Is Joe Biden pro-life or pro-choice?

[Hume]

This is fun, but I’ve been called.

Assuming I don’t receive a ban in the meantime (which is common for progressives on this site), I’ll reply later on.

Thanks for the chat! Fun!

 

[Aquinas11]

I agree that the baby is a developing human. No question there. it has it’s own DNA.

But it’s not autonomous apart from its mother.

Neither is a one month old baby so do you support right to murder of one month old baby?

 

[HarryStotle]

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

That was my point that you seem to have missed. Meanwhile you have traveled stealthily down that same “enormous slippery slope” by moving from violating our “vessel of agency” to violating “us.”

How is that any different from what you call the “slippery slope” of moving from …

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

To be clear…

If bodily autonomy is inviolable BECAUSE it violates the autonomy of “us,” then it is the autonomy of the “us” or “me” that is the reason for bodily autonomy being inviolable.

Which brings me back to my point: if the autonomy of “us” or “me” is the justification for bodily autonomy being inviolable then it is also the reason for psychological or emotional autonomy being inviolable.

And by YOU suggesting that the reason bodily autonomy is inviolable is because to violate it is to violate “us,” then you are merely claiming it is our “complete autonomy,” i.e., the "autonomy of “us” that is the ground for bodily autonomy.

You seem to have missed that you have travelled down the precise same “enormous slippery slope” you accuse me of “pulling out,” but in your case you use it as a justification for your conclusion.

Slippery slope for me, but solid reasoning for you? What gives?

Must be that Pyrrhonian skepticism of Hume’s that permits you to rest tranquilly in your skepticism of others but not of your own thought processes?

 

[Aquinas11]

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?

Yes precisely the question I posed to him

Per his logic, rapists have complete autonomy over their body and cannot be told how to behave (not raping). He dodged it

Per that logic, a rapist who doesn’t have autonomy over their own body, is by rule, enslaved.

Was that supposed to mean something?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

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?

Yes precisely the question I posed to him

Per his logic, rapists have complete autonomy over their body and cannot be told how to behave (not raping). He dodged it

Per that logic, a rapist who doesn’t have autonomy over their own body, is by rule, enslaved.

Was that supposed to mean something?

The upshot of “To violate it is to violate ‘us’,” is to make personal freedom (i.e., liberty) the end in itself, the final end of human actions.

So, to ask “Why should I do X?” could only be ultimately answered by “Because I choose to.” In other words, I choose what I choose for no other reason than because I choose it."

Hardly a compelling line of argument given that there are many good reasons, for legitimately good ends that could be provided.

The false notion of liberty is that liberty is a good or end in itself rather than a means toward actual or final goods.

The “principle of liberty” in the former sense (end in itself) would need to be defended by an argument, not presumed as was the case here.

 

[Neithan]

“YOU HAVE TO ARGUE ON MY TERMS” is a sophomoric error.

Dramatic irony is not in your favour here.

 

[Hume]

The upshot of “To violate it is to violate ‘us’,” is to make personal freedom (i.e., liberty) the end in itself, the final end of human actions.

So, to ask “Why should I do X?” could only be ultimately answered by “Because I choose to.” In other words, I choose what I choose for no other reason than because I choose it."

Not, really. No.

I’m not trying to be a contrarian. It’s just that the reason we do things is often pretty straight forward. It brings us some form of pleasure, satisfies a primal drive, ect.

Human action doesn’t occur in the sterile intellectual environment of the Aristotelian philosopher.

Hardly a compelling line of argument given that there are many good reasons, for legitimately good ends that could be provided.

Sure, because it isn’t the end. It’s the beginning. The null. It’s where you start.

Liberty is a fundamental American principle, thankfully. My cop-friend always asks himself if the guy he’s considering arresting really warrants the interruption of his environmental freedom. And good on him for doing it.

The false notion of liberty is that liberty is a good or end in itself rather than a means toward actual or final goods.

It can be readily be both. Liberty is generally defended as an end, it is employed to achieve other ends.

Again, it’s such a large concept that it doesn’t fit in the narrow frameworks some may employ to analyze it.

The “principle of liberty” in the former sense (end in itself) would need to be defended by an argument, not presumed as was the case here.

That’s really the crux of the defense of your side, as I see it.

But the philosophical and scientific null is “undefined”. As I said earlier, this translates to a space where we don’t have limits on what we can do - as a starting point.

If you don’t want to call that “liberty”, then fine by me. Whatever word you want to use for it other than liberty will suffice as long as it conveys the same lack of constraint.

But regardless what that word is, it is the default. The undefined beginning point. Since I call that state “liberty”, I can correctly state that “liberty” is the default - of course allowing you to sub whatever word you like that demonstrates the same idea.

 

[Hume]

Wasn’t a dodge, you just didn’t do a very good job making your point. Read above. Addressed there.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

“YOU HAVE TO ARGUE ON MY TERMS” is a sophomoric error.

Dramatic irony is not in your favour here.

As long as I get the idea conveyed, I’m happy to concede whatever

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

The upshot of “To violate it is to violate ‘us’,” is to make personal freedom (i.e., liberty) the end in itself, the final end of human actions.

So, to ask “Why should I do X?” could only be ultimately answered by “Because I choose to.” In other words, I choose what I choose for no other reason than because I choose it."

Not, really. No.

I’m not trying to be a contrarian. It’s just that the reason we do things is often pretty straight forward. It brings us some form of pleasure, satisfies a primal drive, ect.

Those don’t appear to be “reasons” in a strict sense of the word. They are impulses or urges and don’t involve rational thought as the decisive feature.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

HarryStotle:

The upshot of “To violate it is to violate ‘us’,” is to make personal freedom (i.e., liberty) the end in itself, the final end of human actions.

So, to ask “Why should I do X?” could only be ultimately answered by “Because I choose to.” In other words, I choose what I choose for no other reason than because I choose it."

Not, really. No.

I’m not trying to be a contrarian. It’s just that the reason we do things is often pretty straight forward. It brings us some form of pleasure, satisfies a primal drive, ect.

Those don’t appear to be “reasons” in a strict sense of the word. They are impulses or urges and don’t involve rational thought as the decisive feature.

shrug

Then it ends in the way these things end 99.99% of the time - failure to agree on common semantic.

The only way forward is that you do you and I do me and we give one another the room to do it.

Liberty, in a word.

 

[Aquinas11]

It’s just that the reason we do things is often pretty straight forward. It brings us some form of pleasure, satisfies a primal drive, ect.

You just proved my point - your logic would support the liberty of a rapist to rape

 

[Hume]

Hume:

It’s just that the reason we do things is often pretty straight forward. It brings us some form of pleasure, satisfies a primal drive, ect.

You just proved my point - your logic would support the liberty of a rapist to rape

Liberty is just the starting point. The null. The default.

It doesn’t take a big intellect and much time before you also derive that we cannot impede the self-same liberty of others - it’s a violation of liberty.

 

[Aquinas11]

we cannot impede the self-same liberty of others.

And you already characterized baby in womb as “human being”, so once again you’ve proven the point that mother can’t impede liberty of baby

 

[Hume]

Hume:

we cannot impede the self-same liberty of others.

And you already characterized baby in womb as “human being”, so once again you’ve proven the point that mother can’t impede liberty of baby

But the baby can’t impede hers, so we have a conflict.

-Welcome to the real world-

For reasons outlined above, the tie-breaker is obviously given to the mother.

 

[Aquinas11]

But the baby can’t impede hers, so we have a conflict.

Right, the baby CANT impede hers, hence no conflict

 

[Hume]

Hume:

But the baby can’t impede hers, so we have a conflict.

Right, the baby CANT impede hers, hence no conflict

Of course it can. It will certainly harm her. Possibly greatly. And it might even kill her.

Those are substantial harms anyone would want to avoid.

 

[Aquinas11]

Of course it can

So now you’ve contradicted yourself

the baby can’t impede hers,

 

[HarryStotle]

It can be readily be both. Liberty is generally defended as an end, it is employed to achieve other ends.

No it isn’t an end unless it is defended “for its own sake.”

That does not preclude liberty being defended as a necessary means to other ends, but that is not the same as being an end in itself.

Provide an example of freedom for its own sake and you might have taken a step towards defending your case, but merely asserting it is an important or necessary means does not make it an end in itself.

I would suggest that your ‘clear violation of liberty’ argument requires that the personal liberty of the woman overrides the right to life (and, therefore, the personal liberty) of another human being.

Why ought the personal liberty of the woman override the moral principles that protect the right to life of another human being?

In no other case, that I can think of, would the personal liberty of one moral agent supersede the very right to life of another.

And please don’t deflect to the “bodily autonomy” point, because you yourself admitted that bodily autonomy depends upon the inviolable autonomy of the person.

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

Now you have to make the case that personal autonomy supersedes all moral obligation and morality as a reality.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

Of course it can

So now you’ve contradicted yourself

the baby can’t impede hers,

You’re reading it incorrectly. rubs temples

“The baby can’t impede hers” meaning “The baby isn’t automatically allowed to impede hers”

Same way your mom might have told you that you can’t go play with your friends when you were young. . . .