No, I mean the woman did not expect to become pregnant (maybe she used the calendar method, or birth control failed), and did not want to give up her education or job to start having children. Based on the premise that society values the propagation and proliferation of qualities that will create great men, you could argue that this woman is a "bad seed" who would create more genetically "bad seeds" who would not value her role in society to produce more great men. If you allow this woman to propagate (a woman who would have sex and then reject the offspring) you could argue that it weakens society... possibly to the point that it falls into decadence and nobody bothers with having children anymore. So from that perspective, wouldn't society want to allow her to abort her offspring since that would eventually eliminate those genetic tendencies from the population?
I gather paying bills just isn't your thing....most "philosophy" students have that problem.... Back to the topic....when does life start?
What duty? Who determines "duty" ? Who enforces "duty" ? Women have no duty to reproduce....none...only in the minds of those who wish to take away their rights and control them...
Is it better to have a population who "does their duty" because they are dragged by force of law, or to cull out the "selfish" genetic strains by letting them get abortions so the rest of the population will "do their duty" for the good of society (or whatever it is Nietzsche would have valued)?
I note that you did not address the logic of allowing what some might describe as "selfish" genetic strains to "die out" which would allow those who are predisposed to "do their duty" for the overall strength of society to flourish. Isn't that what Nietzsche would have preferred? I think most of us (on both sides of the issue) would agree that it would be better to have fewer abortions AND fewer unwanted children, but pro-life and pro-choice advocates differ in the way they would accomplish that goal. The pro-choice strategy is to provide every person with comprehensive sex education including all possible options to prevent (and terminate) an unwanted pregnancy. Each person should make an informed decision. Even if nobody made a mistake and birth control never failed, there would still be a need for abortion (e.g. if the Zika virus continues to spread) but abortions could be significantly reduced. The pro-life strategy is to strictly control abortion services to artificially create a culture of anti-abortion. As I try to think about this based on what little I know of Nietzsche, I observe that anti-abortion law does not create a society that values the importance of duty. It creates a society of people who pretend to value the importance of duty. Those who are pretending will be joined with those who really value duty (and will weaken the family unit). Those who are pretending will propagate (and will weaken society). The law can prevent overt behavior in the near future but it is destined to lead to decadence and decay because it preserves and proliferates the "bad seed." It seems clear that society is better off allowing unrestricted abortion. Those who take their "duty" seriously will proliferate AND you will be able to tell them apart because those you might consider "bad seed" do not have to pretend to be something else. Do you honestly think it would turn people into Christians if they were forced (by law) to attend a Christian church every week?
Well firstly, Nietzsche isn't against anyone being "selfish". Modesty is a Christian virtue. But also, Nietzsche's not so much one to proclaim this ought to happen and that ought not to happen. After all, opposing this kind of rhetoric is his entire critique of Western philosophy. Power exists, and powers fight against each other. Nietzsche's works are largely to inspire those "great men" to seize and wield their power with no shame, after having deconstructed the values before him ("truth is hard"). Nor should I give the impression that I'm "toeing the Nietzschean line" or whatever that means. I'm my own man, and take inspiration from Nietzsche. Whatever he would've thought about abortion, my own view is that a strong, self-respecting culture will largely value its own kin to such an extent that it will not treat the abortion of a human fetus so lightly. Having said that, I don't think having an unexpected baby is so severe to warrant genocide. The pro-life camp is associated largely with the Christian right, so of course they will resort to shaming tactics. The same goes for the pro-choice camp when they argue against pro-life, because they are "Christian" as well. In the end it's a bunch of whining children to me. You're confusing "law" with "legislation". In Paris, I believe it's against "the law" for women to wear pants (i.e. trousers, as opposed to a dress or skirt, etc). But this "law" is never enforced. That's because it's not really a "law", it's a piece of archaic "legislation". The kind of "anti-abortion law" I want to see is one that doesn't even need to be debated, because the large bulk of the people agree with it, and the only people it has to punish are outliers/deviants. Compare it to the law against murder; even though we do have murderers, is it really meaningful to say we have a "society of people who pretend to be against murder"?
We have a "law" , Roe v. Wade, one that doesn't even need to be debated, because the large bulk of the people agree with it,... You: """""""the only people it has to punish are outliers/deviants. """" Who is that exactly?
I would say legislation is counter-productive. Assuming you respect those who decide to have an unexpected child instead of getting an abortion, how do you know which people to respect if they are all just following the law? If all anti-abortion laws are eliminated, each woman should be free to follow her conscience and you can make your own personal judgment about her actions. A law with no meaning has a damaging effect on society. Consider the difference between marijuana laws and homicide laws in countries that choose to legislate personal (versus interpersonal) morality. Homicide: The vast majority of the population will agree to, and voluntarily conform to, laws against homicide (a law dictating interpersonal morality). When a person commits this crime (without some justification) the vast majority of the population agree that this is wrong, the person should be punished, and the person should be prevented (by death or incarceration) from repeating the crime. Marijuana: This is an attempt to legislate personal morality (restricting one person's freedom because other people do not like it or perceive it as a risk to others). We did that with alcohol at one time but even I am not old enough to remember the days of Prohibition. A substantial number of people believe they should have the right to smoke a joint when they unwind on the weekend (or that their neighbors should have that right) so it is not strictly enforced. However, the fact that it is technically illegal means otherwise "good" people who use marijuana have to engage in criminal activity to obtain it and there are others (who may be "bad" people) who know about it. This creates a scenario that weakens society. For example, "good" people breaking laws and pretending to follow the rules may be corrupted by "bad" people who know their secrets. Weak laws create a weak society. It is clear that the vast majority of Americans consider anti-abortion laws to be "weak" laws (attempts to legislate personal morality) because even the most vocal anti-abortion advocates will not agree that a woman who conspires to abort her fetus should be punished by death, or life in prison. They know, instinctively, that it is NOT murder and should not be punished as such.
What if Roe vs. Wade were overturned? Would you become pro-life? You're smart, you can figure that out.
I'm not sure why you're bringing this up, this idea of "respect". I certainly didn't, and I don't see how its relevant. The meaning of a law is the existential violence, the actions, taken to enforce them. I reject the idea that there is a distinction between personal/interpersonal morality. All morality is interpersonal. Robinson Crusoe has no need for morality. You're also missing my overall point. I don't really care about imposing some set of laws on the herd, as I don't care about the herd. You'd need to back this up with hard proof, because it's not very plausible to me.
Why do I use the term "respect"? Because you state your... should we call it preference? ... without justification, so we are left to fill the void with words that appear to fit your stance. You claim "The best is to have a culture where anti-abortion is a trending value." but you do not explain why it is best. I gave you reasons why legislation would lead to degradation and you don't really care about the herd. It would appear that you don't like abortion (for reasons of your own) and would like the government to make it go away (but you don't really care if that helps or hurts society or the "herd"). It is not a very compelling argument. If Robinson Crusoe had discovered a strange weed growing on the island and discovered that it caused him to be euphoric when he used that weed to help start his campfire, he might deduce that this is a mind-altering drug and decide (based on personal morality) that he will avoid the use of that weed. Nobody would (or should) care if Robinson Crusoe enjoys an occasional bit of weed, but it matters to him based on his own personal morality. I do not have statistics but you can verify by scanning recent abortion discussions on this website that pro-lifers dodge the question. When pro-lifers claim "abortion is murder" and it should be illegal from the moment of conception, pro-choice posters ask if they would support the death penalty (or at least life in prison) as punishment for any woman who conspires to get an abortion. They dodge. A few will say the doctor should go to prison. Some will say the woman should be sent to counseling. I do not recall anybody saying the woman should be sentenced to death (or life in prison) for getting an abortion. That tells me they know it is not murder and they just want it to stop for the same reason we all hate the thought of cute little animals being eaten by a wolf or a lion. It is part of the circle of life, but we don't really want to think about that. In the world outside this forum, the most recent event was Donald Trump's proclamation that women who get an abortion should face "some kind of punishment." Within hours he was qualifying it... only if abortion was outlawed... and the women are just victims... the doctor should be the only one punished. The law may punish a woman who performs her own abortion (because she may have actually given birth and killed the newborn), but I cannot find a single candidate who sticks to the position that a woman who gets an abortion should be punished with the same sentence as a woman who kills an actual person (i.e. death penalty or life in prison). Can you? That tells me the vast majority of Americans know abortion is NOT AT ALL like murder, and does not deserve the same punishment as murder.
Dodging the question. Can't handle your own logic applied to yourself? Oh, so you deny the supremacy of the supreme court? Then why appeal to Roe vs. Wade? The thing you're engaging in is known to most people as a contradiction.
You're missing the point if you think I need to "justify" my preferences, or show why they are "best". I don't. It's an aesthetic and psychic judgement. I'm not making an argument. I'm not submitting to Socrates. This is not "morality" as the term is used by most people. Ironically, you yourself are losing credibility when you cite this forum (which is, honestly, one of the lowest quality I've ever seen) as evidence of anything. And even despite that, this forum is not a very good sample of the population you wish to examine. Also, the shortcomings of a supporter's argument of a view do not invalidate the view per se. If someone cannot, for example, make a sound argument in support of the claim that 2+2=4, it doesn't mean 2+2 isn't 4. I think that's a very bizarre and sloppy reason to conclude that.
In that case, your position is much like that of the lady down the street who thinks her lapdog is her "baby." She does not offer any logical argument to support her conclusion. It is her own aesthetic and psychic judgement (one that the IRS does not share, but she does not care). What is the point in sharing your view if you cannot support it with logic and/or evidence? You responded to Robinson Crusoe's decision to get high (or not) with "This is not "morality" as the term is used by most people." How would you characterize those laws that prohibit the use of marijuana (or many years ago prohibiting the use of alcohol)? Those laws apply even if you use the drugs in the privacy of your own home with nobody around (like Robinson Crusoe on his island) and the authorities, later, find evidence of it. You do not think this forum is a representative sample, so check this recent New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/02/opinion/campaign-stops/abortion-and-punishment.html?_r=0 Gov. John Kasich of Ohio responded to Mr. Trump’s comments by saying, “Of course women shouldn’t be punished.” Like his fellow Republican presidential candidate Mr. Trump, Mr. Kasich opposes legal abortion except in cases of rape and incest and to save the woman’s life. Mr. Kasich has signed 17 anti-abortion measures into law since he took office in 2011. Half the clinics in Ohio in operation at the beginning of his tenure have closed or stopped performing abortions. In a statement, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said, “Being pro-life is not simply about the unborn child, it’s also about the mother.” He would permit legal abortion only to save the woman’s life — no exception for rape and incest victims — and tried to shut down the government in his effort to defund Planned Parenthood. Virtually every anti-abortion group in the country quickly disavowed the notion of punishing women, many using words like compassion, love and healing. The movement’s hashtag is #lovethemboth. I invited you to find a counter example (a politician who says the woman who gets an abortion should be punished with death, or life in prison). If most people believed that abortion was the same as murder, certainly politicians would pick up on that an promise them what they want. Can you give me a logical reason why people who CLAIM to believe that abortion is murder would NOT say a woman who conspires to get an abortion should get the death penalty (or at least life in prison)?
Dodging what question? If you can't answer that simple question then you have no argument...what question did I dodge? Here is where I answered: Quote Originally Posted by TortoiseDream View Post Tortoise: What if Roe vs. Wade were overturned? Fox It won't be unless the Constitution is destroyed by those who hate human rights. Tortoise: Would you become pro-life? Fox No, I would still have a functioning brain. I would still believe ALL American citizens have rights not just men. Fox Figure out some weird thing you posted? No....can't YOU explain it? YOU wrote it? This last is where YOU dodged answering because you couldn't explain something YOU wrote Now, do you have a point? 72% of posters think it should stay legal
You dodged this question: You responded, but you didn't address the question. You hold up Roe vs. Wade as a source of authority, which logically implies you hold up the SCOTUS as an authority. So if the SCOTUS changed its position, by virtue of its authority, would you adopt their new view? IF not, then you admit that the SCOTUS is not an authoritative body to you, and your original argument that Roe vs. Wade means anything is voided.
And I answered that if RvW was overturned that meant that the Constitution had been destroyed....that's anarchy... I also said " No, I would still have a functioning brain. I would still believe ALL American citizens have rights not just men. Yes, I suppose the Supreme Court could just ignore the Constitution but they'd have a fight on their hands from the other two branches of the government. IF the Supreme Court abolished rights for women I doubt women would just throw up their hands and say, "Oh, OK"....and that would be the end of it....women and most men would not let it end there. A Supreme Court that denied citizens their rights should be abolished. If the city council where I live eliminated animal control laws and said dogs have to roam free, trust me, decent people would straighten it out...as they would if the Supreme Court went berserk and declared women to be nothing more than cattle with no rights... That's just wishful thinking on your part
There's a difference between an assertion of fact and an assertion of value. "Logic/evidence" is needed for the former, but not for the latter, and we are dealing with the latter here. Would you ask someone who has a preference for vanilla over chocolate to provide "logic/evidence" that vanilla is better? Yes, because there is literally no social dimension to that choice. The same way I characterize all laws, the enforcement of social norms. I don't see what you're confused about here. The rhetoric of politicians is of even a lower grade than a "hunch" on the opinions of posters on this forum. As you even admit yourself, politicians are populists who say what they need to do keep their power intact. Really, if you want to be intellectually honest, the only credible source of information you could provide is some sort of national polling of the exact questions/positions you wrote down. Do you know of any? Have you seen any? If not, then why did you make such a claim? I don't see why I have to defend anyone else's remarks besides my own. Do you not think I recognize that people are inconsistent in their beliefs? We can find inconsistent loudmouths in every corner of the political spectrum. I'm sure you can find pro-life people who do consider abortion to be murder and would treat them the same. I'm sure you can find pro-life people who would deviate. What's your point? Do you want to appeal to mass opinion as an argument? If so, then the earth was flat until not very long ago. - - - Updated - - - My point went right over your head.
It shouldn't .. however that does not mean that elective abortion should or could be made illegal. If you assign full human rights to the unborn then they have to abide by the restrictions placed on all born humans, one of which is that one person cannot use another persons body without their consent in other words the unborn have to get consent to use the females body in order to sustain their life .. It always amazes me that pro-lifers want the unborn to be recognised as persons with all the protection of that status, but want to ignore the restrictions of that status. Now let us assume that the female allows the fetus to use her body for 8 months (after the unborn have been deemed as persons), there is no legal restrictions on her to say she HAS to continue allowing her body to be used, she can at any time, for any reason (or even no reason at all) simple state that she is no longer giving consent for the fetus to use her body, as soon as she does that the fetus is now injuring her and as such she has every right to use what ever means possible to stop those injuries from occurring, and the state has a duty of care under the equal protection clause to help her in doing so. Only if she has not consented and the person causing the injury is not qualified to do so. Under the US legal system abortion should not be illegal at any time, for any reason, anything other than that is a violation of the equal protection clause.
