Amy Coney Barrett

[Mountain Man]

I do not so concede. I think I know where your mental blockage is. You have a constipated mind.

Don't come crying to me. It's the logically necessary conclusion to your own argument:

No standards, no obligations, we are each free to do as we choose;
therefore, killing another person is not meaningfully different than killing a housefly.

[firstfloor]

Don't come crying to me. It's the logically necessary conclusion to your own argument:

No standards, no obligations, we are each free to do as we choose;
therefore, killing another person is not meaningfully different than killing a housefly.

I disagree. That is your calculation, not mine.

Many years ago there was a movie called fantastic voyage. At the end, one of the characters stopped himself from crushing a fly under his thumb. His moral compass had shifted. It is simply not anchored to anything. Notice how he levels up, not down.

[firstfloor]

You'd have to try it first. It's clear you haven't.

When you take off your blinkers I might talk to you again.

[Gondwanaland]

When you take off your blinkers I might talk to you again.

Translation: "I'm running away because I can't formulate arguments against you because you're vegan and my arguments don't extend to someone who is consistent in their values"

[Mountain Man]

That is your calculation, not mine.

Many years ago there was a movie called fantastic voyage. At the end, one of the characters stopped himself from crushing a fly under his thumb. His moral compass had shifted. It is simply not anchored to anything. Notice how he levels up, not down.

I have described the logical conclusion of your argument. Without a standard, there is no "up" or "down" on the moral scale, and therefore no virtue to one's "moral compass" shifting one way as opposed to another.

[firstfloor]

I have described the logical conclusion of your argument. Without a standard, there is no "up" or "down" on the moral scale, and therefore no virtue to one's "moral compass" shifting one way as opposed to another.

.... your logic, your conclusion. I think you are missing an ingredient or two. Justice, empathy, knowledge, compassion, society and maybe other things provide direction.

[firstfloor]

Translation: "I'm running away because I can't formulate arguments against you because you're vegan and my arguments don't extend to someone who is consistent in their values"

Vegan is a special case, but that is not why you oppose abortion. You are just as blinkered and cruel as the other zealots.

[Starlight]

You are basically saying that we should ignore the science that says a fetus is a human being distinct from it's mother and go with our feelings and philosophy instead that claims it is not a human being and merely a part of the mother's body . That is anti-science no matter how many scientists hold to it.

In the US (though not in other countries), people who don't know much about science, tend to believe that morally, what is important when it comes to abortion, is whether the fetus is scientifically a human being distinct from its mother. However, the more an American person knows about science, the less likely that person is to believe that the question of whether a fetus is scientifically a human being has any relevance whatsoever to the morality of the issue.

I think the scientifically illiterate conservatives in the US have done a great propaganda job on themselves of convincing themselves that the morality of abortion is connected to whether a fetus is scientifically a human being or not. The biological scientists almost universally agree that that is not what matters morally.

[Mountain Man]

.... your logic, your conclusion. I think you are missing an ingredient or two. Justice, empathy, knowledge, compassion, society and maybe other things provide direction.

It's your argument, therefore, your implicit conclusion. You declared that there are no standards and therefore no moral obligations, so concepts like "justice" become meaningless, because without a standard, then nothing can be truly unjust, and without a standard, there is no virtue in empathy or compassion. You can choose to be empathetic or compassionate, or not. It ultimately doesn't matter in a universe without standards.

...certain actions such as incest or rape may not be biologically and socially advantageous, and so in the course of human development they’ve become taboo. But that does absolutely nothing to prove that rape or incest is wrong. After all, such behavior goes on all the time in the animal kingdom. If, as Paul Kurtz states, “The moral principles that govern our behavior are rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion,” then the rapist who goes against the herd morality is doing nothing more serious then acting unfashionably – the sort of moral equivalent of Lady Gaga, out of step with the herd. If there is no moral lawgiver then there is no objective moral law which we must obey.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/vide...ut-god-london/

[seer]

In the US (though not in other countries), people who don't know much about science, tend to believe that morally, what is important when it comes to abortion, is whether the fetus is scientifically a human being distinct from its mother. However, the more an American person knows about science, the less likely that person is to believe that the question of whether a fetus is scientifically a human being has any relevance whatsoever to the morality of the issue.

I think the scientifically illiterate conservatives in the US have done a great propaganda job on themselves of convincing themselves that the morality of abortion is connected to whether a fetus is scientifically a human being or not. The biological scientists almost universally agree that that is not what matters morally.

I didn't know that science made moral proclamations, or that it was in any position to do so. And since biological scientists have no special moral insight on this question, or any other, I can't for the life of me see why their opinion is more informed than us rubes.

[Starlight]

And since biological scientists have no special moral insight on this question, or any other, I can't for the life of me see why their opinion is more informed than us rubes.

The pattern of the knowledgeable people being in strong disagreement with the lay-people is indicative of a Dunning-Kruger effect being in play.

The average conservative is making assumptions about the implications of biological science to the topic, but are doing so in ignorance of the biological science. As they gain knowledge in biological science they realize their previous assumptions about the implications of it were wrong, and that actually, now they have the relevant knowledge, they come to realize the opposite position on abortion to the one they previously held is right. It's a pretty classic Dunning-Kruger progression.

[seer]

The pattern of the knowledgeable people being in strong disagreement with the lay-people is indicative of a Dunning-Kruger effect being in play.

The average conservative is making assumptions about the implications of biological science to the topic, but are doing so in ignorance of the biological science. As they gain knowledge in biological science they realize their previous assumptions about the implications of it were wrong, and that actually, now they have the relevant knowledge, they come to realize the opposite position on abortion to the one they previously held is right. It's a pretty classic Dunning-Kruger progression.

You are not making sense, we rubes and the scientists you mentioned both claim that the unborn are in fact human. What special insight do scientists have on the question of whether it is moral or not to kill these humans? Be specific please.

[Gondwanaland]

Vegan is a special case, but that is not why you oppose abortion. You are just as blinkered and cruel as the other zealots.

Nope. I oppose harming and exploiting all living beings, including those of my own species. Indeed, before I was vegan I was only nominally 'pro-life' and willing to compromise at 20 weeks or less abortion limit. Now I am not. Nice try though, you certainly have some gall trying to tell ME why I oppose something.

[Sparko]

In the US (though not in other countries), people who don't know much about science, tend to believe that morally, what is important when it comes to abortion, is whether the fetus is scientifically a human being distinct from its mother. However, the more an American person knows about science, the less likely that person is to believe that the question of whether a fetus is scientifically a human being has any relevance whatsoever to the morality of the issue.

I think the scientifically illiterate conservatives in the US have done a great propaganda job on themselves of convincing themselves that the morality of abortion is connected to whether a fetus is scientifically a human being or not. The biological scientists almost universally agree that that is not what matters morally.

Since the argument that pro-choice like to use is "It's a woman's body so she can do what she wants" and "It's not a person/human being" then your argument above is a non-sequitur.

And the fact that the fetus is scientifically a human being and not part of the mother is and should be relevant, unless you just have no morals at all when it comes to human life. But then you have already shown that with your previous infanticide viewpoint. Most people however do care about human life and if they believed the fetus to be a living human being, they would not want to kill him/her. That is why the pro-choice groups try so hard to make sure people DON'T believe it is a human being. They deny science in favor of rhetoric.

[firstfloor]

It's your argument, therefore, your implicit conclusion. You declared that there are no standards and therefore no moral obligations, so concepts like "justice" become meaningless, because without a standard, then nothing can be truly unjust, and without a standard, there is no virtue in empathy or compassion. You can choose to be empathetic or compassionate, or not. It ultimately doesn't matter in a universe without standards.

...certain actions such as incest or rape may not be biologically and socially advantageous, and so in the course of human development they’ve become taboo. But that does absolutely nothing to prove that rape or incest is wrong. After all, such behavior goes on all the time in the animal kingdom. If, as Paul Kurtz states, “The moral principles that govern our behavior are rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion,” then the rapist who goes against the herd morality is doing nothing more serious then acting unfashionably – the sort of moral equivalent of Lady Gaga, out of step with the herd. If there is no moral lawgiver then there is no objective moral law which we must obey.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/vide...ut-god-london/

Each individual is responsible for their own moral character, and what obligations they think they have and what is just, from their point of view. Just look at the terrorism in France recently. The chances are that those extremists thought they were acting justly - “God is greatest”.

Is what they do right or wrong? It depends only on who you ask. Certainly, the world would be a happier place without religion in it, and we all agreed what was up or down.