Shifting the burden of proof. You made a claim, demonstrate it or be prepared to have your claim dismissed out of hand. It's not up to anyone else to disprove.

I've already told you:

Or because it was incoherent babble. Don't present false dichotomies, it makes you sound like more an idiot than you are.

Perhaps I was wrong about that last part, you are just that much of an idiot.

All you selfish proabortion liberals care about is self.

Obviously not, since I'm a man it has no direct effect on me.

The government has the right to prevent murder

If it's legal it isn't murder.

I favor the forced sterilization of all proaborts over the age of 20

20? Why 20? So arbitrary. Apart from that fact it's immoral. I'm not even going to get into why forced sterilization is immoral, it should be self evident

If it isn't then you're a lost cause.

There's more rights than just the right to life you monotonous cretin. I bet you don't even have a solid foundation for morality with which to make these claims that you do. You won't have even thought about.

And avoid stepping on Ants, because they are alive as well. Don't swat flies. Don't take antibiotics, those bacteria are alive as well.

I'm afraid the argument based entirely on not ending a life applies to the above as well. It's the morals behind why the ending of a human life is wrong that need to be examined, not the ending of the life itself.

Except they might want to have children. You conflate believing in the right to abortion with the act itself. For instance I believe in the right to abortion, but being a man it's not a procedure I will ever have done.

There also not children. They are fetuses. It also wouldn't be murder were it legal, as it wouldn't be unlawful.

This from someone who thinks that pro abortion women should have their tubes removed? In what way is that not abusing someones rights?

May I ask why negative experience matters in this context but positive experience doesn't? In fact, can I ask why negative experience matters at all?

I assume you're referring to suffering. From my perspective the act is amoral, it has nothing to do with right or wrong.

If I was a Christian I would expect my God to expect me to save the drowning child. That's how I'd resolve such an issue and I wouldn't expect Christians to leave drowning children in the belief that it was God's will (not that I'm saying it has never happened).

As would I. That's why I don't believe that anyone can legitimately hold the view that seemingly evil acts are the will of God for the purpose of some adequately compensating good.

A reduction in suffering is a net positive effect on a conscious entity, as is an increase in pleasant experience. I feel a focus on merely one side: the negative side, wouldn't be conducive to a holistic view of the effects an action can have on conscious entities.

I feel it's an easier metric to work with, but it still isn't perfect, in the context of morality. For instance If i were to give a child a balloon, that would be a positive experience for them, but I wouldn't consider it to be a moral act. It's a nice thing to do, but moral? I'm not sure it is.

The same could be said of a film that lots of people enjoy. That's a lot of positive experiences, but again I wouldn't say the act of making the film is moral. It could work the other way, if lots of people disliked it I wouldn't consider it an immoral act.

I'm not even confident that suffering is a good metric to be honest. I do think it's less subjective though.

We can make moral evaluations, however we need to be aware that our evaluations are based on incomplete information and thus are flawed.

I suppose it depends on your basis. My basis is subjective, but I am able to make objective moral evaluations from that framework.

If you believe every event is the will of God and that will of God is good, then this may necessitate inaction, however what if God isn't immediately responsible for every single event? In the case of supposed biblical acts of God, we are assuming that these acts actually are the proximate result of God's action. While this is an unjustified assumption, we assume it because of the context of the debate. I wouldn't assume God was responsible for a random encounter with a dying child, though even if I did, perhaps the reason I encountered them was so that I would save the child? Apologies if you weren't making the point that I'm refuting here.

It actually only highlights the point I was making, which was the uncertainty involved in holding such a view and making moral evaluations. The fact there is an ambiguity between a child drowning is God's will or perhaps me finding the drowning child was God's will results in muddying the waters in what one would hope is a fairly intuitive decision.

If you're talking about the fact that I am unaware of the ultimate effect that saving that child's life will have, on average it will be a good thing to save a drowning child. This is because I'm assuming humans overall are morally neutral, which may be incorrect but let's not complicate things further. The effect, on average, that a child will have on others is neutral and thus can be ignored. We look then not to the ultimate effect of saving the child to guide our action but to the proximate positive effect of saving a child from drowning. While we cannot know the actual result of our action, we can know in this way if our action will on average produce a net positive or negative effect on conscious experience.

I agree, you have to make a decision in the now. I prefer to consider morality in terms of suffering rather than positive effect, I feel it's less liminal. Acts that work against the increase of net suffering are moral, acts that increase net suffering are immoral. Perhaps it's my pessimistic nature.

Sure, but firstly that doesn't always work. Secondly, most people are idiots. Society is full of them and for the most part it's run by them as well. As a practical necessity we have stop measures in place so that stupid decisions don't effect individuals in the long term. Is it ideal? No, of course not. But just because someone is an idiot doesn't mean they should lose their fundamental rights.

As an example, here in the UK it is the law to wear a helmet when riding a bike. Now to anyone with sensible head on their shoulders this seems intuitively a good idea. If you're going to be riding a vehicle that offers no protection itself on a road with cars moving at high speed, protect your brain. It's fairly important. But without the law people don't. Now you might say it's there own fault and their only hurting themselves, but it's societies duty to protect idiots from themselves or we shift to a Darwinian society, which works great for nature but it isn't a good principle to build a civilized society on.

And yet in another debate you made this proclomation:

 Sitar(3162) Clarified

1 point

Because the Bible says that murder is wrong.......................................................

5hrs ago Side: I agree.

So your subjectively applying your basis for morality. Is murder wrong or is it not?

So that's it? It' true because it hasn't been proven to be false? That's an argument from ignorance. If that your reason for belief then your basis for morality is founded on invalid logic.

How do you know the bible is the word of God?............

Yes I do think mothers should be forced to choose life

If they're forced they aren't choosing at all. Why should the state be able to legislate that one persons right to life takes precedence of another persons bodily rights. It's no different than forcing somebody to give someone else a kidney.

and I think proabortion women should be forced to have their tubes removed.

Based on something they might not have even done yet? If you truly believe this then your immoral, and no amount of appeal to an external force is going to change that.

What does anyone gain from the death of a criminal? That's what you need to ask yourself.

Why should we care what the bible says?....................

Let's discuss the morality of it. Why, in your view, is it wrong to kill another human being?

Yet another person who doesn't understand rights. Force women to have their tubes tide? That's completely asinine and contravenes bodily rights.

Please demonstrate how reproductive rights are in fact not rights at all.

Elective abortion should be legal up to 24 weeks, and then after only in special circumstances. The fetus cannot feel pain before 27 weeks and as it hasn't been born there won't be any suffering to friends and family. You would have a hard time saying it is morally wrong in the absence of suffering.

Except I haven't denied Gods existence. You have real difficulty with this don't you? If I don't believe in X it doesn't mean I think X is false. It's quite simple

You clearly stated you don't know what I'm talking about, so you must be closed minded beyond hope or mentally disabled, or both.

Or because it was incoherent babble. Don't present false dichotomies, it makes you sound like more an idiot than you are.

 I told you in my debate, a woman has the right of life over her body.

The right to life and bodily rights are two separate things. In fact body rights is an umbrella term that contains many different rights.

The baby should also have the right of life over it's body unless it is a life of mother exception. We do allow the mother a special right where her life supercedes the baby's life in rare cases where the life of mother is in jeapordy

But why do the rights of the child supersede that of the mother?

You said you are mentally challenged so you don't know what I"m talking about.

Please demonstrate where I said this.

A five year old can understand what I am talking about,

Very much your demographic.

Either somebody hit you on the head with a rock and broke your brain, or you used that rock to build a mental block wall, or you were born with your brain not functioning so you are kind of like an idiot savant, able to recite the names of types of logical fallacies but unable to understand the word "God".

A false dichotomy I'm afraid. You haven't defined God yet. Maybe you should.

Try this, maybe it will help you: Try to justify your life.

Justify my life? It's practically axiomatic. I have to be alive in order to be having this conversation. Cogito ergo sum. This of course you mean justify in the sense of prove it to be true.