How about being agaisnt abortion for gender equality. The vast majority of abortions are overwhelmingly done to females. So, if I were to think in terms of gender equality, I'd be against abortion. Also, there are principles that cannot be violated to human life. First, he is innocent (the fetus), he is a memeber of your community (your species) and, the right to life. Can these be violated easily?
Pretty much everything Chomsky said after the opening could have been taken straight out of UN, UNESCO, World Bank, IMF, WHO, Population Council, Planned Parenthood official documents. These organisations PROMOTE abortions, and the number of abortions increase wherever they are active. More 'globalization' = more abortion. There were not millions of abortions going on in Africa and the Global South before they arrived.
An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).
Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?
“Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should. . . . [Hickman has] no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel ‘other people.”
About a murderer of a post-partum child - Ayn Rand's diary. Anyone under the age of 18 is also a "parasite that must be destroyed" and a potential being I take it.
Chomsky is such a strong socialist, it's hard to listen to him sometimes. He said that by not providing foreign aid, we are killing people. Great, so now I'm a murderer for not donating 3 dollars a month to Africans who think sexing virgins is the cure for AIDS. Maybe, and I'm sure Chomsky would agree, we should stop propping up dictators and corrupt governments in those countries to protect out natural resource interests. I'm not pro-life by any means, but these are completely separate issues.
Actually, any philosopher will be able to tell you that acts of omission are as bad as commission, we just have various cognitive biases to treat them differently. One is the just world hypothesis: bad things happen to bad people. If one gets raped, it's ones fault because one was dressed like a whore/the rapist was ignorant. Nuclear weapons expenditure is equal in the US to the projected amount of wiping out world hunger in 2011. 15m children starve to death a year.
I don't think Peter Singer's argument holds on Utilitarian grounds. On practical grounds, it's harder to ignore the suffering of women dying as a result of botched abortions. However, the fact that the thinking and feeling foetus is a dependant has no influence over the legitimacy of its thoughts and feelings. It can be hard to be consistent: I'm a vegetarian and while I try to keep spiders away from my room, occasionally I will kill one. Justification? Ad hom tu quoque/two wrongs fallacy.
Sorry, that's an unscientific statement. We can't demonstrate the existence of thoughts or feelings for any entity other than ourselves (indeed, we can only assume there is a "we" that is feeling or thinking). We used to assume animals cannot feel, but they have nociceptors and pain avoidant behaviours, as do foetus'. We used to think infants couldn't feel as well as adults, which is why we circumcised them then. Medicine marches forward.
@gamerunknown that simply not true. animal behaviorists have long used the scientific method to show how animals lack the sentient, creative skills of association that characterize human intelligence. it's rather obvious. also, the fact that they may 'feel' pain is limited to physical pain, not to mention their inability to understand how or why there is pain, since they lack the creative consciousness of morality that also characterizes human emotion.
You're stuck in Cartesian reasoning. They're can't communicate with us, so they're automatons - justifying bestiality or any level of abuse. Point me to one study that demonstrates that the way animals experience pain is different from the way humans experience pain. If abstract thought is a requisite of being considered an adult, we are permitted to kill children up to their teens and anyone with cognitive defects beyond that period.
@gamerunknown research into animals' cognitive capacity doesn't require direct communication. you should look it up yourself, i cant show you in a comment. there's simply no reason to believe any other animal is capable of sentience like we are. again, it should be obvious. and i never said abstract thought is a requisite of being an adult. read what i wrote again. you fail at argumentation.
I'm sorry, you do not accept the logical conclusion from your premises. If you assume that sentience is a prerequisite of the right to life, then we are permitted to kill such as children or the mentally disabled as they can not demonstrate sentience. If you look up "sentience" on wikipedia, Peter Singer made this precise argument. "Children learn... *abstract thought*... fetuses... cannot apply... thought.": thus we can abort them - your untyped conclusion from premises
There are a few studies done on capacity for abstract thought. For example, humans apart from autists and Asperger's Syndrome individuals develop a theory of mind by age 5 or so (Baron Cohen, 1995). We demonstrate the ability for conserving slightly later according to Piaget. Our moral reasoning may never develop to perfection according to Kohlberg.
Abstract thought refers to formal operations in Piaget's work... The theory of the mind is a set of predictions to seize the meaning or the thoughts of others in social relations and, although it is bounded by cognitive abilities, it's not a properly speaking one of them.
Thank you for the clarification. According to google, the formal operational stage is roughly around age 11: so if we accept Patcam's definition of sentience then we would be permitted to "abort" a "flawed" being up to that age (unless he revokes his claim and says that potentially developing abstract thought is the prerequisite). It can be rough caring about people and yet not supporting abortion once the foetus can feel pain - it allies me with F. Buckley. :<
I would have said 12, but 11 could happen. However, it has absolutely nothing to do with self-consciousness or sentience. You are self-conscious and can feel stuff a lot earlier than that.
On the other hand, we can see what happen if you outlaw abortion... the most efficient way of dealing with this is by educating people, making circumstances in which getting access to contraception socially easier and technically simpler -- that will reduce abortions without pain.
My own position melds Utilitarianism, the Social Contract and consent. I posted the tenets on Scientisticsoviet's page but to summarise: best for most should be strived for, but we can't always predict accurately so should seek consent where possible. Not all psychopaths will consent to being locked up and not everyone that utilises public services will pay taxes. Exile those that refuse to pay taxes in a direct democracy, ignore liberty of psychopaths (prison).
I think Chomsky has the "wrong debate" here and I always criticize people to stand too abstractly and without regard for the conditions wherein their decision apply. Certainly, there are conflicting values, but we are bounded by social relations and material conditions to apply a solution: try to see somewhere midway between individuals, through values, and a utilitarian thought what can be acceptable and still work.
But they both point out that part at some point. Chomsky explains how outlawing abortion would be standing for a principle by means that are ineffective and Singer makes the same reply. Seeing this as purely a conflict of values would be a mistake because you'd set to protect life by opposing abortion whereas you'd end up wasting more of it than not if you do.
I can't say that scientifically, but I suspect people oppose abortion this way to force people to set sex aside.
I agree that the majority of opposition to abortion comes from an authoritarian approach - there are more Catholics in the US than any other branch of a religion and their Church can excommunicate politicians that support abortion. It'd be a genetic/ad hom. fallacy to dismiss their arguments for that reason. It is logically consistent to say that all pleasure for non-generative purposes should be avoided and to oppose masturbation, anal, condoms (but untenable).
It's consistent to say that all pleasure for non-generative purposes should be avoided... consistent with what?
As far as I can tell it's a social activity that seeks pleasure at a very lost cost which basically amount to consent and the only manner you can trace the line is by an appeal to authority. Of course, someone might say I derived an ought from is, but I didn't: the implict pursuit is your psychological health.
To maximize well-being, sex and masturbation are viable.
Internally consistent, but not consistent with evidence. As in, the conclusion follows from the preposition that the moon is a wrathful God that requires a specific dance if we want to eat cheese that we should perform that dance in order to get the cheese. It just has no relation to reality. It is logically inconsistent to say that non-generative sex is fine between two consenting heterosexual adults but not likewise gays, since that's special pleading.
Of course, that's not to say Chomsky is off the mark -- it is to say that the lengthiest part of his comment is where people leave the issue at: to a dark and white decision between two values.
I think everyone agrees freedom is nice and life is nice, both are worthy of our protection, but since we don't live in a vacuum, we can't protect them both absolutely. That's most people fail as they fail to have a thought for the consequences as well as the basis for judging of something
Anyway, I'm a sort of pain absolutist: I don't think anyone should cause pain where it can be avoided and that the prevention of feeling pleasure by causing pain to an individual that would be capable of feeling more pleasure than pain is probably the worst possible action. Hence vegetarianism and opposition to abortion past foetus capacity to feel pain. The black market reason is not a good one to legalise assassination. Abortion less important than starvation.
I don't even see a legitimate reason to pass a law against it and it's not very long to understand why: it won't work as a means to prevent them, but it will work as a means to make human suffer, get it done in unsafe conditions, to make us resemble more and more the Victorian era... it will have people endure loads of pain and create unhealthy conditions, psychologically, socially, technically, with nearly no result in the end.
Well I may not pass a law against it, but I'd try to discourage it as far as possible. I see an analogy in assassination: much of the harm comes from the fact that assassins are devoid in empathy, assassination could be done more efficiently and humanely from the state and wouldn't discriminate against rich or poor... but it still prevents the victim from feeling pleasure further in life and ignores their pain/implicit lack of consent.
I think the best method to reduce the number of abortions is to educate people from a young age about sex and methods of having sex that are unlikely to transmit diseases (including on prophylaxis), get one pregnant or make one vulnerable to abuse and also to provide a state that serves the welfare of the people like the Nordic ones, which have a much lower teen pregnancy rate.
You might want to place a dead line to it, but never ever should it be 0 days. The absolute best ways to make sure problems aren't solved is to do patch-work and that's exactly what those measures are.
My critic isn't of course an ad hominen: the statement made is an observation. The only reason you might want that -- if you are knowledgeable and can reason -- is to push a certain way to live your life to the society.
You might want to place a dead line to it, but never ever should it be 0 days. The absolute best ways to make sure problems aren't solved is to do patch-work and that's exactly what those measures are.
My critic isn't of course an ad hominen: the statement made is an observation. The only reason you might want that -- if you are knowledgeable and can reason -- is to push a certain way to live your life to the society.
@gamerunknown psychology and other cognitive sciences have long shown how infancy is a principal stage in human development as children learn how to understand the material world, before being able to grasp abstract thought, as the brain grows, and the child is socialized into its culture. humans aren't born with all the necessary features of what we consider human life. that's why they are 'raised'. fetuses, being unborn, simply cannot apply to this line of thought.
Chomsky never states that he is in favor of unrestricted legal abortion.
His argument seems to be "there are too many heartless douchebags in the pro-life movement" to take what it's saying very seriously.
This sounds to me very much like an ad-hominem argument.
Moreover, the U.S. is not responsible for the welfare of the entire world: If I fail to intervene to end illegal violence or child abuse in every home, does it follow that I have no basis upon which to put a stop to it in my own home?
Two very, very smart men who I happen to disagree with on many things. However, I respect them as intellectuals, and think these are the types of discussions Americans and all world citizens really ought to be having.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
Noam Chomsky's argument is jaw-dropping. When has any scientist proposed that we could create a maturing human being...out of dead skin cells?
There's no way for a human being to enter this world other than to be born and nothing but a baby is coming out of that woman's womb. Therefore abortion is the prevention of life. Pedants may have hijacked the word 'murder', but murder and prevention of life are the same thing with the same ends. So millions die while we argue semantics.
Murder is the deliberate, unjust destruction of an already extant life. If you were to crush an eagle egg, you would not be "preventing life," you would be preventing an already extant life from reaching a different life stage.
@SansAuthoritas Let's talk about people, because Federal Law already protects the rights of eagle eggs. I doubt that you believe life is a matter of location. If women laid eggs, the nation would be having the same exact argument, because we wouldn't want to believe that the yolk inside would become a human being and would only die before hatching *if something had gone wrong*. This said, which side are you arguing for? Sorry, I can't tell from your message.
Let's go over some of the basic signs of "life." Living things metabolize nutrients from the environment, using them to sustain itself and grow. It is an individual entity, organized of one or more cells. It responds to stimuli. Depending on their life stage, they are capable of reproduction. The embryonic human being is not any species but homo sapiens. It has its own DNA. Its own heartbeat. It is growing. It metabolizes nutrients. It is self-motile. It reacts to stimuli.
Now, it is evident that the growing embryo with its own DNA and blood type is alive. It is an embryo of the species homo sapiens. Science does not say what a "human person" is. It cannot. Such a statement is outside of the realm of physical science, because it is a metaphysical statement. The developing human has its own teleology, its own destiny. It is an individual. It is alive. It is human. It is human life. One may not intentionally destroy innocent human life.
@SansAuthoritas Good. The reason I worded my comment as I did was because that's unfortunately under debate. Just trying to get ahead of that argument. Peace.
Fanatical plans are plots, as are conspiracies, with confederates & culprits whose actions are capricious. Of what does anything depend? Which door is not hinged on lynch pins? You can't gauge the reason, nor the genius, in things genuine as these curios are encased in the terror & evolvement of a fine-top salt grass that is a perennial drop-seed grass, with open panicles, that clumps densely.
The military tanker jets deliver aluminum oxide (the cause of Alzheimer's disease), strontium & barium salt. American & coalition soldiers who were in Iraq during Operation Desert Shield and beyond will die prematurely from excessive exposure to radiation & pathogens.
The chemical poisoning programs set in place during the Great War (W.W.I) combined with contemporary weather & tectonic modification (H.A.A.R.P.) continue unabated as anyone with working eyes can attest to, and be a witness to, the aerosol obscuration program that's currently being implemented against the formerly free people of the Western World (including Australia).
The corporate eugenicists of the U.S./U.N. have irradiated Iraq. It will remain so for the next 4 billion years. They refer to Iraq as "the Laboratory."
Aqua-lung nut Jacques F. Cousteau proposed genocide, the slaughter of 350,000 people per day to satisfy the Z.P.G. monsters' blood-lust. Many folks say that Cousteau's life-long romance with eugenism is irrelevant when one is considering the fine oceanographic work of this scaly, pretentious, warty frog.
I'm not too sure about the abortion issue myself to be honest, but Chomskys argument about pro-life people not caring about people dying in third world countries is bullshit. He must know that Christians in general give far more to charity, out of their own pocket. Just because the USA has bad foreign aid programs (which is debatable anyway) and they don't want the government to spend more on it doesn't mean they don't care. Has he even ehard of personal charity?
@bicsmokescrack Would you mind citing a figure for the 'Christians give far more to charity' thing? I assume you're basing the assertion on some statistic.
You may not get your answers from religious texts, but the people who you will get the answers from, some believe in something because of their religious text, and that should be respected. The Jew who supports animal sex, Peter Singer, says Christians dont like abortion because its scientific experimentation and therefore not the Christian way, but Christians are more concerned with abortion because they believe it has a spirit and its evil to just terminate an existence. Typical evil Jew
@JoanBeatrington001 No one is going to listen to your racist babble. "Typical evil Jew"? Go back to Josef Goebbels' office and rewrite your Fascist propaganda.
@ahhhhjjjj Wow the Jews sure profited and become immune from the WW2 holocaust propaganda havent they? Cause everytime I question the Jews and their total over-represntation and influence, promoting race mixing, abortion, feminism, inter-racial sex and "multiculturalism" Some brainwashed androgynous liberal moron like you crys "oy vey, lock up this evil Nazi, someone bring the Zionist gestepo" You are a fucking fool and people like you are why the white race is dying out. Brainwashed puppet
@JoanBeatrington001 Liberal? I'm am by no means "liberal". I'm a communist. Zionism is not equal to being Jewish. You will find I am strictly opposed to Zionism. Who cares if people of different races have sex. What difference does that make?? Stop trying to make your views sound like an ideology. You're a racist. Pure and simple. Now I'm ending the conversation so you can get back to feeling superior to people so you can make for your short comings.
What I dont understand is how Peter singer says women not having access to abortion is a terrible thing, and they are trapped. Well, isnt not having sex in the first place a far lessor evil then terminating a human being in existence because it turns out it wont fit your lifestyle? In Africa, women who are malnourished manage to raise 6 children on average! But a women in a 1st world country cant sacrifice to keep its child in existence? Sex is for reproduction, not just sexual gratification
@QKCIGAR7500 this problem can not be reduce ti the simplicity your are proposing. Ex. If you have someone terminally ill with good kidneys, and one person who needs a kidney transplant. Is it right to take away the kidney from the person who is going to die anyway to save a human life? How does your sense to SAVE a life react in this situation? When is right or wrong? It has to be discussed, because like Chomsky pointed out legal abortions saves lives too.
Two very scary men! I like the statement made by a former Nobel Peace Prize winner named Albert Schweitzer. "If a man loses reverence for ANY part of life (human life), he will lose his reverence for ALL life." Only God should decide when a life should end. You can either be Pro-Life or Pro-Death. I guess it sounds better to say Pro-Choice. No guilt by putting it in those terms. It is a BABY not a choice. May God have mercy on us. Roe v. Wade was WRONG WRONG WRONG!
@GraceiamSAVED "reverence for ALL life"? I bet you aren't even vegan. If not, then I hardly think you're in a position to tell other people what it means to respect life.
@MPedroful ... that is completely irrelevant. Respecting a carrot is much different from respecting a kangaroo. A kangaroo has desires. A carrot does not. It has no wishes to disrespect.
"In other words, the fetus is a living human being. Peter Singer would not even dispute this basic scientific fact."
The defect of the argument is that being a unique living human organism is not the same as "personhood" - the very reason why even modern western jurisprudence allows for "pulling the plug" on the brain-dead.
And again - you show no interest in confronting the reality of the conflicting value here (the woman's rights over her own body.)
Your example is faulty because in that case the probabilistic object are beings that more or less manifest the qualities sophisticated moderns value as worthy of protection. But getting beyond all that, the example offers no analog to abortion with regard to the question of significant competing interests - namely, the woman's bodily sovereignty - the competing interest Chomsky is arguing.
"Do you have any empirical evidence to support your claim that "there is no empirical existence available to anyone apart from the content of one's own conciousness"?? Or is this just your own dogmatic speculation?"
"then the woman MUST respect its 14th Amendment rights, which the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade admitted would superceed the "right" of the femi-nazi to kill the fetus."
Yes - "feminazis" are the only women having abortions. :-)
I was under the impression this was a philosophical/logical discussion, of significance beyond just the American context. I make no claims that American jurisprudence is especially authoritative or coherent (I believe neither.)
"If the fetus is a person (and there is no proof that it is not)"
This reminds me of the illogical expectation of people to "prove negatives" (ex "prove there is no God.") That's not how rational economy works - in that case you'd also have to "prove" leprechauns, unicorns, and whatever religions/gods you happen to not adore "DON'T exist." BAD logic.
"(...)you claim that there is "no empirical existence" and then go on to make an empirical claim ("apart from the content...") You are talking in circles."
I don't want to malign your honesty, so I'll proceed as if you're misunderstanding me.
I wrote:
"...there is no empirical existence available to anyone apart from the content of one's own consciousness."
There was no denial of empiricism; I am in fact proposing the most rigorous sort. I'm denying dogmatic speculation.
"We are living in a society that has legalized the killing of innocent human beings without PROVING that they are NOT human persons."
The problem with this argument is that you're placing the onus incorrectly. Given the basic science, it's really for those asserting the full "personhood" of a fetus at all stages of gestation who need to make their case.
And again - establishing some level of "awareness" of a fetus does not negate the opposing good of the woman's sovereignty.
I agree. That said, minimization of coercion in society pays the highest dividends. Libertarian social philosophy is a huge topic in and of itself.
For the reasons I have stated, I don't think the compelling argument can be made to force the continuation of a pregnancy to term. Again, I think Chomsky said it exactly right - this is about a competition of values, and should not be over simplified in black and white terms.
You also err in reducing this to a question about the character of the fetus at any/all stages of gestation. You totally ignore the desire and claims to self of the mother, which would remain a conflicting claim even IF one could establish the qualitative fullness of humanity which most of our kind have regard for.
@QKCIGAR7500 Don't be idiotic - no one is "PRO-abortion."
Seeing as there is no empirical existence available to anyone apart from the content of one's own consciousness, all appeals to authority with regard to what is/ought to be VALUED (matter of "values", and the weighing/discernment of which is central to ethical decision making) is RIDICULOUS.
When we attempt to COMPEL others, let's at least admit what we're doing (AND not absolve ourselves of justification.) You are "PLAYING God."
- man is a moral animal; this is different than the assumption that a certain moral conclusion is "out there." Moral conclusions are a personal and societal phenom growing out of a balancing of conflicting things-that-are-valued.
- "Potential" = POSSIBLE. That's it. It does not imply PRESENCE.
- "pro-life" organisations ARE NOWHERE TO BE SEEN at anti-poverty rallies, etc. They're not serious, and really are only narrowly "anti-abortion."
People should stop being sexist and stop saying that men have nothing say about abortion. After all men are most likely the ones that wanted abortion in the first place. Why? So that they can have sex irresponsibly.
I think that Singer makes a very significant point by reading wealth into the debate. It is not an accident that class is cut out of the debate so often.
I agree with Noam Chompsky on the problem of unequal distribution of wealth, however his generalizations about these people and their supposedly unimportant view(s) on abortion was a gross non-sequitor.
@Keysteeze he wasn't saying their views are non-important, but was perhaps suggesting that their motive isn't necessarily in the interests of valuing human life and human interests, since such a great lack of affection or care for those starving combined with so much wealth suggests their ideoligal stance is grounded on poor philosophy. :)
Many of the arguments against designating a fetus with personhood are usually permitted to other beings. 1) A fetus is not aware, neither is an infant or a severely mentaly handicapped person yet the later are often considered "people." 2) A fetus is dependent upon its mother for life (not viable outside the womb). A person who is hooked up to life support is dependent as well. Again the later is considered a person. You have to be really smart to compartmentalize these rediculous ideas.
@Keysteeze Here is the problem, to be human you need at least a couple of things. 1. Experience. This is the most important one, at one point, you must have experienced -something-. Fear, hope, sadness, pain, list goes on. A fetus has not, even a mentally retarded person has, and a vegetable. 2. All organs completely formed. Eyes, brain, flesh, etc. etc.. Embryos, blastocysts are simply a glob of cells. 3. BORN. At this point, the baby can completely react to any stimulus in the most basic way.
@Keysteeze I would like to focus on number 2. A fetus is dependent upon its mother for life. This is one of the issues I have.You used the analogy of a life support system. What is the life support system when keeping a person alive? It is an object. It is a machine. This is one of the conflicts. The very thing keeping the baby alive is a person, but now has to be viewed as a object/machine. That is what I think is dangerous when giving fetuses equal value. It puts the woman's personhood at risk
@CambridgeHeights Why is killing an adult human in certain ways wrong? If you can do it such that the adult doesn't know it's going to die and it's killed painlessly, why is that wrong?
@BigMikeMcBastard it would be wrong because a grown adult has developed relationships with other people. Killing that person would deprive his friends, parent, children, etc. Plus, it seems unlikely that you could kill an adult without them k owing that they are going to die. It might work on the first one, but word would get out.
@CambridgeHeights You could easily kill an adult without them being aware they're going to die. People die unexpectedly all the time. Little carbon monoxide while they're sleeping and presto.
Infants have inter-personal relationships too. Everything you said about why it's wrong to kill an adult is true of infants. Furthermore, on a very basic level it's wrong to kill anything sentient I would say.
@BigMikeMcBastard Sure you could easily kill an adult without him or her noticing, but I don't believe it could be done in a systematic way without people noticing and therefore fearing for their deaths. Infants really only have relationships with their parents. As long as they consent, I don't see a problem. Don't kill anything sentient? Look up that word and get back to me.
A sperm or egg does not have a brain, an infant does, and while it may not be capable of complex thought, it can feel, and in the future it will probably be able to think.
@redcommander27 A mosquito has a brain too. What does is matter if it probably will have complex thoughts? An egg cell sitting in a Petri dish awaiting in-vitro fertilization will probably one day have complex thoughts.
Although I'm not a utilitarian by any means, I would say that you at least have to have the capacity to feel to have moral rights, and of course the pain of a human generally outweighs that of a mosquito.
@redcommander27 "...you at least have to have the capacity to feel to have moral rights..." I would argue that even a mosquito feels to some degree, though much less than a squirrel or a human does. Where do you draw the line and why? And what moral rights would you grant and why?
"...the pain of a human generally outweighs that of a mosquito." We already took pain out of the equation. I said the killing/abortion would be done without pain or fear.
No rational person believes that inanimate objects have rights. Rights come with personhood, and to a lesser extent the capacity to feel pain. (IE animal cruelty laws) Anyone who thinks a developed person equivalent to a fertilzed egg without even a nervous system has a very low view of humanity,
@pseudonominous The fetus only becomes an adult after countless biological events and chemical reactions. The same goes for a egg cell only it's a little further behind in the progression.
@CambridgeHeights OK. Your mother is in a car crash tonight. She's in a coma now. She may make a full recovery in a year but you don't know yet. The doctor wants to give her an overdose of morphine to kill her painlessly so as to free up the bed in his hospital so he can treat many more critically injured patients.
Why is that wrong?Your mother will never know she's going to die.
@pseudonominous She won't know she is going to die, but now everyone knows that doctors do that and we will live in constant fear of being killed. Plus she has developed relationships with other people (husband, children, friends, etc) and they will be sad if she is killed. So that is why it is wrong.
@SeeProfileForDetails seriously, you are really illogical... Jews have lived in Germany for well very a thousand years. It wasnt until a brief period during the Nazi regime.... uh why am I explaining this to you. You gotta think more, and try to be more logical.
@SeeProfileForDetails: Eating meat is natural. Animals like to eat meat. Human beings are animals. I like a nice juicy steak, buffalo wings, ground beef in tacos, bbq pulled pork, those are my favorite foods. I dont feel satisyed by a meal without meat. Thats just a natural thing, especially for men.
@athabascka Raping animals is natural. Male humans are animals. I like juicy pussy. If you watch any nature video you will see women animals trying to get away from the male raping it. Therefore it is acceptable for humans to do, because I'm a mental retard and am feeble minded like you.
@SeeProfileForDetails: Hey, if you dont like that i eat meat, you can go fuck yourself. Im not going to change, especially not for dickheads like you. So fuck yourself.
@athabascka It's not that I don't like you eating meat, it's that if I come over to your house and kill your dog and roast it on the barbecue, please don't complain. Also, dont' complain about china eating horses and dogs, and also europeans eating horses. Same thing as eating intelligent pigs like germans do. I'm not arguing for people to stop doing it, I'm arguing for you to use logic and admit that eating meat is bad, just like a lot of other activities we do are bad but we still can do them
@SeeProfileForDetails: Fine, eating meat is bad. And so is drinking alcohol. And i do both on a daily basis. And no argument in the world could convince me to stop because i just dont give a fuck.
@athabascka I'm not saying you should stop, I eat some meat but I try to eat bigger animals since less deaths will occur when eating say a cow, versus a chicken. Whereas other stupid morons that call themselves vegetarians, often eat chicken... But as for drinking alcohol daily? Although I support your freedom to do that, I can't say your brain is going to be helped in your older years... and your memory is going to be bad. You sound like an actual alcoholic and not just a drinker.
@athabascka p.s. i was never arguing that eating meat was not natural, I was arguing that it's bad, and knowing that it is bad is what indians have done for several years, they eat the meat but they know it is bad, but it does provide them nutrients and fur coats to survive. I'm not saying we should stop doing it, I'm saying that people who own Dogs and won't eat their Dog are hypocritical.
Our positive knowledge is severely limited. Notions of time and space are all based on human experience.
Pain generally relates to something we wish to avoid. Communicating pain implies a certain mental development, which renders "X weeks equals a human" a straw main) humans invoke the law of self preservation when given an option.
Even those who claim to be inspired by the Supreme Being are rarely capable of suspending this terrestrial law against self harm (or reacting with violence).
Even though this video clip shows two MEN discussing abortion, the contents shows a real understanding of the REALLY difficult decision that confronts women who cannot mother a child due circumstances beyond their control.
Chomsky's telling of the facts about maternal and child care in the developing world only highlight the truth that "no woman wants an abortion"!
Anti-choice people could better put their energies into changing the world into a place where ALL children are able to be cared for
@scatty51 I like the use of anti-choice compared to pro-life, kind of a little mud slinging by the anti-life people. Whoa! did i just say that!
Joking aside, there are over 500k people on waiting lists for adoption. So maybe you can explain to me how this dicision is difficult? what exactly are you debating in your mind? The child can be taken care of 100% via adoption, there are programs to help pay for medical costs... what am i missing?
@scatty51 Chomsky makes vaild (though pretty obvious)observations save for that of the fictional beings who are pro-life yet have no interest in the welfare of the global poor.
Abortion in developed countries is through the roof despite education &healthcare provision so how can he justify saying there is an inverse proportionality?
In Scotland abortion rates are higher than ever, so is expenditure and implementation in sex ed programmes and availabilty of contraception.
@scatty51 bullshit argument...im undecided about abortion but your comment is clearly retarded. im very much in favour of all children being able to be cared for. and all children, pro-life people think, include foetuses that get aborted. so why're you being hypocritical? you're disregarding the fact that anti-choice people sincerely believe they're helping more children than pro-choicers do. shittt i was undecided but every time i see a retarded pro-choice argument it makes me more pro-life.
@Rnewmanguy But pro-lifers, by and large, don't concern themselves with what happens to a baby after birth. If a pregnant woman feels that she can't care for a child, be that for financial, societal etc. reasons, and there is no legal way to get abortions, that child will end up in the horribly broken adoption system, or in the hands of its unready mother. Pro-lifers should help build better adoption systems. They may "sincerely believe" they're helping, but belief doesn't make things true.
@inagartenrules i concern myself with what happens to a baby after birth and desire vastly improved state welfare so thats irrelevant. seems like an ad hominem. also, to someone who really believes abortion is murder, its better that a baby goes into a broken adoption system or into the hands of its unready mother than that it gets murdered.
@Rnewmanguy That wasn't so much an argument against you as it was against the pro-lifers, and if you're correct in your self assessment of being a moderate, you, personally, being concerned with what happens post birth is irrelevant to the debate. I made a generalization, and poorly chose my words. What I meant to say is that the majority of pro lifers are more concerned about making abortion illegal rather than helping lower the number of abortions by improving adoption and sexual education.
@inagartenrules isnt it understandable, that their main priority is making abortion illegal, if they believe its brutal murder? i dont think pro-choice people can win the abortion debate by saying that the majority of pro-lifers (in the us) are fiscally conservative. you're skirting around the main issue, imo, by talking about adoption. like even if the adoption system was worse than it is now, if it was proved to me that abortion was morally heinous i'd still want it illegal.
And I'm not saying both sides don't have valid points, because they do and that's what makes this so controversial. And if I offended you earlier with my comment, I didn't mean to, and I apologize. This is a hard issue to make a decision upon, and it's ultimately one you'll have to decide for yourself, one way or the other.
@scatty51 It's rude to drag you back into an 8 month old argument, but as the highest liked comment, you've probably dealt with this before.
By pushing this idea of having children only being born in good conditions, people ignorantly promote the wiping out of minorities, because those are the people whose circumstance urge them to have abortions. And it's happening, the black population in particular, is decreasing, which would make eugenicist Margaret Sanger happy. This has to be noted.
Morality is what helps those who adhere to it survive rather than become extinct. The Jonestown Cult is considered immoral because it's members all drank cyanide and aren't around to debate morality with those who weren't stupid enough to commit suicide. Morality is defined by the living not the dead. If you disagree, kill yourself.
There is only one objective moral truth and that is that those who have lower rates of biological reproduction must logically become the minority viewpoint and those with higher rates of reproduction must logically become the majority which is why we see Europe becoming more Muslim and America becoming more Latin.
It should also be mentioned that legalized abortion and birth control pills increase the risk of death by AIDS for every man or woman who has biological sex which is only necessary for reproduction since masturbation can accomplish the same thing as sex or abortions if you don't want children much safer and cheaper.
There is nothing more insane or dishonest than claiming it helps any class of women to have killing their babies legalized. Hitler didn't kill millions of Jewish babies because he wanted to help Jews. Abortion is a class war of extermination by wealthy elites against the working class legalized abortion kills off at higher rates.
@Texasjim2007 Abortion is not mandatory is a choice it cant hardly compare to Hitler killing Jews. All your arguments are just ridiculous, birth control pills increase the risk of AIDS? NO ignorant people like you do. Also your spill about objective moral truth sounds more like you are afraid that some how European and American people are going to kill them selves of with abortion. Thats just ridiculous, completely false and a little paranoid.
I'm surprised to see a philosopher of his stature committing the ad hominem fallacy, saying of pro-lifers "when they do so-and-so, they can be taken more seriously." Even if pro-life people completely fail to live up to their own standards, and are terrible people, and neglect life in all kinds of ways, the pro-life position can still be true.
@Jugglable that is not an ad hominem fallacy is factual hypocritical stance that most so called "pro-life" people take they are more concerned with the unborn then they are with the breathing born. Yes the position can be true but you can not call your self pro-life if you are not pro- all life. So they can not be taken seriously.
@N0g0dzN0masterz Well, stick and stones. I'm interested in the truth of the position. By the way, they are supposed to be talking about abortion (see title of the video)--not people who hold whatever view.
@Jugglable Im not attacking you Im just pointing out that what Noam said is not ad hominem. I did notice that the title is called Noam Chumsky and Peter Singer on abortion .... and that is what they are talking about the abortion debate looking at both sides of the issue a very complicated issue which probably has more then 2 or 3 or 4 sides but we always like to make it look like there is only 2.
@N0g0dzN0masterz Well, I think he was trying to say that the pro-life stance can be dismissed because of pro-life people and the way they behave. That is indeed a textbook ad hominem. You cannot falsify a position by talking about the person who holds it.
@Jugglable No he didn't say that go back and watch. He did not even talk about their behavior he talked about their stance on poverty around the world. Also he did not include all Pro-life , just the ones that do not care about the millions dying of hunger, they can not be taken seriously.
I add that this is a personal matter not a political one I don't believe abortion is right but I can not call my self pro life, my personal views are my own I can not impose them on others.
"my personal views are my own I can not impose them on others"
OK, so I assume you think slavery is wrong. If you outlaw slavery, is that "imposing your view on others?" No, because it's about protecting the slaves' human rights, not about imposing. Likewise, if you think abortion is wrong, standing up for that isn't about imposing, it's about protecting the human rights of the unborn. Maybe I'm wrong though, maybe you say ppl can have slaves and we shouldn't impose?
@Jugglable Ok here lies your fallacy You think that making things illegal makes them go away? There is still slavery all kinds it all form even here in America we just act like it doesn't exist. Making it illegal only helped in making it hidden from view. Authoritarians always come up with the idea that some how if you make something illegal it goes away. It does not If you want to end abortion you can start by educating and using reason to move people to your side not by imposing your views.
@Jugglable Another example of this is the war on drugs or prostitution, murder ... saying thaw shall not kill is not enough helping people understand why is wrong is the way to true order. Something else our problems are more then likely a result of our political and economic circumstances. People who are truly free to choose their lot in life usually do not kill or steal from others. Unless they have mental issues like serial killers and psychopaths. at least thats my theory.
How about being agaisnt abortion for gender equality. The vast majority of abortions are overwhelmingly done to females. So, if I were to think in terms of gender equality, I'd be against abortion. Also, there are principles that cannot be violated to human life. First, he is innocent (the fetus), he is a memeber of your community (your species) and, the right to life. Can these be violated easily?
cjla1987 1 week ago
Pretty much everything Chomsky said after the opening could have been taken straight out of UN, UNESCO, World Bank, IMF, WHO, Population Council, Planned Parenthood official documents. These organisations PROMOTE abortions, and the number of abortions increase wherever they are active. More 'globalization' = more abortion. There were not millions of abortions going on in Africa and the Global South before they arrived.
Very disheartening to say the least.
historypoliticsbb 2 weeks ago
This a disappointingly obtuse argument from Chomsky
kennedyt 2 weeks ago
An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).
Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?
Ayn Rand
ASDKAODJAKSJ 1 month ago
@ASDKAODJAKSJ
“Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should. . . . [Hickman has] no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel ‘other people.”
About a murderer of a post-partum child - Ayn Rand's diary. Anyone under the age of 18 is also a "parasite that must be destroyed" and a potential being I take it.
gamerunknown 1 month ago
Chomsky is such a strong socialist, it's hard to listen to him sometimes. He said that by not providing foreign aid, we are killing people. Great, so now I'm a murderer for not donating 3 dollars a month to Africans who think sexing virgins is the cure for AIDS. Maybe, and I'm sure Chomsky would agree, we should stop propping up dictators and corrupt governments in those countries to protect out natural resource interests. I'm not pro-life by any means, but these are completely separate issues.
beabercj 1 month ago
@beabercj
Actually, any philosopher will be able to tell you that acts of omission are as bad as commission, we just have various cognitive biases to treat them differently. One is the just world hypothesis: bad things happen to bad people. If one gets raped, it's ones fault because one was dressed like a whore/the rapist was ignorant. Nuclear weapons expenditure is equal in the US to the projected amount of wiping out world hunger in 2011. 15m children starve to death a year.
gamerunknown 1 month ago
shame singer wasnt aborted. amoral piece of shit he is
Badwolf182 1 month ago
I don't think Peter Singer's argument holds on Utilitarian grounds. On practical grounds, it's harder to ignore the suffering of women dying as a result of botched abortions. However, the fact that the thinking and feeling foetus is a dependant has no influence over the legitimacy of its thoughts and feelings. It can be hard to be consistent: I'm a vegetarian and while I try to keep spiders away from my room, occasionally I will kill one. Justification? Ad hom tu quoque/two wrongs fallacy.
gamerunknown 1 month ago
@gamerunknown a fetus does not think, nor for that matter 'feels' the way you probably think it does.
ThePatcam 1 month ago
@ThePatcam
Sorry, that's an unscientific statement. We can't demonstrate the existence of thoughts or feelings for any entity other than ourselves (indeed, we can only assume there is a "we" that is feeling or thinking). We used to assume animals cannot feel, but they have nociceptors and pain avoidant behaviours, as do foetus'. We used to think infants couldn't feel as well as adults, which is why we circumcised them then. Medicine marches forward.
gamerunknown 1 month ago
@gamerunknown that simply not true. animal behaviorists have long used the scientific method to show how animals lack the sentient, creative skills of association that characterize human intelligence. it's rather obvious. also, the fact that they may 'feel' pain is limited to physical pain, not to mention their inability to understand how or why there is pain, since they lack the creative consciousness of morality that also characterizes human emotion.
ThePatcam 1 month ago
@ThePatcam
You're stuck in Cartesian reasoning. They're can't communicate with us, so they're automatons - justifying bestiality or any level of abuse. Point me to one study that demonstrates that the way animals experience pain is different from the way humans experience pain. If abstract thought is a requisite of being considered an adult, we are permitted to kill children up to their teens and anyone with cognitive defects beyond that period.
gamerunknown 1 month ago
@gamerunknown research into animals' cognitive capacity doesn't require direct communication. you should look it up yourself, i cant show you in a comment. there's simply no reason to believe any other animal is capable of sentience like we are. again, it should be obvious. and i never said abstract thought is a requisite of being an adult. read what i wrote again. you fail at argumentation.
ThePatcam 1 month ago
@ThePatcam
I'm sorry, you do not accept the logical conclusion from your premises. If you assume that sentience is a prerequisite of the right to life, then we are permitted to kill such as children or the mentally disabled as they can not demonstrate sentience. If you look up "sentience" on wikipedia, Peter Singer made this precise argument. "Children learn... *abstract thought*... fetuses... cannot apply... thought.": thus we can abort them - your untyped conclusion from premises
gamerunknown 1 month ago
@ThePatcam
There are a few studies done on capacity for abstract thought. For example, humans apart from autists and Asperger's Syndrome individuals develop a theory of mind by age 5 or so (Baron Cohen, 1995). We demonstrate the ability for conserving slightly later according to Piaget. Our moral reasoning may never develop to perfection according to Kohlberg.
gamerunknown 1 month ago
@gamerunknown
Abstract thought refers to formal operations in Piaget's work... The theory of the mind is a set of predictions to seize the meaning or the thoughts of others in social relations and, although it is bounded by cognitive abilities, it's not a properly speaking one of them.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@KrugmanTheKing
Thank you for the clarification. According to google, the formal operational stage is roughly around age 11: so if we accept Patcam's definition of sentience then we would be permitted to "abort" a "flawed" being up to that age (unless he revokes his claim and says that potentially developing abstract thought is the prerequisite). It can be rough caring about people and yet not supporting abortion once the foetus can feel pain - it allies me with F. Buckley. :<
gamerunknown 3 weeks ago
@gamerunknown
I would have said 12, but 11 could happen. However, it has absolutely nothing to do with self-consciousness or sentience. You are self-conscious and can feel stuff a lot earlier than that.
On the other hand, we can see what happen if you outlaw abortion... the most efficient way of dealing with this is by educating people, making circumstances in which getting access to contraception socially easier and technically simpler -- that will reduce abortions without pain.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@KrugmanTheKing
My own position melds Utilitarianism, the Social Contract and consent. I posted the tenets on Scientisticsoviet's page but to summarise: best for most should be strived for, but we can't always predict accurately so should seek consent where possible. Not all psychopaths will consent to being locked up and not everyone that utilises public services will pay taxes. Exile those that refuse to pay taxes in a direct democracy, ignore liberty of psychopaths (prison).
gamerunknown 3 weeks ago
@gamerunknown
I think Chomsky has the "wrong debate" here and I always criticize people to stand too abstractly and without regard for the conditions wherein their decision apply. Certainly, there are conflicting values, but we are bounded by social relations and material conditions to apply a solution: try to see somewhere midway between individuals, through values, and a utilitarian thought what can be acceptable and still work.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@gamerunknown
But they both point out that part at some point. Chomsky explains how outlawing abortion would be standing for a principle by means that are ineffective and Singer makes the same reply. Seeing this as purely a conflict of values would be a mistake because you'd set to protect life by opposing abortion whereas you'd end up wasting more of it than not if you do.
I can't say that scientifically, but I suspect people oppose abortion this way to force people to set sex aside.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@KrugmanTheKing
I agree that the majority of opposition to abortion comes from an authoritarian approach - there are more Catholics in the US than any other branch of a religion and their Church can excommunicate politicians that support abortion. It'd be a genetic/ad hom. fallacy to dismiss their arguments for that reason. It is logically consistent to say that all pleasure for non-generative purposes should be avoided and to oppose masturbation, anal, condoms (but untenable).
gamerunknown 3 weeks ago
@gamerunknown
It's consistent to say that all pleasure for non-generative purposes should be avoided... consistent with what?
As far as I can tell it's a social activity that seeks pleasure at a very lost cost which basically amount to consent and the only manner you can trace the line is by an appeal to authority. Of course, someone might say I derived an ought from is, but I didn't: the implict pursuit is your psychological health.
To maximize well-being, sex and masturbation are viable.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@KrugmanTheKing
Internally consistent, but not consistent with evidence. As in, the conclusion follows from the preposition that the moon is a wrathful God that requires a specific dance if we want to eat cheese that we should perform that dance in order to get the cheese. It just has no relation to reality. It is logically inconsistent to say that non-generative sex is fine between two consenting heterosexual adults but not likewise gays, since that's special pleading.
gamerunknown 3 weeks ago
@gamerunknown
Derp, premise, not preposition. Always confuse those two.
gamerunknown 3 weeks ago
@gamerunknown
Of course, that's not to say Chomsky is off the mark -- it is to say that the lengthiest part of his comment is where people leave the issue at: to a dark and white decision between two values.
I think everyone agrees freedom is nice and life is nice, both are worthy of our protection, but since we don't live in a vacuum, we can't protect them both absolutely. That's most people fail as they fail to have a thought for the consequences as well as the basis for judging of something
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@KrugmanTheKing
Anyway, I'm a sort of pain absolutist: I don't think anyone should cause pain where it can be avoided and that the prevention of feeling pleasure by causing pain to an individual that would be capable of feeling more pleasure than pain is probably the worst possible action. Hence vegetarianism and opposition to abortion past foetus capacity to feel pain. The black market reason is not a good one to legalise assassination. Abortion less important than starvation.
gamerunknown 3 weeks ago
@gamerunknown
I don't even see a legitimate reason to pass a law against it and it's not very long to understand why: it won't work as a means to prevent them, but it will work as a means to make human suffer, get it done in unsafe conditions, to make us resemble more and more the Victorian era... it will have people endure loads of pain and create unhealthy conditions, psychologically, socially, technically, with nearly no result in the end.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@KrugmanTheKing
Well I may not pass a law against it, but I'd try to discourage it as far as possible. I see an analogy in assassination: much of the harm comes from the fact that assassins are devoid in empathy, assassination could be done more efficiently and humanely from the state and wouldn't discriminate against rich or poor... but it still prevents the victim from feeling pleasure further in life and ignores their pain/implicit lack of consent.
gamerunknown 3 weeks ago
@KrugmanTheKing
I think the best method to reduce the number of abortions is to educate people from a young age about sex and methods of having sex that are unlikely to transmit diseases (including on prophylaxis), get one pregnant or make one vulnerable to abuse and also to provide a state that serves the welfare of the people like the Nordic ones, which have a much lower teen pregnancy rate.
gamerunknown 3 weeks ago
@gamerunknown
Education and more favorable circumstances to practice this sort of activity would make it better than a law.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@gamerunknown
You might want to place a dead line to it, but never ever should it be 0 days. The absolute best ways to make sure problems aren't solved is to do patch-work and that's exactly what those measures are.
My critic isn't of course an ad hominen: the statement made is an observation. The only reason you might want that -- if you are knowledgeable and can reason -- is to push a certain way to live your life to the society.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gamerunknown
You might want to place a dead line to it, but never ever should it be 0 days. The absolute best ways to make sure problems aren't solved is to do patch-work and that's exactly what those measures are.
My critic isn't of course an ad hominen: the statement made is an observation. The only reason you might want that -- if you are knowledgeable and can reason -- is to push a certain way to live your life to the society.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@gamerunknown
It's a social ability, if you refer to developmental psychology.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@gamerunknown psychology and other cognitive sciences have long shown how infancy is a principal stage in human development as children learn how to understand the material world, before being able to grasp abstract thought, as the brain grows, and the child is socialized into its culture. humans aren't born with all the necessary features of what we consider human life. that's why they are 'raised'. fetuses, being unborn, simply cannot apply to this line of thought.
ThePatcam 1 month ago
Chomsky never states that he is in favor of unrestricted legal abortion.
His argument seems to be "there are too many heartless douchebags in the pro-life movement" to take what it's saying very seriously.
This sounds to me very much like an ad-hominem argument.
Moreover, the U.S. is not responsible for the welfare of the entire world: If I fail to intervene to end illegal violence or child abuse in every home, does it follow that I have no basis upon which to put a stop to it in my own home?
djs259 2 months ago
Brilliant man.
Pillowpants8495 2 months ago
Two very, very smart men who I happen to disagree with on many things. However, I respect them as intellectuals, and think these are the types of discussions Americans and all world citizens really ought to be having.
11dorisa 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
Chomsky is the master.
MEpianist 3 months ago
What a fantastic exploration of the abortion issue. This should be mandatory viewing for all Christian wingnuts.
mgm8822 3 months ago
@mgm8822 and anti-religious fanatics.
mrmartinconte 1 month ago
Two towering intellects: Logic, reason, common sense.
JoeStunner 4 months ago
Noam Chomsky's argument is jaw-dropping. When has any scientist proposed that we could create a maturing human being...out of dead skin cells?
There's no way for a human being to enter this world other than to be born and nothing but a baby is coming out of that woman's womb. Therefore abortion is the prevention of life. Pedants may have hijacked the word 'murder', but murder and prevention of life are the same thing with the same ends. So millions die while we argue semantics.
BunnyMan456 4 months ago
@BunnyMan456
Murder is the deliberate, unjust destruction of an already extant life. If you were to crush an eagle egg, you would not be "preventing life," you would be preventing an already extant life from reaching a different life stage.
SansAuthoritas 3 months ago
@SansAuthoritas Let's talk about people, because Federal Law already protects the rights of eagle eggs. I doubt that you believe life is a matter of location. If women laid eggs, the nation would be having the same exact argument, because we wouldn't want to believe that the yolk inside would become a human being and would only die before hatching *if something had gone wrong*. This said, which side are you arguing for? Sorry, I can't tell from your message.
BunnyMan456 3 months ago
@BunnyMan456
Let's go over some of the basic signs of "life." Living things metabolize nutrients from the environment, using them to sustain itself and grow. It is an individual entity, organized of one or more cells. It responds to stimuli. Depending on their life stage, they are capable of reproduction. The embryonic human being is not any species but homo sapiens. It has its own DNA. Its own heartbeat. It is growing. It metabolizes nutrients. It is self-motile. It reacts to stimuli.
SansAuthoritas 3 months ago
@BunnyMan456
Now, it is evident that the growing embryo with its own DNA and blood type is alive. It is an embryo of the species homo sapiens. Science does not say what a "human person" is. It cannot. Such a statement is outside of the realm of physical science, because it is a metaphysical statement. The developing human has its own teleology, its own destiny. It is an individual. It is alive. It is human. It is human life. One may not intentionally destroy innocent human life.
SansAuthoritas 3 months ago
@BunnyMan456
Bottom line, I disagreed with your terminology. Abortion does not "prevent" life. It destroys already existing life.
SansAuthoritas 3 months ago
@SansAuthoritas Good. The reason I worded my comment as I did was because that's unfortunately under debate. Just trying to get ahead of that argument. Peace.
BunnyMan456 3 months ago
Noam Chomsky: "Everyone in the debate is opposed to outright infanticide."
Professor Noam Chomsky, that is not actually true. Peter Singer is not opposed to infanticide, depending on how old the infant is when it is killed.
Dawnofthehead 5 months ago
7:04 - Chomsky makes a pointthat isinteresting in this context - everyone agrees that killing a child immoral - except Peter Singer.
bdghkptwj 5 months ago 2
Fanatical plans are plots, as are conspiracies, with confederates & culprits whose actions are capricious. Of what does anything depend? Which door is not hinged on lynch pins? You can't gauge the reason, nor the genius, in things genuine as these curios are encased in the terror & evolvement of a fine-top salt grass that is a perennial drop-seed grass, with open panicles, that clumps densely.
