David Boonin's Toxic Waste argument & Abortion

The Voice of Time · **Posted:** Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:47 am

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Thank you for taking the time in correcting me! As up until then, I had respected you for your intellect and wisdom. And considered you an ally in fighting the good fight. ;-)

Carry on my friend!

ooooooooookaaaaaaaaay.... well, good

SpheresOfBalance · **Posted:** Sat Apr 21, 2012 2:43 pm

The Voice of Time wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Thank you for taking the time in correcting me! As up until then, I had respected you for your intellect and wisdom. And considered you an ally in fighting the good fight. ;-)

Carry on my friend!

ooooooooookaaaaaaaaay.... well, good

Sorry that my candor has you off balance!

"A rose by any other name"

The Voice of Time · **Posted:** Mon Apr 23, 2012 2:13 pm

I (almost) hate it when people agrees with me. I feel empty and displaced ^^ Nobody to fight! :cry:

SpheresOfBalance · **Posted:** Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:42 pm

The Voice of Time wrote:

I (almost) hate it when people agrees with me. I feel empty and displaced ^^ Nobody to fight! :cry:

You and I are similar in that respect, except that your fighting seems to be a little more polite than mine. ;-)

I don't know what to do with praise, at that point I feel responsible for their thoughts and it scares me, because I don't want to be responsible for them, in case I'm incorrect. It's better if they despise me and disapprove of me so I'll not feel responsible for them. Then we can argue all day, :evil:

<--just kidding!

The Voice of Time · **Posted:** Mon Apr 23, 2012 5:09 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

You and I are similar in that respect, except that your fighting seems to be a little more polite than mine. ;-)

I don't know what to do with praise, at that point I feel responsible for their thoughts and it scares me, because I don't want to be responsible for them, in case I'm incorrect. It's better if they despise me and disapprove of me so I'll not feel responsible for them. Then we can argue all day, :evil:

<--just kidding!

Stop agreeing with my thoughts you asshole!

SpheresOfBalance · **Posted:** Mon Apr 23, 2012 5:12 pm

The Voice of Time wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

You and I are similar in that respect, except that your fighting seems to be a little more polite than mine. ;-)

I don't know what to do with praise, at that point I feel responsible for their thoughts and it scares me, because I don't want to be responsible for them, in case I'm incorrect. It's better if they despise me and disapprove of me so I'll not feel responsible for them. Then we can argue all day, :evil:

<--just kidding!

Stop agreeing with my thoughts you asshole!

SJM1970 · **Joined:** Thu Jun 04, 2009 1:11 pm **Posts:** 37

The Voice of Time wrote:

No. Because "ending well" is here analyzable. My biggest argument is that it depraves people of morality, of their abilities to see value in other humans, when you perform abortions that aren't strictly necessary. I think a baby is both a person and a human, but they live in relation to our world and their entrance can be denied if it creates a disasterous situation for us. You can't argue if it ends well, only if it does not. It's based on the falsifiability principle, then in turn on the reasonableness idea, the last of which dominates our society and possibly will in the future whether we like it or not: humans will reason in accordance with their humanness, in accordance with their values, and those values that are the most dear to us we take care of, like the worth of a human being.

Stupid people will always abuse arbritarity, because of their lacking abbility to see clear that which is not simple. So take care that no stupid person gets in charge and we should be all-right.

With due respect I'm having trouble seeing any coherence here. Maybe if we confine it to the recent Post Birth Abortion paper your stance will become clear.

If we are consistent on what being person is and in the lit the common definition is linked to sophisticated person based abilities, I could easily argue that things could go well for the parents if they were put in a situation where having a post birth abortion made things go well in a similar way to if it was done before birth.

The baby isn't a person cognitively, doens't have the right to life that is argued to come from person based desires, and the parents would be better off if they ended that life in the same way as if they had made the decision before birth.

BTW are you familar with the usual philosophical arguments in this debate or are you just reasoning from your own views?

The Voice of Time · **Posted:** Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:30 am

SJM1970 wrote:

BTW are you familar with the usual philosophical arguments in this debate or are you just reasoning from your own views?

If I weren't reasoning from my own views why would I care to tell you anything as I could just ask you to read a book? I have of course read about this, a bit here and bit there, but found it mostly boring because those people who usually tries to reason out of this doesn't understand what emotions and sacred ideas (like those of Humanism) are. They seem to think that abortion is like a geometrical shape you can prove a theorem with. (I liked the alternative feminist approach to this the best, but forgot the name of it. It's a bunch of women who ponders on mothers' love and stuff like it)

The reasons why laws in most countries aren't absolute is because there is such a thing called emotions and there is such a thing called sacred ideas, and they are there for a reason (to guard us from losing a sense of what care is). In my point of view a foetus is a person because already from the point the brain develops it contains information that is "like me". In my point of view killing a foetus is like killing myself, as if that part of me didn't matter.

It's got down to the question of: does a tree falling in a forest make a sound? Does the human beings that I'm about to destroy with my nuclear bomb exist? I could say "no" because I didn't see them, I didn't hear them, and they may even be written out of history so I never have to wonder about them again. What stops me is the thought: that is *me* out there, thousands of me's. I don't want to kill me.

That is how a sacred idea works, that is how emotions work. And it's even more real and more valid than any claims on what *defines* a human being. If you can argue, then just don't do it. (Though as I've pointed out there is nothing absolute with this as well, disasterous situations should be avoided).

SpheresOfBalance · **Posted:** Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:15 pm

The Voice of Time wrote:

...It's got down to the question of: does a tree falling in a forest make a sound? Does the human beings that I'm about to destroy with my nuclear bomb exist? I could say "no" because I didn't see them, I didn't hear them, and they may even be written out of history so I never have to wonder about them again. What stops me is the thought: that is *me* out there, thousands of me's. I don't want to kill me...

I know you're going to hate me for this, but BRAVO, BRAVO!!!!!

We are they and they are we. To perpetrate intent to do harm to another, is to give license to another to do harm to you. This can be easily seen when considering the nuclear threat lesson of Mutually Assured Destruction. It took the biggest indiscriminate weapon to show humankind, (at least those of intellect), the error of it's ways, of all these thousands of years, it's just a shame that the animal had to be threatened with it's own death to see this fallacy, because that means the reason for it's understanding is exactly the same thing as that of it's perpetration, and thus sickness, namely, "selfishness." In self "defense" of imminent threat one can overlook killing, if the defender sees no other way. But there is NEVER any excuse for killing as offense, NEVER!!!! I don't give a fuck how much one see's oil or anything else as a 'necessity?' in their life. It's an illusion conjured up by lazy selfishness, that's truly at the expense of one's self, if they could only focus on its dynamics, first philosophically, then psychologically, and in most places legally, and finally, for those eye for an eye types, physically. Like I've said in the past, if you truly want to kill someone stick a loaded bazooka in your mouth and pull the trigger, anything less in the name of offensive killing is the epitome of cowardice, I don't give a fuck as to what rationalization you pull out of your rabbit hat, it's a fucking illusion! You null and void your own life when you take another in offense, as no one has the complete answers of life nor can they speak for them, (to believe so, is truly megalomaniacal), in the taking of it's giving.

I'm sorry, many have told me that my mouth sounds of that of a sailor, I know what they mean and yet I've never sailed. I think I may give it up for the chance to.

The Voice of Time · **Posted:** Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:22 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

I'm sorry, many have told me that my mouth sounds of that of a sailor, I know what they mean and yet I've never sailed. I think I may give it up for the chance to.

your mouth is like a sailor indeed ^^ you should go sailing some

SpheresOfBalance · **Posted:** Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:30 pm

The Voice of Time wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

I'm sorry, many have told me that my mouth sounds of that of a sailor, I know what they mean and yet I've never sailed. I think I may give it up for the chance to.

your mouth is like a sailor indeed ^^ you should go sailing some

Don't get pissed but, I agree! ;-)

You do realize that I meant "sailing" metaphorically as well as literally, right! Referring to my success of positive impact on humankind, one can be hopeful.

Philosophy Now Forum

David Boonin's Toxic Waste argument & Abortion

Who is online