Is morality objective or subjective?

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 753
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@PGA2.0
Thus, the case for an objective, absolute, universal, unchanging, omniscient (or else how would one arrive at the good) standard or measure for moral values to be justified as anything more than preference or feelings. 
Whatever you want to happen isn't an argument. Please refute the is and ought. If you don't then you have no ground to stand on.
And any worldview that cannot define or justify the moral good as anything more than relative, subjective feelings or preference (i.e., a like or dislike) is not in a position to preach to others on morality. It brings up the question of 'why should I believe your subjective opinion?' 'What makes it any better than mine.' 'How do I justify better if there is no fixed measure?'
More deflection and something I would call moral highroading as in you claim moral superiorty. In this instance you are hypocrite because the same thing can be said about you.

God gives me morals. This is not justified. 
My morals are not subjective. No measurement given. 

I just listed out the two problems with your side. If you can meet them you are pretty much the only one I found to do this but alas I don't have high hope given how conversation on another thread. 

Try and keep it short as well. I am not retired and I got stuff to do. 
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Thus, the case for an objective, absolute, universal, unchanging, omniscient (or else how would one arrive at the good) standard or measure for moral values to be justified as anything more than preference or feelings. 
Whatever you want to happen isn't an argument. Please refute the is and ought. If you don't then you have no ground to stand on.
I'm not refuting the is-ought fallacy where subjective morality is the case. I am stating what needs to be the case for morality to AVOID the is-ought fallacy.

And any worldview that cannot define or justify the moral good as anything more than relative, subjective feelings or preference (i.e., a like or dislike) is not in a position to preach to others on morality. It brings up the question of 'why should I believe your subjective opinion?' 'What makes it any better than mine.' 'How do I justify better if there is no fixed measure?'
More deflection and something I would call moral highroading as in you claim moral superiorty. In this instance you are hypocrite because the same thing can be said about you.
It can most definitely be said and that is why morality needs a fixed, unchanging, ultimate, absolute, objective, omniscient measure. Can you identify such a necessary measure? 


God gives me morals. This is not justified.
Unless such a God exists. 1) Prove He does not exist. 2) What is just if there is no equality of the law? 3) If the law is subject to change why should I believe it is just? 4) If there is no unchanging identity for "good" how do you ever reach a state of good or know some things are good in relation to others? 
 
My morals are not subjective. No measurement given. 
Only if God exists can this be stated and then only if I rightly interpret or use His moral imperatives. Otherwise, you and I are just expressing our moral preference. What makes that 'good?' What makes yours better than mine? Better implies a measure. If surpasses the 'good.' So what is your 'best' that this can all be measured against? Are you going to make an argument by appeal to popularity? Are you going to make an appeal to force?

I have continually said God is necessary for morality. Otherwise, you only have personal taste or choice or public taste or choice. What makes that good. Hitler and the Nazis had swayed public opinion. What makes that bad?  

I just listed out the two problems with your side. If you can meet them you are pretty much the only one I found to do this but alas I don't have high hope given how conversation on another thread. 
My question to you is why is what you believe morally good if there is no objective, fixed measure? If you have such a measure, what is it? If you don't have such a measure, then why are you living inconsistently in using the terms 'good' or 'better.'

So, I have a solution to the problem of identifying what is necessary and can make sense of morality as anything other than personal or social convention and preference. I have identified what is necessary. 


Try and keep it short as well. I am not retired and I got stuff to do. 


That is the best I can do. I needed to develop the argument somewhat. 
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@PGA2.0
 I am stating what needs to be the case for morality to AVOID the is-ought fallacy.
The case can't be made. You can't avoid that problem, you have to tackle it head on. Even with a God you would still have to answer to the problem. Lets say there is a God. Why ought we follow it? I am not here to entertain this instead please provide a counter to the is and ought distinction. If not then I am taking that as you agreeing morality is subjective. 
Can you identify such a necessary measure? 
Deflection yet again. 
Prove He does not exist.
It is not my job to prove unicorns do not exist. It is your job to prove the supernatural. You have got this the wrong way around. 
If you don't have such a measure, then why are you living inconsistently in using the terms 'good' or 'better.'
If I don't have an objective how am I living inconsistently? I don't know how you got to that conclusion.
That is the best I can do. I needed to develop the argument somewhat. 
I had an even darker joke but I will leave it at that. 
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@PGA2.0
Ok. To prevent this from spilling over, I'll leave the abortion thing to the side for now.

Let me ask you an unrelated question: Do you eat meat?
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@PressF4Respect
Ok. To prevent this from spilling over, I'll leave the abortion thing to the side for now.

Let me ask you an unrelated question: Do you eat meat?

Yes, I do. Do you think it is a moral issue?
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
@golfer

And any worldview that cannot define or justify the moral good as anything more than relative, subjective feelings or preference (i.e., a like or dislike) is not in a position to preach to others on morality.
You don't seem to realise that this describes you perfectly. Your preference is the morality espoused by primitive, ignorant, superstitious savages thousands of years ago. That is your preference for a moral framework.
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@PGA2.0
Yes, I do.
Beef?

Do you think it is a moral issue?
I don't, but some people do. I'll get there.


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The case can't be made. You can't avoid that problem, you have to tackle it head on. Even with a God you would still have to answer to the problem. Lets say there is a God. Why ought we follow it?
A better question would be, how do we know what gods want?

How do we know what books and or prophets are "true" and which are blasphemous?

Imagine the person you trust the most in the whole world, your bestest bestest bestest friend told you that god spoke to them.

Could you believe them?  Would you believe them?

What if your best friend told you that god told them to sacrifice their favorite son, Issac? [LINK]
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@TheRealNihilist
 I am stating what needs to be the case for morality to AVOID the is-ought fallacy.
The case can't be made. You can't avoid that problem, you have to tackle it head on. Even with a God you would still have to answer to the problem. Lets say there is a God. Why ought we follow it? I am not here to entertain this instead please provide a counter to the is and ought distinction. If not then I am taking that as you agreeing morality is subjective. 
The is-ought fallacy is a naturalistic fallacy. It grounds morality in what is (nature) to derive its oughts. Nature does not command us to do anything. It just is. Not only so but if humans are machines of chance, determined by genetics and their environment (again, just what is), why should one chance machine act in the same another one does except because of brute force and as a survival mechanism? One human-machine (let's say, Hitler) is conditioned and driven by chance happenstance to kill all undesirables while another human machine is driven and conditioned to protect those same individuals. What makes either of those right and good? It just is what is. What is good or bad about that? The more powerful wins the day.  

God's character/nature is good, pure holy but we derive our morality from His commands. So His moral nature is what is and His moral commands establish what ought to be. 

From a naturalistic standpoint, moral nature is grounded in what is. There is nothing but what is to direct us to what ought to be. So in such a case, we derive our ought from what is. Not so with God. He is and His nature is good but we do not derive our morality from what is (God) but from His commandments of what ought to be. So we derive our morality from what ought to be because He directs it from His nature and tells us what our moral duties should be. So, as you would expect, our morality is derived from mindful being, but not from our subjective being, but from Him, the objective, and ultimate, and necessary Being.  

With God, we recognize (some do) that His authority is greater than ours. We recognize His authority is derived from an all-knowing mind. Thus, since it knows all things it is objective. It knows all the facts for what they are. Thus, His commands and directives should be obeyed for our well being. Thou shall not kill/murder is for our well being. Thou shall not lie is for our well being. Thou shall not steal is for our well being. Thou shall not covet what is someone else's is for our well being. Honour your father and mother is for your well being. That last command recognizes there is an authority above us (our parents) and ultimately is a lesson that God is above all. Honour God is for our well being. Thou shall not worship graven images or things constructed in our image which as false gods that never satisfy is for our well being. They only satisfy for a brief time whereas God satisfies always, beyond this earthly existence.  


Can you identify such a necessary measure? 
Deflection yet again.
I'm asking a question. Am I not allowed? I am trying to learn what you think and why. 
 
Prove He does not exist.
It is not my job to prove unicorns do not exist. It is your job to prove the supernatural. You have got this the wrong way around.
My point is that you could not. All you could do is speculate on His non-existence. 

It is not my job to prove the supernatural since I have learned I cannot convince someone who does not what to be convinced. There is always another 'what if.' All I can say is that there is sufficient reason to believe. It is not blind faith. It is not an irrational faith. 

