Is This Only A Blob Of Cells?...

[add]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343895162' post='2461503']

I've never said they are worthless, I have not judged their worth. That is for the mother to decide, it is her business, not mine nor the government's.
My lack of morals is not a justification for anything.
My justification for not wanting a law against abortion is that it doesn't impact me, thus it is none of my business if a mother chooses to abort. None of my business and by extention, I will not give my vote towards a law against it, thus I believe it is none of the government's business.
Morality has nothing to do with it.
Now, if it were my unborn child which my wife was considering to abort, I would hope that she would ask me my opinion, I wouldn't simply say "I don't care" or "none of my business" in that circumstance. But when it is my neighbor, or a fellow NZer or a fellow Earther, it is none of my business. The mother is much better positioned to make the decision than me.

A lack of morals accomplishes nothing, it is the driving force of nothing. But being free of religious dogma, free of unfounded belief, I am free to put my own thoughts into matters, free to come to my own conclusions rather than look for excuses to support the position others are taught that they must hold. My conclusions are that if the actions of others do not impact me, then it is not my place to play god and try and stop them or tell them what they can and can't do. I am of the opinion that controlling other people is what causes conflict and war.
[/quote]

This blob of tissue is your genetic prodigy reborn, choosing  to terminate that viable life is simply put is killing your own self.  Whether or not you choose to accept this fact of life is illogical 

[Anomaly]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343895162' post='2461503']
I've never said they are worthless, I have not judged their worth. That is for the mother to decide, it is her business, not mine nor the government's.
My lack of morals is not a justification for anything.
My justification for not wanting a law against abortion is that it doesn't impact me, thus it is none of my business if a mother chooses to abort. None of my business and by extention, I will not give my vote towards a law against it, thus I believe it is none of the government's business.
Morality has nothing to do with it.
Now, if it were my unborn child which my wife was considering to abort, I would hope that she would ask me my opinion, I wouldn't simply say "I don't care" or "none of my business" in that circumstance. But when it is my neighbor, or a fellow NZer or a fellow Earther, it is none of my business. The mother is much better positioned to make the decision than me.

A lack of morals accomplishes nothing, it is the driving force of nothing. But being free of religious dogma, free of unfounded belief, I am free to put my own thoughts into matters, free to come to my own conclusions rather than look for excuses to support the position others are taught that they must hold. My conclusions are that if the actions of others do not impact me, then it is not my place to play god and try and stop them or tell them what they can and can't do. I am of the opinion that controlling other people is what causes conflict and war.
[/quote]You've arrived at quite a conundrum that you can't logic your way out of. According to you, you believe your lack of morals, that it's up to individuals to decide. You think that lack of morals is inert in society, causes nothing, drives nothing. However, those standards aren't neutral. Being decidedly neutral allows people to force their views, actions, desires on others. You've state on one hand that it's nothing to your if it doesn't affect you. Yet you are a member of a larger society. Being neutral allows those with power and will to force and tyranize others, whether it's religious zealots or radical arnarchists. How does that work with your Golden Rule of Do unto others and you would have done unto you? Do you want to be oppressed, or not allowed to exist because others who are more powerful deem you unwanted or inconvenient? What are the limits of your empathy or sympathy (assuming you have thse emotions or feelings)?

The reality is that humans have a wide variety of opinoins, wants, desires, and needs, one of which is the natural desire to live in a society with relative peace. It's not morals that cause conflicts, its the differerences between what alls these various people want. Morals are not just rules of sexual conduct, or lists of don't do's. There are also positive directives, such as being patient with others, tolerant, cooperative. Your claims of beng a-moral is only a semantical illusion when you also claim to follow the Golden Rule. Think it through, you have values and empathy, so you have some moral guidelines. But you can't claim to be a-moral just to not have to defend inconsistent application of your values.

