Abortion Opinions (no flaming)

[Astralinre]

Of course it's fair, a car crash is prematurely ending someoneÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s life much like abortion prematurely ends a foetuses life; killing people is also killing the chance for them to bring another life into the world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He was comparing getting pregnant to a car crash, not having an abortion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So why doesn't the foetus sacrifice its life for the mother and die?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because in order to sacrifice oneself, one has to choose to do so. The foetus cannot choose to do so. In the case of an abortion, the foetus is not sacrificing itself, the mother is sacrificing it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The foetus couldn't care less if it wants to live or not, youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re the one thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s caring for it. If you were more concerned with other people (instead of your ideology), like people who want abortions maybe you wouldn't be so quick to write off their pleas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never said I wasn't concerned for the people who want abortions. However, I'm equally concerned for their unborn children. All I'm saying is that if the parents of the child were more concerned about the child than about themselves, they wouldn't have an abortion. (Granted, there are certain cases, such as when the foetus has a deadly, painful disease, that it might be more loving to abort.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WhatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the point of having a child you can't afford, how would you give them an opportunity to live a good life without money?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is money the only measure of a good life? Heh, silly me, I was thinking that growing up with loving parents was also part of a child having a good life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Easy to say when you're a man and have no chance of getting pregnant and having to make that choice to sacrifice your life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The father of a child doesn't necessarily have an easy time either, mind you. It can still ruin a man's dreams and goals if he has a child that he has to provide for.

[Mercifull]

Easy to say when you're a man and have no chance of getting pregnant and having to make that choice to sacrifice your life.

Its also easy for you, a man, to also be pro-life when you are not a woman capable of going through that situation

[Katryna]

In an idea world every baby would be wanted and no woman would ever get pregnant that didn't want too. This isn't a perfect world. Babies born to mothers with not enough money and to much stress to often end up abused.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Babies born with health problems and not wanted by their mothers end up in foster care or institutionalized with little personal care.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fathers aren't always there or even pay support even if they have the money.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Many children end up neglected for years until they are put into foster care where people only take care of them for the money and don't even bother to buy them Christmas gifts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not all children will be adopted. Those wanting to adopt don't want drug addicted babies, those with health problems, older children, or even mixed race.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is easy to say that if you don't want a baby don't do anything to cause one but that is a silly and short sighted answer too. Males don't have to spend nine months with all that changes that pregnancy produces if they don't feel like it. They don't have to give up anything for the nine months they don't feel like.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No abortion isn't a perfect answer but we don't live in a perfect world.

[Astralinre]

 

Easy to say when you're a man and have no chance of getting pregnant and having to make that choice to sacrifice your life.

Its also easy for you, a man, to also be pro-life when you are not a woman capable of going through that situation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've never understood how that statement really applies in an argument. "Since you can't get pregnant, don't tell women that they can't have abortions" is usually the sentiment it carries, and that just doesn't make sense to me. Does the ease with which I can make my claims invalidate what I say?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A man can escape the responsibility of raising a child by abandoning that child and its mother. A mother can escape the responsibility of carrying and raising the child through abortion. However, I don't think either of them ought to have the right to. Granted, there are conceivable situations in which I would agree with abortion; as with most laws, there's going to be exceptions. But in general, I'm against abortion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Katryna: I still disagree with that point of view. Sure, the child may suffer in its life, but it still has the chance for happiness. If a child is aborted, it will never know pain or joy. But if it is allowed to live, even if it has a painful life, it still has the chance to experience joy. Surely a little joy at the cost of pain is better than never having any joy.

[insane]

In an idea world every baby would be wanted and no woman would ever get pregnant that didn't want too. This isn't a perfect world. Babies born to mothers with not enough money and to much stress to often end up abused.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Babies born with health problems and not wanted by their mothers end up in foster care or institutionalized with little personal care.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fathers aren't always there or even pay support even if they have the money.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Many children end up neglected for years until they are put into foster care where people only take care of them for the money and don't even bother to buy them Christmas gifts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not all children will be adopted. Those wanting to adopt don't want drug addicted babies, those with health problems, older children, or even mixed race.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is easy to say that if you don't want a baby don't do anything to cause one but that is a silly and short sighted answer too. Males don't have to spend nine months with all that changes that pregnancy produces if they don't feel like it. They don't have to give up anything for the nine months they don't feel like.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No abortion isn't a perfect answer but we don't live in a perfect world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your argument is based on a bunch of "what ifs"?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even if it was a valid argument, would you really tell one of these unfortunate children that they're better off dead? I think that statement would do more damage than lack of finance could.

[dwarfie76]

Even if it was a valid argument, would you really tell one of these unfortunate children that they're better off dead? I think that statement would do more damage than lack of finance could.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why? Why is bringing a child into the world only to have it live a life of suffering preferable to not bringing that child into the world in the first place?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If a pair of highschool sweethearts find themselves pregnant, isn't it better to abort, finish school and university, establish careers and save some money, then have more children than drop out of school and try and raise a child on whatever you can scrape together? I mean, the same number of children will be born, just in the first option they will have a much better quality of life than the second.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I guess it depends on what you feel is important in life. Raising the standard and quality of life of your fellow man, or doing what the church tells you.

[insane]

 

Even if it was a valid argument, would you really tell one of these unfortunate children that they're better off dead? I think that statement would do more damage than lack of finance could.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why? Why is bringing a child into the world only to have it live a life of suffering preferable to not bringing that child into the world in the first place?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Answer the question, then. Would you tell one of these children that they should have been aborted?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I guess it depends on what you feel is important in life. Raising the standard and quality of life of your fellow man, or doing what the church tells you

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your first option politely ignores the dead fetus, of course. Not to mention it doesn't definite quality of life, which is a vague term. And of course pro-life is presented negatively, which makes your second option a loaded term as well. And yea, you forgot option three - raising the quality of life as much as possible without killing unborn children. Since you left that option out, that whole statement is a false dilemma - stating "either P or Q", when really there are many more options not presented.

[Rattica]

I beileve it's illegal in some parts, yet it's legal on others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Illegal:

 

 

 

When a teenage wants some "fun" so she has sex with a guy. Say she's 15-17. So he has sex with the guy for FUN. So later she find out she's pregant. Me, I would not allow her to have a abortion and inform her parents, since shes a no good trouble-maker seeking out of trouble. She sufers so much during birth, since she's not fully grown (15,16). Hurts like hell and bady gets adoped. Girl learns never to do it again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legal: If a inncent girl is walking and this guy just rapes her. Who's fault is it? Not the lady's. So if she doesn't want the baby, abortion is fine, since it's not her fault that the baby was created, and she's gonna have to suffer a lot of pain for no reason.

 

 

 

Please no "God's will" post, since it does not fit into the category I believe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes and after she's had the baby in the first instance why not track down the father and torture him in his private parts so that it "hurts like hell". And just for your information, if the 15-17yr old is not fully developed downstairs then her hips aren't going to be wide enough to fit the babies head through...but I suppose giving her a C-section would be ok. Which also means if she wants to give birth naturally in the future there is a very good chance of the old scar rupturing.

 

 

 

Hey all, I thought babies were a gift? Are they now a punishment? And what are you going to do to a girl who you know, or caught having sex at 15-17 years old? You know, maybe it's best that question isn't answered.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most young people who do end up pregnant do so through ignorance, abstinance only (a.k.a ignorance only) doesn't work well alone. Perhaps parents and schools should sit down for a few hours a week (as sexual health, e.t.c. is such a broad topic) and go through EVERYTHING with the little darlings?

 

 

 

Let no condom go undiscussed, explore every outcome that 'doing the deed' could possibly lead to, including but not limited to the good, the bad and the downright ugly.

 

 

 

Let's not forget relationships and feelings too, isn't it sad when you know someone who places his or her worth on whether the opposite gender want to sleep with them?

 

 

 

Batter them with (real) facts and figures (not the made up kind that certain organisations are fond of making up) BEFORE all the boys and girls even get to the stage of making a mistake and getting pregnant.

 

 

 

Maybe if some peoples parents took the time to help their unruly teens transition into adulthood there would be fewer of those kinds of accidental pregnancies and at least a fewer abortion situations needed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By the way, if i were in the position of having ANYONE coming to seek my help for an abortion I would not judge or punish someone. I would however make it my duty to make sure it was an informed decision, not one based on pressure from religion, family, fear e.t.c Or at least I'd do my best.

[dwarfie76]

Answer the question, then. Would you tell one of these children that they should have been aborted?

 

 

 

Not being renowned for tact and diplomacy, yes - more than likely I would. However we're not talking about retrospectively aborting people who have already been born, are we? Appealing to emotion is a pretty flawed argument, especially when it involves a logical contradiction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your first option politely ignores the dead fetus, of course. Not to mention it doesn't definite quality of life, which is a vague term. And of course pro-life is presented negatively, which makes your second option a loaded term as well. And yea, you forgot option three - raising the quality of life as much as possible without killing unborn children. Since you left that option out, that whole statement is a false dilemma - stating "either P or Q", when really there are many more options not presented.

 

 

 

Oh I agree, there are plenty of other options. Putting the baby up for adoption would be my preferred one in an ideal world. The aim wasn't so much to get people to choose between P or Q, but to try and draw out the reasons why people believe abortion to be so wrong. The usual answer being along the lines of that it prevents a life from developing to it's fullest potential. My example illustrated that having the baby would also prevent the life of the baby that the couple would have had 8 or 10 years down the track from developing to it's full potential.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And "quality of life" is hardly a "vague term" when it is univerally used and the meanings agreed upon by healthcare professionals and economists alike. The contributing factors of quality of life are the foundations of most planning decisions made by government agencies. But for the sake of this argument I was referring to quality of life in relation to the ability to live a full and healthy life and be able to take advantage of the same social and economic opportunities as their peers. To be able to be fulfilled according to Maslow's heirarchy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another hypothetical to further illustrate the point:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A couple find out that their unborn child suffers from a rare disorder that, should it be born, would see it suffering from severe mental [developmentally delayed]ation and severe physical abnormalities that will require extensive and expensive therapy for the duration of it's reduced life expectancy of fifteen years. Should they have this child, the couple will no longer be in a position to be able to afford the family of five they had planned on as their finances will now largely go on medical bills and all their time will be taken up caring for their severely disabled child, and by the time he/she finally dies a merciful death after a life of pain and misery the couple will be beyond childbearing age. What do you do? Abort the child who has nothing to look forward to but a life of pain and a premature death and allow the couple to raise the three happy, healthy children they were looking forward to? Or not?

[insane]

A couple find out that their unborn child suffers from a rare disorder that, should it be born, would see it suffering from severe mental [developmentally delayed]ation and severe physical abnormalities that will require extensive and expensive therapy for the duration of it's reduced life expectancy of fifteen years. Should they have this child, the couple will no longer be in a position to be able to afford the family of five they had planned on as their finances will now largely go on medical bills and all their time will be taken up caring for their severely disabled child, and by the time he/she finally dies a merciful death after a life of pain and misery the couple will be beyond childbearing age. What do you do? Abort the child who has nothing to look forward to but a life of pain and a premature death and allow the couple to raise the three happy, healthy children they were looking forward to? Or not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As this is an extreme example, I'd have to say I would do the same. There are exceptions to every rule, of course. I was trying to argue for general cases, and I don't think this is the general case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Btw, I disagree with your logic here - that the end justifies the means. It doesn't change my decision though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not being renowned for tact and diplomacy, yes - more than likely I would. However we're not talking about retrospectively aborting people who have already been born, are we? Appealing to emotion is a pretty flawed argument, especially when it involves a logical contradiction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It wasn't an argument - I was just curious to see how far you would take this belief.

[dwarfie76]

As this is an extreme example, I'd have to say I would do the same. There are exceptions to every rule, of course. I was trying to argue for general cases, and I don't think this is the general case.

 

 

 

Fair enough. Like you I was curious to see how far your beliefs extended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Btw, I disagree with your logic here - that the end justifies the means. It doesn't change my decision though.

 

 

 

That's where I'm having trouble too. What is the logic of the anti-abortion mindset. Why is it morally or ethically wrong to abort a fetus - even a perfectly healthy one? My logic may well be based on a premise that's unappealing, but it's still a logical argument.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

Because in order to sacrifice oneself, one has to choose to do so. The foetus cannot choose to do so. In the case of an abortion, the foetus is not sacrificing itself, the mother is sacrificing it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is money the only measure of a good life? Heh, silly me, I was thinking that growing up with loving parents was also part of a child having a good life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The father of a child doesn't necessarily have an easy time either, mind you. It can still ruin a man's dreams and goals if he has a child that he has to provide for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The foetus canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t do so because it isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t alive; a foetus doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t develop a brain wave pattern until into the third trimester. You canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t recognise the foetus as a child/baby/human much in the same way you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t recognise sperm and ova as children. A beating heart and breathing lungs doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t really determine being alive anymore, you can still stop beating and be revived. Brain death was introduced to try and have a more definitive definition of death; an organ donor who is brain dead, usually has their heart and lungs artificially working (like a foetus) in order to keep the organs healthy for the transplant recipient (or in the case of the foetus, the baby). In this case the organ donor is an empty shell, it is missing the most important part of humans; a functioning brain, all other organs exist to serve the brain. The foetus is no different to an organ donor, except it has the ability to develop a functioning brain; until that time comes it is just a structure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t put my child in a position where it was smart enough and wanted to have a career in which I couldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t afford the associated tuition. The freedom to do what you want is more important then having loving parents; your parents could have died in a crash but you can still have a fulfilling life. On the other the other hand having the most loving parents canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t help you escape the fact you work in a job you despise, every time you wake up and knowing you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t escape it because tuition is too expensive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a hell of a lot easier for a father to cut and run. You donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t hear about women who abandon their children and dodging child support, it is impossible to have biological equity; its kind of like that saying, man are from Mars and women are from Venus. IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not saying your wrong but you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t argue solely from the experiences as a male.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Btw, I disagree with your logic here - that the end justifies the means. It doesn't change my decision though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Answer the question, then. Would you tell one of these children that they should have been aborted?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ends justifying the means is considered consequentialism in the ethical community, it is just as logical as deontology (motive based ethics). Both have the same draw backs, you can get bad results with good motives, and you can get bad motives with good results; it is not bad logic, you just believe in deontology more then consequentialism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If I feel they should have been aborted, then they would have been; if they were magically alive and are not mentally [developmentally delayed]ed then yes I would tell them they were an unwanted pregnancy (When they are mature enough to be told such a thing). You can love a child and still regret its existence; a few people here imply thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not the case. There is a case like this going to court, parents are suing for negligence because the birth was wrongful (it wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have taken place if the doctor informed them). These parents still love their [developmentally delayed]ed child but if given the choice they would have aborted (I would post the article but it is long).

[insane]

The ends justifying the means is considered consequentialism in the ethical community, it is just as logical as deontology (motive based ethics). Both have the same draw backs, you can get bad results with good motives, and you can get bad motives with good results; it is not bad logic, you just believe in deontology more then consequentialism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't believe in deontology - or Kantian ethics. Their statement that means justify ends is just as morally destructive as consequentialism is. I believe it takes good means + good ends to do something "good".

[dwarfie76]

I don't believe in deontology - or Kantian ethics. Their statement that means justify ends is just as morally destructive as consequentialism is. I believe it takes good means + good ends to do something "good".

 

 

 

But what is "good" and what is "bad"? We don't live in a black and white world and what might cause joy in one person may cause suffering in one hundred. No single act can be considered "good" or "bad". We can only consider the varying degrees of happiness or suffering that it may cause.

[insane]

I don't believe in deontology - or Kantian ethics. Their statement that means justify ends is just as morally destructive as consequentialism is. I believe it takes good means + good ends to do something "good".

 

 

 

But what is "good" and what is "bad"? We don't live in a black and white world and what might cause joy in one person may cause suffering in one hundred. No single act can be considered "good" or "bad". We can only consider the varying degrees of happiness or suffering that it may cause.

 

 

 

That would be what ethical philosophy is all about :P your last line about pleasure and suffering is an example of Utilitarianism.

[dwarfie76]

That would be what ethical philosophy is all about :P your last line about pleasure and suffering is an example of Utilitarianism.

 

 

 

Indeed. J.S. Mill's "On Liberty" is one of the works I base my own philosophy on. The other being Holyoake's "Principles of Secularism".

[Higothrekk]

I don't believe anything can be done about the murders with the way the 'human' race is now, but no friend of mine will ever have a small human being ripped apart inside them.

[Bloodredsword]

abortion shouldn't be allowed i very much agree with u

[dwarfie76]

abortion shouldn't be allowed i very much agree with u

 

Wow, there's a well thought out argument if ever I saw one.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

I don't believe in deontology - or Kantian ethics. Their statement that means justify ends is just as morally destructive as consequentialism is. I believe it takes good means + good ends to do something "good".

 

 

 

Yes but you can't possibly predict if you receive a good outcome (you need to have the good means in order to facilitate the result, which is required in your ethical viewpoint) itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s why two different ethical approaches exist. You can always have good motives but sometimes bad things just happen no matter how good your intentions, whereas on the other hand if something bad did happen you might be willing to step on some moral toes to correct the problem; everyone strikes some balance between these two ideas. You can't have it both ways otherwise this whole argument between means and ends wouldn't exist.

 

 

 

Lets say you offer a piece of gum to someone, for all you know they could be distracted chewing and get hit by a car; freak results like these occur all the time, its called chaos. The world is described by a non-linear system, one that you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know and even if you did is impossible to be easily computed moment to moment; taking a second longer to offer the gum can give a life or death result.

 

 

 

Being good and expecting good results is really a cop-out way of looking at things, by your definition no one can be good.

[insane]

 

I don't believe in deontology - or Kantian ethics. Their statement that means justify ends is just as morally destructive as consequentialism is. I believe it takes good means + good ends to do something "good".

 

 

 

Yes but you can't possibly predict if you receive a good outcome (you need to have the good means in order to facilitate the result, which is required in your ethical viewpoint) itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s why two different ethical approaches exist. You can always have good motives but sometimes bad things just happen no matter how good your intentions, whereas on the other hand if something bad did happen you might be willing to step on some moral toes to correct the problem; everyone strikes some balance between these two ideas. You can't have it both ways otherwise this whole argument between means and ends wouldn't exist.

 

 

 

Lets say you offer a piece of gum to someone, for all you know they could be distracted chewing and get hit by a car; freak results like these occur all the time, its called chaos. The world is described by a non-linear system, one that you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know and even if you did is impossible to be easily computed moment to moment; taking a second longer to offer the gum can give a life or death result.

 

 

 

Being good and expecting good results is really a cop-out way of looking at things, by your definition no one can be good.

 

 

 

Yeh, I'm a little confused as well - ethical philosophy isn't really something I've spent too much time thinking about which is why I probably don't even know my own standpoint.

 

 

 

Your little spiel I agree with and is one of the reasons I disagree with utilitarianism - you can evaluate the supposed results of a certain action all you want but it never leaves from for random events that skew any evaluation of any ethical action.

[I_Love_Mods]

abortion shouldn't be allowed i very much agree with u

 

Wow, there's a well thought out argument if ever I saw one.

 

 

 

Lol, he's not required to post anything in his defence. The aspects of this are pure and simple. Abortion is wrong. Don't try to overcomplicate things.

 

 

 

Now here's where this may get confusing. I believe that abortion, but as a US citizen I doubt it will ever be illegal. So, if I were try to pass a bill against it, I would make it illegal except for extenuating circumstances (such as rape and incest).

 

 

 

I believe it's wrong, but the idiots of my society aren't going to change. My country has no morals whatsoever, so I doubt even THAT is going to fly. The only thing I can do is discourage abortion.

 

 

 

And... Don't tell this isn't a question of morals! EVERYTHING is a question of morals!

 

 

 

Yes but you can't possibly predict if you receive a good outcome (you need to have the good means in order to facilitate the result, which is required in your ethical viewpoint) itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s why two different ethical approaches exist. You can always have good motives but sometimes bad things just happen no matter how good your intentions, whereas on the other hand if something bad did happen you might be willing to step on some moral toes to correct the problem; everyone strikes some balance between these two ideas. You can't have it both ways otherwise this whole argument between means and ends wouldn't exist.

 

 

 

Lets say you offer a piece of gum to someone, for all you know they could be distracted chewing and get hit by a car; freak results like these occur all the time, its called chaos. The world is described by a non-linear system, one that you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know and even if you did is impossible to be easily computed moment to moment; taking a second longer to offer the gum can give a life or death result.

 

 

 

Being good and expecting good results is really a cop-out way of looking at things, by your definition no one can be good.

 

 

 

Sorry I couldn't quote you directly.

 

Um, sorry to dissapoint you, but that's just a large amount of bs. Here's the answer. No one is good. Not doing good is wrong just as doing bad is wrong, alright? We understand each other so far?

 

 

 

Ok, if the action wrong, regardless of the outcome, it is wrong. I hope that helped. I just shattered your thesis.

 

 

 

Yeh, I'm a little confused as well - ethical philosophy isn't really something I've spent too much time thinking about which is why I probably don't even know my own standpoint.

 

 

 

Your little spiel I agree with and is one of the reasons I disagree with utilitarianism - you can evaluate the supposed results of a certain action all you want but it never leaves from for random events that skew any evaluation of any ethical action.

 

 

 

I'm sorry you feel that way, but that's normal. Ethics is a confusing thing. There is one right way out there, but I can't give you a strict definition. Just do what you believe to be right, and everything that you think may be a bit overboard (if it is positive). Also, stay away from things that you think are wrong and things that you are unsure about. People that waste their lives trying to right a code of ethics find that as times change people are too stupid to be able to apply things that look so old-fashioned to modern life. So, that's all I can give you. I can understand your feeling with the loads of ethical bs out today lol.

[dusqi]

Lol, he's not required to post anything in his defence. The aspects of this are pure and simple. Abortion is wrong. Don't try to overcomplicate things.

 

 

 

If you're not willing (or able?) to back up your morals, then you're always just going to come up against people that have different ones. "Abortion is right. Don't try to overcomplicate things. You're an idiot."

 

 

 

Actually, I think abortion is wrong. But I think that it's a rational position to take. One that can be justified.

[dwarfie76]

And... Don't tell this isn't a question of morals! EVERYTHING is a question of morals!

 

 

 

OK, so who's morals? Yours or the person who fed yours to you? If you arrived at the moral standpoint independently then yes, you are required to show your working. If, on the other hand, you're simply parrotting what someone else has told you then you'd probably be better off out grazing with the other sheep.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

Sorry I couldn't quote you directly.

 

Um, sorry to dissapoint you, but that's just a large amount of bs. Here's the answer. No one is good. Not doing good is wrong just as doing bad is wrong, alright? We understand each other so far?

 

 

 

Ok, if the action wrong, regardless of the outcome, it is wrong. I hope that helped. I just shattered your thesis.

 

 

 

WhatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s doing ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅgoodÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