Jakob wrote:Ive brought your question down to Earth. Disappointing you'd try to frame that as making fun and get my posts banned to the Rant house. Im just trying to do justice to you without being dishonest.
iambiguous wrote:Jakob wrote:Ive brought your question down to Earth. Disappointing you'd try to frame that as making fun and get my posts banned to the Rant house. Im just trying to do justice to you without being dishonest.
Come on. In the philosophy venue here at ILP, there is still an opportunity to reclaim the site from the Kids and the folks who are here more to use it as just another adjunct of "social media".
A post like yours is not what I construe to be bringing an issue like abortion down to earth.
Look, anytime you are willing to discuss conflicting goods here given the components of our respective moral philosophies, I will be more than accommodating. No huffing and puffing, no retorts, no punch lines, no making the other the issue. Just a mutual respect for each other's intelligence and a straight up exploration of the relationship between words and worlds.
How about it?
Jakob wrote:It started with the post that I made yesterday.Jakob wrote:From the new Dave Chapelle show. I was watching this and couldn't help thinking about Iambiguous' question.
"Im not for abortion."
man from crowd: woohoo!
"Oh shut up nigga"
laughter
"Im not for it, but I'm not against it either."
scattered laughter and female woohoos
"It all depends on who I get pregnant."
Iambiguous didn't consider this a serious challenge.
Let me add my notes.
In order to judge whether or not abortion is moral or not, we have to know not only what we consider morality to be, but also all the physical circumstances both of abortion in general and of any particular case of abortion we are discussing.
Does an embryo feel pain, does it have awareness? If so, killing it seems to be hard to justify except in the way we justify killing livestock. Which is by no thinking about it, I guess.
My experience in general is that abortion is a deeply sad event that saddens women who go through it until many years after. I also think it must be an extremely horrific experience for the unborn creature. And I believe that it gets worse as it gets later, as the creature develops more and more into the utterly sensitive and sentient form of a human baby. I think a late abortion is a kind of murder.
The only reason I see to justify abortion is when the pregnancy results from rape, and then one should proceed immediately after the event so that the conceived lifeforms has no elaborate means of experiencing. Waiting in such a case is simply unnecessary cruelty.
So this is my subjective position, which seems as good a thing to start with as any.
Less subjectively, and more skeptically vis a vis mans capacity to act morally, I find Dave Chapelle's position relevant - it is a way of subjectivizing the issue, which seems to me to be a form of brining it down to Earth.
Iambiguous? The floor is yours.
Jakob wrote:Of course there is a very recent popular justification for abortion as the prevention of suffering - to scan embryos for signals of possible Down syndrome or other serious problems. Iceland was said to have reduced down syndrome births almost to zero in this way. Filipino leader Duterte hilariously commented on this in one of his rants, but he didn't really impress anyone in this case because to insult Iceland is really hard. He clearly failed since he could only object to them that they "eat ice", and generally linking them to the "white race". Not his best trolling session but still quite amusing. In any case this all gives a context to the question of aborting those pregnancies which appear to be preparing deeply problematic lives.
Meno_ wrote:iambiguous wrote:Jakob wrote:In order to judge whether or not abortion is moral or not, we have to know not only what we consider morality to be, but also all the physical circumstances both of abortion in general and of any particular case of abortion we are discussing.
How is the manner in which any particular individual's moral judgment regarding abortion not predicated by and large on the manner in which I have come to grasp the acquistion of a moral narrative here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
How is it different for you?
The physical circumstances are embedded in facts that either can be established or not be established. At least in a No God world. With God, the facts established still come down to what any particular Scripture informs us regarding God and abortion. The part where behaviors become Sins. Behaviors judged in the end by God.
But what can be established as in fact true when it comes down to whether particular behaviors ought to be rewarded or punished given the circunstances established regarding a particular abortion in a particular context?Jakob wrote:Does an embryo feel pain, does it have awareness? If so, killing it seems to be hard to justify except in the way we justify killing livestock. Which is by no thinking about it, I guess.
Or:
Might a woman burdoned with an unwanted pregnancy find her life completely upended if she is forced to give birth? How could she realistically compete with men for a good education or for a good job or for any other opportunities in a world where only women are able to become pregnant?
Or what if the pregnancy is as a result of rape or incest or a failed contraceptive? What if there is the possibility that her health [either physical or mental] might be impaired if forced to give birth?
Conflicting goods always work both ways of course. Both sides can make reasonable arguments that the other side can only make go away by not thinking about them.Jakob wrote:My experience in general is that abortion is a deeply sad event that saddens women who go through it until many years after. I also think it must be an extremely horrific experience for the unborn creature. And I believe that it gets worse as it gets later, as the creature develops more and more into the utterly sensitive and sentient form of a human baby. I think a late abortion is a kind of murder.
But that's my point. Your experiences. Embodied, in my view, in the manner in which I consture the meaning of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
How is that not applicable to you?
Why should the value judgments derived from your experiences take precedence over conflicting value judgments derived from the experiences of others?
And could you not have new experiences that change your mind about abortion? Or are you of the opinion that your current viewpoint is wholly in sync with the "real you" wholly in sync with "the right thing to do"?Jakob wrote:The only reason I see to justify abortion is when the pregnancy results from rape, and then one should proceed immediately after the event so that the conceived lifeforms has no elaborate means of experiencing. Waiting in such a case is simply unnecessary cruelty.
