Scientism and essentialism might be seen as things that dissipate with experience. — Banno

I don’t know how science could be the ultimate authority on the issue. It can’t, for instance, prove or disprove the existence of a soul.

Where do the souls of aborted babies go? What would a soul of an embryo frozen for centuries experience? — RogueAI

For centuries the answer was limbo because they are unbaptized. Relatively recently the higherup decided that the fate of the unbaptized was up to God. Generous of them to let God decide.

Your are talking public policy. — Fire Ologist

Supporting policy that is against your principles or faith only means that your principles or faith are weak.

** Before continuing I'd like to personally thank @frank for invoking Godwin's Law. **

If the policy of the land was genocide would you support it?

Explain what? — Fire Ologist

The following for starters. Six months is pretty extreme.

I'd rather abortion up to around six or so months remain legal. — Fire Ologist

To whom? — Fire Ologist

To your fellow Catholics. To God. And if you don’t care about them and how you represent the Catholic faith, to anyone who reads the thread.

I searched for “religion” posted by Fire and it was easy to find.

I am a Catholic and believe in God. — Fire Ologist

Cat’s out of the bag now, Fire. You got some splaining ta do.

:lol: Not helpful.

By the way. I've stated what my religion is more than a few times in the forum. It's no secret. I'm just not telling you here. Because Satan told me, not to worry, he'll take care of you.

I found a great quote:

"Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere aude! [Dare to know!] Have the courage to use your own understanding! That is the motto of enlightenment."
- Immanuel Kant, 1784 — Fire Ologist

Odd choice of quote for the context. Any keywords that would help me discover the secret?

How about some aspects. — Fire Ologist

Music appreciation.

My argument is everything is arbitrary after you have a living organism with 46 chromosomes. Waiting for thought capabilities, or desiring or sentience is like waiting for laughter or pooping, or any other activity. Also, my argument is a sort of reductio ad absurdum - if a person is thinking, then to be consistent, many newborns are not persons. I think that's not an explanation of person that anyone is after. — Fire Ologist

There isn’t just one aspect to being human obviously. NOS and Frank are dissatisfied with the humanity of pre-borns and feel they must be somehow humanized. I suggested playing classical music for early enculturation. Not sure what else could be done.

Secret religions and abortion at six months is definitely creepy.

That is exactly right. — Fire Ologist

If I'm right then you've just sealed your death warrant by revealing the secret sect of Satanism.

I don't think you trust my answers for some reason. And I'm curious why but really would rather hear some sort of argument relating to abortion from you. — Fire Ologist

Very well, let's proceed and assume all things you've said are true. It will force me to make some assumptions about your views and it would be far more productive if you simply said what your views are, but I'm game.

What we know about your views so far:

• You think abortion should be legal for up to six months.
  
• You are personally against abortion.
  
• You belong to a religion.
  
• You can't reveal what religion you belong to.

There's a good chance of survival for birth at six months. This could be critical. Perhaps the religion that you belong to requires the ritual sacrifice of babies as young as possible or at least younger than six months. This could account for the wish that abortion be legal for up to six months. Killing babies after that cutoff date would be useless. It may even anger the God or Gods to be offered a sacrifice that's past its stale date.

I'm guessing that you're personally against killing babies because hemophobia prevents you from plunging the sacrificial knife yourself.

Maybe you can't say what religion you belong to because it's a secret sect of :naughty: Satanism :naughty: and you would be killed if you said anything.

Sound about right?

I wonder if there’s a law similar to Godwin.

That was the first time the word “religion” was used between us.

Contradiction contradicted. Again. — Fire Ologist

You implied that I asked you about it. I didn’t.

Why did you volunteer that you’re religious?

You brought it up first, not me. I was just being open and honest and responding fully to you. — Fire Ologist

I did not ask if you were religious. You volunteered that information, for no apparent reason.

The fact that you refuse to describe your religious views strongly indicates that they have everything to do with the subject. If they had nothing to do with the subject there would be no reason to refuse.

Where are you trying to go with the conversation?

Where you want to go, metaphysics and zygotes. Knowing your religious views would be essential, but you don’t want to talk about your religious views. Another contradiction.

This all has nothing to do with religion to me. — Fire Ologist

That’s why your religious views are interesting. Why not share them?

Also, you mentioned that you’re religious. Why mention it if this has nothing to do with religion for you? Another contradiction.

Just make something up if you like.

I’m not religious, btw.

created the contradiction controversy — Fire Ologist

There’s no controversy. I’d trust you more if you admitted to goofing around. Honestly though, I don’t care if you’re sincere or not. Let’s play pretend…

what about all of the other things I said to you about what a zygote must be biologically and metaphysically speaking? — Fire Ologist

You’ll have to describe your religious views in order to get into this. I’m sure they will be interesting.

My question about the psychology of humanization is about what it does to the one who behaves that way, how it hinders the conscience. because it has a clear psychological purpose. A fetus need not be aware of it. — NOS4A2

I don't see what the point of humanizing (making it more civilized or whatever) a fetus would be if they weren't aware of it in some way. I've heard of parents playing classical music during pregnancy for their unborn child. Couldn't hurt, I think.

Hmmm, let's ask what a third disinterested party thinks.

Hey @chatgpt, what does anti-abortion without exception mean?

"Anti-abortion without exception" refers to a stance on abortion that opposes allowing abortion in any circumstance. This position means that a person or policy does not support abortion, even in cases where exceptions are typically debated, such as:

Rape or incest: Situations where pregnancy occurs due to non-consensual acts.

Life or health of the mother: When the pregnancy poses a significant risk to the mother's physical health or life.

Fetal abnormalities: Cases where the fetus is diagnosed with a condition that may lead to a non-viable pregnancy or severe health issues after birth.

Those who hold this view believe that abortion should not be permitted under any conditions, often based on ethical, religious, or moral grounds. It contrasts with other anti-abortion positions that may allow for specific exceptions. — chatgpt

I’m actually anti-abortion-without-exception — Fire Ologist

I think some abortions might be sins, and some definitely are not. — Fire Ologist

Your position of being against abortion without exception appears to contradict your belief that some abortions are definitely not a sin (immoral, wrong, erroneous, or whatever).

Should I focus the conversation on what you REALLY think instead of what you are saying? — Fire Ologist

You already are...

You don’t want to trust me. You don’t believe me or think I don’t have my own mind. I’m just a religious zealot (even though I don’t sound like one or ever raised the issue and I as just honestly responding to you). — Fire Ologist

Some of the things you say are glaringly contradictory.

I'm not trying to determine whether an abortion is a sin or not. In fact I think some abortions might be sins, and some definitely are not. — Fire Ologist

:snicker:

The funny thing is that NOS's and Frank's point underscores that human zygotes, blastocysts, and fetuses are not fully human in that there's no concern of them being psychologically harmed by being considered mere human zygotes, blastocysts, and fetuses.

Oh, sorry, I assumed you cared about the victims of dehumanization. My mistake.

Btw, if pro-choice advocates don’t believe that human zygotes, blastocysts, and fetuses are human what species do they think they are?

“Those who dehumanize others often experience moral disengagement, which allows them to justify harmful behaviors. This disengagement, while protective in some cases (e.g., soldiers in wartime), can desensitize people to violence and diminish empathy, affecting their relationships and broader social behaviors.”

If your theory is that legal abortion diminishes empathy and whatnot in society then maybe try to show how that could be the case.

Dehumanization is the method. I’m curious what it does psychologically — NOS4A2

Being dehumanized can cause significant psychological harm. Zygotes, blastocysts, and fetuses often feel alienated, isolated, and humiliated, which can lead to anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem. Chronic dehumanization, like in cases of systemic discrimination, can contribute to long-term mental health issues.

If we say “abortion” we have to draw some lines and fix some boundaries. One of them is “human”. If, when it becomes difficult to fix that boundary I just say “everything changes anyway” I can’t say “human” anymore. — Fire Ologist

Sure you can. The point is only that we may identify things based on our goals. For instance, if our goals are pragmatic in nature we may identify something one way and if our goals are spiritual in nature we may identify them a different way.

A cup can be an instrument for drinking or a sacred object and we would treat it differently based on our vision of it. The secular cup is useless for attaining spiritual goals and the sacred cup is useless for attaining practical goals (if sacrilegious to use it that way).

I’m religious. — Fire Ologist

Don’t you think this influences how you identify things?

There is no organism before conception. A sperm or an egg are specialized human cells, like a liver cell or any other special cell, but they are not organisms. They start something new. But that moment is the rub of the metaphysical question. Conception marks a change. Change reflects difference and becoming and motion. Doesn’t seem like an arbitrary line is drawn at conception to me but I’d love an argument. Conception is a new motion. — Fire Ologist

As far as I can tell everything is in a constant state of change and motion at the molecular, cellular, terrestrial, and celestial levels. I think we mark beginning and ending basically in order to take action and achieve goals.

Many see beginning and endings as conventionally true but ultimately like illusions. I tend to see it that way though I recognize how very limited my perspective is.

It’s an ethical issue, a biological issue, a metaphysical issue, a legal/public policy issue (and all the politicking and ideological virtue signaling that goes with that). By practical, I meant the legal public policy bit. — Fire Ologist

Confusing because you said that you’re pro-choice because abortion policy is a practical issue.

A religious person might say that they’re pro-life because abortion policy is a spiritual issue.

I get that not everyone is going to agree with me that the long chain of events that is a person’s life includes the moments they were conceived. — Fire Ologist

Why not before that? A zygote does not just come into existence on its own.

I am pro choice because abortion policy is a practical issue — Fire Ologist

Can you clarify what you mean by that? Some may view it as an ideological issue.

It's not at all clear what their position is. — Banno

Supporting choice up to six months doesn’t exactly scream “anti-abortion-without-exception,” but maybe they are being sincere.

How do you explain preferring choice up to six months to keep the state out of it but actually being anti-abortion-without-exception?

Yes. To keep the state out of it.

…

I’m actually anti-abortion-without-exception — Fire Ologist

FYI: people who post like this seem to get banned quickly.

Your position is clear: pro-choice (up to six months).

But I’m not going to hide from the evidence about what an abortion is just because some other people might use it to make bad law and treat people badly. — Fire Ologist

It feels wrong, if that’s what you’re getting at. Do you want everyone to agree with you that it feels wrong?

What is the organism in the fetal stage that lives inside a pregnant adult human being? — Fire Ologist

It's a person. A human being, at a different stage in the fragile life it shares with the rest of us idiots, like a newborn is, or an old, blind, dying man with Alzheimer's is, or the strongest, smartest man in the world is. — Fire Ologist

I'd rather abortion up to around six or so months remain legal. — Fire Ologist

You agree with Banno for zygotes. Why?

…being a eudaimon…

That’s an interesting choice of words. Eudaimon translates to "having a good attendant or indwelling spirit".

I could not have been clearer and you seem to largely ignore what I wrote so I have nowhere to go from here.

It’s been an interesting and fruitful discussion for me. :sparkle:

We give people liberties because it is pragmatically the best thing to do; and not because it is ideally the best. See what I mean? — Bob Ross

Yes, exactly.

It seems your version of Neo-Aristotelianism is somehow grounded in idealism rather than practical living and achieving eudaimonia (human flourishing).

What you are describing is a secular view, which removes ethics from politics, as a pragmatic means of allowing people to flourish the best; and I agree with it other than that it doesn't actually completely remove ethics (even though it purports to). — Bob Ross

The bottom line is that if a Neo-Aristotelian truly values human flourishing they will value choice because:

• The ultimate goal is human flourishing and not some heavenly reward or escape from samsara.
  
• Democracy is the best form of government for the people (and not just the elite) to flourishing.
  
• Democratic societies tend to choose choice.

Secondly, the state is in charge of providing, pragmatically, an adequate basis for human flourishing; but there are limitations, and I would say that the individual should be endowed with a certain level of responsibility to figure out how to flourish themselves. I don't think societies that try to give the government full control to legislate morality end up doing to hot: that's why, pragmatically, in terms of applied ethics, I would lean towards giving the individually as much power to make decisions about themselves; instead of entrusting that to the government. However, the laws which are put in place by the state are there to help with incentivizing the human good and barring immoral acts that are severe enough (e.g., marriage, rights, murder, rape, etc.). — Bob Ross

In a representative democracy, legislators are elected to act on behalf of their constituents. Although this system isn’t perfect and representation can feel indirect, the will of the people generally prevails. From my perspective, democracy remains the best framework for enabling the people to flourish. I recognize that you may view this differently, but as we’ve discussed, in the U.S., the prevailing sentiment is a love of freedom and choice. The minority who dissent often base their views on faith: faith in the immortal soul, in God, and, ultimately, in what other mortals convey to them.

Your Neo-Aristotelian schema doesn’t seem to align with any part of this system.

"Generally speaking, people seek abortion because they’re not prepared to be caregivers. They reason that they, and a child, are not in a position to flourish."
-– praxis

By “flourishing”, what we really mean is eudaimonia (viz., to be a eudaimon) and this is just to say that one is living well by fulfilling their Telos. To allow people to live well (in this sense), we have to respect them as persons: we cannot kill them simply because we don’t believe we can take care of them. Not only is it simply not true in the western, developed world (as there are plenty of pro-life institutions which will provide for the child) but also, even if it were true, you cannot violate someone’s rights: rights are inherently deontological. — Bob Ross

So you believe that the state knows better than individuals whether or not they're in a position to flourish (achieve eudaimonia if you prefer) with a child?