For abortion proponents, “facts are irrelevant”
It’s a lot easier to get someone in the stirrups if they’re uneducated about the subject, and once they’ve had their abortion, facts are going to be irrelevant to them from that point forward, because the denial/anger/misery-loves-company mindset will take over and then she can take her place as the one trying to get someone in the stirrups so she can join “The Sisterhood.”
They’ve lost the debate. They know this. They lose when it gets down to the facts of the matter. So now, their only hope is to play a numbers game and try and get as many people as possible to participate in this barbarism so that their conscience is killed and facts become irrelevant to them, as well.
Because the people who say “Well, *I* had an abortion, and it was the best thing since sliced bread because I *HAD* to!! YOU DON’T KNOW ME! DON’T YOU DARE JUDGE ME! YOU HAVEN’T LIVED IN *MY* SHOES!!!” (or, “My sister/mother/aunt/girlfriend/friend had an abortion… and… I can’t look at this objectively, because otherwise I’d have to come to terms with the fact that someone I love isn’t perfect!!! WHY DO YOU HATE SO MUCH?!”) aren’t going to listen to facts, nor do they care about facts, anyway (abortion facts = irrelevant).
They’re just trying to get more Germans in the church so they can sing louder.
~ Commenter xalisae, on Stanek Quote of the Day, “Tasmanian PM: Students ‘haven’t lived long” enough to protest abortion,” April 11
[HT: Kel]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The prolife movement’s life blood has always been good old fashioned education. Plain biological and medical facts. Common sense on the nature of relationship dynamics. This is especially important in the middle and late teen years…college is not to late either…before the personal crisis happens.
“They’re just trying to get more Germans in the church so they can sing louder.”
Touché
For the record I just love xalasie….That just hit the nail on the head about joining the sisterhood. Have an abortion. I did. And yes these women who are still in denial about it being a bad idea are indeed madder than hornets. When they see a woman protesting they usually attack the men in the group. I let them know the facts when they start screaming at me and I tell them “Keep it moving !”
Wow, X, you’ve done it again. Congratulations.
People have their own style in front of the clinics I choose to educate. I even educated a cop showing him the fetal head. Omg be replied. As for the men and women who curse me I do not tolerate that behavior. I had one woman told me “I’m gonna beat your a**!” I calmly replied “Try me.” Never shifted eye contact. She jumped. in her beater screeching the tires and drove away.
Thanks, everyone. Heather, all they have is intimidation tactics and anger. That’s it. Just keep being awesome. :)
Keep tellin’ it like it is, Xalisae! * I know you will!* ;)
Good for you, Heather! :D
Most of what I say I say from experience. I knew that tall, supermodel-esque blonde girl I worked with who tried to get me in those stirrups because SHE had been in those stirrups. She didn’t get the response from me for which she was looking, that is certain, and I saw the disappointment on her face before I turned to walk away after saying nothing to her when she brought it up-you know, how great it was for her, and backpacking around Europe it allowed her to do, and she just *had* to, you know, because she was only 17 and there was so much more on her agenda back then…
Silence and a look of horror before turning and walking away was obviously not what she was hoping to receive in return.
But that is the only reaction which that sort of suggestion can garner in the face of knowledge, logic, and compassion with regard to the pro-legal-abortionist’s sales pitch.
you go X! good to see you around here and Twitter again
Silence and a look of horror is necessary in reaction to people who are trying to “sell” abortion because they were involved in one. How else can they be motivated to see truth? I’m always grateful to see women who have had abortion experiences speak out against it. We are not being hypocritical – just sadly sharing our experience so that others don’t make the mistake we did.
What an imaginative little tirade. Almost theatrical.
They’ve lost the debate. – evidently not. Finding your arguments unconvincing and unacceptable isn’t losing, except for you maybe.
They know this. – no, you imagine it.
They lose when it gets down to the facts of the matter. – not so. There are facts for and against many things in life. People act on the facts they find most important and relevant, the ones which apply to them and their situation, not the ones you wish they would.
The ranty bit sounds a lot like what we hear from bystanders when confronted by groups like the Westboro sidewalk counsellors. No-one appreciates the self-righteous haranguing them.
I’m quite sure that when a meat-eater describes a succulent meal to a vegetarian and the vegetarian gives the meat-eater silence and a look of horror before turning and walking away, the meat-eater never eats another steak again. No? Just like no woman ever has more than one abortion…oh, wait….
