re: Is there a secular argument against abortions?

quote:

---

you missed the whole point of the OP which was absent moral objections decisions should be based on what would produce the best economic outcome.

---

Nowhere in the OP was that limitation stated.

quote:

---

your response was what i would expect from a person from such a culturally deprived and morally repugnant place as ohio.

---

quote:

---

Arkansas

---

In a secular world, what it always boils down to is what's moral for me; moral relativism. There cannot exist a universal moral imperative and thus the question arises whether it is "moral" to force anyone to act against their own moral standard.

I can understand one society agreeing on a particular arbitrary standard and enforcing within that society, but how can they justify imposing their standard on any other society? We see this today with countries getting involved with other nations who practice genocide, for instance, but who are we to judge another society that chooses to live by a different moral standard?

We see this with Muslim culture (Sharia law) and how they seem rather barbaric in how they treat women, gays, and those who criticize Muhammad, but again, what universal standard can we use to judge them as "wrong" in a secular worldview? There is none. It's just a matter of the strong imposing their subjective standard on weak(er).

The golden rule is pretty good, but how does it hold up when you are dealing with a masochist, for example? The masochist enjoys having pain infllicted upon themselves, so should they inflict pain into others?


Kind of a ridiculous counter example; but a good illustration on the shortcomings of claiming one moral scheme is absolutely true in all circumstances.

Cultures that place high value on life are desirable.

quote:

---

Is there a secular argument against abortions?

---

Of course.

The state.

The moral obligations of the state.

To care for and provide...regardless of circumstances (such as being unborn). That's what the State tells us in every other secular helpless situation. We have a duty to protect and to provide.

From dog to cat to horse...and it's not religious...its morality sans religion.

It's called this rare thing...

Human.

Cultures that place high value on life are desirable.


That is a great point and one that I missed. That actually might be the most important secular point in favor of pro-life policy.

My own experience in the Middle East in a culture that quite clearly does not value human life like Western culture was disastrous. The place was truly sick.

The balance to that is that cultures that place a high value on women's rights (seriously - there is an almost 1:1 correlation between female empowerment and median income and general welfare) are also highly desirable.

It's a balancing act for sure.

quote:

---

i disagree

Frankly. Something as simple as the golden rule is easily defensible even if we don't believe God taught it

---

What motivation is there for me to "do unto others" if I'm stronger than they are and I can do pretty much anything I want? What about if I'm not necessarily stronger but I know I can get away with doing harm to others if it benefits me, personally? When there are no consequences or the odds of negative consequences are low or are outweighed by the possible benefits, the golden rule goes out the window.

And even if we agree that most of the time the golden rule is really golden and useful, why should anyone abide by it if they don't want to or don't find it useful?

quote:

---

That's a natural part of the human condition

IE, The Nazis thought they were doing the right thing. So did Pol Pot

---

Those examples were what I had in mind, but again, what basis does anyone have to judge other nations or societies who hold to a different moral standard? The human condition doesn't cut it for me, since people aren't homogeneous and have different motivations and desires that express themselves in different ways, contrary to our definition of the human condition. Just because we can and often want to intervene and impose our standards on others doesn't speak to whether or not it is right to do so (by what standard are we judging rightness?)

quote:

---

Certainly some truth to this. But not sure how relevant

---

This is really the only thing that is relevant, in my opinion, since "might makes right" is the only way to enforce one moral standard on anyone else and above any other standards. If everyone in a society can't come to consensus on what is "right", someone has to win out. That is always going to be the strongest, whether that be an individual or a majority that overpowers the minority. Might makes right is what all moral standards boil down to since it is the mighty that makes the rules. That even holds true for religion, as God is the strongest and can impose His law (moral standard) on people as He wishes and judge all people by it, because He is all powerful.

quote:

---

That may have originally true but I'm pretty sure that upscale retail areas have codes which pretty much relegate PPs to the hood now

---

Who do you suppose writes and then votes in those codes?

quote:

---

And even if we agree that most of the time the golden rule is really golden and useful, why should anyone abide by it if they don't want to or don't find it useful?

---

Because it isn't a singular pivot point for how we treat others in a society.

quote:

---

That even holds true for religion, as God is the strongest and can impose His law (moral standard) on people as He wishes and judge all people by it, because He is all powerful.

---

Your god cannot impose anything on anyone. I mean sure, you believe that and it's effective to you, but billions of people around the world don't and that makes it relatively useless for anything absolute.

quote:

---

It holds up very well in a society where masochism is a rarity.

---

While correct, don't miss my only point with that absurd example that there is no perfect, absolute moral scheme in this world.

I'd guess a more palatable counter example would be that we don't have the ability all the time to know how other people would like to be treated. Maybe due to culture differences or something of the sort. In those instances the ways we would like to be treated do not necesseraily coincide with the ways others would like to be treated.