Strike While the Iron is Hot

Armoured · Aug 2, 2015

MikeK said:
We have no Federal law governing when abortion may happen - any moment up to birth is legal.

Huh. Well TIL.

I favor a compromise path, in which pro-lifers and pro-choices get together and adopt legislation that allows abortion for those who "need" it most while offering additional help to mothers and their children and placing strong controls on when abortion is and is not legal. Unfortunately, the majority of pro-lifers and pro-choices are extremists who will not accept any compromise, so we'll continue to get what we've always got.

My personal opinion is that it needs to be legal, and accessible. Morally and ethically, of course, I believe that in all but medically necessary cases, you shouldn't do it, but I defend the idea of it being an available option. Kind of how I feel about people being Muslims.

From a legislative position, I believe abortion could effectively be stopped overnight, at very little cost or upset, but the people yelling loudest about how "pro-life" they are would never let it happen.

Armoured · Aug 2, 2015

MoonlessNight said:
I would define a human being as an individual which is human. If there was no context to suggest more precise definitions, I would define "human" as "member of the human species" and "individual" as "single living organism." I would argue that this is the definition which best matches up with what people generally mean when they say "human being."

You want to talk about self awareness and sense of self. That's fine, but I don't think that these are the first things that people mean when they say "human being." For example, I think that most people would say that someone in a coma is a human being. Again, if your definition does not allow this than that is okay in the sense that we can discuss it, but you need to make it clear.

Especially if you challenge someone else to prove that something is a human being. It would be most charitable to assume a common definition for such a claim, not your personal specialized one.

OK, then if mere inclusion in the set "living human organism" is what we're talking about, what's special about that? Why is that, in and of itself, anything particularly worth protection?

MoonlessNight · Aug 2, 2015

Armoured said:
OK, then if mere inclusion in the set "living human organism" is what we're talking about, what's special about that? Why is that, in and of itself, anything particularly worth protection?

If you are a believer in lebensunwertes Leben, it'll take more than a few posts on a forum to convince you otherwise.

Maybe we could search for common ground by asking why any life whatsoever should be granted protection?

Armoured · Aug 2, 2015

MoonlessNight said:
If you are a believer in lebensunwertes Leben, it'll take more than a few posts on a forum to convince you otherwise.

Maybe we could search for common ground by asking why any life whatsoever should be granted protection?

Like Jainism?

But seriously, I generally support the protection of life, any life, except where killing is necessary.

But my point that I originally made to Pdudgeon, I guess, could be rephrased as "come up with an argument that foetuses are inherently worthy of protection, and you win the debate".

I'm not the one you need to convince here.

MoonlessNight · Aug 2, 2015

Armoured said:
Like Jainism?

But seriously, I generally support the protection of life, any life, except where killing is necessary.

But my point that I originally made to Pdudgeon, I guess, could be rephrased as "come up with an argument that foetuses are inherently worthy of protection, and you win the debate".

I'm not the one you need to convince here.

You miss interpret my post. I am not asking you whether all life should be protected but whether any life should be protected.

That is, for instance, why is it worthwhile to protect an adult's life?

I am assuming that you have a reason for why it is good and necessary for the government to have laws against murder and such. But there are many different sorts of reasons that you might have, and until we know what they are, it is impossible to convince you that unborn children in particular should be protected.

Armoured · Aug 2, 2015

MoonlessNight said:
You miss interpret my post. I am not asking you whether all life should be protected but whether any life should be protected.

That is, for instance, why is it worthwhile to protect an adult's life?

I am assuming that you have a reason for why it is good and necessary for the government to have laws against murder and such. But there are many different sorts of reasons that you might have, and until we know what they are, it is impossible to convince you that unborn children in particular should be protected.

Um, similar reasons. Self aware entities generally don't like the idea of being killed. "Do unto other" therefore means we shouldn't kill them. My personal philosophy is basically that.

MoonlessNight · Aug 2, 2015

Armoured said:
Um, similar reasons. Self aware entities generally don't like the idea of being killed. "Do unto other" therefore means we shouldn't kill them. My personal philosophy is basically that.

I asked why they deserved legal protections, not whether it was moral to murder.

Unless your position is that everything which is immoral should be illegal?

In any case, the main reason I was asking was to see whether you had any context to the challenge that you presented. That is, whether you were asking whether there should be laws against abortion, or whether it is moral to protect the unborn, or whether it is merely nice, or what. I'm not sure that you know which question you were asking, which means that it will be impossible to convince you.

So don't be surprised when no one gives you an argument that you find convincing.

Mountain_Girl406 · Aug 2, 2015

MikeK said:
We have no Federal law governing when abortion may happen - any moment up to birth is legal. I favor a compromise path, in which pro-lifers and pro-choices get together and adopt legislation that allows abortion for those who "need" it most while offering additional help to mothers and their children and placing strong controls on when abortion is and is not legal. Unfortunately, the majority of pro-lifers and pro-choices are extremists who will not accept any compromise, so we'll continue to get what we've always got.

I think a path like this would do a lot to reduce abortions and change the unfortunate impression that pro life people don't care enough about the children once they are born.

MikeK · Aug 2, 2015

Mountain_Girl406 said:
I think a path like this would do a lot to reduce abortions and change the unfortunate impression that pro life people don't care enough about the children once they are born.

The fact that nobody is advocating for permanent, meaningful compromise is evidence that both sides believe that they are benefitting from their stance on this polarizing issue - and they probably both are. Neither side is really interested in preventing abortions or in helping women, they are both interested in money and power, and Joe 6-pack is quick to feed the beasts what they crave.

Fantine · Aug 2, 2015

So if only 8% of liberal Democrats think a politician's position on abortion is a deal breaker, that's not good news?

In very real terms, it means that some politicians in red or purple states can be opposed to abortion without catching a lot of flack. If pressed, they can tell liberals, "Well, hey, I'm running here in the state of Republica--I've got to compromise on some issues to catch the independent votes, and I would rather compromise on this than on the minimum wage, or clean air...."

I think that in red and purple states most of the 8% would understand that because all they would have to do is look at the alternatives!

They could present a practical case: Birth control is free and available. Unwanted pregnancies should be as rare as measles and smallpox.

Neutralizing a party whose moral positions are minimal should be easy--if Democrats just became more practical.

Yes, I realize that there are some pro-preborn-life voters whose natural inclinations are conservative on a wide variety of issues--but we don't need to turn all of them. A few would be enough.

Armoured · Aug 2, 2015

MoonlessNight said:
I asked why they deserved legal protections, not whether it was moral to murder.

Unless your position is that everything which is immoral should be illegal?

In any case, the main reason I was asking was to see whether you had any context to the challenge that you presented. That is, whether you were asking whether there should be laws against abortion, or whether it is moral to protect the unborn, or whether it is merely nice, or what. I'm not sure that you know which question you were asking, which means that it will be impossible to convince you.

So don't be surprised when no one gives you an argument that you find convincing.

Sorry, what? Shared morality and ethics are the general basis for legality, as well as the idea of minimising harm.

You want to play the "but isn't that kinda arbitrary?" game for a reason, or what? What are you trying to demonstrate, exactly? You're the one who wants to convince people that abortion is wrong, so why am I defending my moral philosophy?

Rhamiel · Aug 3, 2015

Armoured said:
Sorry, what? Shared morality and ethics are the general basis for legality, as well as the idea of minimising harm.

You want to play the "but isn't that kinda arbitrary?" game for a reason, or what? What are you trying to demonstrate, exactly? You're the one who wants to convince people that abortion is wrong, so why am I defending my moral philosophy?

he is trying to get an idea of how you think
of your basic moral philosophy and your understanding of human rights

MoonlessNight · Aug 3, 2015

Armoured said:
Sorry, what? Shared morality and ethics are the general basis for legality, as well as the idea of minimising harm.

You want to play the "but isn't that kinda arbitrary?" game for a reason, or what? What are you trying to demonstrate, exactly? You're the one who wants to convince people that abortion is wrong, so why am I defending my moral philosophy?

In order to convince anyone of anything you have to start by finding out what common ground is shared. Even if the answer is absolutely none, that is still helpful because it leads to a lot less wasted time.

For instance, Peter Singer is an explicit advocate of infanticide and euthanasia, because he does not think that there is any inherent value to human life. It would do no good to change his position on abortion to demonstrate that an unborn child is a living human organism, because that doesn't enter into his reasoning as to whether it should be killed. Instead it would be necessary to start by arguing that there is a real value to human life.

I'm asking the hypothetical questions that I am to find out where you fall on these positions.

I'm also stressing that context matters because I don't think that it's possible to convince someone of much on an internet forum, certainly not to change their whole worldview. All I am concerned with now is determining what you mean by "Come up with an empirical argument for that, and you win the debate" in relation to the statement that "babies are still human beings." You certainly don't mean to show that they are human; we have already seen that. You are instead talking about why they should be protected in the same way that adults are. But this is a different question on a legal and moral level, even in your own philosophy. You have said that you oppose the ending of any life (which I presume to mean human or non-human) except where necessary. But would you advocate laws which punished killing a squirrel for sport in the same way that we punish murder? I doubt it. So there is more going on in your reasoning.

And until we know what that reasoning is, it will be impossible for anyone to convince you. They will at best argue past you, and you will dismiss the argument as unconvincing.

Armoured · Aug 3, 2015

MoonlessNight said:
In order to convince anyone of anything you have to start by finding out what common ground is shared. Even if the answer is absolutely none, that is still helpful because it leads to a lot less wasted time.

For instance, Peter Singer is an explicit advocate of infanticide and euthanasia, because he does not think that there is any inherent value to human life. It would do no good to change his position on abortion to demonstrate that an unborn child is a living human organism, because that doesn't enter into his reasoning as to whether it should be killed. Instead it would be necessary to start by arguing that there is a real value to human life.

I'm asking the hypothetical questions that I am to find out where you fall on these positions.

I'm also stressing that context matters because I don't think that it's possible to convince someone of much on an internet forum, certainly not to change their whole worldview. All I am concerned with now is determining what you mean by "Come up with an empirical argument for that, and you win the debate" in relation to the statement that "babies are still human beings." You certainly don't mean to show that they are human; we have already seen that. You are instead talking about why they should be protected in the same way that adults are. But this is a different question on a legal and moral level, even in your own philosophy. You have said that you oppose the ending of any life (which I presume to mean human or non-human) except where necessary. But would you advocate laws which punished killing a squirrel for sport in the same way that we punish murder? I doubt it. So there is more going on in your reasoning.

And until we know what that reasoning is, it will be impossible for anyone to convince you. They will at best argue past you, and you will dismiss the argument as unconvincing.

I'm not the one you need to convince. I already agree abortion is immoral. But I also acknowledge that my position is based on subjective beliefs. There's nothing objectively immoral about it that I can identify. If you can identify what is inherently valuable about life that happens to be human, that would be great. I can't, though. Now, the life of a human being (sentient, self aware, all that jazz) I can make a better argument for being inherently valuable. But merely being human biological material? I can't.

Does that help?

MoonlessNight · Aug 3, 2015

Armoured said:
I'm not the one you need to convince. I already agree abortion is immoral.

You believe that it is immoral in the same way that someone might believe that Rush is a better band than Yes or that someone might like the color red more than the color blue.

Armoured said:
There's nothing objectively immoral about it that I can identify.

And this is yet another place where you dissent from Church teaching.

Armoured said:
If you can identify what is inherently valuable about life that happens to be human, that would be great.

Being created in the image of God isn't good enough for you? Or do you dissent from the Church's teaching on human dignity as well?

Armoured said:
But merely being human biological material?

The reason that I am so picky about definitions when talking with you is that you love to change your own on the fly and to misinterpret those being used by the people that you are discussing things with. "Human biological material" would include things like an amputated arm, or a corpse. I explicitly restricted my use to living human organisms.

Armoured · Aug 3, 2015

MoonlessNight said:
And this is yet another place where you dissent from Church teaching.

Don't think I do, actually. But anyhoo

Being created in the image of God isn't good enough for you? Or do you dissent from the Church's teaching on human dignity as well?

The claim that humans are "created in the image of God" is hardly an objective claim, is it?

The reason that I am so picky about definitions when talking with you is that you love to change your own on the fly and to misinterpret those being used by the people that you are discussing things with. "Human biological material" would include things like an amputated arm, or a corpse. I explicitly restricted my use to living human organisms.

Specifics are important. But now that you've identified them, perhaps you'd care to tell me what's so special about a "living human organism"? Remember, we're talking about objective, here, that can be used to convince people who aren't already Catholics.

MoonlessNight · Aug 3, 2015

Armoured said:
Don't think I do, actually. But anyhoo

Do you think that the Church doesn't oppose abortion? Or do you think that the Church doesn't state that its moral teachings are objective? Or is there something you are seeing that I am missing?

Armoured said:
The claim that humans are "created in the image of God" is hardly an objective claim, is it?

Serious question: do you even know what the word "objective" means?

It doesn't mean "something agreed upon by everyone." Not everyone agrees that the series implied by the decimal expansion .999999..... converges to 1, but it is objectively true that it does (since the conclusion follows necessarily once the terms "series," "decimal expansion" and "converges" are understood).

One way to define an objective truth is something which is truly independent of any individual. That we are posting on a message board is an objective truth, even if someone were to dispute it. You may object that we may be confused about what is happening and having a hallucination or something, but in that case it would be objectively true that we were not posting on a message board. The truth wouldn't become subjective just because someone (or even everyone) is mistaken about it.

I can't see why you would not think that this statement would be a statement about objective truth. I can see people disagreeing about it certainly, but they would be saying that is objectively false, not that it is subjectively true and false.

Armoured said:
Specifics are important. But now that you've identified them, perhaps you'd care to tell me what's so special about a "living human organism"? Remember, we're talking about objective, here, that can be used to convince people who aren't already Catholics.

I have this crazy tendency when posting on a Catholic message board and discussing matters with someone who claims to be Catholic that I can take the Catholic philosophical framework for granted.

It is impossible to come up with a single argument which would be convincing to everyone. You have said that consciousness and self-awareness are valuable, but that is hardly a universally agreed upon statement. In fact I know that the author Peter Watts (of Blindsight) disagrees with it, and only sees survival advantages as valuable (and he does not think that consciousness or self-awareness has any significant survival advantage). In fact there is no universally agreed upon notion of value.

And if there is no universally agreed upon notion of value, I can hardly create a universally convincing argument for why any particular thing is valuable, can I? It is necessary to know the beliefs of the audience and to either build upon them, or to start by changing those beliefs if they are completely false.

This is why it is so important to start any philosophical discussion by looking for common ground.

Armoured · Aug 3, 2015

MoonlessNight said:
Do you think that the Church doesn't oppose abortion? Or do you think that the Church doesn't state that its moral teachings are objective? Or is there something you are seeing that I am missing?

Serious question: do you even know what the word "objective" means?

It doesn't mean "something agreed upon by everyone." Not everyone agrees that the series implied by the decimal expansion .999999..... converges to 1, but it is objectively true that it does (since the conclusion follows necessarily once the terms "series," "decimal expansion" and "converges" are understood).

One way to define an objective truth is something which is truly independent of any individual. That we are posting on a message board is an objective truth, even if someone were to dispute it. You may object that we may be confused about what is happening and having a hallucination or something, but in that case it would be objectively true that we were not posting on a message board. The truth wouldn't become subjective just because someone (or even everyone) is mistaken about it.

I can't see why you would not think that this statement would be a statement about objective truth. I can see people disagreeing about it certainly, but they would be saying that is objectively false, not that it is subjectively true and false.

I have this crazy tendency when posting on a Catholic message board and discussing matters with someone who claims to be Catholic that I can take the Catholic philosophical framework for granted.

It is impossible to come up with a single argument which would be convincing to everyone. You have said that consciousness and self-awareness are valuable, but that is hardly a universally agreed upon statement. In fact I know that the author Peter Watts (of Blindsight) disagrees with it, and only sees survival advantages as valuable (and he does not think that consciousness or self-awareness has any significant survival advantage). In fact there is no universally agreed upon notion of value.

And if there is no universally agreed upon notion of value, I can hardly create a universally convincing argument for why any particular thing is valuable, can I? It is necessary to know the beliefs of the audience and to either build upon them, or to start by changing those beliefs if they are completely false.

This is why it is so important to start any philosophical discussion by looking for common ground.

Are we talking about stuff as it applies to Catholics, or the eneral community?

WarriorAngel · Aug 3, 2015

Mountain_Girl406 said:
Do you think that will really do it, just make it illegal and it goes away? I think it is more important to change hearts. After all, abortion procedures have been around for a very long time and has been illegal for most of that time. Making it illegal may stop some, but changing hearts will stop a lot more.

Hearts would change if it was illegal - for then they would have to face their own struggle to obtain a Dr. - pay someone sleazy and hope they dont get infected.
Then they would have to consider they 'might' put themselves in the same precarious situation as their own baby.

However; any argument that many died or many tried - was all hoax to sell abortion on demand.

MoonlessNight · Aug 3, 2015

Armoured said:
Are we talking about stuff as it applies to Catholics, or the eneral community?

I'm talking about things as they apply to you. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Strike While the Iron is Hot

So is America great again yet?

So is America great again yet?

Fides et Ratio

So is America great again yet?

Fides et Ratio

So is America great again yet?

Fides et Ratio

Well-Known Member

Traditionalist Catholic

Dona Quixote

So is America great again yet?

Member of the Round Table

Fides et Ratio

So is America great again yet?

Fides et Ratio

So is America great again yet?

Fides et Ratio

So is America great again yet?

I close my eyes and see you smile

Fides et Ratio

Similar threads