By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - What's morally acceptable to you?

Jumpin on 10 August 2020

Most of these are straight forward, but some are situational in nature.

Birth control: Yes
Drinking alcohol: Yes
Divorce: Yes
Sex between an unmarried man and woman: Yes
Gambling: Yes
Smoking marijuana: Yes
Gay or lesbian relations: Yes
Having a baby outside marriage: Yes
Stem cell research using human embryos: Yes
Medical testing on animals: No
Buying and wearing clothing made of animal fur: No
The death penalty: No
Doctor-assisted suicide: Yes (but only after proper psychological and medical analysis)
Abortion: Yes (if at a stage where birth is not possible)
Sex between teenagers: Yes (but with rules)
Pornography: Yes (but with rules on production)
Cloning animals: Yes (but with rules)
Polygamy: Yes
Suicide: Yes (but only after proper psychological and medical analysis)
Cloning humans: Yes (but with rules)
Married men and women having an affair: Yes (but with legal penalties of financial nature relating to the shared assets of the couple if not consensual and ends in a break up).

When I say "with rules" I mean there should be limits, and if they are violated that there should be a cost/consequence analysis.

For example,

Pornography production, as another example, stuff that exploits/abuses actors/actresses should not be tolerated. Performers should be treated as a legitimate profession and not something desperate and poor people are forced into when they would not do such a thing without desperate circumstances. Amateur pornography should require a license - although I do not agree with stiff penalties for violation, just removal of content until a license is acquired (which can retroactively apply). Something along those lines. Of course, if Universal basic income becomes a thing, then no licenses are required since desperation for survival will not exist and people can focus more on the professions they want, and if that is sex then it is sex.

Last edited by Jumpin - on 10 August 2020

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Around the Network
curl-6 on 10 August 2020
Jumpin said:

Pornography production, as another example, stuff that exploits/abuses actors/actresses should not be tolerated. Performers should be treated as a legitimate profession and not something desperate and poor people are forced into when they would not do such a thing without desperate circumstances. Amateur pornography should require a license - although I do not agree with stiff penalties for violation, just removal of content until a license is acquired (which can retroactively apply). Something along those lines. Of course, if Universal basic income becomes a thing, then no licenses are required since desperation for survival will not exist and people can focus more on the professions they want, and if that is sex then it is sex.

Porn should absolutely be treated as a legitimate profession and its performers extended the same protections as well regulated jobs, but for an amateur porn license, how exactly would a person go about getting one, what would be required of them?



OhNoYouDont on 11 August 2020
Pyro as Bill said:
OhNoYouDont said:

I still do not see any definition.

You continue to use the term baby yet refuse to define what you mean when you say baby which is the source of your confusion and mine. Without a definition I cannot address anything that you say referring to the term baby because I have no idea what you mean when you say that word.

So you now are agreeing that a fetus is different than a baby, although you offer no definition for either term so I have no way of knowing if this corresponds in any way to the standard concepts.

A fetus is just a meat sack, its parts do not cause me any mental strife. Same reaction to pulling the plug on someone who is brain dead. If they are sufficiently developed, they may have brain function but mere brain function does not constitute being a person which entails consciousness. Imagine never being born, it's not a terrible thing. 

People act like when you die you retain your memories and persist, but that's just naive. When you die, it'll be just like before you were born. Nothingness. Not good, not bad, just nothing. Ignorance is bliss as they say. 

So defining a 9 month old fetus/unborn child/-1 day old baby as a baby is an incorrect definition but egg, grape and meat sack are cool?

Are you sure you're not confusing the definition of fetus with embryo?

A -1 day old baby most definitely has consciousness.

One of the reasons why late stage abortions are so rare is because doctors don't want to risk a murder charge when the baby survives the abortion and the law won't recognise 'fetus survival' as being any different than regular childbirth.

That's a highly controversial statement, but I was not talking about babies as I used the term fetus...so I really have no idea why you brought up babies at all. On the off chance that you are confused and referring to a 1 day old fetus as conscious, then you are in dire need of some education.

"The preterm infant, ex utero, may open its eyes and establish minimal eye contact with its mother. It also shows avoidance reactions to harmful stimuli. However, the thalamocortical connections are not yet fully established, which is why it can only reach a minimal level of consciousness."

source: https://www.nature.com/articles/pr200950

"consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester. By this time, preterm infants can survive outside the womb under proper medical care."

source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/



Pyro as Bill on 11 August 2020
OhNoYouDont said:
Pyro as Bill said:

So defining a 9 month old fetus/unborn child/-1 day old baby as a baby is an incorrect definition but egg, grape and meat sack are cool?

Are you sure you're not confusing the definition of fetus with embryo?

A -1 day old baby most definitely has consciousness.

One of the reasons why late stage abortions are so rare is because doctors don't want to risk a murder charge when the baby survives the abortion and the law won't recognise 'fetus survival' as being any different than regular childbirth.

That's a highly controversial statement, but I was not talking about babies as I used the term fetus...so I really have no idea why you brought up babies at all. On the off chance that you are confused and referring to a 1 day old fetus as conscious, then you are in dire need of some education.

"The preterm infant, ex utero, may open its eyes and establish minimal eye contact with its mother. It also shows avoidance reactions to harmful stimuli. However, the thalamocortical connections are not yet fully established, which is why it can only reach a minimal level of consciousness."

source: https://www.nature.com/articles/pr200950

"consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester. By this time, preterm infants can survive outside the womb under proper medical care."

source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/

I said a minus one day old baby ie a 9 month old fetus or a child the day/hour before it's born.

"minimal level of consciousness" still equals consciousness



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

Ryng on 11 August 2020

Sex between teenagers: 38%

The fact this percent is so low really show how obsolete Ameticans are...



Around the Network
curl-6 on 11 August 2020

I wish I'd had sex as a teenager. I wanted to, but never managed it.



OhNoYouDont on 11 August 2020
Pyro as Bill said:
OhNoYouDont said:

That's a highly controversial statement, but I was not talking about babies as I used the term fetus...so I really have no idea why you brought up babies at all. On the off chance that you are confused and referring to a 1 day old fetus as conscious, then you are in dire need of some education.

"The preterm infant, ex utero, may open its eyes and establish minimal eye contact with its mother. It also shows avoidance reactions to harmful stimuli. However, the thalamocortical connections are not yet fully established, which is why it can only reach a minimal level of consciousness."

source: https://www.nature.com/articles/pr200950

"consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester. By this time, preterm infants can survive outside the womb under proper medical care."

source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/

I said a minus one day old baby ie a 9 month old fetus or a child the day/hour before it's born.

"minimal level of consciousness" still equals consciousness

No such thing as a negative 1 day old baby. That's a fetus. 

Minimal consciousness is the step directly above persistent vegetative state which is why it's important at all. 92% of abortions take place within the first 13 weeks of pregnancy, long before any semblance of consciousness (even minimal). Only 1.2% occur after 21 weeks.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/5113/9611/5527/Abortion_After_first_trimester.pdf

Nobody has even suggested that we should allow abortion after consciousness has begun so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make?



Jaicee on 16 August 2020

Another question for this thread: Is it wrong to own a Stadia?



vivster on 16 August 2020
John2290 said:
For all the people saying Human Cloning is immoral, please tell me why. It's the intent in which the cloning is used, right? Like, I can't see any downside to cloning yourself and especially if your clone is brain dead with no memory which you could use or parts. No body is getting hurt.

People fear what they don't understand. Same with GMOs.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

curl-6 on 16 August 2020
Jaicee said:

Another question for this thread: Is it wrong to own a Stadia?

It's completely immoral, yes. Of all the issues listed in the OP, only this is objectively evil.