OneDollarBook 5 months ago
The military tanker jets deliver aluminum oxide (the cause of Alzheimer's disease), strontium & barium salt. American & coalition soldiers who were in Iraq during Operation Desert Shield and beyond will die prematurely from excessive exposure to radiation & pathogens.
OneDollarBook 5 months ago
The chemical poisoning programs set in place during the Great War (W.W.I) combined with contemporary weather & tectonic modification (H.A.A.R.P.) continue unabated as anyone with working eyes can attest to, and be a witness to, the aerosol obscuration program that's currently being implemented against the formerly free people of the Western World (including Australia).
OneDollarBook 5 months ago
The corporate eugenicists of the U.S./U.N. have irradiated Iraq. It will remain so for the next 4 billion years. They refer to Iraq as "the Laboratory."
OneDollarBook 5 months ago
Darwin's reptilian evolvement makes one's tail swish.
OneDollarBook 5 months ago
[Only in the U.S. do conspiracies NOT happen. The creed of the rapist: Be FORCEFUL and multiply.]
OneDollarBook 5 months ago
Aqua-lung nut Jacques F. Cousteau proposed genocide, the slaughter of 350,000 people per day to satisfy the Z.P.G. monsters' blood-lust. Many folks say that Cousteau's life-long romance with eugenism is irrelevant when one is considering the fine oceanographic work of this scaly, pretentious, warty frog.
OneDollarBook 5 months ago
I'm not too sure about the abortion issue myself to be honest, but Chomskys argument about pro-life people not caring about people dying in third world countries is bullshit. He must know that Christians in general give far more to charity, out of their own pocket. Just because the USA has bad foreign aid programs (which is debatable anyway) and they don't want the government to spend more on it doesn't mean they don't care. Has he even ehard of personal charity?
bicsmokescrack 5 months ago
@bicsmokescrack Would you mind citing a figure for the 'Christians give far more to charity' thing? I assume you're basing the assertion on some statistic.
GiantSandles 4 months ago
You may not get your answers from religious texts, but the people who you will get the answers from, some believe in something because of their religious text, and that should be respected. The Jew who supports animal sex, Peter Singer, says Christians dont like abortion because its scientific experimentation and therefore not the Christian way, but Christians are more concerned with abortion because they believe it has a spirit and its evil to just terminate an existence. Typical evil Jew
JoanBeatrington001 6 months ago
@JoanBeatrington001 No one is going to listen to your racist babble. "Typical evil Jew"? Go back to Josef Goebbels' office and rewrite your Fascist propaganda.
ahhhhjjjj 6 months ago
@ahhhhjjjj Wow the Jews sure profited and become immune from the WW2 holocaust propaganda havent they? Cause everytime I question the Jews and their total over-represntation and influence, promoting race mixing, abortion, feminism, inter-racial sex and "multiculturalism" Some brainwashed androgynous liberal moron like you crys "oy vey, lock up this evil Nazi, someone bring the Zionist gestepo" You are a fucking fool and people like you are why the white race is dying out. Brainwashed puppet
JoanBeatrington001 6 months ago
@JoanBeatrington001 Liberal? I'm am by no means "liberal". I'm a communist. Zionism is not equal to being Jewish. You will find I am strictly opposed to Zionism. Who cares if people of different races have sex. What difference does that make?? Stop trying to make your views sound like an ideology. You're a racist. Pure and simple. Now I'm ending the conversation so you can get back to feeling superior to people so you can make for your short comings.
ahhhhjjjj 6 months ago
What I dont understand is how Peter singer says women not having access to abortion is a terrible thing, and they are trapped. Well, isnt not having sex in the first place a far lessor evil then terminating a human being in existence because it turns out it wont fit your lifestyle? In Africa, women who are malnourished manage to raise 6 children on average! But a women in a 1st world country cant sacrifice to keep its child in existence? Sex is for reproduction, not just sexual gratification
JoanBeatrington001 6 months ago
A NUT IS NOT A TREE
AN EGG IS NOT A CHICKEN
A FETUS IS NOT A HUMAN
THIS IS NOT A DIFFICULT CONCEPT
CackSlop666 6 months ago
@CackSlop666 Can you give peer reviewed scientific evidence for any of those statements?
TheProsecuter 6 months ago
@TheProsecuter wut
CackSlop666 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CackSlop666 Especially the statement saying "A fetus is not a human".
TheProsecuter 6 months ago
@QKCIGAR7500 this problem can not be reduce ti the simplicity your are proposing. Ex. If you have someone terminally ill with good kidneys, and one person who needs a kidney transplant. Is it right to take away the kidney from the person who is going to die anyway to save a human life? How does your sense to SAVE a life react in this situation? When is right or wrong? It has to be discussed, because like Chomsky pointed out legal abortions saves lives too.
cuevasdecamuy 7 months ago
Two very scary men! I like the statement made by a former Nobel Peace Prize winner named Albert Schweitzer. "If a man loses reverence for ANY part of life (human life), he will lose his reverence for ALL life." Only God should decide when a life should end. You can either be Pro-Life or Pro-Death. I guess it sounds better to say Pro-Choice. No guilt by putting it in those terms. It is a BABY not a choice. May God have mercy on us. Roe v. Wade was WRONG WRONG WRONG!
GraceiamSAVED 7 months ago
@GraceiamSAVED
Did you even watch the video?
joezuu 7 months ago 6
@joezuu I'm guessing they didn't.
butternutsquashist 7 months ago
@GraceiamSAVED A foetus is not a baby.
RedResistanceRising 6 months ago
@GraceiamSAVED "reverence for ALL life"? I bet you aren't even vegan. If not, then I hardly think you're in a position to tell other people what it means to respect life.
TheShibo 6 months ago
@TheShibo Vegetables and fruit are life too.
MPedroful 6 months ago
@MPedroful ... that is completely irrelevant. Respecting a carrot is much different from respecting a kangaroo. A kangaroo has desires. A carrot does not. It has no wishes to disrespect.
TheShibo 6 months ago 5
@TheShibo Prove It
jpotts44 1 week ago
@GraceiamSAVED Ew. I just checked out your channel. You're even against gay marriage. How miserable.
TheShibo 6 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@QKCIGAR7500
"In other words, the fetus is a living human being. Peter Singer would not even dispute this basic scientific fact."
The defect of the argument is that being a unique living human organism is not the same as "personhood" - the very reason why even modern western jurisprudence allows for "pulling the plug" on the brain-dead.
And again - you show no interest in confronting the reality of the conflicting value here (the woman's rights over her own body.)
OuTofJoY 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@QKCIGAR7500
"The pro-death mentality"
More childish rhetoric. It's unnecessary.
Your example is faulty because in that case the probabilistic object are beings that more or less manifest the qualities sophisticated moderns value as worthy of protection. But getting beyond all that, the example offers no analog to abortion with regard to the question of significant competing interests - namely, the woman's bodily sovereignty - the competing interest Chomsky is arguing.
OuTofJoY 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@QKCIGAR7500
"Do you have any empirical evidence to support your claim that "there is no empirical existence available to anyone apart from the content of one's own conciousness"?? Or is this just your own dogmatic speculation?"
Do tell - what exists apart from consciousness?
OuTofJoY 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@QKCIGAR7500
"then the woman MUST respect its 14th Amendment rights, which the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade admitted would superceed the "right" of the femi-nazi to kill the fetus."
Yes - "feminazis" are the only women having abortions. :-)
I was under the impression this was a philosophical/logical discussion, of significance beyond just the American context. I make no claims that American jurisprudence is especially authoritative or coherent (I believe neither.)
OuTofJoY 8 months ago
@QKCIGAR7500
"If the fetus is a person (and there is no proof that it is not)"
This reminds me of the illogical expectation of people to "prove negatives" (ex "prove there is no God.") That's not how rational economy works - in that case you'd also have to "prove" leprechauns, unicorns, and whatever religions/gods you happen to not adore "DON'T exist." BAD logic.
OuTofJoY 8 months ago
@QKCIGAR7500
"(...)you claim that there is "no empirical existence" and then go on to make an empirical claim ("apart from the content...") You are talking in circles."
I don't want to malign your honesty, so I'll proceed as if you're misunderstanding me.
I wrote:
"...there is no empirical existence available to anyone apart from the content of one's own consciousness."
There was no denial of empiricism; I am in fact proposing the most rigorous sort. I'm denying dogmatic speculation.
OuTofJoY 8 months ago
@QKCIGAR7500
"We are living in a society that has legalized the killing of innocent human beings without PROVING that they are NOT human persons."
The problem with this argument is that you're placing the onus incorrectly. Given the basic science, it's really for those asserting the full "personhood" of a fetus at all stages of gestation who need to make their case.
And again - establishing some level of "awareness" of a fetus does not negate the opposing good of the woman's sovereignty.
OuTofJoY 8 months ago
@QKCIGAR7500
"Law is all about force."
I agree. That said, minimization of coercion in society pays the highest dividends. Libertarian social philosophy is a huge topic in and of itself.
For the reasons I have stated, I don't think the compelling argument can be made to force the continuation of a pregnancy to term. Again, I think Chomsky said it exactly right - this is about a competition of values, and should not be over simplified in black and white terms.
OuTofJoY 8 months ago
@QKCIGAR7500
The ONLY "obect" IS the "SUBJECT."
Metaphysics = Ideology.
You also err in reducing this to a question about the character of the fetus at any/all stages of gestation. You totally ignore the desire and claims to self of the mother, which would remain a conflicting claim even IF one could establish the qualitative fullness of humanity which most of our kind have regard for.
OuTofJoY 8 months ago
@QKCIGAR7500 Don't be idiotic - no one is "PRO-abortion."
Seeing as there is no empirical existence available to anyone apart from the content of one's own consciousness, all appeals to authority with regard to what is/ought to be VALUED (matter of "values", and the weighing/discernment of which is central to ethical decision making) is RIDICULOUS.
When we attempt to COMPEL others, let's at least admit what we're doing (AND not absolve ourselves of justification.) You are "PLAYING God."
OuTofJoY 8 months ago
- man is a moral animal; this is different than the assumption that a certain moral conclusion is "out there." Moral conclusions are a personal and societal phenom growing out of a balancing of conflicting things-that-are-valued.
- "Potential" = POSSIBLE. That's it. It does not imply PRESENCE.
- "pro-life" organisations ARE NOWHERE TO BE SEEN at anti-poverty rallies, etc. They're not serious, and really are only narrowly "anti-abortion."
OuTofJoY 8 months ago
People should stop being sexist and stop saying that men have nothing say about abortion. After all men are most likely the ones that wanted abortion in the first place. Why? So that they can have sex irresponsibly.
wolski888 8 months ago
I normally agree with Chomsky but this is bullshit.
l8greens 8 months ago
I think that Singer makes a very significant point by reading wealth into the debate. It is not an accident that class is cut out of the debate so often.
Trudeau7900 9 months ago
"Peter Hitchens owns atheist on abortion" : v=bbaEXDl4uqU = #WIN
This video only shows in what ridulously indefensible corner you can mis-argue yourself, if basic morals themselves become an object of debate #FAIL
sooperfukker 10 months ago
I agree with Noam Chompsky on the problem of unequal distribution of wealth, however his generalizations about these people and their supposedly unimportant view(s) on abortion was a gross non-sequitor.
Keysteeze 10 months ago
@Keysteeze he wasn't saying their views are non-important, but was perhaps suggesting that their motive isn't necessarily in the interests of valuing human life and human interests, since such a great lack of affection or care for those starving combined with so much wealth suggests their ideoligal stance is grounded on poor philosophy. :)
lanceawatt 10 months ago
Many of the arguments against designating a fetus with personhood are usually permitted to other beings. 1) A fetus is not aware, neither is an infant or a severely mentaly handicapped person yet the later are often considered "people." 2) A fetus is dependent upon its mother for life (not viable outside the womb). A person who is hooked up to life support is dependent as well. Again the later is considered a person. You have to be really smart to compartmentalize these rediculous ideas.
Keysteeze 10 months ago
@Keysteeze Here is the problem, to be human you need at least a couple of things. 1. Experience. This is the most important one, at one point, you must have experienced -something-. Fear, hope, sadness, pain, list goes on. A fetus has not, even a mentally retarded person has, and a vegetable. 2. All organs completely formed. Eyes, brain, flesh, etc. etc.. Embryos, blastocysts are simply a glob of cells. 3. BORN. At this point, the baby can completely react to any stimulus in the most basic way.
SocialDissimulation 10 months ago
@SocialDissimulation A newborn baby. Especially a mentally disabled newborn will not meet your first criteria.
Keysteeze 10 months ago
@Keysteeze It will, it is experiencing the world. Note the emphasis on SOMETHING. It can experience pain.
SocialDissimulation 10 months ago
@Keysteeze I would like to focus on number 2. A fetus is dependent upon its mother for life. This is one of the issues I have.You used the analogy of a life support system. What is the life support system when keeping a person alive? It is an object. It is a machine. This is one of the conflicts. The very thing keeping the baby alive is a person, but now has to be viewed as a object/machine. That is what I think is dangerous when giving fetuses equal value. It puts the woman's personhood at risk
Fishqueen1972 7 months ago
Why is infanticide wrong? If the infant never knows that's it's going to die and it is killed painlessly, why is that wrong?
CambridgeHeights 11 months ago
@CambridgeHeights Why is killing an adult human in certain ways wrong? If you can do it such that the adult doesn't know it's going to die and it's killed painlessly, why is that wrong?
BigMikeMcBastard 11 months ago
@BigMikeMcBastard it would be wrong because a grown adult has developed relationships with other people. Killing that person would deprive his friends, parent, children, etc. Plus, it seems unlikely that you could kill an adult without them k owing that they are going to die. It might work on the first one, but word would get out.
CambridgeHeights 11 months ago
@CambridgeHeights You could easily kill an adult without them being aware they're going to die. People die unexpectedly all the time. Little carbon monoxide while they're sleeping and presto.
Infants have inter-personal relationships too. Everything you said about why it's wrong to kill an adult is true of infants. Furthermore, on a very basic level it's wrong to kill anything sentient I would say.
BigMikeMcBastard 11 months ago
@BigMikeMcBastard Sure you could easily kill an adult without him or her noticing, but I don't believe it could be done in a systematic way without people noticing and therefore fearing for their deaths. Infants really only have relationships with their parents. As long as they consent, I don't see a problem. Don't kill anything sentient? Look up that word and get back to me.
CambridgeHeights 11 months ago
@CambridgeHeights So are you really stupid enough that you need it explained to you why killing infants is wrong?
BigMikeMcBastard 11 months ago
@BigMikeMcBastard Sure. Explain to me why killing a 3 week old infant is more wrong than killing a 36 week fetus.
CambridgeHeights 11 months ago
@CambridgeHeights That's an entirely different issue, but thanks for coming.
BigMikeMcBastard 11 months ago
@BigMikeMcBastard Then explain why killing either is wrong?
CambridgeHeights 11 months ago
@CambridgeHeights
Because it will have the capacity to want to live in the future.
redcommander27 11 months ago
@redcommander27 So will a sperm or egg cell.
CambridgeHeights 11 months ago
@CambridgeHeights
A sperm or egg does not have a brain, an infant does, and while it may not be capable of complex thought, it can feel, and in the future it will probably be able to think.
redcommander27 11 months ago
@redcommander27 A mosquito has a brain too. What does is matter if it probably will have complex thoughts? An egg cell sitting in a Petri dish awaiting in-vitro fertilization will probably one day have complex thoughts.
CambridgeHeights 11 months ago
@CambridgeHeights
Although I'm not a utilitarian by any means, I would say that you at least have to have the capacity to feel to have moral rights, and of course the pain of a human generally outweighs that of a mosquito.
redcommander27 11 months ago
@redcommander27 "...you at least have to have the capacity to feel to have moral rights..." I would argue that even a mosquito feels to some degree, though much less than a squirrel or a human does. Where do you draw the line and why? And what moral rights would you grant and why?
"...the pain of a human generally outweighs that of a mosquito." We already took pain out of the equation. I said the killing/abortion would be done without pain or fear.
CambridgeHeights 11 months ago
@CambridgeHeights
No rational person believes that inanimate objects have rights. Rights come with personhood, and to a lesser extent the capacity to feel pain. (IE animal cruelty laws) Anyone who thinks a developed person equivalent to a fertilzed egg without even a nervous system has a very low view of humanity,
redcommander27 11 months ago
"An egg cell sitting in a Petri dish awaiting in-vitro fertilization will probably one day have complex thoughts."
No. An egg sitting in a petri dish will NEVER have complex thoughts. The same as when a sperm would not.
It is when the two combine into a biological, living being that one day it will have human thoughts.
You were once a fetus who one day would eventually become an adult with human thought. The same as a fetus would if it is not aborted.
pseudonominous 11 months ago
@pseudonominous The fetus only becomes an adult after countless biological events and chemical reactions. The same goes for a egg cell only it's a little further behind in the progression.
CambridgeHeights 11 months ago
@CambridgeHeights OK. Your mother is in a car crash tonight. She's in a coma now. She may make a full recovery in a year but you don't know yet. The doctor wants to give her an overdose of morphine to kill her painlessly so as to free up the bed in his hospital so he can treat many more critically injured patients.
Why is that wrong?Your mother will never know she's going to die.
pseudonominous 11 months ago
@pseudonominous She won't know she is going to die, but now everyone knows that doctors do that and we will live in constant fear of being killed. Plus she has developed relationships with other people (husband, children, friends, etc) and they will be sad if she is killed. So that is why it is wrong.
CambridgeHeights 11 months ago
Abortion is wrong, but it shouldn't be illegal.
utra1337 1 year ago
@utra1337 Killing mosquitos is wrong. Eating beef is wrong. Duh.
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails I'm pretty sure humans have been eating beef for a very long time.... there's nothing unnatural about eating beef.
utra1337 1 year ago
@utra1337 I'm pretty sure Germans have been killing Jews for a very long time... there's nothing unnatural about killing jews.
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails seriously, you are really illogical... Jews have lived in Germany for well very a thousand years. It wasnt until a brief period during the Nazi regime.... uh why am I explaining this to you. You gotta think more, and try to be more logical.
utra1337 11 months ago
@SeeProfileForDetails: Eating meat is natural. Animals like to eat meat. Human beings are animals. I like a nice juicy steak, buffalo wings, ground beef in tacos, bbq pulled pork, those are my favorite foods. I dont feel satisyed by a meal without meat. Thats just a natural thing, especially for men.
athabascka 11 months ago
@athabascka Raping animals is natural. Male humans are animals. I like juicy pussy. If you watch any nature video you will see women animals trying to get away from the male raping it. Therefore it is acceptable for humans to do, because I'm a mental retard and am feeble minded like you.
SeeProfileForDetails 11 months ago
@SeeProfileForDetails: Hey, if you dont like that i eat meat, you can go fuck yourself. Im not going to change, especially not for dickheads like you. So fuck yourself.
athabascka 11 months ago
@athabascka It's not that I don't like you eating meat, it's that if I come over to your house and kill your dog and roast it on the barbecue, please don't complain. Also, dont' complain about china eating horses and dogs, and also europeans eating horses. Same thing as eating intelligent pigs like germans do. I'm not arguing for people to stop doing it, I'm arguing for you to use logic and admit that eating meat is bad, just like a lot of other activities we do are bad but we still can do them
SeeProfileForDetails 11 months ago
@SeeProfileForDetails: Fine, eating meat is bad. And so is drinking alcohol. And i do both on a daily basis. And no argument in the world could convince me to stop because i just dont give a fuck.
athabascka 11 months ago
@athabascka I'm not saying you should stop, I eat some meat but I try to eat bigger animals since less deaths will occur when eating say a cow, versus a chicken. Whereas other stupid morons that call themselves vegetarians, often eat chicken... But as for drinking alcohol daily? Although I support your freedom to do that, I can't say your brain is going to be helped in your older years... and your memory is going to be bad. You sound like an actual alcoholic and not just a drinker.
SeeProfileForDetails 11 months ago
@athabascka p.s. i was never arguing that eating meat was not natural, I was arguing that it's bad, and knowing that it is bad is what indians have done for several years, they eat the meat but they know it is bad, but it does provide them nutrients and fur coats to survive. I'm not saying we should stop doing it, I'm saying that people who own Dogs and won't eat their Dog are hypocritical.
SeeProfileForDetails 11 months ago
@utra1337 Agreed.
SPQRomantic 11 months ago
Our positive knowledge is severely limited. Notions of time and space are all based on human experience.
Pain generally relates to something we wish to avoid. Communicating pain implies a certain mental development, which renders "X weeks equals a human" a straw main) humans invoke the law of self preservation when given an option.
Even those who claim to be inspired by the Supreme Being are rarely capable of suspending this terrestrial law against self harm (or reacting with violence).
davidbreitzmann 1 year ago
Even though this video clip shows two MEN discussing abortion, the contents shows a real understanding of the REALLY difficult decision that confronts women who cannot mother a child due circumstances beyond their control.
Chomsky's telling of the facts about maternal and child care in the developing world only highlight the truth that "no woman wants an abortion"!
Anti-choice people could better put their energies into changing the world into a place where ALL children are able to be cared for
scatty51 1 year ago 25
@scatty51 I like the use of anti-choice compared to pro-life, kind of a little mud slinging by the anti-life people. Whoa! did i just say that!
Joking aside, there are over 500k people on waiting lists for adoption. So maybe you can explain to me how this dicision is difficult? what exactly are you debating in your mind? The child can be taken care of 100% via adoption, there are programs to help pay for medical costs... what am i missing?
bluefootedpig 11 months ago
@scatty51 Chomsky makes vaild (though pretty obvious)observations save for that of the fictional beings who are pro-life yet have no interest in the welfare of the global poor.
Abortion in developed countries is through the roof despite education &healthcare provision so how can he justify saying there is an inverse proportionality?
In Scotland abortion rates are higher than ever, so is expenditure and implementation in sex ed programmes and availabilty of contraception.
Something is wrong?
PLScotland 11 months ago
@scatty51 bullshit argument...im undecided about abortion but your comment is clearly retarded. im very much in favour of all children being able to be cared for. and all children, pro-life people think, include foetuses that get aborted. so why're you being hypocritical? you're disregarding the fact that anti-choice people sincerely believe they're helping more children than pro-choicers do. shittt i was undecided but every time i see a retarded pro-choice argument it makes me more pro-life.
Rnewmanguy 8 months ago
@Rnewmanguy But pro-lifers, by and large, don't concern themselves with what happens to a baby after birth. If a pregnant woman feels that she can't care for a child, be that for financial, societal etc. reasons, and there is no legal way to get abortions, that child will end up in the horribly broken adoption system, or in the hands of its unready mother. Pro-lifers should help build better adoption systems. They may "sincerely believe" they're helping, but belief doesn't make things true.
inagartenrules 8 months ago
@inagartenrules i concern myself with what happens to a baby after birth and desire vastly improved state welfare so thats irrelevant. seems like an ad hominem. also, to someone who really believes abortion is murder, its better that a baby goes into a broken adoption system or into the hands of its unready mother than that it gets murdered.
Rnewmanguy 8 months ago
@Rnewmanguy That wasn't so much an argument against you as it was against the pro-lifers, and if you're correct in your self assessment of being a moderate, you, personally, being concerned with what happens post birth is irrelevant to the debate. I made a generalization, and poorly chose my words. What I meant to say is that the majority of pro lifers are more concerned about making abortion illegal rather than helping lower the number of abortions by improving adoption and sexual education.
inagartenrules 8 months ago
@inagartenrules isnt it understandable, that their main priority is making abortion illegal, if they believe its brutal murder? i dont think pro-choice people can win the abortion debate by saying that the majority of pro-lifers (in the us) are fiscally conservative. you're skirting around the main issue, imo, by talking about adoption. like even if the adoption system was worse than it is now, if it was proved to me that abortion was morally heinous i'd still want it illegal.
Rnewmanguy 8 months ago
And I'm not saying both sides don't have valid points, because they do and that's what makes this so controversial. And if I offended you earlier with my comment, I didn't mean to, and I apologize. This is a hard issue to make a decision upon, and it's ultimately one you'll have to decide for yourself, one way or the other.
inagartenrules 8 months ago
@scatty51 It's rude to drag you back into an 8 month old argument, but as the highest liked comment, you've probably dealt with this before.
By pushing this idea of having children only being born in good conditions, people ignorantly promote the wiping out of minorities, because those are the people whose circumstance urge them to have abortions. And it's happening, the black population in particular, is decreasing, which would make eugenicist Margaret Sanger happy. This has to be noted.
BunnyMan456 4 months ago
there is absolutely no point in arguing with the people picketing on the streets about all that abortion shit
MarioBrosClassic 1 year ago
Why do these guys, both of them, always beat around the bush instead of getting to the point?
EdMahoney19 1 year ago
Morality is what helps those who adhere to it survive rather than become extinct. The Jonestown Cult is considered immoral because it's members all drank cyanide and aren't around to debate morality with those who weren't stupid enough to commit suicide. Morality is defined by the living not the dead. If you disagree, kill yourself.
Texasjim2007 1 year ago
There is only one objective moral truth and that is that those who have lower rates of biological reproduction must logically become the minority viewpoint and those with higher rates of reproduction must logically become the majority which is why we see Europe becoming more Muslim and America becoming more Latin.
Texasjim2007 1 year ago
It should also be mentioned that legalized abortion and birth control pills increase the risk of death by AIDS for every man or woman who has biological sex which is only necessary for reproduction since masturbation can accomplish the same thing as sex or abortions if you don't want children much safer and cheaper.
Texasjim2007 1 year ago
There is nothing more insane or dishonest than claiming it helps any class of women to have killing their babies legalized. Hitler didn't kill millions of Jewish babies because he wanted to help Jews. Abortion is a class war of extermination by wealthy elites against the working class legalized abortion kills off at higher rates.
Texasjim2007 1 year ago
@Texasjim2007 Abortion is not mandatory is a choice it cant hardly compare to Hitler killing Jews. All your arguments are just ridiculous, birth control pills increase the risk of AIDS? NO ignorant people like you do. Also your spill about objective moral truth sounds more like you are afraid that some how European and American people are going to kill them selves of with abortion. Thats just ridiculous, completely false and a little paranoid.
N0g0dzN0masterz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm not sure I think that I can kill people who fall asleep or are otherwise unconsiense (unless vegetative...)
Existentialisht 1 year ago
Comment removed
Existentialisht 1 year ago
I'm surprised to see a philosopher of his stature committing the ad hominem fallacy, saying of pro-lifers "when they do so-and-so, they can be taken more seriously." Even if pro-life people completely fail to live up to their own standards, and are terrible people, and neglect life in all kinds of ways, the pro-life position can still be true.
Jugglable 1 year ago
@Jugglable that is not an ad hominem fallacy is factual hypocritical stance that most so called "pro-life" people take they are more concerned with the unborn then they are with the breathing born. Yes the position can be true but you can not call your self pro-life if you are not pro- all life. So they can not be taken seriously.
N0g0dzN0masterz 1 year ago
@N0g0dzN0masterz Well, stick and stones. I'm interested in the truth of the position. By the way, they are supposed to be talking about abortion (see title of the video)--not people who hold whatever view.
Jugglable 1 year ago
@Jugglable Im not attacking you Im just pointing out that what Noam said is not ad hominem. I did notice that the title is called Noam Chumsky and Peter Singer on abortion .... and that is what they are talking about the abortion debate looking at both sides of the issue a very complicated issue which probably has more then 2 or 3 or 4 sides but we always like to make it look like there is only 2.
N0g0dzN0masterz 1 year ago
@N0g0dzN0masterz Well, I think he was trying to say that the pro-life stance can be dismissed because of pro-life people and the way they behave. That is indeed a textbook ad hominem. You cannot falsify a position by talking about the person who holds it.
Jugglable 1 year ago
@Jugglable No he didn't say that go back and watch. He did not even talk about their behavior he talked about their stance on poverty around the world. Also he did not include all Pro-life , just the ones that do not care about the millions dying of hunger, they can not be taken seriously.
I add that this is a personal matter not a political one I don't believe abortion is right but I can not call my self pro life, my personal views are my own I can not impose them on others.
N0g0dzN0masterz 1 year ago
@N0g0dzN0masterz
"my personal views are my own I can not impose them on others"
OK, so I assume you think slavery is wrong. If you outlaw slavery, is that "imposing your view on others?" No, because it's about protecting the slaves' human rights, not about imposing. Likewise, if you think abortion is wrong, standing up for that isn't about imposing, it's about protecting the human rights of the unborn. Maybe I'm wrong though, maybe you say ppl can have slaves and we shouldn't impose?
Jugglable 1 year ago
@Jugglable Ok here lies your fallacy You think that making things illegal makes them go away? There is still slavery all kinds it all form even here in America we just act like it doesn't exist. Making it illegal only helped in making it hidden from view. Authoritarians always come up with the idea that some how if you make something illegal it goes away. It does not If you want to end abortion you can start by educating and using reason to move people to your side not by imposing your views.
N0g0dzN0masterz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@N0g0dzN0masterz "aking it illegal only helped in making it hidden from view. "
Are you suggesting that we shouldn't have bothered with the Emancipation Proclamation?
"People who are truly free to choose their lot in life usually do not kill or steal from others. "
I can only suggest you read a history book. Any history book. Pick one at random.
If theft and rape are illegal, people do that anyway. Should they not be illegal?
Jugglable 1 year ago
@Jugglable Another example of this is the war on drugs or prostitution, murder ... saying thaw shall not kill is not enough helping people understand why is wrong is the way to true order. Something else our problems are more then likely a result of our political and economic circumstances. People who are truly free to choose their lot in life usually do not kill or steal from others. Unless they have mental issues like serial killers and psychopaths. at least thats my theory.
N0g0dzN0masterz 1 year ago