My understanding of Aristotle's position on abortion is that it was nuanced, with a sliding scale of guilt for abortion, from conception to birth, not so controversial at the beginning, and frankly murder at the end, with varying degrees of guilt in-between. Determining when life begins is easier than determining when life becomes valuable and ethically protected. Is that at the same time or later? If later, then when?
Another complication (from a naturopathic physician's acquaintance with a very small portion of the vast plant kingdom):
An estimated 400 known abortifacient plants are native to North America. Did God or Satan plant them? Did they just evolve? Are they to be eliminated?
Acknowledging that there are logical fallacies and hypocrisy on all sides I do find it useful to point out some of the bigger ones. Like the my body my choice argument applying to abortion but not vaccines.
But here's another inconsistency. Comes from the "scientific" justification for transgenderism. This claim that is used to support non-genital-based gender identification. Science that puts forth the idea that since a zygote doesn't have distinct genitalia and the XX, XY chromosomes have different characteristics in the formative stage of a fetus that initial moment of indistinct characteristics is the basis for gender fluidity, the presence of male or female genitals are non-determinative.
To assert this as the science that transgender identity is based in, as biopsychologists do, is to assert the zygote stage represents the moment of creation of human life, with characteristics that one's identity is derived from. The science of transgender identity is, in fact, the science that the pro-life movement makes in their principled opposition to abortion.
It is possible to be a hypocrite, most of us are about somethings in life. But we should at least be aware of our hypocrisy when we are guilty of it.
Although I’m pro life I worry about girls and women who are trapped in the sex trafficking industry and get pregnant and are forced to get abortions. What happens to them? ALSO... I probably would be more open to listening to the pro-choice people if they had my back for the past year and a half with the vaccine and mask mandates. And also if they hadn’t gone to extremes like saying abortion upon demand for any reason up to and including birth and maybe even after birth up to six months or 10 years old
Andrew Napolitano, Judge Nap, often makes the argument that fetuses are legally persons because they can inherit property before being born. If I understood him correctly.
It is not the same the "murder" (homicide) a natural person and the "murder" of a legal person. After all, some forms of companies are legally persons. How does one "kill" a corporation? Do they "live" forever?
Nature is one thing, philosophy is another, the Law is another. If we are lucky, the three agree.
Since the advent of the "curse of facemasks" I was expecting this. It was designed. How can the same people who say "my body my choice" in abortion say differently in something as obviously wrong as forced masking, forced treatments, denial of treatments, etc.? I think this is all a tour de force in mass hypnosis.
On the other hand, many of the prolifers have zero problems with forced masking/treatments/denial of treatments. Those types would overturn the 21st ammendment and restore the 18th in the blink of an eye. And also mandate abortions for the inferior races or something. The same mentality always in everything. They all have the same face as the witch from New Zealand, I believe.
- You satisfactorily know next to nothing about abortion ethics, other than you somehow know that it is not human 0.01 seconds after conception
- Some pro-lifers have thought about certain angles of abortion less than you, a 30+ year philosopher, so they are rubes.
- You have no moral system of your own to assign weights to ethical problems, but these other guys are rubes.
- You have no consistent way to determine why any human of any age has any moral value, ever, but at some point during gestation, moral value materializes.
- This is a really important issue that you are passionate about.
Doesn't it come down to the question, "is abortion murder?"
But my question is, "is murder, generally speaking, bad?"
I mean...it's natural. It's a time-honored tradition. And I'm pretty sure everyone can agree that there are circumstances when it is justified so...???
I wish everyone would just let people make their own choices.
My understanding of Aristotle's position on abortion is that it was nuanced, with a sliding scale of guilt for abortion, from conception to birth, not so controversial at the beginning, and frankly murder at the end, with varying degrees of guilt in-between. Determining when life begins is easier than determining when life becomes valuable and ethically protected. Is that at the same time or later? If later, then when?
Another complication (from a naturopathic physician's acquaintance with a very small portion of the vast plant kingdom):
An estimated 400 known abortifacient plants are native to North America. Did God or Satan plant them? Did they just evolve? Are they to be eliminated?
Acknowledging that there are logical fallacies and hypocrisy on all sides I do find it useful to point out some of the bigger ones. Like the my body my choice argument applying to abortion but not vaccines.
But here's another inconsistency. Comes from the "scientific" justification for transgenderism. This claim that is used to support non-genital-based gender identification. Science that puts forth the idea that since a zygote doesn't have distinct genitalia and the XX, XY chromosomes have different characteristics in the formative stage of a fetus that initial moment of indistinct characteristics is the basis for gender fluidity, the presence of male or female genitals are non-determinative.
To assert this as the science that transgender identity is based in, as biopsychologists do, is to assert the zygote stage represents the moment of creation of human life, with characteristics that one's identity is derived from. The science of transgender identity is, in fact, the science that the pro-life movement makes in their principled opposition to abortion.
It is possible to be a hypocrite, most of us are about somethings in life. But we should at least be aware of our hypocrisy when we are guilty of it.
https://www.scq.ubc.ca/genetics-of-sex-and-gender-identity/
Although I’m pro life I worry about girls and women who are trapped in the sex trafficking industry and get pregnant and are forced to get abortions. What happens to them? ALSO... I probably would be more open to listening to the pro-choice people if they had my back for the past year and a half with the vaccine and mask mandates. And also if they hadn’t gone to extremes like saying abortion upon demand for any reason up to and including birth and maybe even after birth up to six months or 10 years old
Andrew Napolitano, Judge Nap, often makes the argument that fetuses are legally persons because they can inherit property before being born. If I understood him correctly.
It is not the same the "murder" (homicide) a natural person and the "murder" of a legal person. After all, some forms of companies are legally persons. How does one "kill" a corporation? Do they "live" forever?
Nature is one thing, philosophy is another, the Law is another. If we are lucky, the three agree.
Since the advent of the "curse of facemasks" I was expecting this. It was designed. How can the same people who say "my body my choice" in abortion say differently in something as obviously wrong as forced masking, forced treatments, denial of treatments, etc.? I think this is all a tour de force in mass hypnosis.
On the other hand, many of the prolifers have zero problems with forced masking/treatments/denial of treatments. Those types would overturn the 21st ammendment and restore the 18th in the blink of an eye. And also mandate abortions for the inferior races or something. The same mentality always in everything. They all have the same face as the witch from New Zealand, I believe.
So, to summarize your abortion position:
- You satisfactorily know next to nothing about abortion ethics, other than you somehow know that it is not human 0.01 seconds after conception
- Some pro-lifers have thought about certain angles of abortion less than you, a 30+ year philosopher, so they are rubes.
- You have no moral system of your own to assign weights to ethical problems, but these other guys are rubes.
- You have no consistent way to determine why any human of any age has any moral value, ever, but at some point during gestation, moral value materializes.
- This is a really important issue that you are passionate about.
Doesn't it come down to the question, "is abortion murder?"
But my question is, "is murder, generally speaking, bad?"
I mean...it's natural. It's a time-honored tradition. And I'm pretty sure everyone can agree that there are circumstances when it is justified so...???
I wish everyone would just let people make their own choices.