 
If you don't have such a measure, then why are you living inconsistently in using the terms 'good' or 'better.'
If I don't have an objective how am I living inconsistently? I don't know how you got to that conclusion.
You borrow from the Christian worldview in making sense of things. You don't remain in your own worldview, you look outside it. Thus, you live inconsistently to your starting point of core belief. You say, "This is not good" when you have no sufficient basis for what is good from your starting point - what is. 


PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@PressF4Respect
Yes, I do.
Beef?
Beef, chicken, lamb, poultry, and other meat when travelling in different cultures. I've eaten all kinds of antelope, ostriches, elk, giraffe, buffalo, raw eel, 21-day duck eggs, numerous kinds of fish, etc.    
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@PGA2.0
Beef, chicken, lamb, poultry, and other meat when travelling in different cultures. I've eaten all kinds of antelope, ostriches, elk, giraffe, buffalo, raw eel, 21-day duck eggs, numerous kinds of fish, etc.    
Ok. Some people would consider what you are doing to be immoral.

PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@PressF4Respect
Beef, chicken, lamb, poultry, and other meat when travelling in different cultures. I've eaten all kinds of antelope, ostriches, elk, giraffe, buffalo, raw eel, 21-day duck eggs, numerous kinds of fish, etc.    
Ok. Some people would consider what you are doing to be immoral.
Yes. I would like to know what is their moral outrage based upon? We eat to live. Are we grateful? Some people are starving in parts of the world and would be grateful for an antelope or a cow to sustain them and their families and it could mean the difference between them living and dying.

PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@PGA2.0
True, if you are starving, and the only thing to eat is a cow or antelope, you would be justified in killing an animal. However, in the developed world, it is entirely possible to subsist purely off of a vegan diet. https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/the-vegan-diet/ This, according to some people, means that eating meat when you don’t have to is immoral, since it leads to the unnecessary death of an animal.

Also, certain religions ban the consumption of certain meats. For example, in Hinduism, cows are sacred, so killing them would be immoral from a religious perspective.

Again, I’m not saying that this is my personal stance, but it is certainly a valid one.

PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@PressF4Respect
True, if you are starving, and the only thing to eat is a cow or antelope, you would be justified in killing an animal. However, in the developed world, it is entirely possible to subsist purely off of a vegan diet. https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/the-vegan-diet/ This, according to some people, means that eating meat when you don’t have to is immoral, since it leads to the unnecessary death of an animal.
Why would that be immoral?


Also, certain religions ban the consumption of certain meats. For example, in Hinduism, cows are sacred, so killing them would be immoral from a religious perspective.
True, Jews under the Law of Moses were instructed that certain animals were impure, thus people who ate them were more susceptible to disease back then and disobeyed God's decrees. Again, God was teaching a principle of holy and unholy by the use of their diet. 

Jesus changed that covenant. It was not a matter of what you ate that made you impure but on what was inside you, your values and the way you lived. 

Matthew 15:10-11 (NASB)
10 After Jesus called the crowd to Him, He said to them, “Hear and understand. 11 It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.”

Acts 10:13-14 (NASB)
13 A voice came to him, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.” 15 Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.”

Romans 14:1-3 (NASB)
Principles of Conscience
14 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.

So, if you were a Christian and believed it is wrong to eat animals I should not pass judgment on you or tempt you beyond what you are able to accept. Maybe one day your understanding would chance. But, if I am invited to a vegetarian's house for dinner I should not offend them by refusing to eat what the offer. In the same way, when my brother-in-law, who is a vegetarian, comes to visit I prepare vegetarian dishes for his stay. 


Again, I’m not saying that this is my personal stance, but it is certainly a valid one.
And, if that is a person's choice then I respect it. 

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Matthew 19:8-9
He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

Thus, God gives one exception for remarriage, immorality. Sexual immorality/adultery.
Check the original text.  The word used for "immorality" is not the same word used for "adultery".

Nevermind the fact that the bible instructs us that both the man and the woman who engaged in adultery should be put to death. 

It would seem to be quite difficult to "re-marry" once that happened.

