Philosophy Now Forum

the failure in most arguments lie in how the argument is made...

the one making the argument takes a statement and isolates it..

for example, take this typical argument and see/spot the problem...

"Abortion is wrong"

this statement has no context... wrong compared to what?
Ok, one might expand the argument to this:

"Abortion is wrong because all life is sacred"

if all life is sacred, then why aren't you arguing for the end of the
"Death penalty?" or perhaps for a greater amount of money to
cancer research? Cancer will kill over 600,00 people this year...
who not crusade as hard against cancer ..as some do against abortion?

this take on the abortion argument is about a context issue..
why is abortion a "greater" crime than other crimes?
on might say, fetus has no voice... but isn't that the point?
a fetus cannot speak until after it is born...a baby has no self-awareness
no conscious self until 15 to 18 months of age... on might make the argument
that human life begins with this self-awareness...

why is abortion a bigger issue than the death penalty?
start here... put some context into the abortion issue by an
comparison against the death penalty...

how is one necessary to stop and the other isn't?

compare and contrast abortion to something else....

Kropotkin

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 6:39 pmwhy is abortion a bigger issue than the death penalty?

Precisely. USA is full of hypocrisy...case in point:- Where one can swear on the Bible to tell the truth, yet one can be killed for their actions (contrary to Christianity - the content of the bible - thou shalt not kill)

Abortion should be sweet FA to a Christian - after all, Christ's very existence was proof that GOD has access to the womb of woman - hence, if one considers that a pregnancy is a soul and should be returned to the great grace of GOD .....SHOULD ABORT, rather than populate the planet with muppets bred from the system of Govt institutions.etc...

MURDER - is a different kettle of fish. Murder is of a fully developed human - which has family\friends loving that person. HENCE..the BIG difference since the love of family\friends of the murdered victim can borderline destroy them....the love of a foetus is non existent - it may be a soul at some point, but return it to GOD prior to likely making it a ****.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 6:39 pm the failure in most arguments lie in how the argument is made...

The failure in most arguments are that they are NOT sound and valid.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 6:39 pm the one making the argument takes a statement and isolates it..

for example, take this typical argument and see/spot the problem...

"Abortion is wrong"

this statement has no context... wrong compared to what?
Ok, one might expand the argument to this:

But that was NOT even an 'argument'. That was just a statement, which, by the way, was just based on one's thinking.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 6:39 pm "Abortion is wrong because all life is sacred"

But this is still NOT an 'argument'. Again, this is just another statement, which, again, was also just based on one's thinking.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 6:39 pm if all life is sacred, then why aren't you arguing for the end of the
"Death penalty?"

Who are 'you' talking to here?

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 6:39 pm or perhaps for a greater amount of money to
cancer research? Cancer will kill over 600,00 people this year...
who not crusade as hard against cancer ..as some do against abortion?

Because they do not want to.

Why do you do and do not do what you do and do not do?

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 6:39 pm this take on the abortion argument is about a context issue..
why is abortion a "greater" crime than other crimes?
on might say, fetus has no voice... but isn't that the point?
a fetus cannot speak until after it is born...a baby has no self-awareness
no conscious self until 15 to 18 months of age... on might make the argument
that human life begins with this self-awareness...

why is abortion a bigger issue than the death penalty?

But who is saying that abortion is a bigger issue than the death penalty?

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 6:39 pm start here... put some context into the abortion issue by an
comparison against the death penalty...

how is one necessary to stop and the other isn't?

Do you mean WHY is one necessary to stop and this other is not?

If yes, then who are you posing this question to EXACTLY?

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 6:39 pm compare and contrast abortion to something else....

Kropotkin

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 6:39 pm the failure in most arguments lie in how the argument is made...

the one making the argument takes a statement and isolates it..

for example, take this typical argument and see/spot the problem...

"Abortion is wrong"

this statement has no context... wrong compared to what?
Ok, one might expand the argument to this:

"Abortion is wrong because all life is sacred"

if all life is sacred, then why aren't you arguing for the end of the
"Death penalty?" or perhaps for a greater amount of money to
cancer research? Cancer will kill over 600,00 people this year...
who not crusade as hard against cancer ..as some do against abortion?

this take on the abortion argument is about a context issue..
why is abortion a "greater" crime than other crimes?
on might say, fetus has no voice... but isn't that the point?
a fetus cannot speak until after it is born...a baby has no self-awareness
no conscious self until 15 to 18 months of age... on might make the argument
that human life begins with this self-awareness...

why is abortion a bigger issue than the death penalty?
start here... put some context into the abortion issue by an
comparison against the death penalty...

how is one necessary to stop and the other isn't?

compare and contrast abortion to something else....

Kropotkin

Let's set aside the obvious silliness of PK considering statements to be arguments...
What we have here is an argument against someone who says Abortion is wrong because all life is sacred
AND
is not against the death penalty OR does not argue against the death penalty with enough vigor
AND
doesn't somehow help the fight against cancer enough (in PK's eyes).

How many people fit this category?
And if you want to call people out on the hypocrisy (or 'hypocrisy') of being for the death penalty but against abortions, shouldn't you include the obvious objections to equating the two situations. Note: I am not saying those arguments are correct, but it's as if PK has never heard the reasons why people view those as two different situations. And of course there are people against the death penalty and against abortion.

