Crying, wet and pouting lips searching for the mother's breast for milk. — TheMadFool

In the future, if and only if the woman decides not to abort, not when the fetus is 2 weeks old. But the question is: does anything happen to the actual baby when the fetus is 2 weeks old? Answer: no, because there is no actual baby at that moment.

Scenario 2:

Fetus aborted. No crying, no wetness, no pouting, in short no actual baby — TheMadFool

Again, in the future that's true, if and only if the mother decides to abort, but also when the fetus is 2 weeks old, and the question is: does anything happen to the actual baby when the fetus is 2 weeks old? Answer: no, because there is no actual baby at that moment.

If nothing was done to an actual baby where is the baby? — TheMadFool

When the fetus is 2 weeks old, it doesn't have to be anywhere because, like I said, there is no actual baby at that time, regardless of whether you choose to abort the fetus or not.


Now, if the question is: does something happen to the actual baby when he is 1 year old? then the question already assumes that the 2 weeks old fetus wasn't aborted, and in that case obviously many things happen to him, but not those that happened to the fetus in the past (since he is not the fetus, just as he is not the stardust that had the potentiality to become him). If the fetus was aborted, then the question is a loaded question, or one that would have to be answered with: nothing happens to the actual 1 year old baby, because there is no actual 1 year old baby.

You fail to grasp the essence of the problem.

If you do nothing to the baby, it exists. Ergo, if it doesn't exist, you did something to the baby!

If you do nothing to the baby, it exists. — TheMadFool

The baby is not the fetus. You mean to say: if you do nothing to the fetus, then in the future it will become a baby.

In order for me to choose between doing something to the baby or not, it must already exist, and in that case obviously if I do nothing and he is fortunate, he will continue to live. But it doesn't follow from that, that I should do the same with a 2 week old fetus.

Ergo, if it doesn't exist, you did something to the baby! — TheMadFool

No, you can't do anything to what does not and did not exist.

Look,

1. If (the fetus has not been destroyed and the baby has not been killed) then the baby exists.

2. If the baby doesn't exist then (the fetus has been destroyed or the baby has been killed) [from 1]

In other words, if I have a woman who I know was pregnant and then one fine day I see her and she doesn't have a baby, there are two possibilities: 1. she destroyed the fetus OR 2. she killed the baby. Both 1 and 2 have the same effect (no baby). I couldn't tell from her status (no baby) whether she killed the baby or she had an abortion. That implies, insofar as the effect (no baby) is the issue, there's no difference between an abortion and killing the baby i.e. abortion = killing the baby.

Does a fetus deserve moral consideration? And when do we give the fetus moral consideration? Better question when do we give anything moral consideration? — Oppyfan

1) No.
2) We should not.
3) When it is practical to do so.

Nevertheless, if the pro-choice position fails to make a stand that's internally consistent, it won't have many takers. Right? The pro-choice movement must first make sense, only then can it hope to gather supporters. — TheMadFool

I guess I'm having a problem with painting something like "the pro-choice movement" with a single brush. I'm pro-choice as they come and my position is 100% internally consistent. Just because some pro-choice people get sucked down a rabbit hole of noise, arguing about stupid things like "when life begins" etc. doesn't mean that placing choice over life is inconsistent.

I guess I'm having a problem with painting something like "the pro-choice movement" with a single brush. I'm pro-choice as they come and my position is 100% internally consistent. Just because some pro-choice people get sucked down a rabbit hole of noise, arguing about stupid things like "when life begins" etc. doesn't mean that placing choice over life is inconsistent. — James Riley

Now I see where you're coming from. You're not really concerned about the arguments against abortion whatever they may be - they're all "noise" and "stupid", plus inconsistency isn't something that bothers you all that much. I don't blame you for such an attitude because there's a lot at stake for a woman.

If abortion is made illegal, it limits, some would say severely, a woman's freedom - she's first stuck with the fetus for 9 months, then with the child for another 18 - 20 years. That's a lot of time; even murderers, some of them at least, get a better deal. :chin: A promising lead if one takes the fact that abortion has been equated with homicide into account.

As you already seem to know, I've been hyperfocused on a single inconsistency: wanting to destroy the fetus is to worry about what the fetus can become (a baby) and thinking that we can destroy the fetus is based on what the fetus is/is not (not a baby).

