The hypocrisy of abortion supportersPosted 7 years Ago

At 6/4/2013 11:08:15 PM, Peyton1 wrote:

For the same reason we don't allow forced organ donation to those who would die without.

This is a good point. You've given me a lot to think about.

I'm glad. For the record, I used to be opposed to abortion too. It was only when upon reflection I thought of the bodily sovereignty position, that I was swayed. I consequently feel it is the strongest and most relevant argument to the discussion.
Forums Home > Philosophy

Vegan SpeechPosted 7 years Ago

At 6/4/2013 11:06:14 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 6/4/2013 11:01:24 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
And we should care about these forms of suffering because...?
Not sure, ask a vegan out and discuss over a cup of coffee, Ma'am.

Haha. I wasn't necessarily asking you, it was an open response to the statement.

Also, something I didn't mention on the above post, is that moral veganism goes farther than just not eating meat, but claims it is immoral to use any form of animal product what so ever.

Moral vegetarianism I feel may have some good arguments, but is still flawed. When it comes to moral veganism however, I will staunchly stand by my statement that it is nothing more than delusional garbage.
Forums Home > Philosophy

Vegan SpeechPosted 7 years Ago

At 6/4/2013 10:20:57 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 6/4/2013 2:06:45 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
Further more, plants themselves also feel suffering. Plants have the capability to feel pain. Explain why the suffering of plants is justifiable, but not the suffering or lesser creatures without self-awareness, who for all intents and purposes, are as intelligent as a plant?
The vegan argument is that consuming plants alone is a lesser evil than consuming animal products, because the net sum of suffering inflicted will be lower. Animals need to be fed.

And we should care about these forms of suffering because...?

If certain forms of animal life can be said to be no more self-aware or intelligent than certain plant life, then there is, on an individual basis, no difference between eating a plant or animal. Now you may say, as you have, that the net total of suffering is less, but should we even begin to care about these lesser creature's "suffering" to begin with? Can it even be said to be real suffering? To suffer is not the same as simple pain. Suffering implies some form of self-awareness or reflection, which most life on this planet is lacking. It would seem the only creatures that suffer from the death of lesser creatures, are humans who moan and bitch about it. Which seems silly. Consider microorganisms, and the billions that are killed by human interaction every single day. Should we honestly care about these forms of life? Life that we cannot even perceive?

It can also be argued that morality only applies to moral beings, of which there are even less than self-aware creatures. In which case, we have no moral duty towards such life, as such life is incapable of understanding and forming morals themselves.

This also ignores the fact that all life is built upon the destruction of other life. Life must die and be reborn in various forms. It can therefore be stated that we have no duty to any form of life other than out own, even including those of other moral beings. I would not take it that far, but the fact remains, death is a natural part of existence, specifically the death of other animals, to sustain greater forms of life. Why should we care what or how much of certain forms of life die and suffer, especially when these creatures can arguably not experience life as we know it to begin with?

Sorry, but only someone completely delusional would use such an asinine "net worth" argument. Not all forms of suffering are equal, and I think it can be stated that the satisfaction of greater life overrides the death of lesser creatures, most of which are not even aware of their own existence.
Forums Home > Philosophy

The hypocrisy of abortion supportersPosted 7 years Ago

At 6/4/2013 10:08:42 PM, Peyton1 wrote:
Really? You see no problem with it? Kudos to having consistent beliefs, but that seems like a big bullet to bite.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying I like the reality of the situation. I'm simply pointing it out, and saying I'd much rather have this, than some alternative reality.

If an option one day develops to remove the fetus and preserve it outside the womb, I will be on the first to be advocating for the removal, or at the very least, severe reduction, of abortion as a viable medical option. Until such a day, abortion must remain a legal option, to uphold the institution of bodily sovereignty, regardless of my personal feelings about it.

It seems we disagree on a (possibly moot) point- the ontological relationship between the right to bodily sovereignty and the right to life. (So I'd disagree that it is the "very institution of bodily sovereignty" that grants us the right to life). We both agree that certain rights can "trump" other rights; we just disagree on which right is prior. My intuitions point the other way - - that the right to life would trump the right to bodily sovereignty.

