Political Crossfire Forums

[greeneye]

UrielsFyre wrote: The bottom line is that morality is subjective. What is moral is defined by each person, culture, and situation. What you consider immoral, I may not.

Well, one is certainly free to believe that 'morality is subjective', but this concept doesn't work very well in many civilized countries where the "Rule of Law" governs a people.

For example, if the law of a land says you can't commit perjury under oath, or

you can't burn your countries flag; or

you can't walk around naked in public, or

you can't kill developing babies in the womb

You can believe in "subjective morality" all you want, but you might be thinking about it in front of a judge.

[Enoch]

greeneye wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: The bottom line is that morality is subjective. What is moral is defined by each person, culture, and situation. What you consider immoral, I may not.

Well, one is certainly free to believe that 'morality is subjective', but this concept doesn't work very well in many civilized countries where the "Rule of Law" governs a people.

For example, if the law of a land says you can't commit perjury under oath, or

you can't burn your countries flag; or

you can't walk around naked in public, or

you can't kill developing babies in the womb

You can believe in "subjective morality" all you want, but you might be thinking about it in front of a judge.
You are mistaking subjective morality with a blatant disregard for law. Are you of the opinion that everyone who morally disagrees with a law is going to break, simply because they disagree? If so, that is ridiculous.

Morality is relative, but law isn't. There is a difference.

[Enoch]

Plodder wrote: Quote: Finally, how do you find moral relativists (such as myself) to be hypocrites? What do you mean "that's not how they live?" then tell me where you live so I can steal your car keys and take your car since morality is subjective.
That doesn't answer the question.

I'll repeat, in case you didn't understand the concept. "Moral relativism is never an excuse for infringing upon the rights of others."


So, again, how do you feel that moral relativists are hypocrites?

[Plodder]

Quote: You are mistaking subjective morality with a blatant disregard for law. Are you of the opinion that everyone who morally disagrees with a law is going to break, simply because they disagree? If so, that is ridiculous. tell me what law is created without a moral purpoose or reason begaind it? Quote: "Moral relativism is never an excuse for infringing upon the rights of others." thats an oxymoron. If you sincerily belive that morality is relative then you have every right to infringe on others. Moral relaivists dont go around dooing things in the name of moral relativism. any one with common sense that those who say morality is realtive dont live that way making themselves hypocrites. Pracice what you preach.

[Enoch]

Plodder wrote: Quote: You are mistaking subjective morality with a blatant disregard for law. Are you of the opinion that everyone who morally disagrees with a law is going to break, simply because they disagree? If so, that is ridiculous. tell me what law is created without a moral purpoose or reason begaind it? Quote: "Moral relativism is never an excuse for infringing upon the rights of others." thats an oxymoron. If you sincerily belive that morality is relative then you have every right to infringe on others. Moral relaivists dont go around dooing things in the name of moral relativism. any one with common sense that those who say morality is realtive dont live that way making themselves hypocrites. Pracice what you preach. You really don't understand the idea of moral relativism, do you?

I'll explain it again. What is or is not moral is determined by the people, culture, and specifics of the given situation. Everyone is a moral relativist to some degree. A prime example is the idea of killing another person. While very few (one would hope) would say that they would kill another person, they tend to say that they would if it came to a "kill or be killed" situation

Moral absolutists would state that killing another person is wrong 100% of the time and that, under no circumcstances, would they take another life. They would allow themselves, their children, their families, and the ones they love to be killed in front of them before taking the life of the would-be assailant.

Moral relativists would state that killing another person is most often wrong but they would do it under specific situations; such as to protect themselves, their children, their families, or those they love.

So, which ones are the real hypocrites? The ones that realize that morality is based on the specific details or a situation, or the ones that claim that morality is absolute regardless of what happens to them?

[greeneye]

UrielsFyre wrote: greeneye wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: The bottom line is that morality is subjective. What is moral is defined by each person, culture, and situation. What you consider immoral, I may not.

Well, one is certainly free to believe that 'morality is subjective', but this concept doesn't work very well in many civilized countries where the "Rule of Law" governs a people.

For example, if the law of a land says you can't commit perjury under oath, or

you can't burn your countries flag; or

you can't walk around naked in public, or

you can't kill developing babies in the womb

You can believe in "subjective morality" all you want, but you might be thinking about it in front of a judge.
You are mistaking subjective morality with a blatant disregard for law. Are you of the opinion that everyone who morally disagrees with a law is going to break, simply because they disagree? If so, that is ridiculous.

Morality is relative, but law isn't. There is a difference.

Well, in the United States many of our laws are based and founded upon moral principles. That's why this whole subject gets so very wishy washy with people who advocate that 'morality is subjective'. I don't believe morality is subjective because there is such a thing as absolute truth.

Inasmuch as it is true that many people and cultures may disagree about something, this does not mean there is no objective truth. When different cultures hold no values in common, it does not necessarily mean that nobody is right or wrong about the correct values. A good example of this is Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany.

Second, though some cultures many differ in their moral practices and beliefs, it does not mean that they do not have and share common values. I can think of many cultures that have different ways of exemplifying values such as honesty, and the protection and preserving of life, but at the same time most civilized cultures do not promote stealing, dishonesty, cowardice, or arbitrary killing. There is nothing relative about it.

Regarding abortion and moral relativism, the most fundamental objection is: an abortion is infringing a tremendous right upon the life of the unborn baby. It's also infringing a right upon some would-be-fathers who may want the child. However, the current law doesn't even consider the father or other family members. What about those rights? This doesn't mean the law if objectively right.

Life is indeed sacred. Just because some people may not believe that life is sacred and that it's really all "just relative", does not mean that Life is not sacred. Again, there is an objective truth, despite the fact that some people may not believe there is.

Also, since Roe has been degraded time and time again over the last 30 years, to me, this is a good example of how a social law that was not based upon some type of sound objective truth, has lost almost all of its legal ground for standing.

[Enoch]

greeneye wrote: Life is indeed sacred. Just because some people may not believe that life is sacred and that it's really all "just relative", does not mean that Life is not sacred. Again, there is an objective truth, despite the fact that some people may not believe there is.
That statement alone shows how morality is subjective. You believe in an absolute truth that life is sacred, even at conception. Others don't believe that a newly conceived child constitutes a sacred life. Thus, subjective morality. To you, it is a moral truth. To others, it is not.

[AllAmericanMan]

Indeed pro abortionists do not view life as sacred. They view their selves as sacred and their right to kill their children as sacred.

[Enoch]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Indeed pro abortionists do not view life as sacred. They view their selves as sacred and their right to kill their children as sacred. Oh Lord, here we go again. :roll:

Pro-choice advocates do not view "their right to kill children as sacred." Pro-choicers do not view the embryo as being a child. Thus, we do not view it as killing a child.

But, despite that, your argument (as emotionally embellished as it is) backs up the fact that morality is subjective.

[Revenant]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Indeed pro abortionists do not view life as sacred. They view their selves as sacred and their right to kill their children as sacred.

Yes, my right to kill children is sacred. And constitutional. Deal with it.

[AllAmericanMan]

UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Indeed pro abortionists do not view life as sacred. They view their selves as sacred and their right to kill their children as sacred. Oh Lord, here we go again. :roll:

Pro-choice advocates do not view "their right to kill children as sacred." Pro-choicers do not view the embryo as being a child. Thus, we do not view it as killing a child.



Despite almost every embryologists' explanation to the contrary. Ignorance is bliss.

[AllAmericanMan]

Renevant wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Indeed pro abortionists do not view life as sacred. They view their selves as sacred and their right to kill their children as sacred.

Yes, my right to kill children is sacred. And constitutional. Deal with it. Just as blacks are 2/3 a person constitutionaly right? And only men have the right to vote.

[Enoch]

AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Indeed pro abortionists do not view life as sacred. They view their selves as sacred and their right to kill their children as sacred. Oh Lord, here we go again. :roll:

Pro-choice advocates do not view "their right to kill children as sacred." Pro-choicers do not view the embryo as being a child. Thus, we do not view it as killing a child.



Despite almost every embryologists' explanation to the contrary. Ignorance is bliss.
Well, when you show me the evidence that everyembryologist says a newly concieved embryo is a child, then I will consider switching my opinion. Until then, I will not consider an embryo to be on the same level as a child.

[Revenant]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Renevant wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Indeed pro abortionists do not view life as sacred. They view their selves as sacred and their right to kill their children as sacred.

Yes, my right to kill children is sacred. And constitutional. Deal with it. Just as blacks are 2/3 a person constitutionaly right? And only men have the right to vote.

At their respective times, yes. Now is the respective time for abortion.

[greeneye]

UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Indeed pro abortionists do not view life as sacred. They view their selves as sacred and their right to kill their children as sacred. Oh Lord, here we go again. :roll:

Pro-choice advocates do not view "their right to kill children as sacred." Pro-choicers do not view the embryo as being a child. Thus, we do not view it as killing a child.



Despite almost every embryologists' explanation to the contrary. Ignorance is bliss.
Well, when you show me the evidence that everyembryologist says a newly concieved embryo is a child, then I will consider switching my opinion. Until then, I will not consider an embryo to be on the same level as a child.

Humm.... "every embryologists".... .. well how about the majority...?

Yes, the majority do agree on one thing ....and that is that Life begins at conception. An embryo is a life -- a life that is killed every time someone chooses to abort its existence.

Here's a start for some references --- if you're really interested. Scroll down the page and there are lots of references by doctors and scientists ....

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1111975#1111975

[Enoch]

greeneye wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Indeed pro abortionists do not view life as sacred. They view their selves as sacred and their right to kill their children as sacred. Oh Lord, here we go again. :roll:

Pro-choice advocates do not view "their right to kill children as sacred." Pro-choicers do not view the embryo as being a child. Thus, we do not view it as killing a child.



Despite almost every embryologists' explanation to the contrary. Ignorance is bliss.
Well, when you show me the evidence that every embryologist says a newly concieved embryo is a child, then I will consider switching my opinion. Until then, I will not consider an embryo to be on the same level as a child.

Humm.... "every embryologists".... .. well how about the majority...?

Yes, the majority do agree on one thing ....and that is that Life begins at conception. An embryo is a life -- a life that is killed every time someone chooses to abort its existence.

Here's a start for some references --- if you're really interested. Scroll down the page and there are lots of references by doctors and scientists ....

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1111975#1111975
There is a difference between the embryo being alive and it being a child. That was my point. I am not denying that an embryo is alive. My contention is that it has not yet developed to the point where it can be considered a child.

[AllAmericanMan]

UrielsFyre wrote: greeneye wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Indeed pro abortionists do not view life as sacred. They view their selves as sacred and their right to kill their children as sacred. Oh Lord, here we go again. :roll:

Pro-choice advocates do not view "their right to kill children as sacred." Pro-choicers do not view the embryo as being a child. Thus, we do not view it as killing a child.



Despite almost every embryologists' explanation to the contrary. Ignorance is bliss.
Well, when you show me the evidence that every embryologist says a newly concieved embryo is a child, then I will consider switching my opinion. Until then, I will not consider an embryo to be on the same level as a child.

Humm.... "every embryologists".... .. well how about the majority...?

Yes, the majority do agree on one thing ....and that is that Life begins at conception. An embryo is a life -- a life that is killed every time someone chooses to abort its existence.

Here's a start for some references --- if you're really interested. Scroll down the page and there are lots of references by doctors and scientists ....

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1111975#1111975
There is a difference between the embryo being alive and it being a child. That was my point. I am not denying that an embryo is alive. My contention is that it has not yet developed to the point where it can be considered a child. It is an unborn child. Child is a stage of development and does not change the fact that a human being is being killed. Embryo is a stage of development we all went through. There are so many links and scientists who support this simple fact it is amazing that some people can still disagree.

[Enoch]

AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: greeneye wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Indeed pro abortionists do not view life as sacred. They view their selves as sacred and their right to kill their children as sacred. Oh Lord, here we go again. :roll:

Pro-choice advocates do not view "their right to kill children as sacred." Pro-choicers do not view the embryo as being a child. Thus, we do not view it as killing a child.



Despite almost every embryologists' explanation to the contrary. Ignorance is bliss.
Well, when you show me the evidence that every embryologist says a newly concieved embryo is a child, then I will consider switching my opinion. Until then, I will not consider an embryo to be on the same level as a child.

Humm.... "every embryologists".... .. well how about the majority...?

Yes, the majority do agree on one thing ....and that is that Life begins at conception. An embryo is a life -- a life that is killed every time someone chooses to abort its existence.

Here's a start for some references --- if you're really interested. Scroll down the page and there are lots of references by doctors and scientists ....

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1111975#1111975
There is a difference between the embryo being alive and it being a child. That was my point. I am not denying that an embryo is alive. My contention is that it has not yet developed to the point where it can be considered a child. It is an unborn child. Child is a stage of development and does not change the fact that a human being is being killed. Embryo is a stage of development we all went through. There are so many links and scientists who support this simple fact it is amazing that some people can still disagree. The disagreement comes from the fact that "child" or "person" is a subjective term having nothing to do with the biological definition of life.

[AllAmericanMan]

UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: greeneye wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Indeed pro abortionists do not view life as sacred. They view their selves as sacred and their right to kill their children as sacred. Oh Lord, here we go again. :roll:

Pro-choice advocates do not view "their right to kill children as sacred." Pro-choicers do not view the embryo as being a child. Thus, we do not view it as killing a child.



Despite almost every embryologists' explanation to the contrary. Ignorance is bliss.
Well, when you show me the evidence that every embryologist says a newly concieved embryo is a child, then I will consider switching my opinion. Until then, I will not consider an embryo to be on the same level as a child.

Humm.... "every embryologists".... .. well how about the majority...?

Yes, the majority do agree on one thing ....and that is that Life begins at conception. An embryo is a life -- a life that is killed every time someone chooses to abort its existence.

Here's a start for some references --- if you're really interested. Scroll down the page and there are lots of references by doctors and scientists ....

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1111975#1111975
There is a difference between the embryo being alive and it being a child. That was my point. I am not denying that an embryo is alive. My contention is that it has not yet developed to the point where it can be considered a child. It is an unborn child. Child is a stage of development and does not change the fact that a human being is being killed. Embryo is a stage of development we all went through. There are so many links and scientists who support this simple fact it is amazing that some people can still disagree. The disagreement comes from the fact that "child" or "person" is a subjective term having nothing to do with the biological definition of life. No people disagree more than that, it is continously devalued here as a blob of cells, parasite, plant seed and so on and so on. Human beings, regardless of how young and immature they are are always human beings. Ive seen that point argued here by some very ignorant pro abortionsists.

[Enoch]

AllAmericanMan wrote: No people disagree more than that, it is continously devalued here as a blob of cells, parasite, plant seed and so on and so on. Human beings, regardless of how young and immature they are are always human beings. Ive seen that point argued here by some very ignorant pro abortionsists. You may be careful bandying about a term like "ignorant." There is a difference between arguing about a biological definition of life, which is agreed upon, and a philosophical construct like "person" or "child." That is the crux of the debate, in every abortion debate. When does the biological life found in a pregnant woman reach the point of being considered a person or a child.

There is no way to argue that scientifically, thus it is strictly dependent on individual interpretations.