Mhmm. — Thorongil

Really? Everything that's not morally right should be illegal?

Appeal to authority. That is a logical fallacy. — LostThomist

I believe that calling out someone else for committing a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy. An appeal to jargon. We can call it T Clark's fallacy if we want to.

Anyway, people who call others out on a fallacy are often wrong, as you are here.

It becomes fairly easy then to see how an unborn fetus could be seen as perhaps nothing more than a cancerous tumor, triggered by foreign DNA entering the body. — Sydasis

This is a disturbing and, in my opinion, silly metaphor. Really - an embryo is like cancer?

I was thinking of "not moral" in the sense of "immoral," not as a general category of non-moral things. I think everything that's immoral should be illegal. And in point of fact, most immoral things are already illegal, but not everything, such as abortion.

The state is a subjective imitation of an objective reality. And because a state is made up of individuals, appeals to objective morality fall away because one must first pass through the lens of the subjective nature of the state. If one wants to outlaw every thought-to-be immoral action, then the state is not merely imitating an objective moral reality but attempting to be that reality. I also find that eating animal flesh is immoral, but recognize that such an immoral act is sometimes necessary, thus outlawing it is both unreasonable and wrong, as the state doesn't exist as a moral agent - a judge of absolute morality. At best, it does what it can, but it won't ever be that which is imitates.

I might add that you are usually someone who on this forum talks of trade-offs and compromise - well, do you not admit to needing to make compromises and trade-offs with regard to what is or is not acceptable in civilized society or will you bludgeon anyone who disagrees with your appeals to absolute morality? For me the compromise I am willing to make is to champion pro-life and cautious attitudes with regard to sex and procreation, as well as being against publicly funded abortions. And while I get to clamor for these views in the public square, I realize that I'm not going to get everything that I want, which is why I'm willing to allow for privately performed abortions in most cases.

In the end I think it'll be more worthwhile if society addresses the underlying problem of promiscuous sex so that abortions are not as appallingly common as they are now. Abortion being used not as an emergency procedure but a form of birth control is what requires cultural and societal pressure. — Buxtebuddha

I can't tell, are you fer birth control or agin it? I have no problem supporting non-coercive programs that try to reduce promiscuous sex, but I put more faith in those that promote use of birth control. And when all that fails, programs to support women during pregnancy and helping them find a good home for their child - either with their biological family or another. If you want to stop abortion, do what works, not what makes you feel good.

I was thinking of "not moral" in the sense of "immoral," not as a general category of non-moral things. I think everything that's immoral should be illegal. And in point of fact, most immoral things are already illegal, but not everything, such as abortion. — Thorongil

Is fornication immoral? I checked and it's not illegal in the US. Homosexuality? Masturbation? Pornography? Predatory business practices?

I might add that you are usually someone who on this forum talks of trade-offs and compromise - well, do you not admit to needing to make compromises and trade-offs with regard to what is or is not acceptable in civilized society or will you bludgeon anyone who disagrees with your appeals to absolute morality? For me the compromise I am willing to make is to champion pro-life and cautious attitudes with regard to sex and procreation, as well as being against publicly funded abortions. And while I get to clamor for these views in the public square, I realize that I'm not going to get everything that I want, which is why I'm willing to allow for privately performed abortions in most cases. — Buxtebuddha

A very nuanced and convincing approach. Your commitment to practicality without giving up on moral vision is admirable.

If you want to stop abortion, do what works, not what makes you feel good. — T Clark

Technically the most effective "birth" control is not having sex in the first place. But of course people will have sex, protected or no, which is why I do support non-abortion methods of birth control, such that prevent conception, which is really what birth control is. Abortion, rather than blocking conception, blocks birth. That is, something that blocks conception keeps a life from being made, whereas abortion keeps a life made from living. The former I find no issue with, the latter I'm personally opposed to.

So I'm for conception control, I guess, but not post-conception birth control. Once that life is goin, and you don't want it, you dun already fucked up. If you want to compound your mistake and vacuum cleaner it out as Thorongil funnily worded it, then fine. Just don't make me get the blood on my hands for helping to pay for it.

So I'm for conception control, I guess, but not post-conception birth control. Once that life is goin, and you don't want it, you dun already fucked up. If you want to compound your mistake and vacuum cleaner it out as Thorongil funnily worded it, then fine. Just don't make me get the blood on my hands for helping to pay for it. — Buxtebuddha

As I said previously, a very humane and practical approach.

As I said previously, a very humane and practical approach. — T Clark

Thank you for the kind words, grandpa. Wait, heyheyheyheyhey, don't kick me off your knee! :cry: :snicker:

I also find that eating animal flesh is immoral, but recognize that such an immoral act is sometimes necessary — Buxtebuddha

Here we ought to distinguish between an intrinsically immoral act and a circumstantially immoral act. I also believe that eating animals is wrong in certain circumstances (such as ours as Westerners in the 21st century), but not intrinsically so. That is to say, I admit that there are situations in which it can be justified. Because of this, it needn't be made illegal. However, I view abortion as intrinsically evil (and to anticipate a possible objection, I agree with LT that cases of saving the life of the mother don't technically count as exceptions). Because of this, I maintain that it ought to be illegal. Do you view it this way? If so, then you have no reason not to support abortion being made illegal.

trade-offs and compromise — Buxtebuddha

We have been speaking in theoretical, not practical terms. On a practical and political level, I absolutely believe in trade-offs and compromises. I was in favor of the recent bill to ban abortions of fetuses that can feel pain. That's obviously better than the status quo. I would also be in favor of a political compromise that banned all abortions except in cases of rape and incest, for example. This doesn't mean I must abandon my principles, however, or cease supporting the goal of making all abortions illegal. This is not either/or but both/and.

I think everything that's immoral should be illegal. — Thorongil

To hell with that!

I not only practiced homosexuality back when it was both immoral and illegal, I was also promiscuous. It was great. I have no regrets, morally or legally.

...promiscuous sex so that abortions are not as appallingly common as they are now — Buxtebuddha

Well, Buxtebudd, how common do you think abortions are? It would appear that they are at a 45 year low. This from the Guttmacher Institute:

it is legal is a fallacious appeal to authority. The same is true tor trying to excuse abortion simply because it is currently legal. — LostThomist

Civil government has the authority to decide what is legal and what is not. This is a principle we all live by, including they (you) who think legality is an appeal to authority. The Pope has authority, and so does the State. Deal with it.

Not all religions consider that life begins at conception. Some religious believe that a newborn becomes a person when it draws its first breath. Some religious believe that personhood does not begin for days after birth--but while breathing. Every body begins at conception. Life comes later. Personhood comes later still.

Legally -- and legality matters -- in most jurisdictions personhood begins with one's live birth. Dead fetuses were not persons. Unborn but healthy fetuses are not persons either in many jurisdictions. I will grant that a 8 month old healthy fetus is at least 5 months past being "tissue" and will probably survive as a person, even if born prematurely,

If you have 3 fertilized eggs just laid by a hen, do you think you are killing chickens when you make an omelette?

[Delete] @Baden

I checked and it's not illegal in the US. — T Clark

It is actually, in several states, including liberal ones like Massachusetts. I would need to think about and determine whether all the items you list are proscribed by the natural law to adequately answer your question. I take it, though, that you consider such examples as reductios of my position. If so, I must sadly admit to you, if your head will not explode in doing so, that I don't find that they are. If they are proscribed by the natural law, then I have no problem admitting that such acts ought to be illegal. I have no special loyalty to the unconsciously imbibed pieties of modern social liberalism. You are talking to someone who made a thread in the old forum considering whether sex itself, not merely its occurrence outside of wedlock, was immoral. The sexual impulse I regard as the most potent and dangerous of human drives and so not something to treat lightly or frivolously.

I not only practiced homosexuality back when it was both immoral and illegal, I was also promiscuous. It was great. I have no regrets, morally or legally. — Bitter Crank

Yes, fornication, masturbation, and homosexual acts are notoriously difficult to prosecute, for obvious reasons.

Well, Buxtebudd, how common do you think abortions are? It would appear that they are at a 45 year low. — Bitter Crank

The almost 700,000 abortions per year, in the U.S. alone, is not a small figure, no matter how much it has statistically declined. The 32,000 gun deaths per year in the U.S. is couched as a nightmarish figure according to my interlocutors in the gun control thread, so I don't think Buxte is being hyperbolic if one accepts our premise that abortion is murder.

Well, there are differences of course.

Cancer generally will continue to spread, often killing the host. An embryo however usually becomes independent and leaves the host, with the exception of some Millennials I suppose. In the past, mothers often died during pregnancy or delivery, so historically for some mothers there wasn't much difference from that or cancer. Both cancer and pregnancies have lower fatality rates these days mind you, so an excised cancer and an early abortion still share a lot in common.

Fortunately these days, most 20-week pregnancies these days are wanted, while cancer isn't generally wanted, but in the past and as per this discussion, that isn't always still the case. Sometimes a pregnancy is wanted about as much as cancer. Morbid as it is, abortions by coat hangers are a real thing. It's quite possible some one would prefer cancer to an unwanted pregnancy.

Technically, some fetuses will actually end up being exactly that, just tumors; "fetal tumor" is the actual name. Still births also are quite interesting, as should they be considered alive, dead, or just passive tissue?

Technically the most effective "birth" control is not having sex in the first place. But of course people will have sex, protected or no, which is why I do support non-abortion methods of birth control, such that prevent conception, which is really what birth control is. — Buxtebuddha

That is why the pill, IUDs, diaphragms, and condoms are called contraception.

Abortion, rather than blocking conception, blocks birth. That is, something that blocks conception keeps a life from being made, whereas abortion keeps a life made from living. The former I find no issue with, the latter I'm personally opposed to. — Buxtebuddha

Abortion ends the pregnancy, disrupts the tissue, ends the fetus. A fetus is live tissue, but at say 18 weeks, it isn't anywhere close to being "alive".

I suppose you are opposed to "the morning after pill"--like Plan B, which buzz-bombs the egg with birth-control hormones like levonorgestrel. levonorgestrel may prevent the ovary from releasing the egg, may prevent sperm from fertilizing the egg, or prevent the egg from digging in for the duration, some, or all of the above. The morning after pill actually works for a couple of mornings after, but not much longer than that.

From CDC:

In 2009, most (64.0%) abortions were performed at ≤8 weeks' gestation, and 91.7% were performed at ≤13 weeks' gestation. Few abortions (7.0%) were performed at 14–20 weeks' gestation, and even fewer (1.3%) were performed at ≥21 weeks' gestation. From 2000 to 2009, the percentage of all abortions performed at ≤8 weeks' gestation increased 12%, whereas the percentage performed at >13 weeks' decreased 12%. Moreover, among abortions performed at ≤13 weeks' gestation, the distribution shifted toward earlier gestational ages, with the percentage of these abortions performed at ≤6 weeks' gestation increasing 47%.

1.3% were performed at 21 weeks. 24 weeks is the earliest that enough of the nervous system is present for a fetus to actually register pain. Prior to 24 weeks, too little of the cerebral cortex has developed.

Bumper Sticker:

Don't approve of abortions? Then don't have one.

[Delete] @Baden

[Delete] @Baden

so I don't think Buxte is being hyperbolic if one accepts our premise that abortion is murder. — Thorongil

And if one doesn't think that abortion is murder, then preventing 700,000 unwanted children is a most desirable outcome. (Are you on the Pay4Care4 700,000 Unwanted Children A Year committee?) The simple concept behind birth control, including abortion, is that one should have children IF and WHEN one desires to have them. Bearing children merely because sperm met egg is not a sufficient reason.

We have more than a sufficient number of our species. 7.6+ billion people is more than too many.

you can also apply that bumper sticker to: — René Descartes

And one should!

then why does the U.S still use the death penalty, isn't that murder. — René Descartes

It IS murder. But let's give credit where credit is due: Some states give the death row resident a choice about how they would like to be executed. In addition to lethal injection which comes standard, one can opt for...

Electrocution in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.
Gas inhalation in Arizona and California.
Firing squad in Utah.
Hanging in Washington.

I don't know... Firing squad is probably effective, and it's traditional, to boot. So many cartoons feature a firing squad. The last person executed by Firing Squad in Utah was in 2010.

Hanging has a fairly long history of being kind of botchy -- heads ripping off, rope giving way, trap door not opening properly, person not dropping far enough to die quickly, etc. Gas isn't quick enough, and electrocution goes haywire sometimes too.

[Delete] @Baden

Almost 700,000 abortions per year, in the U.S. alone, is not a small figure, no matter how much it has statistically declined. The 32,000 gun deaths in the U.S. is couched as a nightmarish figure according to my interlocutors in the gun control thread, so I don't think Buxte is being hyperbolic if one accepts our premise that abortion is murder. — Thorongil

There is a difference (you and Buxte will readily agree) between being a squishy little 6 week old fetus and a 6 year old child learning arithmetic when some well armed angry male decides to wipe out a batch of people. It's gunning down people who made it all the way to personhood, a name, preferences, friends, lovers, etc. that outrages people.

So now it's fine to let people commit murder? — René Descartes

Some people think that murder is just problem resolution by another name, like war is diplomacy conducted by other means.

No, it isn't fine to murder people who are all hatched out and busy leading interesting, productive, philosophically well-informed interesting lives, or whatever the hell they are doing, even if it's cursing the day they were born.

I don't know... Firing squad is probably effective, and it's traditional, to boot. So many cartoons feature a firing squad. The last person executed by Firing Squad in Utah was in 2010.

Hanging has a fairly long history of being kind of botchy -- heads ripping off, rope giving way, trap door not opening properly, person not dropping far enough to die quickly, etc. Gas isn't quick enough, and electrocution goes haywire sometimes too. — Bitter Crank

Semi-related trivia factoid time!

The spark that lit the fires of the Red River Rebellion, one of the three major rebellious efforts against the British rule of Canada, was the (supposedly botched) execution of Thomas Scott, an Orangist adventurer, by the Métis government of Louis Riel. Scott was a horrible individual who had burned a couple of Métis houses down and, during the lenght of his trial, kept hurling racist insults and death threats at the judge and higher officials of the Métis Provisionnal Government...

There is one report on the execution which says that the firing squad shot once Scott and missed every major organs. They reloaded and shot him again, hitting him once in the chest but not killing him. Then, Riel's general walked up to him and shot him in the face, but apparently only managed to blow away his jaw. They then buried him alive.

Its likely that report is entirely false, tho, and was only cooked up to rile up the anglo-canadian population against the Métis while at the same time showcasing the Métis as idiots that wouldn't really put up a fight.

Some people think that murder is just problem resolution by another name — Bitter Crank

On some dark days at work I've thought about that myself.

There is one report on the execution which says that the firing squad shot once Scott and missed every major organs. They reloaded and shot him again, hitting him once in the chest but not killing him. Then, Riel's general walked up to him and shot him in the face, but apparently only managed to blow away his jaw. They then buried him alive. — Akanthinos

"This has been one hell of a bad day" he said, as the shovels full of dirt started hitting the top of the coffin.