Hardly. If that were the case, you would have no right to kill an attacker in defense of yourself. The right to life is not absolute; neither is the right to bodily sovereignty. It all depends on the situation, and sometimes, one trumps the other. In cases of self-defense and self-preservation, bodily sovereignty always trumps a violator's right to life.

The whole concept of a right to life hinges upon bodily sovereignty, as if I have just as much a right to your body as you do, then you have no basis to complain if I choose to kill you, because I can do what I like with what is rightfully mine.

I also agree that there are two moral spheres- a public and private sphere- and that those punishable by law should only deal with matters of the public sphere. (So I'd agree, for example, that although it is wrong to commit adultery [or be rude], we wouldn't want this punishable by law/illegal). It seems, however, that matters of life and death belong very much in the public sphere, and if abortion is morally equivalent to murder [strong word, but it's what we use when we mean the wrongful violation of the right to life], then it should be illegal (ie not a legally viable option for people).

It's not. It's an act of self-defense, in regards to an infringement of a right. One's right to bodily autonomy overrides one's right to life, when a life's existence infringes upon one's body unjustly. For the same reason we don't allow forced organ donation to those who would die without.
Forums Home > Philosophy

Wealth Redistribution: Just or Unjust?Posted 7 years Ago

It is entirely just, as most of these rich, upperclass yuppies did nothing to warrant their mass wealth in the first place. Better to redistribue it to people who have to work for a living, to alleviate their suffering and oppression.
Forums Home > Politics

The hypocrisy of abortion supportersPosted 7 years Ago

At 6/4/2013 7:01:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"The Bible never specifically addresses the issue of abortion. However, there are numerous teachings in Scripture that make it abundantly clear what God"s view of abortion is.

Of this I have my doubts. But go on.

Jeremiah 1:5 tells us that God knows us before He forms us in the womb.

This speaks nothing of abortion, only that, supposedly, God knows of our existence before we are conceived. This does not even mean that we have personhood in the womb.

Psalm 139:13-16 speaks of God"s active role in our creation and formation in the womb.

Again, speaks nothing of abortion, much less the personhood of a fetus.

Exodus 21:22-25 prescribes the same penalty"death"for someone who causes the death of a baby in the womb as for someone who commits murder. This clearly indicates that God considers a baby in the womb to be as human as a full-grown adult.

Fair enough, however, someone murdering a fetus in the womb, and someone aborting a child, are two entirely different things. It is true that in both scenarios, the death of the fetus can be said to be against it's will, however, unlike the purposeful or accidental killing of the fetus against both it and the mother's desires, abortion is an act of self-defense. We may say killing a human is wrong, but this is not an absolute, as there are times when one's right to life are superseded by one's right to protect themselves, and preserve their bodily sovereignty. This is what abortion is. An act of self-preservation, in accordance to the mother's right to own and control who is and is not permitted to use her body. As such, it is not the same as merely killing the fetus.

For the Christian, abortion is not a matter of a woman"s right to choose. It is a matter of the life or death of a human being made in God"s image"

http://www.gotquestions.org...

And yet, you have proven nothing, other than that God, if he even exists, considered the fetus a human life; which I have already conceded prior to this argument.

I again reiterate that the Bible speaks nothing of abortion, or the fetus' right to life versus the mother's right to bodily sovereignty. And therefore, it is perfectly possible for one to be both Christian, and support abortion.
Forums Home > Philosophy

Vegan SpeechPosted 7 years Ago

At 6/4/2013 3:27:55 AM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 6/3/2013 2:01:13 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
At 6/3/2013 12:08:38 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 6/2/2013 5:14:38 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
At 5/31/2013 6:18:18 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
Why don't you formulate an actual argument?

The idea we should obtain from any form of animal product, because it causes harm, is delusional and psychotic. Nothing more needs to be said.

The worst part about reading this is knowing that a more respectable memeber, like tboone, will probably give it a thumbs up.

Your little pity party says nothing about whether or not I am right (Hint: I am).

So far you have only made claims with no arguments or evidence to support them. You are being disrespectful and calling people delusional, and going about arguing like a five-year-old, in the way of, "I'm right and you're wrong, so deal with it."

You claimed it was arrogant to expect the arguments presented in the video to change your worldview, and all you've done is arrogantly reject arguments while offering none.

Yes, I am right, and you are wrong. Yes, your ideology is delusional, and only held by those who do not have a decent or complete grasp of reality. Like any group of cultists or insane people. Not all opinions and world views are valid, so pardon me it I don't give much thought to dismissing you silly, pathetic excuse for morality, after having debated against it countless times before, with equally delusional people.

But, never let it be said I am not up for a challenge when issued one. You want to do this? Fine.

Explain why drinking milk, or consuming any other form of diary product, is "harmful" and "immoral". Explain why wearing silk is immoral.

Veganism is not the same as vegetarianism. It does not merely say "eating meat is wrong", but goes so far as to ban the consumption and use of anything made, even in part, by animals.

Further more, plants themselves also feel suffering. Plants have the capability to feel pain. Explain why the suffering of plants is justifiable, but not the suffering or lesser creatures without self-awareness, who for all intents and purposes, are as intelligent as a plant?
Forums Home > Philosophy

The hypocrisy of abortion supportersPosted 7 years Ago

At 6/4/2013 11:18:57 AM, leojm wrote:
My question is, how can someone call themselves Christian and are for abortion. Please explain this to me, because this does not make sense to me what's so ever.

For the same reason someone can call themselves a Christian, and yet, kill an attacker if they are being attacked, in self-defense. There is nothing in the Bible that would suggest killing the unborn fetus by abortion is immoral, and certainly nothing that claims the mother's right to bodily sovereignty is overridden by the fetus' right to life.
Forums Home > Philosophy

The hypocrisy of abortion supportersPosted 7 years Ago

At 6/3/2013 8:19:10 PM, Peyton1 wrote:
It seems, however, that an adoption of this view commits us to some problematic conclusions: namely, that an abortion at any time during the course of the pregnancy (including late abortions into the third trimester) would also be morally permissible. (Some of these would be gruesome; you get into that grey area in which the abortion is indistinguishable from a premature birth, in which the fetus (infant) could be harmed but still survive with serious health problems.) These situations seem to rub against the moral intuitions of most people. Sure, this could be a problem for their intuitions, but it could also be a problem for your theory.

I see no problem with it what so ever actually. Many things can "rub people the wrong way", and yet, still must be upheld as a legally viable option for people. For instance, it can be considered to be immoral to treat others rudely, and yet, it is legal, and should remain so.

For the record, I don't like abortion personally. Very few circumstances in my view should warrant it, certainly least of all any in the late term. And if down the line, there comes into existence, a possibility to remove the fetus without killing it, and sustain it outside the womb, I would fully support the removal of abortion as a legal option. Or at least, in part.

However, despite any personal objections I may find with it, it is also not only justifiable, but necessary, that we uphold a woman's right to control her body by any means necessary. If we do not, we are failing to uphold the institution of bodily sovereignty, which is central to daily living. It is this very institution which gives us a right to life, and among other things, gives us the ability to morally and legally object to other's using our bodies against our will. Without it, the world would be a much darker place.
Forums Home > Philosophy

Psychopath Kills Teen Becuase of RejectionPosted 7 years Ago

At 6/3/2013 2:22:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
No, neither are smart...

Of course, a sociopath can be a genius...

Uhuh. Do explain those contradictory claims.

...and sociopath and psychopath are pretty much synonyms.

Not true. I wrote a whole paper in one of my criminal justice classes on the differences between psychopaths and sociopaths. They are often used interchangeably in the broader culture, but when it comes to diagnosis, they are most certainly not the same thing.
Forums Home > News

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.