Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

[Immanuel Can]

Idealism does not insist that there are no objects to observe.

If "objects" are only "mental," then there's no "observing" them. One can only "observe" one's own ideation, which means one's ideas are not being dictated or discipliined by any reality.

Well, since you have never formally studied philosophy

Give it up, Will…I’m not biting.

Here is just one alternative: some idealists think that the fundamental substance, basically 'stuff', that the universe is made of is mental. Sounds crazy? Well, what are fundamental particles made of?

That’s a problem for Physicalists. “Stuff” may indeed not be what the universe is “made of.” But Physicalists think it’s all “stuff.”

We already know about quarks, and about differential readings of the motion of light, and all that “stuff.” The problem is, it makes no difference whatsoever. Any monism has a problem of existence. And if you don’t understand that, the Eastern traditions certainly do, and have for thousands of years. So call it all “ideas” or “stuff,” and you end up with exactly the same problem.

[Will Bouwman]

Well, since you have never formally studied philosophy

Give it up, Will…I’m not biting.

As I keep saying, there are always alternative explanations for the same phenomena. In this instance, the phenomenon is you failing to show any understanding of core philosophical principles; the sort that are taught every philosophy undergraduate in the first term. So; the possible explanations include the most obvious, that you haven't studied philosophy. Others include that you have studied philosophy, but at an incompetent institute; it may simply be that you are incompetent. Or perhaps you did a module in philosophy, perhaps as part of a theology course, which only covered whatever your professors decided was pertinent to theology, which doesn't necessarily include critical thinking.

Well, what are fundamental particles made of?

That’s a problem for Physicalists.

It's the same 'problem' for idealists and dualists, which is one of the core principles of philosophy you don't understand.

[ThinkOfOne]

From the human-based moral framework and system and the above main 'oughtnot-ness to kill humans' we derive the moral maxim and standard,
Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

The pertinent question here is, "At what point does life become a human life?". The question is debatable. Consider the following. According to Paulson, "the oughtnot-ness to kill humans" does not begin at conception.

It is worth repeating: “life begins at conception” is a religious, not scientific, concept
Richard J. Paulson, M.D., M.S.

I would argue that we need to focus specifically on this observation: life does not begin at fertilization (5). The egg is alive; the sperm is alive; and after fertilization, the zygote is alive. Life is continuous. Dichotomous thinking (0% human life for the egg, 100% human life for the zygote) is not scientific. It is religious thinking. Fertilization is not instantaneous, embryonic development is not precise, and individual blastomeres can make separate individuals. Some pregnancies develop normally and others are doomed, either from the start (e.g., if they possess an incorrect chromosomal complement) or later in pregnancy (e.g., if the central nervous system fails to develop). Religious leaders are neither scientists nor clinicians. They do not understand pregnancy and should not make decisions about the pregnancies of others.

We must not stand by while antiabortion groups continue to claim falsely that the dictum, “life begins at conception,” is supported by science.

As scientists and providers of reproductive health care, we witness, firsthand, the reality of fertilization and early embryonic development. We, who dedicate our lives to helping patients achieve pregnancies and build their families, know that we do not create life in the laboratory. We do not witness a human death when an embryo fails to survive cryopreservation. We observe the continuous nature of human life, with fertilization representing only one key step, and know that from a biologic point of view, no new life begins when fertilization is achieved. Let us be clear that “life begins at conception” is a religious, not a scientific, concept.

From <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9532882/>

[Immanuel Can]

Well, since you have never formally studied philosophy

Give it up, Will…I’m not biting.

As I keep saying, there are always alternative explanations for the same phenomena.

But not all “explanations” are equal. Some have data, some have less, some have none. So it’s not like that statement means much. An alternate explanation for diseases, relative to bacterial and virological explanations, is that they are caused by pixies. That “explains” the same “phenomenon.” But I doubt you’re prepared to be very impressed by that alternative…and with good reason.

[Veritas Aequitas]

From the human-based moral framework and system and the above main 'oughtnot-ness to kill humans' we derive the moral maxim and standard,
Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

The pertinent question here is, "At what point does life become a human life?". The question is debatable. Consider the following. According to Paulson, "the oughtnot-ness to kill humans" does not begin at conception.

According to the human-based moral framework and system, the above question is irrelevant.

