Arguing About Abortion

[VanitasVanitatum]

He supports his final premise by his claim of unbridled liberty, which is tyranny; might is right.

He doesn’t support that, he just thinks there should be a good reason to ban abortion and that’s easy enough to provide

My claim refutes the first of his premises, so it does advance the argument.

He isn’t convinced by it.

 

[Stephen168]

He isn’t convinced by it.

I never enter an argument on abortion to convince someone. My goal is to learn something about another’s point of view. My only hope is that others feel the same way. Appealing to the stone and unsupported assertions are not mentally stimulating. That is why I said earlier that there is nothing to learn from him.
After saying he was done, he jumped in on a post not dressed to him, so I gave him another chance to teach me something. He failed, and now you jump on me, and another poster as a referee or coach, I’m not sure.
You are the OP, so I’ll leave you alone to easily convince him of your good reason to ban abortion.

 

[Stephen168]

He supports his final premise by his claim of unbridled liberty, which is tyranny; might is right.

He doesn’t support that, he just thinks there should be a good reason to ban abortion and that’s easy enough to provide

When I first entered this thread, I wanted to find out if we shared a common foundation of justice. I asked if people have the same rights he claimed for himself. Answer: No. Do people have a right to be left alone. Answer: no. So we are dealing with a tyrant. He rejects the label, because the mob (government) decides morality. But when you pointed out that other countries ban abortion, he said they were wrong. So the mob decides morality, except when it doesn’t. Seems like sophistry.

He claims there are many purposes, but when he can’t list any he claims there is no purpose. Sophistry again.

I believe he rejects all reasons to ban abortion and uses sophistry to defend his position. But I wish you luck in your efforts.

 

[o_mlly]

The principal is pretty easy to ascertain. It is that of bodily autonomy.

Maybe not that easy. Pregnancy is not a disease to be treated. Therefore, abortion is an elective procedure. If one elects to perfrom an unnecessary procedure that either will or may kill another then the bodily integrity principle applies equally to the unborn human being.

If one claims to know with certainty that the life in the mother is not human life then that person lies.

 

[goout]

I’ve studied it. I don’t agree.

Of course you agree with it. Why would someone be a Hindu if they thought Catholicism was the complete truth?

Some truths are objective…everyone can agree with 1+1=2.
Some truths are subjective…not everyone agrees with you.

I agree that that Catholicism is true for you. I don’t agree that it is true for me. If I did, I’d be Catholic. It just wind up being he said/she said…subjective! :hugs:

In relativism, it doesn’t matter if everyone can agree that 1+1=2. It is simply irrelevant, because the truth of the matter has no compelling call to be recognized.
Observe: we live in a society that can’t acknowledge sexual differentiation between men and women. That is a more basic observation that your simple math, and many people are blinded to this observation by relativism.

And related to that: if objective truths were limited to material concerns, like 1+1=2, we wouldn’t be here talking abstractly, would we. Human beings are wired to find common truths beyond the merely provable. Science itself testifies that relativism is nonsensical, as science is a pursuit of truth, both visible truth and invisible truth.

 

[Stephen168]

Science, reason and philosophy logically end up supporting Christianity and the Catholic Church.

Especially when you study the histories of science, Mormonism, reason, and Islam.

 

[Servant31]

There just doesn’t seem to be any good arguments for forcing women to undergo dangerous pregnancies all the way to term without invoking special pleading.

I disagree. There is a compelling argument. The right to life.

I keep telling you that liberty is the null. Not the end.

And it appears to be pretty enduring and fairly universal idea. It ain’t “Hume’s”.

Who decided that that idea of liberty is the null? I’m in no way against liberty, but the definition of liberty your promoting is a liberty that denies the liberties of babies. The right to life is the most fundamental right. This far supersedes ones convenience. This again returns to rights. One persons rights can’t infringe upon another’s’.

And as the default, we can move on from it with good arguments.

It’s not the default just because some state it as such.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

The principal is pretty easy to ascertain. It is that of bodily autonomy.

