Question by Dark Helmet: Abortion is immoral?
First off, I tend to vote Democrat and could not be more against the Iraq War. Visit some other discussions on this site. You’ll see that I have big issues with conservative political policies. Secondly, Lawful does NOT = Right nor does it = correct! Your argument for relative morality I will agree does make sense on a grand scale. Peoples’ sense of morals can differ and still fall within the acceptable societal norm. However, for specific issues, morals are not relative, but concretely static! One of those morals is the right to live your life without it being intentionally taken away from you by another human being. Imagine your reaction if you were having a discussion with someone and they told you, with all sincerity, that they didn’t think killing or ending human life was morally wrong. Would you consider this person moral? Would you still talk to this person? My bet is that you would not. An overwhelming majority of people would think that this person was off their rocker and would avoid them like the plague. Furthermore, I still get a kick out of fellow debaters trying to discount my argument because they say I’ve based my belief on my religion. I have done no such thing (I haven’t gone to church regularly in years). I’ve used deductive logic, with science and the basic moral principle that I just mentioned above concerning right to life as my benchmarks, to form my conclusion. Science tells us that at conception, a living human cell is formed. It begins a process called mitosis, which is the process of cell division, or growth. Science also tells us that dead cells cannot divide and grow. If these cells are human cells, and they are growing, then from the above we can logically conclude that we do, in fact, have human life. And if we can, from above, mutually agree that human life has the right to complete their existence without being eliminated in an intentional way (society’s basic agreement on right to life), then we can conclude that abortion is morally wrong. It’s not a hard argument to follow. I do appreciate your history lesson with regards to the Courts rulings (I’m aware of the Court’s rulings, thank you), but again, they don’t really apply in our discussion. I never argued that abortion was illegal, or that women didn’t have the legal right to have them done. What I did was say they didn’t have the moral right. What I did was call them immoral, based on irrefutable scientific fact, an irrefutable and binding societal contract to not end human life, and deductive reasoning. That’s actually ironic when you think about it. Here we have, as I said above, far left liberals arguing ethics and moral standards when it comes to economic and political matters, such as minimum wage fairness, characteristics of the free market, CEO golden parachutes, gaps in compensation between the elitists and proletariats, and desired government intervention during the oil price surge ( just to name a few). Yet, they can’t see how their own argument and position in this discussion is violating the most basic societal contract. There’s HUGE inconsistency on the left when it comes to a discussion about morals. But the real kicker is this: while there are pro lifers out there that are whacked and clearly have gone off the deep end, many pro lifers cite the same arguments I have, and we get accused of trying to set up a sectarian form of government to push our religious beliefs. And on the other hand, you have the pro choicers who contend that life doesn’t begin until birth. Of what are they basing that on in this MORAL argument? Science rejects their claim. So what then are they basing it on? The only thing that’s left is…faith.
Best answer:
Answer by Jennywren
blah, blah, blah . . .
Give your answer to this question below!
