Philosophy Now Forum

Do we really have to keep hearing a discussion that the rest of the civilised world dealt with over fifty years ago?

Yes, you do.

Could it be that science deniers around the world actually fool themselves into thinking that abortion is not for the purpose of killing human life, which science says begins at conception?

In the sense of living by truth, it’s better for herself and the world that the woman face reality and say yes, I am killing new life. It is my decision to do so and my responsibility, but I’m not going to be a weasel doublethinker and pretend something else is going on to make the world rosy and double-plus good.

If the rest of the civilized world disagrees, gee, that's too bad.

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:47 am Yes, you do.

Could it be that science deniers around the world actually fool themselves into thinking that abortion is not for the purpose of killing human life, which science says begins at conception?

In the sense of living by truth, it’s better for herself and the world that the woman face reality and say yes, I am killing new life. It is my decision to do so and my responsibility, but I’m not going to be a weasel doublethinker and pretend something else is going on to make the world rosy and double-plus good.

If the rest of the civilized world disagrees, gee, that's too bad.

Could this extend to the voluntary decision made by one self to kill itself via the euthanasia method? even though there was no real medical problem other than to just not want to live anymore?

.

Don’t seek treatment, do not resuscitate. Happens every day. Sri Ramana Maharshi did not seek treatment after his diagnosis, but he did accept some care to appease those close to him.

Quite a different ethical situation when the government and not the individual is calling the shots.

What the civilized society is doing to folks these days ...

U.K. Court Says Mentally Disabled Woman Must Have Abortion
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/23/worl ... ed-uk.html

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:47 am Yes, you do.

Could it be that science deniers around the world actually fool themselves into thinking that abortion is not for the purpose of killing human life, which science says begins at conception?

In the sense of living by truth, it’s better for herself and the world that the woman face reality and say yes, I am killing new life. It is my decision to do so and my responsibility, but I’m not going to be a weasel doublethinker and pretend something else is going on to make the world rosy and double-plus good.

If the rest of the civilized world disagrees, gee, that's too bad.

Really!? You really think women take abortion lightly and don't know that they are killing their baby, have you ever met or talked to a woman who is considering an abortion? I doubt it. Although I guess you could be forgiven as you are a Yank and unlike the rest of the civilised world allowed the private abortionists to thrive whereas we took them into the medical system as at the time the mothers were dying as well. You want to reduce abortions, give your women and children free contraception and teach your children that sex is fine but unplanned pregnancy is not.

- Doublethink allows for in utero to be perceived as either life or non-life, to accommodate conditions such as inconvenience and convenience.

- Plenty of people have all kinds of euphemisms for what gets aborted, e.g., unviable tissue mass, zygote, tadpole, and so on. Why, it seems to me I’ve even read assertions on this very board that it isn’t a human growing in there. I’ve also heard anecdotal evidence, which is the kind of evidence that comes from personal chit-chat, that women who get abortions click up their heels with relief. I think women are more pragmatic than men, and it’s the men who get high-fallutin thoughts and ideals about life.

- Plenty of women get multiple abortions, probably a hell of a lot more than what get abortions to save the life of the mother, and that indicates a less than serious attitude about the topic. It has something to do with a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body, no questions asked, no rationality or justifiable ethics required.

- As a matter of fact, if a woman is pregnant and she's not family, I have no license to speak to her about her condition, and I surely don't. Why go looking for trouble? Duh.

- Abortion is legal in the U.S., btw. Save concerns for the Godless Rooskies, the abortion champs.

- Fact: you get more of what you subsidize, not less. Subsidize abortions, you get more abortions, not fewer.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 8:55 am

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:47 am Yes, you do.

Could it be that science deniers around the world actually fool themselves into thinking that abortion is not for the purpose of killing human life, which science says begins at conception?

In the sense of living by truth, it’s better for herself and the world that the woman face reality and say yes, I am killing new life. It is my decision to do so and my responsibility, but I’m not going to be a weasel doublethinker and pretend something else is going on to make the world rosy and double-plus good.

If the rest of the civilized world disagrees, gee, that's too bad.

Could this extend to the voluntary decision made by one self to kill itself via the euthanasia method? even though there was no real medical problem other than to just not want to live anymore?

.

Deliberate suicide is a dualistic act and thus irrelevant and superfluous to day-to-day non-dual existence of a jnani such as Sri Ramana Maharshi. That’s based on the simple aphorism of, wherever you go, there you are. When undistracted from this, it can be objectively realized and formed into a principle of knowledge that dualistic imagination from whence deliberate suicide is conceived can become the delusion mistaken for reality, reality being the perpetual and unchanging nature of here and now.

Yep.

Safety nets promote risk-taking. If I know I'm not gonna hit the ground and snap my neck, I may just get up to all manner of shenanigans when on the high-wire.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:11 pm Yep.

Safety nets promote risk-taking. If I know I'm not gonna hit the ground and snap my neck, I may just get up to all manner of shenanigans when on the high-wire.

Children are also subsidised. Butt sex is not though.

So the obvious solution is to pay people to do it up the wrong 'un. No pregnancy will result from that activity unless it is done very wrong. So no subsidy for either abortion or schools is required.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:11 pm Yep.

Safety nets promote risk-taking. If I know I'm not gonna hit the ground and snap my neck, I may just get up to all manner of shenanigans when on the high-wire.

Great Irish name, Shenanigan. Clan Shenanigan. Go confess your sins to Father Shenanigan at the local parish. Great baby name, particularly for a little bastard of which there are many more than in days of yore*, before legal abortion served to safety-net the status quo of youth so that youth never ever changes into motherhood and Peter Pan is always a boy. A safety-net softens the risk of building mansions on barrier islands to hurricanes and Noreasters. Too big to fail makes a cushy safety net for crony capitalism. A safety net also removes the risk of shenanigans changing the status quo. On the other hand, birth, which is the real dichotomy to abortion (as opposed to the dichotomy of illegal abortion which is false because it assumes abortion), embraces the change that little Shenanigan brings to the table.


*In the USA, politics brought subsidies to fatherless households, thus more children out of wedlock.

Re Walker's.
With due respect for your opinion and your reference to the "Am .Coll. of Pedia’s that life starts at conception", it is a fact that at conception an alive spermatozoa unites with an alive ovum to form the alive zygote which then grows by being connected to the LIFE of the mother.
We are all free to believe what we like but the zygote develops to the baby stage before it may become a new individual at birth. The alive zygote grows as a new part of the mother, driven by the life of the mother. Its heart starts to develop and hopefully starts to beat as an essential part of the growing foetus. In due course the foetus reaches completion to baby size and the birthing process will commence. At birth the attendants will anxiously await signs of the babe having indeed come to LIFE. Noteworthy then is that life may or may not enter; if it has, a new individual will be added to the earth’s population. Still-births are discarded. Where life comes from, and logically returns to on death, depends on what one has come to believe. The plethora of religions provides a choice of beliefs invented by our forefathers. The records of historical events show the extreme efforts used by fanatics to impose their beliefs.
Science has evolved to provide facts, such as that we are born on Planet Earth, just another speck in the universe. We are made of earthly “dust”. The Universe has ”infinite” dimensions, both ways large and small. Infinity is beyond our dimensions. Life is an intangible part of the universe, it is in us; thus it must come from and logically return to the universe of which we are but a part.

In addition to secular health scientists, Buddhists also are "of the opinion," so to speak, that life begins at conception.

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 9:16 am In addition to secular health scientists, Buddhists also are "of the opinion," so to speak, that life begins at conception.

Yes, Buddhists are also free to believe what they like.

Not all beliefs are created equal. For some, belief is belief in what should be. For others, belief is in what is. Health scientists and Buddhists look to evidence-based causation to determine what is, as opposed to some random belief in a fantasy of what should be, e.g., high-speed rail connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles.