Abortion III: Human Right?

[Dyakovo]

No.
Not inherently, no.
No, it is not.

would you do any of those things, given a chance?

Yes.

[Shnercropolis]

would you do any of those things, given a chance?

Yes.

Why?

[Dyakovo]

Yes.

Why?

That would depend on the specific situation.

[Mavorpen]

Yes.

Why?

I don't think he's a psychic.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

"She shouldn't be forced,"is a negative claim, and therefore doesn't need evidence. Your claim, however, is positive.

Not that's just wrong. As I've pointed out before, negative claims need support (and several negatives have been famously proven, including the inability to rationalize pi).

Not how it works. If there is a good reason to make a woman give birth then give it already. Meanwhile, my stance is there is no reason to make her, which doesn't need evidence just as,"There is no God," doesn't need evidence..

Why does a woman have a right to her body? That's certainly a positive claim.

Because she's the one stuck in it and because we say so.

You've not proven that they're not subject to identical morals, only that our perceptions of these morals have changed.

What? So you're saying Feudal Japan and medieval Europe had the same morals? No, they had different morals, plain and simple.

[Shnercropolis]

Why?

That would depend on the specific situation.

Well I mean, what situation would cause you to do such a thing?

[Dyakovo]

Why?

I don't think he's a psychic.

I knew you were going to say that.

[Dyakovo]

That would depend on the specific situation.

Well I mean, what situation would cause you to do such a thing?

I don't know. I would have to be in the situation where it was a choice.

Edit: Though, for the first one, at one point it was my job to potentially have to kill people who had (at least as of yet) who had done me no harm.

[Godular]

Morality is inherently subjective. Your morals are not everyone's morals.

As for my own personal stance, I gravitate towards equality and consistency and how well both are maintained. I have the right to kill in self defense, and the woman has that same right. Consistency and equality.

You can posit that views and experiences on morality are inherently subjective, but this doesn't mean that objective morality doesn't exist.

Objective morality is an oxymoron.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

That's a pretty big if that you've not substantiated.

The substantiation of the claim that morals are subjective has been seen right here in this thread. If morals were objective, we wouldn't be arguing about whether of not there exists a moral duty for women to carry a pregnancy to term.

Why didn't I think of that?

[Shnercropolis]

Well I mean, what situation would cause you to do such a thing?

I don't know. I would have to be in the situation where it was a choice.

Well if you know of no situation where it would be the "right" thing to do, then why do you think it's not the "wrong" thing to do? (assuming "right" and "wrong" mean they're things you would or would not do if given the chance)

[Caninope]

That's a viewpoint that, as I have said, various philosophers have poked holes in for a century now.

Go ahead and do so then instead of actually just claiming it.

I'm not particularly in the business of casting pearls before swine, but if you really want to read, see below.

Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue for a complete examination of emotivism (a particular type of noncognitivism) but his critiques very much apply to several other branches.

In addition, these two short papers found here and here bring up objections to non-cognitivism, and the essay by David Enoch has arguments that help strengthen the case against non-cognitivism as well.

[Dyakovo]

The substantiation of the claim that morals are subjective has been seen right here in this thread. If morals were objective, we wouldn't be arguing about whether of not there exists a moral duty for women to carry a pregnancy to term.

Why didn't I think of that?

Because I'm smarter than you.

[New Werpland]

That's a pretty big if that you've not substantiated.

The substantiation of the claim that morals are subjective has been seen right here in this thread. If morals were objective, we wouldn't be arguing about whether of not there exists a moral duty for women to carry a pregnancy to term.

If the earth was a sphere, people wouldn't argue over whether it is or not.

[Godular]

No, they don't.

Yes, they do.

No they do not. Present to me a duty that I have no choice but to recognize extant despite my skepticism.

For yammering so much about substantiating claims, you make a damn lot of baseless statements.

[Caninope]

Not that's just wrong. As I've pointed out before, negative claims need support (and several negatives have been famously proven, including the inability to rationalize pi).

Not how it works. If there is a good reason to make a woman give birth then give it already. Meanwhile, my stance is there is no reason to make her, which doesn't need evidence just as,"There is no God," doesn't need evidence..

That's just intellectual laziness.

Why does a woman have a right to her body? That's certainly a positive claim.

Because she's the one stuck in it and because we say so.

I still don't see an ought from an is.

You've not proven that they're not subject to identical morals, only that our perceptions of these morals have changed.

What? So you're saying Feudal Japan and medieval Europe had the same morals? No, they had different morals, plain and simple.

Yes.

They had different perceptions of the moral good though, in the same way that medieval Europe and contemporary Europe have different conceptions of the laws of physics.

[Caninope]

The substantiation of the claim that morals are subjective has been seen right here in this thread. If morals were objective, we wouldn't be arguing about whether of not there exists a moral duty for women to carry a pregnancy to term.

Why didn't I think of that?

Because it's a bad objection.

[Caninope]

Yes, they do.

No they do not. Present to me a duty that I have no choice but to recognize extant despite my skepticism.

For yammering so much about substantiating claims, you make a damn lot of baseless statements.

I didn't say you had no choice to recognize it, I said it exists regardless of your recognition.

[Neutraligon]

Go ahead and do so then instead of actually just claiming it.

I'm not particularly in the business of casting pearls before swine, but if you really want to read, see below.

Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue for a complete examination of emotivism (a particular type of noncognitivism) but his critiques very much apply to several other branches.

In addition, these two short papers found here and here bring up objections to non-cognitivism, and the essay by David Enoch has arguments that help strengthen the case against non-cognitivism as well.

I don't have the time to read it, go ahead an summarize.

[Caninope]

I'm not particularly in the business of casting pearls before swine, but if you really want to read, see below.

Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue for a complete examination of emotivism (a particular type of noncognitivism) but his critiques very much apply to several other branches.

In addition, these two short papers found here and here bring up objections to non-cognitivism, and the essay by David Enoch has arguments that help strengthen the case against non-cognitivism as well.

I don't have the time to read it, go ahead an summarize.

You can't even read the two essays I posted?

[Godular]

No they do not. Present to me a duty that I have no choice but to recognize extant despite my skepticism.

For yammering so much about substantiating claims, you make a damn lot of baseless statements.

I didn't say you had no choice to recognize it, I said it exists regardless of your recognition.

You are still wrong.

Duty is also subjective.

[Shnercropolis]

I didn't say you had no choice to recognize it, I said it exists regardless of your recognition.

You are still wrong.

Duty is also subjective.

You have a duty to pay your taxes, regardless of whether or not you recognize that as a duty or not.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Not how it works. If there is a good reason to make a woman give birth then give it already. Meanwhile, my stance is there is no reason to make her, which doesn't need evidence just as,"There is no God," doesn't need evidence..

That's just intellectual laziness.

I'm a lazy person.

I still don't see an ought from an is.

Maybe the is-ought problem is flawed.

They had different perceptions of the moral good though,

IE they had different morals.

Why didn't I think of that?

Because it's a bad objection.

It's an amazing objection.

I don't have the time to read it, go ahead an summarize.

You can't even read the two essays I posted?

We're not editors. Or obligated.

[Shnercropolis]

That's just intellectual laziness.

I'm a lazy person.

Being lazy doesn't excuse you from laziness.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

You are still wrong.

Duty is also subjective.

You have a duty to pay your taxes, regardless of whether or not you recognize that as a duty or not.

Still subjective because it's derived from subjective morals which say taxation is necessary. Anarchists, with their own set of morals, would argue compulsory taxation is wrong.