Anonymous #2 4w

Three people have already

-1

Anonymous OP 4w

I wouldn’t say those comments stray from a moral compass at all though

1

Anonymous #2 4w

One is just saying society sucks and the other two are bodily autonomy standpoints. When can’t say it’s a moral argument without an in depth explanation. On the surface, it’s exactly what I was asking for.

-1

Anonymous OP 4w

I think any human right conversation is inevitably intertwined with morality

8

Anonymous #2 4w

That’s more of a sign that you might lack the ability to think objectively.

-2

Anonymous OP 4w

Wouldn’t say that

4

Anonymous OP 4w

Especially when there’s no objectively correct opinion to the matter

9

Anonymous #2 4w

That’s why you should argue with facts to back your claims

-1

Anonymous OP 4w

No facts could make your stance on abortion objectively correct though. Humanitarian conversation is directly related to morality no matter.

10

Anonymous #2 4w

Again, that’s probably a sign you can’t think objectively. I’m sorry to tell you that but if you can’t answer the question you can move on with your day

-2

Anonymous OP 4w

I did answer your question if you saw from above. However, while attempting to make it not morally based, it is impossible to do so in the conversation of life.

1

Anonymous #2 4w

Again, you lack the ability to argue this point. That’s okay. However, just because you can’t do it doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Lawyers this for a living. You could have picked any legality standpoint and moved on.

-2

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 4w

I’ve replied to #2 in length about it. It’s okay to not be able to answer a question.

-2

Anonymous OP 4w

Yet legality is not objective. Was your whole point that you can’t argue on this topic without using either?

6

Anonymous OP 4w

No matter how many reproductive facts you pull, a stance on this topic will never be objectively correct.

4

Anonymous #2 4w

Hence why any stance is held within morality.

10

Anonymous #2 4w

I’m not looking for something “objectively correct” you’re beating a dead horse

-2

Anonymous #2 4w

It most definitely can be objective. It depends on your in depth argument.

-2

Anonymous OP 4w

I struggle to find what you are looking for. It’s impossible to make a stance without it being rooted in morality.

4

Anonymous OP 4w

Objectivity is directly linked to ethics.

1

Anonymous #2 4w

Okay. Then stop engaging.

-2

Anonymous OP 4w

To each their own.

1

Anonymous OP 4w

Why would I have read your discussion with #2 before commenting? Maybe dial back the condescension a little bit, that’s uncalled for. I’m no closer after reading that dumpster fire of a conversation to knowing whether my comment is in the scope of your question or not, but it’s the answer I’m going to stick with.

7

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 4w

Okay. Then you don’t have to reply.

-2

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 4w

Was an absolute dumpster fire of a conversation without a doubt. I just don’t understand what question the OP is trying to have answered. It’s impossible to not think morally within this topic, no matter where you stand.

7

Anonymous OP 4w

Gotta be a narcissist

8

Anonymous OP 4w

Have I been disrespectful to you in any way? If so I truly did not mean to and I’d like to apologize. Your tone suggests I may have slighted you by mistake.

6

Anonymous #2 4w

I mean it’s possible, but I’d rather believe it’s someone in a shitty mood who’s maybe struggling to get what’s in their mind across unless I have a reason to rule that out. I’ve been the cause of convos exactly this unproductive before, so I try not to write people off for it.

4

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 4w

No, I haven’t felt disrespected by you at all. I think #2 is doing the most but that’s just my opinion.

-2

Anonymous #5 4w

I’m not debating at all. I’m looking for opinions.

-1

Anonymous OP 4w

Well your opinion’s not a very good one, to be honest. 2 picked up some tone with you eventually but you’ve been very high-and-mighty toward them and they’ve been more than patient with you on the whole.

13

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 4w

It’s just crazy to see such a closed mind

9

Anonymous #5 4w

#2 isn’t arguing about being able to answer without morality and I’ve tried to tell them that it is possible but it’s bothering them. So, idk 🤷‍♀️

-2

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 4w

Okay. Thats your opinion.

-3

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 4w

I should think more like you. Rather than labeling someone, I should consider why they could be acting as they are. You are an exemplary human.

1

Anonymous OP 4w

That’s my observation, there’s a difference.

