The Abortion Issue

[Caboose]

And so who am I to judge an answer for this when I have already wrote that I respect a woman's opinion more on abortion than a man's.

Bunty, answer the question. What is the difference between a fetus and a two month old baby?

Do you support abortions on the day before a woman's due date?

[BrettL]

Where did I say I was against abortion?

It sure seems you are judging by your constant attacks on anyone who isn't.

[Bunty]

So one pregnant woman says her child is a person from conception - does that bind another? So, according to your logic, whether a fetus is human depends on the mindset of the mother? What about a mother in a coma from a car wreck? A 13 year old mother? A 30 year old mother? You logic doesn't follow. She sets the "value" on the life of the fetus under the current law but she can't change facts or the science of life one way or the other.

Yes, it should be on the mindset of the mother. If she thinks human life started on the day of her conception, then fine for her. Of course, there's always going to be exceptions to the logic, due to coma and other problems, such as youth. But that's life and surviving it.

[Bunty]

Yes, in Bunty's world science and law are determined by the whims of 15 year old hormonal girls.

But you have to account for exceptions to the logic. If you can't, then why the hell not? Not everything that comes about in life is going to be neatly cut from a cookie cutter just for you.

[RealJimbo]

But you have to account for exceptions to the logic. If you can't, then why the hell not? Not everything that comes about in life is going to be neatly cut from a cookie cutter just for you.

Sounds to me as though you are a relative moralist. No absolutes in your world. The whim of the moment. Your world must be like living in a kaleidoscope. And I didn't even make any references to weed.

[Edmond_Outsider]

Absolutes are rarely absolute. Moral realtivity seems to be one of those phrases which only refer to other peoples' standards.

Morals rarely hold up in the face of pragmatic reality.

I tend to side with Ruth Benedict on "morals" being an exhaulted name for "customs."

In other words, what I do is moral, what you do is not because it is not what I do.

It always sounds good to moralists to point fingers at others and claim "relativism."

A good example of this is my earlier post about War being acceptable and often desired by those who tend to favor the single cell theory of "person hood."

My allergies are bugging me and I just sneezed. All that DNA being dispersed has made me murder millions of potential humans.

God just added me to his list...of allegy sufferers. I'll have to show some veneration to Saint Bernardino.

[PennyQuilts]

My condolances on the allergies. I never had them until I was forty-one and moved east. I blamed it on the trees. Now that I am back, I brought my allergic reactions with me. It is crap, I tell you!

[RealJimbo]

Absolutes are rarely absolute. Moral realtivity seems to be one of those phrases which only refer to other peoples' standards.

Morals rarely hold up in the face of pragmatic reality.

I tend to side with Ruth Benedict on "morals" being an exhaulted name for "customs."

In other words, what I do is moral, what you do is not because it is not what I do.

It always sounds good to moralists to point fingers at others and claim "relativism."

A good example of this is my earlier post about War being acceptable and often desired by those who tend to favor the single cell theory of "person hood."

My allergies are bugging me and I just sneezed. All that DNA being dispersed has made me murder millions of potential humans.

God just added me to his list...of allegy sufferers. I'll have to show some veneration to Saint Bernardino.

Empathy for the allergies. I feel as though I'm just typing into the wind. The point I was making is dodged by those who would deny the term of moral relativism. I do have absolutes in my life that are constant in the lives of others. North is always north. Up is always up. Hot is always hot. and so on. To argue otherwise is to weasel out of a meaningful discussion of the topic.

[Caboose]

It sure seems you are judging by your constant attacks on anyone who isn't.

I havent attacked anyone.

[Edmond_Outsider]

Empathy for the allergies. I feel as though I'm just typing into the wind. The point I was making is dodged by those who would deny the term of moral relativism. I do have absolutes in my life that are constant in the lives of others. North is always north. Up is always up. Hot is always hot. and so on. To argue otherwise is to weasel out of a meaningful discussion of the topic.

Your definition of absolute may extend to some degree beyond the space your conciousness occupies. However, everybody has different ways of defining the limits of thier own morality.

Even the parts we agree upon will vary wildly from person to person. Even the comandment "thou shalt not kill" seems, on the surface, obvious. But, does it mean "kill" or "murder?" Does it give exemptions for murder by warfare? Self-defense? The bible gives no loopholes so anything except "no killing" seems pretty well a matter of moral relativity.

Again, if one looks to historical absolutes, you will find enourmously different interpretations of virtually every moral standard from one era, society, generation, or even community.

What the individual thinks moral is virtually impossible to extropolate into any sort of universal value followed by human societies of all historical eras.

[RealJimbo]

Your definition of absolute may extend to some degree beyond the space your conciousness occupies. However, everybody has different ways of defining the limits of thier own morality.

Even the parts we agree upon will vary wildly from person to person. Even the comandment "thou shalt not kill" seems, on the surface, obvious. But, does it mean "kill" or "murder?" Does it give exemptions for murder by warfare? Self-defense? The bible gives no loopholes so anything except "no killing" seems pretty well a matter of moral relativity.

Again, if one looks to historical absolutes, you will find enourmously different interpretations of virtually every moral standard from one era, society, generation, or even community.

What the individual thinks moral is virtually impossible to extropolate into any sort of universal value followed by human societies of all historical eras.

OK, now you're just yappin'

[Edmond_Outsider]

Jimbo, which of your "moral absolutes" do consider a permanantly fixed and universally recognized? If up is always up and hot is always hot, what are the moral equivilancies of these universal truths?

[PennyQuilts]

Jimbo, which of your "moral absolutes" do consider a permanantly fixed and universally recognized? If up is always up and hot is always hot, what are the moral equivilancies of these universal truths?

You don't rape four year olds. That's one.

You don't drag puppies behind cars at 40 MPH.

You don't eat squash unless it is grilled.

[Edmond_Outsider]

You don't rape four year olds. That's one.

You don't drag puppies behind cars at 40 MPH.

You don't eat squash unless it is grilled.

PQ, I'd agree with all those. Although I wouldn't put the limits on them you did.

There's the relativity for you.

[Bunty]

You don't rape four year olds. That's one.

You don't drag puppies behind cars at 40 MPH.

You don't eat squash unless it is grilled.

So to go by your logic and morality when it comes to abortion and being pro choice you have no other choice but to believe that such people believe:

You don't rape four year olds, UNLESS you own them.

You don't drag puppies behind cars at 40 MPH, UNLESS they are your puppies.

You don't eat squash unless it is grilled, UNLESS if you grew it.

[RealJimbo]

Wow, this thread has gone to heck in a handbasket. EO and Bunty need to get a room, I need to stop wasting my time on this forum and we all need to turn the rascals out in November (sorry, I'll limit future political comments to the politics category).

[Caboose]

So to go by your logic and morality when it comes to abortion and being pro choice you have no other choice but to believe that such people believe:

You don't rape four year olds, UNLESS you own them.

You don't drag puppies behind cars at 40 MPH, UNLESS they are your puppies.

You don't eat squash unless it is grilled, UNLESS if you grew it.

Bunty, is it OK to impale a two month old baby's head, suck out its brain through a tube, then throw its body in the dumpster?

[Bunty]

Bunty, is it OK to impale a two month old baby's head, suck out its brain through a tube, then throw its body in the dumpster?

Of course, no, why make yourself look foolish and stupid by asking such a hugely disgusting question? It suits me fine that to me there is plenty of difference between a fetus 2 weeks in a womb and a two month old baby outside the womb. And I can't control a woman who's pregnant.

[Caboose]

Of course, no, why make yourself look foolish and stupid by asking such a hugely disgusting question? It suits me fine that to me there is plenty of difference between a fetus 2 weeks in a womb and a two month old baby outside the womb. And I can't control a woman who's pregnant.

Ok. So no.

So then is it OK to do the same procedure to a 9 month old fetus, the day before its due date?

[PennyQuilts]

PQ, I'd agree with all those. Although I wouldn't put the limits on them you did.

There's the relativity for you.

Well, taking the squash thing off the table - surely that isn't arguable - when would anyone be allowed to drag puppies or rape four year olds?

[Bunty]

Ok. So no.

So then is it OK to do the same procedure to a 9 month old fetus, the day before its due date?

No, but so what, few abortions are performed then.

[Caboose]

No, but so what, few abortions are performed then.

OK. So No then.

So how about an 8 month old fetus?

[Prunepicker]

No, but so what, few abortions are performed then.

It's just another innocent life that doesn't deserve to live, right Bunty?

[Caboose]

It's just another innocent life that doesn't deserve to live, right Bunty?

Now Prune, we don't need that. Bunty is just about to show us where is the cutoff line between a human life with full rights and a glob of cell tissue and how he came to that conclusion.

[Prunepicker]

Now Prune, we don't need that. Bunty is just about to show us where is the
cutoff line between a human life with full rights and a glob of cell tissue and
how he came to that conclusion.

You're right. I'm sure we'll all be amazed. He's probably diligently searching
the Daily Kos and Wikipedia as we speak, so to speak.