Political Crossfire Forums

[greeneye]

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.

Right... the humanity question.....

Well, of course, a 2-day old baby is not a child. A 2 month-old baby is not a child. A 32-week old fetus is not a child. A 13-week old fetus is not a child. But they are all humans.

The commonality between all the above is that they are all humans -- a human life. The 'humanity question" that pro abortion attach themselves to regarding abortion is a very good example of the danger "moral relativism." I have always found this philosophy troublesome because it's used and exercised when it suits a group within society for the sake of convenience.

In the case of abortion (or killing of innocent life), you have the majority of embryologist doctors and many within the scientific community, in the U.S. at least, affirming the a fetus, even from the early stages is a human life.

Then, because there are some who find this scientific and medical claim to be inconvenient, especially with unwanted pregnancies and the desire for abortion on demand, the argument that "the human life" that the medical and scientific community affirm is present from conception, is not developed with "brain waves" and can be killed (destroyed) on demand is "moral relativism" gone amok.

Here are the absolutes in this issue:

1. The majority of medical doctors within the embryology community agree and confirm that human life begins at conception.
2. The developmental stage of a human being has nothing to do with whether that new life "the fetus" is a human begin or not. It's pretty clear in the medical text books. It's human from day one. It's not a dog, or a bird or a goat. A fetus is a human being.
3. What's published in the majority of the embryology (the science of life) text book in the universities across this country is that HUMAN LIFE BEGINS A CONCEPTION.
4. The humanness of that new life is not determined by it's brain waves. Just as the humanness of a 80 year-old "brain-dead" patient lying in a hospital is not determined by his medical condition. It is a human from day one. It is a human while lying brain-dead in a hospital bed. It is a Life. Life is sacred whether it has brain waves or not.

Those who advocate moral relativism, simply choose not to accept or believe these absolutes that the medical and scientific community has found to be factual. Of course, one's "belief" in "moral relativism and abortion" does not negate the absolute fact that "a new life (human) begins at conception." One can say north is south for a long time but..... north will never be south.

And so the controversy continues...

The biggest problem I see with moral relativism is that one creates their "own" set of values, their own standards and their own right and wrong that may or may not be part of their given society. I.E. It's OK to lie when it suits me and the situation warrants it; it's OK to be dishonest when it suits me and the situation warrants it. It's OK to kill and destroy life when it's convenient and the situation warrants it. It's OK to not be responsible and bear the consequences of one's actions because I don't agree with society's "given values and standards."

To me, there's something wrong with this picture.

[Enoch]

You are right on one thing: Everyone creates their own sets of values. They do this whether they realize it or not.

Yes, it is okay to lie if the circumstances warrent it. It is okay to be dishonest if the circumstances warrent it. Telling kids that Santa Claus exists is dishonest, but perfectly acceptable given the circumstances. Moral absolutists, which I believe don't actually exist, would argue that dishonesty is always wrong. If that was the case, telling a child that Santa Claus exists would be wrong.

Is that a rather trivial example? Yes, of course it is. But, it goes to show that moral absolutism is a concept that no one (to my knowledge) practices.

[greeneye]

UrielsFyre wrote: But, it goes to show that moral absolutism is a concept that no one (to my knowledge) practices.

Perhaps not.

But as a civilization that has now entered the Aquarian age of independent thought and creativity and shifts in beliefs are the order of the day.... the philosophy of moral relativism has some challenges ahead.

In as much as the moral relativist maintains that moral disagreements stem from the fact that what is right for one is not necessarily right for another, it does not address how to resolve disagreements and conflict when they arise.

What happens when one set of moral views of something overlaps and affects the freedom and liberties of someone else with opposing moral views? To say that each person is right unto himself/herself does not help when the issue is: what happens when people come together with opposing moral views? That "everyone is right in his or her own world" does not solve disagreements. From history we learn what happens when someone in power decides their view or morality is "the only" view for society.

On the issue of abortion, there is most definitely an overlap of moral views by two groups of people with opposing moral views.

Group one: The pro abortion advocates who choose not to recognize the life and/or soul of the unborn baby... and

Group two: The life waiting to be born.

As circumstance would have it, Group Two can't defend itself very loudly and express their views of their morality when someone chooses to deny it (by killing it) the opportunity for a life. But it can scream and it has screamed as seen on this video when it's little limbs are torn apart.

I'm not sure if this strong body language by the developing baby waiting to be born registers to the moral relativist philosophy that afirms, "everyone is right in his or her own world."

[AllAmericanMan]

WHat I want to know, is why people need to see videos like that in order to feel compassion for the unborn. Human beings I often ponder are so short sighted. We cant see past any differences between us and immature members of our species. We need to "see" pain to feel compassion for it. We need to look at something with our own eyes to understand its existence. Relying on videos like these will only aid pro abortionists in dehumanizing the embryos. We need to move past our petty inability to equate living beings' value with what we can recognize as ourselves and move forwad to protect all members of our species, born or not.

[greeneye]

AllAmericanMan wrote: WHat I want to know, is why people need to see videos like that in order to feel compassion for the unborn. Human beings I often ponder are so short sighted. We cant see past any differences between us and immature members of our species. We need to "see" pain to feel compassion for it. We need to look at something with our own eyes to understand its existence. Relying on videos like these will only aid pro abortionists in dehumanizing the embryos. We need to move past our petty inability to equate living beings' value with what we can recognize as ourselves and move forwad to protect all members of our species, born or not.

I would tend to agree with you --- in a society that chooses to take responsibility for one's actions. But we're not there yet.

On a more practical side, however, with the advancement of technology and the ability to inform and show young women what they are about to abort rather clearly --- hundreds, if not thousands of women have choosen not to abort.

Videos like these, I believe have made an impact on the ignorant mind that truly doesn't know or believe that a very young fetus has a little body with fingers and toes. You would be amazed at how many people who advocate abortion don't know that a 13-16 week fetus has a little body and is moving it's limbs.

Ignorance is really not bliss....

[AllAmericanMan]

greeneye wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: WHat I want to know, is why people need to see videos like that in order to feel compassion for the unborn. Human beings I often ponder are so short sighted. We cant see past any differences between us and immature members of our species. We need to "see" pain to feel compassion for it. We need to look at something with our own eyes to understand its existence. Relying on videos like these will only aid pro abortionists in dehumanizing the embryos. We need to move past our petty inability to equate living beings' value with what we can recognize as ourselves and move forwad to protect all members of our species, born or not.

I would tend to agree with you --- in a society that chooses to take responsibility for one's actions. But we're not there yet.

On a more practical side, however, with the advancement of technology and the ability to inform and show young women what they are about to abort rather clearly --- hundreds, if not thousands of women have choosen not to abort.

Videos like these, I believe have made an impact on the ignorant mind that truly doesn't know or believe that a very young fetus has a little body with fingers and toes. You would be amazed at how many people who advocate abortion don't know that a 13-16 week fetus has a little body and is moving it's limbs.

Ignorance is really not bliss....

Interesting take on things. I suppose this in essence is "taking what we can get?"

[Plodder]

Quote: UrielsFyre wrote:
But, it goes to show that moral absolutism is a concept that no one (to my knowledge) practices.



Perhaps not.

that brings up a good point. maybe almost noone is a moral absolutist on all things but most people try to be in almost all things. Those that dont and try to be as relativistic as possible are usuallyin jail bevcause of some crime that they percived to be good for them.