Political Discussion

folsom_lives said:
Can you just go ahead and answer the first question for us? I feel like we are just trying to solve a riddle you made up on the spot.
Click to expand...
My answer is obviously that the value of human life is intrinsic in nature and independent of outside utilitarian factors. I thought I’ve been quite clear about that.

It isn’t that I’m asking y’all to solve some riddle, but seeking to understand the presuppositional worldviews you bring to the table. If one does not view human life as having some sort of intrinsic value, then it is possible to justify any an all manner of atrocities. History shows us this again and again. At that point it is impossible to find understanding of the position of the other because we are not even speaking the same language.
 
User190425 said:
My answer is obviously that the value of human life is intrinsic in nature and independent of outside utilitarian factors. I thought I’ve been quite clear about that.

It isn’t that I’m asking y’all to solve some riddle, but seeking to understand the presuppositional worldviews you bring to the table. If one does not view human life as having some sort of intrinsic value, then it is possible to justify any an all manner of atrocities. History shows us this again and again. At that point it is impossible to find understanding of the position of the other because we are not even speaking the same language.
Click to expand...
Forgive me. Reading comprehension was never my strength so you may have already answered that question.

I'll agree we are not speaking the same language since I don't think we have the same definition of the words you continue to use. Value is one and utility (you use utilitarian) to me sound like economic terms or something that is a resource. Meaning that a human life is meant to be used in one form or another. What other purpose could there be for a life other than to be a resource/commodity. I'm not trying to frame this purely as negative because to love someone is in a way using them as a resource. The chemicals in your brain seek them out because there is some utility. The flipside is the atrocities you speak up. Since this a music forum to quote Dylan, "now it may be the Devil or it may be the Lord, but you're gonna have to serve somebody". To be alive is to be used.

Nature is another one that I can't get a grasp on. Who's nature? God's or man's? Lee made the point earlier that it's hubris in the cosmic scale. I agree. So what frames your view of nature? Saying that I have a presupposition implies that I have any right to presuppose in the first place. Perhaps is a bit nihilistic, but we don't amount to shit. Our construct of what is important pales in comparison to the forces that govern the atoms we are made of.
 
folsom_lives said:
Value is one and utility (you use utilitarian) to me sound like economic terms or something that is a resource.
Click to expand...

I don't want to necessary answer for him but I'm assuming he is using utilitarianism in the moral philosophy sense and that while, you're not incorrect in the similar derivation with the word "utility", I'm not sure it's fair to characterize their position as a strict calculation of resource (full disclosure, I am on the pro-choice side of the fence but I've found this debate interesting).

Perhaps, consequentialism - the broader realm of moral philosophy from which utilitarianism springs - would be less restrictive to his point.
 
User190425 said:
My answer is obviously that the value of human life is intrinsic in nature and independent of outside utilitarian factors. I thought I’ve been quite clear about that.

It isn’t that I’m asking y’all to solve some riddle, but seeking to understand the presuppositional worldviews you bring to the table. If one does not view human life as having some sort of intrinsic value, then it is possible to justify any an all manner of atrocities. History shows us this again and again. At that point it is impossible to find understanding of the position of the other because we are not even speaking the same language.
Click to expand...
It’s possible to understand the position. I get your position, I don’t agree with it. That disagreement does not preclude discourse or finding an amicable solution to the problem.
 
Big Diaper Energy said:
I don't want to necessary answer for him but I'm assuming he is using utilitarianism in the moral philosophy sense and that while, you're not incorrect in the similar derivation with the word "utility", I'm not sure it's fair to characterize their position as a strict calculation of resource (full disclosure, I am on the pro-choice side of the fence but I've found this debate interesting).

Perhaps, consequentialism - the broader realm of moral philosophy from which utilitarianism springs - would be less restrictive to his point.
Click to expand...
Now these are some -isms I was unfamiliar with. They also give me a much greater context to the argument. The greater good is such a messy phrase though. And we are fleshing out consequentialism it would seem. But that is such a hard line that is seems the other party won’t cross that I felt I wanted to go more into the words being used.

It’s the path to why consequentialism is such a pillar of their personality that is driving my questioning.
 
I also don’t think that seeing human value as intrinsic or not allows evil/atrocity. First and foremost, there is an endless amount of atrocities that have been conducted by those that say they are Christian/religious.

