Arguing About Abortion

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Hume:

That’s your answer to the “something from nothing” problem, right?

“God did it”.

Anything I missed?

It is a little more sophisticated than that.

No it isn’t. This is the cosmological argument of contingency and god is the first cause that it requires.

I see. So you accept that something can come from nothing?

 

[Hume]

I see. So you accept that something can come from nothing?

I accept that apparently it did and that I have no idea how.

As stated above, injecting superstition doesn’t do anything to solve the problem.

I’ll add here; it only makes us feel better about not having any idea. “Tis the dominion of the gods, yea. Not of we mortal men!”

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

I see. So you accept that something can come from nothing?

I accept that apparently it did and that I have no idea how.

Addressed here, in the video.

As stated above, injecting superstition doesn’t do anything to solve the problem.

I’ll add here; it only makes us feel better about not having any idea. “Tis the dominion of the gods, yea. Not of we mortal men!”

Sounds like your leap of faith is much more “free” of logic than mine, but, as I said, your ground for thinking appears to be pure will or “libertas.” You want it to be so, so you believe it. Mine is reason — I look for plausible ideas and sufficient reasons (i.e., grounds for holding consequential beliefs) are among them.

Let me remind you that, as far as “superstition” goes, you have yet to explain how a free will can be sufficiently underwritten by a causally ordered universe.

As you stated above, injecting superstitions about “free” wills and such doesn’t do anything to solve the problem of a free will in a causally determined universe. I suppose it makes you feel better to hold such superstitions, eh?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Sure, to form moral schemas, absolutely.

But as the default moral state of man, no I don’t.

I don’t have to prove anything because I’m not claiming anything - the moral space is undefined. No gods, devils, snarks or grumpkins.

Yes, I was talking about moral schemas, I don’t really care about the null.

 

[Hume]

Addressed here, in the video.

Listen, Leibniz was a brilliant, brilliant guy. Genuine genius-level intellect.

But he had an emotional attachment to the idea of god.

And in order to defend it, he invoked special pleading to create room for his god in his rational life.

Essentially, “everything in the universe is contingent - including the universe itself” so now, in order to avoid the infinite regress, he specially pleads “But not the first cause - my god. He is necessary!!!”

Roars of approval from Christian intelligencia

It’s special pleading and yet more “God of the Gaps”. It’s more “We don’t know, so god did it!”

Sounds like your leap of faith is much more “free” of logic than mine, but, as I said, your ground for thinking appears to be pure will or “libertas.” You want it to be so, so you believe it. Mine is reason — I look for plausible ideas and sufficient reasons (i.e., grounds for holding consequential beliefs) are among them.

Including special pleading when it supports the ideas we’re emotionally tied to? I understand immensely, really I do. I did the very same thing, made the same arguments before I quit believing in god.

Let me remind you that, as far as “superstition” goes, you have yet to explain how a free will can be sufficiently underwritten by a causally ordered universe.

Because I don’t know. Science is looking into consciousness as we speak, but no news as of yet. Maybe never will be.

But in being 100% sure that the universe is totally causal, that has been successfully chipped away. Quantum foam seems to continually “pop in and out of existence”. Something from nothing and - alert the presses - something back into nothing.

It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations | New Scientist

Wild times we live in.

As you stated above, injecting superstitions about “free” wills and such doesn’t do anything to solve the problem of a free will in a causally determined universe. I suppose it makes you feel better to hold such superstitions, eh?

I go where the observational data takes me.

If it can’t be observed, it can’t be said to be real. This includes all the gods of history - even yours.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

Sure, to form moral schemas, absolutely.

But as the default moral state of man, no I don’t.

I don’t have to prove anything because I’m not claiming anything - the moral space is undefined. No gods, devils, snarks or grumpkins.

Yes, I was talking about moral schemas, I don’t really care about the null.

Ok, you want to move on from it, then. Fine.

So now we have to come up with a moral scheme using secular ideas that we can generally agree on. Welcome to modern ethics, man.

And in modern ethics, a woman gets to do with her body as she darn well pleases (so we tie back into the discussion).

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

And in modern ethics, a woman gets to do with her body as she darn well pleases

That’s simply not true and reasonable limitations can be set and the situation is nebulous at best so such a statement isn’t irrefutable.

 

[Neithan]

And in modern ethics, a woman gets to do with her body as she darn well pleases (so we tie back into the discussion).

I think you mean postmodern ethics. And that’s because it’s a return to a base personal power system, not liberty. If it was based on liberty, it could not justify removing liberty entirely from another innocent human life. You may have been confusing a nebulous personal power with liberty this entire discussion. Of course, there is still nothing objectively “default” about that other than your own ability to assert it. Why the state should respect a person’s power is where the social contract comes into play.

 

[Stephen168]

I think you mean postmodern ethics. And that’s because it’s a return to a base personal power system, not liberty. If it was based on liberty, it could not justify removing liberty entirely from another innocent human life.

That is my conclusion also.

If you have the power to force your will either personally or through the majority it is all right and good; theft, slavery, murder.

 

[Stephen168]

I once saw an interview of a woman whose schtick was mocking people who held ‘unscientific’ ideas. During the interview, the host asked her, “How do you as someone who comes to conclusions based on science how do you navigate this…where is the cutoff for abortion? Her response was, “I am an evidence based thinker and I try to listen to the science first…until that baby is born, it is her body.…first and second trimester abortions are legal….it is her right.” Or if it is legal, it is scientific. The facade of science fell away.

After the responses I got from my questions on ethics in this thread, the answer is: if it legal, it is moral. The facade of rational ethics fell away.

 

[otjm]

Teleologically, sexual activity has as its end the creation of a being - whether that being is a salmon, a kitten, or a human being.

Because of the creation of the Pill in the 1950’s, we have come to view sexual activity as an end in itself, and often it is reduced to the orgasm of one or both of the parties. In search of that “perfect” change, we have a plethora of means of avoiding pregnancy; and after 55,000,000 abortions, one has to be beyond dense to think that they work and work well. Obtuse is more likely.

The fact that the parties may not want a child, not expect a child, not think about creating a child as they begin their sexual activities has absolutely nothing to do with the teleological end of that act - the pregnant possibility that a child will be created - pun intended.

Your disagreement does not change the fact that when a buck spreads its milt on the eggs the hen has laid in the redd in the stream the end result will be more fish; when . . . cats interact . . . the end result will be kittens, and when humans engage in sexual activity, a child is the result.

And one does not have to argue about “how often that occurs” or “how many eggs were not fertilized”; the natural end of sexual activity is the creation of a being.

If you don’t want to create a being, don’t engage in sexual activity.

Condoms fail or slip off; cervical caps don’t “cap”; IUDs have multiple health issues as well as not always working. The Pill has been reduced in potency due to phyiscal reactions to the hormones to the point of inviting failure. And the “sin of Onan” is hardly an accurate means of birth control.

It would be interesting to see within the number of abortions, the ratio of women and/women using some form of birth control “appropriately”, those using it where it was a bit haphazard, and those who were not using it at all the time of sexual congress. The point remains that short of sterilization of one or both parties, there is no perfect birth control - or as I point out, the teleological end of sexual activity is the creation of another being.

The Chinese Communist Government, not one particularly fond of the Catholic Church - or any Christian religion, for that matter, adopted NFP in order to control the number of children; they did so because it is simple, does not require a constant supply of birth control pills or devices, and is highly effective when used correctly; and considering that the Asia cultures tend to be less "independent’ than Western, and more compliant; it has worked well for them; effectiveness is in the 97 to 98% range.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

And in modern ethics, a woman gets to do with her body as she darn well pleases

That’s simply not true and reasonable limitations can be set and the situation is nebulous at best so such a statement isn’t irrefutable.

Starting at liberty, which is where we always seem to start, you’ve got to make a good argument why a woman must surrender her bodily autonomy in the event of even accidental pregnancy. And you’ve got to do it without invoking the name of gods, devils, snarks nor grumpkins.

You can’t do it.

Apropos, choice is the only acceptable outcome.

 

[Hume]

I think you mean postmodern ethics. And that’s because it’s a return to a base personal power system, not liberty.

That old chestnut…

What was classic ethics if not an attempt to yoke people to your particular god?

If I’m being a tyrant by forcing choice and freedom upon the people, then tyranny no longer has meaning. Your lance has turned to dust.

If it was based on liberty, it could not justify removing liberty entirely from another innocent human life.