10 “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. [LINK]
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@PGA2.0
True, if you are starving, and the only thing to eat is a cow or antelope, you would be justified in killing an animal. However, in the developed world, it is entirely possible to subsist purely off of a vegan diet. https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/the-vegan-diet/ This, according to some people, means that eating meat when you don’t have to is immoral, since it leads to the unnecessary death of an animal.
Why would that be immoral?
<br>
Because it causes unnecessary suffering upon the animals killed to provide you with the meat, and causing unnecessary suffering is immoral. This is their rationale.

So, if you were a Christian and believed it is wrong to eat animals I should not pass judgment on you or tempt you beyond what you are able to accept. Maybe one day your understanding would chance. But, if I am invited to a vegetarian's house for dinner I should not offend them by refusing to eat what the offer. In the same way, when my brother-in-law, who is a vegetarian, comes to visit I prepare vegetarian dishes for his stay. 


Again, I’m not saying that this is my personal stance, but it is certainly a valid one.
And, if that is a person's choice then I respect it. 
Ok, so you and I have different stances on this moral issue, and both of them are acceptable. Is this the case?

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
If I want to keep it, I can keep it.

If I want to have it removed surgically, that is my right.

It is not a CITIZEN.

Yes, it is "alive" in exactly the same way a tumor is alive and a parasite is alive.

HoWEver, it is not a CITIZEN.
It is not recognized as a citizen because of the propaganda machine and a liberal view that does not recognize all human beings as a personal being or does not even recognize some human beings as human beings. 
Look, if you want to call a blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus a CITIZEN, then everyone must register with the state every single time they copulate.

In order to protect CITIZENS, the state must have a record of them.  AND every miscarriage must be investigated as a potential manslaughter/murder case as well.

Look, if you want to call a blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus a CITIZEN, you've got to go 100%.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@PGA2.0
The is-ought fallacy is a naturalistic fallacy. It grounds morality in what is (nature) to derive its oughts.
<br><br>
You have no basis for such an accusation. Explain to me how the is and ought distinction is a naturalist fallacy.
God's character/nature is good
Demonstrate it.
There is always another 'what if.' All I can say is that there is sufficient reason to believe. It is not blind faith. It is not an irrational faith. 
You don't understand how things work. People just don't change their mind because they hear what you say. People change their mind when you have provided something worth them considering the opposite then changing. You outwardly call people lost causes or in your words people who don't want their mind changed. You don't understand me nor can you and the failure resides on you. You show just how little ground that your Religion has when all you do is posture about how bad the other side is. That is not an argument when there is so many different sides. It would only be fair if we were just talking about 2 different worldviews but there is a ton out there but you don't seem to understand so here we are at your attempt using your feelings to say how bad 1 out of several worldviews are.

Belief is antithetical to reason. You using as the opposite shows how irrational you are. I don't believe something to be reasonable. I use reason to determine what is true. 
You borrow from the Christian worldview in making sense of things. You don't remain in your own worldview, you look outside it.
Reason is not a Christian thing unless you are begging the question yet again. You don't even know how to use it so I would expect nothing less from a person who doesn't even know how words are used. 
Thus, you live inconsistently to your starting point of core belief. 
What is my core belief?
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@PressF4Respect
True, if you are starving, and the only thing to eat is a cow or antelope, you would be justified in killing an animal. However, in the developed world, it is entirely possible to subsist purely off of a vegan diet. https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/the-vegan-diet/ This, according to some people, means that eating meat when you don’t have to is immoral, since it leads to the unnecessary death of an animal.
Why would that be immoral?
<br>
Because it causes unnecessary suffering upon the animals killed to provide you with the meat, and causing unnecessary suffering is immoral. This is their rationale.
I object also to anyone who causes unnecessary suffering or takes pleasure in killing an animal. The killing of the animal should be done quickly, in the most humane way possible for the purpose of sustaining your life and/or providing you with much-needed nutrients. That is why we give thanks for the food. We, as Christians recognize God permits us to kill animals for our survival and nurishment.


So, if you were a Christian and believed it is wrong to eat animals I should not pass judgment on you or tempt you beyond what you are able to accept. Maybe one day your understanding would chance. But, if I am invited to a vegetarian's house for dinner I should not offend them by refusing to eat what the offer. In the same way, when my brother-in-law, who is a vegetarian, comes to visit I prepare vegetarian dishes for his stay. 


Again, I’m not saying that this is my personal stance, but it is certainly a valid one.
And, if that is a person's choice then I respect it. 
Ok, so you and I have different stances on this moral issue, and both of them are acceptable. Is this the case?



What God permits us to eat is not a moral issue for me. What would be a moral issue is the torturing or abuse of animals or taking pleasure in the death of an animal. I take no pleasure in that. I do not like to see suffering.

When I worked on a game reserve bordering the Kruger National Park we used to get tourists (big-game hunters) come in to cull the herds. If we did not cull the herds the environment could not handle the overpopulation and many would starve. The meat was given to the Africans, the skin was sold or converted to some useful item, so very little went to waste. The rest of the carcass was eaten by scavengers like hyenas and vultures.  What I objected to was a hunter/guide whose client shot a buffalo in the jaw with an arrow and then go scared about following the wounded animal into a mopane and thorn bush thicket. Thus for days, the animal starved to death and a helicopter was called in to find the animal and kill it as quickly as possible. Everyone in the reserve was disgusted by the cowardness of the guide who should have taken the responsibility to end the buffalo's life quickly.  

So, I respect your right to have a choice. If you want to kill a carrot, lettuce, or a green bean and slowly skin it that is your choice. It is a living thing too. 
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@PGA2.0
I object also to anyone who causes unnecessary suffering or takes pleasure in killing an animal. The killing of the animal should be done quickly, in the most humane way possible for the purpose of sustaining your life and/or providing you with much-needed nutrients. That is why we give thanks for the food. We, as Christians recognize God permits us to kill animals for our survival and nourishment.
If you kill an animal when you aren’t hungry, would that be immoral?

Also, where do you usually get your meat from?
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Matthew 19:8-9
He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

Thus, God gives one exception for remarriage, immorality. Sexual immorality/adultery.
Check the original text.  The word used for "immorality" is not the same word used for "adultery".
Even better,

Matthew 19:8-9 (KJV)
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

What is the fornication spoken of if not adultery?



 it is distinguished from μοιχεία in Matthew 15:19Mark 7:21; and Galatians 5:19 Rec.; used of adultery ((cf. Hosea 2:2 (4), etc.)), Matthew 5:32Matthew 19:9.
From porneuo; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively, idolatry -- fornication.


Nevermind the fact that the bible instructs us that both the man and the woman who engaged in adultery should be put to death. 
How could one divorce his wife if he had already stoned her to death?


It would seem to be quite difficult to "re-marry" once that happened.
Yet Jesus says that is the only reason one may remarry, for unfaithfulness. 


10 “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. [LINK]


Yet Jesus came to fulfill the Law of Moses as well as God's laws. He fulfills the OT to establish the NT. Why, instead of stoning her did Moses allow divorce instead?

And you have ignored my example of God as a husband to Israel.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
What is the fornication spoken of if not adultery?
Fornication is what unmarried people do.

Adultery is what married people do.

Basically you could get divorced if your wife was already 2 months pregnant when you married her.

That was it.

If your wife or husband broke the marriage covenant, then they were killed.

Ipso facto, not divorced.
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
If I want to keep it, I can keep it.

If I want to have it removed surgically, that is my right.

It is not a CITIZEN.

Yes, it is "alive" in exactly the same way a tumor is alive and a parasite is alive.

HoWEver, it is not a CITIZEN.
It is not recognized as a citizen because of the propaganda machine and a liberal view that does not recognize all human beings as a personal being or does not even recognize some human beings as human beings. 
Look, if you want to call a blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus a CITIZEN, then everyone must register with the state every single time they copulate.
Again the question is what is being killed? Is it a human being? What do you say???

As for your analogy of copulation, only when the result is the conception of a new human life should the moral aspects apply.  

In order to protect CITIZENS, the state must have a record of them.  AND every miscarriage must be investigated as a potential manslaughter/murder case as well.

Look, if you want to call a blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus a CITIZEN, you've got to go 100%.

Again, the terms "blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus" devalue what is being killed in that they obscure what is being killed by the human being's stages of development. If its parents are human what kind of being is the blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus?  

Once you go down the road of not all human beings are equal or should be equally valuable you leave room for such tyrannies as Nazi Germany or any other state that exploits their human occupants as not worth keeping. That is the kind of policy you are promoting whether knowingly or otherwise.
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@PressF4Respect
I object also to anyone who causes unnecessary suffering or takes pleasure in killing an animal. The killing of the animal should be done quickly, in the most humane way possible for the purpose of sustaining your life and/or providing you with much-needed nutrients. That is why we give thanks for the food. We, as Christians recognize God permits us to kill animals for our survival and nourishment.
If you kill an animal when you aren’t hungry, would that be immoral?
Not if you are going to eat it later. If you let it go to waste it could be considered immoral.


Also, where do you usually get your meat from?

Grocery store.
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
What is the fornication spoken of if not adultery?
Fornication is what unmarried people do.
Fornication is how the KJV translates 'porneia.' Sometimes that is justified but how do you justify a woman fornication and committing adultery with her marriage partner as still being allowed to live? It was a form of adultery in that it did not honour the marriage covenant. 

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

How could Moses prescribe something other than stoning, yet he permits divorce.


Adultery is what married people do.

Basically you could get divorced if your wife was already 2 months pregnant when you married her.

That was it.

If your wife or husband broke the marriage covenant, then they were killed.
Yet Moses permitted divorce.


Ipso facto, not divorced.

Divorce it what Moses permitted. How the woman is unfaithful gives the man an exclusion to the marriage vow in the case of adultery, otherwise by issuing a divorce the husband is guilty of the same practice.
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@PGA2.0

Also, where do you usually get your meat from?

Grocery store.
Are you aware of how most (if not all) grocery stores obtain their meat?

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Yet Moses permitted divorce.
But only for unfaithfulness BEFORE marriage.

If you were unfaithful while married, then you were killed.
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@PressF4Respect

Also, where do you usually get your meat from?

Grocery store.
Are you aware of how most (if not all) grocery stores obtain their meat?


Abattoir or slaughterhouse. 
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@PGA2.0
Abattoir or slaughterhouse. 
And are you aware of how they treat the animals they slaughter?


PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Yet Moses permitted divorce.
But only for unfaithfulness BEFORE marriage.

If you were unfaithful while married, then you were killed.

There are many examples in the OT where that was not the case upon discovery of adultery. In fact, God compares His relationship with Israel to Hosea's relationship with his wife. God gave adulterous Israel many chances before judgment. 

Hosea 1:2
When the Lord first spoke through Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea, “Go, take to yourself a wife of harlotry and have children of harlotry; for the land commits flagrant harlotry, forsaking the Lord.”

Israel’s Unfaithfulness Condemned
Say to your brothers, “Ammi,” and to your sisters, “Ruhamah.”
“Contend with your mother, contend,
For she is not my wife, and I am not her husband;
And let her put away her harlotry from her face
And her adultery from between her breasts,
Or I will strip her naked
And expose her as on the day when she was born.
I will also make her like a wilderness,
Make her like desert land
And slay her with thirst.
“Also, I will have no compassion on her children,
Because they are children of harlotry.
“For their mother has played the harlot;
She who conceived them has acted shamefully.

Hosea 2:7
“She will pursue her lovers, but she will not overtake them;
And she will seek them, but will not find them.
Then she will say, ‘I will go back to my first husband,
For it was better for me then than now!’

Hosea 3:1-5
Hosea’s Second Symbolic Marriage
Then the Lord said to me, “Go again, love a woman who is loved by her husband, yet an adulteress, even as the Lord loves the sons of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love raisin cakes.” So I bought her for myself for fifteen shekels of silver and a homer and a half of barley. Then I said to her, “You shall stay with me for many days. You shall not play the harlot, nor shall you have a man; so I will also be toward you.” For the sons of Israel will remain for many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred pillar and without ephod or household idols. Afterward the sons of Israel will return and seek the Lord their God and David their king; and they will come trembling to the Lord and to His goodness in the last days.

Hosea 4
11 Harlotry, wine and new wine take away the understanding.
12 My people consult their wooden idol, and their diviner’s wand informs them;
For a spirit of harlotry has led them astray,
And they have played the harlot, departing from their God.
13 They offer sacrifices on the tops of the mountains
And burn incense on the hills,
Under oak, poplar and terebinth,
Because their shade is pleasant.
Therefore your daughters play the harlot
And your brides commit adultery.
14 I will not punish your daughters when they play the harlot
Or your brides when they commit adultery,
For the men themselves go apart with harlots
And offer sacrifices with temple prostitutes;
So the people without understanding are ruined.

Eventually, God judges Israel, His bride for her idolatry and adultery but He permitted it for a time as a lesson and an example of what not ought to be done. And amazingly enough, Josephus records Jerusalem as being stone with catapults of flaming stones by the Roman during the siege in AD 70. In Revelation and elsewhere Jerusalem is spoken of with much imagery as a harlot who eventually gets stoned. The imagery of Judah, the southern kingdom as a wife who is faithless and whom God eventually issues a certificate of divorce can also be seen with all kinds of imagery.

Jeremiah 3 (NASB)
The Polluted Land
God says, “If a husband divorces his wife
And she goes from him
And belongs to another man,
Will he still return to her?
Will not that land be completely polluted?
But you are a harlot with many lovers;
Yet you turn to Me,” declares the Lord.
“Lift up your eyes to the bare heights and see;
Where have you not been violated?
By the roads you have sat for them
Like an Arab in the desert,
And you have polluted a land
With your harlotry and with your wickedness.
“Therefore the showers have been withheld,
And there has been no spring rain.
Yet you had a harlot’s forehead;
You refused to be ashamed.
“Have you not just now called to Me,
‘My Father, You are the friend of my youth?
‘Will He be angry forever?
Will He be indignant to the end?’
Behold, you have spoken
And have done evil things,
And you have had your way.”
Faithless Israel
Then the Lord said to me in the days of Josiah the king, “Have you seen what faithless Israel did? She went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and she was a harlot there. I thought, ‘After she has done all these things she will return to Me’; but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also. Because of the lightness of her harlotry, she polluted the land and committed adultery with stones and trees. 10 Yet in spite of all this her treacherous sister Judah did not return to Me with all her heart, but rather in deception,” declares the Lord.
God Invites Repentance
11 And the Lord said to me, “Faithless Israel has proved herself more righteous than treacherous Judah. 12 Go and proclaim these words toward the north and say,
‘Return, faithless Israel,’ declares the Lord;
‘I will not look upon you in anger.
For I am gracious,’ declares the Lord;
‘I will not be angry forever.
13 ‘Only acknowledge your iniquity,
That you have transgressed against the Lord your God
And have scattered your favors to the strangers under every green tree,
And you have not obeyed My voice,’ declares the Lord.
14 ‘Return, O faithless sons,’ declares the Lord;
15 “Then I will give you shepherds after My own heart, who will feed you on knowledge and understanding.

So God made a covenant with Israel (i.e., Exodus 24:3, 7 - later divided into two kingdoms) that in many ways has the imagery of a marriage in which God likens Himself to the husband. The bride, the northern and southern kingdoms, are unfaithful and adulterous. God is merciful to Israel for a long time wanting the wife to repent and return to Him but eventually divorces the northern kingdom for her idolatry and adultery. The same case is made against the southern kingdom, Judah. She too plays the harlot and is unfaithful yet God does not stone her for her sins but is merciful and wants her to repent and turn to Him also. She never does, throughout the ages of the OT despite God's warnings to her of judgment. The NT is God's last-ditch effort before He brings that judgment. To her, Israel, the southern kingdom (Judah specifically) God brings His charges against her through His Son, Jesus.

For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.”
 
And it could also be said by Jesus,

but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Thus, Jesus gives one reason for divorce, unfaithfulness. The New Covenant is about God's judgment on a faithless wife - Judah - and eventually after calling her to repentance many times, a letter of divorce. Finally, we get the imagery of stoning and God (the Son, Jesus) taking for Himself a new wife after Judah has been stoned. But with the northern kingdom when God issues His letter or decree of divorce I am not aware of Him having her stoned to death. Instead, He sent her away, separated her from His presence. Thus, Jesus could say, 

“Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.  

The same was true of what Moses let happen. Yet, from the beginning, the two were to become one flesh until death. That was God's plan and purpose for marriage, a life long commitment just like He committed Himself to Israel yet she was not willing to live up to the covenant.