Yes, part of how I gloss the Turnaway Study is that both the women who achieved the abortions they sought and the ones who were denied both wind up fairly happy with the outcome they got and have few regrets. The moms whose children survive take a big economic hit, but usually aren't in a poverty trap—they have a (very!) hard few years and gradually achieve more stability.
That is a good example of how people frame equivalencies only in one way. That is, if someone says X has the same outcome as Y, and the listener thinks Y is bad, they will decide X must be bad, but it is equally true that maybe Y isn't as bad as they initially thought, being only so bad as X which the listener had no particular problem with before.
My favorite example of that is a study someone threw up once that claimed "driving while talking on a cell phone is as dangerous as driving while drunk." My initial reaction was "damn... driving drunk must not be that bad, because I have ridden with people talking on cell phones, and done so myself, many times with no problems at all." Others reacted in horror, but frankly given how much people talked on their phones while driving in the days before hands free, the reaction was kind of silly.
Moral choice is more important to mans life than psychology. Your reliance on cherry-picked statistics, arbitarily interpreted, is immoral, an attack on mans need to use his independent mind to make decisions,even when wrong. Southern slavers said that blacks were happier as slaves. Marx and Christianity are basically similar.
The unborn is dependent on the life of the woman. The woman has standing. The unborn can kill her physically or mentally. You will never be in her place in her life. Neither will I. Does her life count for nothing to you? Who are you to decide for her? If you are a doctor, you have a right to refuse. If you know her, you have a right to shun her. What gives you the right to control her? Nothing.
You get one life. So do I. You want to make the best of your life. I want to make the best of my life.
You are male. I am female. If I lose my right to choose because I’m pregnant, whether the law says so, you say so, or millions of people of both sexes say so, then my rights are not inalienable.
If my inalienable rights are a lie, what other lies can I expect from your government? What other lies will your government tell you? Can you guess? I can.
Rights are the product of a focused mind, not of a fantasy of the supernatural. They apply to actual, individual humans, not to potentials which are part of an actual.
Has nothing to do with supernatural. You are confusing issues. There is a very long and serious literature on this, so you might want to read up on it.
Pseudo-rational defenses of religion have a very long and serious literature, from Plato to Kant. The unfocused mind remains an unfocused mind, regardless of how much lipstick is on it. Mans life requires a focused mind.
Agreed, mans survival need to focus his mind has nothing to do with w/the rationalizations of evasion called religion or the supernatural. Thus anti-abortion rationalizations start with carefully hidden rationalizations of the unfocused mind. You have nothing to say and you know it. Thus your appeal to mysticism or as you call that, the literature. Its not real, merely the product of your unfocused mind.
You have no rationally identified facts against the right to abortion, merely absurd claims that somebody might have claims. Your barely hidden religious anti-humanism is absurd, merely death-worship w/lipstick
Thank you. Your summary of your position is more empirically detailed than my basic arguments require or address. I can very crudely summarise my own two complementary arguments thus:
1) It is morally permissible to aggressively kill non-persons (in the intellectual sense of “person”). Unborn and infant humans are not yet persons. So even if we need to aggressively kill them to stop supporting them (we don’t: see 2), that is morally permissible.
2) Assume that unborn and infant humans are persons. They are occupying women’s bodies or people’s external property without invitation or contract. Therefore, to remove them from women’s bodies or people’s external property is not aggressive but defensive of one’s body or other property.
Yes, part of how I gloss the Turnaway Study is that both the women who achieved the abortions they sought and the ones who were denied both wind up fairly happy with the outcome they got and have few regrets. The moms whose children survive take a big economic hit, but usually aren't in a poverty trap—they have a (very!) hard few years and gradually achieve more stability.
That is a good example of how people frame equivalencies only in one way. That is, if someone says X has the same outcome as Y, and the listener thinks Y is bad, they will decide X must be bad, but it is equally true that maybe Y isn't as bad as they initially thought, being only so bad as X which the listener had no particular problem with before.
My favorite example of that is a study someone threw up once that claimed "driving while talking on a cell phone is as dangerous as driving while drunk." My initial reaction was "damn... driving drunk must not be that bad, because I have ridden with people talking on cell phones, and done so myself, many times with no problems at all." Others reacted in horror, but frankly given how much people talked on their phones while driving in the days before hands free, the reaction was kind of silly.
Moral choice is more important to mans life than psychology. Your reliance on cherry-picked statistics, arbitarily interpreted, is immoral, an attack on mans need to use his independent mind to make decisions,even when wrong. Southern slavers said that blacks were happier as slaves. Marx and Christianity are basically similar.
The unborn is dependent on the life of the woman. The woman has standing. The unborn can kill her physically or mentally. You will never be in her place in her life. Neither will I. Does her life count for nothing to you? Who are you to decide for her? If you are a doctor, you have a right to refuse. If you know her, you have a right to shun her. What gives you the right to control her? Nothing.
You get one life. So do I. You want to make the best of your life. I want to make the best of my life.
You are male. I am female. If I lose my right to choose because I’m pregnant, whether the law says so, you say so, or millions of people of both sexes say so, then my rights are not inalienable.
If my inalienable rights are a lie, what other lies can I expect from your government? What other lies will your government tell you? Can you guess? I can.
And someone might respond: what about the inalienable rights of the unborn....and this leads off into the countless other discussions.
Rights are the product of a focused mind, not of a fantasy of the supernatural. They apply to actual, individual humans, not to potentials which are part of an actual.
Has nothing to do with supernatural. You are confusing issues. There is a very long and serious literature on this, so you might want to read up on it.
Pseudo-rational defenses of religion have a very long and serious literature, from Plato to Kant. The unfocused mind remains an unfocused mind, regardless of how much lipstick is on it. Mans life requires a focused mind.
Need to stay focused. Has nothing to do with religion or the supernatural. Anyway, once you become versed in the literature we can pick up on this.
Agreed, mans survival need to focus his mind has nothing to do with w/the rationalizations of evasion called religion or the supernatural. Thus anti-abortion rationalizations start with carefully hidden rationalizations of the unfocused mind. You have nothing to say and you know it. Thus your appeal to mysticism or as you call that, the literature. Its not real, merely the product of your unfocused mind.
What gives you the right to control the woman? Nothing.
What gives you the right to control unborn females? Nothing
The unborn have no rights. Rights are for living individuals.
Like I said above...this opens the door to long a series of ethical questions. Such as when life begins. Many would disagree with your statement.
You have no rationally identified facts against the right to abortion, merely absurd claims that somebody might have claims. Your barely hidden religious anti-humanism is absurd, merely death-worship w/lipstick
Who is your question addressed to, Mr. Sims?
I think we agree, but probably not for exactly the same reasons. In case it is of any interest, here are my arguments: https://jclester.substack.com/p/abortion-and-infanticide
Thank you. Your summary of your position is more empirically detailed than my basic arguments require or address. I can very crudely summarise my own two complementary arguments thus:
1) It is morally permissible to aggressively kill non-persons (in the intellectual sense of “person”). Unborn and infant humans are not yet persons. So even if we need to aggressively kill them to stop supporting them (we don’t: see 2), that is morally permissible.
2) Assume that unborn and infant humans are persons. They are occupying women’s bodies or people’s external property without invitation or contract. Therefore, to remove them from women’s bodies or people’s external property is not aggressive but defensive of one’s body or other property.