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

Yes. It is precisely this categorical feature of a representative currency (or of a fiat currency -- the difference is inessential for my purpose) that makes it a suitable example. What you call "the nature of the currency" is conferred, or instituted, by the performative act of its emission. A promise is an archetypal performative act, so is the backing of a currency by a government or financial institution.

A feature of my example that I may not have made clear enough, tough, and which was the main point of the analogy, is the fact that the performative signifiance of the act through which monetary value is conferred has a dual level structure, as it were. On the one hand, a categorical status is conferred and, on the other hand, the complex and multifaceted surrounding practice through which this performative act can be accomplished makes such acts possible in the first place. One can't make a promise (as a performative act) in a social context where the practice of promise-giving and promise-keeping (with all its subtle and tacitly understood expectations, caveats, admissible excuses, etc.) hasn't been instituted. So, what I am claiming to be categorical is the performative act that establishes a banknote as legal tender (such that it thereby acquires some value at all) but not necessarily the amount (or nature) of value thereby conferred. The latter may be pegged to the (variable) value of the gold standard, say (in the case of a representative currency), or to other dynamic features of the surrounding financial practices.

And so is it with personhood, adulthood (or marriage) on the account I am sketching. The performative act through which personhood is conferred to a human being is categorical but doesn't define what it is to be a person anymore that the fiat (or backing) of a financial institution defines what it consists in for the currency it emits to constitute money and to have the sort of value that it thereby acquires. That is rather established by the background practice and economic circumstances. And likewise, what it is to be a person is highly constrained and conditioned by the sorts of social practices, modes of embodiment and specific background circumstances that Bitter Crank, Moliere and Jamalrob have stressed in previous posts.

Hence, if this makes sense, there isn't a contradiction in stressing both the developmental, and hence gradual, character of the actualization of the abilities associated with personhood, and the categorical nature of the performative act through which the status is conferred.

Interestingly enough, while Bitter Crank and Moliere have both stressed the social background that sustains the features associated with the character of personhood (or humanity) that infants or fetuses come to manifest, those considerations have seemed to militate for the categorical attribution of the status of a person being accorded to her both before (Bitter Crank) and after (or no sooner than) she was born (Moliere). That's because one can stress either the concrete social construction of the specific background that serves as a receptive structure which the infant will come to inhabit (as Bitter Crank stressed), or the actual development of her abilities to more fully inhabit her natural and social world (as Moliere stressed).

While it falls short from settling the debate about the time after which abortion is impermissible, I think my suggestion about the dual level structure of the performative act though which personhood is (categorically) conferred to a newborn somewhat alleviates this quasi paradox. Since what is thereby conferred isn't a status that is defined by the performative act, one is thereby free, one the one hand, to recognize personhood as being prefigured, prepared, and partially realized even before the act through which it is conferred, and also, on the other hand to recognize that the characteristic human capabilities associated with personhood can fail to be fully actualized until long after this status has been conferred.

Ownership is not settled by scientific literature, and I made clear that I introduced the notion of an organ as an analogy. — 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? You can talk about ownership all you like, but it won't change the facts. I don't understand why you think that the concept of ownership, which you presumably think entails some sort of self-awareness or some other quality which a foetus (at any stage of development) lacks, and then suddenly gains immediately after birth, justifies abortion at such a late stage. I don't think that that makes sense, I don't think that that reflects reality, and I don't think that it'd be good if those in power thought as you do.

I pointed out some serious flaws with your analogy, and in light of them, I don't think that it can be salvaged. It's hardly surprising that you've reached the wrong conclusion when you start with a false premise.

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

So have I and so have the others. 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.

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. If that isn't clear to you, then I suggest that you read up on the scientific literature on the subject. Perhaps think it over a bit more. Baden has already pointed out some important differences, as have I, and as has Bitter Crank. You yourself have explicitly acknowledged that a foetus is more special than a gall bladder. That's a step in the right direction. I urge you to go further.

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

It was her responsibility to take sufficient precaution. That it simply did not occur to her is not an excuse. I doubt that she was so uneducated as not to know that this sort of thing can and does happen far too often. I bet she felt guilty afterwards, and rightly so.

What would you recommend, other than philosophy, we discuss said topic with? What is better suited, in your view? — Moliere

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.

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

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? 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.

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

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.

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

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. 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. Implicitly I'd say this is what we have all agreed to: since it is usually understood that the prevention of murder is in the interest of the state the state must enforce the laws against murder. Where we have disagreed is what counts as protected by the law -- or, at least, what should count.

And, furthermore, we even agree on the notion of "safely prior to being a person" it seems. I agree with you there, I only disagree on what that means in terms of when.

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

Not only is it clear to me, but I have already acknowledged the similarity.

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

:D

Come on, now. That's a bit silly.

Wisdom leads to the right conclusions -- which are obviously mine! I can't help it that you are foolish, Sapientia.

That's good for a laugh, at least.

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

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.

I do not believe this. And given that babies at least need an environment before they can be a being I'd still say I'm very safe in my conclusion. 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.

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.

Me too. Especially since I said I can respect the Catholic position. It's good to see we are on the same page.

And in anticipation of your denial, you are dehumanising.

Dude. This only follows if you are correct. I am dehumanising if the fetus is a human. I don't deny that. But I would say that you are personifying if the fetus is not a human.

This description of my action only follows if we presuppose your answer to the question.

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.

I'd put it to you that this is only sometimes the case, and not always the case. For an intended pregnancy in a family environment people talk, gender, name, and care for a fetus. But it could be otherwise. 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.

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

First of all, it's not just me that designates an unborn baby as a who. It happens all the time, and is the norm. People treat him or her as a who. So you have a problem with society.

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.

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

I thought that it was clear enough that I wasn't speaking personally in that way. If so, I would have been explicit and qualified and worded it differently, but I didn't. Bringing that up is a distraction - whether intentional or otherwise. I simply meant that there is no good reason (to remove the "safety net").

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

No, I don't buy that. Nice try. The burden is shared equally between both sides. You have a burden to attempt to justify your claim that child destruction should be legalised, and I have a burden to attempt to justify my claim that child destruction laws should not be abolished.

And, furthermore, we even agree on the notion of "safely prior to being a person" it seems. — Moliere

Not in any particularly meaningful way. If you define the word "person" in such a way as to exclude that which is pre-birth, then I agree that in accordance with that definition, that which is pre-birth is not - and cannot be - a person. But that's just trivial logic. I have repeatedly said that the label doesn't matter, or is of secondary importance, or something to that effect: which is why I haven't presented one of my own. If you think that our agreement in this regard is anything other than insignificant, than you have probably misunderstood.

I was very clear that under the circumstances which you'd permit, the unborn baby would not be safe - and I meant that in the sense that you would scrap any legal protection currently granted.

Not only is it clear to me, but I have already acknowledged the similarity. — Moliere

Point being that your analogy fails. And you seemed to be relying on it. And you have yet to concede, at least explicitly. So your above acknowledgement isn't enough.

Wisdom leads to the right conclusions -- which are obviously mine! — Moliere

Yes, that's true. What's so funny? :D

Wisdom (a.k.a. Sapientia) leads to the right conclusions, and I am Sapientia. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. ;)

But there was a serious and worthwhile point in there, which, put another way, is that philosophy isn't a holy grail or guiding light. Clearly not for everyone. It can actually make matters worse sometimes and in certain respects, and that's what I argue against. I believe that some issues would benefit from an approach that simplifies more, and gives credence where due to common sense, rather than excessively complicate and abstract and disregard or remove oneself from common sense.

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

That's the gist of it, but the details are a bit off.

In common parlance, by the way, it is common to speak of the foetus as a baby, so this use of language is ordinary, and not idiosyncratic or without precedent. We also treat "it" as we would a baby (subsequent to birth) in some important respects.

And given that babies at least need an environment before they can be a being... — Moliere

But if by that you mean an environment external to the womb, then that's nonsense. That would only be so accordingly and linguistically if you define it that way. But, as others and I have argued, the grounds for rejecting such a narrow definition greatly outweigh the grounds for it's acceptance - at least if it's used to support your agenda.

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

You're still going with these ridiculous analogies, I see. I also see that you're still blinkered towards what is merely a label or a category, and you're using this as cover for your agenda. If I were to fight fire with fire, then I'd say that what you're doing is like permitting the murder of children and others on the grounds that they can't drive a car. Only people can drive cars. Therefore, they're not people.

I'd put it to you that this is only sometimes the case, and not always the case. — Moliere

Yes, I agree. But it's true of most cases, and there must be hardly any cases in which there is either absolute indifference or nothing of significance beyond that with which we feel towards a gall bladder (or a mole for that matter). So, that doesn't really detract much from my point, nor add much to yours.