It’s not there to be removed until it is born.

Until then, it’s a parasite within a woman’s body. Host makes the rules.

You may have been confusing a nebulous personal power with liberty this entire discussion. Of course, there is still nothing objectively “default” about that other than your own ability to assert it.

It’s the best suggestion. I keep asking for rival descriptions and you guys keep giving me nothing. The few times someone tries, it blows up on the launching pad.

And that’s because there is nothing innate about your god. Just like everyone else in the world and in history, you were taught about it.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

And you’ve got to do it without invoking the name of gods, devils, snarks nor grumpkins.

Well, that’s insulting. But anyway, you can read about Natural Law in this link. I’m not sure I could provide a good enough summary for you. There is an element in it about God, but I’ve found that in most circumstances where there is just a physical and sociological elementals involved, like abortion, it isn’t necessary to evoke the divine element.

Appropriately, this document is called, In Search of a Universal Ethic: A New Look at the Natural Law

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20090520_legge-naturale_en.html

 

[Hume]

Teleologically, sexual activity has as its end the creation of a being - whether that being is a salmon, a kitten, or a human being.

The “purpose” of sex isn’t one thing. This is one of the problems with trying to self-righteously declare telos - something that may not exist anyway.

One could very readily argue that the purpose of sex is climax and reproduction is merely a happy byproduct of it.

When monkeys do it, they’re not trying deliberately to reproduce. They’re answering their biological drive for sex.

And one does not have to argue about “how often that occurs” or “how many eggs were not fertilized”; the natural end of sexual activity is the creation of a being.

Actually, most of the time it’s climax. Scientific fact.

If you don’t want to create a being, don’t engage in sexual activity.

Or just take a reliable form of birth control.

The sex drive is older than any religion you’ve ever heard of. It’s rooted in our DNA. It will outlast any religion you’ve heard of as well.

The Chinese Communist Government, not one particularly fond of the Catholic Church - or any Christian religion, for that matter, adopted NFP in order to control the number of children; they did so because it is simple, does not require a constant supply of birth control pills or devices, and is highly effective when used correctly;

NFP is a crapshoot. The data that show it as effective as modern birth control are cherry picked. The best thing to do is for both partners to pick a contraceptive method with high effectiveness per secular, non-religiously biased research.

 

[Stephen168]

Teleologically, sexual activity has as its end the creation of a being - whether that being is a salmon, a kitten, or a human being.

Because of the creation of the Pill in the 1950’s, we have come to view sexual activity as an end in itself, and often it is reduced to the orgasm of one or both of the parties.

You are correct. For example:

One could very readily argue that the purpose of sex is climax and reproduction is merely a happy byproduct of it.

Actually, most of the time it’s climax. Scientific fact.

 

[Stephen168]

If I’m being a tyrant by forcing choice and freedom upon the people, then tyranny no longer has meaning.

Freedom to enslave, freedom to steal, freedom to murder sounds like tyranny.

 

[Stephen168]

What about looking at what GOD created? There are many species which propagate themselves sexually. Of all these species only the Great Apes (humans belong that category!) are freed from the estrus. Every other species is uninterested in sex outside the short period when procreation can occur.

Yes, it seems for almost all mammals, intercourse is for reproduction only.

The Great Apes, humans have no such limitation. We are able to perform sex any time. So, according to GOD ’s arrangement we are NOT supposed to limit out sexual activity to procreation. This takes care of the idea that the ultimate “aim” is procreation. It is ONE of the aims.

What are the other aims of intercourse?
Can the other aims be accomplished outside of intercourse?

 

[Hume]

“Teleologically speaking” is nothing but a quasi-religious 5 dollar phrase for “here’s what I think”.

This is because “purpose” outside an evolutionary perspective can never be objectively argued for. You can’t observe it.

Metaphysical purpose probably doesn’t exist.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Starting at liberty, which is where we always seem to start, you’ve got to make a good argument why a woman must surrender her bodily autonomy in the event of even accidental pregnancy.

It’s not hard to come to the conclusion that killing a fetus is wrong. She is responsible for the life she has created when she engages in risky behaviors that have the chance to create life.

And you’ve got to do it without invoking the name of gods, devils, snarks nor grumpkins.

You can’t do it.

I have not mentioned religion at all.