6

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 4w

You’re right. It’s a strange way to format the question, since something being legal ≠ morally correct. They consistently mention “thinking objectively” about the subject, but… that often leads to outliers and nuances being dismissed, though both are crucial info in medical science. I think people who are against abortions don’t know enough about the procedure, let alone the nuances and details required to make “objective” decisions for that patient’s care, which OFTEN require morality/ethics.

3

Anonymous OP 4w

And I am stating that you can’t answer with morality while you demean and regress from the topic at hand. I hope you learn to have a civil conversation.

9

Anonymous #2 4w

I have heard you. I don’t understand you are still responding. It’s a bit weird.

-2

Anonymous #2 4w

Without*

1

Anonymous OP 4w

If you’re beefing that hard then block them. If you don’t want to block them quit whining, they have just as much a right to participate on this thread as you do until that happens.

10

Anonymous OP 4w

It’s an open forum. This is exactly what this app is meant for.

1

Anonymous #5 4w

That’s the exact point of this post. I want people to actually look into the procedures and be able to back their claims. They need to realize their argument is flawed if they aren’t able to also argue based simply on facts, objectively, legally, or without evidence. It’s normal to have a moral opinion on the topic but if you can’t argue past that then you need to do more research.

-1

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 4w

I’m not even beefing with them.

-1

Anonymous #2 4w

You’ve answered the question. Now you’re just looking to argue.

-2

Anonymous OP 4w

Interesting comment coming from someone who continuously demeaned multiple people while in conversation. Have some intellectual maturity.

4

Anonymous OP 4w

Please refer back to my original comments and assess who was trying to argue. Have a good day

4

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 4w

It’s odd to continuously sending negative messages to someone over a disagreement.

-2

Anonymous #2 4w

I could say the same thing to you.

-2

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 4w

Especially when I stopped engaging and they purposely continued. That’s not well adjusted behavior.

0

Anonymous OP 4w

Yeah that never happened boss. You never stopped engaging you just blindly demanded that they do so for you, and then kept trying to drag them into conversations with third parties so you could badmouth them there. It’s childish and mean-spirited and I hope you act better in the future.

3

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 4w

If that’s what you want to believe. I stopped replying to them and they continued to reply. Both of you are odd.

0

Anonymous OP 4w

You brought up #2 under this comment. I was commenting about YOU. You “are looking for opinions” but when the opinion is that it’s difficult to answer your question without moral reasoning (which is true), you claimed that as invalid since other people replied without criticism of your question’s logic. Then when they attempt to continue the discussion for further info of your question’s logic, you just tell them to stop engaging & demean their position… What kind of discussion is that??

3

Anonymous #5 4w

It was about the conversation with #2. I said it was invalid to state that it’s impossible to answer the question without using morals. If you can answer the question as is then my point was proven.

0

Anonymous OP 4w

I don’t think that you and I have the same understanding of the role that morals/ethics plays in abortion care… which therefore makes a mutual understanding of the question extremely difficult to ascertain. the comment was about 100% of your replies on this post, actually. if someone “can” answer the question as is, that’s fine, but that doesn’t mean the question is without flaws. It absolutely is a flawed question. Access to reproductive care is heavily influenced by ethics & morality…

1

Anonymous #5 4w

Like I replied to you earlier, if you’re completely unable to argument without using morals as a basis then your argument isn’t solid enough. You gotta do more research

1

Anonymous OP 4w

dude… YOUR QUESTION IS FLAWED. how in the fuck were people supposed to gather the point of the post if you were simply set on arguing with people who just didn’t quite understand what you meant!? god you are REALLY BAD at making a point… hopefully this is practice for you but goddamn, it took the fifth commenter and like 49 comments for you to even get to “the point of this post”. 😐 all you did was argue yourself into a hole calling someone weird for genuinely trying to expand on the question.

0

Anonymous OP 4w

… the ethics behind the Hippocratic oath is built off of morals. NAGPRA was put into place via ethics & morality. Boundaries on gender-affirming care for minors was created via ethics & morals... Is morality/ethics not solid enough foundations for these three examples of practices, two of which are in the medical field?

8

Anonymous #5 4w

You need to be able to argue everything point you believe in without a once of bias. Like I said, you can have a bias. You can argue morally, but if you can’t argue without morals your argue is weak. Have a good day!

-1

Anonymous #6 4w

*pardon it’s not after five years for all of the negative impacts, the timelines varied in this study

3