NationStates

Godular wrote:

Antityranicals wrote:Will you admit that you don't hold to an objective standard of conduct?

No objective standard of conduct exists.

Excellent. How about this: If, at some time in the future, a majority of people were to hold that abortion is murder no matter what, would you support them banning it outright?

Kowani wrote:

Greater Kongo-Zaire wrote:Outright ban, without exception. If it’s rape, punish the rapist, don’t slaghter the innocent. If the mother dies, the rapist is the murderer, not the child. Murdering children is never justifiable, and especially not because people wanna do whatever they wanna do without consequences coming back to bite. Time to end irresponsibility.

Imagine thinking this would prevent abortion in any way, shape or form.

It would prevent the vast majority, and likely the most inexcusable ones, which are done just because the mother "feels like it".

Antityranicals wrote:

Kowani wrote:Imagine thinking this would prevent abortion in any way, shape or form.

It would prevent the vast majority, and likely the most inexcusable ones, which are done just because the mother "feels like it".

Cite both of those claims.

Godular wrote:

Greater Kongo-Zaire wrote:Outright ban, without exception. If it’s rape, punish the rapist, don’t slaghter the innocent.

Innocence is irrelevant.

If the mother dies, the rapist is the murderer, not the child. Murdering children is never justifiable, and especially not because people wanna do whatever they wanna do without consequences coming back to bite. Time to end irresponsibility.

Getting an abortion IS taking responsibility, whether you like it or not.

Not any more than killing a child is taking responsibility for him or her.

Antityranicals wrote:

Kowani wrote:Imagine thinking this would prevent abortion in any way, shape or form.

It would prevent the vast majority, and likely the most inexcusable ones, which are done just because the mother "feels like it".

Nature will always get rid of excess population in one way or another. Birth control, abortion, infanticide, cannibalism, war death, murder, starvation, diseases.

Hence of course the moralistic left (feminists) and the moralistic right (Christians) are both wrong as nature requires blood.

Kowani wrote:

Antityranicals wrote:It would prevent the vast majority, and likely the most inexcusable ones, which are done just because the mother "feels like it".

Cite both of those claims.

Cite yours. It's common sense that if something is illegal, than less people will do it, especially less people who are just getting an abortion because they don't want a child at the time.

Neko-koku wrote:

Antityranicals wrote:It would prevent the vast majority, and likely the most inexcusable ones, which are done just because the mother "feels like it".

Nature will always get rid of excess population in one way or another. Birth control, abortion, infanticide, cannibalism, war death, murder, starvation, diseases.

Hence of course the moralistic left (feminists) and the moralistic right (Christians) are both wrong as nature requires blood.

We are nowhere near excess population on this planet.

Antityranicals wrote:

Neko-koku wrote:
Nature will always get rid of excess population in one way or another. Birth control, abortion, infanticide, cannibalism, war death, murder, starvation, diseases.

Hence of course the moralistic left (feminists) and the moralistic right (Christians) are both wrong as nature requires blood.

We are nowhere near excess population on this planet.

Nature demands death. Period. It has to come in one way or another unless people become really good at contraception.

Neko-koku wrote:

Antityranicals wrote:We are nowhere near excess population on this planet.

Nature demands death. Period.

And humanity fights nature. Over the last few centuries, we have been winning.

Antityranicals wrote:

Godular wrote:
No objective standard of conduct exists.

Excellent. How about this: If, at some time in the future, a majority of people were to hold that abortion is murder no matter what, would you support them banning it outright?

Whether I support them banning it outright or not is functionally irrelevant. If the population in that area were to believe such a thing, there would be little that I could do to stop them. In such a situation, I'd endeavor to ensure that my position remains achieved in a mutually workable manner.

We've only been putting forward that option several bajillion times throughout this thread and its past iterations.

Antityranicals wrote:

Neko-koku wrote:Nature demands death. Period.

And humanity fights nature. Over the last few centuries, we have been winning.

Morality of either the "leftie" or the "rightie" kind is of course a liability in fighting.

Godular wrote:

Antityranicals wrote:Excellent. How about this: If, at some time in the future, a majority of people were to hold that abortion is murder no matter what, would you support them banning it outright?

Whether I support them banning it outright or not is functionally irrelevant. If the population in that area were to believe such a thing, there would be little that I could do to stop them. In such a situation, I'd endeavor to ensure that my position remains achieved in a mutually workable manner.

We've only been putting forward that option several bajillion times throughout this thread and its past iterations.

Alright, so you are amoral, because you wouldn't hold to the will of the people, which you call morality.

Antityranicals wrote:

Godular wrote:
Innocence is irrelevant.



Getting an abortion IS taking responsibility, whether you like it or not.

Not any more than killing a child is taking responsibility for him or her.

Incorrect. I would say that killing a child is not at all similar to terminating a pregnancy, primarily due to certain neurological considerations.

Antityranicals wrote:

Kowani wrote:Cite both of those claims.

Cite yours. It's common sense that if something is illegal, than less people will do it, especially less people who are just getting an abortion because they don't want a child at the time.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna858476
This “common sense” is what got us Prohibition.

Now. Cite those claims.

Antityranicals wrote:

Neko-koku wrote:Nature demands death. Period.

And humanity fights nature. Over the last few centuries, we have been winning.

It's fine to ban abortion and infanticide...if we deliberately allow enough kids to die due to diseases or starvation. Letting everyone live is in fact almost communism-like. This is unsustainable unless we get much better tech.

Neko-koku wrote:

Antityranicals wrote:And humanity fights nature. Over the last few centuries, we have been winning.

Morality of either the "leftie" or the "rightie" kind is of course a liability in fighting.

I can see the "leftie" morality and the socialistic tendencies which come with it as a liability, but what's wrong with so-called "rightie" morality?

Neko-koku wrote:

Antityranicals wrote:And humanity fights nature. Over the last few centuries, we have been winning.

It's fine to ban abortion and infanticide...if we deliberately allow enough kids to die due to diseases or starvation.

But that's giving in and paying tribute to the nature which we are fighting.

Godular wrote:

Ayytaly wrote:
That same logic applies to Hitler blaming Jews for Germany's loss in WW1. But hey, as long as his lies motivated people into industrializing cars and build giant furnaces to push Untermensch in, then it was all worth it.

Ding ding ding we have a Godwinner!

Well Hitler is the finest example to your argument. No need to be sarcastic, chap.

Neko-koku wrote:Nature will always get rid of excess population in one way or another. Birth control, abortion, infanticide, cannibalism, war death, murder, starvation, diseases.

Hence of course the moralistic left (feminists) and the moralistic right (Christians) are both wrong as nature requires blood.

Edgy

Antityranicals wrote:

Neko-koku wrote:Morality of either the "leftie" or the "rightie" kind is of course a liability in fighting.

I can see the "leftie" morality and the socialistic tendencies which come with it as a liability, but what's wrong with so-called "rightie" morality?

You guys allow a lot of really underperforming people to be born and try to prevent them from dying when they can't contribute much to the world. That's just socialism with another name.

Antityranicals wrote:

Neko-koku wrote:It's fine to ban abortion and infanticide...if we deliberately allow enough kids to die due to diseases or starvation.

But that's giving in and paying tribute to the nature which we are fighting.

Right. So if you want to ban abortion and infanticide AND not have these things you should support voluntary sterilization, contraception and genetic editing.

Antityranicals wrote:

Godular wrote:
Whether I support them banning it outright or not is functionally irrelevant. If the population in that area were to believe such a thing, there would be little that I could do to stop them. In such a situation, I'd endeavor to ensure that my position remains achieved in a mutually workable manner.

We've only been putting forward that option several bajillion times throughout this thread and its past iterations.

Alright, so you are amoral, because you wouldn't hold to the will of the people, which you call morality.

If the 'moral majority' were to decide that killing my specific ethnicity was morally good, I would have no choice but to fight or flee. This does not preclude them from being 'moral'. Their morals might be bugfuck nuts, but they are still morals.

Neko-koku wrote:

Antityranicals wrote:I can see the "leftie" morality and the socialistic tendencies which come with it as a liability, but what's wrong with so-called "rightie" morality?

You guys allow a lot of really underperforming people to be born and try to prevent them from dying when they can't contribute much to the world. That's just socialism with another name.

And just how exactly do you know who is going to be "underperforming"? Rather than arbitrarily deciding before anyone could have any idea who will be the winners and the losers, let the market choose. If someone can't feed himself or get anyone to voluntarily feed him, than nature says he will die, no murder about it.

Godular wrote:

Antityranicals wrote:Alright, so you are amoral, because you wouldn't hold to the will of the people, which you call morality.

If the 'moral majority' were to decide that killing my specific ethnicity was morally good, I would have no choice but to fight or flee. This does not preclude them from being 'moral'. Their morals might be bugfuck nuts, but they are still morals.

But you are therefore not moral.

Antityranicals wrote:

Neko-koku wrote:You guys allow a lot of really underperforming people to be born and try to prevent them from dying when they can't contribute much to the world. That's just socialism with another name.

And just how exactly do you know who is going to be "underperforming"? Rather than arbitrarily deciding before anyone could have any idea who will be the winners and the losers, let the market choose. If someone can't feed himself or get anyone to voluntarily feed him, than nature says he will die, no murder about it.

No problem..so you are essentially saying that charity is morally wrong, right? That's also a consistent stance.

Ayytaly wrote:

Godular wrote:
Ding ding ding we have a Godwinner!

Well Hitler is the finest example to your argument. No need to be sarcastic, chap.

No, he really isn't. Your point was kinda bullshit in the first place.