Arguing About Abortion

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Well, no, actually. You rely on “liberty” as the benchmark for tyranny, but fail to provide any moral grounds for distinguishing between liberty that is permissible and liberty that is an abuse.

How many times are we going to circle this, Harry?

Liberty is the default. The null. The beginning place. There is no rule that says we can’t constrain it for good reason - and we do. It’s just that “my preferred god” is not a sufficient reason for anyone other than the people who affirm that god.

Your “preferred god” objection is irrelevant.

Everyone’s value system is dependent upon their metaphysic, so in effect, by creating a hierarchy of values you are raising up in effigy something to the highest order in value — that is your “preferred god” whether or not you acknowledge it as such.

Where your assessment becomes twisted is that you appear to be willing to allow something like will or intention only at the level of the human person and not beyond. That would be by a kind of willful presumption that the universe is not ordered by moral purpose towards the good, but by human choice towards preferences. So if there is no purpose to the reality underpinning the universe, then human will (preference) is the final arbiter of morality.

Human will then becomes your “preferred god” from which you hammer “from nothing” — i.e. ex nihilo — your moral contract.

Again, my point being that the various conceptions of “preferred god” whether it be yours (human liberty) or mine (Being Itself) is what underpins our various versions of morality. So, the question is not “Which ‘preferred god’ do I subscribe to?”, but rather “Which is true?” Ultimately that is the determiner.

However, you aren’t interested in which one or the other is true, you are only interested in starting from the presumption that yours IS true — despite that it (the human will) functions as your “preferred god” in the same instance that you want to disparage the “preferred god” of others.

 

[Hume]

The Carthaginians practiced child sacrifice. So did the Aztecs. Still it continues in our post-Christian era. Moloch is never satiated.

I don’t know about the existence of Moloch, but it just seems like evidence for morality being relative.

List the multiple purposes(functions)/lots of things that are unique to intercourse besides reproduction.

Function is not purpose, purpose is not function. They are not synonyms.

Function is how, purpose is why. ’

Again, for the third time, category error.

Everyone’s value system is dependent upon their metaphysic, so in effect, by creating a hierarchy of values you are raising up in effigy something to the highest order in value — that is your “preferred god” whether or not you acknowledge it as such.

My preferred god is logos. It’s a very common and increasingly common god - slowly beating out all the others.

If you want to constrain the liberty of a woman over her body, appeals to the god of logos would be the best way to go about it.

Where your assessment becomes twisted is that you appear to be willing to allow something like will or intention only at the level of the human person and not beyond.

Not true. Morality doesn’t exist for the individual, for the most part. It exists for people. To govern our interactions with one another.

An ethic against murder is pointless if you’re the only person in existence.

Please stop putting words in my mouth, Harry - particularly when they’re untrue. It’s poor form.

So if there is no purpose to the reality underpinning the universe, then human will (preference) is the final arbiter of morality.

You’re getting on to something, there

Again, my point being that the various conceptions of “preferred god” whether it be yours (human liberty) or mine (Being Itself)

Oh, they’re not mutually exclusive. I would agree that the point of all of it is simply for it’s own sake. It could thus it eventually did.

To try and tie this to a metaphysical purpose requires a whimsy I can’t observe and therefore can’t believe in as an objective thing.

However, you aren’t interested in which one or the other is true, you are only interested in starting from the presumption that yours IS true

For the umpteenth time, make your argument if you don’t think man’s default moral state is free moral agency. Libertas.

Best of luck.

 

[Aquinas11]

Again, if it’s part of her, she gets to remove it.

If it’s not, she gets to reject it from her body.

You’ve changed your definition of bodily autonomy from

(1) acting against a threat external to the body
(2) acting against a threat other than the body

Your position has entirely broken down because you’re simultaneously using different definitions

 

[Lea101]

Again, no mystery here. Personhood is progressive. When you get to a certain age, you get certain rights. When you get older, you get more.

What was the minimum age of property transaction in the Roman Empire? 21? 23? I forget…

And either way, the personhood of the fetus in no way overrides that of the mother. First and foremost, she gets to choose what she wants to do with her body. Slavery is immoral.

The argument is that the right to life isn’t decided by people. That taking it away is immoral.

And either way, the personhood of the fetus in no way overrides that of the mother. First and foremost, she gets to choose what she wants to do with her body. Slavery is immoral.

Stephanie Gray refutes your argument here. I won’t do it justice by typing it so I hope you would listen. She explains why autonomy doesn’t supercede the right to life in the context of pregnancy.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

Again, if it’s part of her, she gets to remove it.

If it’s not, she gets to reject it from her body.

You’ve changed your definition of bodily autonomy from

(1) acting against a threat external to the body
(2) acting against a threat other than the body

Your position has entirely broken down because you’re simultaneously using different definitions

No, you’re just trying to ferret a difference here because you need it. It’s just not there. “Seamless garment” in some religious language.

Granting a woman her bodily autonomy, she can;

1. Reject the fetus if you consider it as part of her. She can do unto herself as she wishes.
2. Reject the fetus if it’s not part of her because it requires her body. If she does not consent to this, by the virtue of bodily autonomy, the fetus may be denied the use of her body.

Again, pick your poison. Gotcha either way.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

If you want to constrain the liberty of a woman over her body, appeals to the god of logos would be the best way to go about it.

Logos is pointless when there is only arbitrary axioms that can easily be discarded.

 

[Hume]

The argument is that the right to life isn’t decided by people. That taking it away is immoral.

Sure, and I assume that slavery is immoral in my argument. What we have is a conflict of the life of the fetus versus the enslavement of the woman to carry that fetus - even unto risk of death!

I argue that there is no clear choice thus we must let the woman choose for herself.

And either way, the personhood of the fetus in no way overrides that of the mother. First and foremost, she gets to choose what she wants to do with her body. Slavery is immoral.

Stephanie Gray refutes your argument here. I won’t do it justice by typing it so I hope you would listen. She explains why autonomy doesn’t supercede the right to life in the context of pregnancy.

With respect, I’m not going to make your argument for you. If there’s a point you wish to raise, raise it. I’m not going to click a link so as to raise it for you.

Again, respectfully offered.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

If you want to constrain the liberty of a woman over her body, appeals to the god of logos would be the best way to go about it.

Logos is pointless when there is only arbitrary axioms that can easily be discarded.

I agree to a small point. Given that there likely is no objective morality, what is moral is what we choose to be moral (thus reinforcing the underpinning of free moral agency - libertas).

Logic does have limits. Example;

Somatic cells are invisible to the naked eye. (True)
The body is made of somatic cells (True)
Thus, the body is invisible to the naked eye. (Inevitable conclusion)

But it’s the best we have. In a world that lacks perfect certainty, we have to function somehow.
Moral relativism is somewhat self correcting because when we find a gap, we can choose something to fill it.

 

[Aquinas11]

you’re just trying to ferret a difference here because you need it. It’s just not there.

“external” to her is not the same as “not part of her”

these are your words, and you’re now stuck with them

since you’re maintaining contradicting definitions for the same term, further discussion is pointless

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

That’s not how debates work.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

you’re just trying to ferret a difference here because you need it. It’s just not there.

“external” to her is not the same as “not part of her”

these are your words, and you’re now stuck with them

since you’re maintaining contradicting definitions for the same term, further discussion is pointless

No, you’re just flustered that her autonomy gives her the right to remove the fetus whether it’s a part of her or not.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

No, you’re just flustered that her autonomy gives her the right to remove the fetus whether it’s apart of her or not.

It doesn’t have to.

 

[Aquinas11]

That’s not how debates work.

correct, you can’t debate someone using contradicting definitions for a term

 

[Hume]

Hume:

No, you’re just flustered that her autonomy gives her the right to remove the fetus whether it’s apart of her or not.

It doesn’t have to.

Sure, you can argue that we don’t have a right of bodily autonomy.

As we mentioned to this same objection waaaaaaaaaaaaay up…

Good luck.

 

[Hume]

VanitasVanitatum:

That’s not how debates work.

correct, you can’t debate someone using contradicting definitions for a term

There’s no contradiction to the term. I’ve explained it twice and you just don’t like it.

@Stephen168 this is appealing to the stone - his objection here.

 

[Aquinas11]

her autonomy gives her the right to remove the fetus whether it’s a part of her or not.

and you contradicted that earlier by saying her autonomy gives her the right to act against a threat external to her body

you’re all over the place

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Sure, you can argue that we don’t have a right of bodily autonomy.

As we mentioned to this same objection waaaaaaaaaaaaay up…

The fetus’s right to life can be given priority instead.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

her autonomy gives her the right to remove the fetus whether it’s a part of her or not.

and you contradicted that earlier by saying her autonomy gives her the right to act against a threat external to her body

you’re all over the place

If it’s external to her body, it still requires her body. She can deny this under bodily autonomy.

I can’t make it any more simple than that.

 

[Aquinas11]

If it’s external to her body, it still requires her body.

lots of things are external to her body that don’t require her body, so that’s false.

you can’t save this contradiction. you can withdraw your previous definition but i doubt it

 

[Hume]

Hume:

If it’s external to her body, it still requires her body.

lots of things are external to her body that don’t require her body, so that’s false.

And things external to her body that require her body can be refused.

It’s a pretty basic tenet of law, actually.

I’ve got ya here, man.