Why I am no longer pro-choice no longer.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-10-2013, 03:18 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(13-10-2013 12:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-10-2013 05:07 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  While the law is often an ass I do not see a self serving anarchy, devoid of any consideration for others views, a might is right, survival of the toughest, as a very positive way to go....
No, I don't want an anarchy society, and i deplore a might makes right approach.
We need government for monetary policy, for essentials (school, hospital, roads, police etc)

We need laws to ensure society is functioning, we can't accept most forms of killing humans, we can't accept most forms of theft.
But society functions well when we don't have laws against abortion (a form of killing humans), euthanasia (a form of killing humans), prostitution, gay marriage ..., these laws are examples of "Might makes right" mentality, they show that those with power often go overboard and want to control and force people to conform to their own beliefs and ideals.

If you are worried about people being self serving, not having consideration for others views, then maybe you could campaign and educate rather than force people at gunpoint towards this viewpoint.
The education of people generally reflects the bias of the power mongers whether capitalist or socialist. In other words stealth or intimidation may be used, rather than hard line laws.
People need to live within the prevailing infrastructure and bad laws may increase the suffering of the mass population. Determining which laws are better is not an easy thing.
Your reference to "a form of killing humans" as beneficial to society really needs elaboration relevant to the big social picture.........
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2013, 03:36 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(13-10-2013 03:18 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Your reference to "a form of killing humans" as beneficial to society really needs elaboration relevant to the big social picture.........
I didn't say it was necessarily beneficial to society, benefits are not for me to judge and everything people do, does not have to provide benefit.

If it is not detrimental, thus it does not make society dangerous and unstable for me, then why would I forcibly stop people doing it? Leave the choice to them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2013, 07:41 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(13-10-2013 12:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  No, I don't want an anarchy society, and i deplore a might makes right approach.

Killing a 3rd trimester foetus, i.e. a person, is "might makes right" mentality.

Quote:We need government for monetary policy,

We probably don't need the government for monetary policy. From what I have read and the example of bitcoin and other e-currencies suggests that the libertarian idea of a free-market of currencies could actually work.

Quote:We need laws to ensure society is functioning,

Yes but the problem lies in defining what it means for a society to function (properly). That is partly what ideological disputes are about.

Quote:But society functions well when we don't have laws against abortion (a form of killing humans), euthanasia (a form of killing humans), prostitution, gay marriage ..., these laws are examples of "Might makes right" mentality, they show that those with power often go overboard and want to control and force people to conform to their own beliefs and ideals.
.

(Late term) abortion is qualitatively different from euthanasia, prostitution and gay marriage. Abortion (in those cases where the foetus is late term) involves the termination of the life of another person without their consent. Prostitution, euthanasia and gay marriage are self-regarding activities, i.e. they are choices regarding oneself, they are victimless activites (when they are consensual). If you are a mentally competent adult then you should be able to do with your physical person whatever you choose so long as that doesn't interfere with the same right in others. Thus prostitution, euthanasia, gay marriage, homosexual sex (with other adults), recreational drug use, anabolic-androgenic steroid/HGH use, growing cannabis, growing poppies should be legal.

Quote:If you are worried about people being self serving, not having consideration for others views, then maybe you could campaign and educate rather than force people at gunpoint towards this viewpoint.

If we are going to take personal rights seriously then we can't pick and choose. When we achieve a more complete neuroscience and we learn exactly which modules and circuits of the brain are implicated in personhood and we also achieve a non-invasive and low risk measurement method (my money is on functional neuroimaging) which permits us to determine if the vital modules are active in the foetus then we should be obligated to respect those foetuses with personhood. Aborting a viable foetus that we know has personhood--when the mother's health is not at risk--is murder; it is indistinguishable from infanticide. Until such a time as when this technology is achieved and abortion is readily accessible and their are comprehensive sex education programmes in high-schools there should be no criminalisation of abortion but only moral suasion with regards to late-term foetuses.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2013, 08:24 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(13-10-2013 07:41 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(13-10-2013 12:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  No, I don't want an anarchy society, and i deplore a might makes right approach.

