Where are you on the political spectrum?

[greg]

What a beautiful age! (I'm 47)

I wish you a long, healthy and happy life, Greg!

You too, buddy. 

[SimonNZ]

You implied that conservatives don't care for babies after they are born and when I gave you two examples of conservatives who take active measures for children's (and their families') welfare, instead of admitting you were wrong you accuse me of insulting you? Your disingenuity is shocking.

Oh *I'm* the disingenuous one?

You offer a couple of localized examples not even typical of the conservitive movement in those countries but to one governments policy, and you think that debunks an attitude that is visible globally in conservative attitudes through the later 20th century and 21st?

Show me what's typical. Show me what's common that contradicts my earlier statement if you want me to "admit I;m wrong" I could show you a few fringe examples of Communist successes in specific places at specific times on very specific issues - does that contradict everything you think about Communism?. But *I'm* the disingenuous one, right?

Better yet: don't. I've lost what little respect I had left for you, or the possibility that you'll argue in good faith.

My original post was to Jo, and Jo can answer or not

[Florestan]

I've lost what little respect I had left for you, or the possibility that you'll argue in good faith.

I feel exactly the same about you, in exactly the same words. We'd better ignore each other in the future, it's obvious we'll never get to agree on anything.

My original post was to Jo, and Jo can answer or not

Oh, come on! This is a public forum, anyone can reply to any damn post one wishes. Don't hide behind "I wasn't talking to you", it's a childish behavior.

[SimonNZ]

Oh, come on! This is a public forum, anyone can reply to any damn post one wishes. Don't hide behind "I wasn't talking to you", it's a childish behavior.

Dude...I'm not "hiding behind it", I'm agreeing with you. There's no point us snapping at each other, someone else can chime in if they wish.

[Jo498]

First of all, the US is not the world. There are countries like most of Western Europe with fairly generous welfare, especially for single mothers. Single mothers are not shunned parias, in fact they are frequently praised in editorials etc. as "heroines" etc. Still, we hear the "argument" that abortion was o.k.  if the child could not be raised in good circumstances. I am not saying that there are no good arguments pro abortion, only that this kind of argument is absolutely unconvincing and horrible. The non-aborted children would not be starving in the streets in the US or Western Europe and EVEN IF they were starving in the streets, hardly anybody would think that it was o.k. going around and shoot them to put them out of their misery because it is better not to live at all than to live in poverty.

But this is completely beside the point. Because it only works a little bit if one is already convinced that abortion is not a big deal (i.e. not close or equivalent to manslaughter). In no other case, except for some terminally ill, would abortionists argue that it is better not to live at all than to live dependent on welfare or locked in a lower class life in a modern western country. Because obviously this would be antihuman and cynical. If one really believed this one should support "voluntary termination" for everybody in the lowest 10% or so of society, one should favor death penalty in many more cases (because certainly it is better to terminate a life than to let one spend 30 years behind bars), one should hardly ever intercede with suicidal patients etc.

As for the other side: If one believes that abortion is basically like manslaughter or murder, it is obvious that this cannot be up to the discretion of the mother. One can strongly disagree with the first half of the conditional. But if one believes this, it seems really plausible that one cannot take a liberal stance.
It would be like saying: I am personally against vendetta but I accept that Mario grew up in a tradition that holds vendetta an obligation and therefore nobody should interfere with Mario hunting down and killing the killer of his cousin. It would never be accepted as an argument that Mario really thought hard about doing this and would prefer not to, so we should respect his choice. If vendetta is wrong, it cannot be up to Mario to decide this for himself. Exactly the same applies to abortion if the latter is like manslaughter.

Unfortunately, people nowadays seem to be totally unfazed by inconsistencies. In Germany, abortion is illegal in theory but in practice usually allowed in the first trimester (or so, not sure about the exact numbers) and there is a fairly strong movement for a more liberal legislation. In practice a woman can abort in the first trimester if she wants that (she needs basically a document from a doctor who must not be the same doctor as the one to perform the abortion). But now we have a discussion whether public healtcare should cover a certain prenatal test to determine Down syndrome. This would very probably lead to a higher number of abortions of positive cases. This is seen as discrimination, therefore some organizations are strongly opposed to this (but except for the Catholic ones they are usually never against the current abortion laws). So it is o.k. to terminate a perfectly healthy pregnancy for the only reason that the mother simply does not want the child but it is dubious and discriminatory towards disabled if more disabled fetuses (a reason most would find at least somewhat acceptable) are aborted than healthy ones.

[Florestan]

First of all, the US is not the world.

Of course. Restricting one's view to US and by extension to the Anglophone sphere only will result in a partial and distorted picture of conservatism.

There are countries like most of Western Europe with fairly generous welfare

The irony is that when welfare policies are pursued by the left they are commended as progressive, humane and compassionate, but if it's the right that implements them, as in Poland or Hungary, they are upbraided as populist, vote-hunting handouts. Progressives are by definition the good guys while conservatives are damned if they do, damned if they don't. The double standard is apalling.

[Florestan]

As for the other side: If one believes that abortion is basically like manslaughter or murder, it is obvious that this cannot be up to the discretion of the mother. One can strongly disagree with the first half of the conditional. But if one believes this, it seems really plausible that one cannot take a liberal stance. It would be like saying: I am personally against vendetta but I accept that Mario grew up in a tradition that holds vendetta an obligation and therefore nobody should interfere with Mario hunting down and killing the killer of his cousin. It would never be accepted as an argument that Mario really thought hard about doing this and would prefer not to, so we should respect his choice. If vendetta is wrong, it cannot be up to Mario to decide this for himself. Exactly the same applies to abortion if the latter is like manslaughter.

Excellent point, Jo, thank you.

I have a question for the pro-abortion people here: suppose your mother would have decided to abort you for whatever reason; in retrospect, would you say she'd have been right, or had the right, to do it?

[SimonNZ]

Yes.

Typical rightwinger: assuming ones broader ethics will automatically bow to ones self-interest.

[Mirror Image]

Yes.

Typical rightwinger: assuming ones broader ethics will automatically bow to ones self-interest.

Typical left-winger response. Arguing with emotion instead of actually giving a logical answer.

[Florestan]

Yes.

Typical rightwinger: assuming ones broader ethics will automatically bow to ones self-interest.

The simple "yes" would. have sufficed but no, you absolutely had to take a cheap shot at me (I'm hardly a typical righwinger, all political tests I've taken put me in the center) and simultaneously parade your alleged unselfishness. Typical holier-than-thou virtue signalling. Truly I've had enough of you. I'm going to ignore you completely from now on so don't bother to reply.

[SimonNZ]

You wouldn't have believed a simple "yes". You still don't believe it. You've fallen back on the idiotic claim of "virtue signaling", which I would have previously have thought was beneath you.

Instead of putting me on ignore why not just close you eyes, put your hands over your ears and go "lalalalalalalalalalala"?

[Marc]

Excellent point, Jo, thank you.

I have a question for the pro-abortion people here: suppose your mother would have decided to abort you for whatever reason; in retrospect, would you say she'd have been right, or had the right, to do it?

For 'whatever reason'?

If she had good reason (for herself) to abort me, and the laws would back her up, then yes, she had the right to do that.
That's (still) the way things go in my country, and I'm all for it.

[Florestan]

If she had good reason (for herself) to abort me, and the laws would back her up, then yes, she had the right to do that.
That's (still) the way things go in my country, and I'm all for it.

A reasoned, matter-of-fact, undoubtedly honest answer without any moralizing overtones. Thank you.

[Florestan]

Taking it up a notch.

Short version has 45 questions, which is what I did.

Not sure I agree with my military score, sort of could give a wrong impression. But otherwise pretty neat.

Also the security/freedom isn't accurate for me lol.

https://9axes.github.io/instructions.html

Took the long version, results below.

[drogulus]

I have a question for the pro-abortion people here: suppose your mother would have decided to abort you for whatever reason; in retrospect, would you say she'd have been right, or had the right, to do it?

    Not one of the abortions our parents had was "you". I don't know the name of this logical absurdity, but it's breathtaking. To me it's as bad as the economist who talks about government spending "absorbing GDP".

     

   

[Florestan]

    Not one of the abortions our parents had was "you".

You clearly didn't understand the question. Please read it again. It's not so difficult, really, two people got it right.

[drogulus]

You clearly didn't understand the question. Please read it again. It's not so difficult, really, two people got it right.

     The question assumes a "you" that was also aborted and that none of the children would therefore be a you. What would the children be, not-you?

     I don't think any children lack "you-ness", or any "you" lacks being a child however many abortions happen.

[Florestan]

     The question assumes a "you" that was also aborted and that none of the children would therefore be a you. What would the children be, not-you?

     I don't think any children lack "you-ness", or any "you" lacks being a child however many abortions happen.

Still not getting it. Whatever. Nevermind.

[drogulus]

Still not getting it. Whatever. Nevermind.

    It has never happened that a child lacked an identity because it really belonged to an abortion. Your mother can decide to abort, but it's beyond her power to abort an identity, an "I" or "me", because personal identities are developed in living persons out of their experiences and inherited features.

     There are no preexisting identities out there in "identity space" that are subject to abortion. Do we need a metaphysics of identity recycling, too? If you indulge free floating identities, can they ever get a second chance to be attached, or is it "one and done"? Sorry, you had your chance, but the bitch snatched it away from you!

     Such willful nonsense should be contested. Some questions can only be answered by pointing out that they are absurd. It's impossible to instantiate in the real world the dilemma they purport to show.

[Florestan]

    It has never happened that a child lacked an identity because it really belonged to an abortion. Your mother can decide to abort, but it's beyond her power to abort an identity, an "I" or "me", because personal identities are developed in living persons out of their experiences and inherited features.

     There are no preexisting identities out there in "identity space" that are subject to abortion. Do we need a metaphysics of identity recycling, too? If you indulge free floating identities, can they ever get a second chance to be attached, or is it "one and done"? Sorry, you had your chance, but the bitch snatched it away from you!

     Such willful nonsense should be contested. Some questions can only be answered by pointing out that they are absurd. It's impossible to instantiate in the real world the dilemma they purport to show.

Whatever you say, buddy.