Why Abortion should be ILLEGAL

[Angel]

A simple procedure perhaps, but ending the life of an incipient self-conscious being resonates with cosmic complexity, or so it seems to this humanist.
And that may be the crux of our disagreement. Science is not a humanism.

Thanks.

However, your quoting Carl Sagan doesn't answer your implying that there are cosmic complexities associated with the loss of life resulting from abortion.

Request:

In your own words, explain cosmic complexities as they relate to loss of life that is associated with abortion...pretty please with sugar on it.

The extinction of life, especial potentially self-conscious life, resonates with cosmic complexity, yes.

As I contemplate physical reality, there are four orders of mystery (phenomena that have no explanation).

The first-order mystery is the origin of the universe itself, the well-ordered universe, the cosmos.
The second-order mystery is the origin of life on earth.
The third-order mystery is the appearance of sentience in life forms.
The fourth-order mystery is the upsurge of consciousness.
Unless one attributes these mysteries to the intervention of some intelligent Force, they remain mysteries of the highest complexity and interrelatedness.
The universe is the necessary condition for life;
Life is the necessary condition for sentience.
Sentience is the necessary condition for consciousness.
To end the life of a potentially sentient and self-conscious being is to end a triple mystery of complex cosmic development.
Thus, abortion "resonates with cosmic complexity."

 

[Angel]

YET WHERE DID THOSE DIVERSE CLAIMS COME FROM, regarding what was or wasn't considered moral? That's what makes morals arbitrary! They all began to exist as a result of someone's say-so --(one definition of "arbitrary"). Much of Western Civilization "morals" can be traced ultimately to the Code of Hammurabi, a fellow who was quite willing to kill anyone in his kingdom/empire who didn't submit to his Code. And of course the Bible, especially the Old Testament, is also a result of mere say-so (by the preachers who wrote it.) In NO case is there a "moral code" that was derived from Objectively Verifiable Fact, the way a system of ethics can be derived. (And since that is a negative claim, if you think I'm wrong, you get to find the moral code that was derived from Objectively Verifiable Fact.)

NOT THE ONLY THING. It is well-known that making something illegal tends to make it an attractive thing to do, for the more-rebellious members of the population. Years ago (before the internet) I read an article about the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Act, which among other things banned heroin in the USA. Meanwhile, about the same time in England, they decided to make heroin a prescription drug. By the 1960's there were 100,000 heroin addicts in New York City alone, while in all of England there were only 400 or so. I've pretty much decided (personal opinion) that it is silly to make anything illegal (but peer pressure can still be effective at influencing behavior).


IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS. If more folks abort when it is illegal than when it is legal, it means folks still had enough freedom to get those abortions done.


THEY SIMPLY HID IT. Do you know what a "speakeasy" is?

YOU'RE THE ONE WHO DECIDED TO SKIP THE MIDDLE. I pointed out multiple problems with your argument, and you didn't have to choose to prematurely focus on the freedom to find an abortion provider.


I'VE ARGUED AGAINST THAT SINCE THE "early in our discussion" POST LINKED IN #277.

You're all over the map. I'm trying to focus our discussion. Your argument about the universality of killing is good, but will have to wait until we can agree on the term "moral" and until you acknowledge that anti-abortion law would infringe on the freedom of the (moral) agent. As it is, you've tempered your conclusion that anti-abortion law does not infringe on freedom to the more moderate conclusion that individuals "still had enough freedom" to get an abortion.
This was your original post:

LOOKS TO ME LIKE YOU JUST CONTRADICTED YOURSELF. Plenty of things are illegal, yet folks do them anyway (possibly the most-common thing is going faster than the speed limit). Minnie616 has several times posted statistics indicating that abortion rates are higher in places where it is illegal, than in places where it is legal. That should be quite-clear evidence that illegalizing abortion does not notably infringe on the freedom to obtain an abortion.

As I pointed out in #271, this argument misses my point, which is that government should not be making moral choices for moral agents. You shift the focus to freedom, and I challenged that as well.
So here we are going off topic talking about freedom. Fine. But it isn't an argument for freedom, either, unless you can show a correlation between incidence and freedom, which you haven't. Speakeasies were surreptitious affairs. To argue that there is more freedom in acting surreptitiously than in acting openly makes no sense to me.

As for your objection to the use of the term moral, your argument seems to be that relativism implies arbitrariness and immorality implies worthlessness. Both of these arguments fail. Relativistic morality was systematic within a culture, and so not arbitrary. And the immorality of people may point to a certain ineffectiveness of morality, but not to its overall ineffectiveness for binding peoples together.

I ask you again, in the hope that we can get on with our discussion and not get bogged down in semantics, do you or do you not recognize right and wrong actions?

 

[trailergold]

Look, I get why many people fight over this subject, but I want to let you guys know how I feel. I support the right to choose. The baby's right to choose if they want to die or not. According to doctors, all life begins at the moment of conception. So doesn't that mean aborting an unborn child is terminating life? If a woman has a baby she doesn't want, why did she get pregnant in the first place. And don't say it was an accident, because if the woman really cared, she would have taken birth control and made sure a protective piece was worn. No matter what, ending a life is ending a life, it doesn't matter if your unborn or a 30 year old man. The worst part is the person dying has no control whatsoever, so until anybody can convince me otherwise, these are my beliefs.

Who the fuk are you to condemn anybody to a life of sleaze and slavery. You should have been aborted. Lowlife scum.

 

[Angel]

Who the fuk are you to condemn anybody to a life of sleaze and slavery. You should have been aborted. Lowlife scum.

Ah! Your post takes me back to those heady junior-high debates on the neighborhood front stoop with Ralph the Beast, Jerry the Mope, and Johnny Ding Dong.

 

[FutureIncoming]

[part 1 of 2, in reply to Msg #302]

You're all over the map.

BECAUSE YOU WERE WRONG MULTIPLE WAYS. Which I explained in the same sequence as the parts of your argument.

I'm trying to focus our discussion.

DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT, TO ME. For example:

Your argument about the universality of killing is good, but will have to wait

YOU COULD SIMPLY HAVE NOT MENTIONED THAT AT THIS TIME. If you are actually trying to focus this discussion!

until we can agree on the term "moral"

HIGHLY UNLIKELY. I presented evidence showing that morals are arbitrary and contradictory, and humanity has fought a ridiculous number of wars because of conflicting claims regarding the "morality" (or immorality) of something. Meanwhile, ethics can be Universally agreed-upon because no one can refute an Objectively Verifiable foundation-statement, nor refute the Good Logic that leads to concluding some things are consistent with that Statement, and others are not.

and until you acknowledge that anti-abortion law would infringe on the freedom of the (moral) agent.

THERE'S ANOTHER THING THAT DIDN'T NEED TO BE MENTIONED AT THIS TIME. Not if you are trying to focus the discussion!

As it is, you've tempered your conclusion

FALSE. **YOU** misinterpreted what I wrote, twice (making me suspect you are deliberately twisting my words, to see if you could get away with doing that), and I had to explain how that misinterpretation was different from my original statement.

that anti-abortion law does not infringe on freedom

THERE YOU GO AGAIN, MISINTERPRETING WHAT I ORIGINALLY WROTE. Why did you leave out the word "notably"? Especially when you took the time to present an exact quote![/quote]

As I pointed out in #271, this argument misses my point,

YOUR ARGUMENT DOES NOT LOGICALLY REACH THE POINT. Which I what **I** pointed out! It skips at least one step, and has at least two contradictions (the first-presented of which relates to the universality of killing).

which is that government should not be making moral choices for moral agents.

THERE'S A BETTER WAY TO REACH THAT CONCLUSION. Just accept that the word "moral" refers to something arbitrary and contradictory, and is thus worthless. ANY choice (like the decision to twiddle thumbs) could arbitrarily be called a "moral choice", and either side of that choice could be arbitrarily declared "right" or "wrong". Even fiction makes fun of the arbitrariness of morals! Remember the "little enders" and the "big enders" that decided to go to war in Lilliput, wherel Gulliver intervened?

You shift the focus to freedom,

FALSE. I originally pointed out multiple errors in your argument, in the same order as the steps of your argument (with freedom being associated with the last step). You are the one who shifted the focus to a different sequence!

and I challenged that as well.

