Your answer, as well written as it is, only reaffirms the presupposition in the performative significance. If personhood (or marriage) is not presupposed to be categorical then the performative significance is altered but not eliminated.
The counterfeit currency example seemingly relies on a mistaken theory of currency value. In representative currencies, a counterfeit note has no value because the promise of the respresentation is false. The counterfeit note can have value not connected to the representation (e.g., as a work of art), but as a representative currency the value is always nil because the note does not have a corresponding good to ground the value. That owes to the nature of the currency, not the accuracy of the symbol of representation. — Soylent
Ownership is not settled by scientific literature, and I made clear that I introduced the notion of an organ as an analogy. — Moliere
Where I'm unclear, though, is where you place the line, and why you place the line where you place it. I have given an answer to both questions. — Moliere
I know a person who only gained 5 pounds throughout her pregnancy. It simply did not occur to her that she should check. It wasn't until late in her 2nd trimester that she did, and then you have to actually schedule the abortion -- which can take a long time. It's not like you can just go in and get it done. At that point, it was a third trimester abortion, if not as late as we are discussing here. — Moliere
What would you recommend, other than philosophy, we discuss said topic with? What is better suited, in your view? — Moliere
I like the idea of putting the line in the impossible region, however, so birth -- both as a conventionally understood moment of significance, and easily understood -- works for satisfying the proper respect which persons are due while simultaneously remaining conservative and safe. — Moliere
But you can't credibly deny that a foetus at that stage has those features that I mentioned. How else would you word it? — Sapientia
So have I. I don't need to give an exact answer. Even if the line isn't drawn in the best possible place, a line within the right range is better than no line at all. (I'm talking about prior to birth, obviously). The Abortion Act 1967 seems to be working, given that there is evidence that late-term abortions are rare. But even if it isn't working as well as we might like, that's no good reason to remove the safety net. — Sapientia
It should be clear to you that a foetus at the stage we've discussed is very similar to a newborn, and more so than any organ in the human body. — Sapientia
Wisdom. Wisdom leads to the right conclusions. It has lead most of the U.S. to the right conclusion. Any fool can use philosophy and end up with his head up his arse. Or perhaps they were in that situation to begin with and are merely using philosophy as a means to justify their arse-headedness. It's a bit like shaving. Some people are better at it than others. Some people end up with cuts all over their face. — Sapientia
I find your prioritisation of convention and understandability over actual human life sickening. You aren't giving them the proper respect they're due, and it certainly isn't safe for the unborn baby that ends up getting killed, is it? — Sapientia
But it's alright, because it isn't a person. Just like how a Jew isn't a person. First you dehumanise, then you allow to be killed. I'd rather be a Catholic than a Nazi.
And in anticipation of your denial, you are dehumanising.
You're purposefully overlooking or playing down human qualities, and you purposefully exclude from the human category altogether. Unborn babies are appropriately treated as human, as opposed to an organ or body part, in many ways. For example, at the later stage of development, they can hear. People talk to it. It has a gender. People refer to it as "him" or "her". It sometimes has a name which is used in reference to it. People evidently care about it in a significant way, and not in quite the same way as they do a gall bladder.
It's not the wording which I have an issue with as much as how you are conceptualizing the situation. Ownership over property, rights, and the rest all come with designating something in the world as a who.
"The bread has cheese on it" differs from "I have eyebrows" in the sense that I own myself. — Moliere
No good reason? Maybe not for yourself, considering how pregnancy will never affect you or me in the same way it affects roughly half the population.
But I would say the good reason is at the social level more than at some personal level. — Moliere
In a broad sense I think that the allowance of action is the default, and it is the prohibition of action which has the burden to prove why something ought to be prohibited. Call this the "Soft Libertarian Principle" -- soft only because I could see harder stances, but this is the sort of libertarianism that I think is broadly agreed upon by most.
So the good reason that you ask for, from my perspective, is on the prohibiter to produce. — Moliere
And, furthermore, we even agree on the notion of "safely prior to being a person" it seems. — Moliere
Not only is it clear to me, but I have already acknowledged the similarity. — Moliere
Wisdom leads to the right conclusions -- which are obviously mine! — Moliere
The difference between yourself and myself should be clear in this question. You believe the fetus is a baby. You believe the fetus is a person. So it is sickening for someone to kill a fetus specifically because said action, from your perspective, is no different than killing a newborn. — Moliere
And given that babies at least need an environment before they can be a being... — Moliere
As such it seems to me that you are just personifying what is not a person -- like someone protecting a mole or a gall bladder as if it had a personality all of its own. — Moliere
I'd put it to you that this is only sometimes the case, and not always the case. — Moliere
In addition, I would note that people talk, gender, name, and care about a great many things -- cars, motorcycles, boats, weapons -- but that doesn't afford them rights, per se. — Moliere
I have eyebrows, and so does a foetus at the relevant stage of development. To be frank, I don't much care about your abstractions and philosophical interpretation. I care about the human life that's at stake. — Sapientia
What's strange to me is that you seem to believe I don't care about the human life at stake. — Moliere
That coupled with the strange allusions to "my agenda" makes it hard to take this very seriously. — Moliere
Abortion should never be allowed because the the zygote is a human zygote. It has a full set of chromosomes. It will become a human being left unfettered. There are natural causes which can prevent a zygote from becoming a human, but this is different from intentional causes -- so miscarriages or if the separate human cells don't implant in the uturus are not even manslaughter, but intentional human action to destroy human life is at a minimum manslaughter, and at a maximum murder.
We can't make exceptions just for the sake of convenience. A human being is a human being, without qualification, and clearly there is a unique set of chromosomes when the zygote is formed. So, scientifically at least, there is no basis for not including the zygote as part of the species, and for not saying it is alive.
How, then, do you say that the Abortion Act of 1967 is a just law, if it permits the murder of human beings?
How do you justify allowing unjust abortions from taking place? — Moliere
I believe that you either don't care enough; or that you do, but the position that you advocate conflicts with what makes sense, given your feelings. — Sapientia
How is it strange? Is your agenda not to exclude unborn babies from the legal protection that they're currently granted? — Sapientia
If you want to get technical with terminology, as your objection to my referring to a foetus as an unborn baby suggests, then you can't - for sake of consistency - keep calling murder that which is not murder.
Just because I pointed out that a foetus is human in that it's a member of the human species, and that it's alive, that doesn't mean that I think that that's the be-all and end-all. The level of development also matters, as I've consistently said from the start, and I suspect that you'd agree to an extent. Just as you don't think that a gall bladder should be treated like a newborn, I don't think that a zygote should be treated like a 38-week-old foetus. Our reasons might not be exactly the same, but they're close enough for you to understand why I think as I do. I also spoke of viability, priority of values, and how the costs weigh up in comparison to the benefits. I don't believe that the mother should have no rights, as the position that you describe would entail if it is to be consistent.
My position, unlike yours, is consistent in terms of ethics in relation to law. I consider child destruction unjust, so I advocate laws against it. You have similarly said something along the lines that you consider it unjust, in terms of morality, but you advocate permitting it nevertheless, and for any reason whatsoever provided it comes from the mother.
So, to be clear, my objection is that your questions are loaded and don't accurately reflect my position. — Sapientia
Then I would say that this is an erroneous belief. If anything my error is to care too much when it comes to politics.
I would say again that our difference is merely where we place the line, and why we place the line there, and nothing more. — Moliere
Negative. My agenda, in this thread, is to defend my view from the charges made against it, and to understand the why behind what you state you believe. — Moliere
This is a dodge. — Moliere
What's the difference between a zygote and a child? Eyebrows? Are you not dehumanizing what is clearly human? It's alive, it has its own set of chromosomes separate from the mothers, it belongs to the human species. How do you, then, justify allowing its intentional termination? — Moliere
It wasn't until late in her 2nd trimester that she did, and then you have to actually schedule the abortion -- which can take a long time. It's not like you can just go in and get it done. — Moliere
That is to ignore the implications. If I were to place the line at 6 months after birth, and say that I care just as much (in the sense of empathy and compassion, as opposed to enthusiasm with regards to politics), are you going to genuinely tell me that there would be no other implications? The difference between our positions isn't as severe as that, but it's there. — Sapientia
Your new tactic seems to ignore important things that I've said, and acts like that isn't going to be problematic, when it is. It's a wider issue than the difference between a zygote and a child, but I've already pointed out some of the differences, and yet you choose to focus on the most trivial, while ignoring the others. So, why should the burden be on me to repeat myself rather than on you to structure your attacks in a manner that better reflects my position? I even helped you by pointing out important aspects of which I'd previously spoke. These factor in to the justification.
And no, I'm not dehumanising in the sense that I previously expressed. I have no problem acknowledging that the zygote is a human zygote, but it's not treated in the same way as either a child or a newborn baby or a yet-to-be-born baby for reasons that I'm sure you already understand. — Sapientia
These implications only exist if everyone believed as you believe.
So, yes -- I would genuinely say so. It's not an issue of care as much as it is an issue of belief. — Moliere
The only thing you've stated in this regard is viability. Your response to my critique of viability was, more or less, "It's good enough for me for now"
Is that how you'd respond to someone who is claiming that your view allows the murder of unborn babies?
I assure you that the view I'm adopting here is far from unpopular. — Moliere
Ok, let's say that you've convinced me that my position allows the "murder" of unborn babies. Is that going to miraculously make your position justified? — Sapientia
But it's certainly the case that many people believe that the laws, as they are written now, allow for the murder of babies.
To them do you say, more or less, as you have said to me? That viability is the measure which is good enough for now, because it's good enough for you and seems practical? — Moliere
Always trying to take the moral high ground no? Well let's see if you do have the high moral ground. Is women having no respect for their bodies and fucking around something that the state should spend money on? If they want to bring a child in the world, if they can't be bothered with protection and/or if they wanna risk their life in a back-alley abortion, so be it. They just got to learn that they have to be RESPONSIBLE for their actions. It's their choice and that should be allowed to happen. Is women denying the right of the father to have the child, even after they have had unprotected sex with him, just because they have different plans compared to the father right? No, it's a moral abomination. The child belongs to both parents, and the mother having the choice to kill the child at her whim is simply s-t-u-p-i-d, as it denies the father the equal right he has over having the child. (of course there are exceptions to this such as rape).Hanover calls himself a common sense conservative. There isn't much sense in your views on those topics - whether common or otherwise. Take abortion, for example. Hanover and I want to conserve only that which it's sensible to conserve, rather than being a reactionary, harkening back to the bad old days of back-alley abortions. — Sapientia
The labels "liberal" and "conservative" are almost meaningless. Using your own labels as an example, being opposed to the death penalty and in favor of universal health care are positions most on the left espouse.
I find classical liberalism, which seems to fit me best, is now seen as a conservative or rightist position, ironically enough. But this has only come about in the last 50 years or so with the rise of the highly illiberal New Left. — Thorongil
Always trying to take the moral high ground, no? — Agustino
Is being judgemental necessarily wrong? Where did you get this from? I think being judgemental is good if your judgement is correct, and bad if your judgement is bad. As Thomas Aquinas proved in the (was it first, can't remember now) chapter of Summa contra Gentilles, the office of the wise man has two purposes: 1. to provide guidance towards the truth, and 2. to refute the false. Thus, likewise, the office of the virtuous man has two purposes: 1. to show what virtue is and how to approach it, and 2. to fight against vice (and hence judge it).I find that ironic coming from someone who harps on about virtue, and is probably the most judgemental member of the forum. — Sapientia
Do you mean your first post in the original thread (not this one)? Or the posts in this thread (haven't read through those yet!). And I do agree that your views are more sensible on abortion compared to some of the other ones I've read in that thread.As for the abortion issue, perhaps you should actually read (or reread) my part in that discussion. Then perhaps you wouldn't waste time attacking claims that I wouldn't make, and have actually argued against, like the claim the mother should have the choice to kill the child at her whim. — Sapientia
Is being judgemental necessarily wrong? Where did you get this from? I think being judgemental is good if your judgement is correct, and bad if your judgement is bad. — Agustino
political correctness — Agustino
Is being judgemental necessarily wrong? Where did you get this from? I think being judgemental is good if your judgement is correct, and bad if your judgement is bad. As Thomas Aquinas proved in the (was it first, can't remember now) chapter of Summa contra Gentilles, the office of the wise man has two purposes: 1. to provide guidance towards the truth, and 2. to refute the false. Thus, likewise, the office of the virtuous man has two purposes: 1. to show what virtue is and how to approach it, and 2. to fight against vice (and hence judge it). — Agustino
Do you mean your first post in the original thread (not this one)? Or the posts in this thread (haven't read through those yet!). And I do agree that your views are more sensible on abortion compared to some of the other ones I've read in that thread. — Agustino
only those who get pregnant ought to be empowered to decide whether or not to have an abortion, — jamalrob
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.