moral relativism

[Eodnhoj7]

You are assuming all abortions are the result of consensual sex.

Nope. I, like you, know a great many abortions (not all) are done becuz the ladies involved, after consensual sex, are lookin' to short cut their way out of consequences they were well aware were possible.

These questions...

*Is the loss of nine months equivalent to the loss of an entire life?

*Should a life be rubbed out solely becuz that life is a temporary inconvenience?

*If someone consents to sex, aren't they also consenting to the potential, natural, consequence of having sex?

...are for those ladies.

And what about the abortions around non-consensual sex? Abortion is a broad topic and cannot be limited to consensuality.

[Eodnhoj7]

one could argue a woman's right to choose was before the act that caused the pregnancy, and one could ague that once you choose to get on the roller coaster you can't get off until the ride is over.

And if morality is subject to reasoning then anything can be argued as anything can be justified due to reasoning's requirement of contrasts which further require contradiction.

if there is no agreement to verify what is or isn't justified in that agreement, then all is fair game. the constitution of the US is an agreement between the gov and its people, a covenant if you will. one is justified to speak freely within the territories under the US gov's power because the US constitution justifies it. or gun ownership, or anything stated in that agreement (for example). hence the president's sworn duty to protect it, its the heart of the peaceful coexistence of those who agree to it.

agreements are the morals or rules or laws agreed to by those included to be in agreements. the document is the verification of what is and is not justified. therefore morals are relative to those in the agreement. for example Russians in Russia are not bound to the US constitution. they are bound to whatever is agreed to between the its gov and people.

Then all is fair game as one stance always has an opposing counter stance.

[DPMartin]

And if morality is subject to reasoning then anything can be argued as anything can be justified due to reasoning's requirement of contrasts which further require contradiction.

if there is no agreement to verify what is or isn't justified in that agreement, then all is fair game. the constitution of the US is an agreement between the gov and its people, a covenant if you will. one is justified to speak freely within the territories under the US gov's power because the US constitution justifies it. or gun ownership, or anything stated in that agreement (for example). hence the president's sworn duty to protect it, its the heart of the peaceful coexistence of those who agree to it.

agreements are the morals or rules or laws agreed to by those included to be in agreements. the document is the verification of what is and is not justified. therefore morals are relative to those in the agreement. for example Russians in Russia are not bound to the US constitution. they are bound to whatever is agreed to between the its gov and people.

Then all is fair game as one stance always has an opposing counter stance.

not if there is an agreement, then the agreement rules, and what is and is not justified is stipulated. other wise yes all is fair, like as in the wild, or animal kingdom. man is different then animals because he can stipulate conditions of agreement, and honor them.

[iambiguous]

Science and Morality
Science doesn’t give us a script for what to value or believe in, but it helps us write that script
Jim Kozubek at Scientific American

Whatever it meant to live a good life, it couldn’t be predefined by culture or science.

And yet how many "serious philosophers" among us still seem intent on settling down to the task of defining the words we use in any discussion of morality. As though, like scientists, ethicists must begin with what we can determine logically and epistemologically that words must mean before we can move on and determine as well what constitutes good as opposed to bad behavior.

As though the exactitude of the meaning of words used to encompass the manufacturing of guns could in turn be used in establishing whether laws ought to be enacted establishing restrictions on who can own them and on what cannot be purchased at all.

And then the shift over to a meaningful life itself...

In Anton Chekhov’s 1889 short story, “A Boring Story,” Nikolai Stepanovich, an internationally recognized scientist and professor of medicine, slips into melancholy near the end of his life. Despite his incredible success, his life seems evermore ambiguous, as the modernist movement comes to displace his authority. Katja, a young girl, a representative of the new generation, comes to him asking for advice and guidance, but Nikolai knows he has no way to tell her how to live. The irony is that freedom invoked a melancholy. His physician friend Mikhail Fyodorovich confides in Nikolai, “Science, God knows, has become obsolete. Its song has sung. Yes… Humanity has already begun to feel the need of replacing it with something else.”

Here many embrace science because what it has come to understand about nature has allowed the human race to create all of the marvelous inventions and engineering feats that make the "modern world" so much more habitable, comfortable, sufferable than for those who lived long before us. But, at the same time, it has pulled the rug out from under any number of religious narratives. More and more of us go to science for answers rather than to church.

