WookieeB in Message 73 writes:
Perhaps it is, as I stated before, (1) most people don’t like murdering human beings, and (2) most people think unborn babies are human beings.
Most? That can't really be true, can it? Don't polls show that a majority favor a right to abortion? According to a Gallup poll from May of last year, 34% believe abortion should be legal "under any circumstances" and 51% "only under certain circumstances." Only 13% thought it should be illegal under all circumstances:
Where Do Americans Stand on Abortion?
If I understood you correctly, you said that most people consider abortion to be murder, and that's inconsistent with the poll results.
The Navajo issue is nowhere near as impactful as the abortion debate, and it's extremely more limited in scope.
This isn't important, but you're right that it's far less impactful and wrong that it's limited in scope. In fact, the Navajo request affects all Americans, while only half of Americans could be denied an abortion.
I did find it rather amusing, considering your anti-religious position, that you characterized the separation of church and state as a "sacred principle".
I'm not anti-religious. I'm anti "refusal to honor separation of church and state".
I think we're talking past each other. You claim you're not disputing something I thought you were disputing, and you interpreted what I said as all or nothing when I used the word "correlated" three times.
Morals likely have evolutionary origins because they provided a survival benefit. But morals are plastic.
These statements somewhat get to the core of my problem with this whole discussion. They seem contradictory to me.
But I suspect we hold differences in what "morality" means. Can you please define what you mean by "morals" or "morality"? Not what constitutes them (ie, murder is wrong), but what is it itself.
Morals are what feels right and wrong.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2
(1)