re: 2023 March For Life (Edit: Pics Added!)

quote:

---

March For Life

---

Went a few years ago when Trump spoke. Whole thing was amazing experience. I have a 7th grader, and we will definitely go back when she's in HS

quote:

---

Ah ok so before Russia invaded Ukraine you were all for tax dollars going to women who needed help, not calling them welfare queens etc?

---

…says the dude who wants to murder the babies because of the cost.

Love it! I have brought mine to several large events like this as well in DC. 3 little ones with their signs…. All of them are solid America First conservatives.

Great job, dad!

quote:

---

A woman who is pregnant is described as being "with child". Game, set, match

---

According to Hank, only extremists do that.

wow, thank God those attending were not aborted. It is too bad the people who love abortion are too old to be aborted.

quote:

---

Cool. Are y’all marching for massive tax increases to pay for all the new babies too?

---

How about a trade off?

We swap the lives of helpless fetuses for the lives of ALL criminals in jail and prison?

The money we can save not having to feed and house animals, along with not having to pay the salaries of the employees at the jails/prisons, will offset the cost of allowing a helpless fetus to live.

How does that sound?

quote:

---

There are objective societal metrics for which a sound argument can be made that abortion has a detrimental impact on.

---

That's a matter of perspective. Metrics are metrics, but for one, your position assumes that what is "best" (the proper standard for moral judgement) is what is "best" for society, but then what is considered "best" for society is up to interpretation. Once you've settled on a subjective moral standard (pragmatism/utilitarianism), and then agreed upon which aspects of that standard are most appropriate (happiness, longevity, painlessness, etc.), then you can use metrics (which you call "objective") to determine what is helpful and detrimental, but only after you've picked that standard and the key performance indicators that you prefer most.

That's why I keep saying that such standards are arbitrary and ultimately meaningless outside of subjective experience. The standard that utility is the best course is a subjective and arbitrary standard, and the KPIs that determine what is most useful are subjective and arbitrary.

You can make a utilitarian argument that abortion is a societal good by making the argument some in this thread have made: abortion may reduce suffering in the form of a reduction in poverty (or at least mitigating it) and crime (based on cultures with single parent households). You could also add to that the argument that expanding abortion, like China's 2-child policy, is a net positive to society by ensuring that scarce resources are protected over time by mitigating depletion from overpopulation. Those who support population control make the same argument from utility.

quote:

---

Now if you want to take on the position that “well how can we say X is bad for society without God” then fine, you do you.

---

I do say this, because when you deny an objective source for moral reasoning, you are left with utter subjectivity, which removes true meaning from moral reasoning. People are very passionate about what they perceive to be moral issues, yet without the biblical God, such passion is relegated to nothing more than personal preference. It'd be like organizing marches and boycotts to pressure the government or businesses to support the color red while denouncing all other colors, because a lot of people believe it to be the best color. It seems silly, but that's philosophically what is happening with morality when you remove God from the equation.

quote:

---

But in the real world where humans on a macro level have fundamental desires built into our genetics that allow for base principle discussions apart from god, it’s a legitimate conversation.

---

Which fundamental desires are objectively best? Not everyone's fundamental desires are the same, or equally the same where they are aligned. People have different preferences, different opinions, different beliefs, different responses to stimuli, and different levels of concern amongst those things which they may find agreement. How do you determine what is "best" when people are so different? Majority rule? And why is representing fundamental desires built into genetics the desirable way forward anyway?

quote:

---

The mind that can see no path to meaning apart from a supernatural creature is simply a small mind.

---

Spoken like someone who hasn't investigated his own presuppositions.