Imagine working in a factory and you have this new product called "Cookiebookie". You start the process in creating it but somewhere along the way you decide that it's an bad idea so you throw it to the side. Cookiebookie was bound to become a product, only by the passage of time and the goodwill of the person.

Masturbating is like deciding that CookieBookie wasn't a good idea at first, so you didn't even start the process of creating it, which by itself is denying the possibility of the product, but you don't deny it's inevitable existance, since all pre-products become products by the passage of time in which everything must pass according to our laws of physics.

Imagine the fetus being the product.

All arguments against abortion that I've encountered are exercises in begging the question. If a person doesn't like terminating pregnancies, then they need merely either not get pregnant, and if they do, not have an abortion. Anything else is minding someone else's business. (Which is not in itself wrong - if gone about in the right way for the right reasons.) The problems with the above lie in the words, and thereby in the ideas and thinking they represent. Shortest way: what life is created? And what is - what does it mean to say - "the premature state of an already existing life form."

At this point in the modern debate on abortion, a debate roughly a century in, with all of the pain on all sides, the sheer stupidity of this argument is unforgivable, and can only have been offered by a troll, or someone so green they have no real idea of what they're talking - writing - about. Go do some research and some thinking! — tim wood

Sounds like your the one trolling, Tim Wood. His question is completely legitimate.

This thread, Like Jesus, has returned from the dead. No good will come of it.

Sounds like your the one trolling, Tim Wood. His question is completely legitimate. — christian2017

Is this the question in question?

Abortion is either when you cancel the events that may lead to a creation of life or ending the premature state of an already existing life form. Why is this considered moral by human standards and not frowned upon? — EpicTyrant

"Cancel the events that may lead to a creation of life." you apparently know what this means. I don't, please tell me.

"ending the premature state of an already existing life form." Same with this. Please explain what both these clauses mean.

As to what is considered moral, my interest in what is considered moral differs considerably from what is moral. Now, apparently you object to my reply to the original question. Very well, you object. Now put up or shut up on your objections. Be clear, make a substantive argument. Objecting is a hind-brain activity, but we here place a higher value on higher level of cognitive activity and evidences of same. It's a philosophy site, not an "object-here site."

Do your worst; you've taken on a difficult topic, now show you can do the difficult thing, think!

of all the useless posts i've answered in the past couple months, i'll answer this one in a couple of hours. I feel you are clearly playing ignorant on the OP. I really don't feel you could be that short sighted to not see what the OP is talking about. Talk to you in a couple of hours.

I'm not asking your opinion of what matters.

I asked whether it wasn't ontologically different.

How would inside/connected not be ontologically different than outside/not connected?

People are saying silly things, as always happens in discussion on abortion.

Why is this considered moral by human standards and not frowned upon? — EpicTyrant

It isn't considered moral in human terms, and it is frowned upon. There are some people though, who do not recognise an unborn baby as a human being. I think that they have found an opportunity to disregard the perspective of the unborn because they do not see it's face, hear it's sounds, see it's reactions to environmental stimuli. But, that also can be said of parents who are in a bad mood, who also are completely unable to see those things in children.

There is just a state of ignorance that a human sometimes slips into that causes them to become incapable of empathising with others. I name it demonic possession (based upon John 3:36 - whoever does not obey the son does not see life, and the wrath of God abides upon him).

So those ones you mention, who are unable to see the life of the baby, it has become their delusion to think that what they do is not murder, only because they have refused to obey the son of God. Anyone who obeys the son of God will come to exercise sexuality according to the principles that He teaches, hence no desire for abortion, and much love for God's gift of new life.

of all the useless posts I've answered in the past couple months, i'll answer this one in a couple of hours. — christian2017

Don't if you really feel it's useless. I can guess what the OP is about, but that's my guess. As to the language, I really do not know what it means.

My guess is that the OP is asking when, at what stage, of life it's OK for us

when we make the decision to perform an abortion or not? — EpicTyrant

Had the OP paid attention to his own language and thinking, he might have recognized that's a decision we don't make. It implies that if, for example, your wife were pregnant, it's an open question as to whether I could perform an abortion on her - an absurdity.

He also refers to "the creation of life." What life is created?

With this slipshod, knee-jerk language - God knows where he got it, and certainly not from God though perhaps from his personal delusions - he drives towards disreputable conclusions. And my point is that just this kind of thinking has characterized the pro-life movement for as long as I can remember and longer - long enough for there to have long since failed to be any excuse for it. Ultimately, the language dis-serves the cause it claims to espouse. But here's the thing, what cause is it, exactly, that the main bulk of pro-lifers actually serve? Care to take a shot at that? But take care! Ask yourself if the actions of pro-lifers actually meet the manifesto of their words. Near as I can tell, once you get by the murderous fringe, the bulk are interested in, and only interested in, a certain kind of power over women, and they really don't care what they have to do to get it within their grasp.

