Philosophy Now Forum

Dachshund wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 10:46 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 10:17 pm

Dachshund wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 9:36 pm My position is that a human being comes into existence at conception, that is, when a male sperm cell fertilises a female's ovum in the womb.

That's the end of what you usefully wrote there.

I'm bored of explaining that honest people of good intention can disagree over this, and that it is what defines a person's position on the subject of this thread. Now I have to explain that to the world's most long winded nazi as well? No, no I don't. Anyone who still needs help understanding this is a retard.

Yeah, I pretty much expected that taking a substance ontology angle on the issue would overwhelm your tiny brain. You're part of a very big problem, you know (i.e; legalised abortion on demand throughout the entire 9 months of pregnancy in the US and UK) basically because you're too dumb to figure out why it's so wrong. God I hate democracy, it effectively enables dickhead to make law.

You can try your hand at clumsy reverse psychology and see if I give a fuck mate. My position has been clear, and it has been accurate, in that there is a fundamental difficulty for both sides in understanding the issue with the assumptions used by the other. But it is not possible for a fanatic to understand because that requires you to give somebody who disagrees with you some respect, a task which Henry can accomplish, but Mannie cannot, and who really cares if you can? I have no fucking interest in impressing or accommodating the noxious fuckwit who calls black people "low IQ monkeys".

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 11:00 pm

Dachshund wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 10:46 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 10:17 pm
That's the end of what you usefully wrote there.

I'm bored of explaining that honest people of good intention can disagree over this, and that it is what defines a person's position on the subject of this thread. Now I have to explain that to the world's most long winded nazi as well? No, no I don't. Anyone who still needs help understanding this is a retard.

Yeah, I pretty much expected that taking a substance ontology angle on the issue would overwhelm your tiny brain. You're part of a very big problem, you know (i.e; legalised abortion on demand throughout the entire 9 months of pregnancy in the US and UK) basically because you're too dumb to figure out why it's so wrong. God I hate democracy, it effectively enables dickhead to make law.

You can try your hand at clumsy reverse psychology and see if I give a fuck mate. My position has been clear, and it has been accurate, in that there is a fundamental difficulty for both sides in understanding the issue with the assumptions used by the other. But it is not possible for a fanatic to understand because that requires you to give somebody who disagrees with you some respect, a task which Henry can accomplish, but Mannie cannot, and who really cares if you can? I have no fucking interest in impressing or accommodating the noxious fuckwit who calls black people "low IQ monkeys".

Religion isn't a 'side' any more than it's a 'side' in the topic of evolution, with the creationist dipshits who get outratged by the fact that things change over time. Any argument based on superstition and misogyny is null and void by definiton, and that's why they have to hide behind lies and highly-paid spin-doctors to write for their websites and present crappy Youtube videos.

"there is a fundamental difficulty for both sides in understanding the issue with the assumptions used by the other"

I disagree.

Understanding isn't the problem.

Intractability is the problem.

It's not that we can't understand each other (cuz we do): we won't be moved, is the problem, not a one of us.

It's like that with all kinds of crap.

Belinda, for example, is certain liberal democracy/social democracy, if not a superior path, is the preferable path, one leading to a measure of civilization for everyone. Me: I see free enterprise and the night watchman as the path to individual excellence and thriving. We, she & me, listen to one another, understand one another, and still come away certain the other is dead wrong.

Free will is another example: Belinda (I ain't pickin' on you, B, I swear) and me sit on opposite sides of the subject. We listen, understand, and still think the other is wrong.

If changin' minds were easy we wouldn't need law makers, law keepers, law arbitrators (and guns to keep the makers, keepers, and arbitrators in their proper place).

We all think we're rational, but -- at best -- we occasionally 'reason', often clumsily and never without a hearty dose of emotion and personal bias stirred into the mix,

Frankly, I'm amazed we can cooperate at all.

Anyway...

I began this thread with a plain, raw question, 'person or meat?' I never expected resolution, only the assertion & defense of positions. As I reckon it: the thread has been a success.

How do you answer a meaningless 'question'? You have put a slash between 'life' and 'meat'. What the fuck is that supposed to mean? I realise that you pretend to be a tough 'man of action' but expecting us to believe that you consume your animal protein alive is going a bit too far.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:26 am

Henry,

Just ignore her. She is an extremely nasty, bitter and vulgar woman.


D

Dachshund wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 4:31 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:26 am

Henry,

Just ignore her. She is an extremely nasty, bitter and vulgar woman.


D

What do you think about tampons and the risk of toxic shock syndrome?



Do you think the benefits of HRT outweigh the risks?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:29 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:01 pm Nevertheless, if women did not have access to abortion, rapes would likely decrease.

What a daft thing to say?
LOL

It’s not at all difficult to understand.
Perhaps an example will break through your paradigm that abortion is the immovable object.

- Let’s say, abortion is not available, as stated.
- Let’s say, the society is … the father.
- This means that if the daughter is raped and cannot get an abortion because abortions are not available, then the society, which is the father, must be inconvenienced with continuing to support the daughter and the baby.
- To watch out for his own self interests, the society, which is the father in this example, will take preventive measures to see that his daughter does not get raped, and does not have sex without legal ties to the partner.
- Basic logic: When a society gets its fill of a problem, the problem disappears. If the problem doesn’t disappear, society has not gotten its fill of the problem.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 7:03 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:01 pm Nevertheless, if women did not have access to abortion, rapes would likely decrease. Society wouldn’t tolerate the inconvenience of unwanted births caused by rape, so corrections would naturally be made in due course, out of necessity.

