The Effect of "Abortion Rights" on the Political Landscape

[Tombs]

But, the claim that abortion is always murder depends a lot on the "at conception" belief, which as I said, I don't believe there is a non-religious rationale for. That doesn't make it bad. Like I said earlier, not every logically derived thing is good. Sometimes we need to override logic with other ways of thinking. In my view religion evolved and served a purpose, but it's unclear that we can supplant that purpose with something else and not destroy ourselves.

But we "murder" people every day for numerous reasons and most people have no issue with it because it is seen as justified.

The constant insistence that ending a life is not murder is just muddying the waters to debate an aspect that functionally has no purpose other than to ease the minds of those engaging in it. Why can't we say "murder in this specific circumstance is permissible" and move on? The whole concept of deeming something not murder because we consider it sub-human is not a route I want to see society tread down.

I'm against abortion personally but I get that **** happens and life is more complicated than rigid ideology. I just think the debating point is silly.

Animals throw their own out or refuse to feed them after deeming them non-viable, which is murder. But there's a specific circumstance and reason why that is beyond mere convivence. And if you're religious, judgment of that seems like arguing with God to me. I think there's cases where it would be permissible and cases where it wouldn't be, and I'm not so sure there's as much friction as people think at getting to this point for a national debate. Most of Europe seems to have hashed this out without too much drama and is FAR more restrictive than the US is.

 

[KLB]

I suspect that if you were able to live for a couple hundred years and watch as society's Overton window careens further and further off the path of reason, that you would eventually be forced to recognize the inadequacy of your current system of deriving moral principles, and realize that it can never be used as a basis for a stable society.

History has shown that societies do not survive in cases like that. It will reach a tipping point and the whole thing will collapse, bringing a reset of sorts.

 

[KLB]

Animals throw their own out or refuse to feed them after deeming them non-viable, which is murder. But there's a specific circumstance and reason why that is beyond mere convivence. And if you're religious, judgment of that seems like arguing with God to me. I think there's cases where it would be permissible and cases where it wouldn't be, and I'm not so sure there's as much friction as people think at getting to this point for a national debate. Most of Europe seems to have hashed this out without too much drama and is FAR more restrictive than the US is.

Humans have done that throughout history as well.

 

[BugI02]

Someone posted a a link to a conversation about INGO on another forum he frequented. He pretty much laid it out. The storm front comments made his purpose pretty clear. But that made it absolutely transparent.

That was me, I found him accidentally. I was researching Kutnupe because it was an odd screen name to select and I wondered if it had some sort of meaning beyond how it was used. Eventually I found that little tidbit on a forum site that actually prided itself on being no holds barred and having little moderation. I think the participants thought of themselves as hardened posters, kind of internet Sardaukar

I also pulled his favorite dance move on him, took him right to the line in a heated argument and stepped aside to watch him go over the edge for a temp ban

 

[jamil]

Ultimately, the trouble is that you haven't just rejected the arguments for "at conception", you have rejected the necessary premise to make such arguments, which is the need for objective morality.

Yes, you pay lip service to the idea of objectivity, and to your credit you at least try to look for moral principles that are rooted outside of yourself, and that is an important first step. But you leave it at that, and think that because you try to derive morals from an overall view of human society/history, instead of from your own feelings, that alone makes your morality objective. But your principles are still subjective, as they are subject to whatever winds of change are blowing in the current time and place in which you live.

Now, to be clear, I'm not accusing you of merely bowing to the latest fad. I can see that you don't fully give yourself over to the whims of the current generation, which is why you can recognize and reject the insanity that is the full-blown "Clownworld"/"wokeism" of our times. But your basic approach of averaging out the morals of different societies across history will always leave you skewed towards whichever extreme is being pushed in the time period you happen to live in.

