- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: All the talk on Roe V. Wade
Posted on 7/17/18 at 10:48 am to TbirdSpur2010
Posted on 7/17/18 at 10:48 am to TbirdSpur2010
quote:It may not matter much at all today but that's why I used the word "ultimately". When this life passes away, the truth will not be pleasantly received by those who refused to listen to it when they were alive.
That doesn't amount to a hill of beans when you're talking to a non-christian.
quote:I won't. Moral philosophy matters.
Just stop.
2
Posted on 7/17/18 at 10:51 am to CptRusty
quote:I've been arguing this for a long, long time. I understand that a religious argument will fall on deaf ears, but the problem is that so does the secular arguments. I attempt to use both types of arguments. It's a moral issue, not an intellectual one.
You need to also understand that unless you are capable of making a secular argument, you are doomed to fail.
quote:I'm speaking the truth, but practically speaking, Biblical/Christian morality has a philosophical support for morality that is lacking with moral relativism.
Citing to the Bible is an appeal to authority logical fallacy.
Posted on 7/17/18 at 11:54 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Moral philosophy matters.
According to you, it doesn't matter because that's already been mapped out. We all simply need to drink the same Kool-aid.
Posted on 7/17/18 at 11:58 am to FooManChoo
quote:
I'm speaking the truth
*Your truth.
Posted on 7/17/18 at 12:59 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
It's a moral issue, not an intellectual one.
Then this is a problem, by framing the conversation around morals you've already conceded that there is no concrete basis for agreement. It's up to what the individuals believe to be right and wrong.
You should consider fighting this battle on grounds where you actually have a chance at success and your opponent can't simply deny the authority to which you appeal.
Posted on 7/17/18 at 1:17 pm to CptRusty
quote:That's why I usually resort to attacking the worldview that is the basis of their morality, which is typically moral relativism.
Then this is a problem, by framing the conversation around morals you've already conceded that there is no concrete basis for agreement. It's up to what the individuals believe to be right and wrong.
quote:I've done plenty of that but the problem, again, is a moral one.
You should consider fighting this battle on grounds where you actually have a chance at success and your opponent can't simply deny the authority to which you appeal.
Let's take this debate: we keep talking about location, dependency, development, viability, DNA, etc. with concrete information, statistics, and hard evidence to support the position and yet the other side just comes back with "it doesn't matter because it's her body, her choice". Their entire basis for abortion is that it is immoral to tell a woman what she should do with her body so the other arguments are window dressing to help justify that position. The facts don't matter so long as a person believes in the immorality of removing bodily autonomy in certain situations.
ETA: In addition to the woman's body, many also view it as a moral issue to not kill unwanted babies. It's immoral to bring more unwanted children who won't be loved; it's immoral to increase welfare dependency and poverty; it's immoral to increase the population of the world and reduce resources; etc.
I'm with you in spirit, but the truth of the matter is that issues like these always boil down to worldviews. The information doesn't change: how we interpret the information differs based on our worldviews. That's why I want to challenge the basis people have for their moral outlooks.
This post was edited on 7/17/18 at 1:20 pm
Posted on 7/17/18 at 1:28 pm to FooManChoo
meh, I find it more efficient to expose inconsistency in logic rather than try to reform someone's entire view of reality, but hey different strokes 
Posted on 7/17/18 at 1:36 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
That's why I usually resort to attacking the worldview that is the basis of their morality, which is typically moral relativism.
And that's no different in your worldview.
Posted on 7/17/18 at 8:30 pm to CptRusty
quote:
This goes back to the question of personhood. If you agree the fetus has it - obviously this is a violation of the negative right to life. If you don't agree the fetus has it, then eviction - abortion - morning after pill - doesn't really make a difference.
I disagree. If the zygote/fetus simply has a negative right to life, then the woman has every right to refuse to nourish it, and therefore allow it to die. She wouldn't have the right to stick a needle into the head of the fetus and pierce its skull, killing it.
If the zygote/fetus has a positive right, then she can do neither.
If the zygote/fetus has neither right, then she can do both.
Posted on 7/17/18 at 8:55 pm to Pere_bear
quote:
My stance is very clear: one does not have the right to take the life of another unless one is doing so out of the act of self defense.
One does not have the right to mandate that another become an incubator for something that cannot survive on its own, at great personal and professional risk to that other.
Posted on 7/17/18 at 9:13 pm to BamaAtl
There are ways to prevent that. Without killing.
Posted on 7/17/18 at 10:54 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
There are ways to prevent that. Without killing.
Posted on 7/17/18 at 11:15 pm to BamaAtl
quote:That sounds exactly like parenthood.
One does not have the right to mandate that another become an incubator for something that cannot survive on its own, at great personal and professional risk to that other.
This post was edited on 7/18/18 at 9:47 am
Posted on 7/18/18 at 8:32 am to Joshjrn
quote:
If the zygote/fetus simply has a negative right to life,
No, they have both positive and negative rights to life. Clearly an infant has both, or would you disagree with that as well? If not, then I'd ask you to make a case as to why the rights of an infant and a fetus are different.
Posted on 7/18/18 at 8:33 am to BamaAtl
quote:
One does not have the right to mandate that another become an incubator
Correct, but no one is talking about forcing people to have sex and become pregnant.
We are discussing what happens after the fact.
Posted on 7/18/18 at 8:34 am to Pere_bear
quote:
Since this is the case, how can it be okay to take that unique being (regardless of how unlike it is to looks of a human being) when in fact it is a life developing and human?
Can't pay taxes as that "unique being".
Posted on 7/18/18 at 8:36 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
I got a question for anyone. How do I react to a female that had no qualms about telling me she had an abortion and seemed a little proud of the fact and then about a year or so later she was seeking sympathy for a miscarriage?
This is unfortunate. I hope her abortion didn't render her incapable of having children.
Posted on 7/18/18 at 8:39 am to CptRusty
quote:
No, they have both positive and negative rights to life. Clearly an infant has both, or would you disagree with that as well? If not, then I'd ask you to make a case as to why the rights of an infant and a fetus are different.
I’m getting ready and on my phone, so I’ll respond to the rest later, but as a point of clarification, when I refer to something as having a positive right, I use it to presume and include the presence of a negative right as well. In short, one can have a negative but but not positive right, but one can’t have a positive right and not a negative right.
Posted on 7/18/18 at 8:44 am to Joshjrn
quote:
when I refer to something as having a positive right, I use it to presume and include the presence of a negative right as well.
Fair enough, although you were exclusively recognizing a negative right to life of the fetus in your earlier post, or at least that's how I understood it, and that was my point of contention.
Posted on 7/18/18 at 9:05 pm to CptRusty
quote:
Fair enough, although you were exclusively recognizing a negative right to life of the fetus in your earlier post, or at least that's how I understood it, and that was my point of contention.
That’s because the mainline libertarian position is that positive rights functionally don’t exist. The minority of libertarians will argue for positive rights for children, but it’s not terribly common.
Still, none of my prior posts should be construed with my discussing a positive right yet excluding a negative right.
Page 16 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News