Abortion only for rape, insest, and life of the mother.

[Alceste]

No where in the OP does it mention religion. It is refering to the legal side of rape and abortion.

It's understandable confusion, though, since there are no reasons other than religious ones to argue that an insensate blob of cells is fully human, and should enjoy a greater allotment of rights and privileges than born people, such as the right to use another persons body for survival.

 

[Me Myself]

The only one with a birth certificate and social security number is a newborn infant.
A newborn infant is also the only one of the three (infant, fetus and dog) who will also receive an official death certificate. Obviously the law recognizes and records the personhood of a newborn infant in the very same way it recognizes that person's continuing personhood up through the time of their death. Legal recognition of personhood into society is met only by the infant.

I´d argue with you but I don´t know what you think it´s the relevance of what you re saying. I think you still haven´t got the point yet, and by now it is not hard

Or 3: social convention. Yes, we value babies,but it seems to me that you're looking for a reason why we *should* value babies. Maybe there isn't one.

Morality is based on social convention. Murder not being okay is based on social convention. The need for equality between races and sexes is based on social convention.

So sure, by this, it is a subjective decision, and social convention will rule about it. I certainly hope it rules in favor of the value of human life.

Or 4: we identify more with a baby than with a dog.

That´s pretty much a follow up to the one before, in the sense that it would be based on social convention. A dog is closer to our refined abilities than a newborn baby. The difference is that we were all babies once, and we were all fetuses once.

Or 5: a baby is something that will progress over time to have more capability than a dog, but this transition will happen at a different place for everyone, so they pick birth as a "safe" lower limit.

I think by 3 years or lower, but it will take a good bunch of years after the newbornishness.

 

[Storm]

Morality is based on social convention.

Actually, morality is not based on social convention alone. For most people, compassion plays a pretty big role, as does logic and necessity.

 

[Me Myself]

It's understandable confusion, though, since there are no reasons other than religious ones to argue that an insensate blob of cells is fully human, and should enjoy a greater allotment of rights and privileges than born people, such as the right to use another persons body for survival.

I have no religion and I say killing a innocent human being for personal discomfort is not reasonable

 

[Storm]

I have no religion and I say killing a innocent human being for personal discomfort is not reasonable

You may not have an organized religion, but you've taken numerous religious stances, which render this comment disengenuous at best.

 

[Me Myself]

Actually, morality is not based on social convention alone. For most people, compassion plays a pretty big role, as does logic and necessity.

Social convention has to do with all those things. Naturally, not everyone has the same morals.

 

[Me Myself]

You may not have an organized religion, but you've taken numerous religious stances, which render this comment disengenuous at best.

"""religious""" stances??? What the heck is that supposed to mean?

 

[Storm]

Social convention has to do with all those things. Naturally, not everyone has the same morals.

I didn't say it was unrelated, I said it wasn't the only source.

 

[Storm]

"""religious""" stances??? What the heck is that supposed to mean?

Well, gee, you believe that the doctrine of Hell is inspired by demons, and have repeatedly insisted on it.

 

[Me Myself]

I didn't say it was unrelated, I said it wasn't the only source.

The thing is that compassion+logic+personal experience = personal moral

and personal moral 1+ persona moral 2+personal moral 3 = social convention about morality.

So when I said it was based in social convention I was talking about the sum of individual moralities. You are describing of what this individual moralities are made.

In other words, all that you describe is in a way included on social convention. We are diverting from the thread now though.

 

[Me Myself]

Well, gee, you believe that the doctrine of Hell is inspired by demons, and have repeatedly insisted on it.

o.0 but that has nothing to do with religion.

You mean non-materialistic stances?

 

[Storm]

The thing is that compassion+logic+personal experience = personal moral

and personal moral 1+ persona moral 2+personal moral 3 = social convention about morality.

So when I said it was based in social convention I was talking about the sum of individual moralities. You are describing of what this individual moralities are made.

In other words, all that you describe is in a way included on social convention. We are diverting from the thread now though.

That totally contradicts your original argument that social convention is the source of individual morality.

 

[Storm]

o.0 but that has nothing to do with religion.

Of course it does.

You mean non-materialistic stances?

No, I mean exactly what I said: religious stances.

 

[Me Myself]

Of course it does.


No, I mean exactly what I said: religious stances.

religion Pronunciation: /rɪˈlɪdʒ(&#601n/

Definition of religion
noun
[mass noun]
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:
ideas about the relationship between science and religion

My stance on abortion has nothing to do with the worship of anything

It has to do with my morals. Which are not set by any religion but by myself.

 

[Storm]

religion Pronunciation: /rɪˈlɪdʒ(&#601n/

Definition of religion
noun
[mass noun]
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:
ideas about the relationship between science and religion

My stance on abortion has nothing to do with the worship of anything

It has to do with my morals. Which are not set by any religion but by myself.

1) I wasn't actually referring to your stance on abortion, but the isolated claim of "I have no religion.
2) I deliberately distinguished between having an organized religious affiliation and individual religious opinions.
3) Belief in demons is a religious stance, not a component of individual morality.

ETA: When are you going to stop trying to one up me in usage of my native language? I would have thought the debacle over the word "comparable" would have taught you more.

 

[Me Myself]

1) I wasn't actually referring to your stance on abortion, but the isolated claim of "I have no religion.
2) I deliberately distinguished between having an organized religious affiliation and individual religious opinions.
3) Belief in demons is a religious stance, not a component of individual morality.

This is another discussion altogether. but I´ll answer all of these for a last time here:

1- I have no religion
2-I must admit the definition of Oxford is weird on this one. Given such definition, Buddhism is no religion.
3-The most ample definition of religion ends up being "set of beliefs", in that sense, we are all "religious" because we all have a set of beliefs. When I say I have no religion, I mean I do not depend on the deliverance of any institution to decide my beliefs. I have no unquestionable text.

Though the answers clearly show this is a subject wide enough to be debated in another thread, if you wish to make one asking what is religion or whatever, by all means put a link here and I´ll be there. If not, this is just way past it´s relevance here.

 

[Me Myself]

ETA: When are you going to stop trying to one up me in usage of my native language? I would have thought the debacle over the word "comparable" would have taught you more.

I am using the Oxford comparable is the same exact word in spanish. It is even written exactly the same, and the dictionary was on my side with the definition IT said comparing means evaluating differences and similarities and it said comparable meant you could compare, so

 

[Me Myself]

That totally contradicts your original argument that social convention is the source of individual morality.

1- I never said individual morality

2- My argument? I was following up on Penguin

 

[Storm]

This is another discussion altogether. but I´ll answer all of these for a last time here:

1- I have no religion
2-I must admit the definition of Oxford is weird on this one. Given such definition, Buddhism is no religion.
3-The most ample definition of religion ends up being "set of beliefs", in that sense, we are all "religious" because we all have a set of beliefs. When I say I have no religion, I mean I do not depend on the deliverance of any institution to decide my beliefs. I have no unquestionable text.

Though the answers clearly show this is a subject wide enough to be debated in another thread, if you wish to make one asking what is religion or whatever, by all means put a link here and I´ll be there. If not, this is just way past it´s relevance here.

If it was irrelevant, you shouldn't have tried to use it to bolster your credibility.

Also, again, there is more to usage than dictionary definitions, especially when you limit yourself to a single source.

I am using the Oxford comparable is the same exact word in spanish. It is even written exactly the same, and the dictionary was on my side with the definition IT said comparing means evaluating differences and similarities and it said comparable meant you could compare, so

1) The dictionary completely contradicted you in that instance, which is probably why you never got around to citing it.
2) Either it's not the same word in Spanish, or you're wrong in Spanish, too. I don't know which, but I wouldn't presume to correct a native speaker, especially when all it takes is a single dictionary entry to prove me wrong.

 

[Storm]

1- I never said individual morality

2- My argument? I was following up on Penguin

1) My point stands with or without the qualifier "individual."
2) You were attempting to argue with Penguin, so yeah.