3 ms·

Well spoken. I consider myself on the other end of things, but I experience, that for people with an active political stance, it's pretty obvious who is who (u

Well spoken. I consider myself on the other end of things, but I experience, that for people with an active political stance, it's pretty obvious who is who (unless somebody is in propaganda mode). Unless you are on an extreme side, you can always sympathize with the other side for most issues, which is why we are able to find compromises and vote on laws at all. As for the example you mention (abortion), this is one where I can't sympathize with your side. To me living is a human right that is never moral to be violated, especially for personal selfish interests. Yes, I do consider being too poor for a child or not wanting a child to be selfish. This: > forcing people to care for children they don’t want will lead to misery to me seams like a strawman. That's why we have baby flaps and foster homes for centuries. Even at the end of the roman empire people have brought babies to monasteries, because they didn't want to care for them. Yes they are more miserable then having good parents, but no amount of misery of the living is worth justifying a kill.

giardini 1y ago
1718627440 says " no amount of misery of the living is worth justifying a kill[i.e., an abortion]." So abortion is murder for you, and the ban against murder is usually based on the Bible's Old Testament for people in the USA (stemming from the 6th commandment "Thou shalt not kill."). Assuming so, yet another specific religious belief has been dragged into our politics despite the fact that we have a clause in our constitution "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,...", the First Amendment, allowing freedom of religion. Seems we have a basic problem here. I disagree with you for a number of reasons: - I don't believe in any spiritual entities (e.g., a soul, God, Jesus, Satan, St. Peter, angels, djinn, souls, sin, etc.) - for morality I have the universe and my fellow men as the elements, no more, so saints, souls, angels, devils, gods and heavens fall away from reality for me, - And so my backstop is the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do to you."). Man has progressed. Much of what you claim would be fine except we now have - birth control, - largely safe (for the mother) abortion, and - I am unwilling to tell a woman that anyone other than her has the right to make medical decisions about her body. IOW science has rendered the traditional morality no longer applicable TO A CERTAIN DEGREE. That does NOT mean that science has rendered traditional morality irrelevant b/c evolution still applies and will dominate future generations: - Humans will still be driven to have offspring, - it remains safest to avoid unnecessary sex (b/c of disease) and - it is best to be careful of the partner you choose b/c (s)he will contribute to the offspring's genes and (s)he will likely tend your offspring. In summary, we got a problem: you have a religious belief (abortion is murder, perhaps based on another religious idea - that of a soul) that I do not accept. For me it's like the song says: Queen - Fun It Lyrics "Hey everybody everybody gonna have a good time tonight Just shakin' the soles of your feet Everybody gonna have a good time tonight time tonight Time tonight That's the only soul you'll ever meet."
- 1718627440 1y ago
  I don't think most people use religion to define basic rules in the society nowadays. I don't think I have indicated this in my comment. > we now have > - birth control, > - largely safe (for the mother) abortion What does the fact that we can do something has to do with its morality? > - Humans will still be driven to have offspring, Demography in modern countries begs to differ, but that's only tangent to the topic. > anyone other than her has the right to make medical decisions about her body. Yes I agree. Everyone can make decisions about anything that is his/her as long as it doesn't affect others. Do you accept DNA to determine boundaries of bodies? Does the body that stops living by the medication have the DNA of the mother? Would you find it moral, if your mother had killed you? PS: > spiritual entities: Jesus, Peter Yeah I guess the Romans killed some non-physical ghosts.
  - zzo38computer 1y ago
    > What does the fact that we can do something has to do with its morality? The philosophy (and also practical issues as well) are not always so simple, so sometimes it might have something to do with its morality. > Would you find it moral, if your mother had killed you? No, especially after I am born. If it was before I am born, then I am a part of her body and she has the right to do so, although that still does not make it moral. > Yeah I guess the Romans killed some non-physical ghosts. They might not mean them as historical real people (which they probably were, although it is not 100% certain). (I cannot think of how to explain it better, but there is a difference.)
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - giardini 1y ago
    1718627440 says >I don't think most people use religion to define basic rules in the society nowadays. I don't think I have indicated this in my comment.< Then by what right/power/means do you justify any "rights/rules" whatsoever, including justification to speak about the question? You later mention "boundaries of bodies". Do you think having a "body" grants rights? What about a "dead" body? Should the dead vote? Perhaps you're a Democrat and think "Yes, my dead Democrat grandfather still votes (at least twice) every 4 years."? 1718627440 says >What does the fact that we can do something has to do with its morality?< There has always been a clash between morality and science. Science always wins. 1718627440 says > Do you accept DNA to determine boundaries of bodies? For some purposes, e.g., medical, Yes. But for political argumentation no, b/c of twins, triplets,...,clones. Are all clones one "body" (they all have the same DNA)? 1718627440 says >Would you find it moral, if your mother had killed you?< I would have nothing to say about it!8-)) Without reference to some authority (God, Jesus, DNA, Cthulhu) you justify your arguments based solely on your existence. Nothing is added, nothing gained, no political insight or structures, etc. Of course you can believe what you want, but everyone else can do the same presumably. This is an unconvincing, empty argument and is dangerous b/c if someone wants to delete your authority they can merely delete you. A nihilistic Hobbesian argument seems awfully close to the truth and, while some of us matter more than others, no one of us matters much. 1718627440 says *>>Yeah I guess the Romans killed some non-physical ghosts. So you believe the Romans killed Jesus and Peter??**

giardini 1y ago

1718627440 says " no amount of misery of the living is worth justifying a kill[i.e., an abortion]." So abortion is murder for you, and the ban against murder is usually based on the Bible's Old Testament for people in the USA (stemming from the 6th commandment "Thou shalt not kill."). Assuming so, yet another specific religious belief has been dragged into our politics despite the fact that we have a clause in our constitution "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,...", the First Amendment, allowing freedom of religion. Seems we have a basic problem here. I disagree with you for a number of reasons: - I don't believe in any spiritual entities (e.g., a soul, God, Jesus, Satan, St. Peter, angels, djinn, souls, sin, etc.) - for morality I have the universe and my fellow men as the elements, no more, so saints, souls, angels, devils, gods and heavens fall away from reality for me, - And so my backstop is the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do to you."). Man has progressed. Much of what you claim would be fine except we now have - birth control, - largely safe (for the mother) abortion, and - I am unwilling to tell a woman that anyone other than her has the right to make medical decisions about her body. IOW science has rendered the traditional morality no longer applicable TO A CERTAIN DEGREE. That does NOT mean that science has rendered traditional morality irrelevant b/c evolution still applies and will dominate future generations: - Humans will still be driven to have offspring, - it remains safest to avoid unnecessary sex (b/c of disease) and - it is best to be careful of the partner you choose b/c (s)he will contribute to the offspring's genes and (s)he will likely tend your offspring. In summary, we got a problem: you have a religious belief (abortion is murder, perhaps based on another religious idea - that of a soul) that I do not accept. For me it's like the song says: Queen - Fun It Lyrics "Hey everybody everybody gonna have a good time tonight Just shakin' the soles of your feet Everybody gonna have a good time tonight time tonight Time tonight That's the only soul you'll ever meet."

1718627440 1y ago
I don't think most people use religion to define basic rules in the society nowadays. I don't think I have indicated this in my comment. > we now have > - birth control, > - largely safe (for the mother) abortion What does the fact that we can do something has to do with its morality? > - Humans will still be driven to have offspring, Demography in modern countries begs to differ, but that's only tangent to the topic. > anyone other than her has the right to make medical decisions about her body. Yes I agree. Everyone can make decisions about anything that is his/her as long as it doesn't affect others. Do you accept DNA to determine boundaries of bodies? Does the body that stops living by the medication have the DNA of the mother? Would you find it moral, if your mother had killed you? PS: > spiritual entities: Jesus, Peter Yeah I guess the Romans killed some non-physical ghosts.
- zzo38computer 1y ago
  > What does the fact that we can do something has to do with its morality? The philosophy (and also practical issues as well) are not always so simple, so sometimes it might have something to do with its morality. > Would you find it moral, if your mother had killed you? No, especially after I am born. If it was before I am born, then I am a part of her body and she has the right to do so, although that still does not make it moral. > Yeah I guess the Romans killed some non-physical ghosts. They might not mean them as historical real people (which they probably were, although it is not 100% certain). (I cannot think of how to explain it better, but there is a difference.)
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- giardini 1y ago
  1718627440 says >I don't think most people use religion to define basic rules in the society nowadays. I don't think I have indicated this in my comment.< Then by what right/power/means do you justify any "rights/rules" whatsoever, including justification to speak about the question? You later mention "boundaries of bodies". Do you think having a "body" grants rights? What about a "dead" body? Should the dead vote? Perhaps you're a Democrat and think "Yes, my dead Democrat grandfather still votes (at least twice) every 4 years."? 1718627440 says >What does the fact that we can do something has to do with its morality?< There has always been a clash between morality and science. Science always wins. 1718627440 says > Do you accept DNA to determine boundaries of bodies? For some purposes, e.g., medical, Yes. But for political argumentation no, b/c of twins, triplets,...,clones. Are all clones one "body" (they all have the same DNA)? 1718627440 says >Would you find it moral, if your mother had killed you?< I would have nothing to say about it!8-)) Without reference to some authority (God, Jesus, DNA, Cthulhu) you justify your arguments based solely on your existence. Nothing is added, nothing gained, no political insight or structures, etc. Of course you can believe what you want, but everyone else can do the same presumably. This is an unconvincing, empty argument and is dangerous b/c if someone wants to delete your authority they can merely delete you. A nihilistic Hobbesian argument seems awfully close to the truth and, while some of us matter more than others, no one of us matters much. 1718627440 says *>>Yeah I guess the Romans killed some non-physical ghosts. So you believe the Romans killed Jesus and Peter??**