@WakeUpSleepies@Skeuleos@MatthewZ73671 No you idiot, objective truths exist, morality just hasn't been demonstrated to be one of them. Morality =/= truth
@SoupOfToday@AliaRainine@Hestia_Esq@CosbyKing89 She's a mother if she has or is carrying a child.
You have consciousness, they don't.
If you're hit by a car, you feel pain, suffering. Friends & family will grieve you.
None of this applies to a never conscious foetus whose experience is indistinguishable from non existence
@shaunsomers@Wh4th3fu@conservmillen OK but that extra work has been consented to by virtue of the parents carrying the baby to term & being birthed.
A mother who is currently carrying a foetus & supporting their development hasn't necessarily fully consented to her body being utilised for full foetal development
@shaunsomers@conservmillen Well presumably that person is doing so consensually?
It's the *combination* of the foetus never having been conscious and depending on another person's body that entitles the mother to choose whether or not to terminate a foetus' pregnancy or not. A born baby is conscious
@SoupOfToday@AliaRainine@Hestia_Esq@CosbyKing89 I am stating the mother has the choice to take a gift of life away from something which is relying on her body to develop
Can you elaborate on why you view them equally bad?
@SoupOfToday@AliaRainine@Hestia_Esq@CosbyKing89 So am I summarising this correctly - other people are "trash" BC they're not taking a path of learning & growth that you value but they may not at that stage of their life?
So your wants trump theirs? Doesn't that sound like a rather selfish mindset?
@SoupOfToday@AliaRainine@Hestia_Esq@CosbyKing89 Birthing a child into a situation which is unhygienic/injurious to their health is an example of actualised suffering & distress
Where is the actualised suffering & distress from killing a foetus that's never been concious?
There's a complete false equivalence here
@Sapientia400@DerekPederson3@BradMarrs298068 If you had described it as a "killing" that would be valid. But you picked a precise legal term and so you should be more careful when you choose what words to use
@Sapientia400@DerekPederson3@BradMarrs298068 I haven't cherry picked anything. Those were the first two results I found, one of them being a reputable dictionary
No the definition is not useless. It accurately describes situations in which someone commits an unlawful & premeditated killing against another human
@WakeUpSleepies@Skeuleos@MatthewZ73671 Subjective means "mind dependent". If god also has a mind, then everything he's commanded moral/immoral is based on his subjective preferences & feelings.
For it to be objective it has to be mind independent.
@Sapientia400@DerekPederson3@BradMarrs298068 Lol so you're just making up your own definition then? How can I take anything you say at its word when you could have invented a different definition for any of the other words you're using?