4 ms·

If I object to you murdering a homeless person, should I be obligated to help him get a good life? That is essentially the same argument, just applied to someb

If I object to you murdering a homeless person, should I be obligated to help him get a good life? That is essentially the same argument, just applied to somebody who is very much human. I don't support this ruling, but I don't believe that argument is any good.

philosopher1234 4y ago
You don’t support this ruling, but the only thing you have to say about it is in its defense. Fascinating
- hackinthebochs 4y ago
  There is still a few of us left that care about truth above signalling.
- Kranar 4y ago
  I'm in the same boat. I am not going to defend an invalid justification for a position just because I agree with that position, and furthermore when people spread misinformation in support of my position, I will work to refute it. If anything, it's more important to me that I refute misinformation in support of things I believe as opposed to argue against positions I disagree with.
trashtester 4y ago
This. Kudos for pointing out irrational arguments from "your" side. Too many political arguments end up in tribalism, where all that matters is loyalty-signalling. Btw, I agree with you. I believe women should be free to choose until the fetus is able to live independently of the mom. This is because I don't think a 3 month old fetus is equivalent to a person. But IF you agree with the premise that a fetus is a person, it follows that they should have the same negative rights as other people (freedom from being killed, for instance), that does NOT mean that the person has to think that every person should have a large set of positive rights (ie rights imply that tax-payers should provide welfare for all people).
- ModernMech 4y ago
  In fact that’s not really the argument being made. If you listen to the pro-forced-birth side, they claim to be speaking for and defending the most vulnerable “people” (if we are to admit their premise) in our society. They are advocates for the innocent, and abortion needs to be illegal to protect their vulnerable rights. You can see them all over TV today and the internet saying just this. In fact fetuses are not the most vulnerable “people”; they have significantly more protections than newborn children. Aside from guaranteed food and shelter, fetuses also have the full support of a political party and religious institutions. Newborn children are guaranteed neither food nor shelter. In America, we even separate newborns from their mothers depending on their immigration status. We’ve even jailed children and put them on trial. Gun deaths are the leading cause of death for children and that’s a problem the pro-forced-birth party doesn’t want to fix. So all this talk about “protecting the vulnerable children” is clearly just disingenuous. It’s not about protecting the vulnerable at all. It’s about a religious conservative powergrab and we know this by how quickly Clarence Thomas invites challenges to contraception and gay marriage, on the basis of the Dobbs decision.
  - trashtester 4y ago
    > Newborn children are guaranteed neither food nor shelter. I'm not American, so I don't know these things. Can you document a single newborn child that, with the knowledge of the government, is starving to death outdoors?
- liminvorous 4y ago
  The ability to rely on another person's body to keep you alive is clearly a positive right if it exists, which I think no one believes in general, some but people believe in the specific case of pregnancy, because it's "natural". Plenty of things we believe are violations of rights are also "natural" so I don't think this is a consistent position to take, of course people don't generally pick their ethics for consistency.
  - trashtester 4y ago
    > The ability to rely on another person's body to keep you alive is clearly a positive right if it exists That is one way to frame it. Usually, though, abortion requires someone to actively kill the fetus. And there is another problem with this argument. The sacrifice it takes for the woman to carry the baby for 9 months may not be the real reson people have abortions. Rather, I imagine, the real reason is that they don't want what happens AFTER the child is born. Let's consider a similar argument: A ship crew on an oil tanker going from Saudi Arabia to Huston discovers an uninvited "passenger" hiding in the ship. A 5 year old girl, let's say. Do they have an obligation to feed this girl until they reach LA, or can they throw her overboard? Now, from a purely postive rights argument, one could say they're not allowed to throw her overboard, but they also are not required to feed her. But we all know that's not going to happen.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> If I object to you murdering a homeless person, should I be obligated to help him get a good life? Yes. (Actually, the latter obligation attaches whether or not you have the former belief, but if you don’t believe that the entity involved actually is a “person” whose life has value, it explains, but does not justify, why you would not also feel the latter obligation.)

philosopher1234 4y ago

You don’t support this ruling, but the only thing you have to say about it is in its defense. Fascinating

hackinthebochs 4y ago
There is still a few of us left that care about truth above signalling.
Kranar 4y ago
I'm in the same boat. I am not going to defend an invalid justification for a position just because I agree with that position, and furthermore when people spread misinformation in support of my position, I will work to refute it. If anything, it's more important to me that I refute misinformation in support of things I believe as opposed to argue against positions I disagree with.

trashtester 4y ago

This. Kudos for pointing out irrational arguments from "your" side. Too many political arguments end up in tribalism, where all that matters is loyalty-signalling. Btw, I agree with you. I believe women should be free to choose until the fetus is able to live independently of the mom. This is because I don't think a 3 month old fetus is equivalent to a person. But IF you agree with the premise that a fetus is a person, it follows that they should have the same negative rights as other people (freedom from being killed, for instance), that does NOT mean that the person has to think that every person should have a large set of positive rights (ie rights imply that tax-payers should provide welfare for all people).

ModernMech 4y ago
In fact that’s not really the argument being made. If you listen to the pro-forced-birth side, they claim to be speaking for and defending the most vulnerable “people” (if we are to admit their premise) in our society. They are advocates for the innocent, and abortion needs to be illegal to protect their vulnerable rights. You can see them all over TV today and the internet saying just this. In fact fetuses are not the most vulnerable “people”; they have significantly more protections than newborn children. Aside from guaranteed food and shelter, fetuses also have the full support of a political party and religious institutions. Newborn children are guaranteed neither food nor shelter. In America, we even separate newborns from their mothers depending on their immigration status. We’ve even jailed children and put them on trial. Gun deaths are the leading cause of death for children and that’s a problem the pro-forced-birth party doesn’t want to fix. So all this talk about “protecting the vulnerable children” is clearly just disingenuous. It’s not about protecting the vulnerable at all. It’s about a religious conservative powergrab and we know this by how quickly Clarence Thomas invites challenges to contraception and gay marriage, on the basis of the Dobbs decision.
- trashtester 4y ago
  > Newborn children are guaranteed neither food nor shelter. I'm not American, so I don't know these things. Can you document a single newborn child that, with the knowledge of the government, is starving to death outdoors?
liminvorous 4y ago
The ability to rely on another person's body to keep you alive is clearly a positive right if it exists, which I think no one believes in general, some but people believe in the specific case of pregnancy, because it's "natural". Plenty of things we believe are violations of rights are also "natural" so I don't think this is a consistent position to take, of course people don't generally pick their ethics for consistency.
- trashtester 4y ago
  > The ability to rely on another person's body to keep you alive is clearly a positive right if it exists That is one way to frame it. Usually, though, abortion requires someone to actively kill the fetus. And there is another problem with this argument. The sacrifice it takes for the woman to carry the baby for 9 months may not be the real reson people have abortions. Rather, I imagine, the real reason is that they don't want what happens AFTER the child is born. Let's consider a similar argument: A ship crew on an oil tanker going from Saudi Arabia to Huston discovers an uninvited "passenger" hiding in the ship. A 5 year old girl, let's say. Do they have an obligation to feed this girl until they reach LA, or can they throw her overboard? Now, from a purely postive rights argument, one could say they're not allowed to throw her overboard, but they also are not required to feed her. But we all know that's not going to happen.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> If I object to you murdering a homeless person, should I be obligated to help him get a good life? Yes. (Actually, the latter obligation attaches whether or not you have the former belief, but if you don’t believe that the entity involved actually is a “person” whose life has value, it explains, but does not justify, why you would not also feel the latter obligation.)