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343895162' post='2461503']
I've never said they are worthless, I have not judged their worth. That is for the mother to decide, it is her business, not mine nor the government's.
[/quote]

You have judged their worth relative to the opinions of others.


[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343895162' post='2461503']
My lack of morals is not a justification for anything.
[/quote]

You should probably re-read the thread:

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343802144' post='2461006']
2. I don’t believe in morality (if morality is an umbrella term for absolute right and wrong)
3. [b]I think moral beliefs have no place in defining law governing a society, because of course, I don’t believe in morality[/b].
[/quote]

Hence, your belief that some human individuals may be legally killed by others.


[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343802144' post='2461006']
A lack of morals accomplishes nothing, it is the driving force of nothing. But being free of religious dogma, free of unfounded belief, I am free to put my own thoughts into matters, free to come to my own conclusions rather than look for excuses to support the position others are taught that they must hold. My conclusions are that if the actions of others do not impact me, then it is not my place to play god and try and stop them or tell them what they can and can't do. I am of the opinion that controlling other people is what causes conflict and war.
[/quote]

I see a certain hypocrisy here, and quite a bit of ignorance.

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343802144' post='2461006']
free of unfounded belief, I am free to put my own thoughts into matters, free to come to my own conclusions rather than look for excuses to support the position others are taught that they must hold
[/quote]

I'm glad to see you are so free thinking that you have resorted to the same old, over-used, ignorant rhetoric of most anti-theists and anti-religious.

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343802144' post='2461006']
A lack of morals accomplishes nothing, it is the driving force of nothing. ...My conclusions are that if the actions of others do not impact me...etc, etc...if it were my unborn child which my wife was considering to abort I wouldn't simply say "I don't care" or "none of my business" in that circumstance.
[/quote]

It seems to have accomplished quite a bit here. Namely, complete selfishness. The hypocrisy is that you can justify a myriad horrors by this selfishness as easily as a moralist can by his morality. In effect, your morality--your ingrained sense of what is or is not appropriate--is selfishness. Selfishness has accomplished quite a bit in this world. It has never accomplished anything ultimately good. You might have--in your mind--shed the moralist's disability of needing to control (which, if I may point out the obvious, may not even exist), but you certainly haven't retained his advantage of being compelled to do anything remotely charitable.


Anomaly beat me to the other points I would have made.
You've just talked yourself into yet another corner.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Tally Marx

[stevil]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1343911719' post='2461529']
According to you, you believe your lack of morals,
[/quote]
say what?! - I lack a belief in morals, don't twist it into a belief.

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1343911719' post='2461529']
that it's up to individuals to decide.
[/quote]
If it is not up to the individual, then whom is it upto?
Are you honestly telling me that you would rather a group of politicians make your decisions for you?
Does choice scare you?

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1343911719' post='2461529']
You think that lack of morals is inert in society, causes nothing, drives nothing. However, those standards aren't neutral. Being decidedly neutral allows people to force their views, actions, desires on others.
[/quote]
People make decisions to force their views on others whether they believe in morals or not.
People whom have been coordinated like some Christians into believing a common set of morals, have no choice but to want to control others with regards to abortion, euthanasia, death sentence, gay marriage, sex education, contraceptives, divorce, IVF...
People whom believe in subjective morality (or their own personal belief in objective morality) have no choice but to want to control others based on (pick some random probably emotional basis here)
People whom lack a belief in morality can be short sighted, can be nasty, and can choose a goal that they think suits them (this might be world domination), however there is also great opportunity for this person to have much forethought and to think primarily selfishly in the long term, to realise that it is not their place for force their will on(and hence oppress) others. That oppressing others ultimately labels the self as a treat and ultimately makes society dangerous, thus reducing the likelihood of the self surviving.

