First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
How Compassion Led to the Death Camps
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 7/6/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:

Whats wrong with giving the kid up for adoption ? My birthmom gave me up for adoption cause she knew she wouldn't have been able to take care of me, she could have aborted me, but she didn't.

So why not just give the kid up for adoption.


I think Adoption is a valid option from a menu of options. Aside from the whole death of the unborn child thing, the key difference between adoption and abortion is the necessity for the mother to bring the child to term. For some women, giving birth just might be the deal breaker.



Well if the birth would give the mother complications then yeah, but if she is perfectly capable of giving birth to a healthy child, then she should give it up for adoption.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/7/10 , edited 7/7/10

Murder is the creation of the human mind and which forms of killing we brand as murder is up to us. Let us not forget about the permissible forms of killing.


An eight week old embryo produces brainwaves and is a human. So, the embryo’s primitive mind is nevertheless a human mind. It’s not the human mind itself, it is the characteristics that go with that that I think you mean to reference. You are not saying that our minds are special simply because the specimen to which they belong is a member of the species homo sapiens, are you? The problem with this is that our minds are not as special as we like to think. Please watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCKDJDhzJvg

Anyway, your argument just rephrased the traditional pro-choice argument that I addressed before. They claim that abortion is not murder because the fetus is not a person. The fetus is not a person because it does not have a mind. Murder is killing a person. A person is defined by the human mind. So, murder is the destruction of the human mind. I addressed this approach in my previous post and you admitted that my points were good. Let’s investigate this.

I think that you have forgotten at least some forms of permissible killing if we look at the definition for ‘murder,’ that you provided. You say that murder is the destruction of the human mind. What about the unintentional destruction of the human mind? Isn’t that permissible? Consider surgical mistakes, car accidents, and collateral damage in wartime. There are even instances of intentional killing that are permissible. What about defending one’s self from an attacker or a home invader? What about capital punishment?

So, how have we deigned to define the term murder? I think the best solution we can come up with would call murder the intentional killing of an innocent person. The problem with this is that it once again makes our rights dependent upon personhood and you agreed that my points about a personhood system were valid. We cannot use personhood to decide who’s rights we protect.

I cannot prove that a black is a person, but that does not mean that the KKK gets to kill blacks. Whether or not they are persons, whether or not killing them is murder....we must restrict it. We must also restrict abortion. Now, for me this is less about punishment and more about prevention. The pro-choice side of the abortion debate thinks this is about sending the mother’s to jail. It is not. It is about preventing the behavior that violates or endangers rights we are obliged to protect.

I was recently listening to the radio when a caller was let on air. He complained about how police are no –hoping- that we will run the stop-light so they can enjoy the thrill of punishing us, of putting us back in our place. He says that police should hope that we –don’t- commit the crime so no punishment has to be allotted.

I agree with him. I think there should be incentives provided uniquely for pregnant women, especially poor women, to carry pregnancy through and put the child up for adoption or take care of the child. These should mostly relate to finances and health care. Yes, there should also be disinvites for obtaining the abortion, but I imagine we could focus these primarily (though not entirely) on the abortion providers.

And when it comes to killing somebody, we do take into account circumstances. Recently I saw a documentary about a man who shot his daughter’s rapist in the back of the head. This father was still punished as a disincentive for people who want to follow in his footsteps, or from repeat behavior from him…but he was given a lighter charge because it was understood that he was not likely to be a repeat offended and because his intentions were not malicious.

The mothers are not malicious, and if we really make abortions hard to get they are not very likely to be repeat offenders. Of course we won’t be able to stop them all, but we can’t stop all murder either.


If we want to play rights, it is sensible to look primarily at what we wish to achieve, as opposed to either science or any other tool to determine matters for us. Human rights do not exist in the natural world and we have created them for a reason. It is logical that we ascertain the reason we have created them and use human rights accordingly.


The problem here is that nobody can agree why our rights exist. Many people hold these truths to be self evident on theological grounds. Nietzsche argued that rights were an invention of the weak designed strictly to fetter the strong. In the first century C.E Josephus Flavius wrote that we should reject suicide as a civil crime. He justified this by claiming that society had given us a right to our own lives so we could uphold our duty to serve society and when we are no longer doing so society can take our rights away. This sounds very similar to what you are arguing.

You wrote:

The same way that human rights have been granted by a legal system, they can be taken away



It is logical that we ascertain the reason we have created them and use human rights accordingly.



Well, now we have a series of problems. First off, who’s reason should we accept? They are all legitimate. Second off, what if the original reasons become obsolete? Do we nullify them at that point? I mean, I have an authentic German riffle from the First World War. It was originally made to kill enemy on the field of battle. That is not applicable to me. I am not a soldier, I have no enemies, and I stay away from battlefields to the best of my ability. So, can I not enjoy the aesthetic and historical worth? Must I throw my riffle away as Josephus would have me throw my right to do what I want with my own body away when it no longer served the state? Finally, why should we use our rights for the original purpose at all?

Historically, the real reason we have a bill of rights was strictly political. Our constitution was originally drafted to establish a system of government. However, not all of those who would be affected by this agreed with what the constitution laid out. So, we promised to make a bill of rights to vote for the constitution. We created rights that would be popular. So should it now be a matter of popular sovereignty? We give rights when the public cries for it and take them when the public cries for that? Well, this was what the confederates in the Civil War argued. Popular sovereignty was their number one defense for slavery. This is the tyranny of the majority…and anyway, the majority of us are pro-life at this point. So, if I adopt your ‘logical,’ approach…then abortion should be illegal.

In the end, I do not adopt your approach. My German riffle is here and I am not going to use it for its original purpose…nor am I going to throw it away.


I agree that you made good points regarding the two systems, but nevertheless, I find that they are both arbitrary. We have a clash of interests, a clash of opinions, a clash of desires..


I do not think it is arbitrary. But if we treat it that way, then why should one group of people be subjected to the other’s arbitrary decision? It would seem you’re on the side of McCain, who says it should be decided by the states.

I don’t think there is much of a clash of opinion or desire in the popular abortion debate. Both sides seem determined to uphold individual rights. I have never seen an issue that brings more people to libertinism. The only disagreement is in which system achieves this ultimate goal best. And unless you can tell me why your system is better…


No system will be satisfactory as reality did not provide for this matter. We are physically free to perform abortion and all that is required is a desire to do so and a 'societal nod'. Abortion has no immediate adverse effects on society and in light of that, if you strip society of its moral judgements, abortion quickly becomes a neutral, if not desirable, procedure. Expediency. The quicker we rid ourselves of the moral judgements that plague us, the quicker we will become able to progress with efficacy.


Reminds me of something Ted Bundy recorded himself saying before he raped and murdered one of his victims:


Then I learned that all moral judgments are value judgments, that all value judgments are subjective, and that nobody can be proved right or wrong. I even read somewhere that the chief justice of the United States had written that the American constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured out for myself - what apparently the Chief Justice couldn't figure out for himself"”that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any "reason" to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring "” the strength of character "” to throw off its shackles. ... I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable value judgment" that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these "others"? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog's life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as "moral" or "good" and others as "immoral" or "bad"? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me"”after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self. ”


In any case, I do not believe an early term fetus, embryo, or zygote can be called a person. I think of abortion as a morally neutral operation. It is no different than a nose job or sex change. At least not morally. I am not saying we should force morality on anyone, and I never morally judged anything. None of my arguments were moral in nature. Actually, I think it is immoral to prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion.


The same way abortion is a procedure that can be used for the betterment of the individual's and ultimately society's position. We have thousands of years of recorded history, one would expect that we would have recognised what we. as a species, strive for, without extraneous considerations clouding our vision.


I feel like Humphrey van Weyden aboard the sealing Schooner Ghost, and you are my Wolf Larsen. In any case everything you said here can be said of slavery. Slavery can be used for the betterment of an individual and ultimately society’s position. Your argument would justify slavery juts as much as abortion. And if we –are- being logical, you cannot accept one conclusion by reject the other while holding the argument to be valid. This is a rudimentary law of logical consistency.

But in the end if you do want to take the materialistic approach, I encourage you to read some of Martin Luther King Jr.’s arguments on civil rights. He said, “our problem is their problem.” If you honestly advocate abortion by saying it may serve to advance you or society, remember that your death may behoove somebody else one day. Your death may behoove society, one day. You may one day be injured and become a leach, and will your desire to live be remotely mitigated? No! You may think it will, but let me tell you that you are WRONG! Every fiber of your being will still scream out against death just as it does now.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/7/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote: Let's ask when a fetus obtains rights instead.


Alright, so let us investigate when a fetus has rights. In order to do this, we must know what characteristic it is that gives us rights. The pro-choice individuals usually argue that it is personhood. Being a person is what gives us rights. You may refer to my previous installment in our discussion to see the problems with that. The pro-life individuals usually argue that it should be scientific humanity. Again, you may refer to my previous post to see why I agree with them.

So, unless you have a reason to prefer the first option over the second, our scientific status as humans is what gives us our rights. Thus, a fetus has rights before it is even a fetus. The prenatal human specimen has rights before it is an embryo. The instant we have a human zygote, on that microsecond of conception, we have a human. Thus, there is never a point when an unborn child does not have rights.


Your calculus has a great deal of logic, forcing me to think on a subject I had thought I'd made my mind up about 20 years ago


I am very, very glad to hear I have you thinking. That’s my goal. I am less concerned with who is right and who is wrong and more concerned with what is true.

The only problem with that is my own personal illogic that that says "wait that's not the quite the same yet as a living breathing human" and the lack of wiggle room such an uncompromising definition leaves my second point.


When you say that it is not quite the same as a living human, I suppose you mean a person. The zygote is a living human. As far as the breathing, that would seem to be irrelevant. I can hold my breath and I’m still just as valuable as when I’m inhaling or exhaling. Well, I can tell you that I agree with you when you say that a zygote is not the same as a person. I think there is a distinct difference. The problem is that this is a matter of our own, personal, and illogical intuition. Now, some people think we should govern on this, but they are myopic, imprudent, irrational, and illogical. None of these are things we want in our politics.


I have long held the belief, bottom line, that a woman should have the right to make this life altering (and potentially life abrogating) decision for herself.


Why should the mother have the right to abrogate the child’s life? Simply because it behooves her to do so? Well, what if you were a corrupt political leader who had been accepting bribes. I am a journalist who has proof and is rushing back to the New York Times to release this to the public. The only way to stop me is to kill me. Should you have the right to make this life altering, and potentially life abrogating, decision for yourself?

I assume you are not a sociopath and your answer is a resounding no. So, yes. Restricting a woman from obtaining an abortion may have profound effects on her life. Yet, so would restricting a dictator from slaughtering reporters.

What about a spouse with a rich husband/wife? Let us say that somebody married Oprah. Then Oprah decides she wants a divorce. But her husband has relied on her income. His entire life is being married to the world’s richest black woman. Allowing her to divorce him would be life abrogating. On the other hand, if he kills her and inherits her money as the spouse before the papers can be filed he’ll get to live on more or less the same way he always has. Should he have the right to make that decision for himself?


Once again, you cannot adopt an argument and reject some of its conclusions while holding that it is still valid. So, you must either accept that it is okay to kill your rich spouse for money and slaughter reporters to keep your corruption secret or find some other justification for abortion if you want to maintain your pro-choice stance logically.


harsh burden of proof that you were raped/molested/etc. a requirement to allow this decision to be made, is fought with legal and social complications that would I think ultimately result in an de facto ban on all abortions. (by the time a woman appeals a decision against her, The child she wanted to abort could already be going to school)

It is not very difficult to provide proof that you were raped, and since the morning after pill is effective up to 72 hours after there is no real reason to obtain an abortion in response to rape. Our hospitals are legally obliged to provide industrial strength morning after pills to all female rape victims. As it stands there are already requirements to allow the decision to be made in numerous states. Ultrasounds, sonograms, counseling programs, and of course adolescents are usually required to at least inform their parents. Yet, women and girls obtain abortions all the time in these states. Women who have been raped would still be able to get their abortions, there’s no evidence whatsoever that they would not.

