Philosophy Now Forum

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:23 am So religious maniac Imran Can is too scared to interact with an actual woman, on something that only affects women. Gosh. I wonder why.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:35 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:27 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:01 am
Not "conflating." Nothing mistaken. Nothing equivocal. Everything clear.

I'm outright identifying it as murder, because that's exactly what it is. It's the killing of an innocent human person, by the woman who created her in the first place, and who, by all rights, should be her most loving and reliable protector. It's an unconscionable, wicked deed.

How much more strongly can one put it?

Nope.

If any law define a abortion as murder, then it is murder but only in accordance to a specific set of laws.

If that were true, then you would have to say the murder of Jews, gypsies, the handicapped or dissenters by the Third Reich was not murder at all. It was their laws that let them do it.

So that's clearly not the case.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:39 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:23 am So religious maniac Imran Can is too scared to interact with an actual woman, on something that only affects women. Gosh. I wonder why.

Who's an actual woman here? The names are mostly misleading anyway. So there's no way for me to know.

But actually, you're right that abortion affects women more than men; more pre-born females are murdered than pre-born males, and more minorities than whites, as well. But you'd be wrong to imagine it does not affect men.

In any case, your objection would be silly. It would be the same as saying, "Slavery only affects slave-owners, so nobody else can have an opinion about slavery." The issue of the rightness or wrongness of an act is debatable by anybody.

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:43 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:35 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:27 am
Nope.

If any law define a abortion as murder, then it is murder but only in accordance to a specific set of laws.

If that were true, then you would have to say the murder of Jews, gypsies, the handicapped or dissenters by the Third Reich was not murder at all. It was their laws that let them do it.

So that's clearly not the case.

It was still murder according to German law.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:48 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:43 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:35 am
If that were true, then you would have to say the murder of Jews, gypsies, the handicapped or dissenters by the Third Reich was not murder at all. It was their laws that let them do it.

So that's clearly not the case.

It was still murder according to German law.

No, not once the Nazis were writing the laws. The same happened in the Soviet Union...and "enemy of the state" could be designated and murdered with impunity...and millions were. All very legal. And the same in China and North Korea, right now.

So you're just wrong. Sorry.

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:44 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:39 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:23 am So religious maniac Imran Can is too scared to interact with an actual woman, on something that only affects women. Gosh. I wonder why.

Who's an actual woman here? The names are mostly misleading anyway. So there's no way for me to know.

But actually, you're right that abortion affects women more than men; more pre-born females are murdered than pre-born males, and more minorities than whites, as well. But you'd be wrong to imagine it does not affect men.

In any case, your objection would be silly. It would be the same as saying, "Slavery only affects slave-owners, so nobody else can have an opinion about slavery." The issue of the rightness or wrongness of an act is debatable by anybody.

It wouldn't be like that at all, little man.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:53 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:44 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:39 am
Who's an actual woman here? The names are mostly misleading anyway. So there's no way for me to know.

But actually, you're right that abortion affects women more than men; more pre-born females are murdered than pre-born males, and more minorities than whites, as well. But you'd be wrong to imagine it does not affect men.

In any case, your objection would be silly. It would be the same as saying, "Slavery only affects slave-owners, so nobody else can have an opinion about slavery." The issue of the rightness or wrongness of an act is debatable by anybody.

It wouldn't be like that at all, little man.

Actually, the parallel is good. Like slavers, aborters begin by de-humanizing their victims. The slavers called them "animals," and the aborters call them "clusters of cells." Then they can feel good about doing something very evil.

But whether blacks are human beings, or whether pre-born children are human beings, will not be settled by word games and feats of creative imagination. The truth is the truth, regardless of whether or not the dehumanizer in each case is willing to recognize it. And every woman who aborts knows that what she is desperate to prevent is the life of a person. It's the existence of the child she's trying to eradicate, not a mere "cluster of cells." A mere "cluster of cells" could never demand anything of her.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:53 am It's the existence of the child she's trying to eradicate, not a mere "cluster of cells." A mere "cluster of cells" could never demand anything of her.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:35 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:27 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:01 am
Not "conflating." Nothing mistaken. Nothing equivocal. Everything clear.

I'm outright identifying it as murder, because that's exactly what it is. It's the killing of an innocent human person, by the woman who created her in the first place, and who, by all rights, should be her most loving and reliable protector. It's an unconscionable, wicked deed.

How much more strongly can one put it?

Nope.

If any law define a abortion as murder, then it is murder but only in accordance to a specific set of laws.

If that were true, then you would have to say the murder of Jews, gypsies, the handicapped or dissenters by the Third Reich was not murder at all. It was their laws that let them do it.

So that's clearly not the case.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 3:01 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 10:14 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 9:45 pm
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...

If they can be given and taken away at will, then in what sense are they your "right" at all?

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 5:13 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:53 am It's the existence of the child she's trying to eradicate, not a mere "cluster of cells." A mere "cluster of cells" could never demand anything of her.

...you mean possibly the same cluster of cells doomed...

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 5:25 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:35 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:27 am
Nope.

If any law define a abortion as murder, then it is murder but only in accordance to a specific set of laws.

If that were true, then you would have to say the murder of Jews, gypsies, the handicapped or dissenters by the Third Reich was not murder at all. It was their laws that let them do it.

So that's clearly not the case.

Even if the Nazis did not define the killing of Jews and others as murder, but the Laws within the International Court of Justice defined the killing of Jews and others as murder.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 7:03 amthe same kind of rights that henry talks about; the kind that you somehow intuitively believe you should have.