Philosophy Now Forum

<If Johnny, an adult, chooses to fight in a just war, there's nuthin' morally reprehensible to note>

So it's ok for Johnny to kill or be killed because he was told it was a just war and therefore justified in killing another human who may feel equally justified in putting the other out of commission. No-longer are either "innocent" so the killing game is afoot with nothing further morally reprehensible to note. Have I got that right?

Actually it may not be morally reprehensible at all if you remove the word 'innocent' from it usual frame of reference as it should be. In that case, you'd be right whether the war is just or not.

The unborn are neither innocent or guilty of anything not yet having experienced the outside world. To claim a fetus being innocent, as you and your side-kick incessantly insist on as if there were some kind of moral distinction already imposed upon it prior to birth, is an oxymoron. That is only OUR moralizing verdict upon that which hasn't yet fully developed. It's neither this nor that even though in Christian doctrine you're already stamped with Original Sin as soon as the exit door opens. They just couldn't wait to annul your innocence on the first protest of entering the cold, cruel world!

Innocence, in short, is a completely bogus concept when considering whether something should be allowed to continue its development or not.
------------
<Killin' herself: yep, not my business.
Killin' an innocent: my business, your business, everyone's business>

As mentioned neither innocent or guilty making it no one's business except its host which means screw your sanctimonious moralizing having no right, purpose or function when deciding upon someone else's dilemma.

Your entire premise regarding abortion is based solely on the ridiculous and demeaning assumption that human life is sacred...note, ONLY human life. What a truly disgusting idea that is. By what holy magic did it become sacred?

Dubious wrote: ↑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?

An abortionist killing a babe in the womb, a soldier killing a soldier in battle, a cop killing a perp in self-defense, these are all situations that involve killing.

Is there a moral blanket judgment that exists to cover all three acts of killing? Sure. All are morally reprehensible because each act kills a human life. Human life is the absolute against which the act is broadly qualified.

The question thus becomes, when is a morally reprehensible act, justified?

The morally reprehensible act is justified when the actor is a role sanctioned by society. Individuals who do the morally reprehensible act of killing from within a sanctioned societal role are not criminally liable unless they break the society’s rules for the killing. Because the killing is deemed necessary by a society, according to the rules of the society laid down before the killing, the act of killing thus becomes conscionable to the individual within the role.

Abortionists, soldiers, and cops are societal roles. Individuals who perform the morally reprehensible acts of killing while in those roles are protected from societal punishment when they follow the society’s rules for killing. However, this does not let them off the morality hook. If you insist on fitting all killing under the same moral blanket, then with the act of killing each of the individuals has committed a morally reprehensible act.

When killing is deemed conscionable by an individual outside of a role society has approved for the morally reprehensible act of killing, the act is punishable. The act is still morally reprehensible, as are all killings morally reprehensible.

Dubious wrote: ↑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.

Man has dominion over the earth not because the Bible says so, but because he is top predator, and has a relatively high capacity for inference when compared to critters. The Bible reported and reports the news, it doesn't create the news.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑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.

I do think that facing the brutality of abortion without blinking or looking away does make for an informed decision, whatever that may be. At some point in psychological evolution the decision can only be life, not killing.

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:33 am ...the decision can only be life, not killing.

Well, that's the only right decision there can be. But human beings are lamentably capable of rationalizing great evils, and of calling them good. If we learned nothing else from the Holocaust, that should be it.

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

Again, say why not.

What's wrong with a third-term late abortion? What makes that any worse than a first-term or second-term one? What's the "line," and how did you find it?

Because if you can help society accurately find that line, you've permanently solved the abortion question. It would be a very great service if you could do it.

So why are you in favour of earlier abortions, but not of late ones?

I wrote: If Johnny, an adult, chooses to fight in a just war, there's nuthin' morally reprehensible to note>

"So it's ok for Johnny to kill or be killed because he was told it was a just war and therefore justified in killing another human who may feel equally justified in putting the other out of commission. No-longer are either "innocent" so the killing game is afoot with nothing further morally reprehensible to note. Have I got that right?"

Not exactly, no. First, what constitutes a 'just war'? Overthrowing a tyrant is just, installing one is not; defending against invaders is just, invading is not. The 'just war' then is the war of defense (of homeland, of ally, of liberty). Second, if Johnny chose to fight, it's not (or shouldn't be) because he was told diddly. An on-going act of defense is an act of conscience.

Anyway, the comparison (death in war and death in the clinic) is poor and you probably shouldn't have brought it up.

#

"The unborn are neither innocent or guilty of anything not yet having experienced the outside world."

To be innocent is to be blameless: by defintion, lil fetus-person is about as innocent as you can get.

#

"some kind of moral distinction already imposed upon it prior to birth"

The distinction is: lil fetus-person is human. Lil fetus-person is not a dog or cow or giraffe. Lil fetus-person 'is' a person.

#

"Your entire premise regarding abortion is based solely on the ridiculous and demeaning assumption that human life is sacred"

Nope. My entire premise regarding abortion is based solely on the serious and profound fact that each human being, each person, owns himself.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 7:30 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:05 am Lacewing, their attitude is challenging not because they have reason but because they have (too much) power.

Yes. There seems to be a sense of entitlement that (whether due to gender, religious, or political reasons) what THEY think/believe/want is supreme over others, especially women. Extraordinary arrogance and ignorance. Mankind's quest for absolute power and domination has tipped things completely out-of-balance with small-minded, ego-bound thinking. And like a plague, they beat it down on the heads of others and all of nature...while insisting that no one intrude on THEM.

If any of these particular men had to experience unwanted pregnancy in their own body, they might be more enlightened. Nature happens, despite our best efforts -- and there are countless ways that nature is redirected constantly by humans. It's necessary! Demanding that women's bodies be breeding tubes whether they like it or not because nature sprouted there is senseless.

Humans can accomplish the most when they stop trying to blame and control each other, and instead work on their own self-awareness and understanding of balance and a larger natural system. This world is not black and white -- and it's extraordinarily small-minded to think it must be judged and controlled as if it is!

Dear Forum Members,



What we have here (i.e; in the quoted post above) is a perfect example of the breath-taking arrogance and profoundly illogical thinking that is implicit in the latest wave of pro- choice (i.e. pro-abortion) rhetoric. This rhetoric is currently being broadcast by a newer strain of feminist thought that has been dubbed "superiority feminism." The later was created by third wave feminists in the Western academy who preferred to believed that the postmodernist social (pseudo) - sciences had proved the existence of a separate, morally superior, female mind with its own distinctive set of values. "We are women, the feminist "intellectuals" in the academy intoned, and our moral values and thought processes are different from and better than those of men !"Once upon a time university women had argued that scientific reason had no gender, and the aesthetic imagination was androgynous. But no longer. It wasn't in their interest. Instead, they had every incentive, material and otherwise to join the feminist guild and jump on this new bandwagon of feminist thinking. But with the advent of "superiority, feminism took an unfortunate turn, because a sense of superiority (as you can see from the post I have quoted) is a rather difficult thing to control (!)



Having provided this brief background, let me now move on to the question of feminism and abortion in some more detail.



The original "pro-choice" argument is rooted in the classical liberal affirmation of every man's right to his own body. Critical of liberalism for its failure to extend this right equally to women, "pro-choicers" define abortion as the essence of every woman's right to own and control her own body. The obvious objection to this argument is that a foetus (which is latin for "small child") is not just a part of the woman's body. For a while "pro-choicers" tried to dealt with this objection by referring to the embryo/foetus in clinical, dehumanising terms. For example, in an article in the Washington Post, 74 year-old Dr Jane Hodgeson, an abortion physician, explained that one way to reassure a patient after a first trimester abortion was to show her the pan of aborted "uterine contents" and how it merely contained "a few embryonic cells". But Dr Hodgeson was just re-echoing the the tones of of an earlier "Wade vs Roe" era. In the ensuing 46 years there have been monumental advances in obstetric and genetic science and comparable improvements in the sophistication medical technology. Now people know that a new, individual, human/person with his/her own distinct DNA exists from the moment of conception, and they are able to see for themselves astonishing 3-D images of the intricate complexity and activity of the foetus at ever earlier developmental stages in the womb.



Our friend Lacewing realises that the old dehumanisation of the foetus strategy has had it day. So she now opts for the more up-to-date pro-abortion arguments that are rooted in academic "superiority feminism's elevation of the "private" morality of women (the notion that in women moral reasoning stems from private-oriented ideas of responsibility and caring for others) over the inferior "public" morality of men ( the notion that the moral reasoning of men proceeds from the public-oriented ideas of individual rights and justice/fair play). In this spirit she is passionate in defining abortion as an intensely personal experience that no man could ever judge. To put in in other words it is "biologically inappropriate" for myself or any other male to voice our personal objections to abortion. Thus Lacewing (after consulting her New Age crystals for confirmation) confidently rants...



"Yes. There seems to be a sense of entitlement...that what THEY (i.e; men) think/believe/want is supreme over others especially women. Extraordinary arrogance and ignorance...if any of these men had to experience unwanted pregnancy in their own bodies, they might be more enlightened."



But declaring the subject of abortion off limits to men only serves to reveal the bogus logic that Lacewing and her crack-pot ilk employ. I mean, since when exactly has biology ever determined the arenas in which human beings can make moral decisions. Please explain, Lacewing, (lest we think thee a great nit-wit) ??!!



Since the 17th century the organic metaphor of social institutions (like the family) as organisms made up of consanguinous parts has been challenged by liberalism which has viewed social institutions as contractual arrangements between consenting individuals. The feminists' complaint against liberalism is that it has never despite its contractual ethos, stopped conceiving of the family as an organic institution. This is why the chief goal of many modern feminists in the academy has been to restructure the family as a totally contractual arrangement from which anyone, but especially any woman may withdraw.


But is this goal morally defensible ? There are very good reasons why liberalism has never stopped seeing the family as an organic institution. Starting with John Locke, liberalism has understood that not all human ties are contractual - most notably the tie between a parent and child. Locke distinguished between legitimate political power, which may extend to life and death, and parental power, which may extend only to preserving the life of a child, because it does not, and cannot, derive from the consent of the child.



This crucial distinction collapses every time pro-choice arguments flip-flop between the language of individual rights and that of nurturant feminity. "Pro-choicers" begin by asserting equal rights for women - a line of reasoning that directly challenges the organic basis of family relationships. But equal rights are not enough when it comes to abortion, a decision that must balance the woman's rights against those of others such as the foetus and family members. So "pro-choicers" define women's rights as MORE THAN EQUAL, on the grounds that female decision-making partakes of special, superior moral wisdom. But what is the source of that wisdom? It is not women's character or achievement as individuals, but their membership in a class whose nature it is to care for others. A definition of womanhood that is nothing , if not organic ??!!


Regards


Dachshund
"

"What we have here (in the quoted post above) is a perfect example of the breath-taking arrogance and profoundly illogical thinking that is implicit in the latest wave of pro- choice (i.e. pro-abortion) rhetoric."

Mebbe so...me, I just chalk it up to Lace not bein' the sharpest wedge of cheese in the cupboard.

But Dachshund there are men who know how women have been caused to suffer from unwanted pregnancies. It would be far better if you used your energy and time to place contraceptives within the reach of all , and to persuade men that contraceptives are manly.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:04 pm "What we have here (in the quoted post above) is a perfect example of the breath-taking arrogance and profoundly illogical thinking that is implicit in the latest wave of pro- choice (i.e. pro-abortion) rhetoric."

Mebbe so...me, I just chalk it up to Lace not bein' the sharpest wedge of cheese in the cupboard.

Yes, I agree. If you read some of her posts there's no doubt that she's "off with the pixies". My guess is that she' thinks she's still living in 1969, dropping acid during "The Summer of Love"; either that or she's smoking too much skunk for her own good.

Dachshund

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:13 pm But Dachshund there are men who know how women have been caused to suffer from unwanted pregnancies. It would be far better if you used your energy and time to place contraceptives within the reach of all , and to persuade men that contraceptives are manly.

I think that in the US, which has the dubious distinction of being home to the largest scale abortion industry in the world, and where of the 800,000 or whatever the number is, of abortions that are performed each year are elective, the first thing that needs to change is the relevant federal law. I am, of course, referring to Roe vs Wade (1973). Roe vs Wade WILL be overturned in the near future. When it is, you will, I think, find that the rates of responsible use of ethical male and female contraception will then rise sharply.

Regards


Dachshund

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:55 am [


Your entire premise regarding abortion is based solely on the ridiculous and demeaning assumption that human life is sacred...note, ONLY human life. What a truly disgusting idea that is. By what holy magic did it become sacred?

Abortion ?


"Ask not for whom the bell tolls", Dubious.


Dachshund

<Not exactly, no. First, what constitutes a 'just war'? Overthrowing a tyrant is just, installing one is not; defending against invaders is just, invading is not. The 'just war' then is the war of defense (of homeland, of ally, of liberty). Second, if Johnny chose to fight, it's not (or shouldn't be) because he was told diddly. An on-going act of defense is an act of conscience.>

Yes, you do have a point however slight being too idealistically stated. When examining the root causes of a war they're seldom as black and white, just or unjust as you make it out to be. Wars are a messy business. Most often in the course of one - even if it were fully justified in its beginning - atrocities against civilians usually happen who are blameless consisting of women, the old and the young. Being blameless hasn't saved them. It's hardly ever saved anyone throughout the whole of history!

Also, when you say An on-going act of defense is an act of conscience. No, its not or extremely rare! What began as an act of defense (supposedly) almost invariably turns into acts of revenge in which innocence and blamelessness are no-longer considered and become victims of rage nonetheless. In wars revenge is as much of a motive as any improvised sense of justice in having one.

<To be innocent is to be blameless: by defintion, lil fetus-person is about as innocent as you can get.>

Of course it's blameless. It hasn't yet had a chance to blamed for anything but simply being "blameless" won't protect it from being dispensed with for reasons considered valid or not by whoever thinks they have a moral right and obligation to judge. Moralistic urgings provide little clue as to what its fate should be. As I keep saying, that's up to the host to determine. Obviously, humans often make the wrong decision whether to keep or dispense which only becomes apparent later.

<The distinction is: lil fetus-person is human. Lil fetus-person is not a dog or cow or giraffe. Lil fetus-person 'is' a person.>

Well now, that's a matter of perspective! Most humans live and die having only produced more humans on an already overloaded planet. What makes them so special compared to a dog or a cow? Because they're human and human life is sacred? Btw, there are a lot of dogs more valuable to humans than a lot of humans are to each other.

<My entire premise regarding abortion is based solely on the serious and profound fact that each human being, each person, owns himself.>

Owning oneself means being independent and being responsible. There is no logic or sense in saying a fetus 'owns itself' as if it were already a person with abilities and conscience.

Dachshund wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:27 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:55 am [


Your entire premise regarding abortion is based solely on the ridiculous and demeaning assumption that human life is sacred...note, ONLY human life. What a truly disgusting idea that is. By what holy magic did it become sacred?

Abortion ?


"Ask not for whom the bell tolls", Dubious.


Dachshund

Wow! That took a lot of effort. Any more pathetic attempts to make the incomprehensible look profound?