The ideal moral maxim and standard is:
1. Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

But the above is merely an ideal and standard as a guide for moral progress in the future.

At present due to the "animal nature" within the majority of humans are more dominant than their being-human,
2. Abortion is Permissible - as many as you need.
viewtopic.php?t=42678

Given the uncompromising-imperative-1 and in-practice-2, there is a moral gap/variance.

To close the moral gap the question "At what point does life become a human life?" is irrelevant; what humanity need to strive for is to prevent unplanned birth [due to uncontrollable animal lusts] from happening at source, this is the critical contributing factor [80%] to the need for abortion.
If unplanned birth can be prevented at source, there is no need to the question "At what point does life become a human life?"

As for the 20% of other reasons for abortion, we need to study their root causes and prevent for the need for abortion to arise at source; e.g. prevent rapes, deformities, birth defects, and the like.

Of course, no matter how, the ideal will never be achieved because humans are inherent fallible and weak and vulnerable in terms of impulse controls.

The point is we must have an effective moral system [model] that can facilitate and expedite moral progress continually toward the future, i.e. it must be inherently and naturally driven by an ideal moral maxim and standard, i.e.
1. Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

This is in contrast to the indifferent model of Moral Relativism where "whatever the morality of others should be tolerated" or
moral skepticism or moral nihilism where the question of morality is moot and redundant so no push of moral progress.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Physicalism is assuming its own conclusion, not making any "argument" for it.

No?
With reference to scientific antirealism;
what is physical [conclusion from argument] is because the human-based science-physics framework and system comprising a collective-of-subject in intersubjective consensus said so as based on its constitution upon human observations and empirical evidences.

Well yeah, but there are many different frameworks.

Does the Biology, Economics, Political, Social and others conclude what is Physical?

No.
It is only the Physics framework and system [& Chemistry] that has the authority to conclude what is "physical".

Physics is the natural science of matter, involving the study of matter, its fundamental constituents, its motion and behavior through space and time, and the related entities of energy and force.

Physicalism is closely related to materialism, and has evolved from materialism with advancements in the physical sciences in explaining observed phenomena. The terms "physicalism" and "materialism" are often used interchangeably, but can be distinguished based on their philosophical implications. Physicalism encompasses matter, but also energy, physical laws, space, time, structure, physical processes, information, state, and forces, among other things, as described by physics and other sciences, as part of the physical in a monistic sense.

Physicalism in the above sense do not assume its own conclusion, but arrive at its conclusion based on human derived empirical evidence.

Yep. The same empirical evidence by which idealists and dualists arrive at their conclusions.

Wrong, Physicalism is opposed to idealism.

In philosophy, physicalism is the view that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical,[1] or that everything supervenes on the physical.[2] It [physicalism] is opposed to idealism, according to which the world arises from mind.

Physicalism [grounded on Physics] in the above sense do not assume its own conclusion, but arrive at its conclusion based on human derived empirical evidence within a framework and system [model], e.g. Model Dependent Realism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1]
It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.[2] The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design.[3]

On the other hand, theism assumes its own conclusion.

Nah. It's just another response to the same data, just with extra torture for unbelievers.

I have shown the argument.

[ThinkOfOne]

From the human-based moral framework and system and the above main 'oughtnot-ness to kill humans' we derive the moral maxim and standard,
Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

The pertinent question here is, "At what point does life become a human life?". The question is debatable. Consider the following. According to Paulson, "the oughtnot-ness to kill humans" does not begin at conception.

According to the human-based moral framework and system, the above question is irrelevant.

The ideal moral maxim and standard is:
1. Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

But the above is merely an ideal and standard as a guide for moral progress in the future.

At present due to the "animal nature" within the majority of humans are more dominant than their being-human,
2. Abortion is Permissible - as many as you need.
viewtopic.php?t=42678

Given the uncompromising-imperative-1 and in-practice-2, there is a moral gap/variance.

To close the moral gap the question "At what point does life become a human life?" is irrelevant; what humanity need to strive for is to prevent unplanned birth [due to uncontrollable animal lusts] from happening at source, this is the critical contributing factor [80%] to the need for abortion.
If unplanned birth can be prevented at source, there is no need to the question "At what point does life become a human life?"

As for the 20% of other reasons for abortion, we need to study their root causes and prevent for the need for abortion to arise at source; e.g. prevent rapes, deformities, birth defects, and the like.

Of course, no matter how, the ideal will never be achieved because humans are inherent fallible and weak and vulnerable in terms of impulse controls.

The point is we must have an effective moral system [model] that can facilitate and expedite moral progress continually toward the future, i.e. it must be inherently and naturally driven by an ideal moral maxim and standard, i.e.
1. Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

This is in contrast to the indifferent model of Moral Relativism where "whatever the morality of others should be tolerated" or
moral skepticism or moral nihilism where the question of morality is moot and redundant so no push of moral progress.

In the text that I quoted from your post, you seemed to be saying that "the moral maxim and standard Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!" is derived from "'oughtnot-ness to kill humans". If that is the case, then it is dependent on " at what point does life become a human life". If it has yet to have become a human life, then the "'oughtnot-ness to kill humans" is not applicable. Your post does not address this.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The pertinent question here is, "At what point does life become a human life?". The question is debatable. Consider the following. According to Paulson, "the oughtnot-ness to kill humans" does not begin at conception.

According to the human-based moral framework and system, the above question is irrelevant.

The ideal moral maxim and standard is:
1. Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

But the above is merely an ideal and standard as a guide for moral progress in the future.

At present due to the "animal nature" within the majority of humans are more dominant than their being-human,
2. Abortion is Permissible - as many as you need.
viewtopic.php?t=42678

Given the uncompromising-imperative-1 and in-practice-2, there is a moral gap/variance.

To close the moral gap the question "At what point does life become a human life?" is irrelevant; what humanity need to strive for is to prevent unplanned birth [due to uncontrollable animal lusts] from happening at source, this is the critical contributing factor [80%] to the need for abortion.
If unplanned birth can be prevented at source, there is no need to the question "At what point does life become a human life?"

As for the 20% of other reasons for abortion, we need to study their root causes and prevent for the need for abortion to arise at source; e.g. prevent rapes, deformities, birth defects, and the like.

Of course, no matter how, the ideal will never be achieved because humans are inherent fallible and weak and vulnerable in terms of impulse controls.

The point is we must have an effective moral system [model] that can facilitate and expedite moral progress continually toward the future, i.e. it must be inherently and naturally driven by an ideal moral maxim and standard, i.e.
1. Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

This is in contrast to the indifferent model of Moral Relativism where "whatever the morality of others should be tolerated" or
moral skepticism or moral nihilism where the question of morality is moot and redundant so no push of moral progress.

In the text that I quoted from your post, you seemed to be saying that "the moral maxim and standard Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!" is derived from "'oughtnot-ness to kill humans". If that is the case, then it is dependent on " at what point does life become a human life". If it has yet to have become a human life, then the "'oughtnot-ness to kill humans" is not applicable. Your post does not address this.

In the context, what is 'human' is at the point of conception and fertilization.
"When a sperm cell joins with an egg, it's called fertilization."

So, if unplanned birth is ZERO, then there is no need for the question of intentional abortion and the question of when human life emerged upon fertilization.

As for other reasons for abortion, humanity need to strive to prevent it at source to the best of abilities.

In practice, there will still be a need for abortions but they should be limited to the optimal minimum.

[Iwannaplato]

In the text that I quoted from your post, you seemed to be saying that "the moral maxim and standard Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!" is derived from "'oughtnot-ness to kill humans". If that is the case, then it is dependent on " at what point does life become a human life". If it has yet to have become a human life, then the "'oughtnot-ness to kill humans" is not applicable. Your post does not address this.

His argument is even weaker than that. He is moving from brains to morals. He claims that we have an oughtness not to kill in our brains. But it's obvious that we also have an oughtness to kill - or, really, urges to be aggressive and to get right of things we don't want. Both behaviors are supported by brain structures and current neural firing patterns. In addition, we have brain patterns that do not consider, universally, foetuses to be humans. Some do, some don't. It's not binary. There is no simple rule found in brains.

So, VA decides that we are going to consider only one part of the brain or one pattern to be THE objective rule maker.
And notice that it's binary. There are universal rules. Yes, some abortions may happen, but he sees humanity in monolithic terms. This is what the human brain indicates is good behavior/attitude, period.

[Will Bouwman]

As I keep saying, there are always alternative explanations for the same phenomena.

But not all “explanations” are equal. Some have data, some have less, some have none.

Well, this is another instance of you showing a complete failure to understand basic philosophical principles that any student, who successfully completes a degree course in philosophy, would understand by the end of their first term.
Given the numerous examples of you demonstrating that you don't know what any competent first year undergraduate would know, there are two possible explanations that are equally supported by exactly the same evidence: either you are not competent, or you were never a philosophy student.
As Flashdangerpants recently noted, there is no reason why anyone who isn't a philosophy graduate can't do perfectly good philosophy, and there are examples on this forum of people doing just that, but pretending to be something you clearly are not deserves to be called out.

[henry quirk]

Hold on now...

This...

not all “explanations” are equal. Some have data, some have less, some have none.

...is perfectly sensible.

What are these basic philosophical principles that say it isn't?

[Will Bouwman]

The same empirical evidence by which idealists and dualists arrive at their conclusions.

Wrong, Physicalism is opposed to idealism.

Yes, but they are both hypotheses that are equally supported by exactly the same evidence. Until you can understand that, you have no more chance of being a competent philosopher than Immanuel Can.

[Will Bouwman]

This...

not all “explanations” are equal. Some have data, some have less, some have none.

...is perfectly sensible.

What are these basic philosophical principles that say it isn't?

They don't. The philosophical principle is that any piece of information can be interpreted in different ways.

[Immanuel Can]

As I keep saying, there are always alternative explanations for the same phenomena.

But not all “explanations” are equal. Some have data, some have less, some have none.

Well, this is another instance of you showing a complete failure to understand basic philosophical principles that any student, who successfully completes a degree course in philosophy, would understand by the end of their first term.
Given the numerous examples of you demonstrating that you don't know what any competent first year undergraduate would know,...

Sorry, Will...time to call BS on this. A real philosopher would know that ad homs and shaming are not legit debate tactics. They're just cheap ruses, and they make the speaker sound like a petulant undergrad who's just stumbled home from his first semester, and is delivering to his rube parents the benefit of what he is sure is his superior wisdom. You have zero chance of getting any traction with me by that sort of route.

The simple truth? You're wrong. Data does make a difference. Theories that have none are not as good as theories that have some. Phenomena have all kinds of "explanations," but some are ridiculous and implausible, and some are better. Total epistemic relativism is not wisdom" it's just lack of discernment.

[ThinkOfOne]

According to the human-based moral framework and system, the above question is irrelevant.

The ideal moral maxim and standard is:
1. Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!
d
But the above is merely an ideal and standard as a guide for moral progress in the future.

In the text that I quoted from your post, you seemed to be saying that "the moral maxim and standard Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!" is derived from "'oughtnot-ness to kill humans". If that is the case, then it is dependent on " at what point does life become a human life". If it has yet to have become a human life, then the "'oughtnot-ness to kill humans" is not applicable. Your post does not address this.

In the context, what is 'human' is at the point of conception and fertilization.
"When a sperm cell joins with an egg, it's called fertilization."

So, if unplanned birth is ZERO, then there is no need for the question of intentional abortion and the question of when human life emerged upon fertilization.

As for other reasons for abortion, humanity need to strive to prevent it at source to the best of abilities.

In practice, there will still be a need for abortions but they should be limited to the optimal minimum.

Evidently you now concede that "the pertinent question here is, 'At what point does life become a human life?'". Your post fails to address the rest of my earlier post which posits that "the question is debatable" and fails to address the argument put forth by Paulson (see link below). You make no counterargument. Instead you simply declare that you believe that "what is 'human' is at the point of conception and fertilization". At least attempt to make a well-reasoned counterargument.

This issue is not as simplistic as you and others seem to believe. For example, consider that Christianity is divided on the question of abortion. In part, it is because the Bible is ambiguous on this issue. Many Evangelical Christians vehemently contend that the Bible unquestionably says that human life begins at conception, but the fact is that a reasonable case can be made that according to the Bible, human life begins at birth.

Religion in general is divided. Read the article at the link following:
Where major religious groups stand on abortion
From https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads ... -abortion/>

The pertinent question here is, "At what point does life become a human life?". The question is debatable. Consider the following. According to Paulson, "the oughtnot-ness to kill humans" does not begin at conception.