I completely forgot about the welfare of the baby, faer future. It isn't enough that I saved a baby by preventing an abortion. The baby's journey has just begun - it'll need to be fed and fed well, between a child and a young adult it has to be given a decent education, after that a well-paying job, etc. If none of these requirements can be fulfilled, the baby would've been better off dead because the suffering involved would make life pointless. On this view, stopping/prohibiting abortions is to take the baby out of the frying pan only to put it in the fire. Yikes!

Then there's suicide. Some of us wish we didn't exist.

plus inconsistency isn't something that bothers you all that much. I don't blame you for such an attitude because there's a lot at stake for a woman. — TheMadFool

Inconsistency bothers me a great deal. It's just not an issue with my position. The only thing at stake for a woman is her right to choose.

If abortion is made illegal, it limits, some would say severely, a woman's freedom - she's first stuck with the fetus for 9 months, then with the child for another 18 - 20 years. — TheMadFool

My position is not concerned with her loss of freedom, the pregnancy, the life of the child after birth. That is all irrelevant noise from my position. My sole concern is her loss of choice.

A promising lead if one takes the fact that abortion has been equated with homicide into account. — TheMadFool

I have and will stipulate that it is indeed homicide. I'll not get lost in a debate over whether the fetus is human. I will stipulate that it is human and that all the rights that attach to a full grown person attach to the fetus. Thus, killing it is homicide. Irrelevant to my pro-choice position, which is only about choice.

As you already seem to know, I've been hyperfocused on a single inconsistency: wanting to destroy the fetus is to worry about what the fetus can become (a baby) and thinking that we can destroy the fetus is based on what the fetus is/is not (not a baby). — TheMadFool

As I said, that doesn't matter. I will stipulate to your position. There is not inconsistency in my position. I say she can kill it no matter what it is.

I was talking to my son about this today and came up with the following analogy: Let's say Kevin Hart somehow ends up inside of Shaquille O'Neal's body. My position is that Shack can kill Kevin Hart at any time for any reason in any way, and with impunity. There! We have two men, which takes the female/fetus/baby issue (all irrelevant distractions) out of it. The choice is the host's and it supersedes any right to life that the occupant might have.

The powerful get to decide who, if anyone, gets to kill anyone else with impunity. Quite simply, the powerful have power over life and death. The powerful have choice.

Sometimes the powerful will cede choice to the individual. Pro-choice says that a host gets to kill any other person who resides within the host’s body. Host-choice is preeminent over occupant-life. A host then has power of choice over the life of an occupant.

Choice trumps life. Simple, consistent.

Some people like to argue. In their disagreement, they will try to muddy the waters with issues about when life begins, sentience, pain, what the occupant looks like, the Bill of Rights, rape, incest, life of the host, life of others, like the father, blah, blah, blah. And some suckers on the pro-choice side will get sucked down that rabbit hole and start trying to parse shit that needs no parsing, and then the “debate” is on.

But in the end, it’s about the power to choose vs the right to life. I believe the powerful should cede choice to the host. I believe the powerful should stay the fuck out of the doctor’s office and the decision making (choice) process of the host. All those little bits of noise are, or should be entirely within the purview of the host to be dealt with in the privacy of the host’s blood-pumper and brain-housing group.

Whether the choice is easy or extremely difficult for one host or another is nobody’s business but the host.

The only thing at stake for a woman is her right to choose. — James Riley

My position is not concerned with her loss of freedom — James Riley

Inconsistency bothers me a great deal — James Riley

:up: :ok:

Choice trumps life. Simple, consistent. — James Riley

host — James Riley

Interesting choice of words. :chin:

powerful — James Riley

You bring up this notion only in relation to choice I suppose.

But in the end, it’s about the power to choose vs the right to life — James Riley

Pro-choice vs Pro-life.

Do you mind if other people's choices impact you negatively, such sometimes involving the possibility of much suffering and even death?

If "no" then you're advocating a free-for-all, no-holds-barred contest for power which, interestingly, you associate with choice. A very good observation to my reckoning but is that what you want? I'm not so sure but isn't democracy, the "dominant" political system in the world today, the surest sign of humanity's frustration with power? Choice is everything -> Power is a must -> Suffering galore -> Exasperation -> Choice is not everything. You don't have to agree of course and do forgive me if I've strayed off-topic, it just seemed relevant.

If "yes" then choice isn't the be-all-and-end-all. Other things, like life, are equally if not more important. Also, what's choice without life, right? Before one can even begin to think about choice, one needs to be alive and ergo, if choice is that big a deal, life, the sine qua non, must be as/more vital to us. :chin: Another good point, in my humble opinion, against pro-choicers: if every pregnancy were aborted then humanity would die out and choice would be rendered meaningless - Dodos can't choose!

Do you mind if other people's choices impact you negatively, such sometimes involving the possibility of much suffering and even death? — TheMadFool

I do mind. But some things are subordinate to others. When it comes to a women's choice regarding that which resides within her body, all other considerations are subordinate to her choice.

If "no" then you're advocating a free-for-all, no-holds-barred contest for power which, interestingly, you associate with choice. A very good observation to my reckoning but is that what you want? I'm not so sure but isn't democracy, the "dominant" political system in the world today, the surest sign of humanity's frustration with power? Choice is everything -> Power is a must -> Suffering galore -> Exasperation -> Choice is not everything. You don't have to agree of course and do forgive me if I've strayed off-topic, it just seemed relevant.

If "yes" then choice isn't the be-all-and-end-all. Other things, like life, are equally if not more important. Also, what's choice without life, right? Before one can even begin to think about choice, one needs to be alive and ergo, if choice is that big a deal, life, the sine qua non, must be as/more vital to us. :chin: Another good point, in my humble opinion, against pro-choicers: if every pregnancy were aborted then humanity would die out and choice would be rendered meaningless - Dodos can't choose! — TheMadFool

I don't understand any of what you just said in those paragraphs. I think it is entirely possible that you did not understand anything I said in my paragraph about power. The state (power) gets to decide who can kill who, and under what circumstances it can be done, if at all, with impunity. In the case of a human being living inside the body of another human being, the state can (and I think should) delegate that power to whoever has someone else living inside of them. In that case, choice trumps all else.

The rest of your ramblings are nonsensical.

My position on abortion is usually the narrow empirical-based ethical one (re: personhood, homicide vs murder, etc). The much broader political position, germaine in the American historical context, with which I also have a strong affinity is this:

The state claims its own interest in, or on behalf of, the fetus just as it claims an interest in protecting the rights of property owners to keep their property and protect it from arbitrary takings.

In this analogy: the state prohibits a woman from terminating her pregnancy by treating a fetus as a property-owner and the womb it's in as the fetus' property, that is confers on a fetus the role of slaveholder and a pregnant woman the role of slave. But slavery is 'officially' outlawed in most modern, secular, nation states, right? And yet state-sanctioned denial of an actual woman's inherent right-to-choose (& think) for herself is overlooked and deemed less repugnant in practice than killing a non-viable fetus with human DNA (possible person) in theory.

It's quite difficult to think of any prospect more morally repugnant than the circumstance that a pregnant woman is equivalent before the law as slave property who's owned (by state enforcement) by her unviable fetus. "Pro-life" in this sense is, in practice, indiscernible from pro-slavery.

So show me where my judgment goes wrong here, Fool (or anyone).

Do you mind if other people's choices impact you negatively, such sometimes involving the possibility of much suffering and even death?
— TheMadFool

I do mind. But some things are subordinate to others. When it comes to a women's choice regarding that which resides within her body, all other considerations are subordinate to her choice — James Riley

You have a point. Women's choice is important, who could deny that? It's in line with your thoughts that choice trumps life. The question above was meant to bring to the fore what your stance on the abortion issue implies - either you must agree that we should all scramble for power, you made the association between power and choice not me, and that, as history attests to, has been the cause of much misery. You don't want a repeat of events in which countless lives were lost to power struggles do you? This is an implication of your position that choice is all that matters. It's an old trick you'll find in an old book on logic. You should familiarize yourself with it, it's helpful.

I don't understand any of what you just said in those paragraphs. I think it is entirely possible that you did not understand anything I said in my paragraph about power. The state (power) gets to decide who can kill who, and under what circumstances it can be done, if at all, with impunity. In the case of a human being living inside the body of another human being, the state can (and I think should) delegate that power to whoever has someone else living inside of them. In that case, choice trumps all else.

The rest of your ramblings are nonsensical — James Riley

Then I'm afraid you don't understand yourself - all that I've said are corollaries of your very intriguing statement that "choice trumps life" which essentially means choice is all that matters. Choice and power are chums and you were clearly perceptive enough to notice that. I haven't said anything you wouldn't eventually have said. If it gives you the impression of being "nonsensical" then you've scuttled your own ship. I have nothing more to discuss with you sir/madam. Please rethink your position until it makes sense to you.

It's an old trick you'll find in an old book on logic. You should familiarize yourself with it, it's helpful. — TheMadFool

The only trick is your foolish extrapolation from the case in point to a generalization about power and choice. Try to keep your eye on the ball. We are talking about abortion here, not some general principles of power and choice beyond the criteria I laid out for you. You are trying to make a philosophical debate where none exists.

