Here we have a double feature on the claim, “Abortion in the third trimester should be legal.” These conversations took place at Dartmouth College on May 4, 2022. In the first conversation, participants clustered at the “disagree” end of the Likert scale; in the second, they were in the opposite position.
Young minds stumbling, slipping, fighting, grasping, wrestling, holding while enjoying and not enjoying the process of learning a difference between knowledge and wisdom.
To all those involved putting these moments together. Thank you.
Sharing these with people in my life has been wonderful.
I have a tip for pro-choicers when they argue. Imagine your argument applied to a newborn. If it works on a newborn, it is not going to be persuasive to someone who is pro-life. The arguments from the second group were that it is reparations for historical injustices, some women are poor, some women are poorly educated, etc. None of these are sufficient to warrant the killing of a newborn infant. Perhaps, you disagree with the idea that they are morally equivalent, but your pro-life interlocutor will not, and that is the root of the disagreement. You have to address it. Arguments like "What if the mom is poor and the baby will be poor?" sound like "we can kill poor babies."
"Not a fact of the world, but an opinion, because it's morality" @4:20
I'm not sure if this is Boghossian's real opinion, but there are good reasons to believe that there are objective moral facts about the world. Not all ethical questions are merely opinion. Torturing a baby is objectively morally wrong, and it seems that it would be difficult to persuade me otherwise.
If you have a viable fetus, there doesn't seem to be a huge moral distinction between aborting it and birthing it and then killing the infant, in my view. I can't see a major moral distinction between being inside and outside of the womb.
Young minds stumbling, slipping, fighting, grasping, wrestling, holding while enjoying and not enjoying the process of learning a difference between knowledge and wisdom.
To all those involved putting these moments together. Thank you.
Sharing these with people in my life has been wonderful.
I have a tip for pro-choicers when they argue. Imagine your argument applied to a newborn. If it works on a newborn, it is not going to be persuasive to someone who is pro-life. The arguments from the second group were that it is reparations for historical injustices, some women are poor, some women are poorly educated, etc. None of these are sufficient to warrant the killing of a newborn infant. Perhaps, you disagree with the idea that they are morally equivalent, but your pro-life interlocutor will not, and that is the root of the disagreement. You have to address it. Arguments like "What if the mom is poor and the baby will be poor?" sound like "we can kill poor babies."
"Not a fact of the world, but an opinion, because it's morality" @4:20
I'm not sure if this is Boghossian's real opinion, but there are good reasons to believe that there are objective moral facts about the world. Not all ethical questions are merely opinion. Torturing a baby is objectively morally wrong, and it seems that it would be difficult to persuade me otherwise.
If you have a viable fetus, there doesn't seem to be a huge moral distinction between aborting it and birthing it and then killing the infant, in my view. I can't see a major moral distinction between being inside and outside of the womb.
Folks: We need to be more like Europe, you know, healthcare and stuff.
Europe: Abortion is illegal after 13 weeks.
Folks: No! Not like that.
Why would i WANT TO READ MCRETARDY fUCKWIT, I'M IN UK, here we have free health care SO IT DOESN'T HAPPEN! PISS OFF & GROW UP!