Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No, this is wrong.Nonsense.Back in 1974 the singing duo of Seals & Crofts released an album of songs including "Unborn Child" of which the title song was written by Jim Seals and Lana Bogan was a powerfully emotional appeal against abortion. These are the lyrics:
"Oh little baby, you'll never cry, nor will you hear a sweet lullaby;
Oh unborn child, if you only knew, just what your momma was planning to do;
You're still a-clinging to the three of life, but soon you'll be cut off, before you get ripe;
Oh unborn child, beginning to grow, inside your momma, but you'll never know;
Oh tiny bud, that grows in the womb, only to be crushed, before you can bloom;
Momma stop! Turn around! Go back! Think it over! ... ."
In Philosophy any emotional argument is purely a fallacy which eludes logical thinking and rational analysis.
In Science which is the philosophy of the physical, natural world, data must first be gathered and analyzed before a logical conclusion can be inferred through inductive reasoning.
In Religion which is the doctrinal dogmatic pronouncement of an authoritarian council or leader pertaining to what Aristotle called "metaphysics" (meaning beyond physics), anything goes. Emotional arguments are prized and very common in religion.
With 2016 being a national election year, we have not heard a lot about the hot button issue of abortion so far. Perhaps this is because both major candidates, Hillary and Trump, have both already gone on the record that they are personally pro choice.
As for analyzing the issue of abortion itself, you must first decide which forum you intend to study it from and pronounce your sentence upon it in accordance with -- whether that be philosophical, or scientific, or religious, or Constitutional, or political. Each of these forums (fora in Latin) is completely different.
Ergo if you desire to analyze the topic philosophically you must choose a criterion such as the greater good to weigh the pro- and anti- arguments with. Is the greater good benefitted or hurt by abortion? Most likely according to this criterion the greater good is benefitted by abortion.
Scientifically there are no data (note that data is a plural word, and datum is the singular) which tell us either way if an unborn fetus is a conscious living being or not. From science we draw a blank.
From religion if you are Catholic or one of its derivative Christian offshoots, abortion has been pronounced by the Pope and other religious leadership as anathema. The Pope is presumably Christ's representative on Earth, unless you are anti-Catholic in which case he is Lucifer's.
Constitutionally the Burger Court in 1973 decided in Roe v. Wade in a 7 to 2 decision that women (not men) had an inherent right to choose whether to abort a pregnancy or not. White and Rehnquist were the dissenters, with Burger and the other justices concurring, who favored Ms. Roe.
I suppose any time that there is a dissent on the SCOTUS it means the case could have gone either way. A 7 to 2 decision suggests the overwhelming majority of the court agreed however. Today if the decision were rendered it would be closer to 4 to 4 at the moment most likely.
Politically this is and always has been a hot button issue. There are emotional arguments on both sides which tend to lend sway to either point of view.
My personal view is that no one should tell someone else what to do.
Of course if someday we establish contact with a prenatal fetus and he/she tells us please don't murder her/him, we might all change our minds about extending Constitutional rights to fetuses (feti in Latin).
In the meantime there will always be those on the far left and the far right who will argue emotionally (not logically nor scientifically nor philosophically) that their own view, whether pro- or anti- abortion, should be forced upon the rest of the Nation.
Q.E.D.
Everyone is opposed to abortion, everyone wishes to see the practice end.
That’s not the source of the conflict.
...
Wrong
Son, I gots dingle berries older than you. .....Get off the drugs kid, they're not doing you any good.
No, this is wrong.Nonsense.Back in 1974 the singing duo of Seals & Crofts released an album of songs including "Unborn Child" of which the title song was written by Jim Seals and Lana Bogan was a powerfully emotional appeal against abortion. These are the lyrics:
"Oh little baby, you'll never cry, nor will you hear a sweet lullaby;
Oh unborn child, if you only knew, just what your momma was planning to do;
You're still a-clinging to the three of life, but soon you'll be cut off, before you get ripe;
Oh unborn child, beginning to grow, inside your momma, but you'll never know;
Oh tiny bud, that grows in the womb, only to be crushed, before you can bloom;
Momma stop! Turn around! Go back! Think it over! ... ."
In Philosophy any emotional argument is purely a fallacy which eludes logical thinking and rational analysis.
In Science which is the philosophy of the physical, natural world, data must first be gathered and analyzed before a logical conclusion can be inferred through inductive reasoning.
In Religion which is the doctrinal dogmatic pronouncement of an authoritarian council or leader pertaining to what Aristotle called "metaphysics" (meaning beyond physics), anything goes. Emotional arguments are prized and very common in religion.
With 2016 being a national election year, we have not heard a lot about the hot button issue of abortion so far. Perhaps this is because both major candidates, Hillary and Trump, have both already gone on the record that they are personally pro choice.
