Abortion

OBW, do you support abortion?

-Thirst

I don’t think abortion is always morally wrong, but it can be. I don’t think there are many defensible moral principles of the ilk “abortion is wrong” or “abortion is not wrong”.

Wrong thread?

My sig quote is poetry, which I am reliably informed is about making you feel. It is therefore not an argument, which is, I am reliably informed, the domain of philosophy.

Let us cry more for one species than for another. Let us condemn the eating of meat and embrace the slaughter of children.

Tra la la.

-Thirst

Posts moved from the other thread on philosophy graduate salaries.

I assume you are sugesting you have spotted a contradiction in my reasoning but as I have stated, I am not a “supporter of abortion” in the commonly used sense. I do not consider such a principle either way to be defensible. So you have not spotted a contradiction.

Even if I was a “supporter of abortion” in all cases you are still to demonstrate what argument permits you to make the rather offensive conclusion that I suggest embracing the slaughter of children. I certainly don’t! :slight_smile:

Like, it’s easy for you to say.
Thirst,
You’re a latter-day fetus…

Abortion is murder and it should not happen.

But acting imperatively would lead us toward destruction as well.

Abortion is a lesser of two evils. Those who reproduce accidentally have no right to determine the fate of an offspring nor their right to breed.

Its sickening, really. I have a few friends who have kids, all of which were accidental on a date somewhere in the passion of the moment.

These people should be incarcerated or have their reproduction privilege revoked.

Incarcerated?

But, I thought that low sexual standards were the sacred light which will destroy the human race once and for all?

No other species favors retardation and lies as much as this one, does it?

Correct, because they don’t have language.

Words are very
un-necce-sa-sary
they can only
do harm…

Ahuh…huh…huh…

…hey beavis…

Ahuh-huh…huh…huh

…he said “mode”

Ahuh-huh…huh…

…is that like Spinozean…

Ahuh-huh-huh-huh!!!

If there was some necessary connection, wouldn’t opposing abortion while eating meat also be contradictory?
Anyways, as far as the big three go, I’m against abortion, against the death penalty, and in sort of in favor of eating meat. I think that vegetarianism is supererogatory, which is to say, a person who abstains from eating meat because they want to avoid animal suffering has done something morally good that goes beyond obligation.

Yes :slight_smile:. I am really happy that someone else is aware of this. :slight_smile: Actually, because it would be based on the antecedent of a conditional it would be logically stronger than the line of proof which dealt with not eating meat and supporting abortion, which would instead rely on the assumption of a negative to provide the DNI for an MT translation of the original premise. I am really happy that someone else is aware of this. :slight_smile:

A thoughtful analysis.

Obw

Um…well…at least consider me aware of the part that I said! :slight_smile:

  Not really, just a feeling put into words at this point.  When I hear someone cares so much for animals that they won't eat meat, I see something admirable in it. When I hear someone hunts, fishes, or eats at Arby's, I don't see anything blameworthy in it. When actively trying to stop others from eating meat,  I see something mildly blameworthy [i]that[/i]- same goes for wearing leather and so on. 
  In many ways, that is a parallel to the abortion issue. Many pro-choice folks, I'm told, would see it as morally outstanding for someone to make the choice to never have an abortion no matter what, but would see it as morally blameworthy for them to try to stop someone else from having one.  I happen to disagree there, but at least get the perspective.

Why I call it thoughtful is that it is actually a very solid view to hold and one which I would not argue with so long as we continue to talk about vegetarianism (rather than, for example, veganism, which is a whole other ball park). If perhaps you would extend your view of superegotory to veganism, then we would disagree, but as it stands I cannot disagree even though I wish it were not the case that I do not see any rationally justifiable obligation for people to be vegetarian.

It seems to me that if vegetarianism were supererogatory, that veganism would be too. Can you explain why one would be, and not the other?

It would be the ‘beyond obligation’ bit of your definition that causes me the issue. I’m looking at it like this - if the animal has a right not to be killed for the western meat industry, then we have the obligation not to kill it. If we have the obligation not to kill it then** the vegan stance cannot be supergotory. But how can the vegetarian stance be so, in that case? Well, as far as I can see, the veganism avoids the contradiction that one is performing ones obligation consistently whereas the vegetarianism does not (by buying products from the very same industry that sources the obligation in the first place). With veganism, you’re not supporting that industry in any way and are free to perform your duty without contradiction or hypocrisy, rendering the stance an obligation.

**Obviously, the conditional is object language and so could be **Then any stance which is not inherantly contradictory cannot be superegotory by your definition.

OK, so you’re saying that vegetarianism can only be seen as supererogatory, because if it were obligatory, then in fact a vegetarian would just be a slightly immoral vegan, since veganism would be the REAL obligation based on whatever principal the vegetarian was using? I get that. You know I can’t agree, but I get it.
I think veganism is supererogatory specifically because animals don’t have a right like the one you described. So killing them for the meat industry isn’t wrong. However, a wish to avoid causing suffering is a good*. So for me, choosing not to harm animals is much like choosing to donate all one one’s wealth to charity.

  • Indidentally, some people would claim that animals can’t suffer like humans can. I don’t believe that, but even if it were true, avoiding meat-products because of a (mistaken) belief that they cause suffering in animals would still be a supererogatory good in my view.

OBW,

A person should have the right to murder their unborn child.
A person should have the right to murder a lamb for food.
Animals and humans are equals, afterall.
Animals commit murder all the time.

I just wanted to see check to see if you agreed. It has nothing to do with spotting a contradiction.
And I do not support the slaughter of children… it was just “poetry.”

-Thirst

As I opened this post a Depche Mode video came on.

Again this issue rests on the same stuff as the other thread about animals.

The word obligation has little meaning in the context of the discussion. The word implies that one is beholden to either a higher authority or to oneself.

The highest authority is a god or gods and many people don’t believe that they exist, and for some good reasons. So, the authority of universal morality is on shaky ground. The second highest authority would be the ethics of humanity, on which there is no agreement. The third would be your own personal ethos upon which, I would hope, there’s substantial agreement.

So, in the end you are obliged to no one, but yourself.

Are you suggesting I have prophetic powers, Mr. Predictable?

Just what are you implying sir?

Depeche Modal Syncronicity?