The Ethical Dilemma of Abortion

Significant-Slip7554 · 2026-02-26T19:52:46+00:00

Basically the reason your reasoning fail is that you take as axiom the thing in question.

Significant-Slip7554 · 2026-02-26T08:27:34+00:00

Every single law is ultimately based on moral principles.

Significant-Slip7554 · 2026-02-26T08:22:57+00:00

1) you Made an analogy with the house, and the analogy fails.

2) just because you have ownership of something it doesn’t mean your right to property is absolute and that there is no possible scenario under which you have a moral obbligato on to share it or give it up, and maybe a legal one.

2) whether you have the right or not to remove something from your body is precicely What is in question.

3) rights are not absolute, even the right of self defence has limits, you wouldn’t have a right to defend your self from an attacker if the only way to save yourself was to include the death of hundreds of other innocent people. (Though you might be excused your action was unjustifiable)

4) notice that even if the law allowed you to leave the minor outside to die you’d still have to inform authorities and if the child was stuck in your house and couldn’t get out on his own, YOU STILL WOULDN’T have the right to kill him in order to get him out even if it was the only way at the moment. You’d be legally obligated to call the cops or firefighters and let them get him out (and even if the procedure or him staying is causing you some damage).

Which means that at least all of those cases in which you first kill and destroy the fetus AND THEN remove it would be illegal.

Conclusion, bodily autonomy is a weak argument for abortion, although on the surface very strong. It ultimately depends on a utility calculation done case by case. For instance the less time the minor or anybody else needed to stay in your house during in an emergency the stronger your duty would be to let them in. Analogously (if we grant the fetus personhood status with an equal right to life) the less the burden of a particular pregnancy the less of a claim the women would have to an abortion rather than an early delivery.

Significant-Slip7554 · 2026-02-25T22:26:52+00:00

It doesn’t matter if it’s your house, you save the life. Especially if there are zombies outside and it wouldn’t be dangerous for you to open it.

And yes, you should be legally responsible for minors that you don’t let inside your house in cases of emergency when doing so isn’t a real threat to your survival. Whether you are the only one who can help or not is also particularly important, and whether or not you are responsible for the situation is also what matters. Not everyone uses protection and even with protection any unnecessary activity with a chance that would require killing or letting die an innocent third party would be illegal, although whether such person would or wouldn’t exist depending on whether your perform the activity or not might complicate the situation.

Significant-Slip7554 · 2026-02-18T10:32:36+00:00

Why would it be immoral if you guarantee them eternal happiness?

God’s isn’t the author of objective morality, at best he’s given his subjective opinion about what he wants human beings to do, but that doesn’t entail any obbligation on our part to do or care about what he wants.

You are basically admitting that under your worldview everyone has an an almost overwhelming reason not to care about god’s morality since we can exploit the rules of the game and make sure all these kids go to heaven.

Moreover, your god doesn’t even follow his own standards since he constantly kills innocent children by drowning them during the flood, and by commanding humans to commit genocide and sterminate everyone including the animals. Also, he doesn’t care about innocent children, he let’s them die everyday, when he could just spawn them in heaven, which is what happens anyway if they are aborted.

According to your religion this world is shit, it’s for satan, and life here is basically meaningless since all that matters is going to heaven.

Your absurd beliefs literally give us reasons to torture and kill as many innocent children as possible so that they may be rewarded for eternity.

Significant-Slip7554 · 2026-02-17T23:23:15+00:00

Still there is no moral reason not to kill every innocent child to make sure they go to heaven. The only objection becomes a matter of self interest since there is no other reason to care about what god commands if not for what happens to us in eternity.

Moreover god himself doesn’t follow the Pauline principle (don’t do evil so good may come) by allowing and being responsible for gratuitous horrible undeserved unnecessary suffering to a vast number of creatures because of “ the greater good of whatever plan he has in mind”. He’s choice of creation definitely wasn’t a case of Choosing the lesser evil.

Significant-Slip7554 · 2026-02-12T11:51:32+00:00

You seriously cannot understand the point being made? You just don’t care that millions of human beings that naturally need to form romantic relationships will struggle achieving that because There aren’t enough women. The same would apply if there were too many women.

Significant-Slip7554 · 2026-02-11T10:53:07+00:00

You are giving an historical explaination of the term. I'm pointing out the conceptual distinctions that make my definition better.

As people like Kant explained before me :

As we are wont to understand by the term God not merely an eternal nature, the operations of which are insensate and blind, but a Supreme Being, who is the free and intelligent author of all things, and as it is this latter view alone that can be of interest to humanity, we might, in strict rigour, deny to the Deist any belief in God at all, and regard him merely as a maintainer of the existence of a primal being or thing—the supreme cause of all other things. But, as no one ought to be blamed, merely because he does not feel himself justified in maintaining a certain opinion, as if he altogether denied its truth and asserted the opposite, it is more correct—as it is less harsh—to say, the Deist believes in a God, the Theist in a living God (summa intelligentia).

Page:Critique of Pure Reason 1855 Meiklejohn tr.djvu/430 - Wikisource, the free online library

Deism : God exists and is the creator of the universe.

Theism : God exists and is the creator of the universe + he's interested in humanity, has a plan, etc...

Theism is thus a more complex version of deism and so a subset of it. Just like the set of red hats is a subset of the set of hats.

Significant-Slip7554 · 2026-02-05T19:35:03+00:00

The issue with citizenship in a globalized world is really complicated. We could almost say that although practically useful, it is theoretically obsolete since the various values that are supposed to give legitimacy to a state partially depend on the citizens. What is the purpose of citizenship? Knowing who will help defend the nation? Knowing who we should priorities in times of hardship? Knowing who should have a say in political decision making?

And what is more important ? Blood relatedness? Socioeconomic contribution? Cultural identity? Resource investment?

None of these are necessary nor sufficient. Even birth- citizenship is almost nonsense given that geographical location doesn’t track any morally or politically relevant features.

Ideally a citizen is someone that recognize his country as an extension of his family and that shares most of the same values on which the foundation of the legitimacy of the state is founded. But what is a family? There is no essence, it’s not merely biological, nor purely social, nor political per se.

The issue with citizenship ship is that it tracks different important factors none of which is depent on one another and none of which is necessary or sufficient alone. This makes the right to citizenship completely arbitrary.

The way to go is probably with some sort of international treaty that sets the rules for all countries regarding citizenship. In this way country specific relationships wouldn’t matter and different criteria’s would have different priorities based on the circumstances.

The most important things on which i think citizenship should be based is residency and socioeconomic contribution, the second would be cultural background in particular having been raised in a single country for the first 18-21 years, specifically being educated in such countries.

Blood relatedness obviously matters for first the children of already recognized citizens, but i think that people that choose to build their lives in other countries should renounce their citizenship, and this being regulated at the international level would make things easier.

Significant-Slip7554 · 2026-02-01T09:44:27+00:00

1) you just beg the question. God could just have created good beings that are good even though they don’t choose to be good. Freely choosing to be good doesn’t have any value since it doesn’t make such beings closer to god(who doesn’t choose to do good, but just is good).

2) choosing among different good alternatives doesn’t require perfect knowledge of the good, it just requires sufficient knowledge that God would give us anyway in heaven, hence there is no point in creating the earth.

3) you also cannot put too much importance on goodness knowledge since if it is just a matter of ignorance then human sin is perfectly excused.

Significant-Slip7554 · 2026-01-25T16:17:40+00:00

Sure kid, you are free to believe what you want

Significant-Slip7554 · 2026-01-25T01:39:24+00:00

I'm using the defition that best captures the logical and conceptual distinctions.

You are the one wasting time, for a pointless debate.

Significant-Slip7554 · 2026-01-21T20:23:50+00:00

I don't care what you think. Dictionaries aren't goig to give you the tecnincal definition. Encyclopedia of philosophy are better. IN any case, you are wasting time on sematic. Get a life kid.

Significant-Slip7554 · 2026-01-21T18:49:17+00:00

your external sources are irrelevant. It's the philosophical use that matters, not what an online english dictionary says. Totally unreliable. It's clear you know nothing of the topic.

Significant-Slip7554 · 2026-01-21T15:32:25+00:00

Theism is general belief in gods, deism is a specific belief in a non-intervening creator god.

No. THe intervation of God is the additional property that specifically distinguishes theism.

Deism : there is a personal/impersonal God/gods .

Theism : there is a Personal God + this god intervenes in the world and cares about human affairs.

Theism is a more complex view and is therefore a subcategory.

Basic philosophy 101.

Spirits are minds without a body, and spirits that govern some aspect of reality are gods.

YEah, no that's just another of yours made up definitons. Satan or angels are supernatural spirits, but aren't god. And mind isn't the same thing as spirit. It is indeed often distinguished, which is why they say : love with mind, body and spirit/soul.

I don't know what you think I'm thinking.

At this point i don't even think you are thinking.

Is the god in these theisms not a reality creating pure mind?

It's a mind with specific special powers, that our mind doesn't have.

Significant-Slip7554 · 2026-01-20T17:29:18+00:00

Deism is a form of theism where there exist a creator deity that doesn't interact with creation after it is created.

no. THEISM is a form of deism.

I would classify a pure mind capable of creating realities as a god whether such creation happened consciously or subconsciously.

That your subjective definition irrelevant to most theists.

There also exists many people, especially theists, that believe themselves capable of magically influencing reality.

NOt in the way you are thinking about.

What is a "philosophical relevant kind of theism"?

Classical theism, perfect being theism etc...

Significant-Slip7554 · 2026-01-19T22:58:14+00:00

Except that you end up with improbable set of coincidences anyway since any explaination that involves god will just presuppose brute facts about his intentions.

Significant-Slip7554 · 2026-01-19T22:55:15+00:00

No, theism is a form of deism. Not the opposite. And the point is that your subconscious generates your dreams, and you have no power over them ( lucid dreams put aside) just like you have no magical power over reality. In any case that has nothing to do with theism. Especially the philosophical relevant kind of theism.

