Wed. Feb 19th, 2020

The Council

A modern day council!

That’s like your opinion, man


I’m going to quote the relevant portions of a conversation(and add helpful changes with a radical abortionist on twitter:

TheSire:

Why do you suppose it is wrong to murder a fully grown human?
What are your actual beliefs? Do you think humans have inherent value? If you do then why? When do people have moral value? Is it after they are born? When they are 10? Are you against infanticide?

Rissa Rose:

I believe that as long as a ZEF is dependent upon a woman’s body for survival, it is up to the woman how to handle that. I believe that none of us are God, and therefore none of us are qualified to draw a line between who can and who cannot have an abortion.

TheSire:

So, a mother can chuck her 5-month-old baby out a window because it fits those criteria?

Rissa Rose:

A 5-month-old is not dependent on any specific human body for survival. (Other than its own, obviously.)

TheSire:

Certainly, someone else can take the baby but the question is why is survivability only applicable to physical dependence rather than other dependencies? Suppose you were the only one that feasibly could take care of the 5-month-old. Should you be forced to take care of your baby?

Rissa Rose:

That is a false premise. There are always other options for care when a baby is born. When it is unviable in someone’s uterus, there are no other options.

TheSire:

A baby can be viable before being born. Were you saying that self-sufficient survivability and the mother’s choices were sufficient conditions for an abortion, necessary conditions, or both for a morally justified abortion?

Rissa Rose:

Yes, a baby can be viable before birth. In which case it would not be aborted, it would be delivered.

TheSire:

So, what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for an ethical abortion?

Rissa Rose:

That’s up to the person having the abortion. Or did you mean for me personally?

TheSire:

I understand you to be stating that all you need for an abortion(assuming that it is morally acceptable) is the mother’s intention and the dependence of the child. Is that your position?

Rissa Rose:

Ethics are subjective. What someone “needs” in order to decide to have an abortion will vary from person to person. We don’t get to impose our ethics onto other people.

TheSire:

So, you do affirm moral subjectivism?

Rissa Rose:

I think you’re trying to back me into a lexical corner again. I’m not interested. I meant what I said, nothing more.

TheSire:

You’re confusing “lexical” with “conceptual”. I think you’re refusing to answer because of your resisting falsification. You know that accepting moral subjectivism would entail that all ethical judgments are merely personal opinions. That undermines your entire position. It would mean that abortion isn’t ethically good but rather your preference. A preference you wish to be allowed and forced to be allowed by the state.

The problem is that your position would mean arguments about abortion are pointless because it isn’t a rational topic about facts. It is a debate over preferences. If it is merely a preference, then why are you trying to argue for it as if it were some objective fact?

You have two options, you can continue on a subjectivism route. You’ll just end up stating ethical judgments are subjective opinions. Then you have to say rape, murder, enslavement, etc are not objectively wrong. That you merely didn’t like these things.

Rissa Rose:

Using or abusing another person’s body without their permission (rape, murder, enslavement, etc) is wrong. Is that what you’re looking for?

That’s nice. But abortion is a medical decision.

Julie McCarty:

This is a confused statement. There are philosophical arguments on ‘worth’ (albeit tired one’s) but it negates evolutionary biology. Having certain traits that we regard as ‘moral’ leads to survival of genes. If the only difference between the two is subjectivism, then any moral stance I take is the correct one.
You’re asking her to take a moral stand per your interpretation of your argument over ‘objectivism’, ‘subjectivism’, ‘intuition’ and medical decisions.

He really doesn’t care as long as he keeps you in the debate. At some point, he ‘believes’ he’ll trip you up. But he negates evolutionary biology in his treatise of morals and subjectivism.


TheSire:

The problem with appealing to evolutionary biology is that means our moral beliefs are mere illusions we have evolved for survival. We think rape is wrong because we evolved to think it is wrong. But it actually isn’t wrong on Julie’s worldview.

Julie is correct that anyone can take a contradictory moral stance than another individual and be right merely because no objective fact of the matter exists on your worldviews. That precisely is the argument I used against Rissa Rose. So, instead of refuting me, you agree with my argument.

” That’s nice. But abortion is a medical decision. “

Rissa Rose stated this but this precisely is why we should be wary of thinking science just answers ethical questions for us. You can cut up children in a hospital, you can get a lobotomy, you can cut off your arm. All these are medical decisions, but that doesn’t tell us whether these decisions are ethically right or wrong.

” Using or abusing another person’s body without their permission (rape, murder, enslavement, etc) is wrong. “

Is that a preference or an objective fact?






RSS
Follow by Email