Is sex-selective abortion an immoral thing to do?

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Dubious
Posts: 2507
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Is sex-selective abortion an immoral thing to do?

Post by Dubious »

Dachshund wrote: Thu May 09, 2019 10:34 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu May 09, 2019 8:41 pm
Murder is killing that's against the law, so abortion is murder only where abortion is against the law. The Commandment was actually Thou Shalt not Kill. Did Moses even think about elective abortion ? Who knows?
Forget about the law for a minute and consider this, Belinda...

If there is no God who says do not murder, murder is not wrong. Murder as wrong is a VALUE. If you happen to think that murder is right, I can not prove to you that it is wrong.

Every secular moral philosopher must concede that if there is no God, ethics is subjective, meaning that you or I or society simply makes it up. For the secular thinker, there is no other basis to say that murder is wrong, which ultimately means there is no secular argument against murder. Right, Belinda ?

Regards

Dachshund
That's an exceedingly simplistic view and no it's not right. The main reason theistic imperatives are announced as is by a higher authority is to maintain social order in a society, i.e., secular cohesion. In that regard the secular precedes the theistic in the form of Thou Shalt. Since not too long ago Religion was a very strict and potent enforcer of tribal or societal order.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9228
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is sex-selective abortion an immoral thing to do?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Thu May 09, 2019 8:41 pm
And you keep being wrong: "Thou shalt not commit murder." It could not be clearer.
Murder is killing that's against the law,
Just man's? Then it's permissible when men say it's okay...no matter whether we're talking about fetuses or teenagers or the elderly.

Or is it God's law? Then it's murder.
Some fathers or mothers have been forced to choose between one or other of their children and so that they could continue to feed some of their children they have sold one of them.
Red herring.

You owe us an answer to the OP question. Why are male children precious, and female children worthless? Please explain.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9157
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Is sex-selective abortion an immoral thing to do?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Yeah, because that's all every woman wants, to be 'taken up the aisle'; even by a sexless, religionised sociopath like yourself.
Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: Is sex-selective abortion an immoral thing to do?

Post by Dachshund »

Dubious wrote: Thu May 09, 2019 10:59 pm
Dachshund wrote: Thu May 09, 2019 10:34 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu May 09, 2019 8:41 pm
Murder is killing that's against the law, so abortion is murder only where abortion is against the law. The Commandment was actually Thou Shalt not Kill. Did Moses even think about elective abortion ? Who knows?
Forget about the law for a minute and consider this, Belinda...

If there is no God who says do not murder, murder is not wrong. Murder as wrong is a VALUE. If you happen to think that murder is right, I can not prove to you that it is wrong.

Every secular moral philosopher must concede that if there is no God, ethics is subjective, meaning that you or I or society simply makes it up. For the secular thinker, there is no other basis to say that murder is wrong, which ultimately means there is no secular argument against murder. Right, Belinda ?

Regards

Dachshund
That's an exceedingly simplistic view and no it's not right. The main reason theistic imperatives are announced as is by a higher authority is to maintain social order in a society, i.e., secular cohesion. In that regard the secular precedes the theistic in the form of Thou Shalt. Since not too long ago Religion was a very strict and potent enforcer of tribal or societal order.
When Hitler was Chancellor of Germany during the 1930's, he established and maintained pristine social order and cohesion across the nation. He built amazing infrastructure like the Autobahns, unemployment was effectively non-existent, people were happy. The Berlin Olympic Games of 1936 were immaculately organised and the visitors from around the world were highly impressed with the orderly and civil ethos of the city. There is also a sense in which society in the Soviet Union was structured in a very orderly manner, while I cannot quote any statistics, I would imagine that crimes like murder, assault, robbery, affray, illicit drug abuse, etc were comparatively low among the civilian population.

You miss my point, namely if you do not believe there is a God who has said that murder is (objectively) absolutely wrong then you are left with a subjective ethics where Joe says murder is wrong, but Mary might say no, murder is not wrong, then Jack might say "I'm nor really sure." Likewise a secular society might say murder is ok here in our homeland, we don't mind.

If you hold to a subjective ethic wherein you believe murder is NOT WRONG, then, what I am saying is that there is nothing I or or a brilliant secular philospher or Albert Einstein can do to PROVE you are mistaken.

Think about the implications of that.


Regards


Dachshund
Last edited by Dachshund on Thu May 09, 2019 11:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9157
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Is sex-selective abortion an immoral thing to do?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Dachshund wrote: Thu May 09, 2019 11:34 pm
Dubious wrote: Thu May 09, 2019 10:59 pm
Dachshund wrote: Thu May 09, 2019 10:34 pm

Forget about the law for a minute and consider this, Belinda...

If there is no God who says do not murder, murder is not wrong. Murder as wrong is a VALUE. If you happen to think that murder is right, I can not prove to you that it is wrong.

Every secular moral philosopher must concede that if there is no God, ethics is subjective, meaning that you or I or society simply makes it up. For the secular thinker, there is no other basis to say that murder is wrong, which ultimately means there is no secular argument against murder. Right, Belinda ?