Ultimately it's a very, very fundamental disagreement that we have over the nature of truth itself. For me, morality must not be approached differently than any other truth we seek to know. When we try to understand the laws of nature, or any principles by which our world operates, we have to start out by realizing that truth never changes. What is fact does not depend in any way on the sensibilities of our current generation, or any other generation. Logic, reason, rationality: for me these three words all mean the same, essential thing, and they point to the principle that I believe must be adhered to above and beyond anything else. You keep trying to pass it off as a religious thing, but the real difference between us is that you have rejected logical consistency as the ultimate test of morality, as you stated explicitly above when you said that what is most logical is not always most good. On the other hand, for me, reason and logic (which again, mean the same thing in my mind) is the most fundamental principle, even more basic, and in fact necessary for, religious principles, or moral ones.

To put it in less abstract terms: I am able to look at human history and realize that there have been time periods when you couldn't remain within your current society's Overton window without agreeing to some very messed-up things. The only reason such societies are able to change for the better is because some people start to advocate for views that their current generation rejects. And the only way a person can do that, is if they have moral principles that are rooted outside of the mores and sensibilities of society. Human nature has never fundamentally changed in recorded history, thus a true morality should not either.

We are currently in the midst of a seismic shift in society's values, which began a few generations ago with the sexual revolution (well, of course it sort of began before that, but that's when it really took off) and doesn't show any signs of slowing down. I suspect that if you were able to live for a couple hundred years and watch as society's Overton window careens further and further off the path of reason, that you would eventually be forced to recognize the inadequacy of your current system of deriving moral principles, and realize that it can never be used as a basis for a stable society.

Okay, I need to shorten this up so I'll try not to go all ADD on everything.

I think the crux of this is that we have a difference of opinion on what is objective morality and what is relative morality. I suspect that you think at least to some extent, you think I'm a moral relativist, and that's not true. You talked about my approach to average out the morals. That's not what is happening. So let's first get the definitions down for relative and objective morals. And maybe first establish whether or not there are relative morals.

First, objective morals are morals that are true for everyone. I think you'd agree with that. Also, I think you might agree that there is objective truth; something that can be stated in a way that is always true. An objective moral makes an objectively true statement about what we should or shouldn't do. We should not murder people. That's an objective moral, evidenced by it's following across cultures, religions, time.

Are there relative morals? Yes. Relative morals make a statement that is relatively true about what we should or shouldn't do. We shouldn't eat with our left hand, because that hand is reserved for unclean things. That statement is only true for people who believe it's unclean to eat with your left hand.

If we accept that objective morals are universal for everyone, then we should find evidence in widespread acceptance across cultures, religions, time. When I bring up the widespread acceptance of a moral, the purpose is to offer evidence that the moral is absolute. To the contrary, if there is only evidence of cultural/religious adherence, It's not to say that moral history should be used to determine what our morals are. It's to say, that's probably not a moral absolute.

So in terms of relative morals, if you want society to follow them, you have to do some convincing. Though not murdering is an objective moral, evidenced by observation of cultures, religions, time, the belief that abortion is murder is not an objective truth. Otherwise you'd find evidence of its acceptance of absoluteness. So making a moral statement of it is not an objective moral. There's no evidence that its true for everyone. Just a belief among certain religions and ideologies that it is. This view is supported by the history of abortion across the world. Some cultures/religions forbid it. Many did not. Some accepted it with restrictions.

 

[jamil]

But we "murder" people every day for numerous reasons and most people have no issue with it because it is seen as justified.

Murder is the unjustified killing of a human being. So...

For example, cannibals have/had rules against unjustified killing. I mean they didn't eat everyone.

The constant insistence that ending a life is not murder is just muddying the waters to debate an aspect that functionally has no purpose other than to ease the minds of those engaging in it. Why can't we say "murder in this specific circumstance is permissible" and move on? The whole concept of deeming something not murder because we consider it sub-human is not a route I want to see society tread down.

I'm against abortion personally but I get that **** happens and life is more complicated than rigid ideology. I just think the debating point is silly.

Animals throw their own out or refuse to feed them after deeming them non-viable, which is murder. But there's a specific circumstance and reason why that is beyond mere convivence. And if you're religious, judgment of that seems like arguing with God to me. I think there's cases where it would be permissible and cases where it wouldn't be, and I'm not so sure there's as much friction as people think at getting to this point for a national debate. Most of Europe seems to have hashed this out without too much drama and is FAR more restrictive than the US is.

