Philosophy Now Forum

"Well argued as is whole of Henry's post."

With the right balance of nicotine & caffeine, I'm capable of marvelous things.

#

"One detail: what do you think about the morning after pill?"

I'd prefer if couples didn't have to rely on emergency contraception, but I'm grudgingly okay with the morning after pill.

The bulk of the first trimester is a gray area for me. On one hand, the biological machinery isn't firmly set in place till around week 12, so -- from a purely materialistic position -- personhood isn't possible before that. But, on the other, as a deist, I believe a human being is gifted with the spark at conception. My natural-rights libertarianism straddles both positions (and is of no help pinning this down for me). Best I can do in this conversation is play to the material side, and if I'm gonna do that I gotta give you the morning after pill.

#

"Next, we might consider how to help women who have no or limited access to contraception."

Please, cite some specific examples of American women who don't have wide, cheap (often 'free' to them) access to contraceptives.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:47 am Yeah, the 638,169 abortions performed in the U.S., in 2015, these were all husband-fearin' wives lookin' to avoid raisin' another rugrat.

So who are they?

With the right balance of nicotine & caffeine, I'm capable of marvelous things.

Silly child Henry! Mother has drummed into you what food and drink are good for you.

Please, cite some specific examples of American women who don't have wide, cheap (often 'free' to them) access to contraceptives.

How should I know about free condoms in public places in America? I do know that in Africa and India women are deprived of adequate contraception.
I also known that in the UK many men don't like paddling with their Wellington boots on and think it's not manly to do so. There is a need for a lot of government promotion of condoms to change ideas, besides dispensers in schools, cafes and so forth.

-1- wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:42 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:56 pm "Who is murdering babies?"

If what a pregnant woman carries is a person, then that would be the abortionist, yeah?

If. IF. IF.

You said if. But if not, then not.

I say a fetus is a fetus, and a baby is a baby. A baby is a person, a fetus is not.

You may change this definition to your liking, but you won't convince me that your definition is better or more ethical or better suits the libertarian ideal than mine.

-1-,

Firstly, you are wrong. It surprises me that a literate person who presumably likes to exercise her critical thinking capacities on a philosophy forum could be so frightfully ignorant regarding such an important social/moral/political issue as abortion. Or, maybe it's just prejudiced laziness we are witnessing (?); i.e; you are too "lazy" too keep abreast of the broader philosophical (ontological and ethical) debate that is taking place in the US and UK re abortion and personhood, because you fear you might very quickly discover the "inconvenient" fact that your crude, mindless views on the question are dead WRONG. As far as I am concerned you, and other (ostensibly) intelligent persons like you, have no excuse not to keep yourself informed; by not doing so, and posting the kind of crap you have (above) on a public forum, you are effectively guilty of aiding and abetting the commission of what is effectively criminal mass murder. At least that's what it will be called under US law in the not too distant future.


As you obviously don't have a clue,let me briefly fill you in on the current situation... The argument that human personhood exists at the moment of fertilisation is winning the day right across America, and It is winning the day because the pro-life movement spokespersons/lobbyists/laywers/bioethicists/politicians who are campaigning this argument, have a case that is rock - solid both scientifically, medically and philosophically (ontologically and ethically); a case that is 100% rationally and logically watertight.



The tide of public opinion across America is rapidly turning on the abortion issue. Even the liberal-progressive/Democrat media like : MSBN and CNN, now have no option but to report the news that poll numbers are in the majority of US states are moving decisively in favour of a ban on abortion.


Roe vs Wade (73) is living on borrowed time, and will soon be consigned (along with Dredd vs Scott) to the ash heap of legal precedent; in particular, given Conservative Justices sitting in the US Supreme Court now outnumber their Liberals peers 5 to 4.


It is worth noting a couple of crucial rulings made by Justice Justice Harry Blackmun from the Roe vs Wade case that legalised abortion in the US in 1973. In the majority opinion wrote...


"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."


Well, in the 46 years since the decision in Roe vs Wade, science has made phenomenal progress. We now know, for example, that a fertilized ovum is a new, unique, living human being with its own distinctive DNA. FACT. So we have an answer to Justice Blackmun's "difficult question" today, i.e; human life begins at the moment of fertilisation. With the benefit of advances in sciences and medical technology that Roe vs Wade could not have predicted, we are now capable of detecting the intricate design inherent in the unborn child and the astonishing levels of development taking place earlier and earlier in the womb.


The outcome of Roe vs Wade hung on the question of the personhood of the unborn child. Again, ss Justice Blackmun wrote in 1973...


"The appellee and certain amici argue that the foetus is a person within the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of foetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course collapses, and the foetuses right to life would be guaranteed by the Amendment."


Blackmun's worst fears have been realised because there is now a growing concensus among philosophers (ontologist and ethicists) that fertilised ovum is not merely a living, individual, unique, (biological/physical) homo sapien, but also a human person with full moral status.


In conclusion, you will, in the relatively near future see Roe vs Wade overturned in the United States. This will be a devastating blow to the American abortion industry, and THANK GOD for that.


Regards


Dachshund

"So who are they?"

In the context of this thread: it doesn't much matter.

The question 'person or meat?' applies equally across the board. That is: doesn't matter if the woman is white or black, rich or poor, tall or short, healthy or frail, beautiful or ugly, married or single, and on and on.

Is the pregnant woman carrying a person or is she just carrying human meat?

"Silly child Henry! Mother has drummed into you what food and drink are good for you."

Ma tried and failed.

Besides: coffee & cigarettes 'are' good for a body.

#

"I also known that in the UK many men don't like paddling with their Wellington boots on and think it's not manly to do so."

HA! That there is funny, B. Seems to me: if Jack won't wear his boots, Jane ought to not let him tromp around in her puddle.

#

"There is a need for a lot of government promotion of condoms to change ideas, besides dispensers in schools, cafes and so forth."

Why must it be the gov who does it?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 3:22 pm ...if Jack won't wear his boots, Jane ought to not let him tromp around in her puddle.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 3:22 pm "Silly child Henry! Mother has drummed into you what food and drink are good for you."

Ma tried and failed.

Besides: coffee & cigarettes 'are' good for a body.

#

"I also known that in the UK many men don't like paddling with their Wellington boots on and think it's not manly to do so."

HA! That there is funny, B. Seems to me: if Jack won't wear his boots, Jane ought to not let him tromp around in her puddle.

#

"There is a need for a lot of government promotion of condoms to change ideas, besides dispensers in schools, cafes and so forth."

Why must it be the gov who does it?

But what people do is often what they ought not to do. Mother can tell you what you ought to do but by golly you will jolly well do what you like.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 5:48 pm But what people do is often what they ought not to do. Mother can tell you what you ought to do but by golly you will jolly well do what you like.

Well, that may be true.

But if someone is so silly, and makes a series of wretched choices when she could have done otherwise and knew the outcomes, then what makes us (or society) obliged to protect her final "choice" to dispense with the outcome of all her wretched choices, by murdering another human being?

That just looks like the most awful choice in a sequence of bad choices made by someone who's obviously incapable of handling "choice" of any kind.

Immanuel Can wrote:

But if someone is so silly, and makes a series of wretched choices when she could have done otherwise and knew the outcomes, then what makes us (or society) obliged to protect her final "choice" to dispense with the outcome of all her wretched choices, by murdering another human being?

I agree that murdering another human being will not help anybody. What makes society obliged to to protect her if she chooses an unlicensed abortionist is stopping her suffering. What makes society obliged to help her if she chooses a licensed clinical abortionist is that the alternatives are worse.

It's not right to make any pregnant woman, any potential siblings, any offspring, or any foetus suffer because of so-called 'sanctity of life'.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2019 6:12 pm What makes society obliged to to protect her if she chooses an unlicensed abortionist is stopping her suffering.

She's not "suffering." We're speaking of the 93% of cases where abortion's called a "choice." If you stipulate that the 93% is evil, we can talk about birth-suffering situations.

Hmmm...this alleged woman is choosing stupidly again. She couldn't get any earlier phase of her choosing right, and now she's got a further problem. But society has no duty to help her find a reliable hitman if she wants to get rid of her husband. In the same way, society's under no obligation to help her rip her own child from the womb. "Safe murder" is not something good societies provide.

She should give the child up for adoption. At least then, she'd be a good and unselfish person who eventually did the right thing for once.

There are at least 36 couples waiting for her healthy child, in the US. And you never did tell me why it's better she murder her child than give her/him away to a good family....but I'll still hear that, if you've got an answer.

Especially when she's wrong.

Nope, not buyin' it.

I do not believe a half a million abortions occur yearly in the U.S. to reliveve suffering (cuz the bulk of these women weren't and aren't suffering).

The bulk of abortions occur for convenience which, as I say, is an awful reason to rub out a human being.

This discussion has become as stupid as the men who are claiming to know women's feelings and reasons, when neither man has faced an unwanted pregnancy in their own body. You guys are full of hot air and crap, and I don't think anyone here is as impressed with your dumb opinions as you are of each other and yourselves.

Lacewing wrote: ↑I don't think

obviously