We seem to have more and more and more options to choose from to put meaning into our lives but the more there are the more some want it to all come down to the one true path. And science here is of little or no use. Not when it comes to tying all of the "things" in our life together into something thought by us to make us "spiritually whole".

And then, what else is there? One or another God/No God teleological font.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121

[Sculptor]

You are assuming all abortions are the result of consensual sex.

Nope. I, like you, know a great many abortions (not all) are done becuz the ladies involved, after consensual sex, are lookin' to short cut their way out of consequences they were well aware were possible.

These questions...

*Is the loss of nine months equivalent to the loss of an entire life?

*Should a life be rubbed out solely becuz that life is a temporary inconvenience?

*If someone consents to sex, aren't they also consenting to the potential, natural, consequence of having sex?

...are for those ladies.

And what about the abortions around non-consensual sex? Abortion is a broad topic and cannot be limited to consensuality.

Call it like is is.
You mean rape and paedophilia.

[iambiguous]

if the woman was raped and impregnated?

In such a circumstance the child, innocent as he himself is, truly has no claim on her. She consented to nuthin'. Askin' or demandin' she carry the child is a clear violation of her, a violation laid atop a violation. It's too much and it's not right.

Truly has no claim? And those that argue that an unborn human being's innocence in and of itself trumps any right claimed by the woman to shred it into oblivion?

And how would either side go about demonstrating their position other than by way of it all coming down to what they "just know" is true here?

Whereas I would argue that what we as individuals come to believe intuitively and viscerally is true about things like this is no less rooted subjectively/existentially in dasein.

if she chose not to be pregnant but the contraceptive device was defective?

She got busy knowin' pregnancy was a possibility, even with birth control (she used *birth control, accordin' to Biggy, which failed), and when Nature bit her in the keister -- again, sumthin' she was aware could happen -- she was unwillin' to accept the consequence and inconvenience of nine months.

Again, you assert this as though in merely believing it, it makes it true. Whereas those who assert that her intention is what counts here is the frame of mind that must prevail. Back again to actually demonstrating definitively who is being more rational.

if she chose to be pregnant but then circumstances in her life changed making the pregnancy something that would cause considerable harm to her?

Cite an example.

Are you kidding me? There has never, ever been a woman who became pregnant, wanted to be, but then found her circumstances change such that she no longer wanted to be?

Start here with real flesh and blood women tugged and pulled in different directions...

https://www.netmums.com/coffeehouse/bec ... -help.html

Of course being a man this is never something that you tourself will ever agonize over. But that's irrelevant, right?

it is determined that giving birth might result in her own life being endangered?

No one ought be compelled to die for another.

So you say. Others say differently.

cause great harm to her emotionally and psychologically?

Cite an example.

That you would demand this speaks volumes regarding your own personal experiences with being pregnant.

she believes that she is aborting only a "clump of cells" and not an actual human being?

https://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

Yes, I happen to believe myself that human life begins at conception. But I also believe that women ought to have the political right to an abortion.

Why?

Well, I attempt to explain that there:

I believe what many would construe to be two seemingly conflicting [even contradictory] things:

1] that aborting a human fetus is the killing of an innocent human being
2] that women should be afforded full legal rights to choose abortion

As a result, the first thing many point out is that, regarding this issue, I am insisting women should be permitted legally to kill innocent human beings. And that doing so is in this particular context not immoral.

To which I respond:

"Yes, but..."

But:

Just because I construe the fetus to be an innocent human being does not necessarily [objectively] make it so. On the contrary, there are reasonable arguments proffered by those who see the fetus as truly human only at birth or at the point of "viability".

And even if everyone agreed the fetus was an innocent human being from the point of conception, I would still not construe the killing of it as necessarily immoral. Why? Because out in the world we live in there can be no such thing as true "gender equality" if we forced women to give birth against their wishes.

Abortion then is a human tragedy in my view precisely because, like so many other moral conflagrations, it necessarily involves a conflict of legitimate rights.

Consider:

William Barrett from Irrational Man:

For the choice in...human [moral conflicts] is almost never between a good and an evil, where both are plainly marked as such and the choice therefore made in all the certitude of reason; rather it is between rival goods, where one is bound to do some evil either way, and where the the ultimate outcome and even---or most of all---our own motives are unclear to us. The terror of confronting oneself in such a situation is so great that most people panic and try to take cover under any universal rules that will apply, if only to save them from the task of choosing themselves.