Does that settle the differences? If only. But the current pro-life stance (as I understand it as evidenced by numerous actions of pro-lifers over a long time) has reduced it to viciousness on their side. Consideration of the issue on merits is thereby thrown out. Do you think that's an accident?

Considering the future for most of our youth is a career working for Uber, i'm not sure i can come up with a good argument against you. The ancient Amorites and ancient Israelites were allowed to sacrifice their children to other gods because its better to die young and go to heaven then to grow up and work for Uber as your career and be predisposed to reject the living God. Have a good day sir.

There are some people though, who do not recognise an unborn baby as a human being. I think that they have found an opportunity to disregard the perspective of the unborn because they do not see it's face, hear it's sounds, see it's reactions to environmental stimuli. — Serving Zion

A blastocyst does not have a face, hear sounds nor react to stimuli.

A blastocyst does not have a face, hear sounds nor react to stimuli. — Banno

You are only 2/3's correct though .. and furthermore, those two are not necessary definitions for qualifying life. It is meant to show that the immorality relies upon moving the goalposts for the definition of life, so that they can believe themselves innocent of putting life to death.

Did you just use a Sesame Street cookie monster analogy?

You would cut out any other cyst without hesitation. The inconsistency is yours.

You would cut out any other cyst without hesitation. — Banno

Why would I want to do that?

Why would I want to do that? — Serving Zion

Why would you want to do what?

What pisses me off most about the choice debate is the insincerity of the antagonists.

The reason you want to ban abortion is nothing to do with fair ethical consideration. It's because the people who tell you what your invisible friend wants say abortion is naughty.

The same misogynist folk who fight against child care, public education, maternity leave, and most other things that will actually benefit people. The ones who think giving guns to children is a good idea, and are shit scared of anyone who is slightly different, sexually, ethnically, geographically, politically or spiritually.

The folk who will not mention, let alone consider, the role of the potential mother; utter bullshit. — Banno

Just to be clear, those who oppose free choice on the part of a woman wishing to put an early end to an unwanted pregnancy are acting immorally. — Banno

It is meant to show that the immorality relies upon moving the goalposts for the definition of life, so that they can believe themselves innocent of putting life to death. — Serving Zion

What goalposts though? Who set up the goalposts that are allegedly being moved?

It's not about "life" either. We kill lots of life all the time. No-one much cares about the billions of bacteria.

What goalposts though? Who set up the goalposts that are allegedly being moved? — Echarmion

Morality doesn't have an author as such, so it's pointless to ask who set up the goalposts. The point is, they will believe it is immoral to kill a breathing baby for convenience, but not an unborn. In making that distinction, they shift the goalposts (where "killing" is to take the life of a living, and "baby" is the one who is not independent/self-supported).

It's not about "life" either. We kill lots of life all the time. No-one much cares about the billions of bacteria. — Echarmion

Strict morality does condemn that though.

Strict morality does condemn that though. — Serving Zion

What is "strict morality"?

Morality doesn't have an author as such, so it's pointless to ask who set up the goalposts. — Serving Zion

If you want to argue that someone is moving the goalposts, you have to establish what the goalposts are, first. Without agreed-upon goalposts, the charge makes no sense.

The point is, they will believe it is immoral to kill a breathing baby for convenience, but not an unborn. In making that distinction, they shift the goalposts (where "killing" is to take the life of a living, and "baby" is the one who is not independent/self-supported). — Serving Zion

That's just one way to draw the line. No "shifting" is going on here. You're also oversimplifying the issue to "killing is wrong, not killing is right". That's not a viable moral stance.

What is "strict morality"? — Echarmion

It is just judgement of the absolute truth. When one says "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", then the judge decides whether the complaint is credible or not.

That's just one way to draw the line. No "shifting" is going on here. — Echarmion

Actually, you are only able to say that because you do not acknowledge the complaint of the unborn: "they took my life".

You're also oversimplifying the issue to "killing is wrong, not killing is right". That's not a viable moral stance. — Echarmion

Can you please explain why?

Why would you want to do what? — Banno

You said I would cut out any other cyst without hesitation, so I have asked you to give an example of why I might want to cut out a cyst.

You seem to be suggesting that a blastocyst should be regarded as a cyst, and the name "cyst" means it is something that ideally should not exist in the body. I will look to identify why you should regard a blastocyst as distinct from a cyst (Eg: everyone has been a blastocyst, but no cyst has become a living person).

It is just judgement of the absolute truth — Serving Zion

How do we know the absolute truth?

Actually, you are only able to say that because you do not acknowledge the complaint of the unborn: "they took my life". — Serving Zion

The unborn cannot lodge such a complaint, even in theory, though. So really it's you making the complaint, even though you don't have to bear any of the consequences.

Can you please explain why? — Serving Zion

It is sometimes necessary to kill in order to protect other rights. Like when we are acting in defense of ourselves or others.

How do we know the absolute truth? — Echarmion

I think it's better to say "how can we know the absolute truth?" .. is that what you meant?

The unborn cannot lodge such a complaint, even in theory, though. So really it's you making the complaint, — Echarmion

Yes, that is true. I also am not the only one who makes that complaint on their behalf. There is a spiritual reality that speaks, pricking our conscience. Whenever we fall foul of the judgement of the absolute truth, we must wrestle those voices. To achieve peace of mind, some people refuse to hear those voices (eg: 1 John 4:6), or they might adjust their moral compass to deceive themselves (thereby rejecting their conscience in favour of an alternative spirit). Neither of those options is good for us, but it is what we choose to do when we are unable to confess our errors.

It is sometimes necessary to kill in order to protect other rights. Like when we are acting in defense of ourselves or others. — Echarmion

In those cases, the absolute truth yields itself to our support, because the aggressor was doing immorality to begin with - they were transgressing the moral law "do unto others as you would have them do to you".

I think it's better to say "how can we know the absolute truth?" .. is that what you meant? — Serving Zion

Yes, that'd be the more basic question.

Some people refuse to hear those voices (eg: 1 John 4:6), sometimes they adjust their moral compass to deceive themselves (thereby rejecting their conscience in favour of an alternative spirit). — Serving Zion

Sounds awfully condescending. Perhaps it's your moral compass that's in need of adjustment? A lot has been written on the topic, some of it very thorough. It's not a matter of willful ignorance or denial.

In those cases, the absolute truth yields itself to our support, because the aggressor was doing immorality to begin with - they were transgressing the moral law "do unto others as you would have them do to you". — Serving Zion

But, given that we accept limitations even to the right to life, it's no longer a simple question of whether or not the unborn child is indeed alreay a child or still a foetus. It's also a matter of what circumstances we are going to accept as justification for ending that life. It's not a black of white issue. Plenty of people who are "pro life" accept special circumstances, like danger to the mother or pregnancy as a result of rape. On the other side, plents of "pro abortion" people accept limits to legal abortion based on the state of the pregnancy or the circumstances of the decision.

Yes, that'd be the more basic question. — Echarmion

Ok, well we just need to see what prevents a person from accepting the absolute truth. Then, by removing those barriers, they can advance to know the truth.

Sounds awfully condescending. — Echarmion

I am sorry, I have reworded it to try and soften the blow. I don't know if that will be enough for you, but let's see.

Perhaps it's your moral compass that's in need of adjustment? — Echarmion

What, seriously? .. that people can kill babies for unrestrained sex? You would work yourself to death while trying to adjust that compass, I can assure you.

A lot has been written on the topic, some of it very thorough. It's not a matter of willful ignorance or denial. — Echarmion

We will need to part ways over this. Nobody is born demonic, they become demonic by yielding their mind to the thinking that shields them from the conviction of the truth.

But, given that we accept limitations even to the right to life — Echarmion

Who does? .. don't get me wrong, the parasite takes a risk by invading a host. I do not grant the same terms to describe pregnancy, one would be severely warped to arrive at that.

it's no longer a simple question of whether or not the unborn child is indeed alreay a child or still a foetus. — Echarmion

It doesn't make a difference though, to the judgement. The fact is, that it is taking life, and the question in the judgement is whether it is morally justified.

It's also a matter of what circumstances we are going to accept as justification for ending that life. It's not a black of white issue. Plenty of people who are "pro life" accept special circumstances, like danger to the mother or pregnancy as a result of rape. — Echarmion

Those considerations are in fact justifications for adjusting the moral compass, and they don't have any strength when faith is involved. So it does remain a black and white issue, IMO.

On the other side, plents of "pro abortion" people accept limits to the right of abortion based on the state of the pregnancy or the circumstances of the decision. — Echarmion

It would be useful to analyse some of those differences.

Ok, well we just need to see what prevents a person from accepting the absolute truth. Then, by removing those barriers, they can advance to know the truth. — Serving Zion

Sure, let's start.

that people can kill babies for unrestrained sex? — Serving Zion

Do you have a problem with unrestrained sex?

We will need to part ways over this. Nobody is born demonic, they become demonic by yielding their mind to the thinking that shields them from the conviction of the truth. — Serving Zion

If you're going to refuse every counterargument as demonic, what's the use talking to you, exactly?

and they don't have any strength when faith is involved — Serving Zion

This is a philosophy forum though.

Do you have a problem with unrestrained sex? — Echarmion

I am only against the problems it causes.

If you're going to refuse every counterargument as demonic, what's the use talking to you, exactly? — Echarmion

That question is loaded with a false premise. There are many times I observe counterarguments as not being demonic. But, even if a person does speak to me in a demonic spirit, the words can be useful to produce a better knowledge of the truth.

That question is loaded with a false premise. There are many times I observe counterarguments as not being demonic. But, even if a person does speak to me in a demonic spirit, the words can be useful to produce a better knowledge of the truth. — Serving Zion

What is evidence of a demonic spirit?