I don't think animals commit murder. I'd like to know if they even have the capacity for moral thinking. They feel shame, it seems. But, the expressions we're interpreting as shame, is it because we interpret their actions as if they're human actions?

But anyway, all that you wrote there is pretty dependent on how you're defining murder. If you're just saying it's killing, then yeah, but then that's not very useful in a moral conversation.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Okay, I need to shorten this up so I'll try not to go all ADD on everything.

I think the crux of this is that we have a difference of opinion on what is objective morality and what is relative morality. I suspect that you think at least to some extent, you think I'm a moral relativist, and that's not true. You talked about my approach to average out the morals. That's not what is happening. So let's first get the definitions down for relative and objective morals. And maybe first establish whether or not there are relative morals.

First, objective morals are morals that are true for everyone. I think you'd agree with that. Also, I think you might agree that there is objective truth; something that can be stated in a way that is always true. An objective moral makes an objectively true statement about what we should or shouldn't do. We should not murder people. That's an objective moral, evidenced by it's following across cultures, religions, time.

Are there relative morals? Yes. Relative morals make a statement that is relatively true about what we should or shouldn't do. We shouldn't eat with our left hand, because that hand is reserved for unclean things. That statement is only true for people who believe it's unclean to eat with your left hand.

If we accept that objective morals are universal for everyone, then we should find evidence in widespread acceptance across cultures, religions, time. When I bring up the widespread acceptance of a moral, the purpose is to offer evidence that the moral is absolute. To the contrary, if there is only evidence of cultural/religious adherence, It's not to say that moral history should be used to determine what our morals are. It's to say, that's probably not a moral absolute.

So in terms of relative morals, if you want society to follow them, you have to do some convincing. Though not murdering is an objective moral, evidenced by observation of cultures, religions, time, the belief that abortion is murder is not an objective truth. Otherwise you'd find evidence of its acceptance of absoluteness. So making a moral statement of it is not an objective moral. There's no evidence that its true for everyone. Just a belief among certain religions and ideologies that it is. This view is supported by the history of abortion across the world. Some cultures/religions forbid it. Many did not. Some accepted it with restrictions.

Okay, first let me ask you a question. What is, in your definition, the difference between something that is "relatively true" and something is just plain false? The statement "We shouldn't eat with our left hand, because that hand is reserved for unclean things" is simple an erroneous belief. There may be reasons why people believed that, it may have even been used in a useful fashion to help people follow a true statement (ie, "Don't eat with the same hand that probably gets excrement on it, because that's unhealthy.") But it is, nonetheless, untrue. So to me, it sounds like "relatively true" is just a fancy way of saying "not true."

Now, to address the points you made about objective morals. Yes, the part we agree on is that objective morals are true for everyone.

The part we disagree on is that objective morals are also true for every time period, and never change.

Objective morals do not become true as humanity discovers them. Just like gravity, radio waves, electricity, etc, they stay the same regardless of what the majority believe.

The trouble with using near-universality across history as a litmus test for objective morals is that humanity, in general, is not very moral. 200 years ago you could have heard someone saying that "treat all races equally" is an objective moral, and this would have been 100% refuted by your "near-universality" test. 2,000 years ago you could have someone saying "parents shouldn't commit infanticide" and this would have refuted as well by the same test. Such a standard for objective morals is inherently flawed.

Furthermore, even if one were to accept that there is some truth to the idea, it really isn't fair to apply it to the question of abortion. More than 100 years ago, perhaps even less than that, the vast majority of humans had absolutely no idea about the nature of life within the womb, and most certainly not at its earliest stages. They simply had no real way of knowing when a separate life had formed. Most cultures that had abortion used herbal/chemical methods, and thought of it as more akin to emergency contraception. I'm not aware of any widespread acceptance of abortions taking place once the child had reached a stage where common folk could easily recognize it as a child, unless you include those societies which practiced infanticide, which, as I mentioned before, was also pretty darn widespread before a certain point in history.

However, with the discoveries of modern science that definitively prove that the moment of conception is the moment that a separate organism forms, the only logical conclusion is to treat that life according to the same principles as we would any other human life. There is simply no logical reason why being in the womb should stripe away someone's rights and humanity, and "well, lots of people have always done it" is perhaps the flimsiest possible excuse.