Righty-o, Irony.
That’s why you had precisely squat to say to Jack last night after backed into a corner about his mom so you left. You’re sooo full of crap, it’s pathetic.
So is your response predicated on disingenuousness or lack of observation? I said ‘night’ to you on another thread. I was confident that you would know what that meant. Did I misjudge you?
And I’ve responded to Jack now that I’ve returned. Like I always do if I’m aware that there is a reason to do so. I find it amusing when I’m accused of ‘running’ and then oh oh, he’s baaack :-)
I have regular and successful bowel movements thank you. I’m never more than partially ‘full of crap’ as you so elegantly put it.
I have regular and successful bowel movements thank you. I’m never more than partially ‘full of crap’ as you so elegantly put it.
Obviously. Most of it winds up sprayed all over this blog as you attempt to pass it off for thoughtful commentary.
LOL. YES, love this Xalisae. Love your sarcastic wit. This is a great quote. Sharing it on facebook now.
you go x
“So now, their only hope is to play a numbers game and try and get as many people as possible to participate in this barbarism so that their conscience is killed and facts become irrelevant to them, as well.”
This was my favorite part
That would merely be an undercoat to your rectally derived concepts then. Part of your luridly drawn fantasy was that I wasn’t prepared to respond to Jack. Your painting failed, get a better brush.
I work with several women and one day they all started talking about their abortions. We unfortunately were outnumbered 7 to 3. None of these women expressed regrets so I simply said ” I don’t agree with abortions ” They gave me a collective ” You don’t ?” I will admit I felt a little intimidated that day. This was around reelection time and they were saying Romney wanted to take away a womans right to choose . I replied ” I know that’s why I’m voting for him.” So one woman said. “Oh well I’ve had 2 and I don’t feel bad so I guess that makes me a BAD person .” Not wanting a fight that day my friend Rashelle saw the look on my face n said “Come over here and sit with us Heather all they want to talk about is killing babies .”
Actually xal is right. The debate is over. It was over from the get-go. The reason it was over from the beginning wasn’t because nobody disagreed with pro-lifers, but because biological, medical, psychological, emotional, physiological science, ethics, morality, and religion are on the side pro-lifers. There’s those in each group of that that disagree with pro-lifers, but it doesn’t mean they’re right. It just means they disagree.
I’m sure plenty of pro-choicers and pro-aborts will disagree with that statement, but I took biology and sexuality courses. I’ve read stuff on pregnancy. You can’t tell me what I was pregnant with was anything less than a human being once my egg and my husband’s sperm came together and conception happened, I was pregnant and given that a human sperm joining with a human egg = human, there was never a question that I was pregnant with anything but a human being whatever stage of development that human was in the human was always a human being.
At least she was capable of recognizing there is such a thing as a bad person. Some people are so much further gone than that.
Thank you, M.I.T., and well-put.
But that’s just my point I never agreed with the woman who said she was a BAD person . That’s their own feeling about themselves I guess. She then went on to talk about her living son and daughter and how she buys them whatever they want. Okay nobody’s attacking your parenting skills so why so angry? Why so upset? You don’t have to prove anything to me.
That’s just it x. I got “the look” and she said it with sarcasm putting the emphasis on BAD! My friend Rashelle saw my distressing look and rescued me. All of them had multiple abortions.
Sadly many pro choice women seem satisfied with choosing to have 2 3 or none. On the other hand the women who are receptive to me know I detest abortion and they say ” I would never do it again.” That’s when we can get to talking.
“biological, medical, psychological, emotional, physiological science, ethics, morality, and religion are on the side pro-lifers.” – what rubbish! Some are being constantly debated and others, particularly ethics, morality and religion are something which anti-choicers have no grounds on which to claim them being on their side. The debate is certainly not over.
“Oh well I’ve had 2 and I don’t feel bad so I guess that makes me a BAD person .” – so did you get the irony there or not Heather? Ever hear anyone say something like ‘Oh dear, I had two slices of chocolate cake, naughty me’?
Well, I’ve never been afraid to call someone out on their bad behavior myself, if it is indeed bad. But then again, I usually sat by myself at lunch, too. XP
Reality comparing a few dead babies to eating too much cake ….uh yeah you’re pretty much gooooone.
Some men don’t feel bad about rape. Some child molesters don’t feel bad about that. Good people huh?
There is just something terribly abnormal to me about a group of women talking about abortion as if they were discussing a new pair of shoes. We live in an incredibly fractured society.
If you think I was comparing cake with fetuses Heather then I really have to wonder about you. It was an example of an ironic statement, in the hope that you would understand what the woman had said to you.
And perhaps reality would like to explain why Laci Peterson named her son Conner in utero. He wasn’t born but Scott was charged with double homicide . Why?
Reality I live by one of the best hospitals in the world. The Cleveland Clinic …did you know that a CC doctor will tell you that fetus also means baby and the term is often used. There is no difference.
Comparing a cake to a fetus? If a fetus is nothing then why are you making an issue of it?
Oh yeah cake is much more important to you. My bad.
Your ability to recognise irony is becoming ironic Heather. Or are you being deliberate in your distortions?
Oh well reality have fun living in your delusional world. I’m sticking to expert doctors opinions..not yours.
Can we replace the thumbs up “like” button with “love” and a little icon of a pro-abort with their tail tucked between their legs next to x’s comments?!
What I like about x NO nonsense !!
And I could just picture the woman x spoke of and that look. I’m sure it pricked her soul. A backpacking trip was really all that great. I have also given the look of disapproval when abortion was suggested to me. However people read me loud and clear. I do not do abortion!
When I was pregnant with my second daughter my first reaction was shock and unhappiness. My girlfriend who had aborted in nursing school. said. “Well you could always have an abortion . I did and it wasn’t so bad.” We are still friends but I told her no I will be okay. I eventually fell in love with my baby.
However I’m happy to say that now that my friend is older and wiser she seems to be turning against abortion. She’s a grandmother now and her other daughter had a pregnancy scare. She told me had her daughter in fact been pregnant there would be no abortion. I’ve been talking to her for years. She can no longer get pregnant but she loves her grandson.
To be fair I should say I’ve been explaining my position to her about abortion being murder. At least she’s not one of those nutty ones out their promoting it chanting in the street with a sign. It’s pretty much like she’s had her abortion and she just doesn’t talk about it anymore.
Oops out there. She’s the type that what’s done is done and she just wants to forget.
I also told her about the abortion breast cancer link…she went omg what? She told me I’m blanked….I’ve had an abortion and I’ve been on birth control. We were talking about a friend of hers who is in her 50s with breast cancer. I took the opportunity to again educate. She is going for a mammogram next month. I hope all goes well.
what rubbish! Some are being constantly debated and others, particularly ethics, morality and religion are something which anti-choicers have no grounds on which to claim them being on their side. The debate is certainly not over.
I said in my post there would be pro-choicers/pro-aborts who would disagree with me, and sure enough, I was right.
Why don’t pro-lifers have any ability to claim religion and ethics are on their side? Is it ethical to take the life of an innocent human being? Is it ethical for a mother to kill her own child? To end its life? If the child were out of the womb, you’d probably say it was wrong. You might even say there was a problem with that. Yet, somehow, LOCATION seems to make all the difference. Why? Why does location make such a difference? (That’s something that’s NEVER made sense to me). Whether or not said human is inside or outside the womb should NOT matter.
As to religion, sure, it’s on the pro-lifer’s side. One of the 10 Commandments is “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” Any Jew knows this, Christians, too. Shoot, even some Wiccans follow their own version of it through “do no harm” (or however their rede goes; I can’t remember the exact wording). I’ve heard of pro-life Wiccans.
Morals…is it moral to end an innocent human’s life? Is the being inside the mother not human? Human sperm and human egg never made any other organism except human (unless my Sex-Ed class lied to me, and unless Biology has lied all these years, which given my own experience having been pregnant and given birth, I’d say they haven’t).
It’s not about whether or not people quit disagreeing or debating the point, it’s what’s right and wrong and ending an innocent human being existence inside the womb is wrong. Like I said, you can call a rock a cat, but it doesn’t change the fact the rock is NOT a cat anymore than you can say the result of a human egg and a human sperm is anything but human. (Wow, I never thought High School Morality Class would come in so handy…I’ll have to contact my teacher–it’s been YEARS, but as far as I know, that teacher is still there).
Pro-choicers/pro-aborts just haven’t realized the debate is over, yet. But Pro-lifers have known it for a very long time. We’re simply waiting for everyone else to catch up, which is why we keep expounding on the matter.
Hi MIT..We pro lifers are not confused. Its basic and simple. I was born in 69 but to think that 3 to 4 years after I was born it was perfectly legal to kill your children. *shudder * It wasn’t something that was discussed in my home. I remember being about 10 or 11 before I saw my first pro life commercial . I remember how sad it was. Then when I got to high school it was the A word and people would out the girls through graffiti on the bathroom stalls. It was secret and shameful then. Today girls will just say I had an abortion(s) like it’s the norm. Sadly society has taught them it is. But I guess unless you own it and admit its wrong then soothing yourself by calling it anything then what it is MURDER..is the only way they can deal.
Its just a bunch of semantics and I’ve met pro choice doctors who like to do it. I was stuck with a pc female doctor while pregnant with my son. She proudly told me she performed abortions. I told the front desk ( because its a teaching hospital. ) ” I do not want Dr Krajewski again .” They respected my wishes.
Idk you tell me…are people who aren’t sorry for killing their children bad people? Yes they are!
You can tell them the absolute truth and they can take it or leave it. I’ve commited adultery fornication. Took birth control. Had sex with a woman when I was younger just out of curiosity Slept around with a lot of men…lost count but I’ve repented of that filth and cleaned my slate. My mothers friend sat me down and gave me the cold hard truth about my sins. I love her for the truth because it changed my life. See no angel am I!!!
Woman up admit it and clean it up but do not take your abortion out on me. That was your own bad choice. Yes God forgives if you want it but if you reject me again?and again I can’t help you. God says some people will be turned over to a reprobate mind. I know a few who meet the criteria .
They’ve lost the debate. They know this. They lose when it gets down to the facts of the matter.
Good Job, X!!
Are we certain that Reality is not really a jealous middle school girl? I’ve dealt with hundreds of them and Reality sounds just like them. They hate on the smart girls because they are jealous of them.
Hi Prax could be. reality has kept up the claim he is a man but whatever . He/she makes no sense whatsoever.
And when my moms friend sat me down she came to me with love and compassion but tough love. I’m stubborn and hard headed. Didn’t think I was a bit wrong. She broke me and reduced me to tears but then let me cry in her arms. I had free will to engage in all of the delightful sin I wanted to but it wrecked my life. Liz didn’t mince her words nor did she give me a free pass. I love her like a second mom to this day. Although the truth hurt it HAD to be told.
Hi MIT..We pro lifers are not confused. Its basic and simple. Hey, Heather…this line made me wonder if you scanned my post or read the whole thing, because I know and agree (isn’t that pretty much what I said in my post?) I posed the question “Why don’t pro-lifers have morality and ethics on their side?” because someone said we didn’t, so I posed the question to them–it wasn’t a confusion, it was asking THEM why they thought that. I went on to explain why pro-lifers DID have religion, ethics, and morals on their side.
P.S. In case anyone else misread my post, I am, in fact, a staunch pro-lifer, and my post WAS in defense of the pro-life movement. :-)
MIT i knew i was agreeing and just adding. I know your pl:)
I need to clarify my post upstream ….most pro abortion women are content with BIRTHING 2 3 Or no kids. The sad part is ask them how many times they have been pregnant. One woman in that group id mentioned above had 5 abortions and no living children. Another had 3 abortions and 2 living kids. She had her tubes tied after her second child. The one I told you about had 2 and 2 living kids. Not sure about the others but again they had all had more than one abortion each.
And the topic was how horrified they would be if a pro life president were to have won. They were moaning ” Romney wants to get rid of abortion ” blah blah blah.
GOD forbid we can’t pick and choose our children when we see it a matter of fitting them into our lives. You mean we can’t kill them on demand? It’s distressing to hear women talk about a serious matter like abortion as if they should be able to pick and choose when to toss away their children as they might toss away old clothes .
Heather,
And Heaven forbid they practice chastity and abstinence. People act like their lives are over if they don’t have sex whenever they want. I usually ask, do you HAVE to give into EVERY impulse and feeling–nope. It’s called self discipline and you don’t get it if you don’t practice it.
Right MIT.. I practiced abstinence after a bad break up with my fiance. I dated for 3 years but i let the guys know I am not looking for a sexual relationship. I made a lot of good male friends but I didn’t desire sex. Just companionship. I survived just fine.
There are so many other things to do other than having sex. Walking in the park watching a movie laughing and talking . Maybe having a drink or dinner. Sure I was sexually attracted to many of the guys I spent time with. Even just hugging and kissing..a back rub but I was able to keep the sex out of it and I survived!
But some women lose control and then oops I’m pregnant and I don’t want to be. That’s why our abortion rate is so high.
Mother in Texas, you claimed that religion, ethics and morality are on the side of the anti-choicers.
Religion – some people don’t believe in it so it’s inapplicable to them. Plenty of people of great faith have abortions.
Ethics – different people have different codes of ethics. No two are 100% identical.
Morality – what people consider moral or immoral varies. Sometimes vastly. Everyone thinks theirs is ‘right’.
Therefore each side bases their case on their own position and personal application of these things.
So to claim that they are on the side of anti-choicers is invalid.
Okay sometimes I REALLY hate browsers…mine decided to cut on me RIGHT when I was about to post my answer! *Sighs* So I’ll try again…
Reality,
You’re giving me relativism, and I’m afraid I’ve long since rejected relativism. The whole “your truth is that, and this is MY truth” It doesn’t really mean much of anything to me, unless you’re talking about SUBJECTIVE truth; i.e. opinion; however, when it comes to morality, you can’t go subjectively. Either there is OBJECTIVE Truth in morality/ethics, or we have to allow for everything, since not everyone is going to agree with everyone else. (And if that’s the case, what’s the point in having laws saying something’s wrong if there’s no such thing as objectively wrong things? Some criminals don’t think what they did was wrong, but I’m sure there are ones there that even you would say “Just because they don’t think what they did was wrong doesn’t mean it wasn’t wrong.” Get my drift? Moral Relativism doesn’t hold up).
Like I said, you can call the rock a cat, but it doesn’t change what it IS.
Likewise, human sperm plus human egg coming together can’t equal any other species but human. Therefore, what a pregnant woman is carrying in her womb must be human. Given that the human in question hasn’t had a chance to do anything worthy of guilt, other than existing, (in which case, then we should all be punished if existing is a crime) it only stands to reason said human being is innocent. Which brings me to my pro-life stance–innocent human life is given simply by virtue of his/her existence the right TO exist. If we deny said being the right to exist, then what’s the point of punishing those who end the existence of other humans OUTSIDE the womb?
I really do hope one day you understand. I know that it’s very possible you’ll never change your position, but I do hope and pray you will. I guess I am, to quote the musical, “South Pacific”, I’m a “cock-eyed optimist” to hope that one day all people will be pro-life. But, if I don’t keep hope alive, then all I’ve got is despair, and I refuse to go down the path of despair.
I don’t see this discussion going anywhere except in circles (I could be wrong, but that’s my impression). So I’m not sure there is a point in continuing it. You are, of course, welcome to disagree with me, but I don’t see where it will get either one of us.
Have a nice night. God bless you.
Sorry to burst your bubble but ethics and morality are subjective. Its not ‘relativism’ its personal opinion. The fact is that you have yours and I have mine and we both believe we are right. There are no purely objective set of ethics and/or morals. There is what you would like things to be and what others would like things to be.
Some peoples’ morality says pre-marital sex is wrong, others don’t. There is simply no legitimate basis on which anyone can claim there is only one moral ‘right’ in regard to it. Its a subjective exercise.
It’s not relativism so much as you feeling your personal ethics, morals and position on religion are right. For you they are, for others they are not. Again, there is absolutely nothing which makes your position intrinsically right and others wrong.
You think abortion is ethically, morally and religiously wrong. Obviously a whole lot of people disagree. Your position is that your morals. ethics and religion support the anti-choice case. Well they might for you, but not for others. Their morals. ethics and religious position support the pro-choice case.
Laws and various ‘codes’ within societies are defined and established by community concensus and in some cases by who has the most power. We all know that these laws and ‘codes’ change over time. Slavery used to be legal and was considered morally and ethically fine by many people. Now it isn’t. That’s not relativism, that’s peoples and society’s morals, ethics and religious positions changing.
Reality,
What you’re describing IS, in fact, MORAL RELATIVISM. “You believe this is true, so that’s YOUR truth, but I believe THIS is true, and that’s MY truth. and both of us are right.” That’s the very definition of moral relativism.
If there is NO objective Moral and ethical truths, then why do we have laws governing behavior? If everything is “what you believe is YOUR truth, and what I believe is MY truth” then why do we have laws governing what’s right and wrong?
This is precisely what I’ve BEEN saying all along. Just because you call the rock a cat, doesn’t change the fact the rock IS a rock. Your saying “That’s what YOU believe and others DON’T believe it” can’t change what IS.
You can protest as much as you want, but in the end, if there’s NO objective truth, then everybody has to be right–which IS the definition of relativism. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relativism
I don’t see the point in beating this horse any further.
According to your approach to morals, ethics and religion miscegenation should still be illegal. And homosexuality.Do you agree?
This is really quite straight forward.
Yes, a cat is a cat and a rock is a rock. Those are facts. That has no moral, ethical or religious implication. Your attempted analogy is completely irrelevant.
Miscegenation and homosexuality are facts. Whether they are what they are is not impacted by any moral, ethical or religious stance. Whether we think they are moral, ethical or religiously acceptable is a different story.
The same with pre-marital sex. It is what it is. But is it morally, ethically or religiously wrong? You say yes and I say no. And there is nothing which intrinsically says you are right because of your morals, ethics or religion.
You are confusing facts with beliefs and opinions.
Reality,
I’m not confusing facts and opinions. And yes, my rock/cat statement has absolutely everything to do with this discussion because the discussion is Objective Truth versus Subjective Truth.
AGAIN LET ME REPEAT: If there are NO objective truths/ NO objective ethics/ NO objective morals then how do you suppose people can make laws? How do we decide what IS right and wrong?
Going by what YOU said, a criminal who takes something that does NOT belong to them might THINK that it’s perfectly okay for them to have taken whatever it was they took, but the person whom they stole from would say that it’s not. Leave out for a minute that stealing is illegal and look at it from the perspective of what you said. How do you decide who is right and who is wrong without a standard? Without objective truths/morals/ethics they’d BOTH have to be right, but that doesn’t make any sense, now, does it? (rhetorical question there).
Either there ARE objective truths and objective morals/ethics and Religion’s got it right, or they don’t. You believe they don’t, I believe they do. Only ONE of us can have it right because both sides can’t be right, that doesn’t make any sense. That just breeds chaos, because otherwise, how else do you decide the standard? If founders of countries went according to your idea that morals and ethics were a matter of opinion and what one person feels is right, we’d have NO standards on which to decide our laws. We’d have nothing but chaos.
In order for there to be some order there has to be a standard. There has to be objective truths and objective morals and ethics. Otherwise, how could anyone truly call anything illegal, immortal, or unethical–what standard would exist if we followed your idea that it was a matter of opinion?
Again, you have illustrated the definition of moral relativism. I think we’ve had enough of each other repeating the same things over and over again, don’t you? Click on my link of the dictionary definition of “relativism” & read Definition #2: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relativism Or if you don’t like Merriam-Webster, click here: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/relativism?q=relativism
Let’s move on. This argument has beaten the proverbial horse.
If there are NO objective truths/ NO objective ethics/ NO objective morals then how do you suppose people can make laws? How do we decide what IS right and wrong?
Then why do laws change? Why does what we consider right and wrong change?
According to your logic miscegenation, homosexuality and women voting would still be illegal and slavery would still be legal.
The majority of community concensus has long decided that stealing is wrong, therefore it is against the law. The majority of community concensus has decided that homosexuality isn’t wrong, therefore it is no longer against the law.
There are no objectve morals and ethics. There are some highly common ones, and some less common ones. You and I have the same moral and ethical standards in regard to stealing but maybe not in regard to pre-marital sex.
And there is nothing, absolutely nothing, which says that your moral and ethical stance towards pre-marital sex is right and mine wrong – or vice versa.
You have no horse to ride upon.
To put it all as basically as I can for you.
Most people used to consider homosexuality immoral. Not any more. They thought women not being allowed to vote was moral. Not any more.
If morals are objective how did this occur?
Business people and politicians certainly give us a fine example of how ethics can vary.
If ethics are objective how can this be so?
You claim your religion says abortion is wrong. Other people of the same religion don’t. People without religion generally don’t. People of other religions sometimes do and sometimes don’t.
How can religion be considered objective?
What you really mean is that your adherence to your religion, your personal morals and your ethical position make abortion wrong. That’s fine for you. Not so much for many others.
If morals are objective how did this occur?
The same way people and societies have differed on the shape of the Earth, the origin of the species, and the question of whether or not angle trisection can be performed with a compass and straightedge (yet geology, biology, and mathematics are no less objective because of it).
If nothing makes your moral recommendations intrinsically right or at least more reasonable, why bother posting here? It seems akin to trying to convince someone that a joke is funny, or that chocolate is the best pudding. I certainly wouldn’t change my stance on either of these because some stranger on the internet told me so (nor would I waste my time trying to convince a stranger that my tastes are correct).
Speak, and surrender your relativism. Or don’t, and surrender your humanity.
The dictionary definitions of ‘objective’ tell us that for something to be objective it needs to be “independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers” or expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations”.
If morals, ethics and religion are ‘objective’ why can women vote and why can people marry people of other colors?
“If nothing makes your moral recommendations intrinsically right or at least more reasonable, why bother posting here?” – ditto Navi :-)
As you say, whose moral recommendations are intrinsically right or at least more reasonable, is fluid.
It is because morals, ethics and religion are not definitively ‘objective’. Societies operate with continuous changes, some of which are influenced by peoples morals, ethics and religion. We participate in debate in an attempt to provide people with information which may influence their moral, ethical or religious stance in regard to various topics.
If morals, ethics and religion are ‘objective’ why can women vote and why can people marry people of other colors?
I already answered this. People and societies can vary, and the dominant ideas can change, in other disciplines (such as science and mathematics). That doesn’t mean they don’t count as real, objective knowledge. Likewise, changes in what society thinks do not count against moral realism.
ditto Navi :)
Because I don’t subscribe to relativism, nor do most people I converse with. Most people disagree with Lord Voldemort when he says that “There is no good and evil. There is only power… and those too weak to seek it.” If this was not so, I would have a much more difficult time and it would be akin to trying to convince someone that a certain flavour of pudding is better than another.
How does “People and societies can vary, and the dominant ideas can change” fit with “That doesn’t mean they don’t count as real, objective knowledge”?
Especially when we know that by definition something which is objective needs to be “independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers” or expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations”, yet here you are telling me that people, societies and dominant ideas change.
The fact that a cat is a cat is objective. The fact that a rock is a rock is objective. To state that morals, ethics or religion are objective is hugely fallacious.
A cat isn’t determined to be a cat because of morals, ethics or religion.
Whether abortion, homosexuality or women voting is. And that changes.
According to what you say, once the vast majority of society accepts gay marriage as a positive moral, ethical and perhaps even religious, position then it must be so.
Most folks here are against abortion. Some are against contraception, others aren’t. Some are against homosexuality, not others. Some say non-marital sex is wrong, others don’t. Which is the objective moral, ethical and religious position on these matters? If Mother in Texas can claim her position on abortion is backed by morals, ethics and religion, where does everyone else stand on these other issues? Whose morals, ethics and religious position supports their position but not that of others?
Do tell.
“Whether abortion, homosexuality or women voting are right or wrong is.”
(It wouldn’t let me edit)
How does “People and societies can vary, and the dominant ideas can change” fit with “That doesn’t mean they don’t count as real, objective knowledge”?
You keep missing my point. I’m using an argument from analogy to show that your reason for claiming that ethics is a “subjective exercise” is flawed. Your argument goes like this:
P1: If something varies between individuals and societies over time, then it can’t count as objective knowledge.
P2: Ethical standards vary between individuals and societies, and they have changed over time.
C: Ethics can’t be objective knowledge.
But P1 is not true. Society used to think that the Earth is flat. Most people don’t now (though a few cranks do). Yet nobody denies that this is an objective truth (they just differ on the truth value of the statement “The Earth is flat.”). It’s either flat or it isn’t. For thousands of years, society used to think that it’s possible to trisect a general angle with a straightedge and compass. This was only disproven in the last 200 years. Some people still try to submit papers demonstrating that it can be done (which always turn out to be fallacious). But the claim that “Angles cannot be trisected” is still objective knowledge (it’s either possible or it’s not).
Navi,
Excellent post. :-)
Pretty words Navi. Pity the concept of a flat earth wasn’t objective. Since mankind did not at that stage possess the wherewithal to objectively determine whether the earth was flat or a sphere, the assumption that it was flat wasn’t completely independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers or expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
I am glad though, that you demonstrate that the claim that the anti-choice position has religion, ethics and morality on its side is unsupported.
Pity the concept of a flat earth wasn’t objective.
Well, it was. It just turned out to be false. But whatever floats your boat.
Thanks Navi.