abortion

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
No, it is people like you who are brainwashed to think without goodreason that the absence of personhood in a living being gives you the right to intentionaly kill it.

Oh here we go, people like you, brainwashed thanks LOTC...Guess you're just another hysterical vegan bunny-hugger after all...

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Oh here we go, people like you, brainwashed thanks LOTC...Guess you're just another hysterical vegan bunny-hugger after all...

I try to be like that yes, but thanx for the complement good friend!😉

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
I try to, but thanx for the complement good friend

I was kidding really, but you won't get very far if you start accusing people of being brain-washed.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I was kidding really, but you won't get very far if you start accusing people of being brain-washed.

They are more brainwashed then me because I dont assume I have the moral right to kill living beings that dont have personhood yet.

Or assume I have the moral right to intentionaly kill beings because they cant yet feel pain.

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
They are more brainwashed then me because I dont assume I have the moral right to kill living beings that dont have personhood yet. Or assume I have the moral right to intentionaly kill beings because they cant yet feel pain.

You still can't call them brainwashed. They've reached their conclusions by thinking about the issue, as far as I can see. Brainwashing is something entirely different.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You still can't call them brainwashed. They've reached their conclusions by thinking about the issue, as far as I can see. Brainwashing is something entirely different.

How does assuming things include reason?

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
How does assuming things include reason?

I don't understand what you're asking.

Am I correct in assuming that you are not absolutely sure that morality exists?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I don't understand what you're asking.

They assume they have the moral right to kill beings that have no personhood because they have no personhood.

This is an assumption and has nothing to do with "thinking about the issue". Or does it?

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
They assume they have the moral right to kill beings that have no personhood because they have no personhood. This is an assumption and has nothing to do with "thinking about the issue". Or does it?

As far as I can tell, LJ & others' stance is logically derived from certain premises. You can't reason without premises (or maybe you can show me how to do that?) Whether or not these premises are faulty, they didn't assume them without thinking.

I seem to remember you saying something along the lines that your morality is a gamble, as there might not be such a thing at all. Am I correct?

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
As far as I know all you say is true except that handicaped born children are being euthanised. I have never heard about this before...

Never heard of the "Groninger Protocol" ? Please google on it. (In Dutch language mode)

A Dutch article in "Trouw" :

http://www.trouw.nl/deverdieping/overigeartikelen/article16215.ece/&rsquo%3BWe+moeten+het+kind+bijstaan&rsquo%3B

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I was kidding really, but you won't get very far if you start accusing people of being brain-washed.

Take that, Lemon Jello ...... 😛

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
As far as I can tell, LJ & others' stance is logically derived from certain premises. You can't reason without premises (or maybe you can show me how to do that?) Whether or not these premises are faulty, they didn't assume them without thinking.

I seem to remember you saying something along the lines that your morality is a gamble, as there might not be such a thing at all. Am I correct?

Yes you can reason without premises, you just base your reasoning on observable evidence instead of a premise, or an assumption, scriptures, etc.

I seem to remember you saying something along the lines that your morality is a gamble, as there might not be such a thing at all. Am I correct?

Yes im saying morality exist as far as that it is completely made up by man and not based on reason. The only thing reason can determine when it comes to morality is that morality does not exist.

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
Yes you can reason without premises, you just base your reasoning on observable evidence instead of a premise, or an assumption, scriptures, etc.

[b]I seem to remember you saying something along the lines that your morality is a gamble, as there might not be such a thing at all. Am I correct?

Yes im saying morality exist as far as that ...[text shortened]... . The only thing reason can determine when it comes to morality is that morality does not exist.[/b]

Yes im saying morality exist as far as that it is completely made up by man and not based on reason. The only thing reason can determine when it comes to morality is that morality does not exist.

That is the way of the world, we will do what we will, because we
will it. Slavery could come back to levels it was world wide a few
hundred years ago, abortion is as wide open as it can go, wars,
rapes, stealing, fraud, lies, sexual preversions of all types, are
all just the things we will to do, and accept or reject as we choose.
It is the way of man, his nature is to do all these things and he
justifies all his reasons from his personal tastes within him.

Of course this is not really an issue, unless man has to answer
to someone else for his thoughts, his reasons, his will.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is the way of man, his nature is to do all these things and he
justifies all his reasons from his personal tastes within him.

There are logical objections which are not predicated on God to things
like stealing or slavery. Whereas it might be his nature (and I
am just granting this for the sake of simplicity), that doesn't make
these things logically defensible. It may be the 'taste' of the time, but
we can prove that they are wrong, and we don't need God to do
that.

If you can prove that abortion is wrong, then go for it. I've been begging
for a proof to justify my opinions.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
There are logical objections which are not predicated on God to things
like stealing or slavery. Whereas it might be his nature (and I
am just granting this for the sake of simplicity), that doesn't make
these things logically defensible. It may be the 'taste' of the time, but
we can prove that they are wrong, and we don't need God ...[text shortened]... n is wrong, then go for it. I've been begging
for a proof to justify my opinions.

Nemesio

No one can prove to you that abortion is wrong but neither can anyone prove the opposite.

So now we HAVE proof that we do not need proof to justify our feelings on the matter.