I'll finish by asking a question that I posed before, but never heard an answer to. When we look at history, there is a general rule, that any time the majority of society has decided to take a certain segment of humanity, and categorically define them as "not human," and therefore not having human rights, we view the resulting murder/genocide/enslavement (or whatever other violation of rights) as morally abhorrent. So, why should abortion be the one, single, sole exception to this rule? Can you think of any other time when society at large took an entire category of human beings, and decided that they weren't actually people, and you would say, "Yeah, they made the right call"? How can you be so convinced that defining pre-born homo sapiens as non-persons without human rights, is the one and only time that humanity has been right is doing this, even though every other instance in all of recorded history we now recognize as morally abhorrent?

 

[Tombs]

Murder is the unjustified killing of a human being. So...

For example, cannibals have/had rules against unjustified killing. I mean they didn't eat everyone.

I don't think animals commit murder. I'd like to know if they even have the capacity for moral thinking. They feel shame, it seems. But, the expressions we're interpreting as shame, is it because we interpret their actions as if they're human actions?

But anyway, all that you wrote there is pretty dependent on how you're defining murder. If you're just saying it's killing, then yeah, but then that's not very useful in a moral conversation.

And once again we're back to semantics, when my entire argument is trying to throw semantics in the trash to actually discuss the issue. Good job.

 

[jamil]

And once again we're back to semantics, when my entire argument is trying to throw semantics in the trash to actually discuss the issue. Good job.

Well no. Not once again. It’s always. It’s continuous. Meaning is important. We can’t have a rational discussion if we don’t agree on what the terms we’re using mean.

You think ‘murder' is just killing. Every definition I looked at uses at least a few of the following descriptors: unlawful, unjustified, premeditated, with malice. Murder isn’t simply killing. I think you’re using murder as a synonym of homicide and they’re not the thing. If we both adopt your definition, it excludes what is morally justified. If I face an attacker who is trying to kill me, I am morally justified in stopping him, even if he dies in the process. I think my definition has higher resolution.

 

[BugI02]

Isn't abortion premeditated murder? Does any mother abort their child without meaning to? Without planning to?

 

[LeftyGunner]

Isn't abortion premeditated murder? Does any mother abort their child without meaning to? Without planning to?

Even Trump thinks this is stupid.

 

[BugI02]

Even Trump thinks this is stupid.

Then you and it have something in common

 

[jamil]

@AndreusMaximus I have to say I am impressed at the number of werds. I may have some competition on my jamil ipsom generator!

Okay, first let me ask you a question. What is, in your definition, the difference between something that is "relatively true" and something is just plain false?

Relatively true is the same as subjectively true. It's a truth perceived from a certain point of view. Or something one might believe is true without having evidence that is true. It might even be accidentally true enough (more on that later). So the definition of "just plain false"--I assume you mean objectively false--is something that is stated in a way that is never true.

The statement "We shouldn't eat with our left hand, because that hand is reserved for unclean things" is simple an erroneous belief. There may be reasons why people believed that, it may have even been used in a useful fashion to help people follow a true statement (ie, "Don't eat with the same hand that probably gets excrement on it, because that's unhealthy.") But it is, nonetheless, untrue.

It's not an erroneous belief. If you eat with the same hand you wipe your ass with, you could get diseases. And then eventually it becomes a moral. In this case, the moral is accidentally true enough to help prevent disease. But, it's usefulness as a moral is outdated as humans gained more knowledge about germs. While still useful, you can wash your hands after ********, use both hands for eating, and have the same benefits of the moral. And maybe hygiene should be a moral.

Here's another relative moral. Don't take the Lord's name in vein. That's a relative moral because it's underlying premise is only true for people with certain religious beliefs. You do beleive that one right? But then the hand cleanliness one is at least testable.

So to me, it sounds like "relatively true" is just a fancy way of saying "not true."

No. It's not. It's a way of saying it's believed or percieved to be true from a certain perspective. It makes no statemenet about the actual truth value. A statement of logical fallacy can still be true. For example, a relative truth might be that jihadis can atone by martyrdom and be greeted by 72 virgins. Is it true? Probably not, but it's untestable in a way that the living can test it, and therefor not falsifiable.

