Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

[Immanuel Can]

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


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.

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

No, I'd understand that. What I want to see you justify is the opinion that rather than being adopted, they'd prefer to have been torn apart and sucked down a sink.

Just how bad do you think adopted life is?

[Immanuel Can]

"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.

I'll let you know if you offer one.

"Babies" and "teenagers" are both words that refer to a particular, age-related stage of development. So is "fetus".

And they all fall under the categories "human being" and "person" as well. Yes. But what of that?

I am, however, highly amused whenever somebody with no theology tries to float a theological insult. It's like watching a dog try to ride a bicycle.

[Immanuel Can]

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

Rights are (and can only be) granted by one human to another.

Then they cannot be granted at all. For one man will 'grant' you your life, and another will take it from you; and nothing morally-differentiates the two, from an Atheistic perspective. People live, and some people get killed; that's all an Atheist can say about that.

[Atla]

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.

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

No, I'd understand that. What I want to see you justify is the opinion that rather than being adopted, they'd prefer to have been torn apart and sucked down a sink.

Just how bad do you think adopted life is?

Looks like the guy really can't tell the past and the future apart. Interesting I guess.

[Immanuel Can]

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,

Yes, I know: and that's why you can't rationally believe in rights either.

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.

The State giveth, and the State taketh away.

But we'll see whether the rights granted by God turn out to be enforced or not. That's for the future.

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.

"Plain, ordinary"? No "wisdom" that assumes the non-existence of God can explain why we are owed any rights.

But if you think you can, go ahead.

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;...

Yes. And it can take them away again, and if it does, then black people have no moral recourse. They can't say, "Hey, you're trampling on my rights," far less, "God gives me a right to defy you and defend my rights against your incursions and tyranny."

All they can say, according to you, is, "Well, the State says I'm not a person anymore, so I guess I'm not."

Content with that?

[Alexiev]

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.

I'll let you know if you offer one.

"Babies" and "teenagers" are both words that refer to a particular, age-related stage of development. So is "fetus".

And they all fall under the categories "human being" and "person" as well. Yes. But what of that?

I am, however, highly amused whenever somebody with no theology tries to float a theological insult. It's like watching a dog try to ride a bicycle.

So you apparently think it's appropriate to refer to teenagers as octagenarians, because both are humans.

All rights, then. Case dismissed.

[Immanuel Can]

You appear to be unable to follow a rational argument.

I'll let you know if you offer one.

"Babies" and "teenagers" are both words that refer to a particular, age-related stage of development. So is "fetus".

And they all fall under the categories "human being" and "person" as well. Yes. But what of that?

I am, however, highly amused whenever somebody with no theology tries to float a theological insult. It's like watching a dog try to ride a bicycle.

So you apparently think it's appropriate to refer to teenagers as octagenarians, because both are humans.

That's completely silly. I've never said anything remotely close to that.

I'll make it simple for you: "persons" is the large category. Within that category are such beings as children, babies, teenagers, old men, Elvis, and pre-born infants. But nothing suggests there is no difference between those sub-categories -- just none that makes a difference to whether or not they're people.

I feel like we're back in kindergarten.

[Harbal]

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

I don't believe in God,

Yes, I know: and that's why you can't rationally believe in rights either.

Rights are granted to me by the laws of my country, and I know that, at least at the present time, those laws exist, so I am rationally bound to believe that rights exist.

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

The State giveth, and the State taketh away.

But we'll see whether the rights granted by God turn out to be enforced or not. That's for the future.

After we are dead, you mean? I'm glad the state doesn't take that approach to the granting of rights.

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

"Plain, ordinary"? No "wisdom" that assumes the non-existence of God can explain why we are owed any rights.

But if you think you can, go ahead.

I don't actually know anything about how the existence, or otherwise, of God explains anything to do with rights. I understand rights as being something that human beings grant each other, and I never said that we are owed them, although I suppose it could be said that we are owed them once they have been promised to us. But, like I said before, rights are just a human concept, and humans have been known to break promises. But no, I don't say that, as a general principle, we are owed rights, so I can hardly be expected to defend a claim I never made.

So the state denied black people rights, and now the state grants black people rights;...

Yes. And it can take them away again, and if it does, then black people have no moral recourse. They can't say, "Hey, you're trampling on my rights," far less, "God gives me a right to defy you and defend my rights against your incursions and tyranny."

I don't know what "moral recourse" amounts to, but I would certainly say they had moral grounds for protest, at least within my interpretation of moral right and wrong. And before you say it; I'm not interested in what God thinks about the situation.

All they can say, according to you, is, "Well, the State says I'm not a person anymore, so I guess I'm not."

I suppose they could say any number of things about it, but I don't remember putting forward any options as to what it might turn out to be, so I don't know why you say, "according to you".

Content with that?

What relevance does my state of contentment have to the matter?

[Immanuel Can]

I don't believe in God,

Yes, I know: and that's why you can't rationally believe in rights either.

Rights are granted to me by the laws of my country, and I know that, at least at the present time, those laws exist, so I am rationally bound to believe that rights exist.

Those aren't "rights." "Rights" are, by definition, inalienable. If the State can take them away, then you have no "right" to them at all. What you have is only State-granted beneficence...and only for the present moment.

So the state denied black people rights, and now the state grants black people rights;...

Yes. And it can take them away again, and if it does, then black people have no moral recourse. They can't say, "Hey, you're trampling on my rights," far less, "God gives me a right to defy you and defend my rights against your incursions and tyranny."

I don't know what "moral recourse" amounts to,

It amounts to being on the right side of the truth.

I would certainly say they had moral grounds for protest,

What are those "grounds"?

[Harbal]

Yes, I know: and that's why you can't rationally believe in rights either.

Rights are granted to me by the laws of my country, and I know that, at least at the present time, those laws exist, so I am rationally bound to believe that rights exist.

Those aren't "rights." "Rights" are, by definition, inalienable. If the State can take them away, then you have no "right" to them at all. What you have is only State-granted beneficence...and only for the present moment.

I'm no expert on rights, but I think it is only unalienable rights that are unalienable. Bog standard rights can be given, and they can be taken away. I haven't checked, but I would be surprised if "eternal" is part of the generally understood definition of the word, "rights".

I don't know what "moral recourse" amounts to,

It amounts to being on the right side of the truth.

How so? "Recourse" implies action, whereas "being on the right side of the truth" is just a state of being. If you are saying they have a moral case, but cannot do anything about it, then we are in agreement about that.

I would certainly say they had moral grounds for protest,

What are those "grounds"?

I could explain why there is a moral injustice according to my own sense of morality, but why would I do that knowing what your response to it would be?

[Alexiev]

I'll let you know if you offer one.


And they all fall under the categories "human being" and "person" as well. Yes. But what of that?

I am, however, highly amused whenever somebody with no theology tries to float a theological insult. It's like watching a dog try to ride a bicycle.

So you apparently think it's appropriate to refer to teenagers as octagenarians, because both are humans.

That's completely silly. I've never said anything remotely close to that.

I'll make it simple for you: "persons" is the large category. Within that category are such beings as children, babies, teenagers, old men, Elvis, and pre-born infants. But nothing suggests there is no difference between those sub-categories -- just none that makes a difference to whether or not they're people.

I feel like we're back in kindergarten.

Babies, teenagers, octagenarians and fetuses are all humans genetically, but the words define different categories of humans. The distinction is based on age.

Since you are capable of drawing a distinction between men and women (who are also humans), why are you unable to understand?

I can think of only one answer. Stupidity.

[henry quirk]

A repost, Harbal, in case you missed it...

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?

[accelafine]

The thing is, WOMEN are not going to give birth to babies they don't want. They will either die in the process or do it safely. We get it. You hate women and want them to die horribly. Well we hate you right back

Now why are the MEN on here so obsessed with forcing women to give birth? Men who no doubt greatly enjoy their big guns and blowing large mammals to smithereens?

Why don't you take your grubby little hypocritical male bullshit about something that has NOTHING to do with you and shove it up your hairy male arses.

[Age]

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.

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

No, I'd understand that. What I want to see you justify is the opinion that rather than being adopted, they'd prefer to have been torn apart and sucked down a sink.

Just how bad do you think adopted life is?

Obviously that would all depend upon who you would be adopted by.

And, just as obvious is one would much prefer to be aborted than adopted.

[seeds]

_______

Notes: KIV
_______