Is Joe Biden pro-life or pro-choice?

[Hume]

Hume:

For yourself, you absolutely can. Choice gives you that right.

Choice allows me to do it to anyone.

But then you impede the liberty of others, a violation of the default.

Starting to see? Hopefully?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Something must be default. As the null in philosophy and science is “uncertainty” unless shown otherwise, that translates to “liberty” for individual actions.

There is no reason to accept this premise.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

But then you impede the liberty of others, a violation of the default.

Liberty has no restrictions otherwise it wouldn’t be a choice. So if liberty is the sole goal then that statement you made is contradictory.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

Something must be default. As the null in philosophy and science is “uncertainty” unless shown otherwise, that translates to “liberty” for individual actions.

There is no reason to accept this premise.

It’s the behavioral equivalent of “uncertainty” or “undefined” - the great null.

It’s an excellent reason. Of course, I understand why someone would resist it based on held biases.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

It’s an excellent reason. Of course, I understand why someone would resist it based on held biases

You accept it based on biases though.

It’s the behavioral equivalent of “uncertainty” or “undefined” - the great null.

There’s no objective reason to prefer it.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

It’s an excellent reason. Of course, I understand why someone would resist it based on held biases

You accept it based on biases though.

I accept it because it’s the best behavioral equivalent to the null.

As is necessary for a rationalist, if you have a better one we should move to, make your argument!

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

As is necessary for a rationalist, if you have a better one we should move to, make your argument!

I say the same to you.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I accept it because it’s the best behavioral equivalent to the null.

That doesn’t mean anything amd there is no reason to care.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

As is necessary for a rationalist, if you have a better one we should move to, make your argument!

I say the same to you.

I have, repeatedly.

The starting point of all truth is uncertainty or undefined. We only move from that when we have sound reason to. (proof, evidence, experiments, ect).

The behavioral equivalent is liberty. If you disagree that the behavioral “undefined” is “liberty”, by all means, make your suggestion.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

We only move from that when we have sound reason to. (proof, evidence, experiments, ect).

Philosphically these things don’t exist.

The behavioral equivalent is liberty. If you disagree that the behavioral “undefined” is “liberty”, by all means, make your suggestion.

That’s a definition not an argument.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

We only move from that when we have sound reason to. (proof, evidence, experiments, ect).

Philosphically these things don’t exist.

Science is a branch of philosophy, so ya… they kinda do.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Science is a branch of philosophy, so ya… they kinda do.

It may be but no premise is objective unless it is purely empircal.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

Science is a branch of philosophy, so ya… they kinda do.

It may be but no premise is objective unless it is purely empircal.

I’ll agree there. Posteriori truth may be superior to apriori. It’s rooted much more in reality than axiom.

 

[Hume]

That’s a definition not an argument.

That’s just hiding behind semantics.

As the default is undefined, the woman must be free to do as she pleases unless you can demostrate why she can’t.

A la, pro-choice.

Now, if you don’t want to call this liberty, then fine. Whatever word you like that illustrates the same concept is fine w/ me

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

As the default is undefined, the woman must be free to do as she pleases unless you can demostrate why she can’t.

That justifies murder.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

As the default is undefined, the woman must be free to do as she pleases unless you can demostrate why she can’t.

That justifies murder.

As it impedes the liberty of others, murder seems to be a fairly clear violation of liberty.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

As it impedes the liberty of others, murder seems to be a fairly clear violation of liberty.

Not being able to murder is also a violation of liberty so that’s contradictory logic.

 

[HarryStotle]

The woman’s body belongs to her, not her baby. Similarly, your body belongs to you. No one else.

That would all depend upon what would be called “authorship” rights.

The woman did not bring herself into being, nor does she sustain herself in being at each moment. So, by what warrant does the woman own her body without any conditions? She was given life by her parents, so what claim do they have on her?

That appears to be your claim: that a woman has “complete bodily autonomy,” meaning that nothing, no moral principles, no legal encumbrances, no other moral agent has any claims upon her.

Would that be the argument you are attempting to assert, here?

If so, then why couldn’t anyone claim “complete bodily autonomy?” I.e., that no moral claims can be made upon a person owing to their complete autonomy?

If “bodily” autonomy why not psychological or emotional autonomy? Why not complete autonomy from any and all constraints?

You sure you want to go there?

If not complete autonomy, then why complete “bodily” autonomy as if the body has some unique characteristics that person, mind, will or agency do not have?

You may as well write off morality, rule of law, and social/familial obligations all together if you want to make this presumption the foundation stone of your philosophy.

 

[HarryStotle]

VanitasVanitatum:

Hume:

As the default is undefined, the woman must be free to do as she pleases unless you can demostrate why she can’t.

That justifies murder.

As it impedes the liberty of others, murder seems to be a fairly clear violation of liberty.

The opposite is also true, however. Not being able to murder is also a “clear violation of liberty” of the would be murderer.

Ergo, you cannot default to liberty as the ultimate principle. Some other method of arbitrating between liberties must be called into play by you.

So, what would that principle be?

 

[Hume]

That would all depend upon what would be called “authorship” rights.

Not at all. The greater concern is that it uses her body, ultimately for the worse. She must have the right to avoid harm to her being.

The woman did not bring herself into being, nor does she sustain herself in being at each moment. So, by what warrant does the woman own her body without any conditions?

Her parents brought her into being and no, she does labor to sustain herself (work, food, so on).

She is hers. Much more difficult would be explaining why someone else controls her - especially showing it in an empirical way that we can verify to be true.

That appears to be your claim: that a woman has “complete bodily autonomy,” meaning that nothing, no moral principles, no legal encumbrances, no other moral agent has any claims upon her.

Would that be the argument you are attempting to assert, here?

Upon her body, yes.

If so, then why couldn’t anyone claim “complete bodily autonomy?” I.e., that no moral claims can be made upon a person owing to their complete autonomy?

Here, respectfully, is a goal-post shift away from bodily autonomy to complete personal autonomy, which is much more abstract and requires she be the only agent in the universe to enact, which as we see isn’t true.

If “bodily” autonomy why not psychological or emotional autonomy? Why not complete autonomy from any and all constraints?

Because human interaction is inevitable. We are a social species. We do inherently risk peril by being social creatures and part of a tribe. We can be the chief, or we can find ourself exiled.

You sure you want to go there?

Sounds like a basic foray into sociology, if you account for the subtle shift and agree that it’s a different and broader topic - which you may not.

If not complete autonomy, then why complete “bodily” autonomy as if the body has some unique characteristics that person, mind, will or agency do not have?

Because it is the vessel of our agency. It is what carries “us”. To violate it is to violate “us”.

You may as well write off morality, rule of law, and social/familial obligations all together if you want to make this presumption the foundation stone of your philosophy.

I was with you until you pulled out this enormous slippery slope…