Author Topic: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest  (Read 9890 times)

Ross812

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Move over KY
Morality is not absolute if it depends on culture. Does math depend on culture? Absolutes spread across cultures. That's why they are "absolute." I'll say the sacred cow is arbitrary if the religion/culture changed it at one time or if many, many people don't follow it.

So if millions of people have considered cows sacred and it has a 2400 year history, it doesn't count if many many people don't follow it today? Wearing a burka as a woman is an absolute in Afghanistan because of the religion/culture. There are many "Christians" who don't follow their religion in the US, so is this christian belief an absolute?

The harming of conscious, sentient people does not matter. Plenty of other animals kill each other on earth. Why are we any different? We just evolved in different way. Our ways are not superior.

Gonna have to explain this one. Are you saying if there is no moral absolute then we are no better than animals and my feelings on not causing pain or killing another sentient person is therefore invalidated?

So why do the "rights" of a woman, trauma of pregnancy inconvenience of pregnancy - that she voluntarily chose, outweigh the life of a fetus?  Keep in mind we're not weight the life and death of the mother against the life and death of the child - we're weighing the trauma and inconvenience of pregnancy and taking care of that baby. In what other areas of life does inconvenience trump life? If a father is drunk at home and is like "I need more beer". He then packs his son up in the car, while intoxicated and gets into an accident. The son ends up being killed but the father survives. The father knew the risk of driving drunk but did it anyway. Should he not go to jail? Is this fair? The son (or fetus) had no say in the matter. The father (or mother) through drinking and driving (or intercourse) knew the risk. Now, this isn't a perfect hypothetical because intercourse isn't illegal but drunk driving is...but should we be telling the man what he can or can't do to his own body? He's not getting anyone else drunk here! The man drinking isn't the issue - him killing an innocent human is.

Up to a certain point of consciousness, yes. Her rights trump that of an unconscious fetus.

Would you want your life to end if a woman didn't want to deal with the trauma of giving birth? You would have no control - just like the fetus. The only difference is the random woman is not your mother - which makes the mother killing the fetus worse.

At the time I would have had no capacity to think, want, feel etc. so my opinion wouldn't count; the conscious thinking, wanting, feeling mother should have the right to make that call. If someone is unconscious do we ask them how they want to proceed or rely on an appointee? 

So human dna makes a human and the form of a human? So you would be in favor of not aborting after 8 weeks? That meets both of those criteria.

I think we rely on research to tell us when the fetus has some sort of consciousness or awareness.

You are not killing someone by denying them insulin. You are not helping them live, yes. But certainly not killing them. Do you get arrested for murder if you had one dose of insulin left and you and two people are about to die without it?

Don't make up a straw man argument. It isn't a you are them scenario. It is you have all the insulin and a diabetic needs it and you say "nope, none for you." Did you kill him or did he die of natural causes?

So you would be considered a deist then. Someone who believes in God but that God doesn't interact with the world. Why would God use up his valuable time to create people then? Indeed, there is a natural longing for this absentee deity. Seems a little strange, doesn't it? I look at trying to understand God's will through a combination of a couple things, like prayer and using logic and reason. If one prays, God does lead the heart in a certain direction. However, logic and reason also help guide.

I think you are a dog trying to learn calculus. To each his own.

Actually, I have 2 young children.  I can also tell you, with absolute certainty, that my life has been more impacted. I took a much lower paying job to have more flexibility and more free time to take care of things. My oldest year old did not sleep through the night for 9 months and the second just started. Guess who was up with each of them virtually every night? My wife works in medicine so I spend way, way more time with them so that she's not killing people during the day. Kinda sexist to think that the man wouldn't be spending more time with the kids than than the woman, eh?  :P

I think you said:

Quote
Yes, I'm saying the man and woman should have an equal say. Why is that not fair? Is the child more hers than his? If she has the child, he's on the hook for a lot of emotional support and possibly child support. If he wants an abortion and offers to pay, he should be to get out of it. "Your morals aren't my morals" as someone on here said.

Then:

Quote
Quote from: stahleyp on May 23, 2019, 04:00:22 PM
For the woman being the primary impacted party, I don't agree with this at all. The primarily impacted party is the fetus - it's the one dying here. I don't see how this is even disputable. Further, if they choose to have the child, besides the 9 months and birth, the difference in impact can be very, very minimal between the two. Indeed, the father may be impacted more over the long term.

Yes "can be" minimal in your case. I thought you were continuing on about child support.

I would venture to guess the majority of cases where abortion is considered do not consist of a married couple, the mother who works in medicine, the father can take a much lower paying job to have flexibility to take care of the kids. I commend you for being a good father, but I think you are projecting your lifestyle onto others. I bet you both have paid time off, make more than 50k, are educated, nice house, two cars, plenty of food, vacations... All of those things sound like they can go in the pro's column to have kids and the majority of the population is not as fortunate as you. 

Quote
Quote from: stahleyp on May 23, 2019, 04:00:22 PM
By the way, with Handmaid's Tale, you realize that women are being actually forced to get pregnant, right? No one is arguing that women should be forced into getting pregnant - making the comparison inaccurate.

Getting more to at your point of treating women as vessels for a higher cause.
96% Fixed Income CDs, Muni, Corporate Debt - 4% SPX Options


stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2923
Morality is not absolute if it depends on culture. Does math depend on culture? Absolutes spread across cultures. That's why they are "absolute." I'll say the sacred cow is arbitrary if the religion/culture changed it at one time or if many, many people don't follow it.

So if millions of people have considered cows sacred and it has a 2400 year history, it doesn't count if many many people don't follow it today? Wearing a burka as a woman is an absolute in Afghanistan because of the religion/culture. There are many "Christians" who don't follow their religion in the US, so is this christian belief an absolute?

The harming of conscious, sentient people does not matter. Plenty of other animals kill each other on earth. Why are we any different? We just evolved in different way. Our ways are not superior.

Gonna have to explain this one. Are you saying if there is no moral absolute then we are no better than animals and my feelings on not causing pain or killing another sentient person is therefore invalidated?

So why do the "rights" of a woman, trauma of pregnancy inconvenience of pregnancy - that she voluntarily chose, outweigh the life of a fetus?  Keep in mind we're not weight the life and death of the mother against the life and death of the child - we're weighing the trauma and inconvenience of pregnancy and taking care of that baby. In what other areas of life does inconvenience trump life? If a father is drunk at home and is like "I need more beer". He then packs his son up in the car, while intoxicated and gets into an accident. The son ends up being killed but the father survives. The father knew the risk of driving drunk but did it anyway. Should he not go to jail? Is this fair? The son (or fetus) had no say in the matter. The father (or mother) through drinking and driving (or intercourse) knew the risk. Now, this isn't a perfect hypothetical because intercourse isn't illegal but drunk driving is...but should we be telling the man what he can or can't do to his own body? He's not getting anyone else drunk here! The man drinking isn't the issue - him killing an innocent human is.

Up to a certain point of consciousness, yes. Her rights trump that of an unconscious fetus.

Would you want your life to end if a woman didn't want to deal with the trauma of giving birth? You would have no control - just like the fetus. The only difference is the random woman is not your mother - which makes the mother killing the fetus worse.

At the time I would have had no capacity to think, want, feel etc. so my opinion wouldn't count; the conscious thinking, wanting, feeling mother should have the right to make that call. If someone is unconscious do we ask them how they want to proceed or rely on an appointee? 

So human dna makes a human and the form of a human? So you would be in favor of not aborting after 8 weeks? That meets both of those criteria.

I think we rely on research to tell us when the fetus has some sort of consciousness or awareness.

You are not killing someone by denying them insulin. You are not helping them live, yes. But certainly not killing them. Do you get arrested for murder if you had one dose of insulin left and you and two people are about to die without it?

Don't make up a straw man argument. It isn't a you are them scenario. It is you have all the insulin and a diabetic needs it and you say "nope, none for you." Did you kill him or did he die of natural causes?

So you would be considered a deist then. Someone who believes in God but that God doesn't interact with the world. Why would God use up his valuable time to create people then? Indeed, there is a natural longing for this absentee deity. Seems a little strange, doesn't it? I look at trying to understand God's will through a combination of a couple things, like prayer and using logic and reason. If one prays, God does lead the heart in a certain direction. However, logic and reason also help guide.

I think you are a dog trying to learn calculus. To each his own.

Actually, I have 2 young children.  I can also tell you, with absolute certainty, that my life has been more impacted. I took a much lower paying job to have more flexibility and more free time to take care of things. My oldest year old did not sleep through the night for 9 months and the second just started. Guess who was up with each of them virtually every night? My wife works in medicine so I spend way, way more time with them so that she's not killing people during the day. Kinda sexist to think that the man wouldn't be spending more time with the kids than than the woman, eh?  :P

I think you said:

Quote
Yes, I'm saying the man and woman should have an equal say. Why is that not fair? Is the child more hers than his? If she has the child, he's on the hook for a lot of emotional support and possibly child support. If he wants an abortion and offers to pay, he should be to get out of it. "Your morals aren't my morals" as someone on here said.

Then:

Quote
Quote from: stahleyp on May 23, 2019, 04:00:22 PM
For the woman being the primary impacted party, I don't agree with this at all. The primarily impacted party is the fetus - it's the one dying here. I don't see how this is even disputable. Further, if they choose to have the child, besides the 9 months and birth, the difference in impact can be very, very minimal between the two. Indeed, the father may be impacted more over the long term.

Yes "can be" minimal in your case. I thought you were continuing on about child support.

I would venture to guess the majority of cases where abortion is considered do not consist of a married couple, the mother who works in medicine, the father can take a much lower paying job to have flexibility to take care of the kids. I commend you for being a good father, but I think you are projecting your lifestyle onto others. I bet you both have paid time off, make more than 50k, are educated, nice house, two cars, plenty of food, vacations... All of those things sound like they can go in the pro's column to have kids and the majority of the population is not as fortunate as you. 

Quote
Quote from: stahleyp on May 23, 2019, 04:00:22 PM
By the way, with Handmaid's Tale, you realize that women are being actually forced to get pregnant, right? No one is arguing that women should be forced into getting pregnant - making the comparison inaccurate.

Getting more to at your point of treating women as vessels for a higher cause.

No, the opinion (or feeling) on if the cow is sacred is not absolute (with all due respect to the Hindus on the board). How many Christians do you know that don't think Jesus was crucified (indeed even most secular scholars believe this)? That is an absolute. It either happened or it didn't. It's either true or false and it's also objective. So by definition, it isn't subjective!  Someone's opinion on it is subjective - the event (or lack) is not.

Yes, I'm saying that if there are no moral absolutes we are no better than animals. In fact, we might be worse than animals because we're killing our planet! Your feelings aren't invalided. You feel what you feel. The truth of your feelings are invalidated though. If there is no higher power which guides our consciences then things are the same as randomly picking a favorite color - everyone's "feelings" are equally as valid. Yours, mine or the murderer down the street. Your feeling of moral superiority is simply an illusion. And you do feel that it's superior or you wouldn't have an opinion.

So, you're arbitrarily assigning "consciousness" as determining if one human is more valuable than another. Do you think some people are more valuable than others based on skin color (also arbitrary)? Whether someone has consciousness or can do basic math is largely dependent on their age. Why would you draw the line on whether one is human due to only their age (unless you're trying to justify death of another)? When you arbitrarily label which humans are human or not you start getting into eugenics. Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood would be proud!

For the insulin part, if his diabetes killed him, he died of natural causes. Whether or not I had the medication is irrelevant. If I killed him, as you seem to indicate, why wouldn't I be in jail? In order to kill you have to be responsible for causing the death. I would not have done anything to cause it. Not giving medicine is not causing death. Maybe I wanted it to save it for a someone I knew? Did I not help save him? Yes but that is a big difference in killing someone. If you're in a building and a gunman comes in and you have 1 bulletproof vest, if you save it for yourself (regardless of reason), are you killing another person in the building?

I have no paid time off and make significantly less than $50,000 a year in wages. I agree that the majority of the population is not as fortunate as me though. However, regardless of one's situation in life, that does not make taking another's life okay.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2019, 11:11:15 AM by stahleyp »
Paul

Ross812

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Move over KY
Morality is not absolute if it depends on culture. Does math depend on culture? Absolutes spread across cultures. That's why they are "absolute." I'll say the sacred cow is arbitrary if the religion/culture changed it at one time or if many, many people don't follow it.

