Directional morality and abortion

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9138
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 185 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Directional morality and abortion

Post #1

Post by Wootah »

It seems to me that across time morality improves when we see other things as of equal value to ourselves.

That is a long way of saying the application of the golden rule is good.

Secularly we could call this humanising the other.

Enslaving, robbing from, hurting another human being requires we first dehumanise them. But when we humanise we give woman the vote, end slavery, fight oppression. Even animal rights activists try to give animals human rights, to humanise them to save them.

But why not for babies in the womb?

First to reply they are foetuses not babies, needs to re-read the thread 100 times.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Directional morality and abortion

Post #11

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Wootah wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 6:45 pm [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #9]

The passage you are referring to is poetry and reflects the anger and heartache of the Jews who had just gone through the Babylonians invasion and exile. It's not a prescriptive command from God. You know this.
"Happy will be those who bash babies (of our enemies) against the rocks" is quite clear to me.

That Christians find it "poetry" ain't my thing...

IT'S THAT THEY DON'T CONDEMN THE IDEA OF IT BEING GOOD TO BASH BABIES AGAINST ROCKS.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9138
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 185 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Directional morality and abortion

Post #12

Post by Wootah »

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #11]

I agree with you. Now back to the topic.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Directional morality and abortion

Post #13

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Wootah wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 12:26 am [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #11]

I agree with you. Now back to the topic.
No dangit, I wasn't done fussing fistslamdesk.png

Seriously though, sometimes I kinda dump on individuals for the "sins of the group", without really knowing their true thoughts.

For that I pologize to you personally, and many others of my Christian friends here on the site.


Back to the OP...

I agree that abortion is the taking of a human life, and encourage alternate means of dealing with pregnancies.

But the bottom line for me is the woman who bears the burden, who is most impacted, must be allowed her bodily autonomy. It ain't for me to judge a woman's decision, but to be willing to help her if she needs me, and I can help.

There's also the matter of unequal access, where folks well off enough can flit about and find a safe procedure. As those less well off potentially continue a cycle of poverty and its associated issues.

It's so easy to say "abortion's bad, mkay", but even easier, it seems, to refuse to help a young lady get through raising her child, often as a single parent. Until those militant anti-choicers step up to help - REALLY HELP - I find their protestations hypocritical.

I remember twice in my life where it came to me to comfort a chick who had to make this painful decision. I recall their anguish, tears, and shame as clear as yesterday. Women're tougher we give em credit for, but in making this decision they end up broken and depressed, crying so much ya can't imagine.

Of course in a perfect world there'd be no abortion. Only don't it beat all, this world is no longer perfect cause some woman wanted knowledge of her world.

So let's pick on em for wanting knowledge and messing up the world, as we give em their due respect for having to make decisions a man can't begin to understand.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: Directional morality and abortion

Post #14

Post by Bust Nak »

Wootah wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 6:04 pm But why not for babies in the womb?
Because foetuses have very little common with us.
[First to reply they are foetuses not babies, needs to re-read the thread 100 times.
Twice is enough I think.
In the past they dehumanised even 2 year old children apparently. We sure we aren't doing the same?
Pretty sure.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3461
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1128 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Directional morality and abortion

Post #15

Post by Purple Knight »

Wootah wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 6:04 pm It seems to me that across time morality improves when we see other things as of equal value to ourselves.
It's true that throughout the past, toward the future, rights have only expanded and it's always been a good thing.

But there must be a point where, at least, rights can't expand anymore. For example, it could be limited by technology. Right now, we can't extend rights to every plant and animal because we'd all starve. And maybe somewhen in the 23rd century we get replicators or engineer ourselves some photosynthesis, and then rights can expand further. But then, we can't give rights to the replicator because if we don't enslave it, we then die. Same with the photosynthesis, because we can't give rights to our mitochondria and chloroplasts.

I actually think (though this is personal opinion only) that we're hitting peak morality now, and either rights can't expand much further, or perhaps even... they shouldn't.

There's not much question in anyone's whether a rock should have rights. And even vegetarians don't think a cactus should have rights, though this may be the same inconvenience that leads people like me (who eat meat) to say that chickens can't have rights.

It also might be something besides inconvenience that governs this point in moral history. I see a lot of angry people fighting and struggling and outraged, and as I look at them, they appear to me like mountain climbers who have long enjoyed the climb, the pursuit of the expanding and unfolding beauty of always reaching higher today than one did yesterday, and are now bunched up and angry at the top, striking at one another and attempting to trod on anyone they can strike down to gain just a few extra glorious meters.

Again, this is just the way I see it, but it looks to me like we've just run out of mountain, and run out of up.

Post Reply