Then I'm afraid you don't understand yourself - all that I've said are corollaries of your very intriguing statement that "choice trumps life" which essentially means choice is all that matters. — TheMadFool

I understand my argument just fine. You are trying to say that if I say X then I must also be saying XX. I'm not. I'm saying X. Keep your eye on the ball, fool.

:100:

If I were fool, and were to use his illogical extrapolation arguments, I'd say that if the state can mandate a slave must carry her owner to term, then, by logical extension, the state can breed women like cattle and have them be baby factories. I know you are not saying that, but that's the kind of reasoning he is using with the notion that if all women aborted then all people would cease to exist and there would be no choice.

Me thinks he's being intentionally obtuse.

Isn't what you're saying (the) premise of The Handmaid's Tale (book)? And yeah, Fool's "intentionally obtuse" (more devil's advocate, methinks, than not).

Isn't what you're saying (the) premise of The Handmaid's Tale (book)? — 180 Proof

HA! I had to google it (never read it) but yes, that's the idea.

My position on abortion is usually the narrow empirical-based ethical one (re: personhood, homicide vs murder, etc). The much broader political position, germaine in the American historical context, with which I also have a strong affinity is this:

The state claims its own interest in, or on behalf of, the fetus just as it claims an interest in protect the rights of property owners to keep their property and protect it from arbitrary takings.

In this analogy: the state prohibits a woman from terminating her pregnancy by treating a fetus as a property-owner and the womb it's in as the fetus' property, that is confers on a fetus the role of slaveholder and a pregnant woman the role of slave. But slavery is 'officially' outlawed in most modern, secular, nation states, right? And yet state-sanctioned denial of an actual woman's inherent right-to-choose (& think) for herself is overlooked and deemed less repugnant in practice than killing a non-viable fetus with human DNA (possible person) in theory.

It's quite difficult to think of any prospect more morally repugnant than the circumstance that a pregnant woman is equivalent before the law as slave property who's owned (by state enforcement) by her unviable fetus. "Pro-life" in this sense is, in practice, indiscernible from pro-slavery.

So show me where my judgment goes wrong here, Fool (or anyone). — 180 Proof

The inconsistency in the pro-choice position which I reported has to do with what a woman who chooses abortion wants and how she thinks she can get what she wants.

Lemme try and keep this simple:

If I, god forbid, amputate the fetus' toes, the baby will be born toeless. No one will object to the claim that I did something to the actual baby. If I now amputate the fetus' legs, the baby will be born legless. Again, no one will disagree that I did something to the actual baby. I cut off the fetus' hands, the actual baby will be handless. No one will even dream of saying I did nothing to the actual baby. Continue chopping off parts of the fetus and no one in faer right mind will say I did nothing to the actual baby. Yet, this I find puzzling, if I remove the entire fetus (conduct an abortion), people are not sure that I did something to the actual baby and hence the abortion debate.

Either me slicing off parts of the fetus is not to be considered as doing something to the actual baby (preposterous) or abortion destroys an actual baby (more plausible).

A macabre example I know but I had no choice! :chin:

What follows is too obvious to mention.

As for comparing expectant women to slaves and the unborn child as the master, all I can say is women seem to be in a tight spot insofar as this issue is concerned.

What is choice without life and what is life without choice? Both ingredients are essential but, unfortunately, women can't have both.
Choices for women:

1. Slave

or

2. Murderer

Now that I made it as clear as crystal, thanks to 180 Proof, I wonder how women will choose?

The only trick is your foolish extrapolation from the case in point to a generalization about power and choice. Try to keep your eye on the ball. We are talking about abortion here, not some general principles of power and choice beyond the criteria I laid out for you. You are trying to make a philosophical debate where none exists. — James Riley

You made the statement, "choice trumps life" and since nothing is more important than life to pro-lifers, it follows that choice is priority #1. Rest as mentioned in the previous post to you. Please don't take this the wrong way but you need to be more aware of what you're saying/writing and if you can't do that, don't worry I'm in the same boat, at least listen to what others have to say. G'day.

The inconsistency in the pro-choice position which I reported has to do with what a woman who chooses abortion wants and how she thinks she can get what she wants. — TheMadFool

And yet, in the real world, this "inconsistency" you're babbling about neither makes any sense nor is relevant to a woman having to make the decision whether to abort or not on the basis of her circumstances living in the real world. You've made a fetish of this specious bit of sophistry, my friend, while ignoring substantive pro-choice arguments of consequence. Ha ha ha, Fool, time to extract that swollen cranium from your pinched sphincter.

And yet, in the real world, this "inconsistency" you're babbling about neither makes any sense nor is relevant to a woman having to make the decision whether to abort or not on the basis of her circumstances living in the real world. You've made a fetish of this specious bit of sophistry, my friend, while ignoring substantive pro-choice arguments of consequence. Ha ha ha, Fool, time to extract that swollen cranium from your pinched sphincter. — 180 Proof

:rofl: This gets interesting post by post. The real world then, you mean to say, is messy - there really is no way reasoning the way I did could lead to a decision on this issue or others that would convince people one way or the other. People don't give two shits as you like to put it about logic or its rules - they want something and they'll do whatever they can to get it. I concur but only to the extent that's how it is but I imagine it could be better, right?

This very attitude you're espousing - to hell with logic! - may turn on you one day and you'll have to simply grin and bear it. I'll come up to you, if I can, and say, "the real world, remember."

On your accusation that I'm "...ignoring substantive pro-choice arguments of consequence", mea culpa. :zip:

This very attitude you're espousing - to hell with logic! — TheMadFool

Shameless strawman. :yawn:

Shameless strawman. :yawn: — 180 Proof

:lol: Inconsistency doesn't matter. You win, I lose.

That's because consistency does matter. I win, you lose. :smirk:

That's because consistency does matter. I win, you lose. :smirk: — 180 Proof

:grin:

You made the statement, "choice trumps life" and since nothing is more important than life to pro-lifers, it follows that choice is priority #1. — TheMadFool

I made the statement of "choice trumps life" in a simple, well-explained context of abortion. You then made the fundamental mistake of saying that I must be saying that all choice in all cases trumps all life. That is stupid. That is not what I said. That is not the pro-choice position. I keep trying to explain this to you. You simply cannot jump from the specific to the general. Stop doing that. It makes you look stupid.

Please don't take this the wrong way but you need to be more aware of what you're saying/writing and if you can't do that, don't worry I'm in the same boat, at least listen to what others have to say. G'day. — TheMadFool

Please take this any way you want, but you need to be more aware of what you're reading and if you can't do that, you are alone here. I've listened to what you have to say and you are wrong to tell me that I am inconsistent in my pro-choice position. I am not. I am 100% consistent. You just can't handle it so you struggle and strain to jump from the specific to the general, or wax on about toes and fingers and legs and other irrelevant noise. I already explained to you, as if I was talking to a child, that I will stipulate to the fetus being a full-blown human being, so your example of parting out whatever the hell you want to call it does not matter. It's called an "even-if" argument. School yourself.

Finally, the devil better get himself a better advocate or he'll end up talking to a hand.

You then made the fundamental mistake of saying that I must be saying that all choice in all cases trumps all life — James Riley

It was implied by your statement. Either you're pro-choice or you're pro-life. If you're pro-choice then, isn't it obvious?, life doesn't matter. If life doesn't matter, nothing does (except choice)

That is stupid — James Riley

You're referring to yourself, right? If you're not, you've failed to recognize your own reflection. I'm just like you so, don't fret. I think everyone is like that.

I am 100% consistent. — James Riley

Did I say you were inconsistent? You're not. You'll just have to accept the implications of your statement.

Finally, the devil better get himself a better advocate or he'll end up talking to a hand. — James Riley

The devil made me do it! — A child murderer

Doesn't seem relevant but you brought up the devil. Beware, fellow human, speak of the devil and the devil will appear

It was implied by your statement. — TheMadFool

No, it was not implied by my statement. It was implied in your mind. If I say X trumps Y if Z, then I have not said X trumps Y. Only a dummy would think that.

I'm just like you so — TheMadFool

No, you are not.

You'll just have to accept the implications of your statement. — TheMadFool

I have and I do.

speak of the devil and the devil will appear — TheMadFool

Fuck the devil.

Synthesis, check;
3017amen, check;
Apollodorus, check;
TheMadFool, check.

Buh bye!

Sorry you feel that way. G'day. See you around.

Sorry — TheMadFool

You are sorry. It was implied in your statement. You'll just have to accept the implications of your statement. TheMadFool is a sorry person.

You are sorry. It was implied in your statement. You'll just have to accept the implications of your statement. TheMadFool is a sorry person. — James Riley

:up: :ok:

Man up, Fool. C'mon. @James Riley is :100: :smirk: