[1718627440]

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]

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IOW science has rendered the traditional morality no longer applicable TO A CERTAIN DEGREE.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]

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]

> 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.)

[giardini]

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??**

[1718627440]

> You later mention "boundaries of bodies"

You claimed the mother has authority over the life of the baby, because its body is part of her. I don't think that is true, thus I quoted you a definition for body boundaries.

> There has always been a clash between morality and science. Science always wins.

Weird statement. There is a fight between a compiler and a memory model. The compiler always wins.

You claimed, because it is possible to perform abortion now, it should be moral automatically.

> is dangerous b/c if someone wants to delete your authority they can merely delete you.

Exactly the argument why "deleting" someone is immoral without pointing to religion.

> So you believe the Romans killed Jesus and Peter?

Yes? Palestine was a roman province, so only the procurator could order executions. Petrus was a roman citizen so could demand to be judged by the emperor in Rome, which he did, so he got executed in Rome.

[giardini]

1718627440 sez>You claimed the mother has authority over the life of the baby...<

No, I did not. I don't believe in "life" - it's a nonscientific concept.

1718627440 sez> There is a fight between a compiler and a memory model.<

There is no "fight": both are present, one completes it's task, neither "wins".

1718627440 sez>"Petrus was a roman citizen..." <

and other stuff he read in some text written by religious fanatics thousands of years ago (and randomly amended by other fanatics since).<*

"Nothing to see here, move on, move on please,..." - Frank Drebin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSjK2Oqrgic

[1718627440]

> There is no "fight": both are present

Same for science and morality.

> "life" - it's a nonscientific concept

Somebody needs to tell that to biologists. Biology: the study/teaching of living things.

[zzo38computer]

In my opinion, many people who are pro-abortion or anti-abortion are not very good at it due to various things. They call them "pro-choice" and "pro-life", but often they are not real pro-choice and not real pro-life. (It is better to be a real pro-choice and a real pro-life.)

Sometimes, they attack people for having an abortion or helping someone else to do so, but that is not a real "pro-life". Sometimes, people only care about human birth, not any non-human life or how well the human life is otherwise, and that is not a real "pro-life" either. Sometimes, they will not consider if the life of both the mother and child are at risk if they do not have an abortion, so that is also not a real "pro-life".

Sometimes, people will try to bring someone to abortion clinics to force them to have an abortion even if they do not want to do, and that is not a real "pro-choice". Or, a doctor or government or someone might try to force or coerce an abortion or not abortion, and either way it is also not a real "pro-choice". If the woman wants to take the risk of having problems if it is not an abortion, that is her choice to do or not to do.

(Fortunately, not everyone is that bad at these things. But, these are examples of some of the bad stuff that results from either approach.)

There are also other issues involved when it is involved with legislation, such as: excessive spying, lack of free speech (and protests), etc. But, these can happen whether they are pro-abortion or anti-abortion. There is also the case of encouraging abortion if it is legal, and in my opinion, that would be immoral.

I do consider abortion to generally be immoral, although the alternative might be (and often is) even more immoral; for this and for other significant reasons, it should always be permitted, although should not generally be encouraged. However, people should understand the consequences, and hopefully the doctor might be able to help (if they are unbiased; unfortunately many are biased one way or other way, and I have heard of both situations).

> 6th commandment "Thou shalt not kill."

The ten commandments are not easily divided into ten, so sometimes they are numbered differently. Nevertheless, "thou shalt not kill" is one of them, whether or not it is specifically the sixth (although in my opinion, it should be considered the sixth, since it seems the most reasonable way to me to number them; this is the Orthodox way, and is unlike the Catholic way). Also, it might be better written as "thou shalt not murder".

> I don't believe in any spiritual entities - for morality I have the universe and my fellow men as the elements

I think that the philosophy of the ethics and of abortion does not require belief in spiritual entities, although many people do, I think that it is not necessary to do so. Whether or not you believe in spiritual entities is not the point, but rather, that you should not try to use them to justify things in ways that are not necessary to assert their existence like that in order to do.

> I am unwilling to tell a woman that anyone other than her has the right to make medical decisions about her body.

I agree (until the child is born, it is a part of her body, and she has the right to her own body), although, like any medical decisions, they can be informed by doctors.

> Humans will still be driven to have offspring

Yes, and it should be. However, some people don't want to, which is acceptable, and considering the current situations of the world (with too much human population), I think is good that some humans don't want to.

> it remains safest to avoid unnecessary sex (b/c of disease)

I agree, although not only because of disease (but it is also one possibility). This is better than abortion, if you do not want to have children. (However, situations are not always ideal, for various reasons, and this is one of the significant reasons why I think that abortion should be permitted even if it is not encouraged.)

Of whether or not abortion is murder, in my opinion, abortion can be murder but generally isn't. For example, if someone forcibly kills someone and her unborn child in order to gain an inheritance or something like that, then that would be murder of both the mother and the child, I think. However, something does not necessarily have to be murder to be immoral or unethical.

> Yes, I do consider being too poor for a child or not wanting a child to be selfish.

I think Quran says "do not kill your children for fear of poverty", and I agree with that, too (whether or not it has to do with "selfish" is another question, but I agree with "do not kill your children for fear of poverty" whether it is selfish or not).