Abortion is wrong, plain and simple.

Post Reply New Topic

I wonder if Boots is against animal shelters putting animals to sleep.

In your opinion. And thats fine. You don't have to have one if you don't want to. However other people have the freedom to do what they wish too, and that includes aborting children. You haven't the right to control others i'm afraid.

Try getting filthy rich if you want to change the world.

Oh yes, how "rape and incest victim" always has to be thrown into the discussion.

Anyway, it is a little selfish if you are one of the people who sleep around, cheat (thus hurting your potential mates), and basicaly acting slu*ty. imo, the killing then is for personal convienience, which the chooser is fully responcible for. Not right to hurt other people like that.

Here's to safe and oral sex without lies and dishonesty. cheers...

Rights and wrongs topic

There are many decisons that are wrong. Abortion is wrong to Boots, and that is HIS business. To the woman having the abortion, it is HER business.Both opinions are private matters, and not public issue.

What ever the decison, there are consequences, best dealt with privately.

If Mary lived in 21st century, she'd probably go for abortion

Holy begging the question batman!

Yes, really.
Professors? What's that? Some socio-cultural role? Essay? What's that? A cultural artifact? So obviously without culture, no professors to tell you stuff, no essays to read. Is the irony going right over your head?

Mm, political and moral philosophy, I seem to have heard about them, they are cultural artifacts.


I most certainly can. In fact a non-cultural creature who obtained no ideas from their culture would have less hesitation than I do in coming out with such an argument. The argument that it is culture-bound to consider one's body one's own, is hopelessly culture bound. I need some silvery to be metallically balanced after all that irony.

Wow, more constructions you derived from the culture you are bound in.


Arguing pre-cultural reality from within a construct that is obviously a cultural construct is hopelessly muddled. Do you really not comprehend that you are arguing that everyone else's argument is 'culture-bound' and your sole defense of your argument is that others do not argue from cultural artifacts?


I'm really not sure what you're getting at here, but it sounds like an is ought fallacy.[/quote]
That's probably just an effect of your inability to recognise that philosophy is merely a cultural artifact not an actual pre-culture reality.

...And there would be no Redemption for the human kind

You don't have any actual arguments here. Calling something a cultural artifact isn't an argument. *At best*, it's a deconstruction, but no normatives can be derived from that without a "cultural artifact" such as an actual argument. "OMFWTFBBQ you mean laws have a relation to culture!! !????"

No, I am not arguing that I am free from culture. My essential point is that most people barf back a cultural meme, while I present the underlying thoughts behind those memes with, I note, no actual conviction. The fact that many people regurgitate something they heard somewhere with heartfelt conviction and zero appreciation for the thinking behind the idea is something I find revolting.

There is a difference between being a product of your culture and being a mindless cultural puppet.

Indeed, why would I have an argument? I am challenging a premise you presented. Until there is some argument attached to your premise, in place of the regurgitation of some prominent names, challenging your unsupported say-so with an argument is not necessary. If you expect a counter argument, it's necessary to make some argument to be countered.

It should not be necessary to regurgitate a list of names to do so.

Simply prove that someone without culture would consider that society owned their body, or had use-rights to their body, or that they otherwise believed their body was somehow not the means by which they pursued their ends. No name dropping or professors necessary.

I'm seeing a lot of words, but all I read is, "Blah blah BS blah blah more BS blah".

Thread killer!
Thread killer!
Thread killer!
Thread killer!
Thread killer!
Thread killer!
Thread killer!

[But that's a strong one...]

It absolutely is necessary, for the reason that I don't have any opinion on abortion but it would be not entirely unappealing to see people recognize that their ideas are the end product of a rich philosophical tradition which they devoured, ass raped, and then passed of as self evident propositions. On the one hand, I could present these arguments without citation, as most people do under the idea that somehow there is some kind of reality behind them that makes dissociating them from the traditions and individuals who created them a sensible thing to do, or I could forward my own argument which, given the space of a thread and moreover the complete lack of an assumed philosophical position would be completely futile.


That's completely irrelevant! How people would behave otherwise is at best relevant if we are pursuing a state of nature contract theory approach, but at worst it is just an is ought fallacy and completely inane. Now, if you're arguing that people naturally make that assumption entirely without any kind of normative force behind it, then I think it's another matter entirely which of us actually has burden of proof to identify how people instinctively react to it, much more so as abortions don't exist without a certain prerequisite degree of greater social and technological structure.

Propositions don't exist in a vacuum. Strictly I'm a moral skeptic (hurr), but if you're going to take a stance on abortion you need to simultaneously own up to whatever moral system your assuming and present why this ought to be a significant idea for a society as a whole, none of which you have any pretense of doing, and none of which anyone else here seems to have any capability of doing.

You clearly haven't got a clue what I'm getting at, and your grasp of dialectic is underwhelming to say the least.

All philosophy is BS. That doesn't make it pointless.

Quite.
But is abortion a philisophical issue?

I've given you the opportunity to demonstrate this is so. Either you can or you cannot. Why should anyone recognize, on your say-so, what is beyond your ability to encompass in words?

Yaha. Either you can substantiate your argument, or you cannot.


That's completely irrelevant! [/quote]
Not in the least. If you can do as described above, that would demonstrate the point. If you cannot demonstrate that in the absence of the influences you claim people are merely regurgitating, they would fail to form the view you are insisting is simply an arse-raped regurgitation, then you cannot substantiate your premise.

None of which is actually relevant in the least. Either your premise is true or it is false. This is so whether or not state of nature contract theory approaches are being pursued. The premise I have challenged you on might be something one can philosophize about, but that does not change the fact that it is an empirical claim, and it as an empirical claim that I am challenging it. If it's not true empirically, I really do not give a toss what philosophical naval gazing we could subject it to and contort it with.

Abortions are irrelevant to the truth of the premise you posited, even if the premise itself might have some bearing on a discussion about abortion. If it's not true, it does not tell us anything about anything, including abortion. You posited it, and you've been challenged to substantiate it. This will be substantially harder if it's just some philosophical sophistry of someone else's making that you are mindlessly regurgitating (with or without arse-raping it), but rather easy if it is a sensible observation, or better still, a true fact.


I've certainly made no pretense of taking a stance on abortion in this thread, nor intended any pretense of doing that, and just for added clarity, let me add, I'm not arguing about abortion. I am arguing about the premise you posited.

More irony.
It's really rather simple. You've argued something, I've challenged the truth value of a premise in your argument. If one of the premises of an argument has a false 'truth value', then the argument is unsound.