You brought it up first, not me. I was just being open and honest and responding fully to you. — Fire Ologist

I did not ask if you were religious. You volunteered that information, for no apparent reason.

The fact that you refuse to describe your religious views strongly indicates that they have everything to do with the subject. If they had nothing to do with the subject there would be no reason to refuse.

Where are you trying to go with the conversation?

Where you want to go, metaphysics and zygotes. Knowing your religious views would be essential, but you don’t want to talk about your religious views. Another contradiction.

This all has nothing to do with religion to me. — Fire Ologist

That’s why your religious views are interesting. Why not share them?

Also, you mentioned that you’re religious. Why mention it if this has nothing to do with religion for you? Another contradiction.

Just make something up if you like.

I’m not religious, btw.

created the contradiction controversy — Fire Ologist

There’s no controversy. I’d trust you more if you admitted to goofing around. Honestly though, I don’t care if you’re sincere or not. Let’s play pretend…

what about all of the other things I said to you about what a zygote must be biologically and metaphysically speaking? — Fire Ologist

You’ll have to describe your religious views in order to get into this. I’m sure they will be interesting.

My question about the psychology of humanization is about what it does to the one who behaves that way, how it hinders the conscience. because it has a clear psychological purpose. A fetus need not be aware of it. — NOS4A2

I don't see what the point of humanizing (making it more civilized or whatever) a fetus would be if they weren't aware of it in some way. I've heard of parents playing classical music during pregnancy for their unborn child. Couldn't hurt, I think.

Hmmm, let's ask what a third disinterested party thinks.

Hey @chatgpt, what does anti-abortion without exception mean?

"Anti-abortion without exception" refers to a stance on abortion that opposes allowing abortion in any circumstance. This position means that a person or policy does not support abortion, even in cases where exceptions are typically debated, such as:

Rape or incest: Situations where pregnancy occurs due to non-consensual acts.

Life or health of the mother: When the pregnancy poses a significant risk to the mother's physical health or life.

Fetal abnormalities: Cases where the fetus is diagnosed with a condition that may lead to a non-viable pregnancy or severe health issues after birth.

Those who hold this view believe that abortion should not be permitted under any conditions, often based on ethical, religious, or moral grounds. It contrasts with other anti-abortion positions that may allow for specific exceptions. — chatgpt

I’m actually anti-abortion-without-exception — Fire Ologist

I think some abortions might be sins, and some definitely are not. — Fire Ologist

Your position of being against abortion without exception appears to contradict your belief that some abortions are definitely not a sin (immoral, wrong, erroneous, or whatever).

Should I focus the conversation on what you REALLY think instead of what you are saying? — Fire Ologist

You already are...

You don’t want to trust me. You don’t believe me or think I don’t have my own mind. I’m just a religious zealot (even though I don’t sound like one or ever raised the issue and I as just honestly responding to you). — Fire Ologist

Some of the things you say are glaringly contradictory.

I'm not trying to determine whether an abortion is a sin or not. In fact I think some abortions might be sins, and some definitely are not. — Fire Ologist

:snicker:

The funny thing is that NOS's and Frank's point underscores that human zygotes, blastocysts, and fetuses are not fully human in that there's no concern of them being psychologically harmed by being considered mere human zygotes, blastocysts, and fetuses.

Oh, sorry, I assumed you cared about the victims of dehumanization. My mistake.

Btw, if pro-choice advocates don’t believe that human zygotes, blastocysts, and fetuses are human what species do they think they are?

“Those who dehumanize others often experience moral disengagement, which allows them to justify harmful behaviors. This disengagement, while protective in some cases (e.g., soldiers in wartime), can desensitize people to violence and diminish empathy, affecting their relationships and broader social behaviors.”

If your theory is that legal abortion diminishes empathy and whatnot in society then maybe try to show how that could be the case.

Dehumanization is the method. I’m curious what it does psychologically — NOS4A2

Being dehumanized can cause significant psychological harm. Zygotes, blastocysts, and fetuses often feel alienated, isolated, and humiliated, which can lead to anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem. Chronic dehumanization, like in cases of systemic discrimination, can contribute to long-term mental health issues.

If we say “abortion” we have to draw some lines and fix some boundaries. One of them is “human”. If, when it becomes difficult to fix that boundary I just say “everything changes anyway” I can’t say “human” anymore. — Fire Ologist

Sure you can. The point is only that we may identify things based on our goals. For instance, if our goals are pragmatic in nature we may identify something one way and if our goals are spiritual in nature we may identify them a different way.

A cup can be an instrument for drinking or a sacred object and we would treat it differently based on our vision of it. The secular cup is useless for attaining spiritual goals and the sacred cup is useless for attaining practical goals (if sacrilegious to use it that way).

I’m religious. — Fire Ologist

Don’t you think this influences how you identify things?

There is no organism before conception. A sperm or an egg are specialized human cells, like a liver cell or any other special cell, but they are not organisms. They start something new. But that moment is the rub of the metaphysical question. Conception marks a change. Change reflects difference and becoming and motion. Doesn’t seem like an arbitrary line is drawn at conception to me but I’d love an argument. Conception is a new motion. — Fire Ologist

As far as I can tell everything is in a constant state of change and motion at the molecular, cellular, terrestrial, and celestial levels. I think we mark beginning and ending basically in order to take action and achieve goals.

Many see beginning and endings as conventionally true but ultimately like illusions. I tend to see it that way though I recognize how very limited my perspective is.

It’s an ethical issue, a biological issue, a metaphysical issue, a legal/public policy issue (and all the politicking and ideological virtue signaling that goes with that). By practical, I meant the legal public policy bit. — Fire Ologist

Confusing because you said that you’re pro-choice because abortion policy is a practical issue.

A religious person might say that they’re pro-life because abortion policy is a spiritual issue.

I get that not everyone is going to agree with me that the long chain of events that is a person’s life includes the moments they were conceived. — Fire Ologist

Why not before that? A zygote does not just come into existence on its own.

I am pro choice because abortion policy is a practical issue — Fire Ologist

Can you clarify what you mean by that? Some may view it as an ideological issue.

It's not at all clear what their position is. — Banno

Supporting choice up to six months doesn’t exactly scream “anti-abortion-without-exception,” but maybe they are being sincere.

How do you explain preferring choice up to six months to keep the state out of it but actually being anti-abortion-without-exception?

Yes. To keep the state out of it.

…

I’m actually anti-abortion-without-exception — Fire Ologist

FYI: people who post like this seem to get banned quickly.

Your position is clear: pro-choice (up to six months).

But I’m not going to hide from the evidence about what an abortion is just because some other people might use it to make bad law and treat people badly. — Fire Ologist

It feels wrong, if that’s what you’re getting at. Do you want everyone to agree with you that it feels wrong?

What is the organism in the fetal stage that lives inside a pregnant adult human being? — Fire Ologist

It's a person. A human being, at a different stage in the fragile life it shares with the rest of us idiots, like a newborn is, or an old, blind, dying man with Alzheimer's is, or the strongest, smartest man in the world is. — Fire Ologist

I'd rather abortion up to around six or so months remain legal. — Fire Ologist

You agree with Banno for zygotes. Why?

…being a eudaimon…

That’s an interesting choice of words. Eudaimon translates to "having a good attendant or indwelling spirit".

I could not have been clearer and you seem to largely ignore what I wrote so I have nowhere to go from here.

It’s been an interesting and fruitful discussion for me. :sparkle:

We give people liberties because it is pragmatically the best thing to do; and not because it is ideally the best. See what I mean? — Bob Ross

Yes, exactly.

It seems your version of Neo-Aristotelianism is somehow grounded in idealism rather than practical living and achieving eudaimonia (human flourishing).

What you are describing is a secular view, which removes ethics from politics, as a pragmatic means of allowing people to flourish the best; and I agree with it other than that it doesn't actually completely remove ethics (even though it purports to). — Bob Ross

The bottom line is that if a Neo-Aristotelian truly values human flourishing they will value choice because:

• The ultimate goal is human flourishing and not some heavenly reward or escape from samsara.
  
• Democracy is the best form of government for the people (and not just the elite) to flourishing.
  
• Democratic societies tend to choose choice.

Secondly, the state is in charge of providing, pragmatically, an adequate basis for human flourishing; but there are limitations, and I would say that the individual should be endowed with a certain level of responsibility to figure out how to flourish themselves. I don't think societies that try to give the government full control to legislate morality end up doing to hot: that's why, pragmatically, in terms of applied ethics, I would lean towards giving the individually as much power to make decisions about themselves; instead of entrusting that to the government. However, the laws which are put in place by the state are there to help with incentivizing the human good and barring immoral acts that are severe enough (e.g., marriage, rights, murder, rape, etc.). — Bob Ross

In a representative democracy, legislators are elected to act on behalf of their constituents. Although this system isn’t perfect and representation can feel indirect, the will of the people generally prevails. From my perspective, democracy remains the best framework for enabling the people to flourish. I recognize that you may view this differently, but as we’ve discussed, in the U.S., the prevailing sentiment is a love of freedom and choice. The minority who dissent often base their views on faith: faith in the immortal soul, in God, and, ultimately, in what other mortals convey to them.

Your Neo-Aristotelian schema doesn’t seem to align with any part of this system.

"Generally speaking, people seek abortion because they’re not prepared to be caregivers. They reason that they, and a child, are not in a position to flourish."
-– praxis

By “flourishing”, what we really mean is eudaimonia (viz., to be a eudaimon) and this is just to say that one is living well by fulfilling their Telos. To allow people to live well (in this sense), we have to respect them as persons: we cannot kill them simply because we don’t believe we can take care of them. Not only is it simply not true in the western, developed world (as there are plenty of pro-life institutions which will provide for the child) but also, even if it were true, you cannot violate someone’s rights: rights are inherently deontological. — Bob Ross

So you believe that the state knows better than individuals whether or not they're in a position to flourish (achieve eudaimonia if you prefer) with a child?

The right to life of the zygote is in direct conflict with the right to bodily autonomy of the mother; and my point is that the ends do not justify the means, so the mother cannot abort the child as a means towards the good end of upholding their bodily autonomy. — Bob Ross

It’s not just bodily autonomy that’s at stake. If I’m not mistaken, the ultimate goal of Neo-Aristotelianism is human flourishing. There doesn’t seem to be a good argument that making abortion illegal will somehow ameliorate human flourishing in general or for the individuals involved in particular cases. Generally speaking, people seek abortion because they’re not prepared to be caregivers. They reason that they, and a child, are not in a position to flourish.

You have not provided why it would be, e.g., wrong to never sacrifice an ant to save a person other than an intuition you have; which is not sufficient to disprove it. — Bob Ross

If I understand your position at all, basically because a person has a “rational will” and an ant does not.

If abortion contravenes the telos of a zygote, making abortion illegal also contravenes the telos, rational will, or flourishing of the mother and others involved.

Because I must, in order to be a morally good agent, respect a thing relative to its nature; and in order to respect a fellow will, like mine, I must treat them as an end in themselves and never a mere means. — Bob Ross

I don’t know what you mean by a means to an end. Does anyone deliberately get pregnant and have an abortion as a means to some end?

Anyway, sure, we value what is like ourselves. That makes sense.

Making abortion illegal dramatically infringes on the will of mother and others involved. Wouldn’t a good moral agent respect the will of a pregnant woman?

Ethics doesn’t care what you feel: it cares about what moral reasons you have. — Bob Ross

Feelings have a nasty habit of influencing our moral reasoning.

Abortion is always immoral… — Bob Ross

Neo-Aristoelianism doesn’t appear to take a firm position on the issue, not being based on moral universalism or divine command. It seems within the sphere of virtue ethics that arguments could be made for legal abortion supporting human flourishing better than making it illegal. It's not like there are no negative consequences of making abortion illegal.

By the way, what is the reasoning for placing high moral value on "rational will."

Technically, neo-aristotelian. The part I was discussing was Aristotelian in nature; but you pointed out some other point that Aristotle made, assuming you are right, about souls. I am not sure he actually believed that, and don't want to re-comb through all his literature to find out. — Bob Ross

So your view follows Neo-Aristoelianism in believing that abortion is wrong because it interrupts the natural potential of the fetus to become a virtuous, rational human being, which contravenes its telos and human flourishing.

I feel that it's wrong also, though I'm not anti-abortion. Are you anti-abortion or would you support making it legal up to, say, thirteen weeks (when over 90% are performed)?

Yeah, I don't buy that (sorry Aristotle). — Bob Ross

Though your objection to abortion is based in Aristotelianism?

The result is that the foam at their mouths get frothier while no one else really cares until they do something stupid, like assassinate a candidate. — NOS4A2

By they I assume you mean Soros funded radical left transgender cannibals.

I think that evolution and biology are the groundings for Teleology: I don't think that there needs to be an agent that designed it for there to be design. — Bob Ross

Or for there to be a soul. Aristotle believed a fetus in early gestation has the soul of a vegetable, then of an animal, and only later became "animated" with a human soul by "ensoulment". For him, ensoulment occurred 40 days after conception for male fetuses and 90 days after conception for female.

their Telos dictates that they will develop rational capacities — Bob Ross

Would you say that ‘DNA’ could replace “Telos” in this sentence?

What??? — Bob Ross

In writing about personhood you contrasted us with other species, saying that we possess a "rational Telos" that other species lack, and this rational telos is what grounds human zygotic right to life. Are you suggesting that rational telos is somehow virtuous, or maybe suggesting that human zygotes should have the right to life simply because they’re like you (instinctually valuing what is like you)?

Traditionally, a rational will; i.e., a sufficiently free will. That is a serious and impactful difference between humans and other species: most, if not all, other species lack the capacity to go against their own nature and inclinations such that they are motivated by pure reason.

Traditionally, a being which has a Telos such that it will have, if not already has, a rational will are called persons (because their nature marks them out to be such); and their will must be respected.

More technically, a being which has a such a "rational Telos" is not necessarily a person but, rather, will be; and their nature marks them out as such; and this is what grounds their rights (and not whether or not they currently are a person). — Bob Ross

Strangely, you seem to be saying that the nature (capacity for reason and abstract goals) which allows abortion is what grounds the right to not be aborted.

You are making it sound like both republicans and democrats see eye-to-eye on abortion.... — Bob Ross

No, I’m simply pointing out the fact that abortion has been on the ballot in seven states since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and in each instance, in red states and blue states, anti-abortion advocates have lost. And again, many more states will vote on the issue next month.

I don't think that is true at all. Red states are predominantly conservative; and conservatives are not pro-choice. — Bob Ross

It’s true, and it’s something that you can easily verify for yourself.

When the right to abortion is on the ballot, it wins. It wins in red states that voted for President Donald Trump. It wins in counties President Joe Biden lost by more than 20 points. It wins when popular Republican officials campaign for it and when they ignore it. And it wins even when the outcome has no immediate effect on abortion access.
— Politico

Many more states will vote on it next month. Some Republican lead legislatures in red states prevent it from being on the ballot. Why? See above.

There have been votes; and red states vote no; and blue states vote yes. There is no consensus. — Bob Ross

Without checking, from what I recall this is not true. Since the Dobbs decision, when there’s a vote on the ballot in red states it goes pro-choice. Legislatures in red states don’t always allow the issue to be voted on, however.