As far as a ban on abortions outside of the cases of rape leading to a complete ban, that is what in academic logic we call the slippery slope fallacy. It is actually very unlikely because while most Americans identify themselves as pro-life, most pro-lifers still feel abortion should be allowed under abnormal circumstances.

Chances are, we will never have a ban on abortion in the case of rape, incest, or risk to the mother’s life.

On the other hand, I recently read an article from the New York Times which advocated infanticide by extending the same types of arguments that you are presenting. Peter Singer also says that parents should be able to kill their children at will and he’s an international best seller. We have even seen partial birth abortions and live birth abortions performed unrestrained in Planned Parenthood facilities.

So really, it is much more likely that by allowing abortions we will wind up killing newborn babies than it is that by restricting them in instances of consensual sex we will wind up outlawing them even for cases of rape.

I think that having that 000.1% of women obtaining abortions in response to rape have to take the morning after pill instead is preferable to allowing infanticide to take place and I am sure you will agree if you have ever held a child in your arms.


I may have failed to thoroughly read on the posts here so you may have addressed additional circumstances such as the rare but occasional case where an abortion or a premature c-section is believed to be required to save the mother's life. But if you haven't, what other circumstances have you dismissed as not relevant?


I did not dismiss them as irrelevant. I have thought this issue through very carefully and have said before that I make an exception in cases such as rape. On the other hand, what about a threat to the mother’s life?

Well, I have the same blood type as my mother. This is actually a miracle. Our blood type is very, very rare. People like us have a harder time finding donors than anyone else. Often, the waiting list lasts far longer than the individual in need of a donor can last.

So, let us imagine that my mother needed a heart transplant. Should she have the right to kill me and use my heart? Of course not. Why should it be any different for an unborn child?


Understand, I don't think my stance is perfect. I just think it's the best compromise we have with our current technology. I think there should be a window where a woman can abrogate the rights of her unborn child. I definitely think immediate chemical abortions (the infamous 'morning after' pill) should be permissable


I am simply asking you to defend your position with a rational argument. I would very much prefer, for moral reasons, to be on your side of the fence. Unfortunately, I am intellectually honest and the truth seems to be on my side of the fence. I cannot lie to myself to join you. I am not that weak minded, illogical, or irrational. So, I am hoping that maybe you have an argument I have not considered that will allow me to join you without giving my mind away and becoming a dumb puppet to political propaganda.

So far, you have not provided a reasonable, rational, logical, or valid argument in defense of your position. I am asking you to do so, or to spare your own intellectual honesty and admit that your position is wrong.

(By the way, the morning after pill is not the same thing as the abortion pill. The abortion pill is called the RU-486. The abortion pill cannot kill a zygote. It is the same thing as a pregnancy pill but the dosage is drastically increased. Recently got schooled in a debate because of that same misconception.)


I'm less sanguine about abortion the closer birth comes. When we perfect artificial wombs which can bring a human to term from zygote to birth. I think even for for rape, abortion won't be necessary and perhaps should be reconsidered. At that point genetic testing will hopefully allow us to also hold the fathers equally responsible. I also think that forcing some legal instrument into that time window forcing a woman to justify her need for an abortion is ultimately tantamount to banning the practice.


We cannot say that X is not tantamount to Y unless we can provide some form of evidence that X causes Y or at the very least that X probably causes Y. But, that is not the case since only a tiny, tiny fraction of the United States population is against abortion in instances of rape. Have you reviewed the recent polls? There are more people support allowing all abortions (including late term, partial birth, and live birth) than there are people who support a universal ban on abortion. This is not a true threat, so if you are worried about it, set that aside. Even John McCain makes the exception for rape and threat to the mother’s life.

By the way, I think that as things are now the fathers are the only ones –legally- being held responsible. If a woman wants to escape responsibility she can get an abortion. The man has no say in this and yet if she decides to keep the child he has to pay child support. A lot of the time the only way he can afford to do so is to get a low paying job involving smashing rocks or digging trenches. Are you okay with sentencing a 16 year old father to 18 years of hard labor? Or should he get to make this potentially life abrogating decision for himself and simply have no responsibilities?

As far as the artificial womb, we are not quite as far from that as you might imagine.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 7/8/10 , edited 7/8/10

SeraphAlford wrote:
An eight week old embryo produces brainwaves and is a human. So, the embryo’s primitive mind is nevertheless a human mind. It’s not the human mind itself, it is the characteristics that go with that that I think you mean to reference. You are not saying that our minds are special simply because the specimen to which they belong is a member of the species homo sapiens, are you? The problem with this is that our minds are not as special as we like to think. Please watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCKDJDhzJvg


Right, I guess I didn't express myself clearly enough. I am not concerned with what constitutes a person and I'm not concerned with the mind either. My view is such that it would not change even if we were rats or fish or anything else.


SeraphAlford wrote:Anyway, your argument just rephrased the traditional pro-choice argument that I addressed before. They claim that abortion is not murder because the fetus is not a person. The fetus is not a person because it does not have a mind. Murder is killing a person. A person is defined by the human mind. So, murder is the destruction of the human mind. I addressed this approach in my previous post and you admitted that my points were good. Let’s investigate this.


No, it may, at first, look similar to the traditional pro-choice argument, but it is radically different. The argument is that murder is a human creation. We do not, actually need such a category of killing. It could just be two categories. Well, it actually is. Killing that we sanction and killing that we don't. There is a demand for abortion and the world is torn into two as regards whether abortion is to be allowed or not. There is no societal consensus whether it is to be allowed, so why should there be legislation to deal with it? A fair part of society accepts abortion and another fair part does not, but there is a demand and abortion is a procedure that pertains to the individual. Whether the foetus produces brainwaves or not is of no relevance, what matters is that a large body of opinion finds that regardless of whether it produces brainwaves, it is desired be aborted.


SeraphAlford wrote: I think that you have forgotten at least some forms of permissible killing if we look at the definition for ‘murder,’ that you provided. You say that murder is the destruction of the human mind. What about the unintentional destruction of the human mind? Isn’t that permissible? Consider surgical mistakes, car accidents, and collateral damage in wartime. There are even instances of intentional killing that are permissible. What about defending one’s self from an attacker or a home invader? What about capital punishment?


Arbitrarily created categories of permissible killing, in line with the dictates and needs of society. Abortion has become a need as there is a demand for it.


SeraphAlford wrote:So, how have we deigned to define the term murder? I think the best solution we can come up with would call murder the intentional killing of an innocent person. The problem with this is that it once again makes our rights dependent upon personhood and you agreed that my points about a personhood system were valid. We cannot use personhood to decide who’s rights we protect.


How about 'A sanctioned form of killing. For an exhaustive list refer to s.36(3)(iii)(a) of the How To Legalise Abortion Act 2011'?


SeraphAlford wrote:I cannot prove that a black is a person, but that does not mean that the KKK gets to kill blacks. Whether or not they are persons, whether or not killing them is murder....we must restrict it. We must also restrict abortion. Now, for me this is less about punishment and more about prevention. The pro-choice side of the abortion debate thinks this is about sending the mother’s to jail. It is not. It is about preventing the behavior that violates or endangers rights we are obliged to protect.


It is in our interest to restrict the killing of blacks, whites or asians, but how does it stem from that that it is also within our interest to restrict the killing of foetuses?

We do not want ante-natal blacks, whites or asians to be killed. What else is there to it? We don't want it, so we sanction it. Once we grow to desire to killing of ante-natal blacks, whites or asians, we will abolish the old laws and start killing each other. I'm sorry to say this, but the laws can easily be changed if there is a desire to do so, just look at what happened in Nazi Germany. As long as laws are subject to change, that will remain a possibility. If we label our laws timeless and unchanging, that'll be pretty unrealistic.


SeraphAlford wrote:I was recently listening to the radio when a caller was let on air. He complained about how police are no –hoping- that we will run the stop-light so they can enjoy the thrill of punishing us, of putting us back in our place. He says that police should hope that we –don’t- commit the crime so no punishment has to be allotted.


I agree with him. I think there should be incentives provided uniquely for pregnant women, especially poor women, to carry pregnancy through and put the child up for adoption or take care of the child. These should mostly relate to finances and health care. Yes, there should also be disinvites for obtaining the abortion, but I imagine we could focus these primarily (though not entirely) on the abortion providers.

I think we should stop with social engineering and I also think that if I was a woman I'd like others to get the bleeding f*ck out of my personal life.


SeraphAlford wrote:And when it comes to killing somebody, we do take into account circumstances. Recently I saw a documentary about a man who shot his daughter’s rapist in the back of the head. This father was still punished as a disincentive for people who want to follow in his footsteps, or from repeat behavior from him…but he was given a lighter charge because it was understood that he was not likely to be a repeat offended and because his intentions were not malicious.

The mothers are not malicious, and if we really make abortions hard to get they are not very likely to be repeat offenders. Of course we won’t be able to stop them all, but we can’t stop all murder either.


Since when is abortion a wrong, a sin or a crime? Or undesired pregnancy for that matter.


SeraphAlford wrote:The problem here is that nobody can agree why our rights exist. Many people hold these truths to be self evident on theological grounds. Nietzsche argued that rights were an invention of the weak designed strictly to fetter the strong. In the first century C.E Josephus Flavius wrote that we should reject suicide as a civil crime. He justified this by claiming that society had given us a right to our own lives so we could uphold our duty to serve society and when we are no longer doing so society can take our rights away. This sounds very similar to what you are arguing.


Society confers rights and so too it abolishes them. There is no grand theory behind it. Society gives and takes rights when it deems it necessary. Natural law rubbish, social contract and so on and so forth are just useless nonsense.


SeraphAlford wrote:Well, now we have a series of problems. First off, who’s reason should we accept? They are all legitimate. Second off, what if the original reasons become obsolete? Do we nullify them at that point? I mean, I have an authentic German riffle from the First World War. It was originally made to kill enemy on the field of battle. That is not applicable to me. I am not a soldier, I have no enemies, and I stay away from battlefields to the best of my ability. So, can I not enjoy the aesthetic and historical worth? Must I throw my riffle away as Josephus would have me throw my right to do what I want with my own body away when it no longer served the state? Finally, why should we use our rights for the original purpose at all?


You have a rifle. If you have a right to possess it, society doesn't really care. If you don't, society demands that you get rid of the rifle. Whether you do so or not is your own choice. The purpose of a right may change with the times. If it did change, you ascertain its new purpose and investigate what happened to the previous right it evolved from.


SeraphAlford wrote:Historically, the real reason we have a bill of rights was strictly political. Our constitution was originally drafted to establish a system of government. However, not all of those who would be affected by this agreed with what the constitution laid out. So, we promised to make a bill of rights to vote for the constitution. We created rights that would be popular. So should it now be a matter of popular sovereignty? We give rights when the public cries for it and take them when the public cries for that? Well, this was what the confederates in the Civil War argued. Popular sovereignty was their number one defense for slavery. This is the tyranny of the majority…and anyway, the majority of us are pro-life at this point. So, if I adopt your ‘logical,’ approach…then abortion should be illegal.


I'm not speaking of oughts and ought nots. I'm trying to point out what is arbitrary. And I'm most certainly not arguing for democratic dictatorship. If anything I'm opposed to it. But that does not mean democratic dictatorship does not exist. I despise democracy with my whole being, but I can't hope to go against it, and neither does it mean that democracy does not incorporate elements that are also employed by other systems of governance. To treat laws in a straightforward and logical fashion is not an exclusive trait of democracy, and the sole reason you can use the example of zealous moral crusaders in your example is because they govern to some extent. Once you put objective and cold people in charge without moral considerations, people who are capable of detached thinking and capable of disregarding their own circumstances whilst making decisions, you are much more likely to sever this Gordian Knot.


SeraphAlford wrote:I do not think it is arbitrary. But if we treat it that way, then why should one group of people be subjected to the other’s arbitrary decision? It would seem you’re on the side of McCain, who says it should be decided by the states.


If abortion is allowed as a choice no one is subjected to others' decision. It is not mandatory, and if you disapprove of abortion, well give birth to the child you don't need, can't take care of and most certainly won't raise properly. By all means, go ahead, no one's forcing abortion on you.


SeraphAlford wrote:I don’t think there is much of a clash of opinion or desire in the popular abortion debate. Both sides seem determined to uphold individual rights. I have never seen an issue that brings more people to libertinism. The only disagreement is in which system achieves this ultimate goal best. And unless you can tell me why your system is better…


If people didn't want to cancel pregnancy, we wouldn't have the whole abortion debate. People want to have abortions and so they come up with arguments as to why they should. The point to stress is that there is a demand.



SeraphAlford wrote:Reminds me of something Ted Bundy recorded himself saying before he raped and murdered one of his victims:


Then I learned that all moral judgments are value judgments, that all value judgments are subjective, and that nobody can be proved right or wrong. I even read somewhere that the chief justice of the United States had written that the American constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured out for myself - what apparently the Chief Justice couldn't figure out for himself"”that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any "reason" to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring "” the strength of character "” to throw off its shackles. ... I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable value judgment" that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these "others"? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog's life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as "moral" or "good" and others as "immoral" or "bad"? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me"”after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self. ”


Reminds me of a Reductio ad Hitlerum.


SeraphAlford wrote:In any case, I do not believe an early term fetus, embryo, or zygote can be called a person. I think of abortion as a morally neutral operation. It is no different than a nose job or sex change. At least not morally. I am not saying we should force morality on anyone, and I never morally judged anything. None of my arguments were moral in nature. Actually, I think it is immoral to prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion.


Great. Morality is one of those things I like to avoid. I don't think it is immoral to prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion. I think it's stupid meddling that is unlikely to yield any useful results.


SeraphAlford wrote:I feel like Humphrey van Weyden aboard the sealing Schooner Ghost, and you are my Wolf Larsen. In any case everything you said here can be said of slavery. Slavery can be used for the betterment of an individual and ultimately society’s position. Your argument would justify slavery juts as much as abortion. And if we –are- being logical, you cannot accept one conclusion by reject the other while holding the argument to be valid. This is a rudimentary law of logical consistency.


I'll be your Wolf Larsen if you wish to think of me in such a way. And, to tell the truth, I also think that the same could be said of slavery, but only depending on how you would fill the gaps I had left. Are we to view society as those in power? Are we not to include the would-be slaves?


SeraphAlford wrote:But in the end if you do want to take the materialistic approach, I encourage you to read some of Martin Luther King Jr.’s arguments on civil rights. He said, “our problem is their problem.” If you honestly advocate abortion by saying it may serve to advance you or society, remember that your death may behoove somebody else one day. Your death may behoove society, one day. You may one day be injured and become a leach, and will your desire to live be remotely mitigated? No! You may think it will, but let me tell you that you are WRONG! Every fiber of your being will still scream out against death just as it does now.


Appeal to pity. It is in our interest to create a safe (both in a narrow and wide sense) society. It's only that pre-natal beings are pretty damn remote and hardly part of society until they are born, at which point they cease to be pre-natal anyway.

Anyhow, it's a pleasure arguing with you hahaha, even if we disagree fundamentally. I found it very engaging, thus far. It'd be a shame if we were of the same opinion.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.