Arguing About Abortion

[Hume]

Many women see pregnancy as a joy, an honour, and a beautiful and fulfilling time in their lives.

And I think that’s wonderful! Really, I swear I do!

So let them choose life!

Could you point to an actually enslaved slave who could say the same thing about slavery — i.e., that slavery is a joy, an honour and a beautiful and fulfilling time in their life?

The slavery occurs when the woman feels differently about pregnancy and you force her to undergo the pregnancy anyway. Among those women, you could ask, roughly, 100% of them as suitable candidates to answer your question.

 

[HarryStotle]

Politically, the issue is dead.

It appears reason, sanity and morality are ALL likewise dead.

I doubt the country can survive governance by the Democrat Party — you just have to look at the last remaining candidate to wonder if he will even survive to the election.

One day at a time. God will intervene.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

Politically, the issue is dead.

It appears reason, sanity and morality are ALL likewise dead.

I doubt the country can survive governance by the Democrat Party — you just have to look at the last remaining candidate to wonder if he will even survive to the election.

One day at a time. God will intervene.

Oof, I hope we get another soon.

Average GDP under dems beats average GDP under reps.

Imagine the horror when they finally implement a single payer healthcare scheme. We’ll break out into chaos like the rest of the developed world! Except, of course, that’s not what we actually observe. But when reality doesn’t jive with our ideology, let’s just ignore it.

 

[Servant31]

Hey, you’re the guy that appealed to the constitution… the constitution says what SCOTUS says it says.

it was in reference to you making an appeal to liberty, freedom in America, referencing morality by law enforcement execution, and law.

Edit: and in either case you’ve referenced the Supreme Court. I’m assuming you reject some of the supreme courts decisions. You have created a self contradicting appeal to authority.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Many women see pregnancy as a joy, an honour, and a beautiful and fulfilling time in their lives.

And I think that’s wonderful! Really, I swear I do!

So let them choose life!

Could you point to an actually enslaved slave who could say the same thing about slavery — i.e., that slavery is a joy, an honour and a beautiful and fulfilling time in their life?

The slavery occurs when the woman feels differently about pregnancy and you force her to undergo the pregnancy anyway. Among those women, you could ask, roughly, 100% of them as suitable candidates to answer your question.

Right, and if I decide I no longer want to work to earn a living because I long to be free of such “slavery,” it appears that I have the same justification for not being “forced” to do so.

Now all I need is an organization like Planned Indigency to work out the political details allowing me to live “free” of all encumbrances (aka enslavement) and pay my bills using taxpayer money.

After all, “slavery occurs when I feels differently about working and you force me to undergo the labouring anyway.” I am certain I can find many among the population who are like-minded in this respect.

Hey maybe I can set up a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit under EIN 13-1644147 and call it Planned Indigency Federation of America, Inc. is. Donations could be tax-deductible to the fullest extent allowable under the law.

 

[Hume]

Right, and if I decide I no longer want to work to earn a living because…

You and I go to work because we choose to, Harry. Let’s respect those ladies and their right to choose what happens with their bodies.

Now all I need is an organization like Planned Indigency to work out the political details allowing me to live “free” of all encumbrances and pay my bills using taxpayer money.

You talking about “retirement”? =)

After all, “slavery occurs when I feels differently about working and you force me to undergo the labouring anyway.”

Again, Harry, we go because we like the money and what it does for us. If you hate your job, quit. I’ve done that before.

Hey maybe I can set up a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit under EIN 13-1644147 and call it Planned Indigency Federation of America, Inc. is. Donations could be tax-deductible to the fullest extent allowable under the law.

Different, but related…

No joke, me and a few of my pals are very seriously thinking about having a friends bar declared a place of worship for the “Church of Humanism” so we can be declared ministers and avoid property taxes on the bar and our homes. A few of the group are attorneys and they think it’s possible

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Hume:

Politically, the issue is dead.

It appears reason, sanity and morality are ALL likewise dead.

I doubt the country can survive governance by the Democrat Party — you just have to look at the last remaining candidate to wonder if he will even survive to the election.

One day at a time. God will intervene.

Oof, I hope we get another soon.

Average GDP under dems beats average GDP under reps.

Imagine the horror when they finally implement a single payer healthcare scheme. We’ll break out into chaos like the rest of the developed world!

Right, Venezuela was part of that developed world until chaos broke out. The Soviet System survived for a time, and China would have sunk into abject poverty without opening up its control to the free market.

At some point the state runs out of other people’s money. Without a strong private sector to create and produce and fuel the economy, the state will begin eating its own ideological tail (or tale) or manufacture currency until you need a wheelbarrow full of it to buy a loaf of bread.

 

[Hume]

Right, Venezuela was part of that developed world until chaos broke out. The Soviet System survived for a time, and China would have sunk into abject poverty without opening up its control to the free market.

Hey, if you love completely unregulated markets - there’s always Somalia.

…Bring a gun.

 

[HarryStotle]

Again, Harry, we go because we like the money and what it does for us. If you hate your job, quit. I’ve done that before.

That was completely hypothetical. I loved my job until I retired — but still work seasonally at a completely different type of job because I find honest work enriching in many ways.

However, there are many people in the world who cannot just “quit their work,” there are too many who rely on them for support.

You and I have first world problems, but many in the world do not have options, no matter how much “respect” they are given — they have no such “right” to choose what happens to their bodies. They have to work to provide for others without you there to offer them fictitious “rights.” Life is like that.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Right, Venezuela was part of that developed world until chaos broke out. The Soviet System survived for a time, and China would have sunk into abject poverty without opening up its control to the free market.

Hey, if you love completely unregulated markets - there’s always Somalia.

…Bring a gun.

There is a difference between unregulated markets and free markets.

You likely missed that because you think freedom merely means “libertas” or “license.”

I keep trying to point out that freedom is only possible with virtue. The virtues that permit a free market are truth, honesty and fairness. With those the market can be free to function, just as when I have the capacity (virtue) to speak a language, I become a “free” speaker of the language. Or when I develop the proper skills (virtue) to drive a vehicle I am free to drive one, in the technical (not legal) sense.

 

[catholic03]

And I think that’s wonderful! Really, I swear I do!

So let them choose life!

Did you know that so many women are pro-life?

Saying that the foetus has no rights is like saying that a living human has no rights.

You don’t give any good reasons to support your arguments. Only ones that are morally relativistic and completely and utterly invalid.

 

[o_mlly]

why a woman must surrender her bodily autonomy …

Instead of using the word “freedom” for such anarchic liberty —the liberty of an individual in a state of nature rather than of society—let us refer to it as autonomy. Autonomy, as the etymology of that word plainly indicates, consists in being a law unto oneself. Only an absolute sovereign has autonomy—obeys himself alone, submits to no law made by others, recognizes no authority to regulate his conduct.

Autonomy can be possessed only by individuals living completely solitary lives, not by them as members of organized societies that cannot endure or prosper without effective government or coercively enforceable laws. Since individual human beings do not lead completely solitary lives, since they have never existed, at least not for long, in the so-called state of nature that is more accurately referred to as a state of anarchy, the only autonomy to be found in the world is that possessed by sovereign princes or states. The consequences of such autonomy, as we so well know to our distress, is a state of war—the cold war that is the opposite of peaceful coexistence even when it does not issue in military action. Living in organized societies under effective government and enforceable laws, as they must in order to survive and prosper, human beings neither have autonomy nor are they entitled to unlimited liberty of action. Autonomy is incompatible with organized society. Unlimited liberty is destructive of it (Mortimer Adler).

 

[Rau]

No, it isn’t.

People just don’t seem to have the assumed right to force other folks to do things with their bodies that they don’t want to do.

It’s really not that radical of a position. I’m merely arguing against bodily enslavement.

It’s very, very easy to do, turns out.

Yes, it is smokescreen. The bodies of parents (and our mental attention) loses its independence to our children. We must cook and feed and clean and wash and transport and communicate… the imposts just go on and on! There are ways to escape that - but they take time, they don’t include killing and in the meantime entail an obligation to suck it up and be a good parent. Your bodily autonomy nonsense is just an attempt to sneak in a right to pursue a “quick fix”.

 

[Rau]

What about medicines that merely cause the uterus to expel the fetus.

What is the intention (the end objective) of this procedure? To kill the child? That would sound immoral. Or is it to hasten giving birth for good reason, such as sometimes arises late in pregnancy.

 

[Pattylt]

Or is it to hasten giving birth for good reason?

Definitely two different medicines! I think it’s Pitocin that’s used to induce labor. The other is for a medicinal abortion.

We’re at a point that women really don’t need abortion doctors. The meds to abort are easily obtained from the internet. A simple search will lead you to them!

 

[Rau]

Definitely two different medicines! I think it’s Pitocin that’s used to induce labor. The other is for a medicinal abortion.

Precisely, the point being that similar sounding acts may be of entirely different moral character when fully understood.

 

[Hume]

There is a difference between unregulated markets and free markets.

Well, no there isn’t. Regulation restrains the powers of others, making the market less free.

