Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abortion and consistency

Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 11:31:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In order for you to hold a moral position, it must be consistent - otherwise it is irrational.

What does it mean to be consistent? Well, in order to consistently affirm the moral permissibility of 'doing X to some person Y', you must continue to affirm it if it turned out that Y was yourself.

It's essentially the golden rule; if you treat another in a way that you would not be willing to be treated if you were to then be put in their position, you are being inconsistent.

Abortion is inconsistent on these grounds. To support abortion is to affirm that 'it is morally permissibile to kill Q in the womb'. But to be consistent, the pro-choicer must also affirm this assertion if he was Q. They must be willing that, if they were in Q's exact position, someone would be justified in killing them.

Since no pro-choicer can be sincere in affirming this assertion, their support of abortion is morally inconsistent. Therefore it is an irrational moral position.

Even if the pro-choicer bites the bullet and sincerely accepts that it would have been morally permissible to kill him in the womb, this position would still be irrational because being willing that someone be able to kill you is prima facie an irrational position.

Nevertheless, I don't think any sane person can sincerely bite the bullet on this one.

My argument can be demonstrated by this imaginary (but realistic) dialogue:

Sue: Are you willing that I be allowed to kill you now?
Bob: No
Sue: What if I jump in a time machine and kill you five minutes ago? Would you be willing that I be allowed to do that?
Bob: No
Sue: Five weeks?
Bob: No
Sue: Five years?
Bob: No
Sue: Two weeks after you were conceived?
Bob: No!

If anyone is being sincere, their answer won't change to 'yes' on the last question if on the previous questions they said No. Therefore, any rational, sincere person cannot support abortion because doing so is either insincere or inconsistent.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 11:46:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 11:31:53 PM, Philocat wrote:
In order for you to hold a moral position, it must be consistent - otherwise it is irrational.

What does it mean to be consistent? Well, in order to consistently affirm the moral permissibility of 'doing X to some person Y', you must continue to affirm it if it turned out that Y was yourself.

It's essentially the golden rule; if you treat another in a way that you would not be willing to be treated if you were to then be put in their position, you are being inconsistent.

Abortion is inconsistent on these grounds. To support abortion is to affirm that 'it is morally permissibile to kill Q in the womb'. But to be consistent, the pro-choicer must also affirm this assertion if he was Q. They must be willing that, if they were in Q's exact position, someone would be justified in killing them.

Since no pro-choicer can be sincere in affirming this assertion, their support of abortion is morally inconsistent. Therefore it is an irrational moral position.

Even if the pro-choicer bites the bullet and sincerely accepts that it would have been morally permissible to kill him in the womb, this position would still be irrational because being willing that someone be able to kill you is prima facie an irrational position.

Nevertheless, I don't think any sane person can sincerely bite the bullet on this one.

My argument can be demonstrated by this imaginary (but realistic) dialogue:

Sue: Are you willing that I be allowed to kill you now?
Bob: No
Sue: What if I jump in a time machine and kill you five minutes ago? Would you be willing that I be allowed to do that?
Bob: No
Sue: Five weeks?
Bob: No
Sue: Five years?
Bob: No
Sue: Two weeks after you were conceived?
Bob: No!

If anyone is being sincere, their answer won't change to 'yes' on the last question if on the previous questions they said No. Therefore, any rational, sincere person cannot support abortion because doing so is either insincere or inconsistent.

I think you need a pretty strange idea of personal identity for this argument to work.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 11:48:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 11:46:29 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:31:53 PM, Philocat wrote:
In order for you to hold a moral position, it must be consistent - otherwise it is irrational.

What does it mean to be consistent? Well, in order to consistently affirm the moral permissibility of 'doing X to some person Y', you must continue to affirm it if it turned out that Y was yourself.

It's essentially the golden rule; if you treat another in a way that you would not be willing to be treated if you were to then be put in their position, you are being inconsistent.

Abortion is inconsistent on these grounds. To support abortion is to affirm that 'it is morally permissibile to kill Q in the womb'. But to be consistent, the pro-choicer must also affirm this assertion if he was Q. They must be willing that, if they were in Q's exact position, someone would be justified in killing them.

Since no pro-choicer can be sincere in affirming this assertion, their support of abortion is morally inconsistent. Therefore it is an irrational moral position.

Even if the pro-choicer bites the bullet and sincerely accepts that it would have been morally permissible to kill him in the womb, this position would still be irrational because being willing that someone be able to kill you is prima facie an irrational position.

Nevertheless, I don't think any sane person can sincerely bite the bullet on this one.

My argument can be demonstrated by this imaginary (but realistic) dialogue:

Sue: Are you willing that I be allowed to kill you now?
Bob: No
Sue: What if I jump in a time machine and kill you five minutes ago? Would you be willing that I be allowed to do that?
Bob: No
Sue: Five weeks?
Bob: No
Sue: Five years?
Bob: No
Sue: Two weeks after you were conceived?
Bob: No!

If anyone is being sincere, their answer won't change to 'yes' on the last question if on the previous questions they said No. Therefore, any rational, sincere person cannot support abortion because doing so is either insincere or inconsistent.

I think you need a pretty strange idea of personal identity for this argument to work.

How do you mean?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 11:49:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 11:48:20 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:46:29 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:31:53 PM, Philocat wrote:
In order for you to hold a moral position, it must be consistent - otherwise it is irrational.

What does it mean to be consistent? Well, in order to consistently affirm the moral permissibility of 'doing X to some person Y', you must continue to affirm it if it turned out that Y was yourself.

It's essentially the golden rule; if you treat another in a way that you would not be willing to be treated if you were to then be put in their position, you are being inconsistent.

Abortion is inconsistent on these grounds. To support abortion is to affirm that 'it is morally permissibile to kill Q in the womb'. But to be consistent, the pro-choicer must also affirm this assertion if he was Q. They must be willing that, if they were in Q's exact position, someone would be justified in killing them.

Since no pro-choicer can be sincere in affirming this assertion, their support of abortion is morally inconsistent. Therefore it is an irrational moral position.

Even if the pro-choicer bites the bullet and sincerely accepts that it would have been morally permissible to kill him in the womb, this position would still be irrational because being willing that someone be able to kill you is prima facie an irrational position.

Nevertheless, I don't think any sane person can sincerely bite the bullet on this one.

My argument can be demonstrated by this imaginary (but realistic) dialogue:

Sue: Are you willing that I be allowed to kill you now?
Bob: No
Sue: What if I jump in a time machine and kill you five minutes ago? Would you be willing that I be allowed to do that?
Bob: No
Sue: Five weeks?
Bob: No
Sue: Five years?
Bob: No
Sue: Two weeks after you were conceived?
Bob: No!

If anyone is being sincere, their answer won't change to 'yes' on the last question if on the previous questions they said No. Therefore, any rational, sincere person cannot support abortion because doing so is either insincere or inconsistent.

I think you need a pretty strange idea of personal identity for this argument to work.

How do you mean?

What is your theory of personal identity? Somatical? Psychological? Other criteria?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 12:03:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 11:31:53 PM, Philocat wrote:
If anyone is being sincere, their answer won't change to 'yes' on the last question if on the previous questions they said No.

Why not? You've just asserted this without justification.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 2:16:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 11:31:53 PM, Philocat wrote:
In order for you to hold a moral position, it must be consistent - otherwise it is irrational.

What does it mean to be consistent? Well, in order to consistently affirm the moral permissibility of 'doing X to some person Y', you must continue to affirm it if it turned out that Y was yourself.

So it's immoral for one person to feed another person peanut butter, because I would not want it done to me?

It's immoral for women to have sex with men, because I wouldn't want it done to me?

It's immoral for hairdressers to give people mullets, because I wouldn't want it done to me?

This seems like a ridiculous moral standard.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 8:38:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 11:49:56 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:48:20 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:46:29 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:31:53 PM, Philocat wrote:
In order for you to hold a moral position, it must be consistent - otherwise it is irrational.

What does it mean to be consistent? Well, in order to consistently affirm the moral permissibility of 'doing X to some person Y', you must continue to affirm it if it turned out that Y was yourself.

It's essentially the golden rule; if you treat another in a way that you would not be willing to be treated if you were to then be put in their position, you are being inconsistent.

Abortion is inconsistent on these grounds. To support abortion is to affirm that 'it is morally permissibile to kill Q in the womb'. But to be consistent, the pro-choicer must also affirm this assertion if he was Q. They must be willing that, if they were in Q's exact position, someone would be justified in killing them.

Since no pro-choicer can be sincere in affirming this assertion, their support of abortion is morally inconsistent. Therefore it is an irrational moral position.

Even if the pro-choicer bites the bullet and sincerely accepts that it would have been morally permissible to kill him in the womb, this position would still be irrational because being willing that someone be able to kill you is prima facie an irrational position.

Nevertheless, I don't think any sane person can sincerely bite the bullet on this one.

My argument can be demonstrated by this imaginary (but realistic) dialogue:

Sue: Are you willing that I be allowed to kill you now?
Bob: No
Sue: What if I jump in a time machine and kill you five minutes ago? Would you be willing that I be allowed to do that?
Bob: No
Sue: Five weeks?
Bob: No
Sue: Five years?
Bob: No
Sue: Two weeks after you were conceived?
Bob: No!

If anyone is being sincere, their answer won't change to 'yes' on the last question if on the previous questions they said No. Therefore, any rational, sincere person cannot support abortion because doing so is either insincere or inconsistent.

I think you need a pretty strange idea of personal identity for this argument to work.

How do you mean?

What is your theory of personal identity? Somatical? Psychological? Other criteria?

If you trace the life of a person back in time, you will go past birth, through the point of viability all the way to conception. Our identity is bound up with our biological being - it doesn't quite make sense to suggest that there is a point in my body's life where it didn't identify as myself.

At 8/5/2015 12:03:36 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:31:53 PM, Philocat wrote:
If anyone is being sincere, their answer won't change to 'yes' on the last question if on the previous questions they said No.

Why not? You've just asserted this without justification.

If you aren't willing that someone be allowed to kill you 1 year after you were conceived, why would you be willing that someone be allowed to kill you 2 weeks after conception? There is no rational, non-arbitrary point at which the answer changes from 'No' to 'Yes'.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 8:49:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 11:49:56 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:48:20 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:46:29 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:31:53 PM, Philocat wrote:
In order for you to hold a moral position, it must be consistent - otherwise it is irrational.

What does it mean to be consistent? Well, in order to consistently affirm the moral permissibility of 'doing X to some person Y', you must continue to affirm it if it turned out that Y was yourself.

It's essentially the golden rule; if you treat another in a way that you would not be willing to be treated if you were to then be put in their position, you are being inconsistent.

Abortion is inconsistent on these grounds. To support abortion is to affirm that 'it is morally permissibile to kill Q in the womb'. But to be consistent, the pro-choicer must also affirm this assertion if he was Q. They must be willing that, if they were in Q's exact position, someone would be justified in killing them.

Since no pro-choicer can be sincere in affirming this assertion, their support of abortion is morally inconsistent. Therefore it is an irrational moral position.

Even if the pro-choicer bites the bullet and sincerely accepts that it would have been morally permissible to kill him in the womb, this position would still be irrational because being willing that someone be able to kill you is prima facie an irrational position.

Nevertheless, I don't think any sane person can sincerely bite the bullet on this one.

