justice league,

You mentioned in the other thread that you do not support the Catholic church's stand on the use of contraceptives but you do support them in going against abortion. I'm interested to know what your rationale is for going against abortion. Why do you think it is (morally) wrong? Please try to use reason instead of church doctrines as I am not very much interested in church doctrines regarding this issue (among other moral issues).

I've had this discussion with a theist friend of mine before and he claims that life begins at conception and he stands firmly on the premise that everyone has the right to life, including unborn children who has life that started from conception. Is that your stand as well?

Thanks!

The issue of the dictionaries is quite old.

I can point you to http://www.newsflash.org/199808/pe/pe000461.htm about the greek dictionary and http://manila.perthimc.asn.au/index.php?ac...&parentview=452 for the british dictionary (3rd paragraph. It's a long and winding article)

As i see it; It effectively labels all Filipinas coz it doesn't begin with "can be" but with "a".

Female doctors don't want to be called Mrs. or Ms. by their patients; so goes with lawyers and judges.

That is if they hold on to those positions.

I'm afraid I can't.

I too hold that it begins in conception and I also hold on the premise of the soul which I know you don't believe in.

Health authorities placed a later date for when the products of conception can be considered having a life of its own.

But we Christians hold on to the presence of the soul. We don't know when it is bestowed on the individual; on conception, after mitotic division, during the embryonic phase. We don't know.

No, that's fine, justice league. I do understand where you are coming from. Like I said, that rationale is consistent with the rationale given to me by other theists that I have discussed this with.

Regarding my stand on abortion, I tend to be pro-choice but it also depends on the situation. I feel that there are some instances when abortion can be justified.

Anyway, thanks for your input.

But Amerindians aren't called indians anymore and so with american negroes as they are now called afro-americans.

Ah, I see what you mean now. I think this is more of a sensitivity issue, or rather, political correctness issue. Political correctness, I think, is indeed very sensitive. But still, I do not see how we can zero in on morality in this dictionary case. The political correctness of this case, I think can be linked to (in)accuracy. We can say that it would be more accurate to define Filipinas as this or that rather than to label them as domestic helpers. If the issue here is the term "domestic helper" and the term does not seem to have a positive ring to it, my question is, why? Is it derogatory to be called a "domestic helper"? Would there be a huge issue on this if the dictionaries foolishly labelled Filipinas as "nurses" instead of "domestic helpers"? Honestly, I doubt it, as our society (esp. Philippine society) has a very high regard for nurses (especially abroad). I agree that labelling is stupid (hey, I am referred to as "Flip" by some of my non-Filipino buddies and even acquaintances but I'm not too touchy about it), but it would be difficult to say if the dictionaries labelled Filipinas as domestic helpers with malice. If we know for sure that they did that because they look down on Filipinas and domestic helpers, then that would be a different story. Does the author/publisher have any records of bigotry? Do we have a direct link to the author's or publisher's record of hatred towards Filipinas? I don't know man, I think it's gonna be tough. But I think if we base our judgment on what information we have, which is simply the copies of those published dictionaries with the inaccurate definition, it will be tough to establish immorality.

Regarding ethnic names, again the sensitivity on this is sujective. The immorality of labelling certain ethnic groups often depends on how the terms are used. Yes, I do have Indian (aboriginal) friends here in Canada and they do not find it offensive to be called Indians. But if they get called "wothless Indians" or "F*c*ing Indians" then yes, that is a different story.

Sometimes I think this sensitivity on Political Correctness is a little too much. Take for instance this scenario. If a man talks dirty to a woman, that's sexual harrassment. But if a woman talks dirty to a man....that's $3.99 per minute!!! hahahaha!!! Hey, just trying to lighten things up here, okay? Let's not get too carried away again.

So again, sticking with the case of the dictionaries, I think it's plain inaccuracy and stupidity on their part. But to say that it's immoral without evidence of malice? I think we'll be reaching a little bit too much. But hey, that's just me. If you feel passionate about this and if you really think that we do have moral grounds for complaint, then good, I'm sure a lot of our fellow Filipinos/Filipinas who feel the same way would support you. I understand how you feel about this issue and I respect that. Yes I can imagine how emotional this can be to a lot of people especially Filipinos/Filipinas.

I'll leave this with you guys before I take a break. This is an excerpt from a paper I wrote a few years ago discussing the Divine Command Theory of Morality. Enjoy!
------------

If most moral theories by humans are not plausible, as claimed by theists, then perhaps morality indeed is determined by God’s word. Let us examine the Divine Command Theory (DCT) of morality. First of all, the discussion for this should temporarily suspend the argument for God’s existence. Let’s face it, no one can really prove God’s existence and if God does really exist then which God out of the thousands of Gods in this world is the true Deity? So for argument sake, let us say that God does exist and it is the Judeo-Christian God.

DCT states that an act is morally right because God says it is right and an act is morally wrong because God forbids it. This claim can be interpreted in 2 ways.

1. An act is right because God commands it.

2. God commands right actions because they are right actions.

The first interpretation suggests that morality is an expression of God’s will. This reflects His omnipotence and everything depends on His will. Let us think about this for a moment. What if one day God says that murder, rape, slavery, bigotry, and other horrible things are right, just because He feels like it? Does this mean they are morally right just because God says that they are right? This poses a problem because it would seem that morality is arbitrary. It reduces the doctrine of the goodness of God to non-sense. If morality is dependent on God’s will then any reason to praise God’s goodness can be undermined because God’s actions or will would seem pointless. It’s like if anything you write down in your test paper, no matter how ambiguous your answers are in that exam, your answers would be still be right. Your high mark in that exam would not be worthy of praise, it would not mean anything.

Let us then examine the second interpretation. God commands right actions because they are right actions. This implies that God’s will is limited. It appears that morality is independent in some sense from God’s will. If morality were independent from God’s will, then this would support the notion of His all-knowing nature because He knows what is right, not what He feels is right.

I don’t want to sound sacrilegious here. I’m just merely suggesting that religion (God) and morality (ethics) are 2 separate things. Neither one determines the rightness of the other.

Here's another one on abortion (I shared this previously in an abortion thread). I guess in here, the attempt is to inquire into the moral status of the abortion act.

I guess most opposition to abortion relies on the premise that the fetus is a human being, a person, from the moment of conception; and that every person has the right to life therefore taking away that right would be murder and thus is morally impermissible. The pro-choice people, however, would often use the defense that at the early stages of pregnancy, it is still not a person yet. This is very similar to the analogy using the acorn and the oak tree. Pro-choice people would argue that the acorn is definitely not an oak tree (yet). Unfortunately, I think most people rely on these (both the "right to life" and the "not yet a human") arguments so heavily and uncritically.

For me, I would have to say I'm pro-choice, but to a certain degree and depending on the situation. I am pro-choice if the pregnancy is involuntary. Yes, I do realize that it does sound bad, immoral, and whatever but if you could bear with me for a moment, I can explain why I'm leaning towards this.

I do agree with some pro-choice people on certain justifications such as the case of rape. However, I'd like to put it on a lighter side. Imagine one day you wake up and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violin virtuoso. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. So they decide to kidnap you and plug the violinist's circulatory system into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. Now you do realize that if you unplug yourself from this guy, it would mean his death. Now surely if we rely on the premise that everyone has the right to life, we would be in a dilemma because both you and the violinist have the right to life, right? The question, I guess, would be, is it morally right on you to just accept this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you and a great kindness on your part, but do you really have to just sit and accept that even if it was against your will?

Now someone else before has mentioned a scenario that I believe has merit for considering abortion. Suppose a woman has become pregnant (willingly/planned) and learns that she has a cardiac condition that would result in her death if she carries the baby to term. Take note, the only way to save her life is to go for an abortion. What would be the morally right thing to do? So we see another dilemma if we still rely on the premise that everyone has the right to life and still stick with the conclusion that killing the fetus would be murder. What are we going to do with this case, flip a coin on who gets to live? Or do you think it would be plausible to add to the mother's right to life her right to decide what happens in and to her body?

Now you guys may say that in such extreme cases (rape and the mother with the cardiac condition), abortion probably could be justified. If so, then I thank you for looking at this objectively so far.

Here's a more unpopular scenario, choosing abortion on pregnancy from voluntary sex. What if sex was voluntary but all the precautions were used (e.g. birth control devices/stuff) prior to or during sex. And suppose by an unfortunate turn of events, the device turned out defective or for some reason the woman still gets pregnant, would that give her the justification for abortion? Now I can almost hear a lot of you guys shouting out "NO WAY!!!" hehehe That's fine, and I respect that. However, I'd like to take this on a lighter side to show you that it may be also justifiable. Suppose that you are in a room that is stuffy and you open the window to air it, and a burglar climbs in. Would it then be right to say that the burglar can now stay and rob your house? Or how about this, suppose that you had bars in your window to specifically prevent burglars from entering your house through the window, but the burglar still managed to get in because of a defect in the bars. It remains absurd to think that the burglar would have the right to stay in your house and rob you, di ba? You see, there is certainly no intention on your part to let a burglar in. In the subcase, you even installed bars in your window to prevent any burglars access to your home (but unfortunately, the bars happen to be defective). So in a way, this is the same case with an unplanned pregnancy, especially if the couple tried their best to have responsible sex.

The way I see it, it really depends on the situation. I am not advocating abortion, but I certainly would not automatically dismiss/condemn it either. Thoughts on this without referring to God/theism would be very much appreciated.

Hi guys,

I got this from a discussion in another forum and I find it a little funny but interesting. I think it shows what is legal is not necessarily moral. I think it also suggests that “intentions” should weigh as much as the “outcome” (or even more than outcomes).

I think the notion of intention as a determinant of the status of a moral judgment or action has a lot of merit as oppose to just focusing on the outcome of actions. Try to imagine a case of a moral luck. Let’s say a "lucky" murder. A robber intentionally killing a victim (who he doesn’t know) who turns out to be a notorious wanted serial killer who was about to victimize someone just before the encounter with the robber. If we focus on the outcome of things to determine the moral status of the act, some may think that it was the right thing to do to kill this serial killer preventing further murders and crimes etc. However, if we focus on the intention, the intent of the robber was to kill the victim; that in itself – the intent to kill – makes the action immoral. The person who wrote the argument seems to make a good case for deontology. Hmmm… Any thoughts?

Morality is subjective..
It is decided by the society..