Philosophy Now Forum

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 11:45 pm Cancer has a 'right to life' too.

You clearly don't know what "cancer" is.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 12:47 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 11:45 pm Cancer has a 'right to life' too.

You clearly don't know what "cancer" is.

Cancer is a living organism with a 'right to life'. You clearly know nothing about abortion, or pregnancy, or childbirth, or motherhood, or women......

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 12:56 am Cancer is a living organism with a 'right to life'.

I understand why you would think so.

After all, you believe that all organisms are value-equal...which is to say, devoid of any special value. You have no particular reason to privilege sentience, or morality, or cognition, or anything else, if you're a Materialist. They're all just Materialist features in an indifferent universe. And in such a universe, there can be no "rights" for anything.

But, of course, I think your whole ontology is wrong.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:31 pm If being alive isn't a right, then it's quite obvious that there are no rights.

Being alive is not a right. No one is obliged to keep anyone else alive. If there were rights, they would only be rights, "to do," not, "to have." The problem with the concept of, "rights," is the notion the one can have a claim to something just because they exist. One does not have a right to life at anyone else's expense.

So, if you don't like the fact there is not a right to life, only a right to do whatever one can do to keep themselves alive without interference from anyone else, then, you are correct, there are no rights.

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:45 pm All sentient life has instincts. In humans, the suckling and grasping ones come to mind.

Infant sucking and grasping are reflexes, not examples of instinct. Instinct is a pre-programmed pattern of behavior enjoyed by all creatures except human beings, that automatically provides the behavior required of an organism to survive. An animal does not have to learn which things are food and which are poison, how acquire its food, what kind of environment it needs or how to build whatever kind of shelter it needs to live. Instinct provides the behavior required to achieve all those things.

A human being must discover, or learn form others who have discovered them, what the requirements of his life are, what food is, and what poison is, how to acquire food and prepare it for human consumption, what kind of shelter he needs and how to find or make it. The reason a human being must learn all these things is because nature does not provide the automatic instinctive behavior required for his survival, and even after he has discovered what he must do to live, he must consciously choose to do it.

An animal's instinctive behavior ensures its survival and it has not choice about. Man is the only creature that can choose to behave in a way contrary to the requirements of its nature and die.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 8:51 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 8:31 pm

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 7:24 pm The right to mate is at the root of our love of killing and war. It is our first instinct after survival.

Human beings do not have instinct. Only non-human animals have instinct. Instinct and minds are mutually exclusive--what has instinct does not have a mind, what has a mind does not have instinct. Only you can determine which you have.

What a stupid comment.

When I was in the third grade our teacher tried to teach us that camels stored water in their humps. I raised my hand and was called on to speak. When I pointed out that camels stored water in their stomachs and fat in their humps, the teacher had the same brilliant response as you: "What a stupid comment." Funny how it is usually those who are truly stupid who call others stupid. I know, of course, that does not pertain to you.

Please see my response to GIA.

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:46 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 8:51 pm What a stupid comment.

I agree but tried to be more diplomatic.

Don't be diplomatic, just be honest.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:48 pm

You know what it is IC, because you quoted me. "You have this fixation on abortion..." but you left off the question, "but you never make the point of what you propose should be done about it? You just keep repeating how awful abortion is."

Oh. I'll answer that now.

Adoption.

That's your answer? If your answer is just a recommendation that women put their children out for adoption rather aborting, why not cut to the chase and recommend they just not have abortions?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:48 pm

Why is it abortion that so excites you?

What is it about killing babies that fails to upset you, RC?

I suppose for the same reason almost nothing upsets me. There are many things I regard as very evil, but it's an intellectual thing, not an emotional one. I loath war, terrorism, cruelty, dishonesty, all non-defensive violence, government oppression, ignorance and incompetence, but I do not sit around wringing my hands because there is much of those kinds of things in the world--I'm too busy living my life and achieving all I can to allow those things which do not directly touch my life to affect my equanimity.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:48 pm

If they aren't your children and the woman isn't your wife, it's just none of your business

Human rights are everybody's business.

If there were such a thing as human rights there would be only one: the right to live one's life without the interference of anyone else. How anyone else lives their life, so long as they are not a direct physical threat to you, is none or your or anyone else's business.

[So-called, "human rights," is a false and purely political notion with no purpose but to justify coercive government.]

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:48 pm

To imply that a woman has an abortion because she, "does not want any of her children to be happy without her," and that "... she'd rather have them dead," is nothing but a hateful judgment that is not your place to make.

You're only upset because...

I know you cannot imagine having a value judgement without some kind of emotional turmoil. I've already explained my judgements are not emotional at all.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:48 pm As for the stuff at the end about the relationship between abortion and the criminal justice system, I have no jurisdiction. I am neither in a position to make policy nor to enforce laws.

Why the evasion? I know you don't make or enforce laws, and you know that is not what I was asking. I was asking what, in your opinion, the law ought to be, and how it ought to be enforced.