How many people are in this subset?

But then does anyone see that PK's argument has somehow demonstrated......
the failure in most arguments including abortion...
`?

This OP is really cool and so is the OP!

I feel like an animal and I hear we are ... animals!

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 5:47 pm This OP is really cool and so is the OP!

I feel like an animal and I hear we are ... animals!

Where did you hear this from?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 1:29 am

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 5:47 pm This OP is really cool and so is the OP!

I feel like an animal and I hear we are ... animals!

Where did you hear this from?

From Mr. Biology. Are we not all animals?

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 3:26 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 1:29 am

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 5:47 pm This OP is really cool and so is the OP!

I feel like an animal and I hear we are ... animals!

Where did you hear this from?

From Mr. Biology. Are we not all animals?

As can be seen here, once again, these people could NOT just read a question without ASSUMING some thing.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 3:33 am

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 3:26 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 1:29 am

Where did you hear this from?

From Mr. Biology. Are we not all animals?

As can be seen here, once again, these people could NOT just read a question without ASSUMING some thing.

A question, as you rightly point out, is more assumption-free than an answer; nevertheless, the meaning of words comes with metaphysical and other baggage, oui mon ami?

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 3:58 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 3:33 am

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 3:26 am

From Mr. Biology. Are we not all animals?

As can be seen here, once again, these people could NOT just read a question without ASSUMING some thing.

A question, as you rightly point out, is more assumption-free than an answer; nevertheless, the meaning of words comes with metaphysical and other baggage, oui mon ami?

But that is NOT what I was pointing out. Again, this here is just another example of Wrongly ASSUMING, BEFORE CLARIFYING. And, as well as another example of the unnecessary ASSUMING of some thing, which these people would do when they just read some thing.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 7:41 am

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 3:58 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 3:33 am

As can be seen here, once again, these people could NOT just read a question without ASSUMING some thing.

A question, as you rightly point out, is more assumption-free than an answer; nevertheless, the meaning of words comes with metaphysical and other baggage, oui mon ami?

But that is NOT what I was pointing out. Again, this here is just another example of Wrongly ASSUMING, BEFORE CLARIFYING. And, as well as another example of the unnecessary ASSUMING of some thing, which these people would do when they just read some thing.

I see. Is it possible that we're all assuming (some things we're not supposed to)?

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 8:08 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 7:41 am

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 3:58 am

A question, as you rightly point out, is more assumption-free than an answer; nevertheless, the meaning of words comes with metaphysical and other baggage, oui mon ami?

But that is NOT what I was pointing out. Again, this here is just another example of Wrongly ASSUMING, BEFORE CLARIFYING. And, as well as another example of the unnecessary ASSUMING of some thing, which these people would do when they just read some thing.

I see. Is it possible that we're all assuming (some things we're not supposed to)?

It may well be, but I doubt it very much.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 8:24 am

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 8:08 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 7:41 am

But that is NOT what I was pointing out. Again, this here is just another example of Wrongly ASSUMING, BEFORE CLARIFYING. And, as well as another example of the unnecessary ASSUMING of some thing, which these people would do when they just read some thing.

I see. Is it possible that we're all assuming (some things we're not supposed to)?

It may well be, but I doubt it very much.

What an interesting response!

the failure in most arguments lie in how the argument is made...

Sure, and then, self-reference in the OP:

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 6:39 pm the failure in most arguments lie in how the argument is made...

the one making the argument takes a statement and isolates it..

for example, take this typical argument and see/spot the problem...

"Abortion is wrong"

this statement has no context... wrong compared to what?
Ok, one might expand the argument to this:

"Abortion is wrong because all life is sacred"

You heard of moral intuitionism?

In principle "Abortion is wrong because all life is sacred" is intuitively right based on some inherent intuition within the person's psyche relevant to humanity.

However the application by theists is wrong which has nothing to do with morality per se but rather that is a dogmatic religious ideology and practice.
If that is converted to law that would be Politics and not Morality.

The above is the reason why Morality Proper must be independent from Politics, Religion and other ideologies.

If "Abortion is wrong because all life is sacred" is not acceptable, then what is acceptable would be,
"Abortion is not wrong, thus right"
Whatever is moral must be universal.
If "Abortion is not wrong, thus right" has to be Universal, then in theory and potentially we are destined for the extinction of the human species.

What is most effective from the Morality Proper perspective is,
we must recognize as factual in the moral sense that,
"Abortion is wrong because all life is sacred"
but merely as a universal principle for guidance ONLY and not to be enforceable.

In practice, given the current conditions of humanity, abortions must be allowable but with the recognition that it is a negative variance against the overriding principle of the expected Standard.

With our current conditions it is natural abortions are necessary due to various reasons, but humanity must bear in mind to strive to reduce abortion to the minimum to as near to the standard as possible leaving only for real medical and critical reasons [rape, etc.].
After all the main reason why abortions arose at present is due to the uncontrollable lusts of the people ending with the need for abortions.

As such we need to look forward to the future [next 100 years] to cultivate greater control over human sexual impulses that will avoid unplanned fertilization while maximizing sexual pleasure.

In principle "Abortion is wrong because all life is sacred" is an objective moral fact but providing for variations as stated above.