TRUMP AHEAD?

[Gary Childress]

I agree. It's very sad.

But if the world is "survival-of-the-fittest," then the one who has the most effective attorney is the "most fit" in the context of court. And the right outcome is happening, because the "most fit" is obtaining the advantage. The "Law of Nature" ("red in tooth and claw," -- Tennyson) is being upheld.

If that's how it is, then your sadness and mine are merely self -erving delusions. No actual "injustice" is happening, not only because the fittest is surviving, but also because there's no such thing as "justice" to be had. So you and I had better just get over it, because the world of survival-of-the-fittest" does not owe us happiness, far less justice and fairness, nor does it care if we do not have it.

I am saddened because I know I am not the fittest.

It would not surprise me if I'm few tiers below you in fitness. And it's depressing. Thank, God for "lefty snowflakes" pushing for toleration and acceptance of the weak.

[Gary Childress]

It's funny...I embark on a proof, and all you can say is that "I'm not doing it."

Well, I guess we'll have to throw the ball back in your court, and ask what it is you would accept as proof of objective morality. I'm ready to try, if you can say what you'd ever accept...

I gave you an example situation a few posts back of a woman raped and impregnated by a psychopathic male. She decides she doesn't want to have anything to do with having his child. She'd rather get an abortion. According to your objective viewpoint, what ought she to do and what do you give as objective support to that conclusion? That might be a good start.

Well, that's just a repetition of your earlier post, without response to my query. Why avoid my caveat and question? The caveat goes to the motive of your question, and the ensuing question Is a perfectly fair request for clarification.

I'm being fair to you, and trying to understand your motive and your meaning. Why do you insist on not responding, then?

I apologize, I missed your reply. I'll go back and find it and respond to it.

[Gary Childress]

As a Christian who claims to have "objective" morality at your calling, maybe you can give a definitive answer as to the following:

A woman is raped by a psychopathic male and is impregnated. She wants no part of having that man's baby. Is it OK for her to abort the fetus before giving birth and if so, how do you know it is or is not? If you're in possession of objective morality as you claim then you can surely demonstrate what the "objective" answer is. So what is it?

Well, I'll answer your question, so long as you accept a caveat, and answer a question I need answered before I can answer.

The caveat, first. I would like to assure myself that you're not merely using the above case in an attempt to justify all abortions. For 99% of abortions, statistically, are not of that type. They're not rape abortions, or incest abortions, or anything of that kind. Less than 1% are those. So if you will begin by agreeing with me that 99% of abortions are immoral, I'll answer your question for you.

However, the second thing I need to do is get more clarity on the question. And so I have to ask the following: is a pre-born baby a human being? And I have to ask that, because the status of the child makes all the difference in the world to what is reasonable to decide, obviously.

A caveat and a question, then. Go ahead.

I am absolutely NOT using the post above to justify all abortions.

A pre-born baby is a human being's preborn baby as far as I'm aware. I know not more than that.

I'll even give you my answer afterward to the scenario to boot. Does that sound fair? You can critique it as much as you wish.

[Harbal]

They're not rape abortions, or incest abortions, or anything of that kind. Less than 1% are those. So if you will begin by agreeing with me that 99% of abortions are immoral, I'll answer your question for you.

You haven't told him why you think they are immoral, so how does he know what he is being asked to agree with?

[Gary Childress]

They're not rape abortions, or incest abortions, or anything of that kind. Less than 1% are those. So if you will begin by agreeing with me that 99% of abortions are immoral, I'll answer your question for you.

You haven't told him why you think they are immoral, so how does he know what he is being asked to agree with?

True, he's already making a moral claim and asking me to agree to it without giving the reasons I should agree with it.

[Gary Childress]

But we'll be fair and turn the other ear and pretend that didn't happen. Let us hear your objective grounds for your decision regarding the lady with the psychopath's baby, IC.

[Harbal]

They're not rape abortions, or incest abortions, or anything of that kind. Less than 1% are those. So if you will begin by agreeing with me that 99% of abortions are immoral, I'll answer your question for you.

You haven't told him why you think they are immoral, so how does he know what he is being asked to agree with?

True, he's already making a moral claim and asking me to agree to it without giving the reasons I should agree with it.

There's always a catch, Gary. When I asked for proof of objective moral facts, I was told I first had to admit there was no such thing as subjective morality. It's like playing a game of football when the other team have been allowed to build a brick wall in front of their goal, while you have been asked to remove your goalkeeper from the pitch.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The issue is that, for "skeptics" like me, that's just not good enough. I reject subjective evidence in general. I see it as just a standard psychological thing that whatever faith someone has, that person will receive subjective experiences consistent with that faith. For example someone in my family tried to raise me as a Christian when I was very little, so I had Christian experiences and visions (not all pleasant), I even heard the Christian God talk a few times.

I believe I understand what you are getting at. And I also agree that the forms and colors that filter into our imagination and concept-order tend to mirror back to us.

Ortega y Gasset was an influence for me as I grappled with many of these issues. And though I described some of the •convincing• experiences (subjectively received) as of a mystical order, what really moves me are theological conclusions.

Perhaps the following will mean something for you as it did for me:

From Ortega y Gasset ('Estudios sobre el amor', 1957):

"Professional noisemakers of every class will always prefer the anarchy of intoxication of the mystics to the clear and ordered intelligence of the priests, that is, of the Church. I regret at not being able to join them in this preference either. I am prevented by a matter of truthfulness. It is this: I think that any theology transmits to us much more of God, greater insights and ideas about divinity, than the combined ecstasies of all the mystics; because, instead of approaching the ecstatic skeptically, we must take the mystic at his word, accept what he brings us from his transcendental immersions, and then see if what he offers us is worth while. The truth is that, after we accompany him on his sublime voyage, what he succeeds in communicating to us is a thing of little consequence. I think that the European soul is approaching a new experience of God and new inquiries into that most important of all realities. I doubt very much, however, if the enrichment of our ideas about divine matters will emerge from the mystic's subterranean roads rather than from the luminous paths of discursive thought. Theology---not ecstasy!"

[Immanuel Can]

I apologize, I missed your reply. I'll go back and find it and respond to it.

Oh, fair enough.

I assumed you'd read it. If you haven't, then take the time you need.

[Immanuel Can]

I am absolutely NOT using the post above to justify all abortions.

A pre-born baby is a human being's preborn baby as far as I'm aware. I know not more than that.

I'll even give you my answer afterward to the scenario to boot. Does that sound fair? You can critique it as much as you wish.

Yes, fair.

I note that you stop short of conceding that 99% of abortions are immoral, though. Does that mean you advocate convenience murder, then? I'd hope not. Because if the answer to my question is genuine, you agree that a baby is a baby. So to kill a human baby by premeditation and lethal means surely qualifies as murder.

Now your question comes down to this: if a young woman is victimized by a vicious person, will encouraging her to murder a child improve her situation?

And the answer is obvious, is it not?

[Immanuel Can]

They're not rape abortions, or incest abortions, or anything of that kind. Less than 1% are those. So if you will begin by agreeing with me that 99% of abortions are immoral, I'll answer your question for you.

You haven't told him why you think they are immoral, so how does he know what he is being asked to agree with?

See my attached question, and we'll know what he's asking, and what I'm asking him.

[Harbal]

They're not rape abortions, or incest abortions, or anything of that kind. Less than 1% are those. So if you will begin by agreeing with me that 99% of abortions are immoral, I'll answer your question for you.

You haven't told him why you think they are immoral, so how does he know what he is being asked to agree with?

See my attached question, and we'll know what he's asking, and what I'm asking him.

You've told him that the abortion would be murdering a child, but you haven't said why murdering a child is morally wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

You haven't told him why you think they are immoral, so how does he know what he is being asked to agree with?

See my attached question, and we'll know what he's asking, and what I'm asking him.

You've told him that the abortion would be murdering a child, but you haven't said why murdering a child is morally wrong.

You don't think murder is morally wrong?

[Gary Childress]

I am absolutely NOT using the post above to justify all abortions.

A pre-born baby is a human being's preborn baby as far as I'm aware. I know not more than that.

I'll even give you my answer afterward to the scenario to boot. Does that sound fair? You can critique it as much as you wish.

Yes, fair.

I note that you stop short of conceding that 99% of abortions are immoral, though. Does that mean you advocate convenience murder, then? I'd hope not. Because if the answer to my question is genuine, you agree that a baby is a baby. So to kill a human baby by premeditation and lethal means surely qualifies as murder.

Now your question comes down to this: if a young woman is victimized by a vicious person, will encouraging her to murder a child improve her situation?

And the answer is obvious, is it not?

I 100% do not advocate for convenience murder. I can assure you of that.

OK. So we have a start. Are we to assume then that aborting the pregnancy would be "pre-meditated murder"? Let's say it in zygote stage. Is it still "pre-meditated murder"?

I'll even share with you my answer to the situation.

I would leave it up to the female. I am not the one bearing the child of a rapist and I cannot, will not interject my opinion upon her. I can only say that I can understand not wanting to birth a rapist's child if I were in her shoes and that's what she decides, but then again, I am not her so that is my opinion and not necessarily an objective 'final word" on anything.

How's that so far?

[Harbal]

See my attached question, and we'll know what he's asking, and what I'm asking him.

You've told him that the abortion would be murdering a child, but you haven't said why murdering a child is morally wrong.

You don't think murder is morally wrong?

Generally speaking, it is my opinion that murder is, indeed, wrong. That opinion is based on the objective fact that, when I think about murder, it just seems wrong. Why do you think murder is wrong?