However, just because I think human value is hubris and a human construct doesn’t mean that I don’t value human life and it doesn’t excuse me to behave badly. I can believe the things I do about man’s importance - heck my belief system is actually very complicated - and still want to create a better world, to do no harm, and to strive to do good.
 
folsom_lives said:
Now these are some -isms I was unfamiliar with. They also give me a much greater context to the argument. The greater good is such a messy phrase though. And we are fleshing out consequentialism it would seem. But that is such a hard line that is seems the other party won’t cross that I felt I wanted to go more into the words being used.

It’s the path to why consequentialism is such a pillar of their personality that is driving my questioning.
Click to expand...
Not to diverge too much, because most don't give thought to the meta-ethical foundations that drive their moral behavior (and that's quite fine - world keeps spinning).

There are two main division of moral philosophy (not to disregard Virtue Ethics but it has only over the last handful of decades seen a resurgence in formal study - see Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics, Lao Tzu, Confucianism for some foundational works):

Deontological ethics (often conflated to Kantian ethics) and Consequentialism (often conflated with utilitarianism).

The big difference? At what point do we judge the right/wrong binary of a cause/effect, an act(ion)/result? Are we right or wrong based on what we put in or what we get out - deontological readings would say the former (it's largely what drives our justice system; we sometimes punish people for what they do or don't punish people even if the consequence would be greater the other way - because it's the legality of the act that matters only).

Id wager our societal interactions (outside of the legal system) are a mix of the two, whether we know it or not.
 
User190425 said:
To your last sentence, I do think though that if the Casey decision had not lifted the allowable restrictions imposed by Roe, and the public messaging hadn’t shifted from “safe, legal, and rare” to “shout your abortion” it would have been a much harder lift to get this ruling. The majority of the public is of the same view as you hold with a cutoff of 12-15 weeks. Just as my hard line view is an outlier that does not necessarily help get the results I ultimately want (like in Kansas) the hardline views of the late term and casual use proponents that were at the media forefront helped lead to the factors in place for the change that just came down.
Click to expand...

This you?
IMG_4248.jpg
 
mrjoshuamccormack said:
This you?
View attachment 148048
Click to expand...
I've literally never heard anyone, at all, advocate for "abortion legal up to the moment of birth".

Like, there are medical and ethical issues with abortions past the 2nd trimester, that's not some shit doctors were like "well....I guess we won't do them after 6 months just to appease the Bible thumpers".

This is some strawman make believe bullshit argument where the anti abortion folks have demonized anyone not on their side with the most ridiculous nonsense. Are they eating baby sandwiches while they twirl their bad guy mustaches too?
 
Lee Newman said:
Boxes? Wtf?
Drop Box for Babies: Conservatives Promote a Way to Give Up Newborns Anonymously
Drop Box for Babies: Conservatives Promote a Way to Give Up Newborns Anonymously
Click to expand...
I could not get access to the article but baby hatches are quite common in german hospital since the early 2000s, ( there are about 100 in germany) and ( although they Operate I a legal grey zone) seem to be pretty effective at reducing the number of Babies anonymously dropped in other places or abandoned in unsafe conditions. I don’t necessary think it changes much in the abortion debate but it is another offer for parents or mostly mothers who do not want or cannot get an abortion to give up their children, safely and anonymously . To better the situation for the women their are hospitals who give the opportunity to give birth anonymously and leave the children in the cate ofthe hospital
 
Bull Shannon said:
Arizona has had a Safe Haven law which allows this since 2001. Not sure about other places.
Click to expand...
Nebraska had one, but I'm not sure if it's still in effect because they didn't specify the age when they passed it and parents were abandoning teenagers at hospitals and fire stations.
 
Jan said:
I could not get access to the article but baby hatches are quite common in german hospital since the early 2000s, ( there are about 100 in germany) and ( although they Operate I a legal grey zone) seem to be pretty effective at reducing the number of Babies anonymously dropped in other places or abandoned in unsafe conditions. I don’t necessary think it changes much in the abortion debate but it is another offer for parents or mostly mothers who do not want or cannot get an abortion to give up their children, safely and anonymously . To better the situation for the women their are hospitals who give the opportunity to give birth anonymously and leave the children in the cate ofthe hospital
Click to expand...
Louisiana has a similar thing. You can drop a baby off up to 4 weeks old with no questions asked.
 
Lee Newman said:
I think the shelter laws make sense. And I guess the boxes allow for anonymity but just the idea of putting a human in what is basically a big book drop off. It’s just…
Click to expand...
This begs the question…is there somebody whose job it is to check the box at regular intervals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top