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

Hardly in the same way: with the same meaning, the same level of emotional attachment and significance - with the exception of very few. (To be credible, I have to make an allowance for nutters, obsessives, and others who have things wildly out of perspective).

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. That coupled with the strange allusions to "my agenda" makes it hard to take this very seriously. I propose we play this game from a different angle. Perhaps it would be more illuminating as to what you're really getting at.



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?

What's strange to me is that you seem to believe I don't care about the human life at stake. — 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.

That coupled with the strange allusions to "my agenda" makes it hard to take this very seriously. — Moliere

How is it strange? Is your agenda not to exclude unborn babies from the legal protection that they're currently granted? Because it seems that way to me.

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

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.

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

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.

How is it strange? Is your agenda not to exclude unborn babies from the legal protection that they're currently granted? — Sapientia

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.

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

This is a dodge. Respond to my assertions like you would someone who is advocating for the abolition of the law. This is the purpose of my changing tactics -- I don't think we're getting terribly far by just restating what we already believe.

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?

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

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.

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

Ok, then your "view" is or includes the exclusion of unborn babies from the legal protection that they're currently granted.

This is a dodge. — Moliere

Then it's a "dodge" in a similar way to how an innocent husband would "dodge" the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?".

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

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.

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

Is this the consequence of public healthcare? In the US, you can just go get it done. There are additional restrictions with later term abortions, but there aren't time delays - just pay the lady at the window and get in line.

Is this the consequence of public healthcare? — Hanover

Public vs. private healthcare is consequential in interesting ways. I'm guessing it has something to do with this: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health.

I couldn't tell you why because I didn't inquire further.

Private firms, however, have schedules just like anyone. If I had to hazard a guess it would be because of the supply side of the equation. While 3rd trimester abortions, relative to all abortions, are rare, the raw number of appointments relative to the raw number of demand is small.

But, as I said, this is just a guess.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Practically everyone does believe, as I do, and rightly so, that to set the line at six months after birth implies either a lack of empathy or a lack of reason - and a severe lack, at that. In fact, it's hard to think of a more pertinent example. If you doubt what I say, then just ask around. The reactions are predictable. Once again, your problem is that you mistake a matter of degree or severity as a categorical matter of all or nothing. If we were arguing over whether the line should be drawn at 22 weeks or at 24 weeks, then I doubt I'd think it a reflection of your character in the way that drawing no line does. It doesn't mean that you don't care; you clearly care about the mother - even up to the point where you think that she is entitled to have the living baby that has been growing inside of her for over six months killed for whatever reason she deems necessary, regardless of whether it's a good reason or an awful reason. No, what I'm saying is that if you care enough about both the mother and the baby, then it would make sense to take a different stance.

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? If anything, it only makes your position worse in the eyes of the one opposing it. Now it's not justified at all, at any stage, whereas your position is the opposite up until birth. Losing the sensible middle ground in this way does you no favours, 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

No.

Though I'm just wondering what your response is. I don't expect to persuade you in either direction. I don't believe you'd actively advocate for the murder of babies. 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?

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

I'd point out that what it allows is not murder, and that to call a zygote a baby is stretching the definition beyond what is sensible, and that they're probably using these particular words to appeal to emotion. So, I don't need to defend a charge which doesn't apply.

I would say to them what I've said to you: that it's a wider issue than what your narrow, loaded set up takes into consideration, and that the justification accounts for this. But with regards to where the line should be drawn, I'd question what is most important, namely whether they have a better alternative; and we both agree that they do not. So, I could get bogged down in the details about viability, or I could skip that stage and look at how well it works compared to the alternatives. I'd argue that my position is more fair and balanced than the extreme alternatives of all or nothing. My position is appropriately sympathetic towards both mother and baby, whereas the position that abortion ought to be illegal without qualification isn't sympathetic enough towards the mother, and the position that abortion ought to be legal without qualification, or without taking the reason given by the mother into account, isn't sympathetic enough towards the baby. (N.B. you may well be sympathetic enough, but your position isn't representative of this).

Hah! I just noticed that I am the only conservative around here :P

Hanover calls himself conservative, but I look at his gay marriage, abortion and drug positions and ummm doesn't sound conservative at all...

Not sure if that is something to be proud of... :s

Why not? :)

It's good training ground for me. As Sinatra says, if I can make it here, I can make it anywhere ;)

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.

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.

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

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).

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

Can you PM me with some recommended readings from the old Left please :) Thanks!

Always trying to take the moral high ground, no? — Agustino

I find that ironic coming from someone who harps on about virtue, and is probably the most judgemental member of the forum.

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 that the mother should have the choice to kill the child at her whim.

I find that ironic coming from someone who harps on about virtue, and is probably the most judgemental member of the forum. — 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. 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).

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

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.

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

Yes, 'being judgmental' is a bad trait because 'being judgmental' is an idiom meaning "an unconsidered, snap reaction" that will normally be taken as a negative statement. 'Being judgmental' isn't the same thing as 'being reflective and thoughtful'.

In heated conversation snap reactions may predictable happen, but shouldn't occur in written communication.

Indeed, but I wasn't referring to being judgemental in that way in my post. By that definition, being judgemental would be to react something like "Ah fuck you, you're an idiot for thinking like that!". But too often being judgemental is used to enforce political correctness today, and that is what I am against. There is nothing wrong with judging (although culturally we have transformed it into a weapon so that we can prevent anyone from ever judging us).

political correctness — Agustino

The judgmentalness that constitutes political correctness is another sort of behavior altogether (in my opinion). If I habitually refer to Negros or Blacks or colored people (they have been "properly" called all three at various times) as niggers, I will be accused of using a racist slur. It won't do any good to explain that there are people who are 'niggers', like it or not, a term recognized by Negros, blacks, and colored people as a referent to no-count, disreputable, members of the race. (Hmmm, should "niggers" be capitalized? Colored People? Trailer Trash? White Trash? Honkies? Cocksuckers? Or not?)

The agents who police the boundaries of political correctness are alert to any suggestion that a racial or ethnic group, as it exists in a particular place, may not be completely equal to another racial or ethnic group. The PC police agents need to whitewash glaringly obvious deficiencies among various groups. Therefore, it is racist to remark on how well Asians do in school. What! Does someone suppose that Asians are (gasp) superior? (Which means everybody else is inferior...) Well no, not really.

It is considered racist (and politically incorrect) to associate the culture of specific racial groups with the race or ethnic group that spawned a particular culture. Asians--and Jews--do well in academics because Asian and Jewish parents, and the communities to which they belong place a high priority on academic performance, and expect their children to perform from the get go (not that they all become famous violinists).

Clearly most Blacks/Colored People/Negroes in this country do not, for the most part, place the same priority on academic excellence. They fail to prize academic success because their experience has been that their schools, teaching their children, do not produce academic excellence. Black parents are not in a position to overcome these deficiencies (without strategic exterior input of some kind).

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

Bitter Crank is correct to point out the difference between judging and being judgemental, or even the tendency to judge and being judgemental. There is a negative connotation with the latter. It implies a certain attitude, a vice, a tendency towards excessive judgement, unwarranted judgement, judgement with ignorance or prejudice, judgement accompanied with arrogance.

If being judgemental was a good thing, then we'd use it as a praise rather than a criticism. To call someone judgemental is to imply that they're too quick to judge, too severe, judge all too often, or where it is inappropriate, and that they could benefit from toning it down, and from a little more restraint, and a little more empathy. To assume that the judgement is correct, or to assume that judging is the right thing to do in the situation, would be to miss the point. That assumption can be part of the problem.

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

I meant the posts in this thread. Perhaps we should cherish this rare moment of agreement while it lasts. :D

only those who get pregnant ought to be empowered to decide whether or not to have an abortion, — jamalrob

Those who are pregnant do not have to inform any one that they are pregnant, can self terminate an unwanted pregnancy if they so choose, and also not disclose that they have done so. Literally, it is the woman's choice, and literally, there is nothing that can change that fact.

Abortion exists because this happens, and self termination of an unwanted pregnancy can be dangerous for the women that decides this course of action.

All pro-life legislation would accomplish is the prevention of women making that choice from legally seeking healthcare from professionals. So, in essence, the pro-life argument is to deny women any legal right to healthcare for their procreation choice in order that these self proclaimed pro-lifers may pat themselves on the back and delude themselves that they are moral for having done so.

There is no legislation that would be able to prevent a woman's right to choose, only legislation that would prevent women from seeking out medical assistance for her choice.

How DO you label someone like myself who ticks off republicans and democrats alike when politics are discussed?