My argument can be demonstrated by this imaginary (but realistic) dialogue:

Sue: Are you willing that I be allowed to kill you now?
Bob: No
Sue: What if I jump in a time machine and kill you five minutes ago? Would you be willing that I be allowed to do that?
Bob: No
Sue: Five weeks?
Bob: No
Sue: Five years?
Bob: No
Sue: Two weeks after you were conceived?
Bob: No!

If anyone is being sincere, their answer won't change to 'yes' on the last question if on the previous questions they said No. Therefore, any rational, sincere person cannot support abortion because doing so is either insincere or inconsistent.

I think you need a pretty strange idea of personal identity for this argument to work.

How do you mean?

What is your theory of personal identity? Somatical? Psychological? Other criteria?

If you trace the life of a person back in time, you will go past birth, through the point of viability all the way to conception. Our identity is bound up with our biological being - it doesn't quite make sense to suggest that there is a point in my body's life where it didn't identify as myself.

At 8/5/2015 2:16:45 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:31:53 PM, Philocat wrote:
In order for you to hold a moral position, it must be consistent - otherwise it is irrational.

What does it mean to be consistent? Well, in order to consistently affirm the moral permissibility of 'doing X to some person Y', you must continue to affirm it if it turned out that Y was yourself.

So it's immoral for one person to feed another person peanut butter, because I would not want it done to me?

It's immoral for women to have sex with men, because I wouldn't want it done to me?

It's immoral for hairdressers to give people mullets, because I wouldn't want it done to me?

This seems like a ridiculous moral standard.

It's more nuanced than that; you need to put yourself in the EXACT position of the other person. Even if *you* don't like peanut butter, you have to imagine that, if you did like peanut butter (like the other person does), then you would like to be given peanut butter. You need to put yourself in the position of someone who likes peanut butter - since this is the exact position of the other person.

In the sex analogy, you need to ask 'if I was a woman, would I consent to having sex with a man?' You would say yes, which explains why it is morally consistent to permit it. You need to think in terms of 'if I was a woman' because this puts you in the exact position of the other person.

In the mullet analogy, you need to ask 'if I desired a mullet, would I be willing that a hairdresser give me one?' Again, the precursor of 'if I desire a mullet' puts you in the exact position of one who desires a mullet.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 9:08:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 11:31:53 PM, Philocat wrote:
In order for you to hold a moral position, it must be consistent - otherwise it is irrational.

What does it mean to be consistent? Well, in order to consistently affirm the moral permissibility of 'doing X to some person Y', you must continue to affirm it if it turned out that Y was yourself.

It's essentially the golden rule; if you treat another in a way that you would not be willing to be treated if you were to then be put in their position, you are being inconsistent.

Abortion is inconsistent on these grounds. To support abortion is to affirm that 'it is morally permissibile to kill Q in the womb'. But to be consistent, the pro-choicer must also affirm this assertion if he was Q. They must be willing that, if they were in Q's exact position, someone would be justified in killing them.

Since no pro-choicer can be sincere in affirming this assertion, their support of abortion is morally inconsistent. Therefore it is an irrational moral position.

Even if the pro-choicer bites the bullet and sincerely accepts that it would have been morally permissible to kill him in the womb, this position would still be irrational because being willing that someone be able to kill you is prima facie an irrational position.

Nevertheless, I don't think any sane person can sincerely bite the bullet on this one.

My argument can be demonstrated by this imaginary (but realistic) dialogue:

Sue: Are you willing that I be allowed to kill you now?
Bob: No
Sue: What if I jump in a time machine and kill you five minutes ago? Would you be willing that I be allowed to do that?
Bob: No
Sue: Five weeks?
Bob: No
Sue: Five years?
Bob: No
Sue: Two weeks after you were conceived?
Bob: No!

If anyone is being sincere, their answer won't change to 'yes' on the last question if on the previous questions they said No. Therefore, any rational, sincere person cannot support abortion because doing so is either insincere or inconsistent.

The fact that Bob supports some form of abortion while not agreeing that he be killed now or in the past may or may not be consistent. It depends on the reasoning.

So lets look at your kind of reasoning...............

If you were poor would you like people richer than you give you money/wealth ?

Are you richer than some people ?

Yet you don't give them your money/wealth

Golly what an inconsistent person you are.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 9:40:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 8:49:13 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:49:56 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:48:20 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:46:29 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:31:53 PM, Philocat wrote:
In order for you to hold a moral position, it must be consistent - otherwise it is irrational.

What does it mean to be consistent? Well, in order to consistently affirm the moral permissibility of 'doing X to some person Y', you must continue to affirm it if it turned out that Y was yourself.

It's essentially the golden rule; if you treat another in a way that you would not be willing to be treated if you were to then be put in their position, you are being inconsistent.

Abortion is inconsistent on these grounds. To support abortion is to affirm that 'it is morally permissibile to kill Q in the womb'. But to be consistent, the pro-choicer must also affirm this assertion if he was Q. They must be willing that, if they were in Q's exact position, someone would be justified in killing them.

Since no pro-choicer can be sincere in affirming this assertion, their support of abortion is morally inconsistent. Therefore it is an irrational moral position.

Even if the pro-choicer bites the bullet and sincerely accepts that it would have been morally permissible to kill him in the womb, this position would still be irrational because being willing that someone be able to kill you is prima facie an irrational position.

Nevertheless, I don't think any sane person can sincerely bite the bullet on this one.

My argument can be demonstrated by this imaginary (but realistic) dialogue:

Sue: Are you willing that I be allowed to kill you now?
Bob: No
Sue: What if I jump in a time machine and kill you five minutes ago? Would you be willing that I be allowed to do that?
Bob: No
Sue: Five weeks?
Bob: No
Sue: Five years?
Bob: No
Sue: Two weeks after you were conceived?
Bob: No!

If anyone is being sincere, their answer won't change to 'yes' on the last question if on the previous questions they said No. Therefore, any rational, sincere person cannot support abortion because doing so is either insincere or inconsistent.

I think you need a pretty strange idea of personal identity for this argument to work.

How do you mean?

What is your theory of personal identity? Somatical? Psychological? Other criteria?

If you trace the life of a person back in time, you will go past birth, through the point of viability all the way to conception. Our identity is bound up with our biological being - it doesn't quite make sense to suggest that there is a point in my body's life where it didn't identify as myself.
First of all I think the somatic account is the worst of the bunch and I'd be happy to debate that. Secondly, I find it quite surprising that you, as a Christian, think our identity depends on the meat we are made of.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 10:12:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 9:40:07 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/5/2015 8:49:13 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:49:56 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:48:20 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:46:29 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:31:53 PM, Philocat wrote:
In order for you to hold a moral position, it must be consistent - otherwise it is irrational.

What does it mean to be consistent? Well, in order to consistently affirm the moral permissibility of 'doing X to some person Y', you must continue to affirm it if it turned out that Y was yourself.

It's essentially the golden rule; if you treat another in a way that you would not be willing to be treated if you were to then be put in their position, you are being inconsistent.

Abortion is inconsistent on these grounds. To support abortion is to affirm that 'it is morally permissibile to kill Q in the womb'. But to be consistent, the pro-choicer must also affirm this assertion if he was Q. They must be willing that, if they were in Q's exact position, someone would be justified in killing them.

Since no pro-choicer can be sincere in affirming this assertion, their support of abortion is morally inconsistent. Therefore it is an irrational moral position.

Even if the pro-choicer bites the bullet and sincerely accepts that it would have been morally permissible to kill him in the womb, this position would still be irrational because being willing that someone be able to kill you is prima facie an irrational position.

Nevertheless, I don't think any sane person can sincerely bite the bullet on this one.

My argument can be demonstrated by this imaginary (but realistic) dialogue:

Sue: Are you willing that I be allowed to kill you now?
Bob: No
Sue: What if I jump in a time machine and kill you five minutes ago? Would you be willing that I be allowed to do that?
Bob: No
Sue: Five weeks?
Bob: No
Sue: Five years?
Bob: No
Sue: Two weeks after you were conceived?
Bob: No!

If anyone is being sincere, their answer won't change to 'yes' on the last question if on the previous questions they said No. Therefore, any rational, sincere person cannot support abortion because doing so is either insincere or inconsistent.

I think you need a pretty strange idea of personal identity for this argument to work.

How do you mean?

What is your theory of personal identity? Somatical? Psychological? Other criteria?

If you trace the life of a person back in time, you will go past birth, through the point of viability all the way to conception. Our identity is bound up with our biological being - it doesn't quite make sense to suggest that there is a point in my body's life where it didn't identify as myself.
First of all I think the somatic account is the worst of the bunch and I'd be happy to debate that. Secondly, I find it quite surprising that you, as a Christian, think our identity depends on the meat we are made of.

I must adopt a purely secular worldview when arguing against abortion, otherwise I am accused of only being pro-life because I'm religious.

I *could* go down the religious route, in which case I could pretty solidly argue a case for the soul being our identity.

But I argue against abortion as if God doesn't exist, so I can establish a purely secular pro-life case.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 10:16:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 9:08:45 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:31:53 PM, Philocat wrote:
In order for you to hold a moral position, it must be consistent - otherwise it is irrational.

What does it mean to be consistent? Well, in order to consistently affirm the moral permissibility of 'doing X to some person Y', you must continue to affirm it if it turned out that Y was yourself.

It's essentially the golden rule; if you treat another in a way that you would not be willing to be treated if you were to then be put in their position, you are being inconsistent.

Abortion is inconsistent on these grounds. To support abortion is to affirm that 'it is morally permissibile to kill Q in the womb'. But to be consistent, the pro-choicer must also affirm this assertion if he was Q. They must be willing that, if they were in Q's exact position, someone would be justified in killing them.

Since no pro-choicer can be sincere in affirming this assertion, their support of abortion is morally inconsistent. Therefore it is an irrational moral position.

Even if the pro-choicer bites the bullet and sincerely accepts that it would have been morally permissible to kill him in the womb, this position would still be irrational because being willing that someone be able to kill you is prima facie an irrational position.

Nevertheless, I don't think any sane person can sincerely bite the bullet on this one.

My argument can be demonstrated by this imaginary (but realistic) dialogue:

Sue: Are you willing that I be allowed to kill you now?
Bob: No
Sue: What if I jump in a time machine and kill you five minutes ago? Would you be willing that I be allowed to do that?
Bob: No
Sue: Five weeks?
Bob: No
Sue: Five years?
Bob: No
Sue: Two weeks after you were conceived?
Bob: No!

If anyone is being sincere, their answer won't change to 'yes' on the last question if on the previous questions they said No. Therefore, any rational, sincere person cannot support abortion because doing so is either insincere or inconsistent.

The fact that Bob supports some form of abortion while not agreeing that he be killed now or in the past may or may not be consistent. It depends on the reasoning.

So lets look at your kind of reasoning...............

If you were poor would you like people richer than you give you money/wealth ?

Are you richer than some people ?

Yet you don't give them your money/wealth

Golly what an inconsistent person you are.

The principle only works with deciding what is morally permissible, not what we are obliged to do. It concerns what we shouldn't do to others, not what we should do.

In your example, the fact that poor people want a rich person's money only means that the rich person is morally permitted (not obligated) to give them money.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 1:35:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 8:49:13 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:49:56 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:48:20 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:46:29 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:31:53 PM, Philocat wrote:
In order for you to hold a moral position, it must be consistent - otherwise it is irrational.

