"Abolish Abortion", the Number One Wish for Canada

[littleharbour]

Good point Bulldog. Fortunately we now have a PM who doesn't believe in such grubby populist nonsense as referenda. Mulroney's mistake was to first consult the premiers and then the people in his attempt to subjugate Canada to Quebec nationalism. Harper made his own decision, consulted with nobody and forced his caucus to vote "aye". Government is so much more efficient if democracy isn't permitted to intrude.

[rwebb]

The moral status of a fetus is not relative to the hopes, wishes and opinions of the woman carrying it unless you are a moral relativist.

Not that I have any qualms about the term, but let's not misuse it. Moral relativism refers to the proposition that morality should be judged relative to the situation or the culture at hand, e.g., female genital mutilation is okay in cultures where it is the accepted norm.

What I'm saying is quite different (and IMHO pretty much self-evident): that morality is judged according to the values of the person doing the judging. In other words, moral values are always a matter of opinion. There is no lab test to prove the existence of a soul, or to show that a fetus has intrinsic worth, or even to determine right or wrong. You can resort to the "absolute truth" of the Bible or of whatever God or gods you prefer, but it is still only your opinion that your source of absolute moral authority is valid and that you are interpreting it correctly.

That would be "subjective relativism" rather than "ethical relativism", in technical terms.

No, that's not what I meant either, though maybe I didn't express it well. The distinction you're making is that subjective relativism says that whatever I feel is right for me is what I should do; whereas (conventional) ethical relativism says that whatever society feels is right for me is what I should do.

I'm saying neither of those two things. I'm saying that whatever moral standards I believe in, whether absolute or relative, religious or humanist, they are my own opinions, and not some objective Truth that can be independently verified. Morality deals in value judgements, unlike science, which deals in facts.

One can design an experiment to show that a fetus has its own DNA, but no such experiment will ever show that it has its own soul or its own rights or its own value. My point was simply that when people make those kinds of assertions, they are expressing opinions, not facts.

[Paycheck]

The moral status of a fetus is not relative to the hopes, wishes and opinions of the woman carrying it unless you are a moral relativist.

Not that I have any qualms about the term, but let's not misuse it. Moral relativism refers to the proposition that morality should be judged relative to the situation or the culture at hand, e.g., female genital mutilation is okay in cultures where it is the accepted norm.

What I'm saying is quite different (and IMHO pretty much self-evident): that morality is judged according to the values of the person doing the judging. In other words, moral values are always a matter of opinion. There is no lab test to prove the existence of a soul, or to show that a fetus has intrinsic worth, or even to determine right or wrong. You can resort to the "absolute truth" of the Bible or of whatever God or gods you prefer, but it is still only your opinion that your source of absolute moral authority is valid and that you are interpreting it correctly.

That would be "subjective relativism" rather than "ethical relativism", in technical terms.

No, that's not what I meant either, though maybe I didn't express it well. The distinction you're making is that subjective relativism says that whatever I feel is right for me is what I should do; whereas (conventional) ethical relativism says that whatever society feels is right for me is what I should do.

I'm saying neither of those two things. I'm saying that whatever moral standards I believe in, whether absolute or relative, religious or humanist, they are my own opinions, and not some objective Truth that can be independently verified. Morality deals in value judgements, unlike science, which deals in facts.

One can design an experiment to show that a fetus has its own DNA, but no such experiment will ever show that it has its own soul or its own rights or its own value. My point was simply that when people make those kinds of assertions, they are expressing opinions, not facts.

There is no scientific evidence that you have a soul either. Does that mean an abortionist can decapitate you?

[rwebb]

Did you really need to quote that whole message for a one sentence reply? You really are a waste of bandwidth.

[bulldog905]

Did you really need to quote that whole message for a one sentence reply? You really are a waste of bandwidth.

He says more in one sentence than you have in 5 years.

And he needed to put your moral imbecility on full display in order to put that sentence in context.

[Paycheck]

Did you really need to quote that whole message for a one sentence reply? You really are a waste of bandwidth.

Whasamatter? Feeling a little bruised right now?

It is not my fault that your whole arbitrary (and obviously not too well thought out) criteria for assigning worth to a person can be brought down with a few words.

Try again.

[rwebb]

Don't be silly, Paycheck. Your last two "contributions" to this discussion were complete non sequiturs. The answer to your question, as if it needed an answer, is "no".

Now what?

[Paycheck]

Don't be silly, Paycheck. Your last two "contributions" to this discussion were complete non sequiturs. The answer to your question, as if it needed an answer, is "no".

Now what?

No? Please help me understand. Above you said the following:

One can design an experiment to show that a fetus has its own DNA, but no such experiment will ever show that it has its own soul or its own rights or its own value.

Please explain how you have a "soul" (and therefore are worthy of protection as you implied) and an unborn child does not?

This seems to be a metaphysical question that is way beyond your particular competence. But I am sure very eager to hear what evidence - scientific or otherwise - you are going to pull out to show that you have a soul and a nine month old unborn child does not.

Scientifically speaking, an unborn child has as much a right to protection as you or any born citizen of Canada does.

The same is true metaphysically speaking.

Back to you.

[Paycheck]

Notice on the next step:

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=83795

[rwebb]

Please explain how you have a "soul" (and therefore are worthy of protection as you implied) and an unborn child does not?

I didn't say I had a soul, I didn't say an unborn child does not, and I certainly never meant to imply that a soul would make either of us worthy of protection. In fact, if by "soul" you mean something immortal, then I would probably argue the opposite. For instance, in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna explains to Arjuna that he does no moral wrong by killing his worthy and virtuous opponents in battle, because in doing so he merely frees their souls to move on to a new and possibly better life. What's wrong with that?

[Paycheck]

Please explain how you have a "soul" (and therefore are worthy of protection as you implied) and an unborn child does not?

I didn't say I had a soul, I didn't say an unborn child does not, and I certainly never meant to imply that a soul would make either of us worthy of protection. In fact, if by "soul" you mean something immortal, then I would probably argue the opposite. For instance, in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna explains to Arjuna that he does no moral wrong by killing his worthy and virtuous opponents in battle, because in doing so he merely frees their souls to move on to a new and possibly better life. What's wrong with that?

You are shifting the gound. In your earlier response, you were trying to come up with some kind of criteria to distinguish between those humans who have rights and those who do not.

Otherwise, your statement:

One can design an experiment to show that a fetus has its own DNA, but no such experiment will ever show that it has its own soul or its own rights or its own value. My point was simply that when people make those kinds of assertions, they are expressing opinions, not facts.

would have been completely irrelevant.

I'm not the one who brought up a "soul". The whole point of me rebutting your point was to show you that if you have a soul, then so does the unborn child. Either way, you both either have dignity or neither of you do.

And you still have not told us what things you possess that an unborn child does not that would qualify you (and not an unborn child) for protection by the State from a "doctor" who wishes to terminate your life.

[Paycheck]

For instance, in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna explains to Arjuna that he does no moral wrong by killing his worthy and virtuous opponents in battle, because in doing so he merely frees their souls to move on to a new and possibly better life. What's wrong with that?

So you think there is a battle between an abortionist and an unborn child? Boy, that sure is some battle.

How about one of your enemies doing the same to you? You know, because he wants you to move on to a better life.

[Zip.com]

For instance, in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna explains to Arjuna that he does no moral wrong by killing his worthy and virtuous opponents in battle, because in doing so he merely frees their souls to move on to a new and possibly better life. What's wrong with that?

So you think there is a battle between an abortionist and an unborn child? Boy, that sure is some battle.

How about one of your enemies doing the same to you? You know, because he wants you to move on to a better life.

Isn't that what the Islamic suicide bombers want? Oh, and they also get 72 virgins!!!

[homeandnativeland]

Please explain how you have a "soul" (and therefore are worthy of protection as you implied) and an unborn child does not?

I didn't say I had a soul, I didn't say an unborn child does not, and I certainly never meant to imply that a soul would make either of us worthy of protection. In fact, if by "soul" you mean something immortal, then I would probably argue the opposite. For instance, in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna explains to Arjuna that he does no moral wrong by killing his worthy and virtuous opponents in battle, because in doing so he merely frees their souls to move on to a new and possibly better life. What's wrong with that?

Blah, blah blah, Hindu BS blah blah. So killing is OK rwebb? Wow, this is way more violent than anything ever stated in the gun room.

[texasredtop]

Maybe we should give the unborn a fighting chance and start arming them.