We’re all socialists because we all want the government to have some control. It’s just a matter of degree that separates us.

You likely missed that because you think freedom merely means “libertas” or “license.”

Nonsense. I’ve told you, individually, for at least the 7th or 8th time now that libertas is the default state and that we can and do come together as collectives to restrain it for the commonly agreed upon good.

If elementary schools taught civics, you could teach this easily observed reality to small children.

I keep trying to point out that freedom is only possible with virtue. The virtues that permit a free market are truth, honesty and fairness.

Well, first I don’t need your permission to be morally free. I just am. And if the virtues that permit free markets are truth, honesty and fairness, then bring on the regulation as fast as possible. I’m a strong believer in that there are no fortunes that were made completely honestly.

If you believe in the theory of strong market efficiency (like most reps do), making a fortune should be near-impossible.

Disclosure - my first degree was in finance, so I’ve some modicum of education on the topic.

Unlimited liberty is destructive of it (Mortimer Adler).

He’s right. It’s why we come together as collectives and pass laws based on good arguments. Liberty is just where we begin.

The bodies of parents (and our mental attention) loses its independence to our children.

As a parent of 3, we do it because we want to. It’s in perfect accordance with bodily autonomy.

Pregnancy and child rearing MUST be solely the dominion of the willing.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

There is a difference between unregulated markets and free markets.

Well, no there isn’t. Regulation restrains the powers of others, making the market less free.

We’re all socialists because we all want the government to have some control. It’s just a matter of degree that separates us.

This is why your analysis, even of liberty, is faulty. If you think that all regulation makes the markets less free, then that assumes regulations against dishonesty, fraud, misrepresentation of products make the markets less free. Unfortunately, that is untrue. It is dishonesty, fraud and the like that make the markets less free because agents operating in accordance with fundamentally unjust methods make the markets less free. So regulations that restrict injustices make the markets more free.

This is why appropriate traffic laws, for example, permit people to travel more freely and not less free. If all traffic laws were removed, i.e., people were completely free and unregulated, the chaos would bring traffic to a complete halt.

Unfortunately it is your lack of proper accounting for what constitutes freedom that makes you believe that your superficial analysis of freedom — i.e., total license — ought to be the guiding principle. Yet, here you are undermining your own conclusion.

 

[HarryStotle]

If you believe in the theory of strong market efficiency (like most reps do), making a fortune should be near-impossible.

Well no. Permitting some to make a fortune might be the most efficient way to enable “strong market efficiency.”

The Pareto Principle (aka 80/20 Rule) implies that pretty much every function is better undertaken by the 20% that are competent to carry it out.

• 20% of the (name removed by moderator)ut creates 80% of the result
• 20% of the workers produce 80% of the result
• 20% of the customers create 80% of the revenue
• 20% of the bugs cause 80% of the crashes
• 20% of the features cause 80% of the usage

Ergo, it may add to “strong market efficiency” to permit the 20% that are most competent to determine marketing and production rather than attempt to distribute that functionality to a broader base. This would be given the proviso that honesty, truth and fairness guide whatever it is that the competent 20% undertake.

 

[HarryStotle]

Let’s respect those ladies and their right to choose what happens with their bodies.

Well here is the problem with “let’s respect those ladies and their right to choose:”

It is not clear to me that the choices being made by those ladies is a completely free choice or one that is highly coerced.

If the choice is made under duress, for fear or anxiety, without proper knowledge, etc., then it isn’t a free choice in the proper sense of the word — it is a compelled choice.

AND if the choice to kill a baby in the womb is made absent all duress simply because the woman “chooses” in the completely unencumbered sense then we might well wonder if the choice is being made in a frivolous manner.

When, in any other circumstance, would we applaud the right of one human being to terminate the life of another merely because they “want to?”

There is something about your depiction of “freedom” or liberty that doesn’t sit right within a well-grounded moral system.

Morality typically obliges or, in Kant’s word, imposes a kind of imperative on the part of the moral agent to act morally.

What you are proposing here is something different. You are proposing that under certain difficult circumstances a woman has a right — based upon her right to liberty — to act against any moral imperative to keep her baby solely on the basis that she has, in this case and in this case alone, a right to invalidate any morality.

I can think of no other case in the realm of human morality where any human moral agent can simply presume a right to nullify another moral being’s right to life simply because they choose to, based upon an appeal to “liberty” — which as I pointed out earlier in this post, the choice often does appear to be a coerced one in any case, and where it isn’t it appears frivolous BECAUSE it supersedes all moral considerations by your very premises.