Is Joe Biden pro-life or pro-choice?

[Hume]

It is nothingness itself, every action must be justified.

Ok, two problems here.

Nothingness is liberty. That’s what it is. There is no moral framework proven to exist at the starting point.

Two. In order for every action to be justified, you have to base it off of starting axioms. If there are no beginning axioms, then there can be no justification.

You say that

1. You can’t inhibit someone’s liberty
2. You can inhibit someone’s liberty unless it inhibits someone else’s liberty
   and that’s a contradiction.

Where on earth have I typed #2? Is that a typo on your part? Got a post reference?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Nothingness is liberty.

Liberty is being able to do what you want, nothingness is nothing (no action).

 

[Hume]

Hume:

Nothingness is liberty.

Liberty is being able to do what you want, nothingness is nothing (no action).

Nothing is not an option with real, live people.

Moreover, “undefined” does not mean “no” or “nothing”. My professors in the sciences and in my philo classes were very keen to make that point.

Undefined is not nothing.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Moreover, “undefined” does not mean “no” or “nothing”. My professors in the sciences and in my philo classes were very keen to make that point.

Undefined in not nothing.

You are going to have to define it, because I do not know for certain what you mean by undefined or liberty for that matter.

 

[Hume]

You can look up a word just as well as I can. When in doubt, I use Oxford. I recommend.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Where on earth have I typed #2? Is that a typo on your part? Got a post reference?

You said
1.

If you exercise liberty to inhibit liberty, you’ve violated it.

1. Liberty means anyone can do whatever you want like murder.
2. Because murder inhibits liberty then they can’t commit murder. (From 1)
3. By not being able to murder, their liberty is also inhibited. (From 2)
4. So in other words, liberty can be inhibited if it inhibits the liberty of someone else.

The definition I used is from 1a from
Liberty | Definition of Liberty by Merriam-Webster

 

[Hume]

Hume:

Where on earth have I typed #2? Is that a typo on your part? Got a post reference?

You said
1.

If you exercise liberty to inhibit liberty, you’ve violated it.

1. Liberty means anyone can do whatever you want like murder.
2. Because murder inhibits liberty then they can’t commit murder. (From 1)
3. By not being able to murder, their liberty is also inhibited. (From 2)
4. So in other words, liberty can be inhibited if it inhibits the liberty of someone else.

The definition I used is from 1a from
Liberty | Definition of Liberty by Merriam-Webster

You’re circling. This is the third time in this thread I’ll post this. Seriously. -

Liberty is the default. It is the starting point, not the end.

It doesn’t take much intellect and time before additional rules develop from this starting point. Specifically referring to the rule of “don’t impede the liberty of others”.

Third time.

Moving on, we employ base axioms like these to construct larger and larger moral systems.
That’s what we do with them. Literally. That’s what premises are for.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

It doesn’t take much intellect and time before additional rules develop from this starting point. Specifically referring to the rule of “don’t impede the liberty of others”.

They contradict and I have proven it (since you haven’t refuted any of the points that I made ). Because they contradict, one of them is wrong, so you have to choose whether the premise is wrong or whether the additional rule is wrong.

 

[Hume]

They contradict and I have proven it (since you haven’t refuted any of the points that I made ).

Ever heard of the “fallacy” fallacy?

I’ve just made my point and we’re circling. I’m moving on. The moderators have notified me about my participation in this thread.

Because they contradict,

A premise “The moral default is liberty” cannot contradict, sir. You need at least one more premise and then you have to show the contradiction. Which you haven’t done.

You’ve just proven "The moral system develops from “You are free” to “You are free, but don’t restrict the self-same freedom of others”.

But hey, if you want to call it a contradiction, fine with me.

To you and the Mods watching, I’ll hang it up now. Thanks for the air.

 

[analiffey]

yes, I agree. Also, if you say “I am personally opposed to abortion, but could not take away a woman’s right to choose,” you are pro choice, literally meaning you are pro-CHOICE

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

You need at least one more premise and then you have to show the contradiction.

The additional rule is a premise.

Ever heard of the “fallacy” fallacy?

You are not really adressing my points, just adressing them in a derogratory manner without any explanation so that is actually really hyprocritical.

 

[Dobby]

He is pro-choice. I hadn’t planned to vote for him. But since he will be the nominee to beat Trump (like a drum), he will get my vote in November. Voting blue, no matter who.

 

[Hume]

The additional rule is a premise.

No it isn’t. It’s obviously a conclusion built with the premise and another hidden premise. Which is needed to build a conclusion - by rule. Right?

something along the lines of “All people are inherently equal”.

You are not really adressing my points,

You’re just mistakenly typing “contradiction” over and over. I don’t see a point.

But I’ve made mine.

Thanks.

 

[Neithan]

Seriously, guys, make a new thread.

 

[Dobby]

Stop. Women who live in poor neighborhoods need PP the most! They don’t have the luxury / ability to go to a family doctor “schedule a d&c”.
Full stop on the black baby stats!! White women in the 'burbs obtain legal abortions at the same rate at black and latino women. They just call them some different.

 

[HarryStotle]

I’m not forcing you to do anything, Van.

Liberty is simply the null. The default. It’s where we begin, not end.

Who died and made liberty the “null?”

Why are you imposing liberty as the “null?”

Have you made the case somewhere that it must be accepted as the “null?”

I don’t recall the bulletin.

The scientific and philosophical null is always “undefined” if nothing else has been previously proven concerning your experiment or argument.

Liberty is defined, however.

Liberty is simply the moral equivalent of this.

Why?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

There’s another thread I made for this discussion so the mods won’t get involved when things get off the specific topic.

 

[upant]

He is pro-choice. I hadn’t planned to vote for him. But since he will be the nominee to beat Trump (like a drum), he will get my vote in November. Voting blue, no matter who.

a vote for Joe Biden supports abortion: more babies will die as the Dems expand access and force taxpayers to pay for abortions

and they also favor

breaking the seal of the confession
forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions
adoption services denied to Catholic Charities
abortion pill available over the counter at the college
same-sex marriage
the whole LGBT special rights agenda
transgenderism
criminal catch and release (look at CA and NY)
eliminating private services in the health field
contraception forced on religious groups (little sisters of the poor)
mandated contraception coverage in your insurance
etc…

which of these policies align with the catholic faith?

Joe will sign off on all of these if the Dems with everything.

 

[TheLittleLady]

It clearly explains the laws that exist in all 50 States. Some choose to believe these laws do not exist in order to advance a political agenda. I am not going to play along.

Good wishes.

 

[upant]

It clearly explains the laws that exist in all 50 States. Some choose to believe these laws do not exist in order to advance a political agenda. I am not going to play along.

Good wishes.

it may, but it doesn’t address what the VA gov discussed and besides laws are being changed all the time and the change starts with statements like the governor’s. if the Democrats put up a bill Joe Biden would sign it. they are the party of death