- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
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.
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.
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.