Wendy, iambiguous and [for now] abortion

[iambiguous]

Biggie wrote

Though, sure, if you would like to explore these relationships more substantively/contextually in regard to another issue like abortion or race or human sexuality or Trump or the welfare state or gun legislation etc., let me know and I will start the thread.

Yes, pick one and define your words that are important.

Okay, let's start with abortion.

I like to start here because...
1] it is a conflicting good almost all of us are familiar with
2] it literally revolves around life and death, and
3] I had an experience with it that resulted in my belief in objective morality being completely upended

And then all the points I raise about it here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

Now, this is the part where I ask you to note your own existential trajectory in regard to abortion. The manner in which both personal experiences and your contact with philosophy became intertwined so as to, what I call, "predispose" you to think and to feel about it as you do.

Or, if not abortion, a conflicting good more appealing to you.

Now, which words would you like me to define first?

And, even more important to me, how do you take your own definitions out into the world and situate them in a context in which different individuals embody different moral and political prejudices?

Edit:

In other words, how might philosophers go about articulating definitions here that would enable both the pro-life and pro-choice camps to finally pin down the optimal frame of mind...in order to legislate the optimal rules of behavior.

[WendyDarling]

I'm awaiting your definitions regarding the ideas you would like to share concerning the conflicting goods of abortion.

[iambiguous]

I'm awaiting your definitions regarding the ideas you would like to share concerning the conflicting goods of abortion.

Note to others:

About what you expected, right?

On the other hand, if anyone else would like to give it a go [on my terms more than hers] please do.

[WendyDarling]

Your choosing of the topic and your defining of the words that you think are important are my terms?

[Antithesis]

*Grabs popcorn

[iambiguous]

Your choosing of the topic and your defining of the words that you think are important are my terms?

Then we're stuck. My approach to value judgments is to describe our reaction to a context in which moral and political values come into conflict. Then to note [in regard to an issue like abortion] what we construe to be appropriate and inappropriate behaviors.

From my end though that revolves around the manner in which I come to focus in on the existential juncture that is identity, conflicting goods and political power.

Now, with regard to abortion, I believe that 1] an abortion is the killing of a human being and 2] that women ought to have the right to choose it.

How do I reconcile this? I don't. Why? Because, philosophically or otherwise, I don't believe that I can.

Instead, I believe that, given the actual trajectory of the life I lived, taking into account both my experiences and my attempts to educate myself philosophically, I find myself fractured and fragmented. Torn ambivalently in different directions because both sides are able to note sets of assumptions the other side can't make go away. Therefore the best of all possible worlds [politically and legally] is to me [here and now] moderation, negotiation and compromise.

But, in a No God world, this doesn't make me any less fractured and fragmented.

Besides, with abortion, who gets to define the meaning of "human life". Is it at the point of conception? when there is a beating heart? when it is viable outside the womb?

You pin down the correct definition here.

[Antithesis]

I don't believe abortion is killing a human, but I still don't believe in a woman's right to choose, for it's unfair to men; it's hers until it's born, but it's both of theirs after.
A potential mother should require the consent of the potential father to abort their unborn, or the responsibility of providing for children should fall squarely on mothers and the state.

[WendyDarling]

Conception would be the first stage of life for a new human being. So life begins with conception. Thoughts?

[Ecmandu]

Iambiguous,

I’ve answered this question repeatedly for you (to which you’ve never responded) (which makes you a troll)

I’ll answer it again.

People want fetuses to be treated as full grown people.

Well then ask full grown people! “Do you wish you had never been born?”

Many of them will say yes.

For those who think it’s wrong to be aborted, they don’t care about their mother’s wishes (they hate their mother).

Do we really want people who hate their mother to be born (it’s a rhetorical question)? The answer is “no”.

We have two different types of people here:

Those who wish they had never been born and those who hate their mother.... those who hate their mother want to be born here no matter how many people don’t want them here (sociopaths)

The world does not need more sociopaths (we execute them all the time)

The correct answer is “pro choice”

[Antithesis]

Conception would be the first stage of life for a new human being. So life begins with conception. Thoughts?

The average pregnancy is 40 weeks.
How bout if you abort your unborn at 4 weeks for eg, it's 10% alive, and so it's 10% murder, and so the max penalty is 2.5 years in prison, the min being 0, with exemption in cases of rape, high-risk pregnancies and disabled unborns?
Such'd be a synthesis between the all/nothing, living/dead thinking of conservatives/liberals.

[WendyDarling]

Alive is alive.

[Ecmandu]

Alive is alive.

Selfish is selfish.

The fetus that hates its abortion is selfish. It doesn’t care for any human on earth.
Full grown adults have been through much worse than an aborted fetus for reasons of integrity.

So you’re saying fetuses don’t have integrity?

Why do we want them here again?

[Antithesis]

Alive is alive.

Right, alive is alive, dead is dead, and half alive/dead is half alive/dead, not alive or dead.

[WendyDarling]

A fetus is alive (period).

[Ecmandu]

A fetus is alive (period).

Like I said....

Ask adults whether they wish they had never been born. REAL consensual beings. Many will say yes, especially if their mother doesn’t want them here.

That means the ONLY fetuses we are protecting are sociopaths... and we need no more of them in the world.

You’re not defending fetuses, only potential sociopaths.

Let’s not be confused about this.

[Antithesis]

Alive is alive.

In your opinion.

[Ecmandu]

A fetus is alive (period).

Like I said....

Ask adults whether they wish they had never been born. REAL consensual beings. Many will say yes, especially if their mother doesn’t want them here.

That means the ONLY fetuses we are protecting are sociopaths... and we need no more of them in the world.

You’re not defending fetuses, only potential sociopaths.

Let’s not be confused about this.

A non sociopathic fetus would NEVER be offended that they were aborted !! (It’s impossible)

[iambiguous]

I don't believe abortion is killing a human, but I still don't believe in a woman's right to choose, for it's unfair to fathers; it's hers until it's born, but it's both of theirs after.

From my point of view, it's not what someone believes is true about abortion, but what they can demonstrate to others that all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

Some [like me] believe that human life begins at conception. Others however believe that as a zygote/embryo the unborn are just "clumps of cells". Still others believe it revolves around a beating heart or around brain activity or around its capacity to survive outside the womb. While still others insist that a woman has the right to demand an abortion at any point from conception onward. In some sets of circumstances historically and culturally even new borns can be killed. Often revolving around gender or congenital health issues. Or, during the pregnancy, if the mothers physical or emotional health is imperiled.

Okay, different folks, different assumptions. Different assumptions, different conclusions. But how exactly would any of them, including myself, go about demonstrating beyond all doubt in a No God world when in fact a human being is being killed?

Either a potential mother should require the consent of the potential father to abort their unborn, or the responsibility of providing for children should fall squarely on mothers and the state.

Right, like this isn't just your own political prejudices being expressed. And, even here, my own interest revolves more around how particular individuals [including yourself] come to be predisposed existentially to choose one set of political prejudices over all the others.

[Antithesis]

I don't believe abortion is killing a human, but I still don't believe in a woman's right to choose, for it's unfair to fathers; it's hers until it's born, but it's both of theirs after.

From my point of view, it's not what someone believes is true about abortion, but what they can demonstrate to others that all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

Some [like me] believe that human life begins at conception. Others however believe that as a zygote/embryo the unborn are just "clumps of cells". Still others believe it revolves around a beating heart or around brain activity or around its capacity to survive outside the womb. While still others insist that a woman has the right to demand an abortion at any point from conception onward. In some sets of circumstances historically and culturally even new borns can be killed. Often revolving around gender or congenital health issues. Or, during the pregnancy, if the mothers physical or emotional health is imperiled.

Okay, different folks, different assumptions. Different assumptions, different conclusions. But how exactly would any of them, including myself, go about demonstrating beyond all doubt in a No God world when in fact a human being is being killed?

For the most part I agree.
Two people can be equally informed about an entity, but still conceptualize and/or value it differently.
Why?
In some cases it may be because one person's conceptualizations are more internally, and externally consistent with the entity than the other's, but in other cases, while the entity itself is objective (for the sake of argument), how we conceptualization it isn't entirely, and how we value the entity, if we value it at all, is entirely subjective (altho some values may still be more sustainable than others, if you catch my drift), and somewhat variable.
Similar subjects will have similar conceptualizations and valuations, conversely different subjects will have different ones.
A lot of it comes down to neurocognition, linguistics, and feelings, which vary somewhat from person to person, as well as (un)conscious agendas, sociopolitical biases.

Either a potential mother should require the consent of the potential father to abort their unborn, or the responsibility of providing for children should fall squarely on mothers and the state.

Right, like this isn't just your own political prejudices being expressed.

No more than you're just expressing yours.

And, even here, my own interest revolves more around how particular individuals [including yourself] come to be predisposed existentially to choose one set of political prejudices over all the others.

If abortion is homicide, why're you still prochoice?

[WendyDarling]

Biggie, do you think that the world has an indifferent objective existence?

[iambiguous]

From my point of view, it's not what someone believes is true about abortion, but what they can demonstrate to others that all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

Some [like me] believe that human life begins at conception. Others however believe that as a zygote/embryo the unborn are just "clumps of cells". Still others believe it revolves around a beating heart or around brain activity or around its capacity to survive outside the womb. While still others insist that a woman has the right to demand an abortion at any point from conception onward. In some sets of circumstances historically and culturally even new borns can be killed. Often revolving around gender or congenital health issues. Or, during the pregnancy, if the mothers physical or emotional health is imperiled.

Okay, different folks, different assumptions. Different assumptions, different conclusions. But how exactly would any of them, including myself, go about demonstrating beyond all doubt in a No God world when in fact a human being is being killed?

For the most part I agree.
Two people can be equally informed about an entity, but still conceptualize and/or value it differently.
Why?
In some cases it may be because one person's conceptualizations are more internally, and externally consistent with the entity than the other's, but in other cases, while the entity itself is objective (for the sake of argument), how we conceptualization it isn't entirely, and how we value the entity, if we value it at all, is entirely subjective (altho some values may still be more sustainable than others, if you catch my drift), and somewhat variable.
Similar subjects will have similar conceptualizations and valuations, conversely different subjects will have different ones.
A lot of it comes down to neurocognition, linguistics, and feelings, which vary somewhat from person to person, as well as (un)conscious agendas, sociopolitical biases.

From my frame of mind, however, this "intellectual assessment" is far removed from an actual set of circumstances in which an actual flesh and blood woman -- let's call her Mary -- is pregnant, doesn't want to be, chooses to abort the baby, and then has to endure the reactions of those who insist that what she did was immoral.

While others are pointing out [in particular jurisdictions] that what she did is also illegal.

And that she must be arrested and tried [along with the abortionist] for murder.

What might Mary's response be to this "philosophical contraption" of yours? And what about the reactions of all the others involved?

Instead, in my view, sooner or later, such "general descriptions" must be related to a particular context relating to a particular abortion embedded in any number of possible variable interactions out in a particular world.

And this is the part that find's my own "I" fractured and fragmented. Whereas for the objectivists among us, they experience none of that. They are convinced that, in being in touch with the real me in sync with the right thing to do [re God or Reason, or ideology, or nature] they just know what is true and what is not. And, in knowing this, it comforts and consoles them no matter the actual existential outcome pertaining to any particular abortion.

Either a potential mother should require the consent of the potential father to abort their unborn, or the responsibility of providing for children should fall squarely on mothers and the state.

Right, like this isn't just your own political prejudices being expressed.

No more than you're just expressing yours.

I agree. Only in recognizing that these prejudices are rooted in dasein confronting conflicting goods out in a particular world understood from a particular subjective/subjunctive perspective, this is precisely what precipitates the fractured and fragmented "I" that the objectivists are immune to.

And, even here, my own interest revolves more around how particular individuals [including yourself] come to be predisposed existentially to choose one set of political prejudices over all the others.

If abortion is homicide, why're you still prochoice?

Or, you could ask someone in the pro-life camp, "if forcing women to give birth gives men an inherent and distinct advantage in social, political and economic interactions, why are you still anti-choice?

This is precisely what being fractured and fragmented entails in a No God world for the moral nihilist. This one [me] in particular. He wants to believe the answer is either this or that, but both sides are able to make arguments that the other side are not able to make go away.

It's reasonable [to him] to think that allowing women to abort their babies means killing them. But it is also reasonable [to him] that forcing women to give birth undermines their capacity to be treated equally in the political arena.

Or the arguments of the narcissists and sociopaths: what's in it for me?

But: All I can do is to raise the points that I do. To note the reasons here and now they make sense to me. I am no more able to demonstrate that what I think, others are obligated to think as well. And I recognize that, given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge, I may we'll change my mind.

It's just that when I suggest in turn that all of this is applicable to the objectivists too, that some refuse to accept that this is possible at all. After all, look at what they have to lose if it is.

[iambiguous]

Biggie, do you think that the world has an indifferent objective existence?

I have no idea what you are asking me here.

Again, focus in on a specific set of circumstances out in a particular world [yours] and describe what you think and feel as it relates to any possible social, political and economic consequences of abortion.

[WendyDarling]

Biggie, so we agree that a fetus is alive? Also that abortion is the murder of a fetus, a baby, a life? Our contention lies in a woman's second choice, not her first choice?

[iambiguous]

Biggie, so we agree that a fetus is alive? Also that abortion is the murder of a fetus, a baby, a life? Our contention lies in a woman's second choice, not her first choice?

You still haven't a clue regarding my frame of mind here, do you?

My point is not what either one of us believes about the morality of abortion. Instead, it revolves around the manner in which I construe points of view like this -- yours, mine, ours, theirs -- as rooted existentially, subjectively, subjunctively in the lives that we live.

Again, in the points I raise on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

Which is just another way of speculating that, using the tools of philosophy, there does not appear -- appear to me -- to be a way in which, either rationally or empirically or naturally, to encompass anything in the vicinity of a moral obligation to behave as either a good/rational person would or as a bad/irrational person would. In a No God world, in my view, these are basically social constructs rooted out in a particular world seen from a particular point of view.

This part:

Identity is ever constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed over the years by hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of variables---some of which we had/have no choice/control regarding. We really are "thrown" into a fortuitous smorgasbord of demographic factors at birth and then molded and manipulated as children into whatever configuration of "reality" suits the cultural [and political] institutions of our time.

On the other hand:

In my view, one crucial difference between people is the extent to which they become more or less self-conscious of this. Why? Because, obviously, to the extent that they do, they can attempt to deconstruct the past and then reconstruct the future into one of their own more autonomous making.

But then what does this really mean? That is the question that has always fascinated me the most. Once I become cognizant of how profoundly problematic my "self" is, what can "I" do about it? And what are the philosophical implications of acknowledging that identity is, by and large, an existential contraption that is always subject to change without notice? What can we "anchor" our identity to so as to make this prefabricated...fabricated...refabricated world seem less vertiginous? And, thus, more certain.

Hence the "psychology of objectivism".

First choice, second choice...tenth choice. There is still only what we are able to pin down as in fact true for all of us objectively and what is deemed to be true by us "in our head" as the embodiment of conflicting goods down through the ages.

And, with abortion, we don't even have a way in which to pin down once and for all when the unborn itself becomes a "human being".

[phyllo]

How does this work with respect to abortion? :

Though I certainly agree that to the extent any human community eschews moral and political objectivism [God or No God] there is a greater likelihood that interactions will revolve more democratically around the rule of law...revolving in turn around moderation, negotiation and compromise.

What's the difference if abortion is made illegal(or legal) by a dictatorship or a democracy?

The people who want the illegal option are screwed either way.