Arguing About Abortion

[Hume]

This makes no sense. Of course choice is removed when the ability to enact particular kinds of laws is gone.

The choice is passed on to the individual rather than the state.

As a member of the American Solidarity Party, I take it that you support the view that government actions should be taken by the smallest political entity capable of exercising the function?

What political unit is smaller than the citizen themselves?

I suppose the removal of choice is more indirect when it comes to the voters as they vote for politicians rather than laws (referendums excepted), but that’s splitting hairs.

If you want the ability to choose for people via ochlocracy, then sure. I can see why this would be an important objection.

But more importantly, you bringing up the question of “choice” is a complete deflection from what I said! You made the assertion that “the legal right for abortion clinics to exist and operate” was the result of “majority deliberations.”

No, no I did not. Ergo, no need to consider the rest of your counter, here.

But even if someone disagrees with that assessment and say that the right to abortion is in fact found in the constitution, it doesn’t make any sense to try to put forward the argument that all the Supreme Court did was “preserve” a particular constitutional right when the whole argument is that the right in question isn’t found in the constitution to begin with!

I think that’s a great point. It identifies an inherent problem of a dynamic society relying on fixed constitutions.

The darn things age.

Religions encounter a similar problem when considering how to address novel concerns that 1st and 2nd century religious writers couldn’t have even dreamed of.

… huh? The Commerce Clause isn’t cited once in Obergefell v. Hodges.

Apologies. Confused it with another case, then.

It’s been a few years, but I recalled one of the cases making that argument. It might have been one of the cases forgone in favor of Obergefell v. Hodges. Happily withdrawn.

 

[Hume]

That’s why I asked you earlier where you’re getting this, because I’m curious: is this your original thinking, did you read it somewhere or did someone teach it to you? I certainly never took a class about a moral null.

I doubt a class would have been offered on the one subject.

It’s free will. Whether religious or philosophical, you’ve covered it.

If you’re using the null hypothesis, you’re making a claim by calling it moral.

No I’m not. I’m merely questioning what the term would be to describe the state were no constraints have yet been placed upon your moral being.

No gods, no devils, no preachers or conmen.

Man waking up in “Eden” where there is no observable god, spontaneously called from the dirt by evolution rather than direct supernatural actions.

You’re saying that that moral “default” is libertas. Is the moral default always and necessarily libertas? Is it libertas contingent on some condition?

Nulls are contingent on there being no better argument made.

That’s kind of the center of the theory of the null, right?

 

[Servant31]

I know I’m really late to the argument here but I think this is where most if us in faith completely disagree. The baby has rights too, this is the crux of the abortion. If life begins at conception, which Catholics believe, then the baby has human dignity which should be inviolable.

 

[Hume]

There is an aura of “truth” in what you say, but the substance dissipates very quickly.

This is hand-waving.

It’s just elegant, simple and intuitive and you just don’t like it. Which is fine.

Think, for example, of how the progressive view of gender is rapidly indoctrinating young children in schools.

Well, gender is partially a social construct. King Leonidas probably had long hair. If I had long hair, my dad would have called me a hippie.

But I agree fully that it is rooted in biology.

It started out as respecting the freedom of those who have same sex attraction, then moved to promoting same sex marriages, then to legally imposing the revised view of marriage on everyone and calling those with traditional views, “bigoted” for holding them.

Sure. The shift of social norms, brought about by pluralism at it’s root (IMO).

Instead of “All (straight, white) men are created equal”, we’re moving to “All persons are created equal”.

Now, many in elementary schools are being indoctrinated into transgender ideologies and their supporting presumptions that there is no such thing as human nature, even where biological reality is concerned.

I wouldn’t be so doom-and-gloom. The idea that aspects of gender being rooted in biology is fairly popular. You’ll never see the integration of the men’s and women’s events at the Olympics because bio-mechanically, a woman is, generally, not the equal of a man - ceteris paribus.

The reason is that sufficient numbers of people in society have bought into your Nietzschean view that freedom of will is all that matters, and that humans can make themselves into whatever they will.

Again, not true. I think we all know the kid with Down Syndrome will never be an astronaut for NASA. You’re genuinely overreacting to the idea, IMO.

But can a woman be the president? Sure!

Incidentally, that completely sidesteps the point that will acting independently of reason can only act capriciously; and that reason absent any foundational and true premises can only come to nonsensical conclusions.

So just concede to your premises, largely unsupported by observational data, right?

 

[Hume]

I know I’m really late to the argument here but I think this is where most if us in faith completely disagree. The baby has rights too, this is the crux of the abortion. If life begins at conception, which Catholics believe, then the baby has human dignity which should be inviolable.

Sure, and the ultimate gist of the counter is that you should happily be Catholic, but also give people the room to not be Catholic - particularly in a nation where church and state are divorced as a constitutional matter.

 

[Neithan]

That’s kind of the center of the theory of the null, right?

Based on scientific evidence; but you’re trying to make a moral argument? How could you falsify your argument? If you think relativism is true, how is that meaningful? And there is no single null hypothesis, there are many null hypotheses depending on the phenomena under investigation. Your assertion that liberty is null doesn’t mean anything other than, “Liberty has nothing to do with something.”

This is just a word game, I’m afraid. Kudos for originality, though.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

There is an aura of “truth” in what you say, but the substance dissipates very quickly.

This is hand-waving.

It’s just elegant, simple and intuitive and you just don’t like it. Which is fine.

I hesitate to point this out but that would be an accurate description of any delusion in the eyes of the one deluded. The one suffering the delusion would insist that it is so simple, everyone ought to get it intuitively, and its “elegance” is so compelling that it ought to require no additional support.

Not that you are suffering a delusion, necessarily. It is just that significant truths tend to be unacceptable to many and an intellectual chore to establish their truth value.

But, hey, feel free to assert your truth to be “elegant, simple and intuitive” if you can find sufficient support among those who think such words function to replace the need to present an actual case.

 

[Hume]

Based on scientific evidence; but you’re trying to make a moral argument?

The null isn’t exclusively a scientific principle. We used it all the time in my phil classes back when I was a younger man.

How could you falsify your argument?

That’s the beauty of the null, you can’t falsify it. It’s the default.

How do you falsify “uncertainty” if you don’t have a convincing argument?

If you think relativism is true, how is that meaningful? And there is no single null hypothesis, there are many null hypotheses depending on the phenomena under investigation.

Because they’ve built to that. Arguments/experiments have been made and endured scrutiny, moving the null out of an undefined state.

But make no mistake, “undefined” is where they began.

Your assertion that liberty is null doesn’t mean anything other than, “Liberty has nothing to do with something.”

I’m good with that. Your unproven moral construct? The null has nothing to do with it.

What is that state besides “liberty”?

This is just a word game, I’m afraid. Kudos for originality, though.

Lord, it’s all a word game. Really.

Good debaters never get past semantics because once a semantic set is granted, they have lock-tight systems that automatically flow from them.

 

[Hume]

I hesitate to point this out but that would be an accurate description of any delusion in the eyes of the one deluded.

This emotional, somewhat combative language is evidence of the reality, Harry.

The one suffering the delusion would insist that it is so simple, everyone ought to get it intuitively, and its “elegance” is so compelling that it ought to require no additional support.

Like Augustine and Aquinas’ Divine Simplicity?

Not that you are suffering a delusion, necessarily. It is just that significant truths tend to be unacceptable to many and an intellectual chore to establish their truth.

You’ve nailed something, there.

No place like philosophy has a harder time getting a horse to drink from the pool, even if the water is indubitably true.

But, hey, feel free to assert your truth to be “elegant, simple and intuitive” if you can find sufficient support among those who think such words function to replace the need to present an actual case.

Not arguing a case. Discussing the moral null. And it’s surprisingly defensible, which is a good sign, usually.

 

[JSRG]

As a member of the American Solidarity Party, I take it that you support the view that government actions should be taken by the smallest political entity capable of exercising the function?

Why would my status as a supporter of the American Solidarity Party lead you to believe I support that idea? I don’t see any connection between these. Could you fill me in?

But more importantly, you bringing up the question of “choice” is a complete deflection from what I said! You made the assertion that “the legal right for abortion clinics to exist and operate” was the result of “majority deliberations.”

No, no I did not. Ergo, no need to consider the rest of your counter, here.