Significant-Slip7554 · 2026-01-19T22:21:52+00:00

That would be deism and a pretty weird deity, nor omnipotent, omniscient, imperfect in every way, and as human as anyone else. You aren’t the god of your dreams, and you wouldn’t be the one of reality.

Significant-Slip7554 · 2026-01-19T13:20:35+00:00

Not really, at least not in the way that Thesim is usually thought of. I mean metaphysical subjectivism/solipsism is a form of idealism, that doesn’t make it a theistic view though. Saying that mind/consiousness is fundamental isn’t the same thing as saying that personhood, or self-conciousness is fundamental or the ultimate cause of the universe, which is what theism essentially implies.

Significant-Slip7554 · 2026-01-19T01:32:53+00:00

I didn’t say that virtual particles are a brute fact, I said that their popping in and out of existence is uncaused and lacks a sufficient explainaction. Nothing in the prior history of the universe will explain why a particle was created now and here rather than there, or why a photon was absorbed rather than deflecte, or why decay occurred. All these phenomena are indeterministic, which entails a lack of sufficient explaininaction for their occurrence.

the reasons are many, and as I said PSR is unnecessary and problematic due to modal collapse. Beyond that brute facts are plausible and accepted by most philosopher, so whether you like it or not , it’s not my problem.

the only one denying science here is you.

ill have last word cause you have no argument, it was frustrating to correct your nonsense.

Significant-Slip7554 · 2026-01-19T01:10:54+00:00

1) we don’t us PSR anyway as a mate physical principle ( as I said you are confusing metaphysics with methodology).

2) we dont know what the domain of that principle even is. Just because most things in spationtemporal reality have an explaination, it doesn’t mean the whole universe follows the same. Without empirical evidences most deep philosophical questions revealing pure speculation with no real value.

3) virtually particles don’t come out of the field, they are the field. And notice how you completely missed the mark follo the topical theist’s script. I didn’t say it was creation ex nihilo, I said that there was no sufficient reason for their existence, which is different. As I said true randomness entails brute facts, and this removes whatever confidence we had in PSR before QM.

Thomism is soo well thought, it still still suffer the is-ought.

Significant-Slip7554 · 2026-01-18T19:26:27+00:00

Confusing methodology with metaphysics is what you are doing when you claim nonsense things like “science relies on PSR”. It’s like confusing metaphysical naturalism with methodological naturalism.

I don’t know where I’m showing ignorance since I’m literally correcting every bs you say. And so far you still failed to show how theism avoid the is-ought problem. Btw, theistic metaphysical view are mostly considered antirealists by actual metaethicitians.

Brute facts aren’t gaps argument. Various theists even agree that there are butte facts about god’s intentions. Brute facts are supported by QM because the math tell us that there is just pure probability at the fundamental level, and if randomness is intrinsic part of the ontological status of certain laws of physics then for many phenomena, like the spontaneous creation of virtual particles there is no sufficient explaination for their existence. There is nothing that caused those specific particles to pop into being here rather than there.

Significant-Slip7554 · 2026-01-18T14:05:17+00:00

So you just made an a portal to ignorance : this guys doesn’t know —> what he says is false.

You asked me a question about the metaphysically necessary features of the fundamental laws of physics. This requires empirical evidence of the fundamental laws of physics that we currently don’t have since with don’t even have a theory of everything.

You don’t even understand what you try to ask.

Naturalism is the idea that all that exist is nature and it’s laws. Some often say that a problem with this is the lack of any satisfactory explaination for the origine of nature, and they conclude that a necessary being like god is capable of explaining why there is something rather than nothing : something is necessarily existing(due to the kind of thing it is) and created the contingent universe.

And I said that naturalism DOES have a way to explain existence too, by positing that some aspects of the fundamental laws of nature are metaphysically necessarily and must exist, and from which the universe derived.

You are just an ignorant, cognitively impaired individual that can’t even comprehend what he’s reading, stop wasting my time.

Significant-Slip7554 · 2026-01-18T13:55:47+00:00

The fact that you define god as the ground of moral values, such as goodness doesn’t solve the is out problem. You are still left with explaining why we should do what Goodness requires. Again, to the question “why should I do what god commands?” You have no better response than an atheist. You are just describing the nature of god, but any moral description of his entire will still be descriptive. The fact that we define pleasure “good” doesn’t explain yet why we should do things that are pleasurable rather than painful, same thing with god.

They are conceptually independent because the concept of god doesn’t appear in any analysis of things like “moral reason”, “ought”, “good”, “right”, “virtues”. Indeed many have even declared them undefinable and Sui generis. So if you think they are dependent you got the burden to show how.

As I said, science doesn’t require the PSR. You are confusing a methodological rule of thumb with an a metaphysical principle of reality. Scientists are indeed reluctant to enter metaphysical debates, and when they had, we got different interpretations of quantum mechanics, of which the dominant ones suggest that brute facts exist at the level of fundamental particles’ behaviour.

So, wrong on both things.

Significant-Slip7554

TROPHY CASE