First, answer my questions, please.
Now, my starting premise is that, in the absense of a demonstrable God or a demonstrable deontological moral argument, right and wrong is rooted in dasein; and that individuals can provide reasonable arguments from both sides of any particular issue merely by making certain assumptions about what is true or false. You seem to be arguing that your own rendition of what constitutes prenatal human life is true objectively. And, therefore, anyone who obtains/performs an abortion after the 22nd week, is necessarily behaving immorally. Why? Because you insist that science has established that after the 22nd week, the fetus become a human being.
You know, objectively.
By the way, did you read my link or not? Is that not science?
…when it comes to morality, then you become paralyzed. You can’t reason about morality. Nobody can be wrong.
Yes, I have acknowledged any number of times that, when it comes to morality, I am entangled in this:
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
What I am interested in from folks like you then are arguments that show this is not a reasonable point of view. And I agree it would not be if it could be established that a particular omniscient/omnipotent God does in fact exist. Or if, philosophically, a deontological argument can be established such that the conflicting goods rooted in abortion dissolve and all rational men and women are able to discern their one true moral obligation when confronted with any particular abortion.
You seem to argue that both are within our grasp. But, in my opinion, you do not demonstrate why others should share your point of view.
Do you even think through what you are proposing?
There is no necessary right and wrong … but when I present an argument, then I am ‘not thinking it through’, I am an idiot and I am wrong.
When have I resorted to name-calling in discussing these relationships with you? Sure, sometimes I don my polemicist persona and push folks really hard. But I almost never resort to the sort of declamatory rhetoric the KTS crowd is famous for. Well, sans the occasional really shitty mood.
Oh, and by the way, as I have asked you time and time again, how do you integrate your moral “objectivism” here with your belief in God?
You can’t discuss it sans God. Adding God to the mix would just add useless complications.
I’m back to this: Huh?
Do you believe in the Christian God or not? And, if you do, how, as a Christian, do you address the question of abortion as it pertains to your argument above and as it pertains to Judgment Day. God either provides the faithful with an obligatory moral agenda re abortion or any particular Christian is able to rationalize it so as to embrace either pro or anti choice political factions. And that would seem to make a mockery of Judgment Day.