Interesting argument on the impossibility of true neutrality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-10-2016, 11:34 AM
RE: Interesting argument on the impossibility of true neutrality
(11-10-2016 11:30 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 09:18 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I resent being grouped with Heywood.

My perception is that both you and Heywood have pretended that an extremely nuanced issue is a simple black and white issue.

Heywood: All abortions are wrong.

Bucky Ball: No abortions are wrong.

You're on opposite ends of the spectrum, but you're both making the same kind of extreme statement. Note that your original statement (the one to which I objected) said nothing to qualify which kinds of abortions you were talking about. If your actual views are more nuanced than that statement indicated, then the comparison to Heywood was a low blow. In that case, I apologize, and will withdraw the statement.

No one here is saying "No abortions are wrong."

The vast majority of abortions are done very early in pregnancy, before there is anything that could be called a person.

Late-term abortions are not elective and only done for medical cause.
They are so rare that even bringing them into the discussion is a big, stinky straw man; it is a dishonest appeal to emotion.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2016, 11:48 AM
RE: Interesting argument on the impossibility of true neutrality
(11-10-2016 11:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 11:30 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  My perception is that both you and Heywood have pretended that an extremely nuanced issue is a simple black and white issue.

Heywood: All abortions are wrong.

Bucky Ball: No abortions are wrong.

You're on opposite ends of the spectrum, but you're both making the same kind of extreme statement. Note that your original statement (the one to which I objected) said nothing to qualify which kinds of abortions you were talking about. If your actual views are more nuanced than that statement indicated, then the comparison to Heywood was a low blow. In that case, I apologize, and will withdraw the statement.

No one here is saying "No abortions are wrong."

The vast majority of abortions are done very early in pregnancy, before there is anything that could be called a person.

Late-term abortions are not elective and only done for medical cause.
They are so rare that even bringing them into the discussion is a big, stinky straw man; it is a dishonest appeal to emotion.

If that's true, I have no objections. I will admit that I'm a little sensitive on this issue after arguing with people like Heywood who insist that a pair of cells immediately after conception is a person, and people (in real life, not necessarily here) at the other extreme, who will claim with a perfectly straight face that they don't understand how any woman could possibly be anti-abortion.

To make it clear where I stand, I will be voting for Hillary Clinton next month primarily because of this issue -- I don't want Trump (or worse, Pence) appointing Supreme Court justices who could overturn Roe v. Wade. Nevertheless, I have mixed feelings about abortion and will continue to have them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2016, 12:13 PM (This post was last modified: 11-10-2016 12:32 PM by OrdoSkeptica.)
RE: Interesting argument on the impossibility of true neutrality
Quote:Allow me to make an analogy. I'll repeat Bucky Ball's statement (the one that I was originally disputing) and change one word: "The law permitting murder forces no one to do anything." Would you agree that this statement is problematic? True, such a law would not force anyone to commit murder, but it fails to protect the victims of murder, and would therefore be a bad law.


Except there is a vast difference to any reasonable mind as to the difference between a person with legal rights and those without which is why i cannot murder a cow. Oh and last i checked the murder victim is not living inside me so you analogy fails


Quote:The intent of Bucky Ball's statement, as I read it, is that Catholics and other pro-lifers have no valid reason to oppose abortion, because a law permitting it "forces no one to do anything". But if it fails to protect otherwise defenseless victims, it could nonetheless be a bad law, and a law worth protesting, could it not? Just as a law permitting murder would be bad, and for the same reasons. That's the point I'm trying to make.

They don't it's just a baseless arbitrary claim no different then saying pork needs to be forbidding .The law doesn't recognize that absurdity why should it grant any special privilege to the pro life absurdity .


Quote:If fetuses are considered persons, a law permitting abortion is extremely problematic. This is entirely independent of whether or not they are moral agents, or whether they have choices. Those same arguments could be applied to infants. The only important difference between a fetus 5 minutes before birth and and an infant 5 minutes after birth is location. If it's wrong to kill one, it's wrong to kill the other.


No one clear difference between the two is ones still inside me the other is not you can call that just a location but so the difference between my hand on six meters from you or up your ass. So you should feel no sense of violation because it just location .



Quote:Note that I am not anti-abortion, just somewhat uncomfortable with it. I don't know exactly where the current law draws the line (it may vary between states),


Yup and i'm uncomfortable with UFC i don't get to impose that discomfort on others .As for the law it's pretty clear i suggest you actually read it .



Quote:but I have no problem at all with an abortion performed within the first month or so after conception. I have a big problem with an abortion performed 5 minutes before birth.

Then your position is arbitrary as saying men should not be allowed to masturbate because some view sperm as persons


Quote: To make a blanket statement that all abortions are OK because the law permitting them is not binding on anyone (on any adults, anyway) just seems wrong to me. Abortion is extremely "binding" on the fetus, and if it happens late enough in the pregnancy, that's not something we can just dismiss.


Yes we can the fetus even if it had an opinion which it doesn't and the pro lifers were not using it as a puppet it also has no more business dictating in my body then they do we already covered this in the HAL9000 thread


Quote:People need to keep in mind that the debate is not solely about "a woman's right to control her body" -- there is another body involved
,


Nope that's completely what this is about my right to bodily functions vs a group of mostly men .Who think that get some right to impose there opinions on something that has none of it own then use said nonexistent opinions to control me.


Quote:In the opinion of many has rights


In the opinion of many a cow is a sacred animal and vaccines cause autism there opinions are derp so is the pro life opinion


Quote:They don't oppose abortion because they have some sadistic urge to control WOMEN and their bodies, or to force their religious beliefs on everyone else.They oppose it because they believe it to be murder. You may not agree with that, but it doesn't seem right to completely ignore that viewpoint and pretend that it doesn't exist. Whether or not I agree with it depends heavily on what stage of pregnancy we're talking about.


It exists and yes can be completely ignored as it has no merit as a position regardless of the motivations


Quote:To put this back in the context of the thread, this is not necessarily a "Catholic" issue. Plenty of Catholics practice birth control and even have abortions, even though official church teaching condemns both, and plenty of non-Catholics (and even some atheists, I'll bet) are anti-abortion. My own feelings are mixed.


which is irrelevant

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes OrdoSkeptica's post
11-10-2016, 01:05 PM
RE: Interesting argument on the impossibility of true neutrality
(11-10-2016 11:34 AM)epronovost Wrote:  I do understand the point you are trying to make, but I couldn't resist the temptation of trolling your argument a little bit (I am sorry, I am, sometime, a terrible human being). You are aware, that not only murder is legal in many circomstances, but international law has enshrined in its law the legality of mass murder. Its called the right of belligerency. It authorise any nation to maintain, equip and train an army and use it to protect its sovereignty or its national interest by slaughtering hundred of thousand of, most of the time, defenseless people. Nobody likes war. Nobody seems to want war except some psychopathic rulers (and even then, they only want war they are convinced to win). Yet, while war is recognised to be one of human most horrendous error and evil. The first person who would make belligerency illegal by international law is going to be laughed off the stage.

Laws in our time are concerned with regulating human activity to limit or supress dangerous behaviors. They aren't concerned with morality all that much for vary obvious reasons. Of course, everybody would like the law to match their moral code, but we all know its an almost impossible task. The comparison between murder and abortion has a fundamental flaw. Even if fetuses were to be declared human person, this doesn't make their execution like all others. Abortion would be "killing" a very specific type of person. A child or an infant cannot be aborted. Neither can an adult or an elderly. Thus, society isn't menaced by the authorisation of killing fetuses. You might disagree with it, nobody forces you to it either. Its the same thing with war. While it might be cruel and against your value, its a legal form of mass murder. You might not agree with the war waged by your nation, but it will be waged and thousand will die. You might even be forced to wage it under severe threat. Comparing abortion to murder is a false equivocation even if it seems similar.

A neutral law is a law that doesn't take into account moral compunction but is fundamentally utilitarian. It serves to protect society and help it to remain stable. It makes no judgement on moral quality (unless of course you define morality as a utilitarian set of rules in which case it would be the case, but be assured that this is not a commonly accepted vision of morality, etc).

This is an interesting argument, but I think you may be equivocating a bit yourself. War is something that happens between political entities, not individuals, and it's very difficult to make, or to enforce, universal laws governing what political entities can do to each other. So I don't know that you can usefully compare war to specific acts of aggression between individuals of a given nation.

Secondly, I think you're making the point (and Stevil has also made this point) that laws are primarily for the good of a society as a whole. But, at least in the US, they are also for the protection of individuals. Individuals are guaranteed certain rights, and laws are made to protect those rights. And a law against abortion protects the rights of fetuses. It is not granting them any special rights or special protection that is unique to them -- it is just extending to them the same right (the right to live) that everyone else already has.

The interesting question is whether or not a fetus is entitled to that right -- i.e., is a fetus a person? The entire debate hinges on that question, and, as I have already indicated, I don't find it an easy question to answer. I think the majority of people would agree with my answer at the ends of the spectrum (5 minutes after conception, no problem; 5 minutes before birth, big problem), but there is substantial disagreement about where to draw the line between those extremes. There really is no nice, well-defined line -- it's a continuum.

In my opinion, the Catholic church pushes the line to a ridiculous extreme (every individual sperm or ovum is a "potential person", and therefore even contraception is forbidden), but they have their reasons for doing so (and the reasons aren't as simple as most people think). I don't want to be guilty of pushing it to a ridiculous extreme in the other direction (it's not a person until the umbilical cord is cut, and maybe not even then -- and there are people who think this way).

Anyway, I don't want to be dogmatic about this. But as with anything else, I'm suspicious of those who want to reduce a complicated issue to simplistic black and white statements (I might even call them dogmatic statements).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2016, 01:11 PM
RE: Interesting argument on the impossibility of true neutrality
This argument seems to be getting out of hand, and it's derailing the thread. This thread is not about abortion, and I don't want to make it about that. So I will say no more about that subject in this thread (and probably not in any other thread either, as I've said all I have to say).

If anyone wants to argue about this, feel free to PM me. Sorry for the derail.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2016, 02:39 PM
RE: Interesting argument on the impossibility of true neutrality
(11-10-2016 09:20 AM)mhausam Wrote:  ...laws are not worldview-neutral because they support or reject the various viewpoints out there.

The only viewpoint that secular law rejects is the one that says you may force your beliefs on me.

Quote:Catholics, looking at the world a certain way, want certain laws. Agnostics, looking at the world a different way, want different laws.

Then why don't you have them? Christians are the majority in the US and have been since its founding. Atheists are relatively new on the political scene as a sizeable minority. Given your contention that secular law is no better than theistic law we should expect the US to have adopted the law that favoured the Christian majority. Clearly this is not what happened. Barring some grand conspiracy to hijack the government, this suggests some advantage to adopting a secular legal system.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
11-10-2016, 11:11 PM
RE: Interesting argument on the impossibility of true neutrality
(11-10-2016 02:39 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 09:20 AM)mhausam Wrote:  ...laws are not worldview-neutral because they support or reject the various viewpoints out there.

The only viewpoint that secular law rejects is the one that says you may force your beliefs on me.

Quote:Catholics, looking at the world a certain way, want certain laws. Agnostics, looking at the world a different way, want different laws.

Then why don't you have them? Christians are the majority in the US and have been since its founding. Atheists are relatively new on the political scene as a sizeable minority. Given your contention that secular law is no better than theistic law we should expect the US to have adopted the law that favoured the Christian majority. Clearly this is not what happened. Barring some grand conspiracy to hijack the government, this suggests some advantage to adopting a secular legal system.



I honestly don't think he will every get it in his mind any law that doesn't assume his supposed truth must reject it .And push some alternative view which is the opposite of what secular (not agnostic ) government dose.

He also doesn't get neutrality secular government only makes pragmatic legal judgements not ideological moral judgements

Lastly no we don't have desired laws nor desired impositions again that would be the opposite of secular law is. This the exact contrast with religious dogma that does nothing but base laws on desired impositions.

Gay marriage wasn't legalized because it suited a groups worldview(the very term is stupid in this context). It was allowed because there was no legal reason to disallow it yes religious" truths" were ignored only because the moment we include one religious "truth" we open the floodgates to them all .This is not productive nor reasonable and even the founding fathers of the united states realized this. And no it's not rejecting them it's disregarding them there is a clear difference .

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like OrdoSkeptica's post
14-10-2016, 09:40 AM
RE: Interesting argument on the impossibility of true neutrality
Has anyone else noticed that ErinRH has stopped posting?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2016, 12:00 PM
RE: Interesting argument on the impossibility of true neutrality
(14-10-2016 09:40 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  Has anyone else noticed that ErinRH has stopped posting?

I find that kinda worrisome

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: