Abortion: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?

[Dyakovo]

Why is it wrong to commit acts of injustice against a human being? Why is it wrong to murder him, to steal from him, etc? Because he is a human being.

I'll end this particular bit here and continue the argument in a new posting.

You've never managed to explain why abortion is equivalent to murder. That's the fatal flaw in your argument.

Near as I can tell it's because foetuses, unlike women, are people...

[Ardavia]

1. This very "right," which is claimed to be the source of all our protections, is being used as a justification and excuse to murder unborn children...so much for their protections, freedoms, etc. So much for other people not being able to do whatever they want to someone else.

I snipped the rest of your needlessly wordy post. Seriously, learn the meaning of the words "concise" and "direct".

The rights of the fetus are void the instant they infringe on the rights of the mother. Just as the rights of anyone become void the instant they infringe on anyone else's rights. So, yes, people are not able to do whatever they want to someone else. Fetuses aren't special or exempt from this.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Na, you shouldn't fuck in baby blood. Just use it to make delicious yummy yummy blood sausage to eat with the corpses of the aborted "beeeeeeeeeybaaaaaaaaaaays".

You'd have to cut it with aspirin anyway to prevent coagulation. Blood dries and coagulates quickly when exposed to the open air.

What if it's about seventy percent alcohol?

[Galloism]

You'd have to cut it with aspirin anyway to prevent coagulation. Blood dries and coagulates quickly when exposed to the open air.

What if it's about seventy percent alcohol?

Then that baby has a drinking problem.

[Ifreann]

You'd have to cut it with aspirin anyway to prevent coagulation. Blood dries and coagulates quickly when exposed to the open air.

What if it's about seventy percent alcohol?

Catching fire will only dry it out faster.

[Mega City 5]

Oh, and stones fall to the ground because of gravity, not because they're stones.

And they fall because of gravity because they are stones.

[Ifreann]

Oh, and stones fall to the ground because of gravity, not because they're stones.

And they fall because of gravity because they are stones.

No, everything falls because of gravity.

[Mega City 5]

No, everything falls because of gravity.

They fall because of gravity because they are the kinds of things that they are.

[Godular]

1. Irrelevant. Being unable to freely assemble isn't like torture either, but that's still a right. If your argument wasn't bullshit rape would be fine as long as the victim was fully drugged - no known harm at all. You see your fallacy now?

2. I eviscerate you with a knife. You die in agony. This makes me a murderer.
A piece falls off a building and crushes you. You die in agony. This is not a murder.

Are you saying that the second situation is somehow not bad? Because all you're doing is stacking a lot of fallacy on top of eachother and saying "but babies!", and that's not a convincing argument.

3. Holy crap this is even worse. This is literally nothing but "but babies!" over and over. There is no argument here. It holds no premises at all.

1.) It's very much relevant. I'm asking how Godular can compare pregnancy to rape.

2.) Again, asking Godular if a baby developing in its natural place is really comparable to rape.

Already responded to your post. Ain't in the mood to repeat myself.

Though I shall summarize: The fetus is irrelevant. Completely and utterly irrelevant. The ONLY thing that matters is that the woman is pregnant when she does not wish to be. In such a case she has and SHOULD have the right to rectify the situation on the same basis as one has the right to defend themselves from an outside aggressor.

[Godular]

No, everything falls because of gravity.

They fall because of gravity because they are the kinds of things that they are.

No, they fall because gravity pulls on every damn thing. The kind of object is irrelevant.

[Mega City 5]

I snipped the rest of your needlessly wordy post. Seriously, learn the meaning of the words "concise" and "direct".

The rights of the fetus are void the instant they infringe on the rights of the mother. Just as the rights of anyone become void the instant they infringe on anyone else's rights. So, yes, people are not able to do whatever they want to someone else. Fetuses aren't special or exempt from this.

I'll get to this in a later posting. The goal of my first post was simply to establish this: consent is not ethically primary. Nature is. Consent, to the extent that it matters at all, is morally derivative.

[Mega City 5]

No, they fall because gravity pulls on every damn thing. The kind of object is irrelevant.

They are able to be pulled on by gravity because of what they are.

Is this really so hard to grasp?

[Galloism]

Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but I'm little confused as to what the universal law of gravity has to do with abortion, other than if the doctor drops his instruments, they will be pulled to the ground because of gravity.

[Dyakovo]

You've never managed to explain why abortion is equivalent to murder. That's the fatal flaw in your argument.

Geilinor, I'm afraid that you've misunderstood the point and general "thrust" of the argument above. Please re-read it. I'll be continuing the argument later. My point here is the consent is not fundamental. Nature is.

You've also failed to explain what you mean by "Nature"(sic) or how and why it is fundamental.

P.S. "nature" isn't a proper noun, so it should only be capitalized if it appears at the beginning of the sentence.

[Ardavia]

No, they fall because gravity pulls on every damn thing. The kind of object is irrelevant.

They are able to be pulled on by gravity because of what they are.

Is this really so hard to grasp?

Not really, because everything gets pulled on by gravity.

[Godular]

So apparently, there's been a flame war in my absense?

Well, I'm not wading through it to find the last set of replies to my stuff. I'll take up the argument again, on this new day, from memory, and I wish to do so by "taking a step back," so to speak.

Once again, I renew the question: "Why does consent matter?" And however you answer this question, you'll find that your answer hinges upon nature (understood as what an x is insofar as Y, its being Y being understood as the innate source of its drives, operations, etc.; the nature of a stone is to be a stone, and its nature as a stone explains why it falls to the ground when dropped). Why does consent matter? Previous posters told me that consent matters because it is the source of all of our "rights," understood as freedoms or permissions. "It alone is what prevents other people from doing whatever they want to me."

[The comedy of this answer, of course, briefly should be noted. 1. This very "right," which is claimed to be the source of all our protections, is being used as a justification and excuse to murder unborn children...so much for their protections, freedoms, etc. So much for other people not being able to do whatever they want to someone else. 2. These very same "rights," which, by their description, are only described as negative (permission), are set against each other, the invariable result of which is to...force someone else to do what the "winner" of the rights contest wants. [Non-discrimination laws come to mind; the Kim Davis case comes to mind.]]

Nonetheless: why does consent matter? "It alone is what prevents other people from doing whatever they want to me." Again: why does this matter? I'll keep asking this question until you admit one of the following:

1. You have no basis for saying that you should be protected rather than not other than your own whims and desires (which I may safely disregard if I have contrary desires and whims and sufficient might to back them up; this is Nietzsche's point, ultimately, isn't it? The ubermensch comes to mind; your appeals to "consent," under this view, do not express any sacrosanct and inviolable moral value; they only identify you as a member of the slavish herd, as a weak, pathetic sheep).

2. You recognize that your very nature as a human being gives you a certain inviolable dignity and worth which may not justly be violated. In other words: your very nature as a human being makes you a subject of justice and right (right understood not in the sense of this modern foolishness, but in the classic understanding of "the right," i.e., of claims of justice and obligation).

Either consent does not matter, or else, nature ultimately (in the natural order, of course; I do not wish to enter into a theological discussion) is the source and well-spring of ethics. Again: either consent does not matter, or else, nature is even more fundamental than consent and is the very basis for its moral relevence. Expressed a third time: either consent does not matter, or else, justice matters even more and consent only properly may be understood in terms of justice.

Let us consider, once more, the first principle of practical reason (according to St. Thomas Aquinas): "Do good and avoid evil."

You will, of course, accuse me of the so called "naturalistic fallacy." I'll answer that it's not actually a fallacy, at least, not in certain understandings. I'll quote St. Thomas Aquinas in answer: ens et verum et bonum convertuntur (being, true and good are convertible or co-extensive with each other). It is the being and truth apprehended by the intellect which we subsequently will and desire as good. (It is in this light that we should understand Pope Francis a while back; when he said "do good and avoid evil," he was just quoting St. Thomas Aquinas.)

For this, I need give no argument, since it is plainly evident from day to day experience. What do you know except insofar as it is true and being? What do you desire except under the description of the good? As color is to sight or sound is to hearing, so too is being and truth to the intellect, and so too is good to the will. [It is in this light that we should understand Maritain's insistence that man is "an intellectual universe of knowledge and love." He has an intrinsic and innate ordering to the truth and being of things in virtue of his intellectual faculties, and an innate ordering to good, as lovable, through his will; in fact, this very ordering of the intellectual faculties to being and truth as such and of the will to the good as such speaks to the fact that each human being is made in the image and likeness of God and is made to know and love God forever; the natural longing of the human being to know truth and being and the natural love of the human being for the good, because these analogons are infinite, only can be brought to rest and satisfied in the "face to face vision" of Infinite Being, Truth and Good; as St. Augustine says in the Confessions: "Our hearts are restless Lord..."]

Thus, just as being never is presented to us, in this state of life, except "covered in essence [i.e., the nature of the thing]," so to speak, as Maritain says somewhere, so too the work of the practical intellect, when it "puts its hand to the plow," so to speak, always must be to enter into a consideration of the concrete good to be done here and now in these circumstances (thus the great importance and indispensable nature of the virtue of prudence), dealing with these determinate kinds of things. "What is the good to be done here and now given that we are dealing with this kind of thing in these circumstances?"

Ethics depends upon nature.

Why is it wrong to commit acts of injustice against a human being? Why is it wrong to murder him, to steal from him, etc? Because he is a human being.

I'll end this particular bit here and continue the argument in a new posting.

Proof.

Any time you say something need not be argued, I will demand proof.

Your definitions have been CONSISTENTLY wrong, and you refuse to recognize when such faults have been detailed to you.

I hereby demand that you justify everything you say with independently verifiable evidence. Precedents are useful.

[Dyakovo]

You'd have to cut it with aspirin anyway to prevent coagulation. Blood dries and coagulates quickly when exposed to the open air.

What if it's about seventy percent alcohol?

Then you drink it.

[Mega City 5]

Not really, because everything gets pulled on by gravity.

If something had no weight or mass, but nonetheless existed, would it get pulled on by gravity?

[Galloism]

Not really, because everything gets pulled on by gravity.

If something had no weight or mass, but nonetheless existed, would it get pulled on by gravity?

I have yet to observe anything without mass that can be said to "exist" in any kind of relevant sense.

[Mega City 5]

You've also failed to explain what you mean by "Nature"(sic) or how and why it is fundamental.

Nature = what a thing is

The nature of a stone is to be a stone. The nature of a stone is its intrinsic principle of "acting" in a stony fashion.

[Dyakovo]

Oh, and stones fall to the ground because of gravity, not because they're stones.

And they fall because of gravity because they are stones.

No, everything (barring other forces counteracting gravity) falls because of gravity.

[Mega City 5]

I have yet to observe anything without mass that can be said to "exist" in any kind of relevant sense.

Humor me. Suppose such a thing existed. Would it get pulled on by gravity?

[Galloism]

You've also failed to explain what you mean by "Nature"(sic) or how and why it is fundamental.

Nature = what a thing is

The nature of a stone is to be a stone. The nature of a stone is its intrinsic principle of "acting" in a stony fashion.

I think we can pretty consistently say that a stone does "act" in any way at all, per se, given it lacks a consciousness to do so.

[Godular]

No, they fall because gravity pulls on every damn thing. The kind of object is irrelevant.

They are able to be pulled on by gravity because of what they are.

Is this really so hard to grasp?

Is it so damn hard for you to understand that gravity pulls on everything equally? The type of object is irrelevant in the extreme.

I was literally just teaching this in physics. That's why it is called UNIVERSAL gravitation. Please be so kind as to NOT demand that rverybody accept every goddamn thing you say as gospel truth, because we do not.

[Galloism]

I have yet to observe anything without mass that can be said to "exist" in any kind of relevant sense.

Humor me. Suppose such a thing existed. Would it get pulled on by gravity?

Why should I suppose such a thing exists? It's never been observed.

I'll only humor you on this if you humor me on something. Deal?