94% of abortions (including 1% medical emergency), don't even involve an allegation of sexual impropriety.

So as horrendous as rape is, there isn't even a suggestion by the women involved that it's implicated in the vast majority of abortions. Thus, any idea that "society" at large is likely to be "inconvenienced" by waves of "unwanted births caused by rape" is just not borne out in the self-reporting of aborting women.

Let's focus on the main problem, the 93%.

A threat to the life of the mother is an oft cited justification for abortion.
Rape is also another oft cited justification for abortion.

Thus, addressing these two justifications for abortion that are made by abortion activists is a valid approach to the abortion topic, even if doing so reveals that these are merely ostensible justifications, as both the statistics you cite, and the reasoning I use, indicate.

The Green Party
(who is bringing the dip?)


Soylent Green is People!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zAFA-hamZ0

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:39 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:40 am Walker wrote:

When pro-abortion activists speak of a threat to the mother’s life, don’t they also mean a threat to the mother’s perceived quality of life?

Not only the mother's but also the new baby's siblings who might already be starving.

The evidence does not support your narrative, which makes the narrative delusional. The evidence is, these days poor folks are characteristically overweight, so a woman who does not abort is not likely to have starving children due to poverty.

The cause of starving children might not be poverty, which would support your narrative. Neither is the cause of starving children, birth.

The cause of starving children in many cases is the mother's expensive, chemical addictions. What is the cause of that?

Really Walker! You need to look at the economics of food and poverty and then understand obesity is one result of poor diet.

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 6:01 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:29 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:01 pm Nevertheless, if women did not have access to abortion, rapes would likely decrease.

What a daft thing to say?
LOL

It’s not at all difficult to understand.
Perhaps an example will break through your paradigm that abortion is the immovable object.

- Let’s say, abortion is not available, as stated.
- Let’s say, the society is … the father.
- This means that if the daughter is raped and cannot get an abortion because abortions are not available, then the society, which is the father, must be inconvenienced with continuing to support the daughter and the baby.
- To watch out for his own self interests, the society, which is the father in this example, will take preventive measures to see that his daughter does not get raped, and does not have sex without legal ties to the partner.
- Basic logic: When a society gets its fill of a problem, the problem disappears. If the problem doesn’t disappear, society has not gotten its fill of the problem.

A society that would condemn a woman to carry a rapists child, does not give a shit about the inconvenience a woman suffers for having to look after the brat.
You are insane.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 12:30 am "there is a fundamental difficulty for both sides in understanding the issue with the assumptions used by the other"

I disagree.

Understanding isn't the problem.

Intractability is the problem.

It's not that we can't understand each other (cuz we do): we won't be moved, is the problem, not a one of us.

You might be an exception that proves the rule tbh. Libertarians are generally among the pro choice peeps for obvious reasons, and unlike most people, your own position seems to have moved somewhat in the last 18 months from reluctant pro choice to what it is now, where you have a sort of Von Mises self ownership thing propping up a hard to define spiritualism situation. You have put yourself in quite an uncomfortable tangle there, it must be fairly difficult now and then to agree with yourself (which is fine by me, it is the natural and proper state of affairs).

In this stuff though, we have a public/private language problem. People on either side of a toxic debate understand a set of public concepts such as human and person in incompatible ways, and thus for some the phrase "aborting a fetus is not murdering a child" is entirely incomprehensible - something Mannie gave a clear example of just now. Something is wrong with the way in which personhood works as a part of our shared public language, we are able to use it privately in ways that it doesn't work publicly.

We all have powers of imagination, even those of us who aren't very expert in wielding them. So we can imagine what it is like to hold some other opinion than the one we do hold. But we fool ourselves if we suppose we can truly understand what it is like to hold such an opinion based on a fundamentally different understanding of what it means to be a person than the way we actually understand that idea.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 12:30 am It's like that with all kinds of crap.

It certainly is. Concepts of justice and belonging are even more ill behaved than personhood, which is largely why discussions on immigration are even more soul destroying than those on abortion.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 12:30 am I began this thread with a plain, raw question, 'person or meat?' I never expected resolution, only the assertion & defense of positions. As I reckon it: the thread has been a success.

Well, I guess until Walker got weird about rape, it wasn't among the worst!

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 11:08 am

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 6:01 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:29 pm

What a daft thing to say?
LOL

It’s not at all difficult to understand.
Perhaps an example will break through your paradigm that abortion is the immovable object.

- Let’s say, abortion is not available, as stated.
- Let’s say, the society is … the father.
- This means that if the daughter is raped and cannot get an abortion because abortions are not available, then the society, which is the father, must be inconvenienced with continuing to support the daughter and the baby.
- To watch out for his own self interests, the society, which is the father in this example, will take preventive measures to see that his daughter does not get raped, and does not have sex without legal ties to the partner.
- Basic logic: When a society gets its fill of a problem, the problem disappears. If the problem doesn’t disappear, society has not gotten its fill of the problem.

A society that would condemn a woman to carry a rapists child, does not give a shit about the inconvenience a woman suffers for having to look after the brat.
You are insane.

You’re not making sense. When there is no rape, there is no carrying of the rapist’s child.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:00 pm Well, I guess until Walker got weird about rape, it wasn't among the worst!

Examining methods to prevent the slaughter of innocents isn't weird.

'Tis abortion that is weird.