nice post, 777. however, regarding the above quote, my issue is " is there a possibility that a fetus, regardless of stage, is a human life?" my answer is yes and as long as that possibility exists, abortion is potentially murder. best, surf
I understand you position surf, and it is like the subjectivity of religious beliefs, it is personal, and not provable without the exercise of faith. My point is that law has to be objective and based on principles that cut beyond that subjectivity when there is not an overwhelming consensus among the rational citizens of a society.....and that is why Roe versus Wade will stand until such time that personal bias among the members of the Supreme Court overturn it....or society as a whole changes its perspective to a resounding and overwhelming view that coincides with your perspective. That is how a civilized society works. To revoke a woman's right to choose is the primary issue, and until there is evidence to swing the "probability" of a fetus constituting human life as defined by science, to beyond a 50/50 proposition, I have to side with human rights, a woman's right to choose. Until you can prove murder---which we agree you cannot, she is innocent of murder till proven guilty if she decided to abort a fetus.
oh yeah. do you happen to have any examples of these "objective laws" (regarding murder) that AREN'T based on society's SUBJECTIVE feelings? i'd LOVE to see them...
Human beings have survied as a species because, unlike animals, they have the ability of choice to terminate their own existence. Some might point to the salmon, who die trying to swim upstream, but this is not suicide, it is not a rational choice to terminate their own lives. Humans on the whole, as a majority, have shown a tendency to live versus dying. This is an objective, observable fact that anyone can verify. Why has this always been the case? (and No, Jonestown and Jim Jones's mass suicide doesn't counter the fact that survival is the primary choice of rational human beings, nor do the isolated incidents of those who die trying to blow up buildings or falling on their swords out of shame). Because living is preferable to dying. Hence, if we are going to use terminology, living is good, dying is bad. It is moral to perserve life, it is immoral to terminate life. You can intellectually masturbate as much as you want on this issue, but everyone knows that you are full of nonsense. It is morally wrong to murder, and we all know it. When we see the majority of a society or the leaders of a society choosing to be murdered, then we will talk.
surf, that's exactly what i think. and i am asking right here for people that believe otherwise, that think there is some EXTERNAL measure of whether something is 'right' or 'wrong', 'good' or 'bad', to please explain why, and support their position. optional has tried to, but it's obvious that, with his 'shoot (post) first, think later' mentality, he has fallen comically short. i guess he thinks i just whipped up my position in the couple of minutes it took me to read this thread. i don't think it's really worth my time going through the motions with such a dunce..
"good" you say? good for WHOM? good for WHAT? is it 'good' if the (your beloved) 'vast majority' wants him dead? how is it 'good' for them? why is human life, in total, ACTUALLY good? what makes it good? surely it hasn't been good for OTHER life, ie animals, plants, the planet... have you actually thought about this stuff before today dude? or is this just typical optional running off at the mouth? let me know, because if it's the latter, i can't be bothered.. ps - if your plan is to dismiss any contrary evidence -- just like the voluntary suicides of those you mentioned -- simply because it refutes your attempts to form the universal constants you so desperately seek, then you've made it very clear that you have no desire whatsoever to arrive at a consistent, logical position.
We both have to be rational to have a discussion. Can we agree on a definition of "good" as being what the vast majority of a society agree with, that anyone who was observing that society could agree with as "good" by definition, based on the actions of that society? You can try to take shelter that the term "good" is subjective, but when a condition exists universally, it can objectively stated that something is "good" in that it is sought after by well over 95% of the people in this world today and throughout all times. So, extending this to the history of mankind, the vast majority (over 95%) of all those people who have ever lived preferred to live versus die. If something is that universal throughout the course of history, is that dominant in a species, anyone would have to conclude that choice of life is the preference over death. Does that fact that the history of mankind choosing life over death mean that living is good? I say yes, but if you don't agree with that, there is no ground for discussion. Even an alien could see what has happened over the course of human events, and conclude that this human race thinks living is good, and dying is bad. Hence, it only follows that murder is bad, and preservation of human life is good. And, from a moral perspective, it easily follows that murder is wrong.