Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
smac97

Is "When Does Life Begin?" a Scientific or Moral Question? Both?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Wittgenstein invented "ordinary language analysis" and was not a physicalist nor was Nagel or Rorty. Nope. I could go on...

Language is all there IS to analyze using language :)

Well I'm not saying all analytic philosophers hold that position just that it's the majority position.

To your later sentence, I can but say language ends up being language use and language use is inseparable from context.

Edited by clarkgoble

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, USU78 said:

All heterosexual sex is rape.  Didn't you know?  Per Andrea Dworkin.

And all sodomy means you are possessed by demons. Why bring fringe wackos into the discussion?

Edited by The Nehor
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Well I'm not saying all analytic philosophers hold that position just that it's the majority position.

To your later sentence, I can but say language ends up being language use and language use is inseparable from context.

There isn't even a category there for "analytic philosophy"

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

There isn't even a category there for "analytic philosophy"

Unfortunately most departments these days are only analytic philosophy. Part of that is the terms not reflecting contemporary philosophy as much but a big part of it is also the influence of the Leiter Reports on department makeup. Most of those responding are loosely analytic philosphers. The editors of the poll note that it focuses primarily on anglophone analytic philosophers. There was a response rate of 47% so it's fair to ask how representative the poll is. I think it does give an idea of what professional philosophers think.

Edited by clarkgoble

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And all sodomy means you are possessed by demons. Why bring fringe wackos into the discussion?

It was an obvious riff off the post I was responding to.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Unfortunately most departments these days are only analytic philosophy. Part of that is the terms not reflecting contemporary philosophy as much but a big part of it is also the influence of the Leiter Reports on department makeup. Most of those responding are loosely analytic philosphers. The editors of the poll note that it focuses primarily on anglophone analytic philosophers. There was a response rate of 47% so it's fair to ask how representative the poll is. I think it does give an idea of what professional philosophers think.

More classification concerns ;)

Let's talk philosophy sometime!

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

More classification concerns ;)

Let's talk philosophy sometime!

I'd have thought someone who favors Kuhn as much as you do would love the blurring of philosophy and the sociology of philosophy. 😁

Going down the tangent though, I do worry about the state of philosophy and think Leiter Reports is a big cause of its current moribund state.

Edited by clarkgoble

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 7/17/2019 at 1:35 PM, smac97 said:

You link is to an article entitled "The Historian’s Pickaxe: Uncovering the Racist Origins of the Religious Right."

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was an overt racist and eugenicist who sought to use abortion to reduce the number of children born to minority parents.

Sadly, she succeeded:

See also here:

Moreover, I skimmed through your article, and found it to be a cobbled-together diatribe.  No meaningful evidence of racism as the basis for opposing abortion.

More to the point, why would supposed racists oppose abortion, given its success at reducing the minority population?

Racism and the pro-life position conflict with each other.  However, racism and the pro-abortion position dovetail quite well (Margaret Sanger, take a bow).  😞

-Smac

Some are attempting to revise history to erase the pro-abortion side's overtly racist origins and motives:

Quote

A cherished myth of abortion-rights supporters is making the rounds again, this time peddled by someone who should know better: Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe. Despite having argued dozens of cases before the United States Supreme Court, Tribe evidently has difficulty uncovering basic facts. ...

On Sunday, the esteemed professor asserted that white supremacists oppose abortion. He then used this false claim to insinuate a sinister connection between racist and pro-life views:

Quote
White Supremacists oppose abortion because they fear it’ll reduce the number of white infants and thus contribute to what they fear as non-white “replacement.” Never underestimate the way these issues and agendas are linked. This turns “intersectionality” on its head.

Here Tribe manages to get everything wrong but the part that undermines his argument. There is indeed a link between abortion and white supremacists’ concern about “non-white replacement.” It is precisely because of this fear that white supremacists and members of the alt-Right have long supported legal abortion, applauding the fact that minority women abort their children at disproportionate rates.

Yep.  Check out this Wikipedia entry about the execrable Richard Spencer:

Quote

Richard Bertrand Spencer (born 1978)[1] is an American neo-Nazi and white supremacist.[2] He is president of the National Policy Institute (NPI), a white supremacist think tank, as well as Washington Summit Publishers. Spencer rejects the labels white supremacist and neo-Nazi, considers himself a white nationalist, a white identitarian, and the equivalent of a "Zionist" for white people.

...

Spencer supports legal access to abortion, in part because he believes it would reduce the number of black and Hispanic people, which he says would be a "great boon" to white people.[43]

Footnote 43 references an article about Spencer from The Atlantic that includes this horrible bit:

Quote

The concerns of conservative Christians don’t interest him. He doesn’t mind gay marriage, and he favors legal access to abortion—partly to reduce the number of blacks and Hispanics. “Smart people are not using abortion as birth control … It is the unintelligent and blacks and Hispanics who use abortion as birth control,” he said recently on AltRight.com’s YouTube channel. “This can be something that can be a great boon for our people, our race.”

Richard Spencer and Margaret Sanger/Planned Parenthood.  Two peas in the same terrible pod.

Back to the first article cited above:

Quote

Nevertheless, assertions such as Tribe’s frequently appear among those who advocate abortion, most often in an effort to dismiss the entire pro-life movement as tarnished by the support of racists. It’s a nasty, dishonest campaign, and even Tribe has shame enough to know it.

Yep.

And it's a nasty, dishonest campaign.

Quote

Statistically speaking, the legal-abortion regime in the U.S. has lived up to white supremacists’ hopes. An African-American woman is nearly three times as likely as a white woman to have an abortion, according to pro-choice research group the Guttmacher Institute. Centers for Disease Control data indicate that African Americans accounted for 36 percent of abortions in 2015 despite being only about 13 percent of the population.

In some parts of the country, the effects of this reality are particularly stark. Recently, for several consecutive years, the number of black babies aborted in New York City was higher than the number of black infants born there. 

And yet, somehow, the movement which opposes abortion are the racists?

Quote

Though she was a proponent of birth control and not abortion, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger would probably be thrilled with this outcome of our liberal abortion laws. Elliot Kaufman summarized Sanger’s relevant views well in a 2017 article on NRO:

Quote

Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, wanted “to make the coming generation into such physically fit, mentally capable, socially alert individuals as are the ideal of a democracy.” In other words, she sought to improve the human race.

However, she faced an obstacle — the same one that so troubles Richard Spencer and his acolytes: “The feebleminded are notoriously prolific in reproduction,” wrote Sanger in Woman and the New Race. This would be a problem with a solution to which Sanger devoted her life’s work: controlling the birth rate, especially among the “unfit” (read: the poor, blacks, and Catholic immigrants).

Not only is Tribe wrong about white supremacists opposing abortion, then, but he ignores the eugenic roots of the pro-abortion movement.  The earliest advocates of loosening restrictions on abortion were closely tied to the population-control movement, and many of today’s most vigorous abortion-rights organizations spend much of their time and resources pushing abortion and contraception on women in Africa who want none of it.

"The eugenic roots of the pro-abortion movement."  What an appallingly accurate description.  See also this statement from Margaret Sanger“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." 

See also these publications by Sanger: "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (Jun 1920); "The Purpose of Eugenics" (Dec 1924); "Birth Control & Positive Eugenics" (July 1925) & "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (Aug 1928).

So the "roots" are a matter of historical fact, but what about today?  Has Sanger's organization, Planned Parenthood, the principal abortion provider in the United States, repudiated Sanger's racist motives?

Taking as true the adage that actions speak louder than words, apparently not:

Quote

The Rev. Walter Hoye, founder of the Issues for Life Foundation, points out the ominous implications of the high black abortion rate. He warns that because the black fertility rate is well below the replacement rate of 2.1, “within a few decades, African-Americans may well be an endangered species.”

Indeed, pro-life advocates have consistently argued that blacks have been specifically targeted by the abortion industry. After all, in 1939, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, stated her desire to “exterminate the Negro population.” In fact, research done a few years ago by the Life Issues Institute found that “79 percent of abortion-offering Planned Parenthood facilities are within walking distance of black or Hispanic neighborhoods,” and “62 percent are near black neighborhoods.”

And yet, somehow, the movement opposing abortion are the racists?

🤨

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

, Dan proposes that folks who oppose abortion are the racists

There are likely plenty of racists are both sides.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It looks like Dan is not the only one attempting to revise history to erase the pro-abortion side's overtly racist origins and motives:

Yep.  Check out this Wikipedia entry about the execrable Richard Spencer:

Footnote 43 references an article about Spencer from The Atlantic that includes this horrible bit:

Richard Spencer and Margaret Sanger/Planned Parenthood.  Two peas in the same terrible pod.

Back to the first article cited above:

Yep.

And it's a nasty, dishonest campaign that has made its way onto this board, courtesy of Dan McLellan.

And yet, somehow, Dan proposes that folks who oppose abortion are the racists?

"The eugenic roots of the pro-abortion movement."  What an appallingly accurate description.  See also this statement from Margaret Sanger“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." 

See also these publications by Sanger: "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (Jun 1920); "The Purpose of Eugenics" (Dec 1924); "Birth Control & Positive Eugenics" (July 1925) & "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (Aug 1928).

So the "roots" are a matter of historical fact, but what about today?  Has Sanger's organization, Planned Parenthood, the principal abortion provider in the United States, repudiated Sanger's racist motives?

Taking as true the adage that actions speak louder than words, apparently not:

And yet, somehow, Dan proposes that folks who oppose abortion are the racists?

🤨

-Smac

I will start by saying it’s absurd and stupid to label “pro-lifers” as racist. To do so renders the word meaningless. 

That said, it’s really hard to take you seriously or to think you want to have discussions in good faith. Especially when you link to articles like this with well poisoning garbage like this in the first paragraph (blind defenders of the right to kill... don’t care about facts... etc). 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I will start by saying it’s absurd and stupid to label “pro-lifers” as racist. To do so renders the word meaningless. 

I agree.

Quote

That said, it’s really hard to take you seriously or to think you want to have discussions in good faith.

There was no good faith in Dan's accusation, which even you say was "absurd and stupid."

Quote

Especially when you link to articles like this with well poisoning garbage like this in the first paragraph (blind defenders of the right to kill... don’t care about facts... etc). 

That's a fair point.  I don't agree with every sentiment in the links I provided.  I provided them more for the historical information they provided about the racist origins of Sanger's efforts.

Nevertheless, I will accept your criticism and will be more circumspect in what I quote.  This is a very difficult and emotion-laden topic, and I should have been more prudent in such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There was no good faith in Dan's accusation, which even you say was "absurd and stupid."

Just to be sure we are on the same page, what are you saying that Dan’s accusation was?

I don’t read him as saying all prolifers are racists, which is what Sunstoned was describing as absurd if I understand correctly. Rather he identified a few of the founders of the prolife movement as racist, but not those influenced by them. 

Quote

Yeah, I know all about Margaret Sanger. I'm not suggesting the original underlying racist motivations of those who catalyzed America's anti-abortion movement transfer over to those influenced by that movement, I'm just pointing out that the people influenced by it are agents for its results.

Quote

  I don't agree with every sentiment in the links I provided.  I provided them more for the historical information they provided about the racist origins of Sanger's efforts.

Since Dan already agreed about Sanger, why the need to provide the info? And there are likely more balanced sites that discuss Sanger’s views and motivations, so it does seem rather counterproductive to use sites that have low credibility.  It taints your own presentation especially since you didn’t identify the problems with the site initially. 

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just to be sure we are on the same page, what are you saying that Dan’s accusation was?

His accusations were that there is a "conspiracy" and/or "ideological movement" which has an "agenda" focused on "controlling the agency of women," and claimed that I am a part of that conspiracy (or, by your interpertation, that I am "influenced" by it).  That opposition to abortion is, he claims, a matter of "identity politics."  He based his claims on an article entitled "The Historian’s Pickaxe: Uncovering the Racist Origins of the Religious Right."  He claimed that there are "underlying racist motivations" which have "catalyzed America's anti-abortion movement."  He claimed that opponents of abortion "certainly have no interest in improving the quality of life and education level of those minority populations."  He said that the statement that "racism and the pro-life position conflict with each other" is "laughably untrue," and that the pro-life movement "overlaps significantly with the white nationalist movement."

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

claimed that I am a part of that conspiracy

There is a huge difference between being influenced by a conspiracy and being part of it. Being part of a conspiracy is knowingly participating. Victims of conspiracies can be influenced by them. I highly doubt Dan saw you as a knowing participant.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
Quote

Hesaid that the statement that "racism and the pro-life position conflict with each other" is "laughably untrue," and that the pro-life movement "overlaps significantly with the white nationalist movement."

And showing there are some racist roots also in the prochoice movement disproves his claim how?  All I see is that both movements have been tainted. 

You don’t disprove one group has racist ties by showing another one does. 

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is a huge difference between being influenced by a conspiracy and being part of it.

Perhaps.  But I read his comments differently than you do.

Quote

Being part of a conspiracy is knowingly participating.

And yet Dan declared: "it is truly bewildering that the overwhelming majority of all opponents of abortion also strongly oppose each of those three policies until you realize that opposition to abortion and opposition to those three policies all fall under the rubric of controlling the agency of women."

Sounds to me like he conflates where you differentiate.

Reasonable minds can disagree about that, I suppose.

Quote

Victims of conspiracies can be influenced by them. I highly doubt Dan saw you as a knowing participant.

So he meant to exclude me from "the overwhelming majority of all opponents of abortion?"  I mean, I had to specifically tell him that I am "fine" with "those three policies" ("sex education, to contraception, and to women's healthcare"). 

And he then proceeded to accuse me of "carrying water" for the people who he claims are conspiring about "controlling the agency of women." So...

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited by smac97

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So he meant to exclude me from "the overwhelming majority of all opponents of abortion?"

No. Not in the mood to argue. 

Plus it I s too confusing as you are jumping from racism to women’s rights.  And I still don’t understand how demonstrating the other guy is racist somehow makes the racism of certain founders of prolife groups okay. 

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Calm said:

No. Not in the mood to argue. 

Okay.

Quote

Plus it I s too confusing as you are jumping from racism to women’s rights.  

Seems like Dan is the one trying to tie these things together.

Quote

And I still don’t understand how demonstrating the other guy is racist somehow makes the racism of certain founders of prolife groups okay. 

It doesn't.  I've never suggested that.  But I have yet to see competent, probative evidence that racism plays any sort of motivating role in the pro-life movement (as in "we hate black people, ergo we are opposed to abortion" variety).

The same goes for Dan's absurd claims about the pro-life movement being a conspiracy for "controlling the agency of women."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

My POV and then I have got to go.  

There were and are racists in both prolife and prochoice groups. Some of the founders of both groups were in part motivated by racist goals. 

Racism is only part of the story though and the prolife and prochoice supporters as a whole and as individuals both have other motivations for their decision to support their cause. Imo the value of these other motivations outweigh the tangential racism aspect.

There are those who treat the Gospel as a tool of racism (so much so Church leadership had to issue a statement repudiating them).  There were racists among early church members (members who were slave holders, for example).  The Gospel obviously has great value that has nothing to do with the racism of some of its members.

There are many good things in life that are here in part because of selfish reasons. If we rejected everything that had some roots in evil/sin, there would be little we could make use of.  What is important is what value we put into a cause understanding what are the immediate results and potential consequences...and then judge whether we should support it for those reasons. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Calm said:

My POV and then I have got to go.  

There were and are racists in both prolife and prochoice groups.

I suppose so.  But only one of these movements was founded with explicitly racist/eugenic motives.  Only one of these groups advances their agenda by placing their abortion clinics in or near minority neighborhoods.

Meanwhile, I have yet to see any pro-life group that has racist/eugenic motives.  I have yet to see any pro-life group that says "We oppose abortion of white babies, but we're just hunky-dory with abortions for black or brown babies."  

Individual pro-lifers may harbor some racist sentiments.  That is very unfortunate.  But I just don't see that racism being a motivating factor for opposing abortion.

In contrast, take a look at Richard Spencer's support for abortion, who is explicitly racist in his motivations.

Quote

Some of the founders of both groups were in part motivated by racist goals. 

I'm sorry, but I just haven't seen evidence of that.  Who are these "founders" of pro-life groups who were "motivated by racist goals?"

Quote

Racism is only part of the story though and the prolife and prochoice supporters as a whole and as individuals both have other motivations for their decision to support their cause.

I acknowledge that.

Quote

Imo the value of these other motivations outweigh the tangential racism aspect.

A question of degree, I suppose.  I'm not sure how "tangential" this motivation is.

You seem to be finding some sort of balanced symmetry between these two groups and their motives.  I don't. 

Quote

There are those who treat the Gospel as a tool of racism (so much so Church leadership had to issue a statement repudiating them).  There were racists among early church members (members who were slave holders, for example).  The Gospel obviously has great value that has nothing to do with the racism of some of its members.

How does this comparison apply to the advocacy of elective abortion?

No need to respond.  I'm just asking questions as I think of them, and for myself more than for you.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, smac97 said:

But only one of these movements was founded with explicitly racist/eugenic motives

Dan was demonstrating leaders in the other movement also had racist motives, though it sounds like he didn't persuade you.  Sugar coating or hiding motives or making them explicit doesn't make much difference in my view.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, smac97 said:

It looks like Dan is not the only one attempting to revise history to erase the pro-abortion side's overtly racist origins and motives:

Yep.  Check out this Wikipedia entry about the execrable Richard Spencer:

Footnote 43 references an article about Spencer from The Atlantic that includes this horrible bit:

Richard Spencer and Margaret Sanger/Planned Parenthood.  Two peas in the same terrible pod.

Back to the first article cited above:

Yep.

And it's a nasty, dishonest campaign that has made its way onto this board, courtesy of Dan McLellan.

And yet, somehow, Dan proposes that folks who oppose abortion are the racists?

"The eugenic roots of the pro-abortion movement."  What an appallingly accurate description.  See also this statement from Margaret Sanger“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." 

See also these publications by Sanger: "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (Jun 1920); "The Purpose of Eugenics" (Dec 1924); "Birth Control & Positive Eugenics" (July 1925) & "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (Aug 1928).

So the "roots" are a matter of historical fact, but what about today?  Has Sanger's organization, Planned Parenthood, the principal abortion provider in the United States, repudiated Sanger's racist motives?

Taking as true the adage that actions speak louder than words, apparently not:

And yet, somehow, Dan proposes that folks who oppose abortion are the racists?

🤨

-Smac

 

@smac97, please remove the personal insults against Dan or I'll need to delete the entire post, and I don't want to do that.  And remember in the future, personal insults are not allowed, no matter how much you disagree with someone.  ~Mods

Smac

Don't know if you saw this- I would not have since I only reply to actual replies using the quote function 

I miss some of Calm's replies that way

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Smac

Don't know if you saw this- I would not have since I only reply to actual replies using the quote function 

I miss some of Calm's replies that way

Thx.  I've modified the post.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Thx.  I've modified the post.

I'm about done again. The mods. The trendylefty politics. The narking. The motherhenning. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I am pro-choice and I agree that a human life exists in the fertilized egg at conception. What women encounter in the situation of pregnancy is the dilemma posed to the mother of her being at risk due to the pregnancy. It is not an easy dillemma, and it varies in components, for every woman and every pregnancy. 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...