Abortion: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?

[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 falls because of gravity. (Barring other forces counteracting the effects of gravity)

[Geilinor]

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.

So what?

Is the nature of a woman to be pregnant against her will?

[Mega City 5]

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.

I'm using "act" in a very broad sense. Examples of a stone "acting" in a stony way. If you step on it with a bare foot, it may hurt your foot. If you drop it, it will fall. If you throw it at someone, it'll hurt.

Throwing a stone at someone is very different from throwing a fluffy pillow at someone.

[Arkinesia]

PLEASE READ THE OP BEFORE POSTING

Since the last one was locked, and this debate will continue on for a while, one would think to restart the thread. That I did, and if the mods deem that inappropriate, then lock it.

This topic is about the debate between those who are pro-life and those who are pro-choice. Where do you fall on the spectrum? What do you think about the topic? What are your concerns about what the other side is proposing?

Please not that abortion is not murder.

Abortion does not meet the criteria to be murder.
For it to be murder, it would have to fulfill all the following criteria:
1: It has to be illegal.
2: A person has to be killed.
3: It had to be done with malice aforethought.

Without going crazy here, this argument is pretty weak, since anyone can define murder in any way they please. For instance, some people would say that murder is the malicious taking of human life, regardless of personhood or legality. For instance, the Holocaust is generally considered murder by our standards, but it was legal at the time. What then do you call the Holocaust? “Poorly-thought-out scientific experimentation”?



Anyway, I'm pro-choice. That's not to say I think abortion is wholly right or wholly wrong, or anything like that. But I don't think that banning abortion fixes anything. I would rather engage in a policy that prevents abortion (easier contraceptive access, better sex education, etc.) than one that bans it.

If my SO was asking me for what I thought about her getting an abortion, I would explain the misgivings I have about it, but tell her that it's ultimately her choice and that I'm not her heart or mind. Ultimately, it's her decision, and I can have my own opinion on it, but I can't force that upon another person.

[Ardavia]

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.

I'm using "act" in a very broad sense. Examples of a stone "acting" in a stony way. If you step on it with a bare foot, it may hurt your foot. If you drop it, it will fall. If you throw it at someone, it'll hurt.

Throwing a stone at someone is very different from throwing a fluffy pillow at someone.

Are you arguing that... uh, it's "womanly" of women to be pregnant, regardless of their thoughts on the matter?

[Godular]

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?

Photons are massless. Photons are affected by gravity.

Read up on gravitational lensing.

[Galloism]

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.

I'm using "act" in a very broad sense. Examples of a stone "acting" in a stony way. If you step on it with a bare foot, it may hurt your foot. If you drop it, it will fall. If you throw it at someone, it'll hurt.

Throwing a stone at someone is very different from throwing a fluffy pillow at someone.

Depends, when I drove a truck, I once hauled 5,000 pounds of pillows.

[Mega City 5]

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?

You don't have to suppose that such a thing actually exists. My argument doesn't hinge on the actual existence of such a thing. I am merely asking the following: in a hypothetical world in which such a thing existed, would it be subject to gravity?

[Galloism]

You don't have to suppose that such a thing actually exists. My argument doesn't hinge on the actual existence of such a thing. I am merely asking the following: in a hypothetical world in which such a thing existed, would it be subject to gravity?

Maybe. I'm not sure myself - physics was a long time ago.

[Dyakovo]

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.

What absolute nonsense.

[Ashmoria]

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.

what does nature have to do with abortion rights?

[Mega City 5]

Are you arguing that... uh, it's "womanly" of women to be pregnant, regardless of their thoughts on the matter?

No. In my previous posting, I made absolutely zero arguments against abortion. I was arguing specifically against the primacy of consent and for the primacy of human nature in ethical concerns.

Because that's one of the social liberal presuppositions, i.e., that consent ultimately is all that matters and everything else is based on it.

