Abortion Is Equal To Murder?

[Sparko]

This is a false equivalence. There may be some dispute when the status of 'personhood' is attained in the womb, i.e. at conception or fetal viability, but there is no doubt whatsoever that a human being is a "person" once it has emerged from the womb. Hence there is no confusion between Jewish "persons" or any other "person".

That is just your opinion. The Nazi's did not agree. You are the one who argued that morality is just a group agreement in a society and that there is no objective morality.

[Sparko]

Basically Tassy's view is: "There is no such thing as objective morality. But everyone should agree with my morality because it is right!"

[One Bad Pig]

Basically Tassy's view is: "There is no such thing as objective morality. But everyone should agree with my morality because it is right!"

Are you sure you're not confusing him with Carpe?

[Sparko]

Are you sure you're not confusing him with Carpe?

they both believe the same thing but with slightly different basis. Tass believes Morality is just a social contract and what a society decides is moral is moral. Carp believes that morals are personal preferences. But when it comes to them debating, the reality is that they think their morals are the correct one and everyone should agree. Thus Tassman trying to argue that it is moral to decide a fetus isn't a person so it can be killed, but saying that it is immoral to say jews were not persons when the Nazi's killed them.

If he were consistent, he would say that since the Nazi society decided that killing jews was moral, then it was moral for them to do so.

[Tassman]

Who says? You? They are after all both human. Ontologically what is the difference?

Jews are humans with functioning brains, embryo's/fetus' in the first two trimesters are not. The functioning brain pattern IS the person. When it goes we switch off the life support machine and before it develops there is NO person.

What lies? Have we not slaughtered 50 million of our own offspring?]

No!

[Tassman]

Basically Tassy's view is: "There is no such thing as objective morality.

Apparently you DO believe that there is such thing as objective morality. Where does one find it? Certainly not in the bible, because bible-based societies have held quite different moral values throughout history. Or have they all got it wrong except those who agree with your interpretation of biblical morality?

But everyone should agree with my morality because it is right!"

No, ethical principles are those commonly held by one's own culture, not me personally. .

[seer]

Jews are humans with functioning brains, embryo's/fetus' in the first two trimesters are not. The functioning brain pattern IS the person. When it goes we switch off the life support machine and before it develops there is NO person.

Again, that is your arbitrary definition. But you did not answer the question: Ontologically what is the difference? And you switch off the life support machine because the person is DEAD. The unborn child is alive and growing.

No!

But we did, we did slaughter 50 million of our offspring.

[Sparko]

Jews are humans with functioning brains, embryo's/fetus' in the first two trimesters are not. The functioning brain pattern IS the person. When it goes we switch off the life support machine and before it develops there is NO person.



No!

What makes a functioning brain the determination of a person? Just because you say so? What if a society disagrees with you and says differently? You already said morality is determined by a society, so who are you to disagree with the Nazis?

You said:

No, ethical principles are those commonly held by one's own culture, not me personally. .

[Tassman]

What makes a functioning brain the determination of a person? Just because you say so? What if a society disagrees with you and says differently? You already said morality is determined by a society, so who are you to disagree with the Nazis?

Please respond to my post #321: "Apparently you DO believe that there is such thing as objective morality. Where does one find it? Certainly not in the bible, because bible-based societies have held quite different moral values throughout history. Or have they all got it wrong except those who agree with your interpretation of biblical morality?"

Waiting.

[Tassman]

Again, that is your arbitrary definition.

What, in your eyes, is the NON ARBITRARY definition, seer? Evidence please.

But you did not answer the question: Ontologically what is the difference? And you switch off the life support machine because the person is DEAD.

The body is not dead, just the brain...or as you put it "the person".

The unborn child is alive and growing.

...and until it is viable with a functioning brain it is a part of the mother's body, not a 'person' in its own right.

But we did, we did slaughter 50 million of our offspring.

So you like to believe.

[seer]

What, in your eyes, is the NON ARBITRARY definition, seer? Evidence please.

I told you, human life begins at conception. That is not arbitrary and it is scientific. You like science, right Tass?

The body is not dead, just the brain...or as you put it "the person".

If the brain is dead, then the body will die, it is essentially a dead person. An unborn child is alive before and after it has brain waves. And a human.

...and until it is viable with a functioning brain it is a part of the mother's body, not a 'person' in its own right.

Again, a completely arbitrary definition. This again is why you had no rational argument against infanticide in the other thread.

So you like to believe.

Do you dispute the numbers? What are you arguing against?

[Cow Poke]

You like science, right Tass?

Not when it goes against his personal prejudices.

[Sparko]

Please respond to my post #321: "Apparently you DO believe that there is such thing as objective morality. Where does one find it? Certainly not in the bible, because bible-based societies have held quite different moral values throughout history. Or have they all got it wrong except those who agree with your interpretation of biblical morality?"

Waiting.

You will have to show me where they had quite different moral values throughout history first. Also, an objective morality doesn't mean everyone follows it correctly. It just means that when they don't, there is a basis to call what they did "wrong" - The Nazis did not follow correct morality, so they were "evil" and "wrong" -- see? You can't say that though.

Now back to you. How can you say what a person is? That would be determined by the laws of a society, correct? It is a legal term? So if the Nazi's determined a person was only a full blooded Aryan then anyone else would be fair game.

[Tassman]

You will have to show me where they had quite different moral values throughout history first. Also, an objective morality doesn't mean everyone follows it correctly.

Just what is this "it" that needs to be followed correctly? What are the societies that have been based upon this immutable objective morality, have there been any? Or is it just a nice idea?

[Tassman]

I told you, human life begins at conception. That is not arbitrary and it is scientific. You like science, right Tass?

Nobody has disputed that human life begins at conception, that’s not the question. The question is why you arbitrarily define “personhood” as beginning at conception rather than more logically at fetal viability...or at birth?

If the brain is dead, then the body will die, it is essentially a dead person.

More to the point in this instance, an entity without a functioning brain cannot survive apart from the mother. It is essentially a non-person.

An unborn child is alive before and after it has brain waves. And a human.

An insensate fetus is not viable and is therefore it's a part of the mother’s body, not a 'person' in its own right.

Again, a completely arbitrary definition. This again is why you had no rational argument against infanticide in the other thread.

It is no more arbitrary than defining “personhood” as beginning at conception. It’s a lot more logical to grant personhood to an entity that could survive separate from its mother...or a newborn as per the Jews.

Do you dispute the numbers? What are you arguing against?

I’m rejecting your sensationalist, nonsensical categorization of first term abortions as “murder”.

Not when it goes against his personal prejudices.

Another helpful contribution from our very own CP!