OUT OF SEQUENCE. And still out of sequence, if you are trying to focus on the word "moral".

 

[FutureIncoming]

[part 2 of 2, in reply to Msg #302]

So here we are going off topic talking about freedom. Fine.

REMEMBER TO BLAME YOURSELF FOR THAT.

But it isn't an argument for freedom, either,

THERE YOU GO AGAIN, MISINTERPRETING WHAT I WROTE. The freedom to guzzle alcohol (openly} is equivalent to the freedom to guzzle alcohol (secretly). Access to a secret place is more restrictive than access to an open place, but that has nothing to do with the guzzling itself. Prohibition did not stop people from being able to guzzle alcohol.

unless you can show a correlation between incidence and freedom, which you haven't.

I HAVE MADE NO CLAIM THAT REQUIRES SUCH A CORRELATION. When you stop misinterpreting what I write, you can also stop requesting support for your misinterpretations.

Speakeasies were surreptitious affairs. To argue that there is more freedom in acting surreptitiously than in acting openly makes no sense to me.

TO MISINTERPRET WHAT I WROTE MAKES NO SENSE TO ME. I never said anything about "more freedom" being associated with illegalized activities.

As for your objection to the use of the term moral, your argument seems to be that relativism implies arbitrariness

NOPE. Different cultures that had no relation to each other developed different sets of morals, sometimes including opposite morals (like cannibals in one place, and non-cannibals far from there). "Relativsm" requires a relationship between at least two things.

and immorality implies worthlessness.

NOPE. Both concepts, "moral" and "immoral", are equally worthless because both are the result of arbitrary say-so, that such-and-such is declared to "moral", or that such-and-such is declared to be "immoral". The Fact that in other places, others arbitrarily declared the opposite ("a woman's head must be covered"), just proves that neither side can support its claims with Objectively Verifiable Evidence.

Both of these arguments fail.

NOPE. Your misinterpretation fails, but not my actual arguments.

Relativistic morality was systematic within a culture,

IRRELEVANT. That has nothing to do with how claims regarding the morality of things first began to exist.

and so not arbitrary.

FALSE. Because all claims regarding the morality of things began to exist as a result of mere say-so (which is one of the definitions of "arbitrary").

And the immorality of people may point to a certain ineffectiveness of morality, but not to its overall ineffectiveness for binding peoples together.

NOT WHAT I MEANT BY "WORTHLESS". See above for what I actually meant, not your misinterpretation.

I ask you again, in the hope that we can get on with our discussion and not get bogged down in semantics, do you or do you not recognize right and wrong actions?

WHEN DEFINED PER A SYSTEM OF ETHICS, YES. Entirely because that can be an Objectively Verifiable, non-arbitrary and Universally-agreed-upon system. "Morals" have utterly failed to be any of those things.

 

[Angel]

[part 1 of 2, in reply to Msg #302]
BECAUSE YOU WERE WRONG MULTIPLE WAYS. Which I explained in the same sequence as the parts of your argument.
DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT, TO ME. For example:
YOU COULD SIMPLY HAVE NOT MENTIONED THAT AT THIS TIME. If you are actually trying to focus this discussion!
HIGHLY UNLIKELY. I presented evidence showing that morals are arbitrary and contradictory, and humanity has fought a ridiculous number of wars because of conflicting claims regarding the "morality" (or immorality) of something. Meanwhile, ethics can be Universally agreed-upon because no one can refute an Objectively Verifiable foundation-statement, nor refute the Good Logic that leads to concluding some things are consistent with that Statement, and others are not.
THERE'S ANOTHER THING THAT DIDN'T NEED TO BE MENTIONED AT THIS TIME. Not if you are trying to focus the discussion!
FALSE. **YOU** misinterpreted what I wrote, twice (making me suspect you are deliberately twisting my words, to see if you could get away with doing that), and I had to explain how that misinterpretation was different from my original statement.
THERE YOU GO AGAIN, MISINTERPRETING WHAT I ORIGINALLY WROTE. Why did you leave out the word "notably"? Especially when you took the time to present an exact quote!

YOUR ARGUMENT DOES NOT LOGICALLY REACH THE POINT. Which I what **I** pointed out! It skips at least one step, and has at least two contradictions (the first-presented of which relates to the universality of killing).
THERE'S A BETTER WAY TO REACH THAT CONCLUSION. Just accept that the word "moral" refers to something arbitrary and contradictory, and is thus worthless. ANY choice (like the decision to twiddle thumbs) could arbitrarily be called a "moral choice", and either side of that choice could be arbitrarily declared "right" or "wrong". Even fiction makes fun of the arbitrariness of morals! Remember the "little enders" and the "big enders" that decided to go to war in Lilliput, wherel Gulliver intervened?
FALSE. I originally pointed out multiple errors in your argument, in the same order as the steps of your argument (with freedom being associated with the last step). You are the one who shifted the focus to a different sequence!
OUT OF SEQUENCE. And still out of sequence, if you are trying to focus on the word "moral".

[part 2 of 2, in reply to Msg #302]
REMEMBER TO BLAME YOURSELF FOR THAT.
THERE YOU GO AGAIN, MISINTERPRETING WHAT I WROTE. The freedom to guzzle alcohol (openly} is equivalent to the freedom to guzzle alcohol (secretly). Access to a secret place is more restrictive than access to an open place, but that has nothing to do with the guzzling itself. Prohibition did not stop people from being able to guzzle alcohol.
I HAVE MADE NO CLAIM THAT REQUIRES SUCH A CORRELATION. When you stop misinterpreting what I write, you can also stop requesting support for your misinterpretations.
TO MISINTERPRET WHAT I WROTE MAKES NO SENSE TO ME. I never said anything about "more freedom" being associated with illegalized activities.
NOPE. Different cultures that had no relation to each other developed different sets of morals, sometimes including opposite morals (like cannibals in one place, and non-cannibals far from there). "Relativsm" requires a relationship between at least two things.
NOPE. Both concepts, "moral" and "immoral", are equally worthless because both are the result of arbitrary say-so, that such-and-such is declared to "moral", or that such-and-such is declared to be "immoral". The Fact that in other places, others arbitrarily declared the opposite ("a woman's head must be covered"), just proves that neither side can support its claims with Objectively Verifiable Evidence.
NOPE. Your misinterpretation fails, but not my actual arguments.
IRRELEVANT. That has nothing to do with how claims regarding the morality of things first began to exist.
FALSE. Because all claims regarding the morality of things began to exist as a result of mere say-so (which is one of the definitions of "arbitrary").
NOT WHAT I MEANT BY "WORTHLESS". See above for what I actually meant, not your misinterpretation.
WHEN DEFINED PER A SYSTEM OF ETHICS, YES. Entirely because that can be an Objectively Verifiable, non-arbitrary and Universally-agreed-upon system. "Morals" have utterly failed to be any of those things.

Well, it looks like we're done then. Thanks for an invigorating few days.

 

[joG]

Sounds like an excuse, not a reason.

Usually the underlying reason is camouflaged behind excuses.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Well, it looks like we're done then.

AND YOUR ARGUMENT IS DONE, TOO. It simply is not rational enough, mostly because the word "moral" is inherently a worthless way to specify "right" or "wrong".

Thanks for an invigorating few days.

YOU ARE WELCOME. Also, if you are truly pro-choice, then you need not work so hard to present a pro-choice argument. That's because the simplest-of-all such arguments is this: "There is no Objectively Valid rationale for illegalizing abortion in this day-and-age." It puts the Burden of Proof where it belongs, on abortion opponents making the positive claim that abortion targets a person for killing, or the positive claim that an unborn human deserves rights, or the positive claim that childbirth is safer than abortion, or some other positive claim that could become an excuse to illegalize abortion. Finding and exposing the holes in an anti-abortion argument is much more fun than trying to defend the holes in a pro-choice argument.

 

[Angel]

 

[D_NATURED]

Many people who support abortion have the same mentality of that of an ISIS fighter. They have very little regard for human life and kill humans in the most barberic ways possible. I am not saying people that have and perform abortions are moroally equivalent to that of ISIS fighters however they share a very similar ideology.

That's crazy. Abortions aren't a war on fetuses, mandated by an invisible god. They are a medical procedure for a woman's health.

 

[Removable Mind]

That's crazy. Abortions aren't a war on fetuses, mandated by an invisible god. They are a medical procedure for a woman's health.

It never ends... :no:

 

[Fenton Lum]

It never ends... :no:

Patriarchy?

 

[Removable Mind]

Patriarchy?

Irrational, false equivalencies. But if you want to throw in patriarchy...be my guest.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Irrational, false equivalencies. But if you want to throw in patriarchy...be my guest.

I'll leave it to the two people involved, man. I can't control what other people choose. Neither can you.

 

[Angel]

It never ends... :no:

Hey, man! Where'd you go? I replied to your request back in #301 four days ago, and took pains with it to boot. The least you could do is acknowledge it. Dontcha think?

 

[Removable Mind]

I'll leave it to the two people involved, man. I can't control what other people choose. Neither can you.

Good thinking. I don't disagree. Actually you can reduce the number "two" down to "one". The "one with the uterus".

It'd be great if you could convince pro-life advocates, religious organizations, and governments that they can't control people's choices.

 

[Removable Mind]

Hey, man! Where'd you go? I replied to your request back in #301 four days ago, and took pains with it to boot. The least you could do is acknowledge it. Dontcha think?

From your post #301

As I contemplate physical reality, there are four orders of mystery (phenomena that have no explanation).

It makes for a good outline for a fiction novel.

You do have a creative imagination.

 

[Angel]

It makes for a good outline for a fiction novel.

You do have a creative imagination.

You're a real mensch, RM. I'll have to remember this about you in future exchanges with you.

 

[Removable Mind]

You're a real mensch, RM. I'll have to remember this about you in future exchanges with you.

If you feel the necessity to remember me...that's up to you. But don't feel any obligation to.

 

[Angel]

If you feel the necessity to remember me...that's up to you. But don't feel any obligation to.

Now you're playing Gotcha Last?!
No, on the contrary, I have a moral obligation to remember what a mensch you are.
And I shall.

 

[RamFel]

I think you have a very unformed view on the subject based on some of the assertions and statements you made here. I don’t expect to change your mind but I hope you can come to learn that so many of the aspects of this topic aren’t anything like as clear cut as we might like them to be;

The idea of babies choosing is obviously ridiculous rhetoric. Even after they’re born, young children don’t make such decisions for themselves simply because they can’t. On the principle you’re presenting here, parents would be prevented from making any serious medical decisions about their children, including things that could cause their death such as risky surgery or turning off life support.

Doctors don’t say “all life begins at the moment of conception”. The question of when human life begins, even what life actually is, remains openly debated with no definitive conclusion and certainly no singular shared opinion among all “doctors”.

The idea that women only get pregnant due to their (and only their) own negligence or that abortion is only considered due to unplanned pregnancy is gross ignorance and a direct insult to a vast number of women who this difficult subject impacts directly.

Finally, you say abortion should be illegal as if criminalising it (be that for the woman or the people performing it) would stop it happening. As history and some places in the world demonstrate, all it does is ensure that when abortion does happen it’s unregulated, unmanaged, open to abuse and opportunism.

On the third paragraph, I know I have heard that this was the view of the medical community, in the past. My question is, when was the switch made? Date: and reason:

 

[Fenton Lum]

So tell me why again, since the Republican Party has made this such an issue and has control of the legislature, they're doing absolutely nothing on this? Again?

 

[HonestJoe]

On the third paragraph, I know I have heard that this was the view of the medical community, in the past. My question is, when was the switch made? Date: and reason:

I don't believe what you've heard is correct. There have long been a variety of philosophical, theological and social ideas about what life is and specifically in relation to reproduction but I don't believe there has ever been any definitive answers to those questions agreed on. When modern medicine first became a thing (relatively recently on this scale), I don't think the specifics were especially relevant since they were limited in what they could do regardless.

It was only when medical advances in both life support and reproduction gave us the ability to interfere did these moral questions about life come to have practical relevance. The positions individual doctors or the relevant groups and organisations reach to try to address that will just be a reflection of the variety and indecisiveness of the wider social opinions, which is why they continue to struggle with them just like the rest of us.