@shamari7jones@vigilantsummers Little hints?
They are recycling the whole thing. It's not a hint in the middle of a larger, different, and original soundtrack.
"Appears reasonable" to whom, and by what standard? If it's just what a culture or individual finds reasonable at the time, then honor killings or dueling are moral in societies that accept them, right? How do you get a real obligation without something above shifting preferences or labels?
You just said slave owners did whatever they wanted to slaves. Under the bodily autonomy principle you're defending, the mother gets to do whatever she wants to the human child inside her body because she didn't consent to its presence there. If one is wrong, why isn't the other? The "inside the body" versus "on the land" distinction doesn't change that both involve treating a human being as disposable based on someone else's lack of consent.
How do you escape the parallel without denying the child's humanity?
@HarryNockz@iamAtheistGirl "Dude, you need to learn critical thinking if you don’t recognize your fallacious reasoning here, not my job to teach you..." - Ad hominem
"We all have a conscience, it’s literally instinctual" - Is-ought
Want me to go on?
@FireStorm1977 Just because you call it "not murder" doesn't make it so.
Is it a human life? Yes.
Is it the premeditated killing of the human life? Yes.
Abortion is murder.
@J_Lee_Priest@iamAtheistGirl Let me rephrase:
The question is how reason, science, empathy, and logic actually produce an ought (a binding duty I must follow even when it costs me) from the is (people feel empathy, harm has consequences).
@FireStorm1977@hillbillybase@sj_ca1867 You can use those words and try to say whatever you want, but that doesn't make it true.
Murder is the premeditated killing of a human being. Abortion is the premeditated killing of a human being. Abortion is murder.
@Kittenscorner@JadeK526 What makes the unborn child a “slave owner” using the mother’s body?
And does your consent rule also apply to a newborn who can’t survive without the mother feeding it?
@FireStorm1977@sj_ca1867 Why are you responding to my question with a question? That's another fallacy.
The question is whether it's a human life or not. Can you answer or not?
@HarryNockz@iamAtheistGirl How is it a false analogy and slippery slope? Your claims are:
- We all have a conscience
- [in reference to a true moral compass] It's literally instinctual
Therefore, those who have a conscience and instinct to hurt others are not doing some immoral, right?
Yes.
A child conceived in rape is still a child, and we don't execute people for their fathers' crimes. The rape is monstrous and the rapist should get the harshest punishment the law allows.
But the child is innocent. Killing him doesn't undo what was done to her. It adds a second victim to the first.
@J_Lee_Priest@iamAtheistGirl So what's the process through which reason, science, empathy and logic can arrive to a phrase like "I would not like to be harmed, therefore I shall not harm."?