Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:58 am**

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:25 pm
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:10 pm
Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:35 am

Do not "males" make choices in 'murdering babies'?

Age, yes. sometimes males make those choices too, just like sometimes females do.
WHY THEN did you SAY and CLAIM that BECAUSE 'you', "gary childress", are NOT 'a females', then 'you' COULD NOT tell "immanuel can" about any so-called attraction of murdering babies?

I stated that neither I nor IC are pregnant females who want to abort a fetus. You've completely misconstrued my words and it's wearing me down to explain everything to you. If you're not going to read charitably and sympathetically what I wrote, then I'm not going to reply anymore.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2022 2:04 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:26 pm
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:10 pm But nothing is going to convince IC that babies maybe don't magically acquire souls at birth or that there might not even be a "soul".
Let's grant that. It's not true, because I don't believe babies "magically" acquire anything, nor that it's "at birth." But let's play the game your way, Gary.

Even were all that true, and even if we grant that I could be wrong, I have no burden to prove it: because either way, I'm not going to murder anyone.

By contrast, any advocate of abortion is supporting either the "termination" of a certain-to-become-human-being, or the outright murder of one. So such a person bears the entire burden to show he/she knows he/she is in the right. Absent that, he/she is at least acting in bad conscience, if not outright supporting murder.

I can wait for that argument to appear. Meanwhile, I'll kill nobody.

Your turn.

Perhaps women who have an abortion aren't murdering anybody either. That would make your entire argument moot. Your turn.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2022 2:16 am**

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 2:04 am Perhaps women who have an abortion aren't murdering anybody either. That would make your entire argument moot. Your turn.

Not at all. And I'll tell you why, Gary.

Let's suppose there's a room. It's behind a door. It's my room, and I hung a big "welcome" sign on it, with "free cake" underneath.

You think maybe somebody's gone in there. Maybe even your best friend. You tell me that. I say I don't believe anybody is.

We can't seem to agree. So I take out a .357 magnum, and fire six rounds through the door. Then I reload, and fire six more. Then I keep doing that, while you scream, "Are you insane? My friend is in there!"

So maybe neither of us has seen behind the door. But one of us might be a murderer, and one is definitely not. And if it turns out that you were right, and if you saw your friend enter that room, and you actually knew he was in there, then you'll be the first witness at my murder trial, telling everybody that I had every reason to know I was killing your best friend, and in callous disregard, I did it anyway.

So women who have abortions are -- in the very best scenario for them -- the type or person who would shoot through a door, and risk killing somebody. At worst, they're people who have been warned that's what they're doing, know they are, and are doing it anyway. They're callous and immoral at best, and murderesses at worst.

But as for me, I am neither doing nor encouraging the murder of children. And whatever else happens, that's certain.

Just what is it you're doing, Gary?

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2022 2:20 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 4:21 pm Nope. Not in the Developing World. In many cases, she has no say whatsoever. Her family, her tribe, or her necessities often make choice utterly impossible.

Over here, women can work in the garment factories instead of getting married. Many do. Some don't.

The birth rate is dropping very quickly, actually. In Thailand, it is already below 1.5 children per woman. That means that many women in Thailand remain unmarried and childless. The rest of the Indochinese archipelago is rapidly following suit.

By the way, if a woman prefers to provide for herself and doesn't need a husband, then where do the children come from that she supposedly would have to take care of? That looks like having your cake and eating it too.

Concerning a man abandoning a woman, this certainly happens. If a woman can't keep a man, because no man can suffer her, then he is obviously going to move on. From the point of view of women, it is always the man's fault. Accountability really seems to be a woman's cryptonite.

The factories over here are already full of strong, independent women who need no man, many of whom remain childless. The future that you seem to want, is already a fact for the women who want it. With more schooling, they would still end up working in the factories, because those are the jobs that exist. There simply is no infinite demand for office drones.

By the time that they get too old and drop out of the workforce, many won't have any children to take care of them in their old age. The now already bankrupt state will obviously not do it either. So, how do you propose to provide for all the elderly and formerly "strong and independent women who need no man"?