Maybe not that easy. Pregnancy is not a disease to be treated. Therefore, abortion is an elective procedure.

As is pregnancy.

 

[Hume]

I disagree. There is a compelling argument. The right to life.

The woman involved has the same right to life as well, no?

As stated 100 times, pregnancy is dangerous. Even in the US, young healthy women still die in labor.

Ergo, she must be allowed to choose.

Who decided that that idea of liberty is the null?

Lots of guys, it turns out.

The term you would have encountered in your theology classes for it would have been “free moral agency”.

It’s not the default just because some state it as such.

Quite right. But we do know that the null is “undefined”. That means no moral schema is taken as a given.

The “moral undefined” of the individual is simply libertas. Liberty. Free moral agency. Pick a synonym you like best.

 

[Hume]

In relativism, it doesn’t matter if everyone can agree that 1+1=2. It is simply irrelevant, because the truth of the matter has no compelling call to be recognized.

Not quite right.

Relativism holds dominion over those things that cannot be objectively demonstrated. Like whether this god is more better than that god.

Relativism does not hold dominion over things that can be objectively demonstrated. Like when you take 1 peach and put it next to another peach, you then have 2 peaches.

 

[goout]

o_mlly:

Hume:

The principal is pretty easy to ascertain. It is that of bodily autonomy.

Maybe not that easy. Pregnancy is not a disease to be treated. Therefore, abortion is an elective procedure.

As is pregnancy.

Are you willing to define any limit to bodily autonomy?
Do you have the right to push someone out of the way at a crowded grocery checkout?
Do you have the right to steal a poor man’s coat to stay warm?
Do you have the right to kill all the elderly and handicapped that are suckin up the resources that belong to you?
Do you have the right to shoot your neighbors dog that is depriving you of sleep?

Really, have you thought about bodily autonomy?
Now, you will go on about how a child limits the freedom of a woman in so many ways and forces her to undergo physical changes. But if you are sane, you will admit that we are all inconvenienced frequently for the sake of others, and all you are doing is asserting your power over others as if human beings are possessions of yours.

And seeing human beings as possessions is the root of barbarism.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

o_mlly:

Hume:

The principal is pretty easy to ascertain. It is that of bodily autonomy.

Maybe not that easy. Pregnancy is not a disease to be treated. Therefore, abortion is an elective procedure.

As is pregnancy.

Are you willing to define any limit to bodily autonomy?
Do you have the right to push someone out of the way at a crowded grocery checkout?

A person in the checkout isn’t a threat to bodily autonomy unless they’re trying to harm you.

Do you have the right to steal a poor man’s coat to stay warm?

No. This, again, is not an issue of bodily autonomy.

Do you have the right to kill all the elderly and handicapped that are suckin up the resources that belong to you?

This is a question of morality and economics, not bodily autonomy.

Do you have the right to shoot your neighbors dog that is depriving you of sleep?

You’re getting warmer, there.

You have the right to seek remedy, here. Now, if you start with shooting the dog, you’ll likely be jailed.

Really, have you thought about bodily autonomy?

Absolutely. It seems by your examples that you haven’t.

It deals with your individual person. Your body.
-Not the environment this body exists in. It’s purely your physical self.

And it’s a good idea, right? Else we can justify slavery!

 

[Elf01]

you will admit that we are all inconvenienced frequently for the sake of others

You only need to look at the current situation to see that.

 

[goout]

goout:

Hume:

o_mlly:

Hume:

The principal is pretty easy to ascertain. It is that of bodily autonomy.

Maybe not that easy. Pregnancy is not a disease to be treated. Therefore, abortion is an elective procedure.

As is pregnancy.

Are you willing to define any limit to bodily autonomy?
Do you have the right to push someone out of the way at a crowded grocery checkout?

A person in the checkout isn’t a threat to bodily autonomy unless they’re trying to harm you.

Do you have the right to steal a poor man’s coat to stay warm?

No. This, again, is not an issue of bodily autonomy.

Do you have the right to kill all the elderly and handicapped that are suckin up the resources that belong to you?

This is a question of morality and economics, not bodily autonomy.

Do you have the right to shoot your neighbors dog that is depriving you of sleep?

You’re getting warmer, there.

You have the right to seek remedy, here. Now, if you start with shooting the dog, you’ll likely be jailed.

Really, have you thought about bodily autonomy?

Absolutely. It seems by your examples that you haven’t.

It deals with your individual person. Your body.
-Not the environment this body exists in. It’s purely your physical self.

And it’s a good idea, right? Else we can justify slavery!

You didn’t answer the question. Can I ask it again?

Are you willing to define…any limits to bodily autonomy. Let me define the word “define” for you. Define: a statement of exact meaning.

Are you willing to define any limits to bodily autonomy?

It deals with your individual person. Your body.
-Not the environment this body exists in. It’s purely your physical self.

This is pretty vague. Again. Let’s say you are cold. That’s your individual person speaking. Your body, as you say. Your body is cold. You seem to be justifying any action based on your right to bodily autonomy. Because you are cold, are you justified in robbing another human being of his welfare to satisfy your “individual person/body/physical self”.

In the same post you seem to admit limitations to your bodily autonomy.

Can you straighten that ought for us?

 

[Hume]

Are you willing to define any limits to bodily autonomy?

Not particularly. You simply have the right to seek remedy to any threats against your person.

As a question of personal and property law, this is faaaaar beyond established.

This is pretty vague. Again. You are cold. That’s your individual person speaking. Your body. As you say. Your body is cold. You seem to be justifying any action based on your right to bodily autonomy.

You have the right to seek recourse against threats to your person.

I don’t see where that entitles me to rob someone.

 

[goout]

goout:

Are you willing to define any limits to bodily autonomy?

Not particularly. You simply have the right to seek remedy to any threats against your person.

As a question of personal and property law, this is faaaaar beyond established.

This is pretty vague. Again. You are cold. That’s your individual person speaking. Your body. As you say. Your body is cold. You seem to be justifying any action based on your right to bodily autonomy.

You have the right to seek recourse against threats to your person.

I don’t see where that entitles me to rob someone.

You have the right to seek any remedy? Do you mean to say that? Do you really know the law at all?

Children are threats now. Do you really mean to say that?
Should any child be born?

Where are the limits to bodily autonomy?

Your positions raise more questions than they resolve. Help us to understand please.

 

[goout]

May I summarize your position thus?
Radical bodily autonomy is the luxury a human being who holds a gun, who sees other human beings as less than human, and has no conscience about asserting his radical autonomy?
Is that a fair assessment?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Hume]

You have the right to seek any remedy? Do you mean to say that? Do you really know the law at all?

Do you?

If you’re right in that bodily autonomy is not absolute, then there are circumstances where I can harm you and it should be ok.

Pretty silly stance, right?

Children are threats now. Do you really mean to say that?
Should any child be born?

Children should be borne only by those willing to have them.

Where are the limits to bodily autonomy?

Your positions raise more questions than they resolve. Help us to understand please.

Generally, the limits of bodily autonomy end at the next person.

The unborn have no bodily autonomy. They don’t have the biological capacity for it and they use the mother’s organ systems for their own sustenance. As a question of bodily autonomy, she owes the use of her physical person to no one.

 

[Hume]

May I summarize your position thus?
Radical bodily autonomy is the luxury a human being who holds a gun, who sees other human beings as less than human, and has no conscience about asserting his radical autonomy?
Is that a fair assessment?

But these are other humans. As an entity bodily distinct from its mother, a fetus is not.

So no, this is not a fair assessment.

 

[goout]

goout:

May I summarize your position thus?
Radical bodily autonomy is the luxury a human being who holds a gun, who sees other human beings as less than human, and has no conscience about asserting his radical autonomy?
Is that a fair assessment?

But these are other humans. As an entity bodily distinct from its mother, a fetus is not.

Right.
Hume decides who is human and who is not. And flying in the face of established science!!
Keep a good hold on that gun my friend. You’re going to need it when you are out of favor with those who have, er, bodily autonomy over you.