Now, to address the points you made about objective morals. Yes, the part we agree on is that objective morals are true for everyone.

The part we disagree on is that objective morals are also true for every time period, and never change.

I did not say morals don't change. I said that widespread historical acceptance across cultures is an indicator that a moral is objectively true. Absent that evidence doesn't mean it's a relative one. Morals evolve. But morals that evolve usually tie to some moral that has widespread historical acceptance. The underlying truth is usually known. Treat others like you want to be treated is the golden rule. Lots of morals can be traced to that. Like the concepts of liberty. Slaves know they're not free and that it's wrong. People know when something isn't fair or they're getting ****ed over. Or that they're being oppressed in some other way and it's not right.

Objective morals do not become true as humanity discovers them. Just like gravity, radio waves, electricity, etc, they stay the same regardless of what the majority believe.

I don't disagree with that exactly. To be consistent with a believed moral, a related moral becomes manifest. And I'm not gonna claim that the issue of abortion can't be that. It's that you haven't made a rational case for it.

The trouble with using near-universality across history as a litmus test for objective morals is that humanity, in general, is not very moral.

Again. Not a litmus test. An indicator. Absent the indicator what other case will you make that it's an objective moral? I'm open to a non-religious rationale that makes it obvious.

200 years ago you could have heard someone saying that "treat all races equally" is an objective moral, and this would have been 100% refuted by your "near-universality" test. 2,000 years ago you could have someone saying "parents shouldn't commit infanticide" and this would have refuted as well by the same test. Such a standard for objective morals is inherently flawed.

Well, yeah, but the golden rule has been around for at least 4000+ years. It has some fair universality. A pretty solid objective moral I'd say. Treat all races equally should fit under that if people are thinking about it. But people's morality had not evolved to a state where it became apparent the golden rule applies even to people who don't look like you.

Furthermore, even if one were to accept that there is some truth to the idea, it really isn't fair to apply it to the question of abortion. More than 100 years ago, perhaps even less than that, the vast majority of humans had absolutely no idea about the nature of life within the womb, and most certainly not at its earliest stages. They simply had no real way of knowing when a separate life had formed. Most cultures that had abortion used herbal/chemical methods, and thought of it as more akin to emergency contraception. I'm not aware of any widespread acceptance of abortions taking place once the child had reached a stage where common folk could easily recognize it as a child, unless you include those societies which practiced infanticide, which, as I mentioned before, was also pretty darn widespread before a certain point in history.

There was evidence of abortion in ancient Egypt. Or hell. Maybe it was aliens.

However, with the discoveries of modern science that definitively prove that the moment of conception is the moment that a separate organism forms, the only logical conclusion is to treat that life according to the same principles as we would any other human life. There is simply no logical reason why being in the womb should stripe away someone's rights and humanity, and "well, lots of people have always done it" is perhaps the flimsiest possible excuse.

I haven't said that.

I'll finish by asking a question that I posed before, but never heard an answer to. When we look at history, there is a general rule, that any time the majority of society has decided to take a certain segment of humanity, and categorically define them as "not human," and therefore not having human rights, we view the resulting murder/genocide/enslavement (or whatever other violation of rights) as morally abhorrent. So, why should abortion be the one, single, sole exception to this rule?

Why do you think abortion is the one, single, sole exception to this rule? I haven't said it's not a human fetus. My contention on this, and I'm bringing this back around to what got this conversation started, was that I don't think there is a rational secular reason to believe abortion is immoral at least 'at conception'. I even said that my own belief, which brings me to conclude abortion is immoral, does not come from a rational, secular position. It comes from a deep respect for life. I don't want to kill live things that don't need killed. I made an exception for fire ants when I lived in Missippi but I lost that war as a result. We came to détant.

Can you think of any other time when society at large took an entire category of human beings, and decided that they weren't actually people, and you would say, "Yeah, they made the right call"? How can you be so convinced that defining pre-born homo sapiens as non-persons without human rights, is the one and only time that humanity has been right is doing this, even though every other instance in all of recorded history we now recognize as morally abhorrent?

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I think you're being a little dramatic here. I'm talking about the case that you're making. I'm saying there isn't a rational secular reason that abortion is immoral. Part of that was thinking that it would be useful to talk about moral relitavism vs moral objectivism.

I'll also make the point that secular moralism is different from religious moralism, and I think that is why there's a disagreement with so many people who aren't religious on the abortion issue. You are arguing as if to conflate my position with being pro-abortion. Just because I say that the "at conception" position has no secuar rationale, does not mean I'm arguing a pro-abortion point of view. I think it's quite valid to hold a position for non-secular reasons. I strongly disagree with abortion. My reasoning is not secular.

 

[jamil]

Isn't abortion premeditated murder? Does any mother abort their child without meaning to? Without planning to?

First you'd have to establish that it is murder. Those who do it think they're justified.

 

[jamil]

Even Trump thinks this is stupid.

Then you and it have something in common

This exchange has to be something close to the funniest thing ever.

 

[KLB]

I made an exception for fire ants when I lived in Missippi but I lost that war as a result. We came to détant.

That's a war none of us win. When I was in Texas it was fire ants and harvester ants. Keeping them at the edge of my property was a huge albeit temporary victory.

 

[jamil]

That's a war none of us win. When I was in Texas it was fire ants and harvester ants. Keeping them at the edge of my property was a huge albeit temporary victory.

That’s pretty much the détant we reached. In the south, floating slabs are common. They built a nest in the dirt under the slab in the master bath and started coming into the home. That’s it. I’m killing these ****ers. I sprayed it with Suspend SC and we left. When I came back there must have been 100s of thousands of dead ants on the floor. Didn’t get the queen though. Next day I saw a new mound maybe 30 feet away. I figured that’s far enough. Thereafter I only took action if they got close to the house. I didn’t bother them. They didn’t bother me.

 

[KLB]

That’s pretty much the détant we reached. In the south, floating slabs are common. They built a nest in the dirt under the slab in the master bath and started coming into the home. That’s it. I’m killing these ****ers. I sprayed it with Suspend SC and we left. When I came back there must have been 100s of thousands of dead ants on the floor. Didn’t get the queen though. Next day I saw a new mound maybe 30 feet away. I figured that’s far enough. Thereafter I only took action if they got close to the house. I didn’t bother them. They didn’t bother me.

I bought a LOT of this stuff

Loading…

www.amazon.com

Sprinkle it on a mound, take a stick and get them all riled up. No ants in a couple of days.

 

[jamil]

I bought a LOT of this stuff

Loading…

www.amazon.com

Sprinkle it on a mound, take a stick and get them all riled up. No ants in a couple of days.

What? You lived in Texas and didn’t donthe texas two step method?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

@AndreusMaximus I have to say I am impressed at the number of werds. I may have some competition on my jamil ipsom generator!

Well, being concise has never been a gift of mine... Thank you very much for taking the time to read and respond to my entire essay.

Edit: Holy smokes, I just hit post and then scrolled through this entire tome that I just typed up, I didn't even realize how ridiculously long it got. If you don't have time to respond to the whole thing, feel free to just reply to the first couple points, as I think they're the most important points to iron out if we're to have an intelligible conversation. Or do whatever you want, of course, it's the internet and I'm not your boss, lol.

Relatively true is the same as subjectively true. It's a truth perceived from a certain point of view. Or something one might believe is true without having evidence that is true. It might even be accidentally true enough (more on that later). So the definition of "just plain false"--I assume you mean objectively false--is something that is stated in a way that is never true.

Can you give an example of something that is objectively false, under you definition? It seems to me that you could potentially perceive literally anything as true if you take a contorted enough point of view. So under your definition, couldn't anything be "subjectively true"?

It's not an erroneous belief. If you eat with the same hand you wipe your ass with, you could get diseases. And then eventually it becomes a moral. In this case, the moral is accidentally true enough to help prevent disease. But, it's usefulness as a moral is outdated as humans gained more knowledge about germs. While still useful, you can wash your hands after ********, use both hands for eating, and have the same benefits of the moral. And maybe hygiene should be a moral.

Believing that one's left hand is inherently unclean is the erroneous belief. Believing that there is any moral dimension to it is also erroneous. It has a connection to a practical truth, which is, as you said that before people had the easy option of washing their hands with clean water, they'd probably get diseases if they ate with the same hand they wiped with. But one is false, the other is true. And the way I use the words "true" or "false", I don't perceived any difference whether or not they have the word "objectively" in front of them, other than for emphasis.

Here's another relative moral. Don't take the Lord's name in vein. That's a relative moral because it's underlying premise is only true for people with certain religious beliefs. You do beleive that one right? But then the hand cleanliness one is at least testable.

Yes, I do believe that one. But I don't describe it as relatively/subjectively true, because I believe it's true for everyone, and in reality ought to be followed by everyone. It's objectively true (which, as I just said, is really no different than just saying it's "true", other than the added emphasis.) I do realize that its truth cannot be perceived by secular reasoning alone, and one must have some degree of faith to see it, which is why I don't advocate making it into a secular law. But that doesn't make it any less true in my mind.

No. It's not. It's a way of saying it's believed or percieved to be true from a certain perspective. It makes no statemenet about the actual truth value. A statement of logical fallacy can still be true. For example, a relative truth might be that jihadis can atone by martyrdom and be greeted by 72 virgins. Is it true? Probably not, but it's untestable in a way that the living can test it, and therefor not falsifiable.

"A statement of logical fallacy can still be true."

I'm not sure I understand this, can you give an example?

I did not say morals don't change. I said that widespread historical acceptance across cultures is an indicator that a moral is objectively true. Absent that evidence doesn't mean it's a relative one. Morals evolve. But morals that evolve usually tie to some moral that has widespread historical acceptance. The underlying truth is usually known. Treat others like you want to be treated is the golden rule. Lots of morals can be traced to that. Like the concepts of liberty. Slaves know they're not free and that it's wrong. People know when something isn't fair or they're getting ****ed over. Or that they're being oppressed in some other way and it's not right.

I think I got my statement switched around by accident.

I understand that you believe morals change/evolve. I'm the one saying that they don't.

Well, now that I put it like that, I realize that I failed to make a distinction. Morals, as in what the people believe is right or wrong, do change, obviously. But I believe in laws of morality that are objective and unchanging, just like laws of nature. Our understanding of both can change and evolve, but the laws themselves never change. To the extent that our beliefs coincide with or deviate from reality, they are either true or false. This is equally true of scientific and of moral knowledge.

I don't disagree with that exactly. To be consistent with a believed moral, a related moral becomes manifest. And I'm not gonna claim that the issue of abortion can't be that. It's that you haven't made a rational case for it.

Well, it seems we haven't even managed to get on the same page regarding what constitutes an objective moral, so until we arrive at some common definition, can you hold off on dismissing my case just yet?

Again. Not a litmus test. An indicator. Absent the indicator what other case will you make that it's an objective moral? I'm open to a non-religious rationale that makes it obvious.

Well, I can't promise to "make it obvious." Morals are not generally obvious. If people only abide by morals that seem "obvious" to them, society generally ends up doing pretty messed up stuff. I think that just about sums up a great deal of human history.

To arrive at morals with non-religious reasoning, I contend that we need to start with the very most basic moral truths, that are self-evident to anyone who isn't a complete psychopath, and then apply a test of logical consistency.

So, as we both agree, it should be one of these obvious, self-evident truths that you don't murder an innocent person. Using that as a starting point, we have to then test our definitions of "murder" and "person" to make sure they stay logically consistent. I would contend that if you allow exceptions that don't make logical sense, then that alone is proof that your definition is a false one.

That's why we've gone round and round in this debate, because I keep trying to make the case that defining a pre-born child as not being a person is logically inconsistent. But to you, it seems that logical consistency is not the question that matters, but rather that we should just stick to what most societies/people have believe in history. That's where we need to take a step back and first agree on what principle we are using to argue for objective morals. That's why I guess my first goal is to demonstrate that using near-universality throughout history as an indicator can lead to flawed results. If we can both agree on that, then we will be at the point where I can make the case that a test of logical consistency is a better indicator for moral truths. (Well, actually that's my second goal; my first goal is to arrive at agreed-upon definitions of objective vs subjective truth.)

Well, yeah, but the golden rule has been around for at least 4000+ years. It has some fair universality. A pretty solid objective moral I'd say. Treat all races equally should fit under that if people are thinking about it. But people's morality had not evolved to a state where it became apparent the golden rule applies even to people who don't look like you.

Well, now it sounds like we have some hope of agreeing after all. Isn't this basically what I'm saying? Look for an underlying principle that has near-universality throughout history, then try to apply it with logical consistency. Maybe this is really what you've been saying all along, and we're closer to agreeing than what I thought.

Now in the midst of typing all this, I'm just realizing that I do partially agree with the "near-universality throughout history" idea, but there's two ways I think it needs to be done differently. First of all, it is a starting point, not a final test. You start with these near-universal principles, and then try to apply them in a way that's logically consistent. But logical consistency has to be the ultimate test. Secondly, a very important distinction has to be made, which is the difference between finding a moral principle, vs. observing a behavior. The near-universal practice of slavery up until fairly recent history did not indicate a moral principle in favor of slavery, it just goes to show that people aren't very good at applying their moral principles with logical consistency.

How much of the above paragraph would you say you agree with?

There was evidence of abortion in ancient Egypt. Or hell. Maybe it was aliens.

I admit I am not very well versed on this history. Was it late-term surgical abortion? Or was it "if you miss your period and don't want a baby take this cocktail of questionable herbs that if you're unlucky will kill you, but if you're lucky will end your pregnancy at a point where we, without modern scientific knowledge, have no way of recognizing a baby is there yet"?

Also, didn't the ancient Egyptian practice infanticide?

I haven't said that.

How would you phrase the core of your argument, then? Yes, I suppose I was far to flippant and inexact when I reduced it to "well, lots of people have always done it." But isn't the idea that abortion has been practiced a lot throughout history the main thrust of your argument against anti-abortion laws?

Why do you think abortion is the one, single, sole exception to this rule? I haven't said it's not a human fetus. My contention on this, and I'm bringing this back around to what got this conversation started, was that I don't think there is a rational secular reason to believe abortion is immoral at least 'at conception'. I even said that my own belief, which brings me to conclude abortion is immoral, does not come from a rational, secular position. It comes from a deep respect for life. I don't want to kill live things that don't need killed. I made an exception for fire ants when I lived in Missippi but I lost that war as a result. We came to détant.


I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I think you're being a little dramatic here. I'm talking about the case that you're making. I'm saying there isn't a rational secular reason that abortion is immoral. Part of that was thinking that it would be useful to talk about moral relitavism vs moral objectivism.

I'll also make the point that secular moralism is different from religious moralism, and I think that is why there's a disagreement with so many people who aren't religious on the abortion issue. You are arguing as if to conflate my position with being pro-abortion. Just because I say that the "at conception" position has no secuar rationale, does not mean I'm arguing a pro-abortion point of view. I think it's quite valid to hold a position for non-secular reasons. I strongly disagree with abortion. My reasoning is not secular.

I didn't mean to come across as overdramatic. I think I may have jumped the gun, and was trying to make an argument that needs to wait until we iron out some of the definitions/principles that we disagree on (or maybe agree on, but just misunderstand each other) as laid out above.

But there is one thing I want to clarify: You are arguing that there shouldn't be laws against abortion, right? If that's true, I don't see your personal beliefs as relevant to the conversation at all, so anything I say is meant to be targeted at your argument that abortion should be legal, and not at your personal beliefs. You have stated, if I understood correctly, that for you, abortion being wrong is a "subjective truth." But as far as I can see, that only affects your personal life. So if we leave aside your own personal decisions, which I have no business prying in to, then for the purposes of a debate over what secular laws should be, "subjectively true" really does become the effective same as "just plain false." In other words, how would it make any difference in the position you are arguing for, with regard to secular laws, if you believed abortion was "subjectively wrong", "subjectively right", or even "objectively right"?