Don't tell me that the solution is to confiscate money from people who will then be paying for someone else's life choices. People can do whatever they want, but then they also pay for the consequences by themselves.

It is not the West over here.

In this area of the world, the government can't force people to pay for someone else's parents (or someone else's children).

Seriously, the life strategy of these "strong and independent women who need no man" looks quite short-sighted. It will almost surely backfire in their own lifetime. But then again, it is their lives and therefore their own problem, and not mine.

People can do whatever they want, as long as they pay for that by themselves.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2022 2:47 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 2:16 am
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 2:04 am Perhaps women who have an abortion aren't murdering anybody either. That would make your entire argument moot. Your turn.
Not at all. And I'll tell you why, Gary.

Let's suppose there's a room. It's behind a door. It's my room, and I hung a big "welcome" sign on it, with "free cake" underneath.

You think maybe somebody's gone in there. Maybe even your best friend. You tell me that. I say I don't believe anybody is.

We can't seem to agree. So I take out a .357 magnum, and fire six rounds through the door. Then I reload, and fire six more. Then I keep doing that, while you scream, "Are you insane? My friend is in there!"

So maybe neither of us has seen behind the door. But one of us might be a murderer, and one is definitely not. And if it turns out that you were right, and if you saw your friend enter that room, and you actually knew he was in there, then you'll be the first witness at my murder trial, telling everybody that I had every reason to know I was killing your best friend, and in callous disregard, I did it anyway.

So women who have abortions are -- in the very best scenario for them -- the type or person who would shoot through a door, and risk killing somebody. At worst, they're people who have been warned that's what they're doing, know they are, and are doing it anyway. They're callous and immoral at best, and murderesses at worst.

But as for me, I am neither doing nor encouraging the murder of children. And whatever else happens, that's certain.

Just what is it you're doing, Gary?

I'm sticking up for people who cast a blob of flesh out of their bodies because, for whatever reason, they didn't want to be a parent or go through with the rigors of pregnancy.

What is it that you think you are doing by painting them as "murderesses"?

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:13 am**

godelian wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 2:20 am By the way, if a woman prefers to provide for herself and doesn't need a husband, then where do the children come from that she supposedly would have to take care of? That looks like having your cake and eating it too.

I've answered that, if you read carefully. There are many different scenarios that leave women in the Developing World with children but no husband: forced "marriages," sex slavery, abandonment, war, polygamy, disease, gangs, economic opportunism, accidents, divorce, rape...the list is long and various. But most of it has nothing to do with any choice the woman in question has.

But you have not given me clear indication of what you want to talk about: women in the Developing World, who often have little or no choice, or women of a more affluent Western sort, the kind who have choices?

Which one are we talking about now?

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:15 am**

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 2:47 am I'm sticking up for people who cast a blob of flesh out of their bodies

Explain to me why a baby is, to you, a "blob of flesh."

At what point does that change, Gary? When is this "blob of flesh" a baby?

What is it that you think you are doing by painting them as "murderesses"?

Telling the truth.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:31 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:15 am
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 2:47 am I'm sticking up for people who cast a blob of flesh out of their bodies
Explain to me why a baby is, to you, a "blob of flesh."

At what point does that change, Gary? When is this "blob of flesh" a baby?

Heck if I know. I guess when it starts to think, appear and act like one would be a reasonably good clue. Does a fetus even think? Does a fetus feel pain? What was it like when you were a fetus, IC? I have to say, I don't have a single memory of any experience of being a fetus.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:55 am**

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:31 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:15 am
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 2:47 am I'm sticking up for people who cast a blob of flesh out of their bodies
Explain to me why a baby is, to you, a "blob of flesh."

At what point does that change, Gary? When is this "blob of flesh" a baby?
Heck if I know.

So...you're just say, "Go ahead...shoot through the door. If you kill somebody, it won't matter, so long as you say you believed you didn't know"?

Does a fetus even think? Does a fetus feel pain?

Yes, and yes.

We know that a baby in utero can make its own decisions. When she kicks, it's not because the mother told her to. When she gets hiccups, the mother doesn't. Her heart beats about twice as fast as the mother's does. When a needle is inserted into the amniotic sac to kill the child, she reacts away from it. And when she is pulled apart, she screams.

You can watch all that on the videos the abortion clinics choose never to provide to their "patients."

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:05 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:55 am
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:31 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:15 am
Explain to me why a baby is, to you, a "blob of flesh."

At what point does that change, Gary? When is this "blob of flesh" a baby?
Heck if I know.
So...you're just say, "Go ahead...shoot through the door. If you kill somebody, it won't matter, so long as you say you believed you didn't know"?

Well, I might suggest stricter gun control laws so that someone who would run around recklessly shooting into mysterious rooms wouldn't have as much access to potentially dangerous weapons, but we all know that every human being should have the right to own a gun as well as the right to end the life of another if they feel threatened.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:20 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:55 am We know that a baby in utero can make its own decisions. When she kicks, it's not because the mother told her to. When she gets hiccups, the mother doesn't. Her heart beats about twice as fast as the mother's does. When a needle is inserted into the amniotic sac to kill the child, she reacts away from it. And when she is pulled apart, she screams.

You can watch all that on the videos the abortion clinics choose never to provide to their "patients."

Really? I did not know that. I suppose it appears pretty barbaric, then. However, I believe there are single-celled organisms that will fidget and squirm when presented with perceived danger also. I mean, should we all become vegetarians too? Maybe stop using anti-biotics?

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:26 am**

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:05 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:55 am
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:31 am

Heck if I know.
So...you're just say, "Go ahead...shoot through the door. If you kill somebody, it won't matter, so long as you say you believed you didn't know"?
Well, I might suggest stricter gun control laws...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hardly the point. But I know you do get it.

A moral person cannot go around killing people, even if he/she insists that they don't count as "people." A moral person does not even risk being wrong about that.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:32 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:26 am
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:05 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:55 am
So...you're just say, "Go ahead...shoot through the door. If you kill somebody, it won't matter, so long as you say you believed you didn't know"?
Well, I might suggest stricter gun control laws...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Hardly the point. But I know you do get it.

A moral person cannot go around killing people, even if he/she insists that they don't count as "people." A moral person does not even risk being wrong about that.

Awesome! When do you think the Supreme Court will impose stricter gun control laws? I mean does anyone really need an AR-15? When you write that letter to the SCOTUS congratulating them on what a magnificent job they did on the abortion issue. Would you also tell them to stop believing in a God-given right to own a gun as a citizen of a civil society? I now know your heart bleeds for every murder that happens.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:40 am**

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:20 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:55 am We know that a baby in utero can make its own decisions. When she kicks, it's not because the mother told her to. When she gets hiccups, the mother doesn't. Her heart beats about twice as fast as the mother's does. When a needle is inserted into the amniotic sac to kill the child, she reacts away from it. And when she is pulled apart, she screams.

You can watch all that on the videos the abortion clinics choose never to provide to their "patients."
Really? I did not know that. I suppose it appears pretty barbaric, then.

Well, let me lay it out for you...

On second thought, maybe I'd better just refer you to sites on the procedure. If I describe it here, it's so vile and graphic I'm likely to get banned.

So let's go another way.

If I go to my doctor to ask for my gall bladder to be removed, he doesn't do so without a definite medical necessity. And he makes sure I'm informed. He takes scans, and then shows me them, and explains the data to me. He tells me everything about what's going to go on, and why, and what my alternatives are, and what the possible side effects of any choice are likely to be. That's what a good doctor does: he fully informs his patients. Today, we can give her a live, colour picture of her developing child. We can let her see every detail...the sex, the stage of development, the basic features...We can show her the tools that will be used, what they will be used for, how the child will be dismembered, and all of that...just like it was a gall bladder removal.

If there are alternate treatments, where maybe I don't have to undergo the operation, my doctor is obligated to tell me all about them. If there's any chance a less invasive procedure could do the trick, I'm offered it. If it's possible for me to do nothing, and let nature take its course, that option is offered to me too.

And the laws says they can't sell my organs without my permission. And they have to be disposed of in the manner I specifically choose. They are mine, not the doctor's.

How come, then, that abortion clinics don't do that? Why do they keep their "patients" in the dark about what they're doing? Why don't they show them pictures of the entity within them? Why don't they provide all the facts? Why don't they ever mention adoption, or the wondrous choice of motherhood, or the potential of an alternate, less invasive course? In short, why do they thrive on misinformation, distraction, denial and diminishment of the whole process?

Answer: because they know exactly what they're doing. And they know that having complete information would make many of their "patients" decide not to go through with the process. Very few women could see a picture or sonogram of their child, understand what the procedure really involves, and then coldly say, "Now kill her." So they keep all that hidden, and perform the "procedure" as quickly and with as much ignorance as they can arrange.

Some "choice"! They give more information about a gall bladder.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:45 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:40 am
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:20 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:55 am We know that a baby in utero can make its own decisions. When she kicks, it's not because the mother told her to. When she gets hiccups, the mother doesn't. Her heart beats about twice as fast as the mother's does. When a needle is inserted into the amniotic sac to kill the child, she reacts away from it. And when she is pulled apart, she screams.

You can watch all that on the videos the abortion clinics choose never to provide to their "patients."
Really? I did not know that. I suppose it appears pretty barbaric, then.
Well, let me lay it out for you...

On second thought, maybe I'd better just refer you to sites on the procedure. If I describe it here, it's so vile and graphic I'm likely to get banned.

So let's go another way.

If I go to my doctor to ask for my gall bladder to be removed, he doesn't do so without a definite medical necessity. And he makes sure I'm informed. He takes scans, and then shows me them, and explains the data to me. He tells me everything about what's going to go on, and why, and what my alternatives are, and what the possible side effects of any choice are likely to be. That's what a good doctor does: he fully informs his patients. Today, we can give her a live, colour picture of her developing child. We can let her see every detail...the sex, the stage of development, the basic features...We can show her the tools that will be used, what they will be used for, how the child will be dismembered, and all of that...just like it was a gall bladder removal.

If there are alternate treatments, where maybe I don't have to undergo the operation, my doctor is obligated to tell me all about them. If there's any chance a less invasive procedure could do the trick, I'm offered it. If it's possible for me to do nothing, and let nature take its course, that option is offered to me too.

And the laws says they can't sell my organs without my permission. And they have to be disposed of in the manner I specifically choose. They are mine, not the doctor's.

How come, then, that abortion clinics don't do that? Why do they keep their "patients" in the dark about what they're doing? Why don't they show them pictures of the entity within them? Why don't they provide all the facts? Why don't they ever mention adoption, or the wondrous choice of motherhood, or the potential of an alternate, less invasive course? In short, why do they thrive on misinformation, distraction, denial and diminishment of the whole process?

Answer: because they know exactly what they're doing. And they know that having complete information would make many of their "patients" decide not to go through with the process. Very few women could see a picture or sonogram of their child, understand what the procedure really involves, and then coldly say, "Now kill her." So they keep all that hidden, and perform the "procedure" as quickly and with as much ignorance as they can arrange.

Some "choice"! They give more information about a gall bladder.

I have no problem with abortion clinics providing all that information. Why not campaign for that instead of campaigning for what could potentially end up as its abolishment?

Philosophy Now Forum

Roe v Wade Overturned?

Re: Abortion Overturned?

Re: Abortion Overturned?

Re: Abortion Overturned?

Re: Abortion Overturned?

Re: Abortion Overturned?

Re: Abortion Overturned?

Re: Abortion Overturned?

Re: Abortion Overturned?

Re: Abortion Overturned?

Re: Abortion Overturned?

Re: Abortion Overturned?

Re: Abortion Overturned?

Re: Abortion Overturned?

Re: Abortion Overturned?

Re: Abortion Overturned?