V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
Continuing the debate from the Joe Biden thread.
- Status
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
Contradict means to state the opposite of.
and I have made points that show why, how, and which ones.
The point is that either the premise is wrong or the additional rule is wrong because they both cannot be true.
Last edited:
N
Neithan
Guest
@Hume I also noticed a contradiction earlier: that a fetus is an unwelcome visitor or “parasite” in the womb, so to ensure the liberty of the invaded “host”, we must be pro-choice and allow the fetus to be forcibly “evicted.”
However, this same pro-choice argument claims that the right of bodily autonomy is at risk, a non-negotiable part of liberty, and that the fetus is a part of that same body, so it does not have any rights of its own.
If the fetus is a part of the body, then how can it invade or be a parasite on the body?
If the fetus is a part of the body, then allowing it to grow does not violate bodily autonomy. If it is not a part of the body, then we have two human bodies and two natural rights: liberty and life. Only the unborn are denied these rights. Why should one human being’s natural rights be greater than any others’?
However, this same pro-choice argument claims that the right of bodily autonomy is at risk, a non-negotiable part of liberty, and that the fetus is a part of that same body, so it does not have any rights of its own.
If the fetus is a part of the body, then how can it invade or be a parasite on the body?
If the fetus is a part of the body, then allowing it to grow does not violate bodily autonomy. If it is not a part of the body, then we have two human bodies and two natural rights: liberty and life. Only the unborn are denied these rights. Why should one human being’s natural rights be greater than any others’?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Actually, the classic argument for morality is that moral imperatives are precisely those principles that properly restrict the freedom or liberty of moral agents.Is Joe Biden pro-life or pro-choice?
Ever heard of the “fallacy” fallacy?
I’ve just made my point and we’re circling. I’m moving on. The moderators have notified me about my participation in this thread.
A premise “The moral default is liberty” cannot contradict, sir. You need at least one more premise and then you have to show the contradiction. Which you haven’t done.
You’ve just proven "The moral system develops from “You are free” to “You are free, but don’t restrict the self-same freedom of others”.
That would mean liberty cannot be the starting point since something else — moral values — override liberty.
That would be why murderers and rapists have their liberty infringed upon.
Again, liberty is a means to developing valued virtues and capacities, but it isn’t an end in itself.
It is valued BECAUSE individual moral agents must be autonomous in making moral choices for the good. Liberty is a requisite for being a properly functioning moral agent.
We aren’t moral agents in order to be free, we are free in order to be moral agents whose telos is the good.
The “good” is therefore the “starting point” or null, as you call it.
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
The pro choice arguments have nothing to do with logic, and neither does honesty. They are self-contradicting, which matters not the least to those who promote abortion.
H
Hume
Guest
Alright, I’d hate to keep you boys waiting, so here we go. 
Ok, we’re talking about logical contradictions, so Websters won’t hack it here. Right?
Here’s an actual resource on what these things are. Enjoy the read.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contradiction/
While you’re reading and for everyone else, what we’re dealing with is the moral “undefined” that corresponds to the scientific and philosophical “undefined”. The “null”.
What we’re searching for is a term that best describes a state of no defined morality. I propose that term is “liberty”. “Freedom” will work just as well. “Libertas” is how it’s commonly encountered in academia.
Understand that this is a beginning. This is not an end. Saying that “liberty” is the moral null doesn’t mean we can’t go on from there - using additional premises that we agree on to construct arguments (morals) as a system.
So I proposed that -
P. Freedom is the default moral state.
P. Some Approximation of the Golden Rule (Unto others as to you) - a hidden, assumed premise (my error)
C. Act freely while being careful not to restrict the self-same freedom of others
Apparently to @VanitasVanitum, that’s a contradiction. He hasn’t actually shown me why and I’m not sure he can.
But we don’t have to stop here, either. We can go on keeping liberty as the default state while agreeing that theft and murder are illegal - rational additions as they deprive folks of their freedom. We can go on and state that we can punish violators in some way because 1. they offended freedom and 2. we want to promote the respect of the freedom of others.
Sounds pretty American, right?
…even if a contradiction.
Moving on.
“Parasite” is a simile. Like all similes, metaphors and analogies, it has an inherent weakness of not being the same as the idea it’s meant to illustrate. thus at some point it will break down. It’s just meant to be a tool.
A fetus is a separate, developing human being that’s biologically part of a woman’s body. It’s inside her. Attached to her. Her lungs breathe for it. Her digestive system feeds it. It takes the water she drinks. Her kidneys and liver clean up it’s waste materials.
And she intrinsically owes it none of these things. Her body is exclusively hers.
So if she doesn’t consent to pregnancy, she should have the right to evict the fetus.
Ok, we’re talking about logical contradictions, so Websters won’t hack it here. Right?
Here’s an actual resource on what these things are. Enjoy the read.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contradiction/
While you’re reading and for everyone else, what we’re dealing with is the moral “undefined” that corresponds to the scientific and philosophical “undefined”. The “null”.
What we’re searching for is a term that best describes a state of no defined morality. I propose that term is “liberty”. “Freedom” will work just as well. “Libertas” is how it’s commonly encountered in academia.
Understand that this is a beginning. This is not an end. Saying that “liberty” is the moral null doesn’t mean we can’t go on from there - using additional premises that we agree on to construct arguments (morals) as a system.
So I proposed that -
P. Freedom is the default moral state.
P. Some Approximation of the Golden Rule (Unto others as to you) - a hidden, assumed premise (my error)
C. Act freely while being careful not to restrict the self-same freedom of others
Apparently to @VanitasVanitum, that’s a contradiction. He hasn’t actually shown me why and I’m not sure he can.
But we don’t have to stop here, either. We can go on keeping liberty as the default state while agreeing that theft and murder are illegal - rational additions as they deprive folks of their freedom. We can go on and state that we can punish violators in some way because 1. they offended freedom and 2. we want to promote the respect of the freedom of others.
Sounds pretty American, right?
…even if a contradiction.
Moving on.
The biological component would be an umbilical cord, I guess.
“Parasite” is a simile. Like all similes, metaphors and analogies, it has an inherent weakness of not being the same as the idea it’s meant to illustrate. thus at some point it will break down. It’s just meant to be a tool.
A fetus is a separate, developing human being that’s biologically part of a woman’s body. It’s inside her. Attached to her. Her lungs breathe for it. Her digestive system feeds it. It takes the water she drinks. Her kidneys and liver clean up it’s waste materials.
And she intrinsically owes it none of these things. Her body is exclusively hers.
So if she doesn’t consent to pregnancy, she should have the right to evict the fetus.
H
Hume
Guest
If the woman consents, then there is no violation. You’re right.
But you propose a right to life, and I don’t accept that as true. I think once you’re “here”, you’re entitled to basic rights. But you’re not “here” until you’re born. Until that moment, you are dependent on the body of your mother and any rights you may have are fully, 100% eclipsed by her rights.
Again, she does not owe the fetus her breath. Her food. Her water. She grants them willingly and may choose to refuse the grant.
Then it would seem I’m right. In that model, liberty is the default. And we only restrict it with good reason (and good arguments).
No. In the model you’ve just proposed, they operate in the context of liberty - reasonably limiting it for this purpose and that. Liberty is the cloth the moral shapes, alters or otherwise restricts.
Liberty is the starting point there. The primal, fundamental material.
For excellent reason. Their actions fundamentally impinge the liberty of their victims.
I consistently propose it as the null. The default. The beginning.
But again, there are quite a few people who’d have a bone to pick with you if you went to a large veterans rally and wore “You’ve never fought for liberty as an end unto itself” on a t-shirt in prominent display.
There is no absolute good. I’ve never observed it and I don’t accept it as an axiom. Make your argument!
(probably on a different thread).
I disagree. Many who arrive at choice do so, like me, after a cold, emotionless evaluation in the context of liberty. There’s simply no other option. Else is enslavement.
H
Hume
Guest
I’m going back to bed. Night fellas.
Last edited:
N
Neithan
Guest
I think we can agree that it’s an inherently broken metaphor, or analogy, or simile, or whatever. A fetus is not analogous to a parasite.
If there is no violation of bodily autonomy, then how is liberty actually infringed?
So if a fetus is biologically part of the body, then how is it violating bodily autonomy? Do you see the contradiction that remains? Our body cannot violate its own autonomy.
If there is no violation of bodily autonomy, then how is liberty actually infringed?
Last edited:
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
You can achieve that with a different premise that focuses on the well-being of a person.But we don’t have to stop here, either. We can go on keeping liberty as the default state while agreeing that theft and murder are illegal - rational additions as they deprive folks of their freedom. We can go on and state that we can punish violators in some way because 1. they offended freedom and 2. we want to promote the respect of the freedom of others.
Sounds pretty American, right?
…even if a contradiction.
Moving on.
O
otjm
Guest
There is an absolute disconnect in logic that a child out of the womb has the right to life because it is a human being and should anyone take that life, they are subject to murder or manslaughter; and in the womb the child has absolutely no rights.
Appealing to “liberty” avoids addressing the issue, which in essence says that logic does not apply.
Last edited:
B
brishen
Guest
Totally disagree about the “logic” point, though I admit I was a philosophy major, I am no expert. Both Judaism and Islam allow abortion under certain circumstances…
Here’s the thing, abortion is terrible, but it will happen, and always has and will even if made illegal. The only difference if made illegal is women (and young girls) will get “under the table” with no safety; it will not stop abortion. The best recourse is education and access to sexual health care for under privileged women (though honestly the girls I knew that got the most abortions were rich girls I went to boarding school with back in HS).
Here’s the thing, abortion is terrible, but it will happen, and always has and will even if made illegal. The only difference if made illegal is women (and young girls) will get “under the table” with no safety; it will not stop abortion. The best recourse is education and access to sexual health care for under privileged women (though honestly the girls I knew that got the most abortions were rich girls I went to boarding school with back in HS).
H
Hume
Guest
Oh no. We don’t agree there either.
It’s limited like all metaphors, similes and analogies. But a fetus needs the mothers body to survive. The mother does not need the fetus to survive.
Similarly, a parasite needs the host to survive. The host does not require the parasite to survive.
It’s pretty decent, as similes go.
Bodily autonomy requires an element of will. The right of self-government is a good definition.
If she wants it there, no problem. If she doesn’t, problem.
Hope that helps.
H
Hume
Guest
I understand how you feel. But the reason your perspective is unacceptable to me and many others is that its robs a woman of her control over her own body if she doesn’t want to be pregnant.Hume:
There is an absolute disconnect in logic that a child out of the womb has the right to life because it is a human being and should anyone take that life, they are subject to murder or manslaughter; and in the womb the child has absolutely no rights.
Appealing to “liberty” avoids addressing the issue, which in essence says that logic does not apply.
Whatever rights a fetus may have might actually exist! I’m ok with conceding that.
But what must also be true is that those rights are completely, 100% overshadowed by the rights of the mother over her very own body.
It’s hers. Fundamentally. She owes it to no one. She can give it willingly. But she doesn’t have to.
H
Hume
Guest
This is a fine post.
I think the best way to be pro-life and not encumber the fundamental liberty of a woman over her own body is to grudgingly giver her the choice to do with her body as she pleases while the rest of us work to remedy the reasons she’d want to get an abortion.
Promise her that both she and baby won’t have to worry about the staggering healthcare costs (my second of three cost $35,000. I had to come up with $12,000 of it).
Promise her that she’ll have at least a year of paid maternity leave because no one can care for baby in that first ultra-critical year better than she can.
Be pro-life without holding her hostage.
Off to work.
Last edited:
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
That means that liberty can be overided so when you say abortion cannot be banned that’s not really true so all that liberty stuff doesn’t really matter as long as I have a reason.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Here is the problem with liberty being the “null” or default:
Point 1
Most atheists (and theists) argue against Divine Command Theory on the grounds that a capricious or “libertarian” will on the part of God – i.e., one that is not constrained by morality — is not an acceptably moral theology.
Now, you might argue that in the case of the woman with a child in her womb, the child “infringes” on the inviolable liberty the woman ought to enjoy over her “domain,” her body. However, if you want to go there, then all of creation, as God’s domain, takes on the same relationship to God as a woman’s body does to her.
Ergo, if you want to argue infringements on the woman’s liberty by the baby gives her an indefeasible “right” to terminate the baby, then you would have to argue that God can terminate human lives “at will” for the simple cause that if they violate his liberty, he can unilaterally terminate them. That would mean, terminating human lives would require no moral justification from God — i.e., NO moral justification — except that those lives threaten his liberty.
God’s liberty then becomes the “null” for God, who — you are essentially asserting — needs no moral justification for any act. He merely needs to appeal to his liberty. You sure you want to go there?
To be clear, you are completely discounting the liberty of the baby in the womb on the grounds that the baby is in the woman’s “domain,” her body. Ditto with human beings vis a vis God’s domain, creation.
Point #2
There are two versions of liberty or freedom that can be spoken of.
- Freedom of indifference, which essentially claims that the inviolability of freedom is that agents ought to be unencumbered by an external forces. I.e., “Freedom from” is the null value. This, I take it is your position.
- Freedom for excellence, which understands freedom differently than 1). Freedom is nothing in and of itself. If I cannot speak or write Spanish, I am not a “free” speaker or writer of Spanish. The lack of capacity to complete an act is what makes me unfree to perform it. The power to do so is what underwrites the freedom to do so. In other words, freedom or liberty is a chimera or the epiphenomena of power or virtue (in the Greek sense of dunamis δύναμις). There is NO actual liberty without the power or efficacy to carry out what is willed or intended.
Continued…
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
The further point is that to fully comprehend freedom for excellence, we need to have a full explication of the “good” or the “excellent” to know whether or not a particular end towards which we are acting is inherently of any worth. Ergo, it is the worth of the end that determines whether or not the "freedom’ or capacity to attain that end is to be pursued.
The “power” or capacity to fulfill or attain a good is what grounds “freedom to,” so to speak of freedom for its own sake is to completely misrepresent the nature of freedom (as virtue or dunamis δύναμις).
Freedom for its own sake, without any reference to “the good,” is valueless, so to argue the “inviolability” of freedom is to argue that essentially nothing – your “null” – is of ultimate worth.
The “power” or capacity to fulfill or attain a good is what grounds “freedom to,” so to speak of freedom for its own sake is to completely misrepresent the nature of freedom (as virtue or dunamis δύναμις).
Freedom for its own sake, without any reference to “the good,” is valueless, so to argue the “inviolability” of freedom is to argue that essentially nothing – your “null” – is of ultimate worth.
Last edited:
V
vsedriver
Guest
right to life supersedes right to property. Dependence doesn’t terminate rights. The fetus is a human being having his/her own DNA and is alive.
You can’t define a human being as not human based on where he/she lives or the level of their dependence whether it be a natural dependence (as an unborn child is naturally dependent while in the womb), human dependence (infant) or mechanical (iron lung).
H
Hume
Guest
Welcome to moral relativism!Hume:
That means that liberty can be overided so when you say abortion cannot be banned that’s not really true so all that liberty stuff doesn’t really matter as long as I have a reason.
Now, make an argument why a woman should lose bodily autonomy while she’s pregnant. Why she should lose her freedom to control her own person, entering into a period of servitude - especially a servitude that is known to be hazardous and occasionally lethal.
Make a good argument why she should be forced to do that which doesn’t require folks to share your religious views.
If you succeed, you’ll be the first.
- Status