What does it mean to be consistent? Well, in order to consistently affirm the moral permissibility of 'doing X to some person Y', you must continue to affirm it if it turned out that Y was yourself.

It's essentially the golden rule; if you treat another in a way that you would not be willing to be treated if you were to then be put in their position, you are being inconsistent.

Abortion is inconsistent on these grounds. To support abortion is to affirm that 'it is morally permissibile to kill Q in the womb'. But to be consistent, the pro-choicer must also affirm this assertion if he was Q. They must be willing that, if they were in Q's exact position, someone would be justified in killing them.

Since no pro-choicer can be sincere in affirming this assertion, their support of abortion is morally inconsistent. Therefore it is an irrational moral position.

Even if the pro-choicer bites the bullet and sincerely accepts that it would have been morally permissible to kill him in the womb, this position would still be irrational because being willing that someone be able to kill you is prima facie an irrational position.

Nevertheless, I don't think any sane person can sincerely bite the bullet on this one.

My argument can be demonstrated by this imaginary (but realistic) dialogue:

Sue: Are you willing that I be allowed to kill you now?
Bob: No
Sue: What if I jump in a time machine and kill you five minutes ago? Would you be willing that I be allowed to do that?
Bob: No
Sue: Five weeks?
Bob: No
Sue: Five years?
Bob: No
Sue: Two weeks after you were conceived?
Bob: No!

If anyone is being sincere, their answer won't change to 'yes' on the last question if on the previous questions they said No. Therefore, any rational, sincere person cannot support abortion because doing so is either insincere or inconsistent.

I think you need a pretty strange idea of personal identity for this argument to work.

How do you mean?

What is your theory of personal identity? Somatical? Psychological? Other criteria?

If you trace the life of a person back in time, you will go past birth, through the point of viability all the way to conception. Our identity is bound up with our biological being - it doesn't quite make sense to suggest that there is a point in my body's life where it didn't identify as myself.

At 8/5/2015 2:16:45 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:31:53 PM, Philocat wrote:
In order for you to hold a moral position, it must be consistent - otherwise it is irrational.

What does it mean to be consistent? Well, in order to consistently affirm the moral permissibility of 'doing X to some person Y', you must continue to affirm it if it turned out that Y was yourself.

So it's immoral for one person to feed another person peanut butter, because I would not want it done to me?

It's immoral for women to have sex with men, because I wouldn't want it done to me?

It's immoral for hairdressers to give people mullets, because I wouldn't want it done to me?

This seems like a ridiculous moral standard.

It's more nuanced than that; you need to put yourself in the EXACT position of the other person. Even if *you* don't like peanut butter, you have to imagine that, if you did like peanut butter (like the other person does), then you would like to be given peanut butter. You need to put yourself in the position of someone who likes peanut butter - since this is the exact position of the other person.

In the sex analogy, you need to ask 'if I was a woman, would I consent to having sex with a man?' You would say yes, which explains why it is morally consistent to permit it. You need to think in terms of 'if I was a woman' because this puts you in the exact position of the other person.

In the mullet analogy, you need to ask 'if I desired a mullet, would I be willing that a hairdresser give me one?' Again, the precursor of 'if I desire a mullet' puts you in the exact position of one who desires a mullet.

... So, in the abortion debate, I have to ask 'if I were a fetus, would I want to be aborted'? Well, I wouldn't care if I was a fetus, because I wouldn't have the capacity to care. It also relies on the assumption that the fetus is a 'person' for moral purposes in the first place, otherwise it can be applied to animals and plants and whatnot.

It's also completely unsupported in itself. Why is this a moral standard to begin with?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 2:05:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 1:35:54 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/5/2015 8:49:13 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:49:56 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:48:20 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:46:29 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:31:53 PM, Philocat wrote:
In order for you to hold a moral position, it must be consistent - otherwise it is irrational.

What does it mean to be consistent? Well, in order to consistently affirm the moral permissibility of 'doing X to some person Y', you must continue to affirm it if it turned out that Y was yourself.

It's essentially the golden rule; if you treat another in a way that you would not be willing to be treated if you were to then be put in their position, you are being inconsistent.

Abortion is inconsistent on these grounds. To support abortion is to affirm that 'it is morally permissibile to kill Q in the womb'. But to be consistent, the pro-choicer must also affirm this assertion if he was Q. They must be willing that, if they were in Q's exact position, someone would be justified in killing them.

Since no pro-choicer can be sincere in affirming this assertion, their support of abortion is morally inconsistent. Therefore it is an irrational moral position.

Even if the pro-choicer bites the bullet and sincerely accepts that it would have been morally permissible to kill him in the womb, this position would still be irrational because being willing that someone be able to kill you is prima facie an irrational position.

Nevertheless, I don't think any sane person can sincerely bite the bullet on this one.

My argument can be demonstrated by this imaginary (but realistic) dialogue:

Sue: Are you willing that I be allowed to kill you now?
Bob: No
Sue: What if I jump in a time machine and kill you five minutes ago? Would you be willing that I be allowed to do that?
Bob: No
Sue: Five weeks?
Bob: No
Sue: Five years?
Bob: No
Sue: Two weeks after you were conceived?
Bob: No!

If anyone is being sincere, their answer won't change to 'yes' on the last question if on the previous questions they said No. Therefore, any rational, sincere person cannot support abortion because doing so is either insincere or inconsistent.

I think you need a pretty strange idea of personal identity for this argument to work.

How do you mean?

What is your theory of personal identity? Somatical? Psychological? Other criteria?

If you trace the life of a person back in time, you will go past birth, through the point of viability all the way to conception. Our identity is bound up with our biological being - it doesn't quite make sense to suggest that there is a point in my body's life where it didn't identify as myself.

At 8/5/2015 2:16:45 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:31:53 PM, Philocat wrote:
In order for you to hold a moral position, it must be consistent - otherwise it is irrational.

What does it mean to be consistent? Well, in order to consistently affirm the moral permissibility of 'doing X to some person Y', you must continue to affirm it if it turned out that Y was yourself.

So it's immoral for one person to feed another person peanut butter, because I would not want it done to me?

It's immoral for women to have sex with men, because I wouldn't want it done to me?

It's immoral for hairdressers to give people mullets, because I wouldn't want it done to me?

This seems like a ridiculous moral standard.

It's more nuanced than that; you need to put yourself in the EXACT position of the other person. Even if *you* don't like peanut butter, you have to imagine that, if you did like peanut butter (like the other person does), then you would like to be given peanut butter. You need to put yourself in the position of someone who likes peanut butter - since this is the exact position of the other person.

In the sex analogy, you need to ask 'if I was a woman, would I consent to having sex with a man?' You would say yes, which explains why it is morally consistent to permit it. You need to think in terms of 'if I was a woman' because this puts you in the exact position of the other person.

In the mullet analogy, you need to ask 'if I desired a mullet, would I be willing that a hairdresser give me one?' Again, the precursor of 'if I desire a mullet' puts you in the exact position of one who desires a mullet.

... So, in the abortion debate, I have to ask 'if I were a fetus, would I want to be aborted'? Well, I wouldn't care if I was a fetus, because I wouldn't have the capacity to care. It also relies on the assumption that the fetus is a 'person' for moral purposes in the first place, otherwise it can be applied to animals and plants and whatnot.

We have to ask ourselves, in our current state of relatively high knowledge, intellect and sentience, whether we would like to be killed if we were to then be put in the foetus's position.

It is clear that this is how consistency must be applied, otherwise we would be able to molest comatose children and justify it by claiming that 'if I was in a coma, I wouldn't be able to care about being molested'.


It's also completely unsupported in itself. Why is this a moral standard to begin with?

The claim 'it is permissible to do X to person Y in Z situation' is a universal moral prescription. Therefore, you must continue to hold this claim even if you are person Y. This is because whether you are or not person Y does not affect the permissibility of doing X in Z situation.

If you don't uphold this consistency principle, then you are being unreasonable in exempting yourself from how other people ought to be treated, since there is no reason why you, simply because it's you, are entitled to differing treatment.

Therefore, if you aren't consistent you are being unreasonable/irrational.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 2:15:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 2:05:39 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/5/2015 1:35:54 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

... So, in the abortion debate, I have to ask 'if I were a fetus, would I want to be aborted'? Well, I wouldn't care if I was a fetus, because I wouldn't have the capacity to care. It also relies on the assumption that the fetus is a 'person' for moral purposes in the first place, otherwise it can be applied to animals and plants and whatnot.

We have to ask ourselves, in our current state of relatively high knowledge, intellect and sentience, whether we would like to be killed if we were to then be put in the foetus's position.

It is clear that this is how consistency must be applied, otherwise we would be able to molest comatose children and justify it by claiming that 'if I was in a coma, I wouldn't be able to care about being molested'.

I could swap out 'fetus' with 'animal', 'tree', or 'sperm cell'.

Why is my intellect preserved through the substitution, but not my sexuality or my aesthetic outlook when it comes to hair styles?

It's also completely unsupported in itself. Why is this a moral standard to begin with?

The claim 'it is permissible to do X to person Y in Z situation' is a universal moral prescription. Therefore, you must continue to hold this claim even if you are person Y. This is because whether you are or not person Y does not affect the permissibility of doing X in Z situation.

This presupposes universal moral prescriptions in the first place.

If you don't uphold this consistency principle, then you are being unreasonable in exempting yourself from how other people ought to be treated, since there is no reason why you, simply because it's you, are entitled to differing treatment.

The same, this assumes that morality must be applied universally.

Therefore, if you aren't consistent you are being unreasonable/irrational.

Why is consistency a prerequisite if universal moral standards don't exist?

You also haven't touched the personhood argument. Why is a fetus a 'person' in the moral sense, but an animal is not?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 2:22:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 2:15:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/5/2015 2:05:39 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/5/2015 1:35:54 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

... So, in the abortion debate, I have to ask 'if I were a fetus, would I want to be aborted'? Well, I wouldn't care if I was a fetus, because I wouldn't have the capacity to care. It also relies on the assumption that the fetus is a 'person' for moral purposes in the first place, otherwise it can be applied to animals and plants and whatnot.

We have to ask ourselves, in our current state of relatively high knowledge, intellect and sentience, whether we would like to be killed if we were to then be put in the foetus's position.

It is clear that this is how consistency must be applied, otherwise we would be able to molest comatose children and justify it by claiming that 'if I was in a coma, I wouldn't be able to care about being molested'.

I could swap out 'fetus' with 'animal', 'tree', or 'sperm cell'.

We all were once foetuses, but we were never animals, trees or sperm cells. We cannot imagine that we are in the exact situation of an animal or a tree because we were never and never can be animals or trees. But we were once a foetus so we must consider its welfare under the principle of consistency.


Why is my intellect preserved through the substitution, but not my sexuality or my aesthetic outlook when it comes to hair styles?

When we say 'exact situation', we mean having the exact characteristics as the person we're trying to imagine being. The intellect isn't preserved *through* the substitution, we just use it in order to imagine what the 'exact situation' of the other person is.


It's also completely unsupported in itself. Why is this a moral standard to begin with?

The claim 'it is permissible to do X to person Y in Z situation' is a universal moral prescription. Therefore, you must continue to hold this claim even if you are person Y. This is because whether you are or not person Y does not affect the permissibility of doing X in Z situation.

This presupposes universal moral prescriptions in the first place.

Anyone can make a universal moral prescription. They just need to say 'it is permissible to do X to person Y in situation Z'. Whether or not this is an objective truth or not is irrelevant, the point of contention is that a subjective moral viewpoint must be internally consistent if it is to be rational.


If you don't uphold this consistency principle, then you are being unreasonable in exempting yourself from how other people ought to be treated, since there is no reason why you, simply because it's you, are entitled to differing treatment.

The same, this assumes that morality must be applied universally.

Therefore, if you aren't consistent you are being unreasonable/irrational.

Why is consistency a prerequisite if universal moral standards don't exist?

Consistency is a prerequisite rationality/reason, and if morality is to be reasonable it follows that morality too must be consistent.


You also haven't touched the personhood argument. Why is a fetus a 'person' in the moral sense, but an animal is not?

All human beings are persons by definition. (http://dictionary.reference.com...)
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 2:27:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 12:03:36 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:31:53 PM, Philocat wrote:
If anyone is being sincere, their answer won't change to 'yes' on the last question if on the previous questions they said No.

Why not? You've just asserted this without justification.

If you aren't willing that someone be allowed to kill you 1 year after you were conceived, why would you be willing that someone be allowed to kill you 2 weeks after conception? There is no rational, non-arbitrary point at which the answer changes from 'No' to 'Yes'.

Because at 2 weeks after conception I'm not an independent entity and am basically a parasite? Even if I didn't "choose" to be that way, I still am, and deserve whatever the host sees fit, in much the same way that I would be fine with being shot if I trespassed into someone else's house.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 2:29:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 2:27:00 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 8/5/2015 12:03:36 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:31:53 PM, Philocat wrote:
If anyone is being sincere, their answer won't change to 'yes' on the last question if on the previous questions they said No.

Why not? You've just asserted this without justification.

If you aren't willing that someone be allowed to kill you 1 year after you were conceived, why would you be willing that someone be allowed to kill you 2 weeks after conception? There is no rational, non-arbitrary point at which the answer changes from 'No' to 'Yes'.

Because at 2 weeks after conception I'm not an independent entity and am basically a parasite? Even if I didn't "choose" to be that way, I still am, and deserve whatever the host sees fit, in much the same way that I would be fine with being shot if I trespassed into someone else's house.

You would only be fine with being shot if you willingly trespassed into someone's house - if you fell asleep and woke up in someone's house, you wouldn't be willing that the home-owner shoot you.

Likewise, a foetus doesn't willingly trespass and latch onto a mother's body. In 99% of cases it is only in a state of dependence because of the mother's actions.
Talkingisfun
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 2:30:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 11:31:53 PM, Philocat wrote:
In order for you to hold a moral position, it must be consistent - otherwise it is irrational.

What does it mean to be consistent? Well, in order to consistently affirm the moral permissibility of 'doing X to some person Y', you must continue to affirm it if it turned out that Y was yourself.

It's essentially the golden rule; if you treat another in a way that you would not be willing to be treated if you were to then be put in their position, you are being inconsistent.

Abortion is inconsistent on these grounds. To support abortion is to affirm that 'it is morally permissibile to kill Q in the womb'. But to be consistent, the pro-choicer must also affirm this assertion if he was Q. They must be willing that, if they were in Q's exact position, someone would be justified in killing them.

Since no pro-choicer can be sincere in affirming this assertion, their support of abortion is morally inconsistent. Therefore it is an irrational moral position.

Even if the pro-choicer bites the bullet and sincerely accepts that it would have been morally permissible to kill him in the womb, this position would still be irrational because being willing that someone be able to kill you is prima facie an irrational position.

Nevertheless, I don't think any sane person can sincerely bite the bullet on this one.

My argument can be demonstrated by this imaginary (but realistic) dialogue:

Sue: Are you willing that I be allowed to kill you now?
Bob: No
Sue: What if I jump in a time machine and kill you five minutes ago? Would you be willing that I be allowed to do that?
Bob: No
Sue: Five weeks?
Bob: No
Sue: Five years?
Bob: No
Sue: Two weeks after you were conceived?
Bob: No!

If anyone is being sincere, their answer won't change to 'yes' on the last question if on the previous questions they said No. Therefore, any rational, sincere person cannot support abortion because doing so is either insincere or inconsistent.

Actually, it is not inconsistent. If a hypothetical time machine existed and you killed me two weeks after I was conceived I still existed at one point, and you would therefore kill a sentient being. Me. I would not disagree with killing me because you killed what could become a human, but because you killed what once was a human.

If my parents would have wanted to abort me, I would not care about it, because I didn't exist yet. Sure, some cells with my DNA existed, but I certainly wasn't me yet.

The distinction is clear, even though you don't seem to see it: Once a person is an actual person, killing them is wrong. However, as long as they are not really humans yet (not being able to think for instance), they are pretty much worthless.
"Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught"
-Winston Churchill
Talkingisfun
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 2:36:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 2:27:00 PM, ShabShoral wrote:

A completely off topic question: Could you tell me how to get such a fancy text underneath my comments? It looks awesome, and I haven't been able to find it yet :D (I'm pretty sure that this isn't the right place to ask stuff like this, but I couldn't find a better one)

Thank you in advance!
"Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught"
-Winston Churchill
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 2:47:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In order for you to hold a moral position, it must be consistent - otherwise it is irrational.

My moral position on abortion is that early abortions are ok and late abortions are not. I don't know if you'd call that inconsistent or irrational - I think it only common sense.

You seem to be arguing that only one extreme position or the other is a valid moral position, but in reality morality is not a simple binar choice of good or evil. There is very evil not so evil, hardly evil at all, neutral, fairly good, good and very good.

With abortion the gray area is large and complicated. To suppose the only solutions are at one end of the spectrum or the other might be consistent, but possibly not quite rational.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 2:53:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Could you tell me how to get such a fancy text underneath my comments?
I could tell you, but I think so-called signatures are naff. Do you really need to say the some thing over and over again? And that witty quote from Mark Twain will only make your own post pale by comparison.

Signatures waste space and get very old very fast. If it was my board, they'd be disabled, along with quoting entire posts in replies.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 7:54:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 11:31:53 PM, Philocat wrote:

You can't judge the consistency of a moral position comparatively unless the situations truly are identical (they aren't in your example), or you know/can reasonably assume the process used to get to that decision.

For example, the a person would be against post birth killing is usually personhood related. The argument that genes make a person is nonsensical; the mind makes the person. Attempting to argue otherwise has never been successful.

As a fetus doesnt in the early stages have a mind, it doesn't meet the same criteria and its therefore not inconsistent to find it morally permissable. There are other arguments as well that people hold to. Judging merely by the outcome just doesn't establish inconsistency.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 7:56:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 2:36:08 PM, Talkingisfun wrote:

When you reply, before you click "review", theres an "edit my signature" option. Click it to open a box to edit your sig. Once you click review, your sig is updated, even if you never click to post on the review page.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Geogeer
Posts: 4,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 8:10:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 7:54:28 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:31:53 PM, Philocat wrote:


You can't judge the consistency of a moral position comparatively unless the situations truly are identical (they aren't in your example), or you know/can reasonably assume the process used to get to that decision.

For example, the a person would be against post birth killing is usually personhood related. The argument that genes make a person is nonsensical; the mind makes the person. Attempting to argue otherwise has never been successful.

So are you pro-infaticide?
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 8:59:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 2:29:51 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/5/2015 2:27:00 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 8/5/2015 12:03:36 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:31:53 PM, Philocat wrote:
If anyone is being sincere, their answer won't change to 'yes' on the last question if on the previous questions they said No.

Why not? You've just asserted this without justification.

If you aren't willing that someone be allowed to kill you 1 year after you were conceived, why would you be willing that someone be allowed to kill you 2 weeks after conception? There is no rational, non-arbitrary point at which the answer changes from 'No' to 'Yes'.

Because at 2 weeks after conception I'm not an independent entity and am basically a parasite? Even if I didn't "choose" to be that way, I still am, and deserve whatever the host sees fit, in much the same way that I would be fine with being shot if I trespassed into someone else's house.

You would only be fine with being shot if you willingly trespassed into someone's house - if you fell asleep and woke up in someone's house, you wouldn't be willing that the home-owner shoot you.
My presence would be violating the homeowner's property rights. It doesn't matter how I got there - I could be rightfully punished.
Likewise, a foetus doesn't willingly trespass and latch onto a mother's body. In 99% of cases it is only in a state of dependence because of the mother's actions.
The fact of the matter is that, no matter how it got there, the fetus *is* there, and therefore there's no issue with removing it. Who caused it to be there is totally irrelevant.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 9:01:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 8:10:51 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/5/2015 7:54:28 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:31:53 PM, Philocat wrote:


You can't judge the consistency of a moral position comparatively unless the situations truly are identical (they aren't in your example), or you know/can reasonably assume the process used to get to that decision.

For example, the a person would be against post birth killing is usually personhood related. The argument that genes make a person is nonsensical; the mind makes the person. Attempting to argue otherwise has never been successful.

So are you pro-infaticide?

I would be pro-infanticide if it could be known for certain that the infants will not grow into a functioning and rational adult. I don't see anything extreme about that position.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
Geogeer
Posts: 4,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 9:05:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 9:01:24 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 8/5/2015 8:10:51 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/5/2015 7:54:28 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:31:53 PM, Philocat wrote:


You can't judge the consistency of a moral position comparatively unless the situations truly are identical (they aren't in your example), or you know/can reasonably assume the process used to get to that decision.

For example, the a person would be against post birth killing is usually personhood related. The argument that genes make a person is nonsensical; the mind makes the person. Attempting to argue otherwise has never been successful.

So are you pro-infaticide?

I would be pro-infanticide if it could be known for certain that the infants will not grow into a functioning and rational adult. I don't see anything extreme about that position.

I find it inconsistent that you wouldn't extend that back prior to birth. Besides what does "functioning and rational" mean? We are a rational species - as such every human is a rational creature.
Talkingisfun
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 9:08:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 7:56:28 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 8/5/2015 2:36:08 PM, Talkingisfun wrote:


When you reply, before you click "review", theres an "edit my signature" option. Click it to open a box to edit your sig. Once you click review, your sig is updated, even if you never click to post on the review page.

Awesome. Thanks!
"Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught"
-Winston Churchill
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 9:09:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 9:05:21 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/5/2015 9:01:24 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 8/5/2015 8:10:51 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/5/2015 7:54:28 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 8/4/2015 11:31:53 PM, Philocat wrote:


You can't judge the consistency of a moral position comparatively unless the situations truly are identical (they aren't in your example), or you know/can reasonably assume the process used to get to that decision.

For example, the a person would be against post birth killing is usually personhood related. The argument that genes make a person is nonsensical; the mind makes the person. Attempting to argue otherwise has never been successful.

So are you pro-infaticide?

I would be pro-infanticide if it could be known for certain that the infants will not grow into a functioning and rational adult. I don't see anything extreme about that position.

I find it inconsistent that you wouldn't extend that back prior to birth.
I do. I don't deny the fetus's right to life. I deny that it has a right to the mother's help.
Besides what does "functioning and rational" mean? We are a rational species - as such every human is a rational creature.
Extreme mental disability would be the cutoff point, I suppose - a near-coma state or otherwise a state where the person wouldn't be able to understand anything about the society around them.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz