User Tag List

First 89101112 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 122

  1. #91
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entpersonal View Post
    Were you planning on some exotic dining this weekend?
    Homemade.


  2. #92
    Senior Member The Outsider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    2,425

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lady X View Post
    on the other...it really pisses me off...like please go get yourself sterilized if you're a shitty human being.
    That is not always the option. Where I live at, women aren't allowed to sterilize themselves before the age of 30-something or before having at least 3 children. Which is of course ridiculous, and sad.

    More generally:
    Abortion isn't murder, and even if you were to frame it that way, it wouldn't be one bit less justified - for whatever reasons, be it a threat on mother's life, convenience or a sheer lack of care.
    It is neither unnatural (spontaneous abortions, as has been mentioned) or unethical (in fact the opposite - the forbidding of abortions or shaming of those who opt for it - would be a position insurmountably more ethically problematic). The potentiality of life argument, as all such potentiality-arguments, is an utter load of shit for both lying on false premises and begging the question, and for disregarding actual lives. Any line of arguments from a religious angle is not, of course, worth even considering. And the argument that a fertilized egg is already a life that we should endeavor to nourish even in spite of how nature would have it (which in itself is fair, as there is nothing ethical in natural conduct, and nature is by definition amoral), is eventually arbitrary, and at that - arbitrary in favor of those who would seek to continue the subjugation of a section of population over a question that bears on something that the subjugators themselves will never have to possibly experience.

  3. #93
    reflecting pool Typh0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    3,090

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    This is New Age doctrine. And how appropriate on a New Age site.

    Of course you don't know the meaning of the word inter-subjective so you use the word inter-subjective without understanding what you are saying.

    In fact you come here merely to play with words you don't even understand.
    Enlighten me.

  4. #94
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typh0n View Post
    Enlighten me.
    When we use words we don't understand, our parents think we are cute.

    And if we live at home and are dependent financially and emotionally on our parents, we are unlikely to discover that it is only our parents who think we are cute.

  5. #95
    Senior Member BlackDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    MBTI
    NiTe
    Enneagram
    9w8 so/sx
    Posts
    572

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Outsider View Post
    That is not always the option. Where I live at, women aren't allowed to sterilize themselves before the age of 30-something or before having at least 3 children. Which is of course ridiculous, and sad.
    Okay, but wouldn't your society be more likely to allow sterilization before it allows abortion? I find it hard to believe that sterilizations are limited but some abortions are allowed.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Outsider View Post
    More generally:
    Abortion isn't murder, and even if you were to frame it that way, it wouldn't be one bit less justified - for whatever reasons, be it a threat on mother's life, convenience or a sheer lack of care.
    It is neither unnatural (spontaneous abortions, as has been mentioned) or unethical (in fact the opposite - the forbidding of abortions or shaming of those who opt for it - would be a position insurmountably more ethically problematic). The potentiality of life argument, as all such potentiality-arguments, is an utter load of shit for both lying on false premises and begging the question, and for disregarding actual lives.
    Okay, so it's nice to hear that your case is so strong that it is justified even if you grant all the arguments of the pro-lifers; even if it is murder, it would be unethical not to commit the murder because "for whatever reasons, be it a threat on mother's life, convenience or a sheer lack of care.". Surely this is rather strong, don't you think? Any reason is good enough for an abortion, even granting (which I understand you don't grant) it is a murder?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Outsider View Post
    Any line of arguments from a religious angle is not, of course, worth even considering.
    Because you say so, or is there some reason why religions cannot be allowed to impose their perspective upon everyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Outsider View Post
    And the argument that a fertilized egg is already a life that we should endeavor to nourish even in spite of how nature would have it (which in itself is fair, as there is nothing ethical in natural conduct, and nature is by definition amoral), is eventually arbitrary, and at that - arbitrary in favor of those who would seek to continue the subjugation of a section of population over a question that bears on something that the subjugators themselves will never have to possibly experience.
    What if we worked it in the following way; from now on, only those directly affected by an issue get to have a say in it. Only women proven to be capable of getting pregnant have a say on abortion law, only men of draft age get to have a say over whether the country enters a war requiring the draft, and only children have a voice when it comes to child protection laws. Would that work better?

  6. #96
    Senior Member The Outsider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    2,425

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lion 4.5 View Post
    Okay, but wouldn't your society be more likely to allow sterilization before it allows abortion? I find it hard to believe that sterilizations are limited but some abortions are allowed.
    No, abortions are gladly legal. Though sadly, really expensive. I live in a little nazi country where women aren't to be trusted in decisions regarding their own body, as increasing the population is the main imperative. And if some fail to do their part, the state makes sure to nudge them in the right direction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lion 4.5 View Post
    Okay, so it's nice to hear that your case is so strong that it is justified even if you grant all the arguments of the pro-lifers; even if it is murder, it would be unethical not to commit the murder because "for whatever reasons, be it a threat on mother's life, convenience or a sheer lack of care.". Surely this is rather strong, don't you think? Any reason is good enough for an abortion, even granting (which I understand you don't grant) it is a murder?
    If abortions are to be allowed for any reason, then they ought to be allowed for any reason. If the dividing line is taken to be a mother's life being valued over an unborn child's, then we should endeavor to in fact do just that - value the life of an actual person whose agency is inseparable from that life.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lion 4.5 View Post
    Because you say so, or is there some reason why religions cannot be allowed to impose their perspective upon everyone?
    Religious people of course always have their say, as they well should. However, that is granted if what they have to say has actual bearing on the matter at hand - laws that affect people's lives, many of whom deny the existence of religious entities, rendering any religious premises ipso facto irrelevant. Postulations about a God's plan for all people and that of sanctity of life are relevant in theology, not as premises for our social policies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lion 4.5 View Post
    What if we worked it in the following way; from now on, only those directly affected by an issue get to have a say in it. Only women proven to be capable of getting pregnant have a say on abortion law, only men of draft age get to have a say over whether the country enters a war requiring the draft, and only children have a voice when it comes to child protection laws. Would that work better?
    Not my point. When I say that debates over what is life and where it begins are arbitrary, that's exactly what I mean. These are interesting philosophical questions in their own right, but as far as regulating abortion is concerned, this should not be what's at the center of this debate. Instead, the focus should be directly on people's human rights. The victims in this case are women, who many would continue holding hostage in their own bodies.

    This is why I don't even bother bringing up some classic ideas about the lives of unwanted children likely turning out to be shit anyway. This is simply beside the point, either way. Banning and shaming abortion directly causes suffering to people currently in this world. Whether the lives of those aborted would have turned out to be magical and wonderful in the end, or the inverse, is, in this matter, empty speculation.

  7. #97
    Senior Member BlackDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    MBTI
    NiTe
    Enneagram
    9w8 so/sx
    Posts
    572

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Outsider View Post
    No, abortions are gladly legal. Though sadly, really expensive. I live in a little nazi country where women aren't to be trusted in decisions regarding their own body, as increasing the population is the main imperative. And if some fail to do their part, the state makes sure to nudge them in the right direction.


    If abortions are to be allowed for any reason, then they ought to be allowed for any reason. If the dividing line is taken to be a mother's life being valued over an unborn child's, then we should endeavor to in fact do just that - value the life of an actual person whose agency is inseparable from that life.


    Religious people of course always have their say, as they well should. However, that is granted if what they have to say has actual bearing on the matter at hand - laws that affect people's lives, many of whom deny the existence of religious entities, rendering any religious premises ipso facto irrelevant. Postulations about a God's plan for all people and that of sanctity of life are relevant in theology, not as premises for our social policies.


    Not my point. When I say that debates over what is life and where it begins are arbitrary, that's exactly what I mean. These are interesting philosophical questions in their own right, but as far as regulating abortion is concerned, this should not be what's at the center of this debate. Instead, the focus should be directly on people's human rights. The victims in this case are women, who many would continue holding hostage in their own bodies.

    This is why I don't even bother bringing up some classic ideas about the lives of unwanted children likely turning out to be shit anyway. This is simply beside the point, either way. Banning and shaming abortion directly causes suffering to people currently in this world. Whether the lives of those aborted would have turned out to be magical and wonderful in the end, or the inverse, is, in this matter, empty speculation.
    I didn't think that there were any nazi countries left in the world, after Franco's Spain ended in the seventies. You mean just a standard dictatorship?

    I grant that your argument is sound given your premises. If abortion is going to be legal for any reason, then yes, it should not make a difference what the woman's reasoning is.

    As for religious reasons, you are not looking at it from a religious point of view. If you grant that the religion is true, then to the religious person, it is irrelevant whether or not the woman is also religious; her views would have no bearing on the objective truth of the religion. So, if you were such a religious person, unless you believed in the total separation of church and state you would have an obligation to try and impose your religious views on the state.

    Think of it this way: why is murder of an adult wrong? Either for religious reasons, or because of a philosophical reason. However, the state considers it wrong for neither of these reasons, but because by fiat the state declares this is necessary for maintaining order. The state could do the same thing with abortion, unless it decides the rights of the individual should be respected. But why do we have to think the rights of individuals are a moral cause? This cannot be proven; it is a moral principle not everyone values equally. In the case of religion, often a greater priority is placed on forbidding what the religion considers immoral than on preserving individual liberty.

    The point is that you must declare as a moral principle that the state should be non-religious and respect individual rights; this is not self-evident.

  8. #98
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lion 4.5 View Post
    The point is that you must declare as a moral principle that the state should be non-religious and respect individual rights; this is not self-evident.
    He must also declare that the 'individual' component of individual rights is determined by something other than humanity itself (subjective benchmarks such as 'breath of life', self-awareness, etc.).

    I'm also curious if @The Outsider thinks abortion should be allowed at any advanced stage of pregnancy, if the legal or moral principle behind his position is that the 'life' (I think 'rights' would be a more applicable term) of the mother must always supersede the rights of the unborn?

  9. #99
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lion 4.5 View Post
    Think of it this way: why is murder of an adult wrong? Either for religious reasons, or because of a philosophical reason. However, the state considers it wrong for neither of these reasons, but because by fiat the state declares this is necessary for maintaining order.
    Just quibbling with you a bit here. In the west murder laws and really all crimes are enforced based on a legislated criminal code. However, those laws are still historically rooted in pure common law. At common law, crimes were divided into two categories the first of which is malum prohibitum, that is actions that are not bad in of themselves, but just contrary to the established order like driving in the left lane in America.

    The second category of crimes are laws that are malum in se, that is evil in and of themselves. So, it's not just a matter of murder disrupting social order, but rather that society deems murder to be inherently evil.

    You can still see the lasting impacts of this moral view of murder today in our reliance on mens rea (their having a guilty mind) to convict people on higher degrees of murder. It's not just about order. It's about distributing justice... though how long it will remain that way is yet to be seen.

  10. #100
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lion 4.5 View Post
    I didn't think that there were any nazi countries left in the world, after Franco's Spain ended in the seventies.
    Franco was not a nazi, he was a fascist.

    He, along with other fascist dictators, was supported openly, publicly and in writing by the Vatican.

    The Vatican did not support the nazis.

Similar Threads

  1. [ENTP] ENTP's and Ethics
    By WALMART in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-22-2012, 05:25 PM
  2. Type and Ethics.
    By King sns in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 09-29-2011, 11:11 AM
  3. Abortion: The Ethics of Liberty
    By TheLastMohican in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 03-21-2009, 07:49 PM
  4. [MBTItm] NFs and ethics
    By Lotr246 in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-09-2009, 07:26 PM
  5. The Ethics of Probability: A Poker Metaphor for Faith and Ethics
    By simulatedworld in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-17-2008, 08:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO