Arguing About Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter VanitasVanitatum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Stephen168 said:
40.png
Hume:
If I’m being a tyrant by forcing choice and freedom upon the people, then tyranny no longer has meaning.
Click to expand...
Freedom to enslave, freedom to steal, freedom to murder sounds like tyranny.
Click to expand...
As I’ve said in this thread at least a dozen times, freedom is the beginning. Not the end.

We employ the golden rule and the inherent equality of people to solve conflicts that liberty gives rise to.

Seriously, at least a dozen times…
 
I agree that arbitrarily doing so is wrong. But abortions don’t occur for whimsical reasons. And there is no argument to be made for enslavement which is exactly what you do to the woman.
 
Hume said:
But abortions don’t occur for whimsical reasons. And there is no argument to be made for enslavement which is exactly what you do to the woman.
Click to expand...
I just made an argument. The one not making arguments is you.
 
Not explicitly, but you’ve not made a convincing secular argument without one.

And, ultimately, I know every argument you’ll produce is at least cryptoreligious. It’s your central motivation for denying a woman’s control over her body.
 
By default, a woman has control over her physical person.

I’m just holding the default. You’re the one that’s got to justify her enslavement.

And you simply can’t do it.
 
Stephen168 said:
Freedom to enslave, freedom to steal, freedom to murder sounds like tyranny.
Click to expand...
Hume said:
As I’ve said in this thread at least a dozen times, freedom is the beginning. Not the end.

We employ the golden rule and the inherent equality of people to solve conflicts that liberty gives rise to.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
If you don’t have a problem with being robbed, murdered, or enslaved, the Golden Rule is not a limiting factor to liberty. And your case against murder has been to appeal the law not reason.

If we ALL don’t agree on the Golden Rule, your assertion would eliminate it as a limiting factor to your ‘libertas.’ And I just gave one reason to reject it.

I see no rational limitation to your null position as a reasoned ethic: murder, enslavement, and theft are OK in your ethic unless the law, not reason, steps in.
 
Last edited:
That’s ultimately the purpose of law.

There are broken people out there and from a secular perspective, law enforcement gets those who can’t play nice out of the big pen and isolates them into a smaller pen.

There is probably no objective good, unfortunately. Everyone’s attempt to prove it has been destroyed by reasonable objections.
 
Stephen168 said:
40.png
Hume:
I agree that arbitrarily doing so is wrong. But abortions don’t occur for whimsical reasons.
Click to expand...
So if you don’t rob people arbitrarily or with whimsy it is OK.
Click to expand...
The reason this comparison fails is because those people are bodily separate from you.

The fetus isn’t. If a woman wants it out of her body, she must have that right.
 
Hume said:
That’s ultimately the purpose of law.

There are broken people out there and from a secular perspective, law enforcement gets those who can’t play nice out of the big pen and isolates them into a smaller pen.
Click to expand...
You have no reason to define “play nice.” Under your ‘libertas,’ murder, enslavement, theft would be playing nice.
Hume said:
There is probably no objective good, unfortunately. Everyone’s attempt to prove it has been destroyed by reasonable objections.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is your claim: there is no objective good or bad just libertas.

Everyones attempt to prove it has been rejected by your appeal to the stone.
 
Hume said:
By default, a woman has control over her physical person.

I’m just holding the default. You’re the one that’s got to justify her enslavement.

And you simply can’t do it.
Click to expand...
The default is liberty with allows abortion to be banned.
Hume said:
You’re the one that’s got to justify her enslavement.

And you simply can’t do it.
Click to expand...
I did, it only makes sense for a women to be responsible for the life she has created and if she doesn’t want to be pregnant then she do so before the fact not after when another life is affected.
 
Last edited:
Stephen168 said:
You have no reason to define “play nice.” Under your ‘libertas,’ murder, enslavement, theft would be playing nice.
Click to expand...
You certainly have the ability to choose to do that.

This is, essentially, Right of Might and it’s largely what governs the animal kingdom. Where animals collect as packs or tribes, the same rule applies, but at a different scale.

If that lion/pack of chimps can fully usurp the other lion/pack of chimps, they’re going to.

As an intelligent species, we’ve added a few ethical rules that seem to be fairly transcendent across time and culture, chief of them being “unto others as to yourself”.

For those that are self-destructive, we’ve created law enforcement to put them away. So, in a sense, right of might still prevails. It works to protect the collective we call “civilization”.
Yes, it is your claim: there is no objective good or bad just libertas.

Everyones attempt to prove it has been rejected by your appeal to the stone.
Click to expand...
Hey, if you think the default moral state is something other than free-moral agency, please propose. Seriously.
VanitasVanitatum said:
The default is liberty with allows abortion to be banned.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t appear to be so.

In other instances in the animal kingdom, when the environment turns unsuitable for child-rearing very quickly and extremely, the preservation of the mother is paramount. Without her, reproduction stops and the species dies out.

So offspring are abandoned by mom. Sometimes eaten by mom.

Mom comes first.
 
Stephen168 said:
40.png
Hume:
You’re the one that’s got to justify her enslavement.
Click to expand...
But your ethic doesn’t have a problem with enslavement. Why would enslavement be worse than murder or robbery?
Click to expand...
Under liberty the first conflict in “what do we do when liberties collide?”

We covered this in the opening posts of the thread, if you so bothered to read.

So we come up with a rule to break the tie, since your liberty is no more important than their liberty.
Is the tie-breaker “Right of Might”? Or unto others as to yourself? We seem to have gone with the latter pretty universally and have created power structures to enforce it.

If you object here that “This doesn’t mean that these things are objectively wrong!” then you’re right.

Metaphysically, there’s probably no such thing as objective truth.

Metaphysical truth seems to be pretty subjective, some more or less so - but all subjective. Like murder, that’s fairly commonly banned. So less subjective.

But how many of us would murder baby Hitler, baby Stalin or baby Pol Pot?
 
Last edited:
Hume said:
In other instances in the animal kingdom, when the environment turns unsuitable for child-rearing very quickly and extremely, the preservation of the mother is paramount. Without her, reproduction stops and the species dies out.

So offspring are abandoned by mom. Sometimes eaten by mom.

Mom comes first.
Click to expand...
Animals aren’t a moral standard or do you approve of rape which then results in a birth anyways because they also do that.

Anyways what animals do has nothing to do with liberty which allows me to ban abortion.
 
Last edited:
Hume said:
You certainly have the ability to choose to do that.

This is, essentially, Right of Might and it’s largely what governs the animal kingdom. Where animals collect as packs or tribes, the same rule applies, but at a different scale.

If that lion/pack of chimps can fully usurp the other lion/pack of chimps, they’re going to.

As an intelligent species, we’ve added a few ethical rules that seem to be fairly transcendent across time and culture, chief of them being “unto others as to yourself”.

For those that are self-destructive, we’ve created law enforcement to put them away. So, in a sense, right of might still prevails. It works to protect the collective we call “civilization”.
Click to expand...
Your golden rule is your authoritarian religious idea, so I reject it. I’m more into the secular idea of natural rights from the Age of Reason.
 
VanitasVanitatum said:
Animals aren’t a moral standard or do you approve of rape which then results in a birth anyways because they also do that.
Click to expand...
The only way to proceed is to make a rational argument for the addition of an ethical rule. If enough people buy it, we’ll codify it into a law.

So far, the argument of a woman’s bodily autonomy seems to have more weight than any supposed right to life of the unborn.

It’s not that the unborn have no right to life. It just doesn’t seem sufficient to hijack a person’s control over their own being.
Anyways what animals do has nothing to do with liberty which allows me to ban abortion.
Click to expand...
We are animals. Taxa animalia, chordata, mammalia, primate, hominidae, homo, sapien.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top