[Ardavia]

Without going crazy here, this argument is pretty weak, since anyone can define murder in any way they please. For instance, some people would say that murder is the malicious taking of human life, regardless of personhood or legality. For instance, the Holocaust is generally considered murder by our standards, but it was legal at the time. What then do you call the Holocaust? “Poorly-thought-out scientific experimentation”?

Anyone can define murder any way they please. That doesn't change the legal definition of it, which is the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.

As for the Holocaust, well, call it genocide, since that was what it was?

noun
1.
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

[Ifreann]

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 they're subject to gravity. It has nothing to do with being a stone or a feather or a planet or a person. It probably has something to do with Higgs bosons, but I'm no scientist.

Maybe you don't think philosophy has achieved anything since medieval times, but I would have thought that as someone using a computer to access the internet you would appreciate that science has.

[Godular]

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.

I'm using "act" in a very broad sense. Examples of a stone "acting" in a stony way. If you step on it with a bare foot, it may hurt your foot. If you drop it, it will fall. If you throw it at someone, it'll hurt.

Throwing a stone at someone is very different from throwing a fluffy pillow at someone.

And if you have a stone stuck in your flesh somewhere, having it removed will have some judge dredd fanatic popping out of the walls and howling about it being against the natural order.

[Dyakovo]

PLEASE READ THE OP BEFORE POSTING

Since the last one was locked, and this debate will continue on for a while, one would think to restart the thread. That I did, and if the mods deem that inappropriate, then lock it.

This topic is about the debate between those who are pro-life and those who are pro-choice. Where do you fall on the spectrum? What do you think about the topic? What are your concerns about what the other side is proposing?

Please not that abortion is not murder.

Without going crazy here, this argument is pretty weak, since anyone can define murder in any way they please.

The definition provided is the legal definition of murder, thus since we're discussing legality, it is the only one that matters.

[Grave_n_idle]

Abortion is immoral,and a cancer I feel will never go away.So many abortions have been caused due to unmarried sex and simple ignorance on the subject,sex is not for recreation it is for procreation.

"...simple ignorance on the subject,sex is not for recreation..."

[Ashmoria]

Are you arguing that... uh, it's "womanly" of women to be pregnant, regardless of their thoughts on the matter?

No. In my previous posting, I made absolutely zero arguments against abortion. I was arguing specifically against the primacy of consent and for the primacy of human nature in ethical concerns.

Because that's one of the social liberal presuppositions, i.e., that consent ultimately is all that matters and everything else is based on it.

if you don't want to talk about abortion you should post in a different thread.

[Galloism]

Abortion is immoral,and a cancer I feel will never go away.So many abortions have been caused due to unmarried sex and simple ignorance on the subject,sex is not for recreation it is for procreation.

"...simple ignorance on the subject,sex is not for recreation..."

Well - i mean he was right that there is a lot of ignorance on the subject.

[Godular]

Are you arguing that... uh, it's "womanly" of women to be pregnant, regardless of their thoughts on the matter?

No. In my previous posting, I made absolutely zero arguments against abortion. I was arguing specifically against the primacy of consent and for the primacy of human nature in ethical concerns.

Because that's one of the social liberal presuppositions, i.e., that consent ultimately is all that matters and everything else is based on it.

So. Just because a vagina is form fitted to suit a penis, if one should suddenly show up without the consent of the vagina's owner, tough titties its working as intended?

[Dyakovo]

"...simple ignorance on the subject,sex is not for recreation..."

Well - i mean he was right that there is a lot of ignorance on the subject.

As he so aptly demonstrated...

[Mavorpen]

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.

With every post of yours I read, I grow to hate "philosophy" more and more.

[Godular]

And they fall because of gravity because they are stones.

With every post of yours I read, I grow to hate "philosophy" more and more.

I have reason to doubt his credentials.

[Galloism]

Well - i mean he was right that there is a lot of ignorance on the subject.

As he so aptly demonstrated...

Quite so, quite so.

[Ifreann]

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.

Personally I'm picking at it because this idea that things like stones have some essential nature to them that determines/defines their properties and behaviour sounds like something we figured out to not be true quite some time ago.