Arguing About Abortion

[1Lord1Faith]

If you succeed, you’ll be the first.

Meh…I see it more of a case of people not wanting to accept a valid argument than of an argument that’s never been made before.

When a woman has sex she knows that there is the possibility of pregnancy. It doesn’t need to get anymore complicated than that. That’s how she knows she’s ceding a certain amount of autonomy to, potentially, another human being…that being her progeny.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

Bodily autonomy requires an element of will. The right of self-government is a good definition.

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).

Here is the problem with liberty being the “null” or default:
…omitted for space…
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.

I don’t believe there is a god. I believe that truth must be observable to be known and truth that exists but cannot be observed cannot be known.

I have never observed a god. Ergo your argument requires a premise I can’t concede to.

Accordingly, if you want to choose life under a pro-choice scheme, then great! Do so.

Don’t force that one people who don’t share you’re premises. It’s tyranny.

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?

I went there. Liberty is the beginning. The default. The null. It’s not the end. Using the that premise and a premise approximating the Golden Rule, we can arrive at most of the more enduring moral laws on the planet that transcend any religion. Don’t kill. Don’t steal. Don’t do bad stuff to people.

When we inevitably have conflicts of liberty, we have to create rules to solve them. The best rule is that in a conflict of “wills” between a fetus that has none and a mother that does, we have to default with the mother. It’s the only rational outcome. Her body. Her will. The fetus has no will and it requires her body in a way mother doesn’t owe.

There are two versions of liberty or freedom that can be spoken of.

1. Freedom of indifference,
   …omitted for space…
2. Freedom for excellence,
   …omitted for space…

The upshot of this point is that by making liberty your “null,” you are actually making nothing significant your starting point. So why would we place NOTHING as the foundation of value?

Continued…

False. The default, the null is not “nothing” it is “uncertainty”. “Undefined”.

If you wrote that the default represents “nothing” in ant of my science labs of philo classes, you’d have gotten a red “X”.

The further point is that to fully comprehend freedom for excellence , we need to have a full explication of the “good” or the “excellent”
…omitted for space…

We covered this earlier. I’ve never observed an absolute “good”. It can’t be said to exist. You require another premise that I and other empiricists cannot concede to.

If you want to concede to it, great. Really. But don’t force me under your views. You can choose life for yourself and others must have the freedom to make the same choice.

A la, “pro-choice”.

 

[Rau]

So if she doesn’t consent to pregnancy, she should have the right to evict the fetus.

Including where “evict” is only possible by killing. Fortunately no one regards that as ok after birth (evict from my house…).

 

[Hume]

Hume:

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

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.

There is no right to life that overrides a woman’s right of bodily autonomy.

She is hers an no one else’s. Unconditionally. Else she is a slave.

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).

I don’t. The fetus is a developing human.

But it requires a mother’s body. And that’s hers. Unconditionally. If she doesn’t consent to it being there, it needs to go.

Where the pro-life movement can still ethically intervene without violating her autonomy is to create “carrots” to influence her to choose life.

Medical care. Paid maternity leave, so on. Don’t attack the freedom of the woman. That’s sacrosanct.

Attack the reasons a woman would choose an abortion.

Including where “evict” is only possible by killing. Fortunately no one regards that as ok after birth (evict from my house…).

No one is saying it’s ideal. There was a conflict of wills and the only rational solution is to side with the mother.

As I said above, Where the pro-life movement can still ethically intervene without violating her autonomy is to create “carrots” to influence her to choose life.

Medical care. Paid maternity leave, so on. Don’t attack the freedom of the woman. That’s sacrosanct.

Attack the reasons a woman would choose an abortion.

 

[Rau]

No one is saying it’s ideal. There was a conflict of wills and the only rational solution is to side with the mother.

Asserting does not establish.

 

[Rau]

There is no right to life that overrides a woman’s right of bodily autonomy.

Assertion does not establish fact.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

There is no right to life that overrides a woman’s right of bodily autonomy.

Assertion does not establish fact.

You’re right. But if freedom is the moral “undefined” as it very well seems to be, you’d have to make an argument as to why a woman should lose her bodily freedom, here.

Good luck.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Make a good argument why she should be forced to do that which doesn’t require folks to share your religious views.

That’s actually impossible for any argument (though I am talking about all moral principles which are all axioms and have no more weight than religious ones) including the ones you offered to support abortion.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

But if freedom is the moral “undefined” as it very well seems to be,

There doesn’t need to be a moral undefined and something that is undefined just means that its morality hasn’t been acertained yet.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

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.

Using the costs and benefits analysis, even a potential life produces more good than a pregnancy has negative effects so abortion is therefore immoral.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

Make a good argument why she should be forced to do that which doesn’t require folks to share your religious views.

That’s actually impossible for any argument (though I am talking about all moral principles which are all axioms and have no more weight than religious ones) including the ones you offered to support abortion.

Then when in doubt, we must default to the null if liberty.

If libertas reigns, the woman gets to choose.

There doesn’t need to be a moral undefined and something that is undefined just means that its morality hasn’t been acertained yet.

Sure there does. In order to displace, you displace from a starting point. In science and phil, the starting point in uncertainty/undefined.

This absence of certainty or definition is liberty. Freedom.

Using the cost and benefits analysis, even a potential life produces more good than a preganacy has negative effects so abortion is therefore immoral.

I’m interested. Exactly how is this measured in observable terms?

There are lots of folks who think the New York Crime crash of the early 90s was because Rudy was just such a darn good mayor.

There are a lot of folks who think that the crime crash was because Roe was 16-20 years earlier and the criminals had simply been aborted. After all, unwanted children are more likely to lead lives of crime.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Then when in doubt, we must default to the null if liberty

No, we don’t.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

Then when in doubt, we must default to the null if liberty

No, we don’t.

We must default to the null, whatever that is.

The best argument for what a “moral null” means is libertas.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

We must default to the null, whatever that is.

There is no reason to think that the moral null is actually moral as opposed to not defined as moral or immoral.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

We must default to the null, whatever that is.

There is no reason to tuink that the moral null is actually moral as opposed to not defined as moral or immoral.

At the null, moral and immoral don’t yet exist. They haven’t been imposed yet to shape and limit libertas.

Harrystotle made a great point about it above, albeit by mistake.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

At the null, moral and immoral don’t yet exist. They haven’t been imposed yet to shape and limit libertas.

That’s why you can’t default to it but have a justification for it.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

At the null, moral and immoral don’t yet exist. They haven’t been imposed yet to shape and limit libertas.

That’s why you can’t default to it but have a justification for it.

No, by rule you must default to the null if a proposition/argument/hypothesis gets rejected. That’s not up for debate. Disagreement here is just wrong. Offered gently.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

No, by rule you must default to the null if a proposition/argument/hypothesis gets rejected

The null doesn’t justify anything since it is undefined by definition. So you can return to it, but it doesn’t do anything.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Exactly how is this measured in observable terms?

By the immediate and forseeable effects.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

No, by rule you must default to the null if a proposition/argument/hypothesis gets rejected

The null doesn’t justify anything since it is undefined by definition. So you can return to it, but it doesn’t do anything.

Absolutely right. It’s undefined. It’s an absence of moral laws, as a default. There are no definitions.

Libertas.