Others however insist that human life begins at conception; and that the baby is no less innocent.
And I speculate that, for many of them, these assumptions are derived from their own personal experiences with families and friends and communities that first instilled and then reinforced in them this point of view.
That, in any event, there does not appear to be argument [philosophical or otherwise] able to resolve this conflict once and for all.
How do You deal with phylogenetic development whwre the embryo at early stages evolve around the earliest of.specie , starting from creatures from the sea? That has no consciousness except within the current comparable species? In that current accepted fact, and within it's ramifications, how could You justify a human consciousness at it's earliest stage without reference to Deism , which You deny?
It appears sustaining that. contradiction leads to a regression to absurdum
iambiguous wrote:Jakob wrote:In order to judge whether or not abortion is moral or not, we have to know not only what we consider morality to be, but also all the physical circumstances both of abortion in general and of any particular case of abortion we are discussing.
How is the manner in which any particular individual's moral judgment regarding abortion not predicated by and large on the manner in which I have come to grasp the acquistion of a moral narrative here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
How is it different for you?
The physical circumstances are embedded in facts that either can be established or not be established. At least in a No God world. With God, the facts established still come down to what any particular Scripture informs us regarding God and abortion. The part where behaviors become Sins. Behaviors judged in the end by God.
But what can be established as in fact true when it comes down to whether particular behaviors ought to be rewarded or punished given the circunstances established regarding a particular abortion in a particular context?
Jakob wrote:Does an embryo feel pain, does it have awareness? If so, killing it seems to be hard to justify except in the way we justify killing livestock. Which is by no thinking about it, I guess.
Or:
Might a woman burdoned with an unwanted pregnancy find her life completely upended if she is forced to give birth? How could she realistically compete with men for a good education or for a good job or for any other opportunities in a world where only women are able to become pregnant?
Or what if the pregnancy is as a result of rape or incest or a failed contraceptive? What if there is the possibility that her health [either physical or mental] might be impaired if forced to give birth?
Conflicting goods always work both ways of course. Both sides can make reasonable arguments that the other side can only make go away by not thinking about them.
Jakob wrote:My experience in general is that abortion is a deeply sad event that saddens women who go through it until many years after. I also think it must be an extremely horrific experience for the unborn creature. And I believe that it gets worse as it gets later, as the creature develops more and more into the utterly sensitive and sentient form of a human baby. I think a late abortion is a kind of murder.
But that's my point. Your experiences. Embodied, in my view, in the manner in which I consture the meaning of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
How is that not applicable to you?
Why should the value judgments derived from your experiences take precedence over conflicting value judgments derived from the experiences of others?
And could you not have new experiences that change your mind about abortion? Or are you of the opinion that your current viewpoint is wholly in sync with the "real you" wholly in sync with "the right thing to do"?
Jakob wrote:The only reason I see to justify abortion is when the pregnancy results from rape, and then one should proceed immediately after the event so that the conceived lifeforms has no elaborate means of experiencing. Waiting in such a case is simply unnecessary cruelty.
Others however insist that human life begins at conception; and that the baby is no less innocent.
And I speculate that, for many of them, these assumptions are derived from their own personal experiences with families and friends and communities that first instilled and then reinforced in them this point of view.
That, in any event, there does not appear to be argument [philosophical or otherwise] able to resolve this conflict once and for all.
Meno_ wrote:
How do You deal with phylogenetic development whwre the embryo at early stages evolve around the earliest of.specie , starting from creatures from the sea? That has no consciousness except within the current comparable species? In that current accepted fact, and within it's ramifications, how could You justify a human consciousness at it's earliest stage without reference to Deism , which You deny?
It appears sustaining that. contradiction leads to a regression to absurdum
Jakob wrote:Meno_ wrote:
How do You deal with phylogenetic development whwre the embryo at early stages evolve around the earliest of.specie , starting from creatures from the sea? That has no consciousness except within the current comparable species? In that current accepted fact, and within it's ramifications, how could You justify a human consciousness at it's earliest stage without reference to Deism , which You deny?
It appears sustaining that. contradiction leads to a regression to absurdum
Thats an interesting approach.
What kind of timetable are we talking about here?
Meno_ wrote:Jakob wrote:
What kind of timetable are we talking about here?
Well, that's difficult. Some claim that even crystals have a kind of consciousness, so the levels of development bear into qualifying quantified 'facts'
And that again is a modal differentiable problem of separation-de-differing the organic from the inorganic.
See how this ugly revisit of dual natural process gives the into-phylo typically problems?
My point is, that as we move away from old school stasis toward new world return to chaos, where absolute chaos ( in Your sense, as I recall You expressing it) estopps any further regression; here lies the key, somehow, safety rapped naturally-' by Nature- a sort if primordial natura obscura kind of way.
Jakob wrote:From the new Dave Chapelle show. I was watching this and couldn't help thinking about Iambiguous' question.
"Im not for abortion."
man from crowd: woohoo!
"Oh shut up nigga"
laughter
"Im not for it, but I'm not against it either."
scattered laughter and female woohoos
"It all depends on who I get pregnant."
Users browsing this forum: Meno_