So if millions of people have considered cows sacred and it has a 2400 year history, it doesn't count if many many people don't follow it today? Wearing a burka as a woman is an absolute in Afghanistan because of the religion/culture. There are many "Christians" who don't follow their religion in the US, so is this christian belief an absolute?

The harming of conscious, sentient people does not matter. Plenty of other animals kill each other on earth. Why are we any different? We just evolved in different way. Our ways are not superior.

Gonna have to explain this one. Are you saying if there is no moral absolute then we are no better than animals and my feelings on not causing pain or killing another sentient person is therefore invalidated?

So why do the "rights" of a woman, trauma of pregnancy inconvenience of pregnancy - that she voluntarily chose, outweigh the life of a fetus?  Keep in mind we're not weight the life and death of the mother against the life and death of the child - we're weighing the trauma and inconvenience of pregnancy and taking care of that baby. In what other areas of life does inconvenience trump life? If a father is drunk at home and is like "I need more beer". He then packs his son up in the car, while intoxicated and gets into an accident. The son ends up being killed but the father survives. The father knew the risk of driving drunk but did it anyway. Should he not go to jail? Is this fair? The son (or fetus) had no say in the matter. The father (or mother) through drinking and driving (or intercourse) knew the risk. Now, this isn't a perfect hypothetical because intercourse isn't illegal but drunk driving is...but should we be telling the man what he can or can't do to his own body? He's not getting anyone else drunk here! The man drinking isn't the issue - him killing an innocent human is.

Up to a certain point of consciousness, yes. Her rights trump that of an unconscious fetus.

Would you want your life to end if a woman didn't want to deal with the trauma of giving birth? You would have no control - just like the fetus. The only difference is the random woman is not your mother - which makes the mother killing the fetus worse.

At the time I would have had no capacity to think, want, feel etc. so my opinion wouldn't count; the conscious thinking, wanting, feeling mother should have the right to make that call. If someone is unconscious do we ask them how they want to proceed or rely on an appointee? 

So human dna makes a human and the form of a human? So you would be in favor of not aborting after 8 weeks? That meets both of those criteria.

I think we rely on research to tell us when the fetus has some sort of consciousness or awareness.

You are not killing someone by denying them insulin. You are not helping them live, yes. But certainly not killing them. Do you get arrested for murder if you had one dose of insulin left and you and two people are about to die without it?

Don't make up a straw man argument. It isn't a you are them scenario. It is you have all the insulin and a diabetic needs it and you say "nope, none for you." Did you kill him or did he die of natural causes?

So you would be considered a deist then. Someone who believes in God but that God doesn't interact with the world. Why would God use up his valuable time to create people then? Indeed, there is a natural longing for this absentee deity. Seems a little strange, doesn't it? I look at trying to understand God's will through a combination of a couple things, like prayer and using logic and reason. If one prays, God does lead the heart in a certain direction. However, logic and reason also help guide.

I think you are a dog trying to learn calculus. To each his own.

Actually, I have 2 young children.  I can also tell you, with absolute certainty, that my life has been more impacted. I took a much lower paying job to have more flexibility and more free time to take care of things. My oldest year old did not sleep through the night for 9 months and the second just started. Guess who was up with each of them virtually every night? My wife works in medicine so I spend way, way more time with them so that she's not killing people during the day. Kinda sexist to think that the man wouldn't be spending more time with the kids than than the woman, eh?  :P

I think you said:

Quote
Yes, I'm saying the man and woman should have an equal say. Why is that not fair? Is the child more hers than his? If she has the child, he's on the hook for a lot of emotional support and possibly child support. If he wants an abortion and offers to pay, he should be to get out of it. "Your morals aren't my morals" as someone on here said.

Then:

Quote
Quote from: stahleyp on May 23, 2019, 04:00:22 PM
For the woman being the primary impacted party, I don't agree with this at all. The primarily impacted party is the fetus - it's the one dying here. I don't see how this is even disputable. Further, if they choose to have the child, besides the 9 months and birth, the difference in impact can be very, very minimal between the two. Indeed, the father may be impacted more over the long term.

Yes "can be" minimal in your case. I thought you were continuing on about child support.

I would venture to guess the majority of cases where abortion is considered do not consist of a married couple, the mother who works in medicine, the father can take a much lower paying job to have flexibility to take care of the kids. I commend you for being a good father, but I think you are projecting your lifestyle onto others. I bet you both have paid time off, make more than 50k, are educated, nice house, two cars, plenty of food, vacations... All of those things sound like they can go in the pro's column to have kids and the majority of the population is not as fortunate as you. 

Quote
Quote from: stahleyp on May 23, 2019, 04:00:22 PM
By the way, with Handmaid's Tale, you realize that women are being actually forced to get pregnant, right? No one is arguing that women should be forced into getting pregnant - making the comparison inaccurate.

Getting more to at your point of treating women as vessels for a higher cause.

No, the sacred cow is not absolute (with all due respect to the Hindus on the board). How many Christians do you know that don't think Jesus was crucified (indeed even most secular scholars believe this)? That is an absolute. It either happened or it didn't. It's either true or false and it's also objective. So by definition, it isn't subjective!

Yes, I'm saying that if there are no moral absolutes we are no better than animals. In fact, we might be worse than animals because we're killing our planet! Your feelings aren't invalided. You feel what you feel. The truth of your feelings are invalidated though. If there is no higher power which guides our consciences then things are the same as randomly picking a favorite color - everyone's "feelings" are equally as valid. Yours, mine or the murderer down the street. Your feeling of moral superiority is simply an illusion. And you do feel that it's superior or you wouldn't have an opinion.

So, you're arbitrarily assigning "consciousness" as determining if one human is more valuable than another. Do you think some people are more valuable than others based on skin color (also arbitrary)? Whether someone has consciousness or can do basic math is largely dependent on their age. Why would you draw the line on whether one is human due to only their age (unless you're trying to justify death of another)? When you arbitrarily label which humans are human or not you start getting into eugenics. Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood would be proud!

For the insulin part, if his diabetes killed him, he died of natural causes. Whether or not I had the medication is irrelevant. If I killed him, as you seem to indicate, why wouldn't I be in jail? In order to kill you have to be responsible for causing the death. I would not have done anything to cause it. Not giving medicine is not causing death. Maybe I wanted it to save it for a someone I knew? Did I not help save him? Yes but that is a big difference in killing someone. If you're in a building and a gunman comes in and you have 1 bulletproof vest, if you save it for yourself (regardless of reason), are you killing another person in the building?

I have no paid time off and make significantly less than $50,000 a year in wages. I agree that the majority of the population is not as fortunate as me though. However, regardless of one's situation in life, that does not make taking another's life okay.

In my moral view, making the decision to deny a medicine or a procedure to someone and letting nature take its course is taking responsibility for that outcome.  I also believe there there is more to life than a complete genome. I have nothing to guide me but the concept of allowing individual freedom unless it encroaches on the freedom of another.

I proposed shifting the topic to discuss incentives and disincentives to give pregnant women control over their body while incentivising the outcome you and I both want.

5 pages of analogies from the podcast you posted earlier and it comes down to the belief you have divine moral authority on the subject and God has willed an outcome.

You cannot reason someone out of something they didn't reason into.
 
96% Fixed Income CDs, Muni, Corporate Debt - 4% SPX Options

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2923
Morality is not absolute if it depends on culture. Does math depend on culture? Absolutes spread across cultures. That's why they are "absolute." I'll say the sacred cow is arbitrary if the religion/culture changed it at one time or if many, many people don't follow it.

So if millions of people have considered cows sacred and it has a 2400 year history, it doesn't count if many many people don't follow it today? Wearing a burka as a woman is an absolute in Afghanistan because of the religion/culture. There are many "Christians" who don't follow their religion in the US, so is this christian belief an absolute?

The harming of conscious, sentient people does not matter. Plenty of other animals kill each other on earth. Why are we any different? We just evolved in different way. Our ways are not superior.

Gonna have to explain this one. Are you saying if there is no moral absolute then we are no better than animals and my feelings on not causing pain or killing another sentient person is therefore invalidated?

So why do the "rights" of a woman, trauma of pregnancy inconvenience of pregnancy - that she voluntarily chose, outweigh the life of a fetus?  Keep in mind we're not weight the life and death of the mother against the life and death of the child - we're weighing the trauma and inconvenience of pregnancy and taking care of that baby. In what other areas of life does inconvenience trump life? If a father is drunk at home and is like "I need more beer". He then packs his son up in the car, while intoxicated and gets into an accident. The son ends up being killed but the father survives. The father knew the risk of driving drunk but did it anyway. Should he not go to jail? Is this fair? The son (or fetus) had no say in the matter. The father (or mother) through drinking and driving (or intercourse) knew the risk. Now, this isn't a perfect hypothetical because intercourse isn't illegal but drunk driving is...but should we be telling the man what he can or can't do to his own body? He's not getting anyone else drunk here! The man drinking isn't the issue - him killing an innocent human is.

Up to a certain point of consciousness, yes. Her rights trump that of an unconscious fetus.

Would you want your life to end if a woman didn't want to deal with the trauma of giving birth? You would have no control - just like the fetus. The only difference is the random woman is not your mother - which makes the mother killing the fetus worse.

At the time I would have had no capacity to think, want, feel etc. so my opinion wouldn't count; the conscious thinking, wanting, feeling mother should have the right to make that call. If someone is unconscious do we ask them how they want to proceed or rely on an appointee? 

So human dna makes a human and the form of a human? So you would be in favor of not aborting after 8 weeks? That meets both of those criteria.

I think we rely on research to tell us when the fetus has some sort of consciousness or awareness.

You are not killing someone by denying them insulin. You are not helping them live, yes. But certainly not killing them. Do you get arrested for murder if you had one dose of insulin left and you and two people are about to die without it?

Don't make up a straw man argument. It isn't a you are them scenario. It is you have all the insulin and a diabetic needs it and you say "nope, none for you." Did you kill him or did he die of natural causes?

So you would be considered a deist then. Someone who believes in God but that God doesn't interact with the world. Why would God use up his valuable time to create people then? Indeed, there is a natural longing for this absentee deity. Seems a little strange, doesn't it? I look at trying to understand God's will through a combination of a couple things, like prayer and using logic and reason. If one prays, God does lead the heart in a certain direction. However, logic and reason also help guide.

I think you are a dog trying to learn calculus. To each his own.

Actually, I have 2 young children.  I can also tell you, with absolute certainty, that my life has been more impacted. I took a much lower paying job to have more flexibility and more free time to take care of things. My oldest year old did not sleep through the night for 9 months and the second just started. Guess who was up with each of them virtually every night? My wife works in medicine so I spend way, way more time with them so that she's not killing people during the day. Kinda sexist to think that the man wouldn't be spending more time with the kids than than the woman, eh?  :P

I think you said:

Quote
Yes, I'm saying the man and woman should have an equal say. Why is that not fair? Is the child more hers than his? If she has the child, he's on the hook for a lot of emotional support and possibly child support. If he wants an abortion and offers to pay, he should be to get out of it. "Your morals aren't my morals" as someone on here said.

Then:

Quote
Quote from: stahleyp on May 23, 2019, 04:00:22 PM
For the woman being the primary impacted party, I don't agree with this at all. The primarily impacted party is the fetus - it's the one dying here. I don't see how this is even disputable. Further, if they choose to have the child, besides the 9 months and birth, the difference in impact can be very, very minimal between the two. Indeed, the father may be impacted more over the long term.

Yes "can be" minimal in your case. I thought you were continuing on about child support.

I would venture to guess the majority of cases where abortion is considered do not consist of a married couple, the mother who works in medicine, the father can take a much lower paying job to have flexibility to take care of the kids. I commend you for being a good father, but I think you are projecting your lifestyle onto others. I bet you both have paid time off, make more than 50k, are educated, nice house, two cars, plenty of food, vacations... All of those things sound like they can go in the pro's column to have kids and the majority of the population is not as fortunate as you. 

Quote
Quote from: stahleyp on May 23, 2019, 04:00:22 PM
By the way, with Handmaid's Tale, you realize that women are being actually forced to get pregnant, right? No one is arguing that women should be forced into getting pregnant - making the comparison inaccurate.

Getting more to at your point of treating women as vessels for a higher cause.

No, the sacred cow is not absolute (with all due respect to the Hindus on the board). How many Christians do you know that don't think Jesus was crucified (indeed even most secular scholars believe this)? That is an absolute. It either happened or it didn't. It's either true or false and it's also objective. So by definition, it isn't subjective!

Yes, I'm saying that if there are no moral absolutes we are no better than animals. In fact, we might be worse than animals because we're killing our planet! Your feelings aren't invalided. You feel what you feel. The truth of your feelings are invalidated though. If there is no higher power which guides our consciences then things are the same as randomly picking a favorite color - everyone's "feelings" are equally as valid. Yours, mine or the murderer down the street. Your feeling of moral superiority is simply an illusion. And you do feel that it's superior or you wouldn't have an opinion.

So, you're arbitrarily assigning "consciousness" as determining if one human is more valuable than another. Do you think some people are more valuable than others based on skin color (also arbitrary)? Whether someone has consciousness or can do basic math is largely dependent on their age. Why would you draw the line on whether one is human due to only their age (unless you're trying to justify death of another)? When you arbitrarily label which humans are human or not you start getting into eugenics. Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood would be proud!

For the insulin part, if his diabetes killed him, he died of natural causes. Whether or not I had the medication is irrelevant. If I killed him, as you seem to indicate, why wouldn't I be in jail? In order to kill you have to be responsible for causing the death. I would not have done anything to cause it. Not giving medicine is not causing death. Maybe I wanted it to save it for a someone I knew? Did I not help save him? Yes but that is a big difference in killing someone. If you're in a building and a gunman comes in and you have 1 bulletproof vest, if you save it for yourself (regardless of reason), are you killing another person in the building?

I have no paid time off and make significantly less than $50,000 a year in wages. I agree that the majority of the population is not as fortunate as me though. However, regardless of one's situation in life, that does not make taking another's life okay.

In my moral view, making the decision to deny a medicine or a procedure to someone and letting nature take its course is taking responsibility for that outcome.  I also believe there there is more to life than a complete genome. I have nothing to guide me but the concept of allowing individual freedom unless it encroaches on the freedom of another.

I proposed shifting the topic to discuss incentives and disincentives to give pregnant women control over their body while incentivising the outcome you and I both want.

5 pages of analogies from the podcast you posted earlier and it comes down to the belief you have divine moral authority on the subject and God has willed an outcome.

You cannot reason someone out of something they didn't reason into.
 

Your moral view doesn't seem to be logical then. Let's say Person A and Person B were on a plane that crashed. Both had vials of insulin but Person B's were shattered and can't be used. They each only had enough for 1 day since it was supposed to be a quick plane ride.

We'll also assume that if each of these folks don't receive insulin within 24 hours they'll die. They heard a call on the radio that the search team expects to arrive on the island within 24-48 hours. Now, Person A had their last dose right before the plane took off so he should be good for about 24 hours or so. Soo...given that the search team could be delayed or incorrect with their timing, should Person A give the insulin to Person B? Is Person A "responsible" for Person B's death? Why would Person A risk his own life to save Person's B? Would Person A go to jail since he "killed" person B by your definition (assuming the search party arrived after he died)?

The concept that guides you is just made up by your culture! Some cultures value "honor" of the family over individual rights. Why is yours better? If you don't believe yours taps into something deeper, aren't their views just as valid?

I don't believe I have "divine moral authority." I believe my case is more logical and less discriminatory. I also believe that I might have more divine moral insight which is why I trust it more. I could be totally wrong though! But at least I have a reason to trust it! ;)

When you say "you can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason into" who was that in reference to? Believe me, reason is what brought me to my current framework around abortion. I also asked if my thoughts were rational...and no one seemed to prove that wrong. However, myself and others have frequently pointed out the errors in logic with the pro-choice side.

Not reasoning is why I was pro-choice on a national level before. I'll admit, when I add those views, I hadn't thought through my opinion on the topic.
Paul