Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:16 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 2:41 pm
Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:11 am To regard abortion as moralistically reprehensible in itself is invariably a theistic decision by those who have no regard for those who are forced to suffer the consequences.
We're talking about people who have chosen to be sexually active, have chosen not to manage their contraception, and refuse to choose adoption. Thus, they are not "forced" to "suffer" anything -- they've chosen their path. Having done so, they're too cowardly and evil to face the consequences they have visited on themselves, and they beg for us to allow them any evil remedy for their bad choices. That's the truth of the matter.

The only truth that matters to you is what you accept as truth in the Bible which is more myth than truth. Any other truth, however substantial, is inconsequential. Most here already know that; what you so firmly declare as truth in most cases is usually an inversion of what it actually is or likely to be. You also forgot to mention the many millions of women who haven't chosen but are forced to suffer the consequences in which case abortion is logical and completely without guilt. Their responsibility as host is abrogated by the crimes committed upon them.

As for those who have been careless what business is it of yours or anyone else's on what is decided? It has nothing to do with you or your theistic parasitical morality which is very adept in distorting, lying and deceiving.

Posted: **Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:21 am**

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:16 am You also forgot to mention the many millions of women who haven't chosen but are forced to suffer the consequences

93% of all abortions are purely elective.

If you will admit that the 93% are evil, I'll talk with you about the other 7%.

But if you won't, then you'll forgive me if I doubt that you care about the people you're talking about at all. Rather, it will be clear that you just want to use them, make them pawns, in order to make excuses for the evils of purely elective abortion.

Posted: **Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:48 am**

As a natural rights libertarian (not a theistic position): I'm inclined to view taking a human life without justification as morally reprehensible.

Simple default positions don't require much thought. Just yield to whatever seems politically correct.

If it isn't morally reprehensible killing a full grown person in war with likely a family of his own and no way of knowing who was actually killed - after all he could have been someone far superior to the one who killed him - why would it be so objectionable to terminate a pregnancy? You and IC are outstanding examples of the ways and means morality colludes with hypocrisy to manufacture its holier-than-thou conclusions.

Still can't keep to the title of the OP! Your pathetic attempts at originality are as original as you'll ever get.

Posted: **Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:56 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:21 am
Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:16 am You also forgot to mention the many millions of women who haven't chosen but are forced to suffer the consequences
93% of all abortions are purely elective.

If you will admit that the 93% are evil, I'll talk with you about the other 7%.

But if you won't, then you'll forgive me if I doubt that you care about the people you're talking about at all. Rather, it will be clear that you just want to use them, make them pawns, in order to make excuses for the evils of purely elective abortion.

You have no way of arguing against what I said. That's the reason why you detoured as always when you can't legitimately respond to an argument. I don't where you get your 93% evil from! Nothing of that was mentioned because it doesn't apply in any argument I made. Either respond to what I wrote or fuck off!

Posted: **Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:32 am**

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:56 am You have no way of arguing against what I said.

Hogwash.

It's statistically absurd and untrue, and fundamentally a distraction from the moral issue of abortion. It at attempts to employ a very small number of atypical cases to justify broad scale promotion of killing babies.

And the 93% is self-reported by women having abortions. I guess they would know why they do what they do, no?

So it seems it's rather easy to argue against, actually.

Posted: **Sun Jun 30, 2019 12:26 pm**

Dubious wrote:“You also forgot to mention the many millions of women who haven't chosen but are forced to suffer the consequences …”

In Western society free-flowing sex is sanctioned by culture, and sanction is a form of subsidy.

If all those many millions of women did not have the option of abortion, would fewer of them have unwanted pregnancies? Of course. That’s why in fundamentalist societies which often exist as subcultures, women are more sheltered with well-defined courtship rules. Women are sheltered because the society would prefer to not, “suffer the consequences.”

Dynamic analysis: If the only possible outcome of a pregnancy is either birth of the child or death of the mother, those who suffer the consequences of the resulting inconvenience will see to it that fewer women get pregnant, until the woman can see to it for herself, if that's what she wants when she is older and wiser. This is purely an abstract principle, seeing as how Pandora's box can't be closed, so to speak, because the third possible outcome exists.

If it isn't morally reprehensible killing a full grown person in war with likely a family of his own and no way of knowing who was actually killed ...

False dichotomy. Of course it's morally reprehensible. That's why societies relegate and sanction certain unpleasant facts of life to societal roles: military, police, abortionists, and so on.

Posted: **Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:28 pm**

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 12:26 pm
Dubious wrote:“You also forgot to mention the many millions of women who haven't chosen but are forced to suffer the consequences …”
In Western society free-flowing sex is sanctioned by culture, and sanction is a form of subsidy.

But it's worse than that.

It's not just that we allow irresponsible relational, reproductive and contraceptive behaviours, but that the abortionists demand that we actually subsidize the wickedness of child murder, on behalf of those women who want to kill their babies instead of putting them up for adoption. They want us to fund Planned Parenthood, and similar organizations, whose main industry is the execution of helpless infants and the sale of their body parts.

They don't just want us to give them tacit approval when they murder the offspring they chose to create. They want to make us participants with them in their murders, through compulsory taxation.

That, in a free society, is utterly unconscionable.

Posted: **Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:15 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:32 am
Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:56 am You have no way of arguing against what I said.
Hogwash.

It's statistically absurd and untrue, and fundamentally a distraction from the moral issue of abortion. It at attempts to employ a very small number of atypical cases to justify broad scale promotion of killing babies.

And the 93% is self-reported by women having abortions. I guess they would know why they do what they do, no?

So it seems it's rather easy to argue against, actually.

The bottom line is from whatever angle you measure it, it's none of you damn business. The decision remains a purely personal one. If the woman decides to share her reasoning with someone else that's also her choice. There are valid reasons for an abortion in which it becomes far more right than wrong. The only reason hypocrites like you are against it is because you have some stupid theistic notion that human life is sacred which it decidedly and absolutely is not. There are far too many disgusting assholes on the planet to prove it.

Posted: **Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:25 pm**

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 12:26 pm
Dubious wrote:If it isn't morally reprehensible killing a full grown person in war with likely a family of his own and no way of knowing who was actually killed ...
False dichotomy. Of course it's morally reprehensible. That's why societies relegate and sanction certain unpleasant facts of life to societal roles: military, police, abortionists, and so on.

Bullshit it's a false dichotomy! Life is life! One which has come into the world and the other fully grown and developed. So to repeat if it's justified sending millions to wars not in their interest or justified through bogus reasons why all this sanctimonious concern with the unborn?

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 12:26 pmIn Western society free-flowing sex is sanctioned by culture, and sanction is a form of subsidy.

In what way is a sanction a form of subsidy? Can you declare the logic in this? I'd like to know before I offer my views on that since they can be amended if you come up with something reasonable. What is the source of the subsidy that does the sanctioning?

Posted: **Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:31 pm**

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:15 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:32 am So it seems it's rather easy to argue against, actually.
The bottom line is from whatever angle you measure it, it's none of you damn business.

Not true. I have every right to decide what I am agreeing to fund, and murder cannot be a matter of indifference socially, either -- not if you and I are moral people and our society has regard for innocent victims.

The decision remains a purely personal one.

That, it assuredly is not. A woman's decision to call her child a "non-person" will not change the ontological or moral status of her unborn child.

There are valid reasons for an abortion

Not if the child is a human being. The cases in which there is any potential threat to the life of the mother reduce to less than 1% of all abortions. Again, if you will stipulate that the other 99% are evil, or even the 93% that are purely elective, I'm happy to discuss that leftover 1% (or 7%, as you prefer).

...some stupid theistic notion that human life is sacred...

The same "notion" by which you personally have any rights at all. John Locke covered this nicely.

...which it decidedly and absolutely is not.

Your proof of this claim? Or do you expect people to believe it simply on your say-so?

Posted: **Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:19 pm**

Not interested in your laminated philosophies on a mostly practical concern. What's funded accrues first of all to the well-being of the person not some process growing inside of her. It's her decision which takes priority and not someone else's incompatible abstract philosophy.

Though you may be forced to fund, it's the consensus that decides what to fund and in that sense most women have already decided. They didn't need a philosopher or clergyman to help them out! Having said that I was never in favor of late abortions but regard it completely valid in its earlier stages which if so decided, funded or not, remains a purely medical matter which is absolutely none of your business. A person's ethics or morals in a society don't get to choose what's funded least of all on any outworn theistic prerogatives or interfering philosophies.

Is there any situation where you believe abortion is valid or think a human fetus is just too sacred to abort under any conditions?

Posted: **Mon Jul 01, 2019 1:18 am**

Lacewing wrote: ↑I'm such a simple idiot, I can't believe it!

Posted: **Mon Jul 01, 2019 1:58 am**

I wrote: As a natural rights libertarian (not a theistic position): I'm inclined to view taking a human life without justification as morally reprehensible.

"Simple default positions don't require much thought. Just yield to whatever seems politically correct."

Simple, yes, but not simplistic; default, yes, but not out of a box; and: you're far more PC, just as a matter of course, than I ever could be on my worst, most squishy, bleedin' heart, 'girly' day.

Consider: which position is more PC, *pro-choice or pro-life?
We all know the answer.

#

"If it isn't morally reprehensible killing a full grown person in war with likely a family of his own and no way of knowing who was actually killed - after all he could have been someone far superior to the one who killed him - why would it be so objectionable to terminate a pregnancy?"

If Johnny (or Vladimir), an adult, chooses to fight in a just war, he's done nuthin' morally reprehensible.

If a woman obliterates her kid cuz she finds him inconvenient, she done sumthin' morally reprehensible.

#

"You and IC are outstanding examples of the ways and means morality colludes with hypocrisy to manufacture its holier-than-thou conclusions.

Mannie and me are mismatched allies facing a horde of aiders & abetters, nuthin' more or less.

#

"Still can't keep to the title of the OP! Your pathetic attempts at originality are as original as you'll ever get."

First: it's my thread: I'll go off-subject as much as I like.

Second: up-thread, I encourage meandering for all participants.

Third: I'm not lookin to be 'original'; I'm just foistin' up an opposition to to the morally vacant.

So: dear Dub, you can go pound sand.

*more accurately: pro-'kill babies' or pro-'let babies get born'

Posted: **Mon Jul 01, 2019 2:36 am**

"The bottom line is from whatever angle you measure it, (abortion is) none of your damn business."

Killin' herself: yep, not my business.

Killin' an innocent: my business, your business, everyone's business.

Posted: **Mon Jul 01, 2019 2:41 am**

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:19 pm Having said that I was never in favor of late abortions

Say why not.

Philosophy Now Forum

Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

fixed it for ya

Dub

Dub

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?