Regards

Dachshund
That's an exceedingly simplistic view and no it's not right. The main reason theistic imperatives are announced as is by a higher authority is to maintain social order in a society, i.e., secular cohesion. In that regard the secular precedes the theistic in the form of Thou Shalt. Since not too long ago Religion was a very strict and potent enforcer of tribal or societal order.
When Hitler was Chancellor of Germany during the 1930's, he established and maintained pristine social order and cohesion across the nation. He built amazing infrastructure like the Autobahns, unemployment was effectively non-existent, people were happy. The Berlin Olympic Games of 1936 were immaculately organised and the visitors from around the world were highly impressed with the orderly and civil ethos of the city. There is also a sense in which society in the Soviet Union was structured in a very orderly manner, while I cannot quote any statistics, I would imagine that crimes like murder, assault, robbery, affray, illicit drug abuse, etc were comparatively low among the civilian population.

You miss my point, namely if you do not believe there is a God who has said that murder is (objectively) absolutely wrong then you are left with asubjective ethics where Joe say murder is wrong, but Mary might say no murder is not wrong, then Jack might say "I'm nor really sure." Likewise a secular society might say murder is ok here, we don't mind.

If you hold to a subjective ethic wherein you believe murder is NOT WRONG, then, what I am saying is that there is nothing I or or a brilliant secular philospher or Albert Einstein can do to PROVE you are mistaken.

Think about the implications of that.


Regards


Dachshund
I don't think Jews were very happy. Or any of the other people they slaughtered--buy hey, it was 'legal', so you would support it.
Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: Is sex-selective abortion an immoral thing to do?

Post by Dachshund »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Thu May 09, 2019 11:40 pm

I don't think Jews were very happy. Or any of the other people they slaughtered--buy hey, it was 'legal', so you would support it.
Veggie, can I ask you a question?

You put that your location was NARNIABUSINESS.

NARNIA was was a fantasy land created by the English author C.S. Lewis in his series of seven children's books called "The Narnia Chronicles".

Would I be correct in thinking that you have read those Narnia books and really liked them, and that is why you said you were from NARNIABUSINESS?

(I read them all,by the way, and I absolutely loved every book !)



Regards

Dachshund
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Is sex-selective abortion an immoral thing to do?

Post by Arising_uk »

Immanuel Can wrote:Or is it God's law? Then it's murder. ...
So Moses and 'God' are murderers then.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8961
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

NARNIABUSINESS = none of your business

Post by henry quirk »

:poop:
Belinda
Posts: 4067
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is sex-selective abortion an immoral thing to do?

Post by Belinda »

The Whitbread prize-winning children's writer Philip Pullman has dismissed his best-selling predecessor CS Lewis as "blatantly racist" and "monumentally disparaging of women".
His wholesale attack on the author of the Narnia books, which have been among the most beloved stories in children's literature for 50 years, came at the Guardian Hay festival which reaches the third of its nine days today.

Pullman, creator of the His Dark Materials trilogy, is one of a range of star speakers and performers who have so far included Mo Mowlam, the archbishop of Wales, Rowan Williams, reggae singer Linton Kwesi Johnson, Chris Stewart, Michael Frayn, Joe Klein, Harold Evans, and comedian Bill Bailey.

Pullman, attacked by a rightwing columnist as "the most dangerous author in Britain" and "semi-satanic", is celebrated for a trilogy which deliberately takes an opposite line to CS Lewis's Christian tales. In Pullman's world, the universe is ruled by a senile, viciously sadistic deity who has to be deposed in battle so that its inhabitants can join with angels in creating a "republic of heaven".


https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/jun ... stival2002
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9157
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Is sex-selective abortion an immoral thing to do?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

We live in a very strange world where creative stand-outs are required to be/have been morally blemish-free as well. What a bland little talent-free world we are creating for ourselves. Hmm. I wonder how Beethoven treated women, or what he thought of black people. I'd better stop listening to his music until I find out for certain that he was 'morally safe'.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 4259
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Is sex-selective abortion an immoral thing to do?

Post by attofishpi »

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: Thu May 02, 2019 3:33 amIs sex-selective abortion an immoral thing to do?
Yes, if the abortion is of a male foetus. (we all know what a pain in the arse women can be - yes I see the irony - just consider a strap on)
Dubious
Posts: 2507
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Is sex-selective abortion an immoral thing to do?

