Message from @Billcat
Discord ID: 575334962237145108
GG @thomas the choo choo tree, you just advanced to level 5!
Morality isn;t objective so it has to be scientific
Otherwise you can't prove anything
its so wrong to take away the rights of an actual living being because of "the potential of a life"
Morality is nothing but some bullshit taught to you as a child so you don't shove the girl you like
I truly believe that 50 years from now, we're going to look back on widespread abortion the same way we do on lobotomies and electroshock therapy. Science is not a tool for moral right or wrong, because science does not determine whether potential life is enough or not. Science tells you how and why things work, not if it's ok they do so
pro lifers = absolute moralists
pro choicers = relative moralists
Morality is just bullshit, right man. You have a good day.
It is
lol i disagree on that
how did this become a salt battle lol
science proves stuff
If you truly believe that then, wow. There is a point in a discussion where somebody is so radically different that finding common ground is impossible
we did find common ground
late term abortions are wrong
Believing that morals are pointless in a discussion regarding the morality of potential live is just a waste of time. We did, ashnaa, but not komrade
yeah
You make your morals
Of course make your own morals. Does that mean they don't matter?
instinct
logic
yes, morality is subjective, so it can be complicated but it's not useless
I have basic morals, for this however I base my decision on the science we've found
there are other things that are factors of decision making, but morality is definitely a factor
You can't hide behind science as an excuse for not having morals lol, both are incredibly important to how we function
ok so your point is science > morals, which i agree with to a certain extent
The science shows it is not morally wrong as you're not KILLING anything as there is nothing ALIVE
Science does not drive an agenda, you cannot make an abstract decision because science told you so. Science tells you *how* and *why* , what you do with that information is where morals come in
Science is just the proof to your own moral code
If you dont agree on morals any science present to argue the other side is invalid
Science shows they're not living in the first trimester
And that's why I tend not to argue about what is or is not alive, because in my mind ***that does not matter, what matters is the clearly defined potential for life***
That is a moral view, that I hold, which has nothing to do with the science behind whether or not a fetus is alive
science doesn't change your morals
Exactly, yes.
Science only proves morals
yeah
the inconsistency or not
Then I showed that the potential life being preserved damage the already existing life present