Whoops, I got mixed up and thought you were the same person as the one I originally responded to, hence my usage of “you said…” My bad.

However, even if you weren’t the one I originally responded to, that still means your reply to that post of mine wasn’t actually addressing the point I was making. It was stated that in a democracy “we must all submit to majority deliberations. Currently, that includes the legal right for abortion clinics to exist and operate.” I pointed out that it wasn’t due to majority deliberations that was the case. Your response, to talk about choices, was not actually addressing my point.

 

[Neithan]

I’m good with that. Your unproven moral construct? The null has nothing to do with it.

What is that state besides “liberty”?

If you’re saying someone ought to have liberty, then you’re saying liberty is good. You’re saying it does have to do with something: the good. Otherwise it’s not moral.

A moral null is a contradiction in terms.

I was just Googling “moral null”; I didn’t find anything like what you’re advocating here but you might find this interesting: » The Five Types of Null Hypothesis Error The Ethical Skeptic

 

[Neithan]

And it’s surprisingly defensible, which is a good sign, usually.

Well, you have to convince other people, not just yourself, to successfully defend an argument. A moral null is amoral. It’s not good. It seems like you’re just doubling down on contradictions.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

That’s the beauty of the null, you can’t falsify it. It’s the default.

How do you falsify “uncertainty” if you don’t have a convincing argument?

Null doesn’t have to be a default and the null could just be nihil or nothing.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

That’s the beauty of the null, you can’t falsify it. It’s the default.

How do you falsify “uncertainty” if you don’t have a convincing argument?

Null doesn’t have to be a default and the null could just be nihil or nothing.

By rule, the null cannot be “nothing”. It is only “undefined” at it’s root.

This is because “nothing” is actually “something”. It’s an identifiable thing (er, well, lack of things).

So no, as a categorical matter you’re wrong here.

 

[Hume]

If you’re saying someone ought to have liberty, then you’re saying liberty is good.

No, I’m saying it’s the null. No good or bad.

A moral null is a contradiction in terms.

Only because you want it to be. It’s non-cooperative with your fiat-based belief system.

If the word “moral” is too loaded for you, I’m happy to change the term to “ethical”.

Well, you have to convince other people, not just yourself, to successfully defend an argument.

Goodness, it’s much more than that.

For example, you weren’t rationally argued into Christianity, or loving your mom, or appreciating a piece of art.

The refusal of the horse to drink has never been descriptive of the pool. It’s only descriptive of the horse.

A moral null is amoral. It’s not good.

You’ve got to be careful there. “Amoral” as in an abbreviation for “anti-moral”, as the a- prefix commonly denotes? Or “Amoral” as in “non-moral”, or “no morals” (good or bad)?

If non-moral, it’s not good. You’re right.

It’s also not bad.

Neutral space.

It seems like you’re just doubling down on contradictions.

I’ve never been shown the contradiction, but as you wish.

 

[Neithan]

How is liberty null? That’s a contradiction. Something can not be relevant and not relevant at the same time. In this case, regarding ethics. You seem to be saying that liberty is something good and then saying it is neither good nor bad. If it is neither, then what’s the problem with limiting it? It has no ethical force, especially against life, which we have more reason, empirically, to observe as a default state.

 

[Lion_IRC]

@Hume
If a person is holding something in their arms, do they have the bodily autonomy to do what they want with their own arms and let it drop?

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

 

[Hume]

That’s a pretty clear display of parental irresponsibility and if you or I were photoed doing that, the authorities would almost certainly and rightly be called.

To your question, no. The overshadowing of a fetus’ autonomy by the mother’s ends at birth.

 

[Lion_IRC]

That’s a pretty clear display of parental irresponsibility and if you or I were photoed doing that, the authorities would almost certainly and rightly be called.

To your question, no. The overshadowing of a fetus’ autonomy by the mother’s ends at birth.

Holding a baby in your arms or holding a baby in your womb are categorically one in the same thing in terms of bodily autonomy.

Can the government force me to hold a baby against my will?

Let’s put it another way. Can the government force me not to drink alcohol while pregnant? #FASD

 

[Lion_IRC]

…or put it yet another way.
If the unborn baby in a woman’s womb has a penis, whose body does the penis belong to?