Why Abortion should be ILLEGAL

[FutureIncoming]

It is evident from your very own post -- assuming you were once yourself "an unborn human." That is, unborn humans, if left to be born, eventually post on DP.

FALSE. You are now making a very common error of abortion opponents. I explained that error in great detail in some other posts recently in another message thread here (because like I just said, others make that error, too).

No other animal life form does that.

NO ANIMAL ON EARTH DOES THAT, PERIOD. Only Nurture, not "Natural development when left alone", causes minds to exceed the mere-animal level and become person-class.

Let's See Your Evidence Supporting That Claim!

A MERE-ANIMAL ENTITY CAN BE CALLED THAT BECAUSE (1) it is biologically an animal, and (2) it lacks a person-class mind. When an entity happens to have such a mind, then it is a person, not a mere animal. Humans have spent thousands of years declaring themselves to be superior to ordinary animals, yet there are only two aspects of humans that we have, that can allow us to say that, and neither aspect occurs automatically as a result of only Natural development. One aspect is the ability to do long-distance running, we can do "cursorial hunting" better than any other predator on Earth --but one needs to practice running for years to get that good, able to "run to ground" any deer one happens to decide to chase. The other aspect is our minds (so see the links in the first part of this message).

Let's See Your Evidence Supporting That Claim!

EASY. The human body is not the thing that makes us persons (and if you declare otherwise, then you will be making a positive claim that you need to support with evidence!). Since any biological animal without a person-class mind is **just**and**only** an animal, and since there exist tests for the existence of person-class minds, It Logically Follows that any animal that fails the tests also fails to qualify as a person.

Let's See Your Evidence Supporting That Claim!

THAT ONE I DON'T HAVE TO SUPPORT --it was a negative claim, after all!

 

[FutureIncoming]

Buried under a mound of misdirection,

PRECISION IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM MISDIRECTION. I was simply pointing out that your claim is too generic. One or more **aspects** of life may be a mystery, but life itself is not. Haven't you heard that we are building synthetic genes in the laboratory, and they work fine? We couldn't do that if the workings of life, the machinery of life, was a mystery!

you acknowledge, as you must willy-nilly in the end, that my basic assumption, that life is a mystery, is sound;

UTTERLY FALSE. I most certainly do not acknowledge that your too-broad statement is in any sense accurate. Only certain aspects of life is a mystery --and not very many aspects, either.

but you seem unable to admit this outright,

I'M NOT GOING TO, EITHER. See just above!

so that we can get on with a discussion.

WE ARE DISCUSSING SOMETHING. Your overly-broad and therefore inaccurate/even-erroneous claim!

Life is a mystery.

TOO BROAD A CLAIM. Be specific! ALSO, where is your supporting evidence for that positive claim? The last time you offered anything along that line, you qualified your claim, by saying something about the origin of life was a mystery (**different** from "life itself is a mystery", see?), or why life exists is a mystery (also different from "life itself is a mystery"!). So, if you insist on making the broad claim, you must support the broad claim!

Please acknowledge as much,

NOPE. Not without the requested evidence, at the very least!

and then we can discuss whether life matters or not.

THAT IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CLAIM. I don't see that it is necessarily connected to the first claim, which means it could possibly be Debated separately.

 

[Removable Mind]

And some folks think that simply because they are entitled to an opinion, their opinion is entitled to serious consideration. :yawn:

Your "opinion" is duly noted. I believe your "opinions are as important as everyone else's. But we are all "entitled" to express them.

Being emphatic that abortion is a moral atrocity - moves the discussion into the middle of a range of other perspectives, which aren't all congruent with the any single belief system.

 

[Angel]

So just to clear you acknowledge that you no longer view that abortions are immoral unless to save the life of the pregnant woman?

Because in your previous post you stated:

No, that's exactly my position. Abortion must be legal. Abortion must be legal because moral agents must not be constrained by law from making moral choices.
Abortion is immoral unless performed to save the life of the mother.
I've never wavered from this position in this thread.

