捨てて

if you do not want abortions (and no one thinks they are a good thing worth getting pregnant for), if you value the unborn highly as most pregnant women do and most men do, then you should value the women who carry them and the children that they become. You cannot reasonably make them other peoples risk, consequence, fault, responsibility, problem, and also complain about how they deal with their problems. A society that does not care for the child and the mother has no standing from which to moralise about them, any more than a society that drives women into prostitution has any standing from which to moralise about prostitutes. — unenlightened

:up:

I think.... I don't think.... — Gregory

That's the point. Your thinking does not constitute an argument. I think, you think, he/she thinks, we, you they think. You need to do better than that.

I'm not interested... I have an opinion.... — Tzeentch

Great, you have an opinion. And you're not interested in questions. Nothing to be gained here, nor lost either.

That's the point. Your thinking does not constitute an argument. I think, you think, he/she thinks, we, you they think. You need to do better than that. — tim wood

There is only opinion of these matters. It's really about the best way to live and handle this. From your pro-choice perspective, I dont see you having any case against someone who says we can kill children until they are of the age of reason

There is only opinion of these matters. — Gregory

From an online dictionary: opinion: "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." Are you satisfied with that? How about you try something simple first: expressing yourself with neutral language?

I don't see you having any case against someone who says we can kill children until they are of the age of reason — Gregory

Really? You don't see? Well, maybe you speak truly: maybe you do not see.

Simple start: what makes a woman's pregnancy any one else's business but hers and her doctor's?

what makes a woman's pregnancy any one else's business but hers and her doctor's? — tim wood

Can the doctor and the mother kill the child one hour after birth? Who is to say it's human? DNA? A fetus has that

Can the doctor and the mother kill the child one hour after birth? — Gregory

After the birth, the woman's no longer pregnant, nor is an abortion possible. Try again, but before you answer, try to understand the question: what makes a woman's pregnancy any one else's business but hers and her doctor's?

I've made a number of points in a number of posts. Was there one of my points you didn't understand? I'd prefer not to start repeating myself. My first post you responded to raised a number of issues related to the general rule your position on abortion has. You thought that should be in a new thread. I explained why I thought it belonged here. I wrote posts regarding 'responsibility'. A few times I pointed out things you seemed to be saying I said which I had not. You neither accepted that I hadn't said them nor explained how I had in response to that. Now you are asking me to repeat posts I have already made.

No need to frame yourself as a victim. All your posts in this thread have been in response to mine, and I am having trouble seeing how they relate to the positions I have shared.

Considering the amount of your questions I have answered, this strikes me more as a tantrum than anything else.

We know that immaculate conception is rare. So if we wanted to, we could these days identify the responsible male in almost every case and oblige him to take responsibility. But we don't. The cost of bringing up a child is quite high, because it is so time-consuming, but this side of the responsibility is not really enforced very much. An immigrant woman turns to prostitution, gets impregnated by some guy who exploits her vulnerability, but no one bothers to look for him or hold him responsible, but they don't want her to be able to respond to this as she sees fit either, and they don't want to pay through taxes for her to be supported to bring up the child. Blaming the woman is a very old tradition, but it is morally bankrupt.

I don't feel like a victim, nor did I present myself as one. My last post was me summing up my experience of how you responded to me, or perhaps also did not respond to me. I was not insulting, nor did I complain about suffering. As I said in my previous post. You thought the points I raised about government and corporate use of our money were not relevent to this thread. I responded to that in my next post and argued it was relevant. If you disagree with that argument or need clarification, feel free to respond to that post. I explained what I had experienced in our interaction to explain why I am not repeating points I have already made, which it seemed like you were asking me to do. Yes, it did seem like you attributed things to me I did not assert, but it would take a hellava lot more than that for me to feel like victim. Nor does telling me I am framing myself as a victim, when I'm not, make me feel like a victim.

I do think a lot of anger at women for having sex type issues underly some or perhaps many anti-abortionist positions. IOW it offers a release for the anger that seems to be noble - protecting innocent victims. There's at least one guy posting in this thread who has that feel. in this and at least one other post. I am also skeptical in general about their rule. That they would not contribute to the deaths of innocents. It seems to me most do and a large percentage of the anti-abortion lobby supports wars that necessarily kill unborn children as they frame them. If we get to take a utilitarian view of killing babies - like in a war it is ok for the greater good, then women and others can also take a utilitarian view of the fetuses in their bodies. You can't rule it out deontologically. It's not an absolute, it depends.

I'm not interested in what laws have to say, nor am I interested in telling people what they can and can't do.
With that said, I have an opinion about what I, under the circumstances I have specified, perceive as immoral behavior and why. — Tzeentch

This is called "The Philosophy Forum," not the "opinion forum," or the "I'm not interested forum." Questioning and answering and argumentation and reasoning are all parts of the process.

And before you started going on a rant, all those things were taking place just fine. Why are you so angry that I'm not interested in discussing law?

It doesn't interest me. I think it has little to add to discussions of morality. If you're that adamant about it, give me a reason to reconsider.

I do think a lot of anger at women for having sex type issues underly some or perhaps many anti-abortionist positions. — Coben

That's a bit simple, isn't it?

People say words I don't like, so there must be something wrong with them.

That's not what I said. You are now making a claim that that's why I think the way I do. Which is fine. I made a claim about them. You made a claim about me. But in the structure of your response - even if unintended - it looks like you are summing up my position and that's not my position.

After the birth, the woman's no longer pregnant, nor is an abortion possible. Try again, but before you answer, try to understand the question: what makes a woman's pregnancy any one else's business but hers and her doctor's? — tim wood

I understand the question and it's stupid as dirt with shit in it. Saying you can kill them before birth but not after is completely arbitrary. It's no different from a Nazi saying the configuration of a Jews genes means they are not human and can be killed

This is called "The Philosophy Forum," not the "opinion forum," — tim wood

Everything you can think of is opinion. It's about the best way to live in society. Abortion nowadays is like slavery in the Civil War, except worse. Same lame arguments used: "They're different"

Embryos have a full set of DNA and are turning into a mature human. That is enough to say abortion is murder in our communities. Anyone can argue that you are fair game for hunting until you can think abstractly at 6, or that everyone under 18 is fair game for abortionist behavior. "They are not existentially a human yet!!" some might shout someday. I've never talked to a pro-choice person who is willing to think about this rationally. I feel like that just don't want to have sexual responsibility and don't want to face consequences. It's sad.

And before you started going on a rant, all those things were taking place just fine. Why are you so angry that I'm not interested in discussing law?
It doesn't interest me. I think it has little to add to discussions of morality. If you're that adamant about it, give me a reason to reconsider. — Tzeentch

Let's look at my question again: "what makes a woman's pregnancy any one else's business but hers and her doctor's?" If you can find a mention of law in that, please point it out to me so that I may acknowledge my error and repent in sackcloth and ashes. Lacking that, two reasonable alternatives: 1) try answering it, 2) ignore it. But I shall take a non-answer as your acknowledgement that nothing in your thinking supports any notion of any third persons controlling as to whether a woman may elect to have an abortion.

Indeed, as so far you claim for yourself only opinion and non-interest, I infer you don't think it's anyone else's business but a woman and her doctor's - which I read as strongly pro-choice.

Saying you can kill them before birth but not after is completely arbitrary. — Gregory

Completely arbitrary? Completely? Arbitrary? And you infer "they" are the same before as after birth. Your view is simply not the facts of the matter, therefore ultimately irrational - in oh so many ways.

Everything you can think of is opinion. It's about the best way to live in society. Abortion nowadays is like slavery in the Civil War, except worse. Same lame arguments used: "They're different" — Gregory

You are a very confused individual. Whether there is any merit at all in any of your claims, it is upended by your "reasoning."

Some of the things I think, loosely defined, are opinion. Some are not. So much for your "everything."

"It's about the best way to live in society." In what sense? Defined as how? By whom? When? Under what circumstances? And with what reasoning? The antebellum slave-master thought he knew the best way to live in his society; and, guess what, by his reasoning and given his presuppositions, he was right!

And "difference" is not to be dismissed as a "lame argument." Difference is substantive. It means, not-the-same-as. Acknowledging difference is an essential first step. Then one can argue whether particular difference makes relevant difference. But denial of manifest difference at the first is denial of reason. A variety of, imo, an argumentum ad baculum.

I've never talked to a pro-choice person who is willing to think about this rationally. — Gregory

When you can, you will find many who can and will, even here, and they have, as a review of past threads will show.

Maybe people over 80 cease to be people. They are "different" . You shouldn't kill a class of people because people don't philosophically think they are fully human. Some whites think black people are not fully human. Make the case that definitely fetuses are not people. If you cant, be pro-life and rational

Make the case that definitely fetuses are not people. — Gregory

Please propose an appropriate test by which we may determine either that fetuses are, or are not, people.

I suspect that contra-evidence, you define them as same. In-as-much as they manifestly and evidentially are not, it's for you make the case they are - or yield that they are not.

You have to have clear evidence they are not human in order to take their lives. Duh! You're apparently, tim, ok killing when there migh possibly be human life. As long as there's a grey area huh? That's an asshole move. Suppose a law comes out that defines human life as one that has all functioning organs. Suddenly it's cool to kill organ donars and recipients

You have to have clear evidence they are not human in order to take their lives. — Gregory

All right. Here's a starting point - if I've got it. Fetuses, being not not-human are therefore human. It's wrong to kill humans, therefore it's wrong to kill fetuses.

The idea of this argument is to suspend all claims pending examination. And examination will require testing all claims. Definition at the start is best, but as definition is a kind of claim, preliminary definition must stand as tentative and provisional, subject to test.

We - you - have set aside use of "people" and presumably "person." We can pick them up again if necessary, but at the moment we're going without them.

The first claim is that fetuses are human because not not-human. The problem here is that "human" needs to be unpacked. My own view of this proposition is that its categorical aspect is unsupportable. The implication is that with respect to all tests and criteria, all "humans" are the same. And this is false. Particularly relevant here is the general acceptance that it can be both desirable and good that some humans are killed. That disqualifies any force the first premise might have had. That is, on the basis of humanity alone, it is not categorically wrong to kill humans. You may care to try a definition of human that a) serves you purpose and b) does not beg-the-question.

And you may be arguing from fundamental(ist) belief. It's a rule of mine that people can believe what they like. But belief alone is never justification for anything.

See if you can mend your argument by adjusting "human."

Let's look at my question again: "what makes a woman's pregnancy any one else's business but hers and her doctor's?" If you can find a mention of law in that, please point it out to me so that I may acknowledge my error and repent in sackcloth and ashes. — tim wood

Besides the paragraph above it specifically mentioning a legal case?

But lets move on.

But I shall take a non-answer as your acknowledgement that nothing in your thinking supports any notion of any third persons controlling as to whether a woman may elect to have an abortion. — tim wood

You won't have to take my "non-answer" for it, because it's in the reply itself:

...nor am I interested in telling people what they can and can't do. — Tzeentch

And it's a position I have repeated several times in this thread already.

Nowhere did I state that people shouldn't be allowed to make immoral decisions, so I don't think I am doing any harm to anyone's autonomy. — Tzeentch

What people can and cannot do is not a part of my argument. — Tzeentch

.... Moving on.

Indeed, as so far you claim for yourself only opinion and non-interest, I infer you don't think it's anyone else's business but a woman and her doctor's - which I read as strongly pro-choice. — tim wood

I don't belong to any camp. I won't carry a label that implies I'm in favor of killing unborn children. I think it's a horrible thing. At the same time, I am not for any kind of "control", governmental or otherwise, because it would create a situation that is possibly even worse.

I don't belong to any camp. I won't carry a label that implies I'm in favor of killing unborn children. I think it's a horrible thing. At the same time, I am not for any kind of "control", governmental or otherwise, because it would create a situation that is possibly even worse. — Tzeentch

Fair, and clear. "Unborn children" is problematic, but you're apparently not out there bothering anybody. You have beliefs you represent as beliefs. On my side, that gets a pass.