I'm asking you to explain what you meant by what you wrote to GIA with regard to US corruption: "In regards to their abortion laws? Darn right, they're corrupt." So you must have an opinion.

So, once again, just to see if you can be honest; in your opinion:

Would uncorrupt US law prohibit abortion?

If so, would uncorrupt US law require women who have abortions to be punished?

If so, what kind of punishment would uncorrupt US law impose?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 2:38 am Being alive is not a right.

So you say.

But you did not make yourself. Your life, like every other life, was a gift, which you received from the hand of Another. And nobody has a right to take it from you. And you have no right to take it from anybody else.

One can refuse to acknowledge that. But not acknowledging it will not change what is the case.

But this is not the point of the OP. So perhaps we should return to that.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 4:27 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:48 pm Adoption.

That's your answer? If your answer is just a recommendation that women put their children out for adoption rather aborting, why not cut to the chase and recommend they just not have abortions?

Absolutely.

But the adoption option sweeps away that foolish, shallow and selfish excuse, that the baby "would be better off dead." Very clearly, that is not remotely true.

You and I have a simple controversy.

You're advocating that women be permitted to kill their children at will, for no better reason than that they don't want anyone else to have them.

I'm advocating that they put them up for adoption to homes that are desperate to have them.

It's very clear to me which is the moral option. If it's unclear to you, then I really can't think of why.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 4:42 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 4:27 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:48 pm Adoption.

That's your answer? If your answer is just a recommendation that women put their children out for adoption rather aborting, why not cut to the chase and recommend they just not have abortions?

Absolutely.

But the adoption option sweeps away that foolish, shallow and selfish excuse, that the baby "would be better off dead." Very clearly, that is not remotely true.

You and I have a simple controversy.

You're advocating that women be permitted to kill their children at will, for no better reason than that they don't want anyone else to have them.

I'm advocating that they put them up for adoption to homes that are desperate to have them.

It's very clear to me which is the moral option. If it's unclear to you, then I really can't think of why.

If women want to adopt out then they adopt out. It has nothing to do with you.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 3:07 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 8:51 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 8:31 pm
Human beings do not have instinct. Only non-human animals have instinct. Instinct and minds are mutually exclusive--what has instinct does not have a mind, what has a mind does not have instinct. Only you can determine which you have.

What a stupid comment.

When I was in the third grade our teacher tried to teach us that camels stored water in their humps. I raised my hand and was called on to speak. When I pointed out that camels stored water in their stomachs and fat in their humps, the teacher had the same brilliant response as you: "What a stupid comment." Funny how it is usually those who are truly stupid who call others stupid. I know, of course, that does not pertain to you.

Please see my response to GIA.

What a stupid comment.

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2020 9:46 pm Why do men like to kill men?

At times of war, many men smile in the anticipation of killing another man. Sons love to anticipate killing as well. Killing is the epitome of personal drama and that is why we love it. Fathers love to see it in their children, and the children are eager to emulate their parents.

We just love war, and it we do not collectively stop loving it, it looks like we will go extinct. We are just to god damned powerful for this little spaceship earth.

Nice that modern humans, as a species we are so nice that we mostly do economic war. Not so nice when we wage military war. Unfortunately, we now seem to be waring against our own existence.

Better to trade, even with nature; so why do we seem eager to destroy ourselves by killing the earth?

The notion of honorable killing served us well to date. That notion, because of population pressures and M.A.D., now means more of an honorable suicide or genocide by all the military forces of the world, should they be stupid enough to get to a nuclear WWIII.

We men are no longer doing the best that we can for our children or our own best end. We have not curbed our love of killing enough and have put our full global habitat at risk of extinction. Stupid is as stupid does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIQynsWpBpQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxoxPapPxXk

Regards
DL

We have genetic issues. Some religious people according to study are inclined to religion because of gene: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... clination/

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 4:42 am You're advocating that women be permitted to kill their children at will ...

Absolutely not! I'm not advocating anything, but, if I were, I would advocate that both men and women use their minds, rather than their feelings and desires, to make choices that would be good for them, both short-term and long-term, so women would not find themselves in such situations where they feel desperate enough to make such a choice. I think it would be much better for a woman in that situation to choose to put a baby out for adoption. But it's not my place to make anyone else do, or not do, anything.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 4:42 am But the adoption option sweeps away that foolish ...

Oh good! Then the problem is solved, at least in the United States. I'm not sure what country you were referring to when you wrote: "In regards to their abortion laws? Darn right, they're corrupt," since it's perfectly legal to put your child out for adoption and it's perfectly legal to adopt a child in the US. As far as I know, it is in most Western countries. So the, "adoption option," is already in place.

I'm glad you've made this all clear.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:57 pm

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:50 pm By that definition, the U.S. and all so called civilized countries are corrupt...

In regards to their abortion laws?

Darn right, they're corrupt.

So freedom of choice is a corruption to you. Ok.

Regards
DL