Post by Dubious »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri May 10, 2019 10:34 am I wonder how Beethoven treated women, or what he thought of black people.
Much better than he treated the menfolk. From what I recall he originally played the Kreutzer sonata with a quite famous black and talented musician to whom he originally meant to the dedicate the work. But at lunch one time this fellow mentioned a host of girlfriends one of whom was dear to Beethoven. It was clear what was going to happen next. He flew in a complete rage told him to fuck off and rededicated the sonata.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9157
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Is sex-selective abortion an immoral thing to do?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Dubious wrote: Fri May 10, 2019 7:24 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri May 10, 2019 10:34 am I wonder how Beethoven treated women, or what he thought of black people.
Much better than he treated the menfolk. From what I recall he originally played the Kreutzer sonata with a quite famous black and talented musician to whom he originally meant to the dedicate the work. But at lunch one time this fellow mentioned a host of girlfriends one of whom was dear to Beethoven. It was clear what was going to happen next. He flew in a complete rage told him to fuck off and rededicated the sonata.
So he's 'morally safe' according to the PC manisfesto then. Phew. So there won't be a mass campaign to ban him from airwaves and history.
I wonder if any normal person will ever be able to equal the exquisitely pristine moral fibre of the Politically Correct.
Dubious
Posts: 2507
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Is sex-selective abortion an immoral thing to do?

Post by Dubious »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri May 10, 2019 7:48 pm
Dubious wrote: Fri May 10, 2019 7:24 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri May 10, 2019 10:34 am I wonder how Beethoven treated women, or what he thought of black people.
Much better than he treated the menfolk. From what I recall he originally played the Kreutzer sonata with a quite famous black and talented musician to whom he originally meant to the dedicate the work. But at lunch one time this fellow mentioned a host of girlfriends one of whom was dear to Beethoven. It was clear what was going to happen next. He flew in a complete rage told him to fuck off and rededicated the sonata.
So there won't be a mass campaign to ban him from airwaves and history.
That happened during the first World War. Beethoven and most German composers were banned in America for being German including German literature. Faust was burned and Beethoven was banned. No Freude, schöner Götterfunken for German-Americans or any Americans for awhile. Had it been England instead of Germany I'm sure they would have banned Shakespeare as well.
Dubious
Posts: 2507
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Is sex-selective abortion an immoral thing to do?

Post by Dubious »

Dachshund wrote: Thu May 09, 2019 11:34 pm When Hitler was Chancellor of Germany during the 1930's, he established and maintained pristine social order and cohesion across the nation. He built amazing infrastructure like the Autobahns, unemployment was effectively non-existent, people were happy. The Berlin of 1936 were immaculately organised and the visitors from around the world were highly impressed with the orderly and civil ethos of the city. There is also a sense in which society in the Soviet Union was structured in a very orderly manner, while I cannot quote any statistics, I would imagine that crimes like murder, assault, robbery, affray, illicit drug abuse, etc were comparatively low among the civilian population.
What does Hitler and Stalin have to do with it? What they have in common with theism is that coercion was used to its ultimate in serving their intents. Other than that I can’t see how it combines in any way with what I wrote.

...but let’s take it apart anyways.

I note that you like so many others still accept the old myth which has long been debunked that Hitler built “amazing infrastructures like the Autobahn". This is BS, you’re short on history merely repeating old tropes. Hitler only built a very small part of it and that through a lot of slave labor which included dissident Germans. No, not everyone was happy!

As for 1936 Olympic Games, for sure the Nazis definitely knew how to put on a great show. The Nuremberg Rallies already proved that. They wanted to create a magnificent spectacle for all the world to see in which they succeeded. Everyone had to be on their best behavior. No more painting swastikas on Jewish shops and businesses for as long as the games lasted; they could resume that practice when the games ended and improve on it. Again, not everyone was happy!
Dachshund wrote: Thu May 09, 2019 10:34 pmYou miss my point, namely if you do not believe there is a God who has said that murder is (objectively) absolutely wrong then you are left with a subjective ethics where Joe says murder is wrong, but Mary might say no, murder is not wrong, then Jack might say "I'm nor really sure." Likewise a secular society might say murder is ok here in our homeland, we don't mind.
This also is such a worn out old argument repeated mostly by theists at least a billion times!

In the case of god(s) this kind of duplicity exists as nothing more than a mere illusion forcing a mandated objectivity into a purely subjective realm. There is no other reason for humans to invent a god. Even if hypothetically there were one IT remains so silent as to keep its existence unknown. Because there is NOTHING we could get from IT, we're still forced to improvise, i.e., subjectively.

What created god if not humans and if humans created god, gods and goddesses then they cannot be objective since WE created them. What did we create them for? To force the impression of a more authoritative sacrosanct objectivity upon unthinking clones for the sake of power as demonstrated by history. That and nothing else. Since only humans create history whatever merges into it becomes a SECULAR story whether it’s the discovery of oxygen or the creation of another god the only difference being the former is real and the latter imaginary

In summary, ALL gods are created in service to secular intents and motives. All of history including all its incorporated theisms default to being a blood & guts saga.
Dachshund wrote: Thu May 09, 2019 10:34 pmIf you hold to a subjective ethic wherein you believe murder is NOT WRONG, then, what I am saying is that there is nothing I or or a brilliant secular philosopher or Albert Einstein can do to PROVE you are mistaken.
I need neither a brilliant secular philosopher or Albert Einstein to demonstrate or deny so palpable a reality as the one stated.
Post Reply