As for analyzing the issue of abortion itself, you must first decide which forum you intend to study it from and pronounce your sentence upon it in accordance with -- whether that be philosophical, or scientific, or religious, or Constitutional, or political. Each of these forums (fora in Latin) is completely different.
Ergo if you desire to analyze the topic philosophically you must choose a criterion such as the greater good to weigh the pro- and anti- arguments with. Is the greater good benefitted or hurt by abortion? Most likely according to this criterion the greater good is benefitted by abortion.
Scientifically there are no data (note that data is a plural word, and datum is the singular) which tell us either way if an unborn fetus is a conscious living being or not. From science we draw a blank.
From religion if you are Catholic or one of its derivative Christian offshoots, abortion has been pronounced by the Pope and other religious leadership as anathema. The Pope is presumably Christ's representative on Earth, unless you are anti-Catholic in which case he is Lucifer's.
Constitutionally the Burger Court in 1973 decided in Roe v. Wade in a 7 to 2 decision that women (not men) had an inherent right to choose whether to abort a pregnancy or not. White and Rehnquist were the dissenters, with Burger and the other justices concurring, who favored Ms. Roe.
I suppose any time that there is a dissent on the SCOTUS it means the case could have gone either way. A 7 to 2 decision suggests the overwhelming majority of the court agreed however. Today if the decision were rendered it would be closer to 4 to 4 at the moment most likely.
Politically this is and always has been a hot button issue. There are emotional arguments on both sides which tend to lend sway to either point of view.
My personal view is that no one should tell someone else what to do.
Of course if someday we establish contact with a prenatal fetus and he/she tells us please don't murder her/him, we might all change our minds about extending Constitutional rights to fetuses (feti in Latin).
In the meantime there will always be those on the far left and the far right who will argue emotionally (not logically nor scientifically nor philosophically) that their own view, whether pro- or anti- abortion, should be forced upon the rest of the Nation.
Q.E.D.
Everyone is opposed to abortion, everyone wishes to see the practice end.
That’s not the source of the conflict.
...
Wrong
The conflict is solely how to end the practice – .....
You have not explored your consciousness nor experienced the higher states available via LSD, marijuana, shrooms, and MDMA. .
You have not explored your consciousness nor experienced the higher states available via LSD, marijuana, shrooms, and MDMA. .
Other than the MDMA, I have, but that doesn't keep me from noticing you are laughably sophomoric and totally full of shit.
Do you know why I would agree with your statement:Fact is, and you can verify this for yourself instantly, the philosophical/spiritual Truth can never be proven empirically. There is no empirical way to prove what the answers are. There is no scientific test you can conduct whose answers won't be relative to subjective interpretation. The philosophical/spiritual Truth is absolutely and unequivocally whatever you believe it is. Now, what is the value of belief? The only benefit of a belief lies in whether or not it lifts you or soothes you or relieves you or empowers you emotionally."Truth" is whatever you want to believe, it seems. And what a concern about death you have!And where do you live? You live on a grain of sand in the middle of outer space. You actually & factually have no idea when you will die, where you will die, nor how you will die. You could actually die in the next couple of minutes. So, you live a temporary life on a temporary grain of sand in the middle of temporary outer space and you don't know when you will die or be killed---you live in a Mystery where you seriously don't know how physical life originated nor do you know if consciousness both precedes mortal birth and continues after mortal death, and you sit there in your glaring, throbbing state of existential ignorance and try to bust my balls about scientific fantasy? Science hasn't helped you or mankind address any of these issues and will never be able to as long as it insists on empirical evidence. You have to be able to take a leap of faith in your mind that the Truth has been intentionally hidden by us so this world would seem like the only one we have ever experienced. It is obvious that the Answer/Truth is behind the door of death.An example of non-scientific fantasy.All living mortal entities are thinking-feeling creatures---from the lowliest microbe and human being to the tallest redwood and biggest whale. All earthly creatures eat the bodies of living and once living creatures. Humans prefer to believe there is a hierarchy of living creatures---that non-humans are lesser beings, that killing a potato is less heinous than killing a cow, that stepping on a snail is less ugly than running over a human...but we are all perfectly equal and equally perfect as living consciousness. So yes, a fetus is a living, conscious entity. But in the grand scheme of things, killing a fetus is no more heinous than killing the fish you are gonna eat tonight. All living mortal beings are thinking-feeling creatures. Each was created by their spiritual self. The fetus knew its fate before incarnating as a fetus.
It's clear you don't understand what "consciousness" is from an objective perspective, and that's why you resort to fantasy.
I can tell by your comments you have never seriously contemplated the idea that death is eternal oblivion. You have not contemplated the idea of eternity. You have not explored your consciousness nor experienced the higher states available via LSD, marijuana, shrooms, and MDMA. You know only what your school books tell you about consciousness and mortal life itself.
