong.

Another person sees a tree cut down. They start planning on building something with it, or having a big fire. From this experience they view it as morally right.

Yet another person sees a tree cut down. The object to the cutting of the tree down, but realise that it is the means of growth and prosperity and that the tree will be used for something, or the land will.

So this last person thinks it is morally right to cut the tree down, but would prefer it not to be.

Again, I think it is a hierarchy issue of multiple moral questions.

That example was lame.... but oh well.

 

[MTm7]

wow... dang you got me all twisted up. In short.. to the top paragraph, I don't know. Can you say something is morally wrong but preferentially are ok with it? I don't think so. Can you say something is morally right but preferentially not ok with it? I guess that is the question you are asking. I think it comes down to the order of morals or the hierarchy of them. Some people view personal choice higher then killing an supposed unborn child (depends upon definition of life and all that). It is a moral question of if the woman has the right, yet it is a moral question as to if the woman should use that right.(1)

I think the prefereble / preferential claims or in fact based upon morality, so maybe they should be considered as such. When dealing with rights and freedoms, people (me including) put the rights of others to screw there lives up, higher then trying to protect everyone from themselves.

It is a free choice vs. no choice argument.

Is this any clearer? Or are we just going in circles?(2)



Preferntial claims can be based on evidence, but I am sure personal feelings are also based on evidence too. The same with moral claims.. Well wait, maybe not. Maybe more accuratly is to state that it can be based upon personal feelings of evidence or interpretations of events.(3)

I guess here would be a nice example

One person sees a tree cut down. They crie. From this experience they view it is morally wrong.

Another person sees a tree cut down. They start planning on building something with it, or having a big fire. From this experience they view it as morally right.

Yet another person sees a tree cut down. The object to the cutting of the tree down, but realise that it is the means of growth and prosperity and that the tree will be used for something, or the land will.

So this last person thinks it is morally right to cut the tree down, but would prefer it not to be.

Again, I think it is a hierarchy issue of multiple moral questions.

That example was lame.... but oh well.

(1)i do believe that a person can prefer/not prefer something and it be morally wrong/right. morals are/should be based on objective truth. where as preferences are subjective.. i think the moral claim is a stand alone issue. take for instance drinking and driving... what if i see a guy totally plastered(that was me in my former life) getting into his truck to drive home... do i say my preference is for him not to get behind the wheel while intoxicated but its his right to 'screw up his life' soooo... and leave it at that? or do i say i prefer to let him be(his right and all that) BUT i am morally obligated(i would argue if im obligated it must be moral) to step in and take the keys??? so the preferential claim vs the moral claim... you decide?!?!?! i guess i would say nobody has the(moral) right to do wrong... they just are free(situational obviously) to act wrong. i do agree with you that people place their rights over and above morals which if thats the case how does one establish what is moral or not... after all if i deem it is my right(endless scenarios) then it must be moral...no that is the inverse to correct logic... morals must be the sentinel!

(2) yes i think we have turned this thread into a circuitous argument.

(3) ahh my brain is hurting again!