Arguing About Abortion

[Hume]

I sure would not want to try and be smarter than God.

Which one?

While reproduction might not be the only purpose it is the only purpose unique to copulation. After 44 years of marriage, reproduction is the only thing I have NEEDED copulation for.

Not at all. It has multiple purposes and you’ve biologically evolved to need all of them.

Second guessing God would be to use artificial means to eliminate reproduction from a reproductive act and then claim its designed purpose is no longer unique.

My god said it’s totally “ok”.

In fact, my god told me that human beings are so overly successful as a species that they’ve overpopulated the earth to the point that they’re affecting global climate and causing an extinction event of other species that’s so large that it has it’s own name - the Anthropocene Extinction.

During copulation, male and female are signing a contract to raise the creation they may be producing.

Where can I find a copy of this contract? My wife and I enjoyed “congress” last night and I don’t recall us signing anything…

 

[Stephen168]

This is a point that you keep missing because, frankly, you want to.

For at least the dozenth time in this thread , libertas is the beginning. Not the end. It is where we start as human beings, not where we end up.
As Harry was fond of pointing out - it’s not really even an argument. It’s just the identification of our default state - where we morally “begin”.

In light of this hard reality, the rest of your thought experiment mostly collapses because it’s incorrectly premised.

I really hope you actually bother to read some of this stuff as opposed to blindly thrusting triumphalisms… Most of your points were raised way waaaaaay up in the thread, multiple times.

Multiple times.

While you again appeal to the stone.

The thought experiment is an example of the tyranny of unbridled liberty (where you begin) and the tyranny of the majority (where you say we end up). And how natural rights play against them.

 

[Hume]

There’s always a default. A null.

Hypotheses and syllogisms demand it. No way around it.

I merely proposed that the best descriptor of this morally is liberty.

Feel free to make your suggestion, as I’ve said to everyone.

 

[Hume]

As an aside, appealing to the stone is a fallacy where you dismiss an idea without saying why.

You seem to keep misusing it.

I’ve told you many times why I reject the superstitious , pseudo-religious idea of natural rights.

 

[Stephen168]

Sorry but I haven’t mentioned religion at all.

A frequent ad hominem argument I see made when the abortion issue is discussed is: ‘that’s just your religion, man.’ Most pro-abortion people start with assumption that every anti-abortion person is religious and all their reasoning comes from religion. Then they just dismiss every claim with: ‘that’s just your religion, man.’

I know anti-abortion atheists that are frustrated with the assumption, but the ‘that’s just your religion, man’ crowd usually are people who haven’t thought real hard about it.

 

[Pattylt]

I know anti-abortion atheists that are frustrated with the assumption, but the ‘that’s just your religion, man’ crowd usually are people who haven’t thought real hard about it.

I know a few, too (myself included) and to be fair…99% of pro life arguments ARE religious. It’s often very hard for some religious believers to separate their religious beliefs into strictly scientific ones. One of the hardest is the right to life supersedes the right to body autonomy versus the opposite. The religious mostly argue that the right to life is the more important…due to religious belief. It’s beyond science to answer either. It’s a societies legal description. Right now, our society favors body autonomy over the right to life. To change the legal climate, we must first change the values…something neither quick or easy.

Right now, there is no legal mandate to have an abortion nor to not have an abortion…it really IS a choice. We need to change people’s values so that they do not choose it. I often think the pro abortion crowd and the anti abortion crowd should work a bit harder in this arena…as both sides really do want there to be no abortions (excluding rare circumstances).

 

[HarryStotle]

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.

Ah, now there’s the rub. “If it can’t be observed, it can’t be real” is a presumption. It cannot be derived from the observational evidence without presuming it as a premise to reach the conclusion. Observational data cannot be used to conclude anything about unobserved reality without presuming, a priori, certain conceptual pre-determinants — which are, in themselves, not observable. Ergo, besides begging the question, you are undermining your own argument, since you are using conceptual premises to reach conclusions regarding the observable data.

Every theory is grounded upon conceptual frameworks that are non-observational— they are used to make conceptual sense of the observational data. However, the observational data, by itself, doesn’t get us there unless we squirrel in conceptualizations — which are by their very nature non-observable.

 

[HarryStotle]

Stephen168:

I know anti-abortion atheists that are frustrated with the assumption, but the ‘that’s just your religion, man’ crowd usually are people who haven’t thought real hard about it.

I know a few, too (myself included) and to be fair…99% of pro life arguments ARE religious.

Well, to be fair, 100% of the pro-abortion arguments are also “religious” in an anti-religious, metaphysically materialistic way.

There is nothing the nature of the materialistic universe that says it is “okay” to kill babies in the womb. That would be a question that isn’t resolvable from a non-religious or atheistic (secular) perspective, since secular materialism can lead to exactly NO moral conclusions. It requires a “leap of faith” just as “religious” — in an anti-religious way — than any pro-life argument.

Which gets us exactly no where unless you begin by presuming certain “moral” conclusions can be derived from materialistic atheism.

 

[esieffe]

There isn’t much to argue with abortion…
If your six year old is no longer convenient to have around, suddenly too expensive, if you have to move to a smaller place, how much different is it to vacuum out a fetus for the same reasons?

What is there to argue about?

 

[Pattylt]

Well, to be fair, 100% of the pro-abortion arguments are also “religious” in an anti-religious, metaphysically materialistic way.

Well, if that helps you sleep at night, ok by me. I’m agnostic and a materialist yet am not anti religion and my morality tells me abortion is wrong. So, whatever…

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Well, to be fair, 100% of the pro-abortion arguments are also “religious” in an anti-religious, metaphysically materialistic way.

Well, if that helps you sleep at night, ok by me. I’m agnostic and a materialist yet am not anti religion and my morality tells me abortion is wrong. So, whatever…

Right, so basically you are admitting that BOTH anti-abortion AND pro-abortion arguments are “faith-based” regarding morality. Ergo, the stronger moral argument ought to prevail, rather than depicting one side — pro-life — as “religious” and the other side as having some pre-textual basis in “strictly scientific” evidence that “religious believers” need to “separate” from their “religious beliefs.”

The problem you seem to be missing, although in your words you appear to endorse, is that there are metaphysical (AKA “faith” or “religious” beliefs) underpinnings to both sides. So it isn’t so much that religious believers needs to abandon their religious or metaphysical beliefs but to make a stronger and more persuasive case for their metaphysical view because the materialist metaphysic can make no case at all for killing (or not killing) babies in the womb. The ONLY case to be had is a moral (and therefore a religious in the metaphysical sense) one.

The fact that you are “agnostic and a materialist” and believe “abortion is wrong” is neither here nor there. It isn’t your agnosticism or your materialism that leads you to think abortion is wrong, but something else entirely.

To be helpful you would need to p(name removed by moderator)oint the precise reasons you have for thinking “abortion is wrong.” My guess is that those reasons come from a vestige of metaphysical doubt (agnosticism) with regard to your “materialism” and not from your materialism itself.

 

[Pattylt]

I’m not about to psychoanalyze my deep seated reason for not approving of abortion. I don’t think abortion solves the problems of why women have them. I have children and don’t like the idea of killing them. It’s just a personal reason. I do understand that many women consider their right to self autonomy as more important than the babies right to life. I understand their view…one which I don’t share but also understand that it’s a value difference between us. I’d like to change their values but I’m not going to do so with religious or scientific arguments. It’s a societal change I’d like to see happen. I do have faith that can be accomplished but certainly not immediately.

And if you want to claim I have faith I’d ask faith in what? That the material universe is all there is? That’s based on the evidence available to me. I have zero beliefs in the supernatural because of my lack of any evidence for it. Others claim they’ve had personal experiences of it. Since I have not had their experience, I have nothing but their say so. That isn’t enough for me…I haven’t experienced it. I don’t deny that they had one. So I have no religious faith. Period.

 

[Pattylt]

There is nothing the nature of the materialistic universe that says it is “okay” to kill babies in the womb. That would be a question that isn’t resolvable from a non-religious or atheistic (secular) perspective, since secular materialism can lead to exactly NO moral conclusions.

Sorry, I meant to answer this as well. There is nothing in the material universe that says it’s not ok to kill them either. The universe itself isn’t moral. Women miscarry so the universe materially allows the loss of babies, too.

And you are right. The material universe leads to no moral conclusions. That means either God gives us a sense of morality or our brain does. Until I’m convinced of God, I’ll go with my brain.

 

[Aquinas11]

One of the hardest is the right to life supersedes the right to body autonomy versus the opposite

I do understand that many women consider their right to self autonomy as more important than the babies right to life.

If there is a “baby” that has its own “right to life” then clearly its not part of woman’s “body”

If it is part of the woman’s “body”, then what do you mean by “babies right to life”? Would be like saying my leg has a “right to life” which suggests I can’t cut it off if it threatens rest of my body

And if it is part of the woman’s “body”, how can one exercise bodily self autonomy against a threat from their own body? Would be like exercising self defense against myself.

Note: no religious arguments were used in this post, simply logic 101.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

There is nothing the nature of the materialistic universe that says it is “okay” to kill babies in the womb. That would be a question that isn’t resolvable from a non-religious or atheistic (secular) perspective, since secular materialism can lead to exactly NO moral conclusions.

Sorry, I meant to answer this as well. There is nothing in the material universe that says it’s not ok to kill them either. The universe itself isn’t moral. Women miscarry so the universe materially allows the loss of babies, too.

That would be my point. The fact that we have intrinsic moral beliefs argues that the material universe CANNOT be all there is, otherwise we would have no inherent moral beliefs. The question is why are moral beliefs even part of the human landscape? They certainly are not part of the biological landscape. So what is unique about being human within the natural world?

And you are right. The material universe leads to no moral conclusions. That means either God gives us a sense of morality or our brain does. Until I’m convinced of God, I’ll go with my brain.

Again, the problem is that absent God and starting with a purely biochemical brain the question of why such a brain would provide a “sense of morality” to begin with seems a very difficult proposition to assert.

If the underlying substrate of creation is purely uncaring matter, there is no reason to have a moral landscape at all. Nature has no preference — no “ought to be” — within its causal sequencing of entities. Things just are or are not. Brains that are purely chemical would follow that program.

Consciousness is a whole other matter, and a vexing problem for materialists.

On the other hand if the underlying substrate — Being Itself — is purposeful, intentional, intelligent, and moral — then our propensity to view the world through that lens is explicable and well-grounded.

The question is laying out the case in a compelling and convincing way rather than pretend it doesn’t matter either way.

Seems to me that morality is a significant aspect to the human landscape. It is sufficiently important that a good case could be made that atheistic materialism is, minimally, amoral and very likely immoral since it destroys the very grounds for morality by its very presumptions.

 

[Pattylt]

Hey! It’s not my arguments! I just understand their argument!

The one thing that is unique to pregnancy is that the fetus is inside the mother’s body. That’s why comparisons to six year olds, your left leg, etc. are rather silly. Their view is that as long as it resides and is dependent on her body, she has the right to remove it. That right, to them, supersedes the fetus’s right to its life. Right now, the law agrees and most of society agrees. You don’t. I don’t. Changing the law most likely will not happen until the values of society changes…then the law will follow or become moot.

 

[Elf01]

The one thing that is unique to pregnancy is that the fetus is inside the mother’s body.

And that is where my conjoined twins argument comes in.

 

[Pattylt]

I know. I’m one that would go with delay until separation is viable. I guess if you believe that personal autonomy trumps right to life, they’d say separate when you wish it…twin be d@mned!

 

[Elf01]

I know. I’m one that would go with delay until separation is viable. I guess if you believe that personal autonomy trumps right to life, they’d say separate when you wish it…twin be d@mned!

I honestly think if it was raised outside of an abortion debate most would agree that seperation should be delayed.

 

[Aquinas11]

The one thing that is unique to pregnancy is that the fetus is inside the mother’s body. That’s why comparisons to six year olds, your left leg, etc. are rather silly.

No, that’s not unique to pregnancy. My appendix is “inside” my body and can pose a threat to my body. This suggests my appendix has its own right to life, which is absurd.

Their view is that as long as it resides and is dependent on her body, she has the right to remove it.

If “it” is not her body, then it also has self autonomy which is violated by her removing it. Hence “self autonomy” can’t be the justification for removing it.

I just understand their argument!

Then please explain these numerous logical fallacies.