Arguing About Abortion

[Hume]

The proabortion position Hume proposes is demonstrably not a rational one. It has no backing from science of any type, nor from any appeal to human rights.

Really? Science tells us that the fetus is bodily dependent upon the woman and it appeals to human rights in that a person’s body is their most sacred possession and they must have sovereignty over it.

Not radical positions, in truth…

The argument for bodily autonomy in the case of abortion is a farce.

No it’s not. You just can’t beat it so denialism is your only recourse…

That’s the main objection I have to the use of “bodily autonomy” in justifying killing innocent human beings. It’s a nonsensical argument.

Can’t wait for you to someday explain why…

Would be more respectable to simply embrace your appeal to naked power as it is, along with all the hideous ramifications that flow from it.
That at least is respectable as an honest pleading, even if it is demonstrably immoral.

And this is why we get the explanation of a particular view from people who actually hold it rather than someone adversarial to it - you don’t get a fair shake, otherwise. It’s akin to asking a 1980s Independent Baptist about the Catholic Church and expecting a fair description…

 

[o_mlly]

Coercion cannot exist when markets are correctly priced?

Coercion is not a market force. “Sell me X and a Y discount or I’ll tell your wife about Z”.

Bit of a stretch, don’t you think. Unless the big secret is a financial one your blackmail example doesn’t apply.

I’ll just dismiss the rest as handwaving…

Of course you will.

Again, you’re just missing the point deliberately because you’ve decided you want an adversarial relationship with me.

Did your finance curriculum also include a course in mind reading?

In an efficient market, you have to use non-market forces to obtain an advantageous trade. Soft-pitch example given above.

Not so. All you need is sufficient volatility and have an understanding of recurring market forces.
We’re off-topic. So I’ll leave it at that.

 

[Hume]

Bit of a stretch, don’t you think. Unless the big secret is a financial one your blackmail example doesn’t apply.

Blackmail for financial gain happens all the time. I’m not going to bother trying to prove it to you if you somehow don’t think it does.

Did your finance curriculum also include a course in mind reading?

It included enough to observe someone trying to errantly conflate market and non-market forces because they may have not known exactly what they were talking about, ergo they were likely just being curmudgeonly.

Not so. All you need is sufficient volatility and have an understanding of recurring market forces.
We’re off-topic. So I’ll leave it at that.

Happy to change back to the topic at hand. If you wanna start a thread about market efficiency and forces than can affect markets both from within and without, shoot me an @.

 

[Stephen168]

The pro-abortion position:

First Principle:

Liberty is not for all human beings.

While claiming the first principle is limited by government, the government is declared wrong if all human beings are giving liberty. Therefore, liberty is not for all human beings.

From first principles we can say:

If a woman doesn’t elect pregnancy, she has a right to homicide.

Pregnancy is not an elective procedure.

Therefore she has a right to homicide.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

They all do. Every abortion is done out of fear.

Not all are about fear and the ones that do usually have nothing to do with
bodily harm which is what you proposed.

Really? Science tells us that the fetus is bodily dependent upon the woman and it appeals to human rights in that a person’s body is their most sacred possession and they must have sovereignty over it.

Living is more important since bodily autonomy doesn’t exist without life.

Again, the notion that mom comes first just isn’t up for debate.

If she doesn’t want to have kids, if she doesn’t want to expose her body to the perils of pregnancy, no one has the right to force her to do that.

Says who? The reasons you present hardly apply.

No it’s not. You just can’t beat it so denialism is your only recourse…

Logic is not that strict, if anything it is at a standstill and no one has the advantage.

 

[Hume]

…if anything it is at a standstill and no one has the advantage.

I can handle that.

So if we can’t crown my philosophy king and we can’t seem to crown yours king either, then the woman gets to decide for herself.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

So if we can’t crown my philosophy king and we can’t seem to crown yours king either, then the woman gets to decide for herself.

Not really.

 

[o_mlly]

This exercise was really just a troll check. Trolls often claim special knowledge falsely. Looks like you have as well.

We already knew that your posts showed the moral depth of a wading pool. Your financial posts show you might drown in a bird bath. If you really did take courses in finance, try for a tuition refund.

 

[Stephen168]

If you really did take courses in finance, try for a tuition refund.

I had the same thought when he suggested there is arbitrage in the same market.

 

[Rau]

Again, the notion that mom comes first just isn’t up for debate.

Sure it is. That is precisely the debate. Mum’s convenience or bub’s life. Because it is not about who is to be saved from death - but rather “should I endure your presence for several months, or should I kill you”.

No one should have the right to kill another for the convenience of avoiding 9 months of inconvenience, [which, in most cases is a result of taking a well known risk.]

So the way to avoid the perils of pregnancy is to… undergo the perils of pregnancy?

One avoids the “perils” of pregnancy by avoiding its causes! By avoiding things that by their nature tend to lead to pregnancy. Does one avoid prison by staging a jail-break, or by avoiding behaviours that tend to lead to incarceration? Jail certainly is restrictive of bodily autonomy

 

[Servant31]

So the issue here is that, even by secular reasoning, her decision is to kill another human being. This can’t be acceptable. And no matter how much scientific twisting, euphimistic reorientation, or intellectual dynamic there might be, the fact of a child’s innate dignity can’t change.

But please understand, it’s not just about arguing. As Catholics we defend the rights of the child, just as we would yours if everyone else on the planet decided yours were null. Every person has dignity. If we remove those rights we are all hurt, reduced.

 

[Hume]

This exercise was really just a troll check. Trolls often claim special knowledge falsely. Looks like you have as well.

We already knew that your posts showed the moral depth of a wading pool. Your financial posts show you might drown in a bird bath. If you really did take courses in finance, try for a tuition refund.

Moderators?

You certainly don’t tolerate personal insults from me…

 

[Hume]

So the issue here is that, even by secular reasoning, her decision is to kill another human being. This can’t be acceptable. And no matter how much scientific twisting, euphimistic reorientation, or intellectual dynamic there might be, the fact of a child’s innate dignity can’t change.

But please understand, it’s not just about arguing. As Catholics we defend the rights of the child, just as we would yours if everyone else on the planet decided yours were null. Every person has dignity. If we remove those rights we are all hurt, reduced.

The issue is that you force a woman to face peril in order for your ideal to be achieved, which is also fundamentally immoral.

If pregnancy was a bag of skittles, 1 in 6 skittles will make you seriously ill.

1 in 100 of those skittles will make you ill in a way that can kill.

1 in 5780 of those skittles are lethal.

If she doesn’t want to eat the skittles, neither you nor I have the right to make her - regardless how special those skittles may be to us.

 

[Hume]

o_mlly:

If you really did take courses in finance, try for a tuition refund.

I had the same thought when he suggested there is arbitrage in the same market.

One of the most popular arenas of arbitrage was in the currency market, in days past. Are you saying that international currency markets somehow don’t exist?

The classic example being rich guys flying loads of currency between London and NYC before cables rendered them too slow…

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

The issue is that you force a woman to face peril in order for your ideal to be achieved, which is also fundamentally immoral.

If pregnancy was a bag of skittles, 1 in 6 skittles will make you seriously ill.

1 in 100 of those skittles will make you ill in a way that can kill.

1 in 5780 of those skittles are lethal.

If she doesn’t want to eat the skittles, neither you nor I have the right to make her - regardless how special those skittles may be to us.

The problem with that is that the alternative will always result in the death of the fetus so it isn’t proportionate.

 

[Servant31]

This argument works in a vacuum. In the absence of any other beings with dignity in the equation. A child. But if you factor in that child … then the equation changes. And it is your modification of that equation that deviates from the reality, in order to achieve an ideality. Reality is the default. You have reassigned reality in order to achieve an ideality. The reality already is present.

 

[Hume]

Sure, I’ll agree that there’s a conflict between mother and fetus.

It’s just for reasons I’ve identified on both sides of the birth canal several times, the only rational tie breaker is that mom gets to choose.

All other reasons aside, she has agency. The fetus doesn’t. It doesn’t even have capacity for it.

“Well then I’ll defend it!”

What gives you the right? Why is your opinion more binding than mine or the mother’s own, especially when it comes to what happens in her body?

Moreover, why do you think it wants to live? Again, it biologically lacks the capacity for “want”. And if it could want, how do you know the fetus would choose life?

I’m reminded of the young Indian man that sued his parents for bringing him into such a crummy world.

So what we’re left with is that you don’t know anything as it pertains to the fetus. And that’s ok, it doesn’t know anything either.

Mom can choose so mom gets to choose, barring a good, observable reason why she shouldn’t.

You guys just can’t meet that standard, respectfully offered.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Moreover, why do you think it wants to live? Again, it biologically lacks the capacity for “want”. And if it could want, how do you know the fetus would choose life?

A sleeping person is unable to want to live either.

It’s just for reasons I’ve identified on both sides of the birth canal several times, the only rational tie breaker is that mom gets to choose.

Your reasons don’t meet the standard.

 

[Hume]

A sleeping person can just be roused when you need them to decide something.

A fetus simply cant decide anything. It’s no more capable of it that your liver or right bicep. It doesn’t have the capacity. Might as well ask a rock.

As to the standard - it’s “Do as you please”. We only modify the standard when there’s a good, rational argument most of us can assent to.

Forcing pregnancy on a woman doesn’t pass muster.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

A sleeping person can just be roused when you need them to decide something.

While they are asleep you can’t make decisions for them.

As to the standard - it’s “Do as you please”. We only modify the standard when there’s a good, rational argument most of us can assent to.

That doesn’t favor one side over the other anyways.