What does "right or wrong objectively speaking." mean?
It means that right and wrong are not subjective; right and wrong do not depend on one's feelings, anymore than the color of the sky or the laws of science depend on one's subjective feelings.
The reason, for example, I reject racism and slavery is because they are objectively speaking---wrong and evil. From an evolutionary perspective, it may well be that a society that tolerates racism or slavery would be one that would not survive. Fine, whatever. That is all well and good. But the reason to reject racism and slavery--is not just because from an evolutionary perspective it is bad for society, but because they are evil.
There is no moral right or wrong objectively speaking, since moral right or wrong is subjective.
Yes--and the problem is that moral relativists like yourself claim this but behave as though there are objective truths--ALWAYS. Look at how you responded to me when I called someone who has an abortion a murderer. Your response suggests----that you think I am morally wrong for sitting in judgement of someone. But if I take you at your word, namely that moral right and wrong is subjective, you have no more right to judge me for calling murder, murder, than I have to sit in judgement of you for supporting a woman's "right" to commit infanticide.
In fact----you behave as though a woman's "right" to "sovereignty" over her body---is an objective truth that must be respected by all. Your comments suggest this, despite you wanting to claim there is no moral objective truth. If there is no moral truth--then on what basis do you demand that I recognize a woman's right to "choose" anything, let alone abortion?
The only place right or wrong objectively speaking can be determined is within the law. The law that you are determined to change since you don't agree with it. Right or wrong objectively speaking is fine by me, since objectively speaking, you are wrong.
Says the moral relativist.
You cannot be less guilty, than not guilty at all. Any guilt felt by a woman after an abortion is entirely subjective. You or I certainly have no right to heap guilt upon her.
Says the relativist. On what basis, of there is no moral truth, do you make this assertion?
No human being is murdered in a legal abortion. No innocent human being is killed in an abortion. You can relax.
You are the one that needs to relax champ. You are the one claiming that there is no moral truth. That being the case, what difference does it make to you if I sit in judgement of women who seek out murderers for hire for their unborn children?
Same word, different meaning. It happens a lot in English. Context is all. I have explained the context in which I used the term. If you cannot disconnect it from an entirely different context then that's your problem not mine.
We do not call human beings parasites whether they are dependent on someone else for life or not. You do not use that word for any other human being. Why use it for an unborn human being? Why? Because it allows you to continue to believe that the unborn human being--is not a human being.
No it isnt. Indeed if you took active steps to prevent an abortion similar to those you might take to prevent an actual murder, then you are the one liable to arrest and prosecution, not her. It is none of your business.
Says the relativist. Since we all get to determine our own moral truth, I will decide for myself what is or is not my business, Mr. Relativist.
That's what you are doing. I'm merely following your lead. You cannot claim ignorance. We have discussed this enough. If you are not capable of using words correctly, that's not my problem. Words matter in this context. You won't be taken seriously if you use language so loosely.
Words do mean things. On that we agree. A parasite is a parasite, a human being, a human being. Dependency does not reduce one's personhood.
I have never understood why your SCOTUS, or indeed any judges are political appointments.
Our founders desired that the federal court system be insulated from politics. They felt that if we elected federal judges, they might issue rulings based on wanting to keep their jobs and get re-elected rather than on what the law says. There is merit to this thinking. The drawback is our federal judges are not accountable to anything. Knowing this, judges can rule based on political ideology rather than law--and they wind up becoming a super legislature. Thus--for example---when abortion supporters can't get abortion through the democratic process, they just have the SCOTUS create it out of nothing and hand it to them on a silver platter.
In my country, our Supreme Court judges are appointed by other judges. The whole judiciary is completely separate from the legislature.
In theory, that is how it is supposed to be in our country too. In practice, the judiciary has become another legislative branch--used---when people cannot get laws passed through the democratic process.
They are also incapable of making law, merely interpreting what law already exists.
In theory--that is how it is supposed to work here too. In practice---judges make law all the time--claiming they aren't making law. That is how our country got legal abortion. People could not get it through the democratic process. So--they just asked the SCOTUS to hand it to them and the SCOTUS by a vote of 7-2 willingly and happily complied.
But then we have no written constitution and no competing state legislation to consider either. I grant you that the situation in the US is convoluted, and from outside the laws on abortion appear to be a complete mess, with politicians unwilling to grasp the nettle of reform. That is forcing you to use court judgements to tweak an already bent and twisted law. Perhaps the answer is to elect a different kind of politician. Not that it is my place to make suggestions.
The process is entirely different here. Convoluted--is correct. The founders were terribly afraid of monarchy. Thus, they created a system where powers of the federal government and the state governments, and even the local governments are divided. This allows for the principle of self-governance--but is horribly inefficient when reform is needed.
So you say. I say different. And I have the evidence that the law agrees with me. What evidence do you have to back up your feelings?
That is like asking me "What evidence other than the sky being blue do you have for the sky being blue?" Some things are self-evident. If you have to ask "What evidence do you have that the sky is blue" there is no evidence I can present. It is self-evident. Abortion is the same way. It si self evident that a foetus is a human being. Asking me to prove this is like asking me to prove that 2+2=4.
And you accuse me of semantics? You are trying to use word to have more than one meaning at the same time. That's why I use the term person, rather than human being, since human being is ambiguous. Conflating two concepts into one through linguistics is well described in the novel 1984. Have you read it?
1984? Yeah---that is where Marty McFly goes back in time in a De-Lorian, right?
I am aware of the novel 1984.
We are discussing abortion which explicitly does not kill people.
Yes it does. It kills the foetus. The foetus is a human person, therefore abortion kills.
Legally, and in my personal opinion, morally, the foetus is not a person. You beg to differ, but you don't just get to announce this as a done deal. Show why, contrary to established law and the moral position of a great many people, the foetus should be regarded as a person. What, other than your feelings, have you got?
Because everything you have attempted to show--that is--the arbitrary definitions you come up with to define when a human being becomes a "person" when applied to born people, mean we get to murder them based on the same logic.
I cannot write more, the computer won't allow it.