Killing a 3rd trimester foetus, i.e. a person, is "might makes right" mentality.
How so? The government (Might) isn't making any definition of right or wrong, they are not enforcing anything, the decision is upto the mother.
(13-10-2013 07:41 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:We need government for monetary policy,

We probably don't need the government for monetary policy. From what I have read and the example of bitcoin and other e-currencies suggests that the libertarian idea of a free-market of currencies could actually work.
I'll check that out.
The current situation came from unregulated finance sector and got us into a mess.
But maybe it wouldn't happen in libertarian system?
(13-10-2013 07:41 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:We need laws to ensure society is functioning,

Yes but the problem lies in defining what it means for a society to function (properly). That is partly what ideological disputes are about.
If we are killing each other, e.g. in feuds, in tit for tat, in revenge killings etc then we aren't functioning as a society.
If we are staying at home and guarding our stuff, then we aren't functioning as a society.
(13-10-2013 07:41 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:But society functions well when we don't have laws against abortion (a form of killing humans), euthanasia (a form of killing humans), prostitution, gay marriage ..., these laws are examples of "Might makes right" mentality, they show that those with power often go overboard and want to control and force people to conform to their own beliefs and ideals.
.

(Late term) abortion is qualitatively different from euthanasia, prostitution and gay marriage. Abortion (in those cases where the foetus is late term) involves the termination of the life of another person without their consent.
So, what is your point? How does society become dangerous for me if we allow late term abortion? How does it become my concern?
(13-10-2013 07:41 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:If you are worried about people being self serving, not having consideration for others views, then maybe you could campaign and educate rather than force people at gunpoint towards this viewpoint.

If we are going to take personal rights seriously then we can't pick and choose. When we achieve a more complete neuroscience and we learn exactly which modules and circuits of the brain are implicated in personhood and we also achieve a non-invasive and low risk measurement method (my money is on functional neuroimaging) which permits us to determine if the vital modules are active in the foetus then we should be obligated to respect those foetuses with personhood.
I lack your beliefs in personhood and rights. I am under no obligation to support or conform to your beliefs, please don't use law and thus violence and force (via police) to make me conform to your beliefs.
(13-10-2013 07:41 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Aborting a viable foetus that we know has personhood--when the mother's health is not at risk--is murder;
It's only murder if you make it against the law.
I am fine with mothers performing late term abortions.
If you forcably attack my pregnant wife, I will use extreme force to protect her from you and your police.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2013, 10:24 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(13-10-2013 08:24 PM)Stevil Wrote:  How so? The government (Might) isn't making any definition of right or wrong, they are not enforcing anything, the decision is upto the mother.

The government isn't the only source of coercion. In this case the mother is coercing the person of the foetus.

Quote:The current situation came from unregulated finance sector and got us into a mess.
But maybe it wouldn't happen in libertarian system?

Historical counterfactual conditionals are difficult because we can't perform an experiment. We can only speculate. Some of the problems that fed into the GFC e.g. incorrectly risk-rated CDOs, could have occurred in a libertarian system but on the other hand the moral hazard the possibility of government bailout creates, e.g. over-leveraging by investment banks, may have been prevented.

Quote:If we are killing each other, e.g. in feuds, in tit for tat, in revenge killings etc then we aren't functioning as a society.
If we are staying at home and guarding our stuff, then we aren't functioning as a society.

But I could just as well say "if homosexuals are marrying each other then we aren't functioning as a society", "if people want to smoke pot all day then we aren't functioning as a society", "if we are prostituting ourselves we aren't functioning as a society", etc. What a corectly functioning society consists in is a matter of ideology.

Quote:So, what is your point? How does society become dangerous for me if we allow late term abortion? How does it become my concern?

Morality and ethics isn't defined solely in terms of your interests. Late term abortion is a danger for foetuses that are persons. It isn't your concern it is the foetuses concern.

Quote:I lack your beliefs in personhood and rights.

Then from where do property rights and rights to freedom from coercion derive?

Quote:I am under no obligation to support or conform to your beliefs, please don't use law and thus violence and force (via police) to make me conform to your beliefs.

That objection can be stated for everything, e.g. "I am under no obligation to support or conform to your beliefs regarding property acquisition, please don't use law and thus violence to prevent me from taking your property".

Quote:It's only murder if you make it against the law.

Yes and that is a tautology. Taking stuff is theft only if you make it against the law.
Any X is a crime only if its proscribed by the state's criminal code, that is what it means for something to be a crime. All you are saying is: something is a crime if it is a crime. That is a tautology.

I am saying it ought to be considered murder and I have provided reasons for so doing.

Quote:I am fine with mothers performing late term abortions.
If you forcably attack my pregnant wife, I will use extreme force to protect her from you and your police.

By the same token I am fine with people killing each other for the sake of a minor annoyance. If someone looks at me the wrong way I will kill him and will violently resist police attempts to subdue me.

All you've done is define a lawless hell that is based on unfettered ethical egoism and coercion.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2013, 11:45 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(13-10-2013 10:24 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(13-10-2013 08:24 PM)Stevil Wrote:  How so? The government (Might) isn't making any definition of right or wrong, they are not enforcing anything, the decision is upto the mother.

The government isn't the only source of coercion. In this case the mother is coercing the person of the foetus.
The difference here is that I am not supporting the use of coercion. I am not giving my government the permission to use force on people for things that don't impact me.
(13-10-2013 10:24 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:If we are killing each other, e.g. in feuds, in tit for tat, in revenge killings etc then we aren't functioning as a society.
If we are staying at home and guarding our stuff, then we aren't functioning as a society.
But I could just as well say "if homosexuals are marrying each other then we aren't functioning as a society", "if people want to smoke pot all day then we aren't functioning as a society", "if we are prostituting ourselves we aren't functioning as a society", etc. What a corectly functioning society consists in is a matter of ideology.
Your examples are arbitrary and do not impact me, whereas my examples do impact me to such a degree that I must react in order to improve my chances of survival.
If gay people are getting married then what impact does that have on my survival? what impact does that have on my ability to buy food or wander through the town without the threat of being attacked?
If some men choose to use a brothel then how does that impact me?
(13-10-2013 10:24 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:So, what is your point? How does society become dangerous for me if we allow late term abortion? How does it become my concern?
Morality and ethics isn't defined solely in terms of your interests.
I am an amoralist, I care not for morality nor ethics, these ones are merely your personal opinions. You can live by them if you want, just don't force your opinions on me.
(13-10-2013 10:24 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Late term abortion is a danger for foetuses that are persons. It isn't your concern it is the foetuses concern.
So why should I care about someone else's foetus? How is this my concern?
Why should it motivate me to use violence against pregnant women?
(13-10-2013 10:24 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:I lack your beliefs in personhood and rights.
Then from where do property rights and rights to freedom from coercion derive?
I have no belief in the arbitrary nature of the human concept of "rights".
If people are allowed to steal property then I might lose my money, my food, my clothes, my car. This would make survival difficult for me. I need a society that can protect my stuff.
(13-10-2013 10:24 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:I am under no obligation to support or conform to your beliefs, please don't use law and thus violence and force (via police) to make me conform to your beliefs.
That objection can be stated for everything, e.g. "I am under no obligation to support or conform to your beliefs regarding property acquisition, please don't use law and thus violence to prevent me from taking your property".
That's right, I will only support laws that help me to survive in a way that I want to survive. I refuse to impose arbitrary beliefs on others especially by threat or use of force. I will only resort to force when I have to, when I deem that the risk of using force is necessary for my own survival.
(13-10-2013 10:24 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:It's only murder if you make it against the law.

Yes and that is a tautology. Taking stuff is theft only if you make it against the law.
Any X is a crime only if its proscribed by the state's criminal code, that is what it means for something to be a crime. All you are saying is: something is a crime if it is a crime. That is a tautology.
So then, please stop using "but that is murder" as your argument. We are trying to debate what laws ought to be in place. Your argument is thus circular.
(13-10-2013 10:24 PM)Chippy Wrote:  I am saying it ought to be considered murder and I have provided reasons for so doing.
I disagree with your reasons. I think it ought not to be considered murder. I think the government should let the mothers decide, rather than interfering and using extreme force
(13-10-2013 10:24 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:I am fine with mothers performing late term abortions.
If you forcably attack my pregnant wife, I will use extreme force to protect her from you and your police.
By the same token I am fine with people killing each other for the sake of a minor annoyance. If someone looks at me the wrong way I will kill him and will violently resist police attempts to subdue me.
Then you would be a threat to society and to myself. What is to say that you won't take offence at something minor that I do? I feel if you have this tendancy then for my safety you need to be locked up.
(13-10-2013 10:24 PM)Chippy Wrote:  All you've done is define a lawless hell that is based on unfettered ethical egoism and coercion.
No, that is untrue. I want some laws, just not the arbitrary ones that are based purely on someone's belief in rights and morality.
If it doesn't affect you, if it doesn't make society dangerous then why don't you simply mind your own business rather than use force to get people to conform with your beliefs and opinions?
You could try and educate people or discuss or debate if you want people to behave according to your moral standard, you don't need to use force.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2013, 01:47 AM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(13-10-2013 11:45 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The difference here is that I am not supporting the use of coercion. I am not giving my government the permission to use force on people for things that don't impact me.

Government isn't the only source of coercion. You are seeking to grant the mother coercive control over another person.

Quote:Your examples are arbitrary and do not impact me, whereas my examples do impact me to such a degree that I must react in order to improve my chances of survival.

What is the (moral or otherwise) significance of things that impact you?

What is the (moral or otherwise) significance of your chances of survival?

Why are your chances of survival and their maximisation significant but those of the foetus/person insignificant?

Your interests are arbitrary, why do they have to be protected?

Quote:If gay people are getting married then what impact does that have on my survival? what impact does that have on my ability to buy food or wander through the town without the threat of being attacked?

What is the significance of your survival over that of a late-term foetus?

Quote:If some men choose to use a brothel then how does that impact me?

If someone kills you how does that impact me?

Quote:I am an amoralist, I care not for morality nor ethics, these ones are merely your personal opinions.

No you aren't because you are making implicit self-regarding moral claims and you are doing so without justification. If you are an amoralist then you would cede all claims to property and all claims for your own personhood. But you are doing the opposite of that, you are promoting the morality and ethics of ethical egoism.

Quote:You can live by them if you want, just don't force your opinions on me.

Why aren't your own claims to property and personhood just your opinions also? You haven't explained that.


Quote:So why should I care about someone else's foetus? How is this my concern?

So why should anyone care about your property claims and claims of personhood?

Quote:Why should it motivate me to use violence against pregnant women?

Why should your property and personhood claims motivate the police to use violence against so-called thieves, vandals and murderers?

Quote:I have no belief in the arbitrary nature of the human concept of "rights".
If people are allowed to steal property then I might lose my money, my food, my clothes, my car. This would make survival difficult for me.

Yes it would but what is the significance of that? If you are truly an "amoralist" then you would just swallow that loss and say nothing of it.

Quote:I need a society that can protect my stuff.

If you don't believe in rights then you don't believe in property rights so there is no "my stuff"--there is only stuff.

Quote:That's right, I will only support laws that help me to survive in a way that I want to survive.

But what is the significance of your wants and needs versus those of a late-term foetus? Why are your specific interests so vitally important that society should be organised around those?

Quote:I refuse to impose arbitrary beliefs on others especially by threat or use of force.

The importance of your survival over that of others is an arbitrary belief and imposition.

Quote:I will only resort to force when I have to, when I deem that the risk of using force is necessary for my own survival.

If you've surrendered all notions of rights and morality then what is the basis for the valuation of your survival?

Quote:Your argument is thus circular.

No it isn't because I have provided justification for the ought. You on the other hand have voided your ability to use (normative) ought/should.

Quote:I disagree with your reasons. I think it ought not to be considered murder.

If you are an "amoralist" then you can't use ought, it is a moral concept. If you are relying on a moral concept after proclaiming that you are an "amoralist" then you have contradicted yourself. A self-contradictory argument is an invalid argument.

Quote:I think the government should let the mothers decide, rather than interfering and using extreme force

Should is also a moral concept so you shouldn't be using that either.

Quote:Then you would be a threat to society and to myself. What is to say that you won't take offence at something minor that I do? I feel if you have this tendancy then for my safety you need to be locked up.

Again, what is the significance of your safety? If there are no such things as rights and morality is just opinion then what is the meaning of your normative statements? They too must be just more opinions.

Quote:No, that is untrue. I want some laws, just not the arbitrary ones that are based purely on someone's belief in rights and morality.

Why is your safety and survival not arbitrary? On what grounds that are not based on concepts of right, duty and morality can you justify a law that promotes your survival?

Quote:If it doesn't affect you, if it doesn't make society dangerous then why don't you simply mind your own business rather than use force to get people to conform with your beliefs and opinions?

Why should the police use force to stop people from messing with your property and with you?

Quote:You could try and educate people or discuss or debate if you want people to behave according to your moral standard, you don't need to use force.

You've yet to explain why your survival and property claims are worthy of protection by force.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
14-10-2013, 10:46 AM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(14-10-2013 01:47 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:I am an amoralist, I care not for morality nor ethics, these ones are merely your personal opinions.

No you aren't because you are making implicit self-regarding moral claims and you are doing so without justification. If you are an amoralist then you would cede all claims to property and all claims for your own personhood. But you are doing the opposite of that, you are promoting the morality and ethics of ethical egoism.
As an amoralist I don't claim anything to be right or wrong and I am not motivated to be good or to fight against wrongs.
I do want to live though. Not because it is right for me to live and wrong for me to die. But because I am me and I want to live. If anyone threatens this then I am motivated to do what I have to in order to survive even if that means use of force against other people, even if it means interfering in others lives.
That is the line for me. If it doesn't impact me then I wont interfere.

If you interfere on things that don't impact you, then I will see you as a potential threat. Someone who will arbitrarily interfere with other peoples lives but for some reason it gives you warm fuzzies. If for example you decide that you don't like gay people and decide to attack them or have your police attack them, then I might decide to risk my life helping them, in the hope that one day if you decide to set your sights on me then the gay community will support me against you and your arbitrary interference.

Why do I expect other people to value their property or their own lives?
Because it impacts them and their ability to survive. By mutual agreement I expect we will form a society that protects against theft and murder. Not because of rights but because mutually we want to survive.

Your own notion of amorality is a strawman, because you probably haven't put much thought into it nor spoken to other amoralists in order to try and understand it. The idea that a amoralist would be happy for you to steal their stuff is absurd.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2013, 11:53 AM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(14-10-2013 01:47 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(13-10-2013 11:45 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The difference here is that I am not supporting the use of coercion. I am not giving my government the permission to use force on people for things that don't impact me.

Government isn't the only source of coercion. You are seeking to grant the mother coercive control over another person.
No. I am not responsible for the mothers actions. I am under no obligation to stop her or to interfere.

The government on the other hand is supposed to be my representative. I vote for them. I vote for the laws that I want.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2013, 12:27 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(14-10-2013 01:47 AM)Chippy Wrote:  you are promoting the morality and ethics of ethical egoism.

I looked at this link, I am not an ethical egoist.
I disagree with the following
Quote:Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest.
People can behave self destructively if they want. As long as it doesn't impact me, then it is not my business.
I don't believe in moral agents and I don't believe in moral obligations and I don't believe in morality. I am thus an amoralist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: