New Restrictions on Abortion Have Real World Consequences

Post Reply New Topic

---

"What is moral is what saves the most lives,
which is a morality no one, especially me, really holds."

After Hearing this, i must Wonder; Just too Curious;

If You Ever Leave 'Your House' (Your Mind)...

Or If You Just proved

my Point

That

Some Folks

Adhere Rigidly

To Black And White Thinking;

This is Perhaps the Most EPiC Case

of Black And White Thinking i've Ever Heard;

And Truly Odd As You Seem to Be A Very Intelligent Man, Other Wise...

Such Is the

Nature

of 'The Beast';

Just One Black

And White Unusual Part...

And that's Okay too; There's Always Room For Growth...

Yeah, When i was in my Twenties, i Was Actually Dense Enough

To Suggest to Folks Life is Fair; As that is the way i Saw it; i Learned Greater later...

Dude, People

Frigging Sacrifice

Lives FOR REAL TO

SAVE THE MANY; EVER

BEEN AROUND REAL WAR HEROES, Or any Real Hero, If so,

YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND HOW small your statement sounds...

Or if You Care to

Clarify

And

Validate

What you

even mean by that statement....

Not Debating You; Just Studying You as a Human....

Just

Curious That's All....

---

If my morality did rest on maximising lives saved, I might have to take my fake "WHO argument" about legalising theft seriously. Making theft legal would indeed save lives. No more thieves getting shot as they enter a property, the victims could rest easy knowing a beating or shooting wouldn't be necessary to deprive them of property, the thief need only show up with a theft order and a police escort and help themselves.

Fortunately, I don't have to take that idea seriously, because my morality isn't about maximising lives saved and unless that fake argument about legalising theft actually sounds good to you, neither is yours.

---

Haha, You Still Didn't

Defend Your Claim

That Everyone Else

Really Holds Your Same

Morality About Not Saving the

Many More Versus The Few; Dude,

Women in Africa See Morality And Self-Esteem

In Having their Pleasure organs Mutilated When Young;

Other Folks See Great Morality and Self-Esteem in Being Sold Into Marriage...

DO YOU UNDERSTAND

ANYTHING GOES

WITH HUMAN

MORALITY;

if You don't Get

Out and About a bit, if You Care to and Will....

i've Been to the Valley and Mountain Top too....

They Are the Same Level; Humanity is in General

Synonymous With 'Insanity';

It all Depends

on the Insanity

of the Culture

Spoon-Fed From Birth;

And this Is Why Some Folks

Find Their Only Escape By Looking Within;

And to Be Clear; i Don't Exactly Hold the War

Hero's Morality of Laying Down His Life for the

Rest of the Troops; i Intuit my Life is Worth More Living;

Not Getting Put up on Any 'Real Crosses Either' Way too Frigging Clever for that...

Others

Do Not;

Life is A Rorschach Test

At Best And Worst Hehe

my Wife Nagging me to

Not Be late to Church to

Study That Place As A

An All Volunteer Non-Paid

Anthropology Observer Participant There Just

For Fun too; i Have no Problem with Your Morality;

Yet Do Understand With Morality Anything Goes As

Far As Spoon-Fed Culture as All Human 'Religion' Goes...

Anyway Gotta Go The Screams Are Getting Louder From Behind...

If Not She'll

Find A Worse

Way Than a Cross..

---

This is quite true, I am assuming that no one actually thinks theft should be legal in order to save lives, that is to say the principle of most lives saved is not applied consistently ergo it is not a moral principle. I could be wrong, but I do feel safe in the assumption.

I'm afraid I'm not really following your talk of relative morality, at least not as it regards this topic. Are you trying to say that because different peoples subscribe to different morals due to their upbringing and culture that there is really no such thing as morality and moral behaviour? Or that no arguments are necessary regarding moral behaviour because everyone's morality is equally (in)valid?

Yes! Exactly! Morality is a human construct, like "fairness", and will always be subjective, except in the minds of self important windbags who think their imaginary rules are the True Way. And like any subjective assessment, any reasoning given by an individual is also specific to that individual and only applies to that individual.

So duh, of course YOU wouldn't understand the idea of relative morality that easily. YOU think there IS "One True Morality". Getting you to entertain otherwise would first require you to entertain the possibility that you might be wrong. Hence the demand that others first "prove you wrong". Conveniently, it's equally impossible to "prove you wrong", both if all opinions are subjective, AND if you are in fact right. You're safely turtled within your own evidence-proof fortress either way.

People like to believe their morality is "true" or "absolute" because it allows for an "out". If you think your actions are being guided by something "higher" than yourself, you're also saved from the consequences of doubt or wrongness. You get to feel secure in the belief that you MUST be right. "Certainty" is an adult "comfort blankey".

I'm sure the idea of a subjective morality makes some people feel really uncomfortable. I'm sure some self important bullhorns would be sad if confronted with the idea that their precious morality is actually completely arbitrary.

The rollback from that is "ok, sure different cultures do things differently, but THEY'RE wrong and I'M right! MINE is the GOOD morality, and all the others are BAD moralities! It's not MY morality! It's the TRUE morality! I just follow it! And you should too, cos it's my way the True Way!"

The only reason arguments are "necessary" in any way regarding moral behavior is to get people to agree with you and come to your side. Whoever sets the rules sets the morality, at which point their way is "right", but only cos they MADE it that way. If the other side sets the rules, then THATS what's now "moral". That's all "logic" and "reasoning" really is. Trying to make a proposition sound compelling or convincing to others, in order to sway them to your side. Salesmanship. Nothing more. That's why logical fallacies work on people, even though they're fallacies.

If you think something is immoral, don't do it. But you don't get to dictate other people's morality. Their morals aren't "wrong" just cos they differ from yours. "Morals" are just the things you believe in. Ascribing "rightness" or "wrongness" is nothing more than a means of making one look more appealing to illusions of virtue.

For example, Mikah apparently believes that using the state for invasively monitoring women in order to force them to be breeding factories, and severely punishing them if they fail to comply, is totally moral. And that even if it doesn't actually prevent the thing he says is immoral, at least they get punished to HIS satisfaction.

Remember, Kids! Mister Morals says "It's not about prevention! It's about PUNISHMENT!"

Making things about a higher "rightness" or "wrongness" is just a way of escaping the fact that it all really is just differing opinions.

---

SMiles, Theft And Abortion Are Not The Same.

Insurance Takes Care of the Theft And Reproductive

Freedoms Impact Lives, Lifelong; If You Wanna Look At

It That Way With Moral Relativity Fine; Yet Not Me; i've Seen

too Much REAL LIFE STUFF, to UNDERSTAND REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM

COMES out more important IN A Woman's Choice; Not to Say Abortion

Would Be my Choice if was a Woman; And There is No Way i Can Fully Understand

All the Parameters Associated With Having A Vagina And Uterus; So Far, 59 Percent

of A Democracy is on the Side of Choice in the United States; It Seems like They Have

Made the Most

Ethical Decision;

If not For the Wedge

Issue in Churches; The Percentage

Would Likely Be Higher; Donald J Trump

And His Church Cronies Put The Last Nails

In the Coffin of the Downfall of Christianity Here,

And Jesus Is Falling Hard as Story Hero Along with

The Rest of the Story That Has Been Painted All Stuff Trump...

This isn't Like the Past, When Information Was Censored And Folks

Continued to Believe in Myths; The Newer Generations Are Not Gonna

Be Fooled Nearly as Much With Carrots And Sticks That Have Become

Rotten Orange Churches Offer...

In Other Words, i have

No Problem With Your

Morality As i See it As

Old And What's Left Antiquated

For What Remains of Ignorance in Church

Pews Insisting on Remaining Unmasked During A Deadly Pandemic...

Morality Could Surely Use Some Intelligence At Church More Than Noah owns All Rainbows...

For That is What

The Doth Protest

A Bit too Much Priest

Related As Well As the Kingdom

Of God is Far Off After Death; Yet the

Next Day A Foreign Black More Charismatic

Priest Today Related The Kingdom of Heaven is Only

Now We Create And We Don't Wait for Some Dude Named

Jesus to come back

and do it...

What

A Fresh

Air of Spirit

That Man Is;

i Might Actually

Be Proud of the Church

If He Becomes Full Time;

Been There Almost A Year

And That Was the First Mass

He Was Allowed to Give a Homily In...

It's no Wonder to me; He Shined Above all the others...

At Least

With

A More

Realistic Church
of Bringing Hope
Now, Not After Death...

And As Far As Morality Goes,

Historically It Has Always Been

Centered Around Reproductive Freedoms

And Authority to Shame Others to Conform;

Church Has Lost All Moral Authority Among Younger

Generations; The Ship Is Steadily Sinking Along With

The Christian Conservative Republican Church Party too...

Those Folks With

Grey Hair

Ten Years Older

Than me Now That

Comprise About 70

Percent of the Pews

Ain't Gonna Last Forever...

True, We Have Stand-outs in

In a Few 3rd World Country Leaning

States; Yet the Youth Will Eventually
Sweep 'The Traditional Grey Hairs' Away...

And to Be Clear, Not Having Rational Conservatives

to Balance The Power Tween Liberal And Conservative

Is Bad News For The Future; As We Need Rational Minds, Both

Conservative and Liberal to Continue to Be Even A Human Species...

Anyway, Thanks For Clarifying Your Position; It's Surely Nothing New Where

i Live At; And Surely Nothing i Feel i Could Change Until it Naturally Passes Away....

---

While what you said about you not holding this morality might be true, it is most certainly a morality that a majority of people hold.

According to the trolley problem page on wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem#Survey_data), 90% of people would switch to kill one in order to save five.

THAT is a moral error.

Read what I've been saying to aghogday. This "morality" of maximising lives saved is not applied universally, only in certain situations or arguments. This is inconsistency, which suggests that "save-most-lives" is not really the moral principle, if any, at work here.

Forget about the abortion argument for now and ask yourself why, even though it is logical that legalising theft would save lives (for the sake of the argument assume it is proved to you beyond doubt) and put aside that "everyone agrees that theft is wrong" (ad populum), would you not be in favour of legalising theft to save lives?

This argument only really makes sense in the mind of a sadist obsessed with punishing people, who fantasizes about thieves breaking in so they have an excuses to shoot and kill them.

Incidentally, the act being described isn't "theft". It's more akin to breaking and entering (if all they do is enter) and burglary (if they take something). And most burglars prefer to enter when nobody is home, cos you cant shoot them if you're not there. Furthermore, if someone is OUTSIDE your house, stealing your car or bike, you can't use deadly force to protect property.

But as has been mentioned - it's not about prevention, or making the world better. It's about finding people to punish.

The problematic part of this is, in theft, someone takes something from YOU. In an abortion, unless YOU are the mother, or the father, nothing involved is "YOURS". In an abortion, someone is getting rid of something that already is theirs. So your proposal is like punishing (or shooting and killing, since you had a need to make all thefts sound like they end in shootings and deaths) someone for leaving their own house with something they own, and calling it "theft" because YOU didn't approve of the taking. Then, when someone points out the insanity of punishing / shooting / killing someone over something they do with their own property, you're counter argument is "SO YOU' RE SAYING WE SHOULD ALLOW THEFT?!" thus completely ignoring that you've redefined "theft" to include even people taking their own things without YOUR permission.

"But a fetus isn't PROPERTY, a FETUS is a LIFE!"

Pretty convenient how a fetus is always just-alive-enough to punish (ONLY) the mother, but never enough to benefit the mother.

Some people would have women believe that a leash was a crown, and be offended if any woman refused the "privilege".

I wonder who hurt you so deeply, that you have such a need to punish others, even if they have not wronged you personally.

The cool thing about it "not being a numbers game" is that it then allows you to ignore more effective options, in favor of The Punisher's preferred method. And lets not forget, The Punisher believes that even if the punishments made NO difference, he'd still support The Punishing. Apparently the only important outcome is the means and ability to punish people. Not actually preventing the thing people are being punished for.

Is that why you're so disinterested in prevention? Nobody to punish if you do things that way? What if you could end 99% of abortions with prevention, for a fraction of the cost and effort of your Punishment Party? Oh, but it's NOT about numbers, or cost, or reducing the problem! And if it's not about any of those then all solutions are equally (in)effective. Cos even a solution that changes nothing (except who gets punished for what) is still a "perfectly acceptable solution".

"I oFfErEd A sOlUtIoN, It'S nOt EfFeCtIvE oR aNyThInG, bUt At LeAsT sOmEoNe gEtS PuNiShEd!! ! iF yOu IgNoRe PeSkY dEtAiLs LiKe It'S tOtAl LaCk oF EfFeCtIvEnEsS, iT'S JuSt As GoOd As AnY oThEr PlAn!! !"

Wouldn't it be more effective if...?

"IT'S NOT ABOUT EFFECTIVENESS!! !"

Yeah but wouldn't it be easier and cheaper if...?

"IT'S NOT ABOUT COST OR DIFFICULTY!! !"

You could probably save a lot more lives if...

"IT'S NOT ABOUT NUMBERS!! !"

Then what IS it about?

"PUNISH THE WOMEN!! !"

Nothing about human behaviour is universal. I just said that 90% of people chose to switch, meaning 10% of people did nothing. Different people make different choices, have different value systems, think differently.

I also don't understand the rest of what you are saying. Here, let me replace "save-most-lives" with "justice-at-all-costs".

This "morality" of seeking justice no matter the costs is not applied universally, only in certain situations or arguments. This is inconsistency, which suggests that "justice-at-all-costs" is not really the moral principle, if any, at work here.

By the way, "save-most-lives" is actually called harm reduction, which is a principle used in many public health policies. Here is the wiki page for you to get started (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_reduction)

And yes, in the real world, this principle is also applied to thieves/tresspassers/burglars. See (https://www.askthe.police.uk/Content/Q78.htm) and (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2005854.stm).

Let me be clearer then: on an individual level, if you do not, personally, apply it universally, then it is not a moral principle you hold, it is something else.



As I said earlier, my moral principle here is "the unborn are human and humans should not be killed without good reason". The side shows about punishment and justice were the (mostly feigned) shock and horror at me truthfully answering questions that boil down to "what should we do with murderers and their accomplices?"



It isn't applied to the point that these things are made legal though. Why not? When you figure out why, you'll understand why I reject the "harm reduction" numbers argument of abortion.

Perhaps you should actually carefully read the links I provide before commenting. In the very first section is a link to the drug liberalization page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_liberalization) which is about drug legalisation / decriminalisation.

Section 2 of the Harm Reduction page is about the legalisation / decriminalisation of prostitution.

It is applied to the point where these things are made legal...

Not for theft it isn't. Why does the argument not apply there?

So now His Majesty is allowed to "reject" premises he doesn't like. I'm sure he TOTALLY hasn't "rejected" every premise except his own, thus making him the "winner" by default in his own mind.

I'm pretty sure His Majesty rejects the "reduction of numbers" argument cos thigs like "effectiveness" make their stance look bad. If you ignore pesky things like effectiveness, then any solution should be a valid solution. The whole point of prevention, is to make something happen less. In order for something to be effective at prevention, it has to prevent things, meaning it happens less.

Based on Mikah logic, it's ok if people break in to Mikah's house and steal things every single day, as long as the thieves are punished. Cos it's not about numbers! Who cares if people break in "more" or "less". That's a "numbers" thing. There's no way they would want to change the number of times they got stolen from. That would just be a "theft reduction" numbers argument, and clearly they would reject it. You can tell, cos "theft" is the entire basis of their argument for rejecting the "numbers argument".

Or perhaps we're in another quantum excuse theory zone, where abortion and theft are just enough alike that they both deserve to be punished, but not enough alike that the same rules apply elsewhere, even though the one is being used as a basis to justify the other - and even though theft is the example for why numbers arguments don't matter, numbers do matter when it comes to theft, but not when it comes to abortions.

How apples are similar to oranges:
1. They are both fruits.
2. They are both round in shape.

How apples are different from oranges:
1. Apples are red or green in color while oranges are orange in color.
2. Apples have a smooth skin texture while oranges have a rough skin texture.
3. Apples are crunchy while oranges are squishy.
4. They taste different.

Why don't you try listing the similarities and differences between theft and drug abuse? Maybe you'll answer your own question.