 

[Angel]

Being emphatic that abortion is a moral atrocity - moves the discussion into the middle of a range of other perspectives, which aren't all congruent with the any single belief system.

The moral dimension of abortion is my argument for its legalization. Where my view falls in the spectrum of views is immaterial to the soundness of the argument. And whether my view is congruent or incongruent with any belief system is immaterial to the soundness of the argument. My argument is based on Reason. Reliance on Reason does not constitute a belief system, as it is the ground and justification of any and all belief.

 

[Angel]

PRECISION IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM MISDIRECTION. I was simply pointing out that your claim is too generic. One or more **aspects** of life may be a mystery, but life itself is not. Haven't you heard that we are building synthetic genes in the laboratory, and they work fine? We couldn't do that if the workings of life, the machinery of life, was a mystery!


UTTERLY FALSE. I most certainly do not acknowledge that your too-broad statement is in any sense accurate. Only certain aspects of life is a mystery --and not very many aspects, either.


I'M NOT GOING TO, EITHER. See just above!


WE ARE DISCUSSING SOMETHING. Your overly-broad and therefore inaccurate/even-erroneous claim!


TOO BROAD A CLAIM. Be specific! ALSO, where is your supporting evidence for that positive claim? The last time you offered anything along that line, you qualified your claim, by saying something about the origin of life was a mystery (**different** from "life itself is a mystery", see?), or why life exists is a mystery (also different from "life itself is a mystery"!). So, if you insist on making the broad claim, you must support the broad claim!


NOPE. Not without the requested evidence, at the very least!


THAT IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CLAIM. I don't see that it is necessarily connected to the first claim, which means it could possibly be Debated separately.

Your post turns on what may be a semantic issue, namely, whether after a phenomenon is completely understood as to its mechanism, while its origin remains unknown, it deserves to be classed as a mystery. I say Yes; you say No. To my mind, the unexplained existence of Life on Earth makes it an enigma, however well we understand the mechanisms of Life. The existence of a phenomenon that cannot be explained by science is what is commonly called a "miracle." Life on earth is just such a phenomenon.

My argument for the legalization of abortion relies on the enigma of Life on earth. There is no doubt that science itself regards the occurrence of Life on earth as an unexplained phenomenon. If you cannot acknowledge the same, then we have nothing further to discuss. Bringing self-consciousness into the equation just compounds the enigma; it does not remove it.

 

[zyzygy]

No, that's exactly my position. Abortion must be legal. Abortion must be legal because moral agents must not be constrained by law from making moral choices.
Abortion is immoral unless performed to save the life of the mother.
I've never wavered from this position in this thread.

In your subjective morality.

 

[Angel]

Nope. Truth can be expressed all the time.

EX: The American Civil War began in 1865.
EX #2: Water is wet.

Those are things that are both objectively true.



It's not. Opinions are based on personal observations that may or may not be true. EX: Star Wars is the best movie series in history.



It can be objectively true that you hold a specific opinion. Like for example, I hold the opinion that unpopular forms of free speech should be protected by the government. Obviously, the fact that I hold that opinion is an objective truth. But that doesn't make my opinion itself objectively true.

Get it now?

So an opinion based on fact is an objectively true opinion, yes?
So what is not objectively true about my pro-choice argument?

 

[TheGoverness]

So an opinion based on fact is an objectively true opinion, yes?
So what is not objectively true about my pro-choice argument?

You said abortion is immoral. That is merely your opinion.

That is not objectively true.

 

[year2late]

You said abortion is immoral. That is merely your opinion.

That is not objectively true.

Exactly.

You are entitled to your beliefs.

But if you want to present your beliefs as fact, they should be verifiable.

 

[JayDubya]

You said abortion is immoral. That is merely your opinion.

That is not objectively true.

Depends on how strict you want to be.

Killing other human beings in cold blood, needlessly, be it capriciously or for your own personal gain, is as objectively "evil" as anything can be.

 

[Fenton Lum]

So why don't the republicans ever go after this, even when in total control? They need the wedge, the masses must be kept quibbling amongst themselves. The entire thing is a ruse.

 

[JayDubya]

So why don't the republicans ever go after this, even when in total control? They need the wedge, the masses must be kept quibbling amongst themselves. The entire thing is a ruse.

The Supreme Court. It's still a thing.

 

[Fenton Lum]

The Supreme Court. It's still a thing.

And yet you are still waiting aren't you.

 

[JayDubya]

And yet you are still waiting aren't you.

Waiting for the Supreme Court lineup to change so they can fix an earlier mistake?

Yes.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Waiting for the Supreme Court lineup to change so they can fix an earlier mistake?

Yes.

Sure, watch.

 

[JayDubya]

Sure, watch.

???

I mean, I want the court to change in this regard and vote accordingly. Gorsuch seems good; shame he was replacing Scalia and not Ginsberg.

 

[Fenton Lum]

???

I mean, I want the court to change in this regard and vote accordingly. Gorsuch seems good; shame he was replacing Scalia and not Ginsberg.

OK, we'll see. Perhaps our version of Sharia will come to fruition.

 

[Angel]

In your subjective morality.

What does the word "subjective" add to your statement?

In other words, what if any is the difference between these two statements?

1. In your morality.
2. In your subjective morality.

 

[JayDubya]

OK, we'll see. Perhaps our version of Sharia will come to fruition.

What we have now, with innocents being needlessly killed and the law doing nothing, seems quite comparable with Sharia law.

But yeah, maybe we can start acting like a civilization and not a band of barbarians. It would be nice.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Your post turns on what may be a semantic issue, namely, whether after a phenomenon is completely understood as to its mechanism, while its origin remains unknown, it deserves to be classed as a mystery. I say Yes; you say No.

I SAY NO BECAUSE YOU CAN EASILY BE MORE SPECIFIC, about what you are calling a mystery. "The origin of life is a mystery" --fine. "Life is a mystery" --not fine (too generic).

To my mind, the unexplained existence of Life on Earth makes it an enigma,

ONE WHICH YOU WOULD LIKELY CHANGE, if we ever found proof for "panspermia". (At the moment the four best items of evidence for that, of which I know, are this, this, this, and this --that first link is about something that can happen to any life-bearing world, not just this one.) You would say life is still a mystery because its origin elsewhere was still unknown! I say you might as well be maximally accurate the first time, saying only that the origin of life is a mystery.

however well we understand the mechanisms of Life.

QUITE WELL, and getting better.

The existence of a phenomenon that cannot be explained by science

ACTUALLY, scientists have offered multiple explanations. We just don't know which one is right --and as we learn more about its workings, additional theories are likely to get added to that list.

is what is commonly called a "miracle."

EXCEPT THAT WITH MULTIPLE COMPETING EXPLANATIONS, the origin of life cannot qualify as a miracle (at least not before all the offered explanations are proved wrong, and the scientists are all scratching their heads).

Life on earth is just such a phenomenon.

NOPE. See above.

My argument for the legalization of abortion relies on the enigma of Life on earth.

AND IT DOESN'T WORK, as I explained in Msg #178.

There is no doubt that science itself regards the occurrence of Life on earth as an unexplained phenomenon.

NOT QUITE, as explained above. There is as yet no consensus regarding possible explanations.

If you cannot acknowledge the same, then we have nothing further to discuss. Bringing self-consciousness into the equation just compounds the enigma; it does not remove it.

I'LL HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT. Must go deal with another commitment for a bunch of hours....

 

[Angel]

You said abortion is immoral. That is merely your opinion.

That is not objectively true.

Exactly.

You are entitled to your beliefs.

But if you want to present your beliefs as fact, they should be verifiable.

You're on thin ice here, my friends. Is the "right to choose" subjective or objective? An opinion or an objective truth?
All my argument adds to your argument is "the right to choose rightly or wrongly."
If my extension is mere opinion, then so is the basis on which you defend legalization.
Rights and duties exist in the exact same ontological space.

 

[Angel]

I SAY NO BECAUSE YOU CAN EASILY BE MORE SPECIFIC, about what you are calling a mystery. "The origin of life is a mystery" --fine. "Life is a mystery" --not fine (too generic).


ONE WHICH YOU WOULD LIKELY CHANGE, if we ever found proof for "panspermia". (At the moment the four best items of evidence for that, of which I know, are this, this, this, and this --that first link is about something that can happen to any life-bearing world, not just this one.) You would say life is still a mystery because its origin elsewhere was still unknown! I say you might as well be maximally accurate the first time, saying only that the origin of life is a mystery.

If that's all that's standing in our way, then I'll accept your semantics for the sake of argument. So my basic assumption is that the origin of life on earth is a mystery. Or still a mystery if that suits you. The scientific "explanations" you point to are speculations. And some of the speculations I've read seem more like science fiction than science. But let's not get distracted by science here. This is my amended argument:

The origin of life is still a mystery.
Moral agents must make informed choices.
To choose against life is therefore an uninformed choice.
But the law cannot take that choice away without infringing on the morality of the choice.

 

[year2late]

You're on thin ice here, my friends. Is the "right to choose" subjective or objective? An opinion or an objective truth?
All my argument adds to your argument is "the right to choose rightly or wrongly."
If my extension is mere opinion, then so is the basis on which you defend legalization.
Rights and duties exist in the exact same ontological space.

Right to choose, as a legal right is a fact. An objective fact.

I will ask you this.

How do you give rights of personhood to a zygote, embryo, or fetus without diminishing the rights of the pregnant woman.

When I was pregnant with multiple complications....I was NOT in the throws of death. These complications did cause me serious potential risk to life and quickly caused me to stop work for months prior to delivery. I could easily become homeless over the situation. Instead...I went near bankrupt, ended up 10s of thousands in debt. And was left in the position of being off work a total of nearly six months, losing opportunity and promotions.

What your side says is that I cannot consider my life situation and make decisions that keep me medically safe and secure in my surroundings (in this country, financial security can and does mean physical safety and well being.

Most women who chose abortion are already financially insecure (read poor) and have poor resources with questionable access to health care. Most are already struggling to care for a born child at home. If they suffer compciations their born child may suffer as well.

Again, how do you give personhood rights to a fetus without clearly and emphatically diminish the rights of a pregnant woman?

 

[Angel]

Right to choose, as a legal right is a fact. An objective fact.

I will ask you this.

How do you give rights of personhood to a zygote, embryo, or fetus without diminishing the rights of the pregnant woman.

When I was pregnant with multiple complications....I was NOT in the throws of death. These complications did cause me serious potential risk to life and quickly caused me to stop work for months prior to delivery. I could easily become homeless over the situation. Instead...I went near bankrupt, ended up 10s of thousands in debt. And was left in the position of being off work a total of nearly six months, losing opportunity and promotions.

What your side says is that I cannot consider my life situation and make decisions that keep me medically safe and secure in my surroundings (in this country, financial security can and does mean physical safety and well being.

Most women who chose abortion are already financially insecure (read poor) and have poor resources with questionable access to health care. Most are already struggling to care for a born child at home. If they suffer compciations their born child may suffer as well.

Again, how do you give personhood rights to a fetus without clearly and emphatically diminish the rights of a pregnant woman?

You apparently have not read my postings very closely in this thread. I am pro-choice.
And you cannot cite the existing law in an argument about that law. You have to argue for the right which the law recognizes. Is that subjective or objective? Re-read my post if you care to carry on with this exchange.