It is hypocritical to use religion and the Bible to justify opposition to abortion.

[Sheldon]

Why should I be ashamed of holding a higher moral sense and standard than what is offered by human reasoning?

If it's beyond human reasoning, then I'm curious what you're using to evaluate it's moral rectitude? Only your post seems to be acknowledging @9-10ths_Penguin's point, about not having any autonomous moral sense? I've often observed that blindly following rules isn't really human morality as this must involve an ability to differentiate between right and wrong behaviours, albeit subjectively. We have evolved the ability to reason, and this enables us to examine quite complex moral choices, though our choices are necessarily subjective, they cannot really be otherwise.

 

[Kenny]

Did you read the rest of my post?

no... after I saw that statement, I figured you didn't put much thought into everything else

 

[Kenny]

If it's beyond human reasoning, then I'm curious what you're using to evaluate it's moral rectitude? Only your post seems to be acknowledging @9-10ths_Penguin's point, about not having any autonomous moral sense? I've often observed that blindly following rules isn't really human morality as this must involve an ability to differentiate between right and wrong behaviours, albeit subjectively. We have evolved the ability to reason, and this enables us to examine quite complex moral choices, though our choices are necessarily subjective, they cannot really be otherwise.

I think I was pretty clear. If inside a womb it is not a baby because it is reliant on the mom, but then if taken out the womb **PRESTO - PEANUT BUTTER AND JELLY - SHAZAAM" - it's a baby and a person because it is outside of the womb...

Is there really a question on morality here?

 

[Sheldon]

no... after I saw that statement, I figured you didn't put much thought into everything else

You were wrong, and that's also pretty rich given your contributions here consist almost exclusively of ad hominem and emojis. Then again you seem to always end up with handwaving as if you either can't be bothered or have nothing to offer, yet feel minded to respond anyway, as if you want to provoke a response?

#316

Try reading it, properly, and see if you can give a considered rational response this time, this is a debate forum after all.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
If it's beyond human reasoning, then I'm curious what you're using to evaluate it's moral rectitude? Only your post seems to be acknowledging @9-10ths_Penguin's point, about not having any autonomous moral sense? I've often observed that blindly following rules isn't really human morality as this must involve an ability to differentiate between right and wrong behaviours, albeit subjectively. We have evolved the ability to reason, and this enables us to examine quite complex moral choices, though our choices are necessarily subjective, they cannot really be otherwise.

I think I was pretty clear. If inside a womb it is not a baby because it is reliant on the mom, but then if taken out the womb **PRESTO - PEANUT BUTTER AND JELLY - SHAZAAM" - it's a baby and a person because it is outside of the womb...

Is there really a question on morality here?

I will answer your question, but only if you answer mine, in the post you just responded to, but ignored yet again.

 

[Kenny]

I will answer your question, but only if you answer mine, in the post you just responded to, but ignored yet again.

which one?

 

[Kenny]

Try reading it, properly, and see if you can give a considered rational response this time, this is a debate forum after all.

That's right... it is a debate forum. But does that mean I have to answer foolish and irrational statements by whosoever? When there is a rational statement, I have no problems with debating rationally,

 

[Sheldon]

which one?

You said:

KenS said: ↑
Why should I be ashamed of holding a higher moral sense and standard than what is offered by human reasoning?

I then asked:

If it's beyond human reasoning, then I'm curious what you're using to evaluate it's moral rectitude?

 

[Sheldon]

That's right... it is a debate forum. But does that mean I have to answer foolish and irrational statements by whosoever? When there is a rational statement, I have no problems with debating rationally,

Why was it irrational? Simply making a bare accusation seems like handwaving rhetoric to me.

 

[Kenny]

You said:

I then asked:

First, " Why should I be ashamed of holding a higher moral sense and standard than what is offered by human reasoning?" - "human reasoning doesn't translate into all human reasoning is wrong. But it is human reasoning that spirals things downward.

For an example:

As I mentioned before, to say that "in the womb it is not a baby b. ut outside the womb "SHAZZAM" now it is, is preposterous. Only certain humans can make that "reason"able.

Ask an 8 year old and they would say "of course it is a baby, inside or out".

I didn't mean "Higher standard means spiritual" - I mean that human reasoning has the capacity of dumbing down common sense. But wise human understanding is working correctly, then we don't deal with statements like above.

 

[Kenny]

Why was it irrational? Simply making a bare accusation seems like handwaving rhetoric to me.

Sorry, It was a global statement and not specific.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Indeed...

I live in an area where prolife billboards were all over the place. They NEVER use images of embryos or zygotes. They ALWAYS use neonates and even older babies. They know why.

 

[Sheldon]

First, " Why should I be ashamed of holding a higher moral sense and standard than what is offered by human reasoning?" - "human reasoning doesn't translate into all human reasoning is wrong. But it is human reasoning that spirals things downward.

For an example:

As I mentioned before, to say that "in the womb it is not a baby b. ut outside the womb "SHAZZAM" now it is, is preposterous. Only certain humans can make that "reason"able.

Ask an 8 year old and they would say "of course it is a baby, inside or out".

I didn't mean "Higher standard means spiritual" - I mean that human reasoning has the capacity of dumbing down common sense. But wise human understanding is working correctly, then we don't deal with statements like above.

That's not what I asked, you claimed to "hold a moral sense higher than human reasoning," ipso facto these morals cannot be evaluated by human reasoning, and so I asked what then are you using to evaluate their moral rectitude?

Here is your claim for context:

Why should I be ashamed of holding a higher moral sense and standard than what is offered by human reasoning?

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Why was it irrational? Simply making a bare accusation seems like handwaving rhetoric to me.

Sorry, It was a global statement and not specific.

Which was rather the point, if you can't explain why something is irrational, then the accusation looks like handwaving rhetoric. Rational means in adherence with the principles of logic, so you dismissed the post, and effectively accused another poster of violating a principle of logic as justification, and yet can offer nothing to justify or support the claim, do you not see the problem there?

 

[Kenny]

That's not what I asked, you claimed to "hold a moral sense higher than human reasoning," ipso facto these morals cannot be evaluated by human reasoning, and so I asked what then are you using to evaluate their moral rectitude?

Here is your claim for context:

Let me ask you a question:

Are you human? Did you come to your conclusion by your reasoning? Add the two together and what do you get?

Did I say human reasoning cannot achieve moral rectitude?

If you want to create a strawman (since you are always talking about fallacies) - why don't YOU get back to the subject of a child in the womb is not a person and outside the womb is a more substantial position than a deteriorating human reasoning that you are using?

 

[Sheldon]

Did I say human reasoning cannot achieve moral rectitude?

No, but then I never suggested you did. Here is your post again then for clarity:

Why should I be ashamed of holding a higher moral sense and standard than what is offered by human reasoning?

So one more time then, can you explain what you used to determine this? Since if it is higher than human reasoning, using human reasoning to establish this would not be possible, or if it was possible then your claim would be demonstrably false, as human reasoning would in fact be capable of understanding and achieving that level of morality?

 

[Sheldon]

why don't YOU get back to the subject of a child in the womb is not a person

Well you made the claim, and it was separate from the main topic, but I'm sure the thread can accommodate an answer from you on the one, without ignoring the other. Though it has become pretty clear you have an intention of answering, as I doubt you have a cogent answer, and am left wondering what you hope to achieve by such ongoing obfuscation?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

First, " Why should I be ashamed of holding a higher moral sense and standard than what is offered by human reasoning?" - "human reasoning doesn't translate into all human reasoning is wrong. But it is human reasoning that spirals things downward.

For an example:

As I mentioned before, to say that "in the womb it is not a baby b. ut outside the womb "SHAZZAM" now it is, is preposterous. Only certain humans can make that "reason"able.

Ask an 8 year old and they would say "of course it is a baby, inside or out".

I didn't mean "Higher standard means spiritual" - I mean that human reasoning has the capacity of dumbing down common sense. But wise human understanding is working correctly, then we don't deal with statements like above.

8 year olds don’t have expertise in biology… Doogie Howser isn’t real

 

[Kenny]

Well you made the claim, and it was separate from the main topic, but I'm sure the thread can accommodate an answer from you on the one, without ignoring the other. Though it has become pretty clear you have an intention of answering, as I doubt you have a cogent answer, and am left wondering what you hope to achieve by such ongoing obfuscation?

This statement is true to form. You evade everything by mantras that I have come to be accustomed to. It says so much about the weakness of your position

 

[Kenny]

No, but then I never suggested you did. Here is your post again then for clarity:

So one more time then, can you explain what you used to determine this? Since if it is higher than human reasoning, using human reasoning to establish this would not be possible, or if it was possible then your claim would be demonstrably false, as human reasoning would in fact be capable of understanding and achieving that level of morality?

Ok... so it should have read YOUR human reasoning I never said I was perfect. Just that you were wrong in your position