Point taken. But the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein is reflected considerbly more in, well, lower case. Here for example: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
A particular man or woman who is thrown adventitiously at birth into a particular world.
But your problem–or the problem with your problem; your meta-problem–is precisely the problem of universals. If we’re talking strictly about particulars, then it makes no sense to speak of “a man or woman”. There is then nothing to connect particular beings–for example your precious people gathered outside abortion clinics. They share “facts” no more than “values”
Sure, I will admit that you may well be pointing out something important here that I keep missing.
But I really don’t know what it is.
If Mary did have an abortion at that clinic then this is an objective fact that is true [and able to be shared] by everyone — inside or outside the clinic.
And there are actual facts that may or may not be demonstrable regarding the pregnancy itself.
And there are the biological facts embedded in performing an abortion as a medical procedure.
None of this comes down to subjective opinions. Not the facts themselves.
Sure, particular individuals [as “subjects”] may hold opinions that are not in sync with the facts. But the facts are either able to be demonstrated to all rational men and women or they are not. But once they have been demonstrated to in fact be true it would seem to be the obligation of all rational men and women to accept them.
Until we do come to the part where we react [reasonably, emotionally] to abortion as a value judgment.
“The spirit of national socialism was not so much concerned with the national and the social but much more with that radically private resoluteness which rejects any discussion or mutual understanding because it relies wholly and only on itself … At bottom all its concepts and words are the expression of the bitter and hard resoluteness of a will asserting itself in the face of its own nothingness, a will proud of its loathing for happiness, reason and compassion.” (Found in Harry Neumann, Liberalism, “Politics or Nothing! Nazism’s Origin in Scientific Contempt for Politics”, where it is sourced as: K. Löwith, “Der Okkasionelle Dezisionismus von C. Schmitt,” Gesammalte Abhandlungen (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1960) pp. 122- 123. [sic])
In other words, but one more historical/psychological manifestation of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
But to claim that Nazis embody “a will proud of its loathing for happiness, reason and compassion” is just another political prejudice. In other words, the author imagines certain beliefs and behaviors as being in sync with happiness, reason and compassion. His own for example. And then he concludes that Nazis in choosing other beliefs and behaviors knows nothing of them.