EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

Which is more morally wrong ?

< Return to subforum
Page: 12Most Recent
admin
By admin | May 9 2015 1:17 PM
Blackflag: She doesn't have a son. She has an unborn child who might one day become a son. I think it's insanely stupid that our society can allow somebody to be forced to have children.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Blackflag
By Blackflag | May 9 2015 1:22 PM
admin: If what I am saying is "overtly compassionate," then society has shown some pathetic progress. Compassion is never mutually exclusive. In civil war, soldiers often hold compassion for those they are fighting. Yet they are fighting for a greater cause, and that is how they justify killing one they are compassionate for.

Kiling a fetus because you do not want to be bothered helping someone other than yourself for 9 months is greed. Pure greed is disgusting.
Blackflag
By Blackflag | May 9 2015 1:26 PM
admin: I think it is insanely stupid that our society can tolerate someone destroying the potential for a future son to have future happiness. I do not expect people to dedicate their whole lives to the future of one in dividual, but I do expect them to find at least one person who will. There is always someone out there who desperately wants to raise a son and provide him with the wonders and abundances of life.

I lived a beautiful existence. None of what I have would have ever came to be if I was aborted. Murder is disgusting because it robs people of their future. Murdering a fetus isn't an exception to the rule.
admin
By admin | May 9 2015 1:27 PM
Blackflag: Well maybe, but my key point is that it's ok to hold humans to a different standard. I don't think it's greedy. I think supporting that pregnancy abhorrent. If the mother dies in childbirth you'd call that a tragedy too. Having children must be a choice.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
admin
By admin | May 9 2015 1:28 PM
Blackflag: Just saying - my parents would never have met and I and my brother would never have been born if my mother didn't have an abortion when she was a teen.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Blackflag
By Blackflag | May 9 2015 1:33 PM
admin: You wouldn't be able to grasp how wrong that is. A human being holds no higher standard than another living creature. If that is not the case, then how about you explain why it is okay to value the life of a person with downs syndrome and that of a Mole.

If the mother dies in childbirth you'd call that a tragedy too. Having children must be a choice.
It already is a choice. That doesn't make one of the options any less wrong. Selflessness isn't about not caring about yourself, but doing so less than you would another person. If a mother dies in childbirth that is a tragedy. Tragedies are what they are because they resulted from a noble deed.

If a mother tried to have an abortion and died prematurely, that would be as much of a tragedy as a madman getting shot down before he could stab a little girl. Attempting to steal someones future isn't excusable.
Blackflag
By Blackflag | May 9 2015 1:35 PM
admin: The Christian bible claims that good things will come out of every sin. Does that make sin acceptable?
If WW2 never happened, there is a good chance that my parents would of never met in a paradox of a world. You do not support World War II, do you?
admin
By admin | May 9 2015 1:36 PM
Blackflag: If that is not the case, then how about you explain why it is okay to value the life of a person with downs syndrome and that of a Mole.
Because one is a human and the other isn't.

Tragedies are what they are because they resulted from a noble deed.
So you think the tragedy of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan means that Hiroshima were all doing noble deeds at the time?

that would be as much of a tragedy as a madman getting shot down before he could stab a little girl.
I disagree. On several levels, not least that a foetus is not yet a human and a little girl is.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
admin
By admin | May 9 2015 1:37 PM
Blackflag: Of course not. I also don't support every child that is born. I think more people should have abortions if they don't want more kids.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Blackflag
By Blackflag | May 9 2015 1:46 PM
Because one is a human and the other isn't.

Because one is a fallacy and the other isn't.

So you think the tragedy of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan means that Hiroshima were all doing noble deeds at the time?
To be more specific, a tragedy involves a high degree of sympathy for the victim. I would call the grand event of Hiroshima a tragedy as the majority of people who died could be sympathized with. Not every death was tragic though. Fallacies admin, try not to use them.

I disagree. On several levels, not least that a foetus is not yet a human and a little girl is.
Define a human

I disagree. On several levels, not least that a foetus is not yet a human and a little girl is.
Yet if neither life is interfered with, both the fetus and the little girl will go on to live happy lives, while experiencing the joy that is existence.
You are a hypocrite. It is wrong to kill a human who has had a taste of life, but it is okay to kill a human who is a week away from having a taste of life.

Disgusting fascism is what this is.

Of course not. I also don't support every child that is born. I think more people should have abortions if they don't want more kids.

Then do not keep the kid. How many people whom cannot have children would be willing to introduce a child to the wonders of life? How many people who sympathize with the unborn would be willing to take in someone elses kid in as their own?

The Redneck
By The Redneck | May 9 2015 7:20 PM
RXR.: somebody who murders twice is worse than somebody who murders once.
The Redneck
By The Redneck | May 9 2015 7:21 PM
admin: Yeah, but is it more moral to murder two ants or just one ant
nzlockie
By nzlockie | May 9 2015 7:28 PM
The Redneck: I don't think the number of times an immoral action is repeated affects the overall morality of the action, only the degree of impact.

If you believe that both actions are equally immoral then that's your answer.
Repeating an immoral action might make that person worse but it doesn't make them less moral.
Thumbs up from:
The Redneck
By The Redneck | May 9 2015 7:30 PM
nzlockie: That's actually a pretty smart response. I'm surprised. Tjanks
nzlockie
By nzlockie | May 9 2015 7:32 PM
The Redneck: Haha. No worries.
Hello
By Hello | May 10 2015 3:55 AM
I think it depends on the context and which definition of murder is being used. If the murderer was acting in self-defense where the homicide was justifiable, and the woman received the abortions only for revenge at her boyfriend, then the abortions seem more immoral.
But in a more likely scenario, where the murderer is a scumbag and the woman made mistakes or was a victim to circumstances, the murder would be more immoral.
Chuz Life
By Chuz Life | May 10 2015 6:34 AM
admin: Stag: If I don't see a moral problem with killing ants en masse, I also have no problem killing other potential infestations, like unwanted potential children. Same sort of reasoning for me.

A child in the womb actually already exists as an organism. They already exist as the young (offspring) of the parents who created them. As such they are much more than mere "potential" human lives. They are actual / existing human lives.

An un-united sperm and egg cell would be an example of a "potential" child.

After conception, their combined "potential" for creating that new child / life has already been biologically realized.
The Supreme Court needs to explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under one law but not under any others.
Chuz Life
By Chuz Life | May 10 2015 6:39 AM
admin: a foetus is not yet a human and a little girl is.

Would you like to debate that?
The Supreme Court needs to explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under one law but not under any others.
Chuz Life
By Chuz Life | May 10 2015 2:36 PM
RXR.: By definition, morality is a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society. So, the answer to the question "which is more morally wrong" would depend on a lot of things not provided in the questions so far.

I don't often delve into such questions or debates on morality for that very reason. Unless we have all the details and circumstances that surrounded the killings and unless we have a complete agreement on what the moral component is. . . we have little to nothing to gain by this sort of discussion.

Just my opinion for what it's worth.
The Supreme Court needs to explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under one law but not under any others.
RXR.
By RXR. | May 10 2015 3:05 PM
I apoligize for not providing backstory to the question.

1. A 20 year old woman who is in college has two abortions because she doesn't want any distractions in her future. (2nd trimester) = 2 lives are taken.

2. A man who murdered a clerk at a 7-11 store in a botched robbery = 1 life is taken

R.I.P RXR
2015-2015
Page: 12Most Recent