[emphasis my own]

In my view, moral dogmas are basically interchangeable when expressed as sets of essential [universal] convictions. And that is so because we do not interact socially, politically or economically in an essential manner; only in an existential manner. Which is to say that our behaviors bear consequences that are perceived differently by different people in different sets of circumstances.

That's the world we have to live in and not the ones we put together seamlessly in our heads.

Besides, if the pregnant woman herself is able to rationalize the abortion of this "clump of cells" as morally legitimate that need be as far as it goes for her. Like you rationalizing your right to buy a bazooka as some thing that is "naturally" true.

if a woman you knew and cared about had an abortion, and it was illegal to have abortions in this jurisdiction, would you turn her into the law?

I don't voluntarily have truck with The State or agents of The State, so: no.

Okay, fair enough. That's your own existential frame of mind. Your friend or loved one is a murderer...she deliberately killed an innocent human being...but you'll keep that away from the authorities.

the death penalty

The State ought not kill people.

Okay, so all of the arguments made by those here...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/capitalpun ... or_1.shtml

...are, what, inherently/necessarily irrational?

[RCSaunders]

You are assuming all abortions are the result of consensual sex.

Nope. I, like you, know a great many abortions (not all) are done becuz the ladies involved, after consensual sex, are lookin' to short cut their way out of consequences they were well aware were possible.

These questions...

*Is the loss of nine months equivalent to the loss of an entire life?

*Should a life be rubbed out solely becuz that life is a temporary inconvenience?

*If someone consents to sex, aren't they also consenting to the potential, natural, consequence of having sex?

...are for those ladies.

And what about the abortions around non-consensual sex? Abortion is a broad topic and cannot be limited to consensuality.

I have this picture of you and others who believe as you do about abortion coming upon a woman you discover has just had one. I picture you dragging her before some tribunal where the details of her crime are spelled out and sentence pronounced. But there the picture becomes murky. What will the sentence be? Shall she be stoned, hung, jailed (and taken away from any other children she might have), flogged, put in stocks, fined, or perhaps forced to walk around with a sign with a big red. "A", or what? If abortion is a crime, how do you intend to deal with it?

[henry quirk]

And what about the abortions around non-consensual sex?

As I say (somewhere in-forum): In such a circumstance the child, innocent as he himself is, truly has no claim on her. She consented to nuthin'. Askin' or demandin' she carry the child is a clear violation of her, a violation laid atop a violation. It's too much and it's not right.

[Sculptor]

And what about the abortions around non-consensual sex?

As I say (somewhere in-forum): In such a circumstance the child, innocent as he himself is, truly has no claim on her. She consented to nuthin'. Askin' or demandin' she carry the child is a clear violation of her, a violation laid atop a violation. It's too much and it's not right.

So you agree that there are circumstance in which a fetus could be killed because of the needs of the woman?

Now you have a problem because allowing an abortion in this case and not in other cases where the woman asserts rights over her own body now sets up an incentive for any women refused an abortion to accuse a man of rape; or you would be forcing a woman to have to prove that a rape has occurred.
This is problematic for several reason, not least because the vast majority of rapes are never brought to court and when they are, only a tiny minority result in a conviction.
For this reason your grudging exception is an empty gesture.

[henry quirk]

Truly has no claim?

Nope. Pregnancy was forced on her. Unlike all your ladies who hang-wring about inconvenience, she was violated. Me: I'm not fond of the idea Junior gets rubbed out, but -- unlike the Juniors of those inconvenienced ladies -- he wasn't invited. It would be bold of Jennifer (that's what we can call the raped woman) to see past the rape and allow her child to live, but I can't see condemnin' her cuz she can't.

And my position is rooted, not in Datsun, but in reason and conscience.

Want me to explain it to you again?

you assert this...

...by way of reason and conscience.

Want me to explain it to you again?

There has never, ever been a woman who became pregnant, wanted to be, but then found her circumstances change such that she no longer wanted to be?

Oh, sure, but you're very general, very sky-hooked. Which, of course, is okay, if it's the best you got.

Anyway: bottomline, don't get busy if you ain't willin' to pay the piper.

I am 39 and just found out I am 4 weeks pregnant. This was planned but my husband istnt really that bothered about kids. I hoped my enthusiasm would be enough for both of us. Since I found out I am pregnant I have not stopped feeling sad,crying and feeling I have made a really big selfish mistake and that I was happy and don't want my life to change. Am seriously considering not going ahead with this...any one else feel similar?

My advice: Have the baby you invited into the world, then -- even if you've changed your mind (again!) -- give it up for adoption. You're obviously deficient (and probably plagued by Datsun). And get your tubes tied, you bint.

So you say. Others say differently.

Unlike them: I have an ethic based on a fact.

Want me to explain it to you again?

if the pregnant woman herself is able to rationalize

Oh, anyone can rationalize anything. That's not the same as reasoning a thing out...like I have.

you rationalizing your right to buy a bazooka

No, bubba: I didn't rationalize, I reasoned.

you'll keep that away from the authorities

I keep everything away from The State...everything.

so all of the arguments made by those here......are, what, inherently/necessarily irrational?

Yep. The State is an illegitimate construct. Any argument about the legitimacy of the actions of an illegitimacy is irrational.

[henry quirk]

So you agree that there are circumstance in which a fetus could be killed because of the needs of the woman?

No, not exactly. It's not her needs, but her rights, and how her rights (to herself) balance against the rights of the child (to himself).

Mary (that's bubba's girl who consented to sex and to the possible consequence of sex then welched on her end and choose abortion cuz she was inconvenienced, by havin' him inside her) is a murderess. She consented to sex, invited a person into the world, then she off'd him.

Jennifer (the raped woman) consented to nuthin'. She was violated. The child, innocent as snow, has no claim in her.

Pamela (a new chick) wants her kid, but discovers there's a real possibility she may die if she carries the child. No one, not even an innocent, can claim the entirety of another's life.

forcing a woman to have to prove that a rape has occurred.

A rape kit, administered by a physician, is all that's required. Pretty low bar.

a tiny minority result in a conviction.

Irrelevant. All she needs to show is she was raped (via rape kit). Who the rapist is isn't germane. She's not goin' to court; she wants an abortion.

[Sculptor]

So you agree that there are circumstance in which a fetus could be killed because of the needs of the woman?

No, not exactly. It's not her needs, but her rights, and how her rights (to herself) balance against the rights of the child (to himself).

Mary (that's bubba's girl who consented to sex and to the possible consequence of sex then welched on her end and choose abortion cuz she was inconvenienced, by havin' him inside her) is a murderess. She consented to sex, invited a person into the world, then she off'd him.

Jennifer (the raped woman) consented to nuthin'. She was violated. The child, innocent as snow, has no claim in her.

Pamela (a new chick) wants her kid, but discovers there's a real possibility she may die if she carries the child. No one, not even an innocent, can claim the entirety of another's life.

forcing a woman to have to prove that a rape has occurred.

A rape kit, administered by a physician, is all that's required. Pretty low bar.

What a croc of shit.
By the time the abortion is needed any evidence is gone.
And no "rape kit" can prove a rape. It can prove sex nothing more.
That is the dumbest response you've ever made.

a tiny minority result in a conviction.

Irrelevant. All she needs to show is she was raped (via rape kit). Who the rapist is isn't germane. She's not goin' to court; she wants an abortion.

No it is not irrelevant.
If rape is the only excuse for an abortion then the question is "PROVE IT". what planet are you on?

[Sculptor]

...Some shit about a "rape kit"

I had to come back again in this one, since your response was so fucking idiotic.

So you say that a rape is a legal exception to an abortion, then you say a "rape kit" is some sort of way for a woman to prove a rape.

Seriously, WTF do you think a rape kit is?


Given the atmosphere about rape and the legal hurdels necessary for any abortion to occur where there are laws restricting the practice do you really think that a woman would simply have to accuse a man of rape to get the abortion?
Or do you think that the authorities might need a bit more?
And were you aware that...
Based on correlating multiple data sources, RAINN (Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network) estimates that for every 1,000 rapes, 384 are reported to police, 57 result in an arrest, 11 are referred for prosecution, 7 result in a felony conviction, and 6 result in incarceration.

And so in certain states rapes victims are now being forced to carry a bastard monster inside themselves?

[henry quirk]

By the time the abortion is needed any evidence is gone.

If the woman is examined and evidence is collected at the time it generally is -- shortly after the rape -- it is preserved and certified by the attending. This certification is good for real world criminal proceedings if the rapist is caught tomorrow or two years later, and in the hypothetical world I'm touchin' on, where morality is treated as real instead of a relative fiction (note the thread title) this same certification could stand if the woman decided to abort at the first sign of pregnancy or waited till the six month.

And no "rape kit" can prove a rape. It can prove sex nothing more.

it can prove there was violent penetration. Along with other injuries, this lends weight to her claim. Sure she could lie. She can lie now (how many men have been falsely convicted, Mr. Stats?). Again, we're talkin' about morality in the thread, not forensics.

If rape is the only excuse for an abortion then the question is "PROVE IT".

It's not the only just cause for an abortion (did you read my post, or just scan it?). And, yeah, the bar is set low, way lower than if she were tryin' to get a man convicted. Again: we're talkin' about morality in the most delicate of circumstances. Unlike the courtroom a certain trust is applied here that the woman is honest, that her claim is true. But, hey, you wanna set the bar higher, make it more difficult for the raped to abort (cuz mebbe some women will game the system), fine by me.

in certain states rapes victims are now being forced to carry a bastard monster inside themselves

And they shouldn't be. It's immoral. I've offered a low bar means to correct that consistent with a moral realism.

[iambiguous]

Truly has no claim? Truly has no claim? And those that argue that an unborn human being's innocence in and of itself trumps any right claimed by the woman to shred it into oblivion?

And how would either side go about demonstrating their position other than by way of it all coming down to what they "just know" is true here?

Whereas I would argue that what we as individuals come to believe intuitively and viscerally is true about things like this is no less rooted subjectively/existentially in dasein.

Nope. Pregnancy was forced on her. Unlike all your ladies who hang-wring about inconvenience, she was violated. Me: I'm not fond of the idea Junior gets rubbed out, but -- unlike the Juniors of those inconvenienced ladies -- he wasn't invited. It would be bold of Jennifer (that's what we can call the raped woman) to see past the rape and allow her child to live, but I can't see condemnin' her cuz she can't.

See, there you go. You are able to make a reasonable argument for destroying an innocent human life [and you yourself insist that it is a human life] given the assumptions you make.

On the other hand, those on the other side are also able to make the reasonable argument that however this life came to be, it is still no less an innocent human life.

You're not "fond" of yanking it out of existence but, well, the lesser of two evils? Killing an unborn human being is evil, but not as evil as being raped?

And my position is rooted, not in Datsun, but in reason and conscience.

No, your position is predicated on the age-old objectivist assumption that your argument is inherently, necessarily more rational than the argument from the other side. Your self-righteous conscience trumps the death of this innocent unborn human being!

And your "proof" that this is the case? Simple: you believe that it is. You say that it is.

There has never, ever been a woman who became pregnant, wanted to be, but then found her circumstances change such that she no longer wanted to be?

Oh, sure, but you're very general, very sky-hooked. Which, of course, is okay, if it's the best you got.

Anyway: bottomline, don't get busy if you ain't willin' to pay the piper.

Here you are having exactly no idea whatsoever of what it must be like to be a woman agonizing over an unwanted pregnancy...and making flippant and stupidly callous retorts like this. Pay the piper, woman!!

Here's one such woman...

I am 39 and just found out I am 4 weeks pregnant. This was planned but my husband isn't really that bothered about kids. I hoped my enthusiasm would be enough for both of us. Since I found out I am pregnant I have not stopped feeling sad, crying and feeling I have made a really big selfish mistake and that I was happy and don't want my life to change. Am seriously considering not going ahead with this...anyone else feel similar?

And the advice from someone who can never experience her ordeal himself?

My advice: Have the baby you invited into the world, then -- even if you've changed your mind (again!) -- give it up for adoption. You're obviously deficient (and probably plagued by Datsun). And get your tubes tied, you bint.

I'll let others make up their own minds regarding just how feckless and petty and truly irrelevant minds like yours are here.

And in the Philosophy Now magazine forum no less!!

And, no doubt, you really do believe that you have "reasoned" your way to this "intellectual" piffle.