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1343911719' post='2461529']
You've state on one hand that it's nothing to your if it doesn't affect you. Yet you are a member of a larger society. Being neutral allows those with power and will to force and tyranize others, whether it's religious zealots or radical arnarchists. How does that work with your Golden Rule of Do unto others and you would have done unto you? Do you want to be oppressed, or not allowed to exist because others who are more powerful deem you unwanted or inconvenient?
[/quote]
I do fight oppression, I am here arguing against people's desire to oppress mothers am I not? I am arguing against people's desire to empower their governments to oppress people on matters that don't impact society.
I certainly don't want to be oppressed, that is why I choose to oppose oppression.
I am not sure why you are struggling to grasp that concept, that I am interested in me, if it doesn't impact me then I am happy that people choose for themselves, I do not want to set precedent for a government to control unnecessarily.

You can come up with all the scenarios that you like, try and tie morality or oppression onto me, but you will find the same simple answer coming back at you, consistently time and time again. If only you would read what I am saying rather than cling to your perceptions.


[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1343911719' post='2461529']
What are the limits of your empathy or sympathy (assuming you have thse emotions or feelings)?
[/quote]
I try to use my head when deciding laws to support, not my emotions. If I based on emotions then maybe I would be for law against abortion.

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1343911719' post='2461529']
The reality is that humans have a wide variety of opinoins, wants, desires, and needs, one of which is the natural desire to live in a society with relative peace. It's not morals that cause conflicts, its the differerences between what alls these various people want.
[/quote]
Diversity is a great thing and should be supported.
Diversity isn't the reason for war it is the desire to control others that causes it. Belief in morality gives people the desire to control others.


[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1343911719' post='2461529']
Think it through, you have values and empathy, so you have some moral guidelines.
[/quote]
My values are a quick guide to support my goal of wanting to survive. They do not define right and wrong. Right and wrong are meaningless without a goal. I have said this all before. You just don't listen, why am I consistently reapeating myself, consistently saying the same message. If only you would read the words and take them on their own. Your perceptions are clouding the way you are understanding what I am saying.

[stevil]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1343921447' post='2461567']
You have judged their worth relative to the opinions of others.
[/quote]
So many people here that are telling me what I think. So frustrating.
I have not judged. I have not made an opinion other than it is not my nor governments place to get involved. Maybe the baby's worth is greater than the mother, I just don't care, it is not my decision to make.

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1343921447' post='2461567']
Hence, your belief that some human individuals may be legally killed by others.
[/quote]
I am not opposed to abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, or death penalty

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1343921447' post='2461567']
It seems to have accomplished quite a bit here. Namely, complete selfishness.
[/quote]
Thank you, finally we are getting somewhere.

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1343921447' post='2461567']
You might have--in your mind--shed the moralist's disability of needing to control (which, if I may point out the obvious, may not even exist)
[/quote]
And you don't wish to support law against gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, prostitution...?
Your need to control, exists, it is driven by your moral belief system.

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1343921447' post='2461567']
but you certainly haven't retained his advantage of being compelled to do anything remotely charitable.
[/quote]
So what? Are you going to make a law to force me to give to charity?

[Tally Marx]

[size=3][color=#000000][font=Calibri]posting complications[/font][/color][/size]

Edited August 2, 2012 by Tally Marx

[Anomaly]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343935154' post='2461660']
say what?! - I lack a belief in morals, don't twist it into a belief.


If it is not up to the individual, then whom is it upto?
Are you honestly telling me that you would rather a group of politicians make your decisions for you?
Does choice scare you?


People make decisions to force their views on others whether they believe in morals or not.
People whom have been coordinated like some Christians into believing a common set of morals, have no choice but to want to control others with regards to abortion, euthanasia, death sentence, gay marriage, sex education, contraceptives, divorce, IVF...
People whom believe in subjective morality (or their own personal belief in objective morality) have no choice but to want to control others based on (pick some random probably emotional basis here)
People whom lack a belief in morality can be short sighted, can be nasty, and can choose a goal that they think suits them (this might be world domination), however there is also great opportunity for this person to have much forethought and to think primarily selfishly in the long term, to realise that it is not their place for force their will on(and hence oppress) others. That oppressing others ultimately labels the self as a treat and ultimately makes society dangerous, thus reducing the likelihood of the self surviving.


I do fight oppression, I am here arguing against people's desire to oppress mothers am I not? I am arguing against people's desire to empower their governments to oppress people on matters that don't impact society.
I certainly don't want to be oppressed, that is why I choose to oppose oppression.
I am not sure why you are struggling to grasp that concept, that I am interested in me, if it doesn't impact me then I am happy that people choose for themselves, I do not want to set precedent for a government to control unnecessarily.

You can come up with all the scenarios that you like, try and tie morality or oppression onto me, but you will find the same simple answer coming back at you, consistently time and time again. If only you would read what I am saying rather than cling to your perceptions.



I try to use my head when deciding laws to support, not my emotions. If I based on emotions then maybe I would be for law against abortion.


Diversity is a great thing and should be supported.
Diversity isn't the reason for war it is the desire to control others that causes it. Belief in morality gives people the desire to control others.



My values are a quick guide to support my goal of wanting to survive. They do not define right and wrong. Right and wrong are meaningless without a goal. I have said this all before. You just don't listen, why am I consistently reapeating myself, consistently saying the same message. If only you would read the words and take them on their own. Your perceptions are clouding the way you are understanding what I am saying.
[/quote]It's you who can't make a clear line of reasoning.
You said: [color=#ff0000]"I do fight oppression, I am here arguing against people's desire to oppress mothers am I not? I am arguing against people's desire to empower their governments to oppress people on matters that don't impact society.
I certainly don't want to be oppressed, that is why I choose to oppose oppression."[/color]

My position is that society can't be inconsistent in who is oppressed. Someone is not going to be happy, no matter what, because we all can't do anything we want. You've said that you value what may or may not oppress you as an individual. Then you said you are against mothers being oppressed, though you will never be a mother.
My position is that society is the mechanism that we use to balance individual freedoms and individual protections with order. In order to do so, you have to have guidelines and principles (I'm avoiding the 'word' morals) that coincide with the reality of human nature/psychology/sociology.

So you have no problem with some persons being oppressed (infants in their mother's womb) because another person has absolute power over them. I'd like to point out there are a number of classes of people who are powerless, or have limited ability to protect themselves. Based on your criteria of personal survival, does their status relegate them to oppressable?

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343935963' post='2461663']
So many people here that are telling me what I think. So frustrating.
[/quote]

"It is so frustrating when people follow my logic through to its reasonable end!"
Objective worth is incompatible with moral relativism. To say that something has objective worth but cannot be objectively wronged is nonsensical. And then there is this post...

[font='Times New Roman', 'serif'][size="3"][color="#000000"][quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343530683' post='2459864'][/color][/size][/font]
Government does not define the value of a person, the purpose of government isn't to judge the value of a person. Generally, society members want a government that is a representative of society, one that can allow society to function and not degrade to the point of war.
[/quote]

...which at least [i]implies[/i] that it is society's job to decide the value of the human person.



[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343935963' post='2461663'] And you don't wish to support law against gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, prostitution...?
Your need to control, exists, it is driven by your moral belief system. [/quote]

These things affect society in a very negative way. They destabilize society. I would quite have come to the idea that laws governing them should exist even were I not religious or "moral". I also care for all people as individuals, which means that I want what is best for them, not just myself--another conclusion I would have come to if I were amoral. Your own need to control others exists in your selfishness, and is displayed by the fact that you support laws against murder. I am no more controlling than you are. The short-sightedness of your selfishness which has led you to mistake chaos for instability only makes it seem so in your mind.


[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343935154' post='2461660']
Belief in morality gives people the desire to control others.
[/quote]

People force all sorts of views, rules, regulations, and expectations on all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons. Morality is one of the many things forced; it does not do the forcing. Your claim that morality especially causes people to oppress others is completely unfounded. Prove it.


[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343935154' post='2461660']
People make decisions to force their views on others whether they believe in morals or not.
[/quote]

You took the words right out of my mouth.


[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343935154' post='2461660']
I do fight oppression, I am here arguing against people's desire to oppress mothers am I not?
[/quote]

You could also be arguing for the mothers' desire to oppress their children.



[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343935963' post='2461663']
So what? Are you going to make a law to force me to give to charity?
[/quote]

That wouldn't be charity on your part. But if that is what it would take to make you give even a semblance of charity, you are pathetic.

And I am still waiting for you to prove your assertion that abortion doesn't render society unstable.

[stevil]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1343941971' post='2461699']
My position is that society can't be inconsistent in who is oppressed. Someone is not going to be happy, no matter what, because we all can't do anything we want. You've said that you value what may or may not oppress you as an individual. Then you said you are against mothers being oppressed, though you will never be a mother.
[/quote]
I have said this many times before in this thread, but lets repeat myself again, just for consistency, because you choose not to listen. (which of itself is silly, because I am sure you wont listen this time as well)
I oppose unnecessary oppression because it gives government the precedent to oppress people (potentially me) based on things outside their mandate. Government is a representative of society, necessary to enforce collective rules to ensure we can coexist and that society is stable.

From my own perspective, I am interested in myself (strangely enough) rather than sticking my nose into other people’s business.
Therefore I will support laws that help me to survive and to have freedom that I want and I will oppose laws that go beyond this. From my perspective this has nothing to do with what is right or wrong.

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1343941971' post='2461699']
My position is that society is the mechanism that we use to balance individual freedoms and individual protections with order. In order to do so, you have to have guidelines and principles (I'm avoiding the 'word' morals) that coincide with the reality of human nature/psychology/sociology.

So you have no problem with some persons being oppressed (infants in their mother's womb) because another person has absolute power over them.
[/quote]
Have you been listening to what I have been saying? I don’t think you have.
I have been very clear as to my position on this.
Abortions do not impact me, therefore I do not support a governing body taking the choice away from the mothers. The babies are not fighting for themselves, neither is society, thus society remains safe for me. This is all I care about, ME!


[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1343941971' post='2461699']
I'd like to point out there are a number of classes of people who are powerless, or have limited ability to protect themselves. Based on your criteria of personal survival, does their status relegate them to oppressable?
[/quote]
Depends if oppressing them impacts me, or makes society dangerous for me. Could the same oppression logic be arbitrarily applied to me?
What is the reasoning behind the government sanctioned this oppression? Is it in order to make society safer for me? If not, then why would I support giving the government more power than they require?

[stevil]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1343942247' post='2461702']
You could also be arguing for the mothers' desire to oppress their children.
[/quote]
The mothers aren't a representative of me. They don't need me to make decisions for them, they don't need my consent behind their decisions. They are independent individuals whereas government is a representative of society.

[Socrates]

If indeed nothing is right or wrong, as Stevil asserts, then all his many pages of "debating" on the topic is utterly pointless.

If we go with that premise, then if other people want to kill babies, rape, or commit genocide, it's all fine and good.

As it is if religious moralists want to "control others" for that matter.

After all, there's no wrong or right.

Neither is there any reason other people ought to give Stevil's own purely selfish considerations any consideration over their own.

Go out and get some fresh air.

[stevil]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1343946313' post='2461722']
If indeed nothing is right or wrong, as Stevil asserts, then all his many pages of "debating" on the topic is utterly pointless.

If we go with that premise, then if other people want to kill babies, rape, or commit genocide, it's all fine and good.
[/quote]
Unfortunately this last sentence misses the point.

As I have said, law isn't about right and wrong, it is about supporting a stable society.
Although I don't consider anything right or wrong, I do want to live in a society with some rules. I want these based on my survival. If people act contrary to my survival, it isn't that they are acting "wrongful" they are just acting in a way that is dangerous to me. So I support common laws (rules) to remove some of this danger, so that I can survive in a society with other people.

[stevil]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1343322699' post='2459039']
It's been a while since I have heard anyone argue that a second trimester fetus is "just a blob of cells".

The argument more frequently given, nowadays, is that the zygote/embryo/fetus is not a "person" and therefore has no rights, and is of no consequence. "Personhood" is then defined in any way that excludes the z/e/f. I hear "personhood" defined as "consciousness" most frequently.

The second-most-typical argument advocates of abortion employ is that--even though the unborn are human individuals, with rights--our government has no right to protect them, because doing so requires forcing women to do something with their bodies. Forcing women is more wrong than killing human individuals.
[/quote]
Anyway, in an attempt to get us off the topic of me and my amoralism and back onto the topic of abortion.

I think most people recognise a fetus as a human. So arguing that point will most likely not change anyone's mind.
If a person makes decisions off empathy, then it is possible that a person finds it hard to empathize with an unborn baby. Trying to put yourself in its shoes is a difficult task to imagine. I don't know how much thought the baby is capable of, or whether it realises it is alive.
From an empathy aspect, maybe if you described what the baby goes through during an abortion, how it physically dies? maybe that could work to change someone's mind?

With regards to affection, it is hard to be affectionate towards something you can't see, feel or smell. Interactivity is zero for all except the mother, whom doesn't even feel it move until around 12 weeks and even then it is very faint.

Yes, I have heard women state that their body is at risk, that pregnancy changes their hormones, their shape, makes them feel sick etc Thus they deem it their decision to protect themselves. However I doubt this is the reason why they abort.

I would say most people abort either because they are too young, not in a stable relationship, can't afford it, have other plans e.g. school or career or have found out that there is something wrong with the baby.

I'm not sure how you would convince a person not to abort. I certainly think appeals to it being human or to morality will not work.

But it would be interesting to hear from anyone that has been able to convince someone not to, and what they did to achieve this result.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343952678' post='2461765']
Unfortunately this last sentence misses the point.

As I have said, law isn't about right and wrong, it is about supporting a stable society.
Although I don't consider anything right or wrong, I do want to live in a society with some rules. I want these based on my survival. If people act contrary to my survival, it isn't that they are acting "wrongful" they are just acting in a way that is dangerous to me. [b]So I support common laws (rules) to remove some of this danger, so that I can survive in a society with other people.[/b]
[/quote]stevil,
That is the point. It is the goal of society to create common laws (rules) to allow the maximum survival and freedom for the maximum amount of people. Not everyone can protect themselves or argue for protection, but that does not mean they can be disposed of by society.
I agree that the mother has the maximum amount of 'skin' in the game (but not as much as the baby). Whether you want to call it a moral, or a principle, or a right, it's hard to argue against that every human has an equal right to live and the existence should not be subject to the whims of those more powerful. That's is one of the foundations of demanding respect for ourselves. You and I shouldn't be asking for something for ourselves that we would deny to others.

[add]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1343998997' post='2461982']
stevil,
That is the point. [b][color=#ff0000]It is the goal of society to create common laws (rules) to allow the maximum survival [/color][/b]and freedom for the maximum amount of people. Not everyone can protect themselves or argue for protection, but that does not mean they can be disposed of by society.
I agree that the mother has the maximum amount of 'skin' in the game (but not as much as the baby). Whether you want to call it a moral, or a principle, or a right, it's hard to argue against that every human has an equal right to live and the existence should not be subject to the whims of those more powerful. That's is one of the foundations of demanding respect for ourselves. You and I shouldn't be asking for something for ourselves that we would deny to others.
[/quote]
isn't reproducing and passing on your lineage the way to [b][color=#ff0000]allow the maximum survival[/color][/b]?