Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

[Immanuel Can]

What you claim as objective morality is tantamount to the absolute morality...

Same as you. You say that rape fits that category.

Or are you going to change that now?

Once again you're lying! You're the one who claims objective morality...

Oh? So you're going to reverse and say that rape isn't objectively wrong?

You should really make up your mind about that. I know some women -- and some men -- that will have questions for you.

So which is it? Is rape objectively wrong, or not objectively wrong? It's got to be one or the other.

[Atla]

People who choose to do things with consequences should accept the consequences of what they choose to do.

But you dodged the question: what's your evidence that adoption is so awful that a child would be better ripped into bits and flushed down a sink than allowed to experience it?

Women don't pump out as many unwanted children as they can

Why are you asking them to?

All I said was that people who choose to do things with consequences should accept the consequences. That's perfectly fair. And it doesn't remotely imply a duty to "pump out" anything at all.

...most people realize that it's usually better to not be born than to be adopted.

Really? Being lynched in the womb is better than being adopted?

Well, I'll let adopted folks speak to that, and ask why you think their lives aren't worth having.

You really can't follow any logic as usual. According to you we should create as many people as possible otherwise we're murdering future children. So according to you women should pump out unwanted children.

Now you say we don't need as many as possible. In which case the question to adopted children (some don't get adopted btw) is whether they would have preferred to be adopted or live with their biological family.

[Immanuel Can]

Women don't pump out as many unwanted children as they can

Why are you asking them to?

All I said was that people who choose to do things with consequences should accept the consequences. That's perfectly fair. And it doesn't remotely imply a duty to "pump out" anything at all.

...most people realize that it's usually better to not be born than to be adopted.

Really? Being lynched in the womb is better than being adopted?

Well, I'll let adopted folks speak to that, and ask why you think their lives aren't worth having.

You really can't follow any logic as usual. According to you we should create as many people as possible

Show me where I said anything even remotely like that.

You can't.

...the question to adopted children (some don't get adopted btw) is whether they would have preferred to be adopted or live with their biological family.

No, the question is, "Do you think you (adopted people) deserved to live at all?" And you've said "No." I just want to see you justify that.

[Atla]

Why are you asking them to?

All I said was that people who choose to do things with consequences should accept the consequences. That's perfectly fair. And it doesn't remotely imply a duty to "pump out" anything at all.

Really? Being lynched in the womb is better than being adopted?

Well, I'll let adopted folks speak to that, and ask why you think their lives aren't worth having.

You really can't follow any logic as usual. According to you we should create as many people as possible

Show me where I said anything even remotely like that.

You can't.

Of course I can, you're against abortion.

...the question to adopted children (some don't get adopted btw) is whether they would have preferred to be adopted or live with their biological family.

No, the question is, "Do you think you (adopted people) deserved to live at all?" And you've said "No." I just want to see you justify that.

Nowhere did I say that, subhuman.

[Immanuel Can]

You really can't follow any logic as usual. According to you we should create as many people as possible

Show me where I said anything even remotely like that.

You can't.

Of course I can, you're against abortion.

Explain how "Don't abort" amounts, in your mind, to "create as many people as possible" or "pump out children".

And explain why it doesn't amount to, "Control yourself."

...the question to adopted children (some don't get adopted btw) is whether they would have preferred to be adopted or live with their biological family.

No, the question is, "Do you think you (adopted people) deserved to live at all?" And you've said "No." I just want to see you justify that.

Nowhere did I say that...

Did you not say...

...most people realize that it's usually better to not be born than to be adopted.

I'm pretty sure those were your words. And "not to be born" is unmistakably, in this case, "to be aborted," since that was what we've been talking about. Check the OP.

[Harbal]

What they all have in common is what philosophers term, "personhood," meaning "being a creature capable of rights."

Rights are a human concept,

No, they actually aren't. If that's all they were, they would not be "rights" at all. They would be mere "privileges bestowed by a particular group."

Of course they are a human concept. Where else do rights exist outside of human minds and human interactions?

WTF has atheism got to do with it?

Well, nothing at all with saying who is a "person." They don't actually have a basis for the concept.

Well I don't have much need of the concept, but if I had, being an atheist wouldn't prevent me from adopting it. Why would it?

The state is the guarantor of our rights, and I imagine most atheists recognise the state's existence.

But State authority is both contingent and changeable. That would mean that when there were slaves in the American South, the slaves had no "right" to demand freedom. After all, the State supported the slave-owners, not the slaves. And if the government declared all blacks slaves again, they would have no justification to assert that they were actually deserving of anything else. The almighty State would have spoken.

Happy with that?

I'm reasonably happy with the rights my society affords me. As for the scenario you have just proposed, I'm afraid that's just how it is, or has been, and being unhappy about it won't make it not the case. Societies can be "good" or "bad" places to live; that's reality. Believing you have God given rights won't do you a jot of good if you happen to live in a bad society.

[Dubious]

Same as you. You say that rape fits that category.

Or are you going to change that now?

Once again you're lying! You're the one who claims objective morality...

Oh? So you're going to reverse and say that rape isn't objectively wrong?

You should really make up your mind about that. I know some women -- and some men -- that will have questions for you.

So which is it? Is rape objectively wrong, or not objectively wrong? It's got to be one or the other.

When talking to an idiot who doesn't know how to read clearly defined sentences or, as usual in this case, purposely misreads, all I can say is take your pick!

Regardless how you decide, it's guaranteed you're going to twist a straight line into a distorted pretzel. You've been practicing that art for years!

[Atla]

Show me where I said anything even remotely like that.

You can't.

Of course I can, you're against abortion.

Explain how "Don't abort" amounts, in your mind, to "create as many people as possible" or "pump out children".

And explain why it doesn't amount to, "Control yourself."

If you wouldn't want as many children as possible, you would consider having less via abortion.

No, the question is, "Do you think you (adopted people) deserved to live at all?" And you've said "No." I just want to see you justify that.

Nowhere did I say that...

Did you not say...

...most people realize that it's usually better to not be born than to be adopted.

I'm pretty sure those were your words. And "not to be born" is unmistakably, in this case, "to be aborted," since that was what we've been talking about. Check the OP.

Which is a principle always about the future, not about people already born. And it has nothing to do with 'deserving'.

[Immanuel Can]

Rights are a human concept,

No, they actually aren't. If that's all they were, they would not be "rights" at all. They would be mere "privileges bestowed by a particular group."

Of course they are a human concept. Where else do rights exist outside of human minds and human interactions?

They exist because God gave them to us. Read John Locke.

There is actually no rationale at all for rights being a thing that one human can give another. Privileges, yes. Rights, never.

WTF has atheism got to do with it?

Well, nothing at all with saying who is a "person." They don't actually have a basis for the concept.

Well I don't have much need of the concept, but if I had, being an atheist wouldn't prevent me from adopting it. Why would it?

Because nothing on Earth is, by Atheist wisdom, capable of having rights.

The state is the guarantor of our rights, and I imagine most atheists recognise the state's existence.

But State authority is both contingent and changeable. That would mean that when there were slaves in the American South, the slaves had no "right" to demand freedom. After all, the State supported the slave-owners, not the slaves. And if the government declared all blacks slaves again, they would have no justification to assert that they were actually deserving of anything else. The almighty State would have spoken.

Happy with that?

I'm reasonably happy with the rights my society affords me.

Not the question.

Are you content that black people were not persons, and could rightfully claim no rights, so long as the State denied them rights? If that were true, then the entire "civil rights" movement was premised on nothing more than a complete deception: nobody ever had "rights," and they had no legitimacy in pretending they ought to. The State had denied them any such.

[Immanuel Can]

Of course I can, you're against abortion.

Explain how "Don't abort" amounts, in your mind, to "create as many people as possible" or "pump out children".

And explain why it doesn't amount to, "Control yourself."

If you wouldn't want as many children as possible, you would consider having less via abortion.

Nowhere did I say that...

Did you not say...

...most people realize that it's usually better to not be born than to be adopted.

I'm pretty sure those were your words. And "not to be born" is unmistakably, in this case, "to be aborted," since that was what we've been talking about. Check the OP.

Which is a principle always about the future, not about people already born. And it has nothing to do with 'deserving'.

So you did say that "it's usually better to not be born [i.e. by way of being aborted] than to be adopted?"

I was right. I don't know why you were objecting, then.

[Atla]

Explain how "Don't abort" amounts, in your mind, to "create as many people as possible" or "pump out children".

And explain why it doesn't amount to, "Control yourself."

If you wouldn't want as many children as possible, you would consider having less via abortion.

Did you not say...


I'm pretty sure those were your words. And "not to be born" is unmistakably, in this case, "to be aborted," since that was what we've been talking about. Check the OP.

Which is a principle always about the future, not about people already born. And it has nothing to do with 'deserving'.

So you did say that "it's usually better to not be born [i.e. by way of being aborted] than to be adopted?"

I was right. I don't know why you were objecting, then.

Sure if you can't tell the future and the past apart.

I guess when someone says "I don't want others to go through what I have" you don't understand that sentiment either.

[Alexiev]

"Abortion consists of murdering babies" is exactly as accurate as "abortion consists of murdering teenagers".

I haven't said a thing about teenagers, actually.

Maybe you should stick to what was said, not things you make up. Then somebody might actually take you seriously.

You appear to be unable to follow a rational argument. "Babies" and "teenagers" are both words that refer to a particular, age-related stage of development. So is "fetus".

Perhaps God will forgive your lies if they are the result of stupidity instead of malice. Good luck on that.

[henry quirk]

As I have just told IC, it isn't something I've thought about. The word, "person", is okay for casual conversation, but I can't see much use for it in a philosophical discussion.

Okay, let's review...

You don't believe in natural rights and don't believe the concept means much.

You don't believe the concept of personhood means much.

You don't care what it is a woman carries.

You do support a woman choosing to end her pregnancy, presumably for any reason, or no reason.

You do think the state ought to enforce her right to end her pregnancy.

What about those already born? Let's take the old woman utterly dependent on her adult children: the kids don't wanna take care of Mom. She's a financial drain, a time consumer. Surely you support the adult children choosing to end her life, yeah?

How can you not? Mom's life is not her own, right? She's not a person, right? Other folks in positions of power are entitled to decide what happens to her, yes? And if Mom doesn't wanna go, too bad, the state, should the people empower it to do so, just might make it legally happen, right?

I imagine you don't support the idea of children offing an aged parent, er mass of human cells even as you do support the idea of a parent offing a child, er, mass of human cells.

Can you tell me why you support one but not the other, or is this another of those I don't know why moments?

[Alexiev]

There is actually no rationale at all for rights being a thing that one human can give another. Privileges, yes. Rights, never.

This is so clearly incorrect as to be silly. Rights are (and can only be) granted by one human to another. The right to life .means one human should not kill another. The right you liberty means one human should not enslave or imprison another.

Even if God proclaims these rights, they are clearly nothing other than obligations on the part of humans. The right to life has no impact on avalanche, plagues, or cancers -- only on other people.

This is clearly correct whether or not rights are divinely ordained.

[Harbal]

No, they actually aren't. If that's all they were, they would not be "rights" at all. They would be mere "privileges bestowed by a particular group."

Of course they are a human concept. Where else do rights exist outside of human minds and human interactions?

They exist because God gave them to us. Read John Locke.

I don't believe in God, and wouldn't it make more sense -from my point of view- to read someone who agrees with me?

There is actually no rationale at all for rights being a thing that one human can give another. Privileges, yes. Rights, never.

And yet the rights given by the state are enforceable, while those given by God are not.

Well I don't have much need of the concept, but if I had, being an atheist wouldn't prevent me from adopting it. Why would it?

Because nothing on Earth is, by Atheist wisdom, capable of having rights.

Perhaps I am drawing on plain, ordinary wisdom, rather than atheist wisdom, then.

I'm reasonably happy with the rights my society affords me.

Not the question.

Are you content that black people were not persons, and could rightfully claim no rights, so long as the State denied them rights? If that were true, then the entire "civil rights" movement was premised on nothing more than a complete deception: nobody ever had "rights," and they had no legitimacy in pretending they ought to. The State had denied them any such.

So the state denied black people rights, and now the state grants black people rights; what does that prove, other than what I've said all along?
Rights are purely a matter of human social behaviour. Not being content with it won't change how we human beings conduct things.