AX: Abortion is Murder

78 posts

Flag Post

Axioms:

Axiom: Abortion is murder.
Axiom: Personhood begins at conception.
Axiom: Morality is objective.
Axiom: Murder is morally wrong.
Axiom: Abortion is morally wrong.
Axiom: Massive government supported abortion amounts to genocide.
Axiom: The axioms listed in this thread only change the opinions within this thread. Public opinions in the world remain the same. (Axioms for our conversation, not the world’s conversation)

Topic:

How should we go about making abortion against the law? How can we increase public opposition to the heinous actions? Should international action be taken against countries that support abortion? How strongly should abortion clinics and doctors be resisted? Should genocide be resisted with violence?

 
Flag Post

Don’t we have this thread?
Anyways, assuming that everyone would mutually agree it’s murder, then it would make sense for it to be outlawed. I think that the current laws regarding murder would most likely have an influence on abortion too, based off the AX.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

Axioms:

Axiom: Murder is morally wrong.

Kinda the reason it’s also legally wrong.

How should we go about making abortion against the law?

Uhh, make it illegal? It’s not that hard to figure out with your very extensive amount of axioms.

How can we increase public opposition to the heinous actions?

Well you already made axioms about everyone thinking it’s bad, what more do you need?

Should international action be taken against countries that support abortion?

See above.

How strongly should abortion clinics and doctors be resisted?

You don’t seem to be getting the point of axoims, do you?

Should genocide be resisted with violence?

It depends, really.

 
Flag Post

@tenco

My axioms never say that “everyone thinks it is bad”, just that it is. The axioms don’t change anything about public perception or opinion. This thread is about how to go about fixing the problem. It’s the next step after “is abortion wrong”, if the answer to the previous is “yes”.

Originally posted by ElBandito81:

Don’t we have this thread?
Anyways, assuming that everyone would mutually agree it’s murder, then it would make sense for it to be outlawed. I think that the current laws regarding murder would most likely have an influence on abortion too, based off the AX.

No no no. The AX never changes what “everyone would mutually agree”. We are going off the reality that the country is divided.

Basically, what this thread is saying, is that we have a great divide over abortion. If we were to assume that abortion were in fact murder, how do we change public opinion. Don’t approach this as if it resolves the previous debate, just resolves the truth to you. Basically, this is taking the abortion thread, saying the pro-life side is right, and saying, if you were in THAT position, how do you go about righting the world?

 
Flag Post

What tenco said.

When something is axiomed down to a similar popularity and approval level as incestuous chicken rape, you don’t really have to work hard to stop it happening.

 
Flag Post

It is true that either abortion IS murder, or it ISN’T murder. One of those two is true. However, people are still fighting over it. The fact that one side is correct doesn’t mean that all of a sudden everyone gets along. My axioms never insist that the public is in agreement with the axioms, or that everyone is completely aware and accepting of them. The axiom applies ONLY to the reader and participant in this thread. The rest of the world remains the same. You, the participant in this thread, are approaching the world, as it is, under the assumption that those axioms are true. NOW, how do you go about changing the world?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

@tenco

My axioms never say that “everyone thinks it is bad”, just that it is.

Uhh, an "axiom"http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/axiom?s=t actually very heavily implies that every (rational) person agrees with it.

The axioms don’t change anything about public perception or opinion.

Yes. Yes it does.

This thread is about how to go about fixing the problem. It’s the next step after “is abortion wrong”, if the answer to the previous is “yes”.

And as I said before, because of the axioms you listed, it would very quickly become illegal.

No no no. The AX never changes what “everyone would mutually agree”.

I refer you to the second definition.

We are going off the reality that the country is divided.

Wait, what?

Basically, what this thread is saying, is that we have a great divide over abortion.

Then why didn’t you make an axiom about that?

And again, I still don’t think you quite know exactly what an axiom is, as with the axioms you listed, there isn’t really much question other than “It becomes illegal.”

If we were to assume that abortion were in fact murder, how do we change public opinion.

Well legally it would have to be illegal first, but if there were an axiom that it was ethically as bad, then we wouldn’t need to, as everyone would already agree with the axiom.

Don’t approach this as if it resolves the previous debate, just resolves the truth to you.

Wait, what?

Basically, this is taking the abortion thread, saying the pro-life side is right, and saying, if you were in THAT position, how do you go about righting the world?

Uhh, no it isn’t, it’s an axiom thread that the pro-life side is correct, and as it is an axiom, not much actually really needs to be done, if anything at all.

Originally posted by MyTie:

It is true that either abortion IS murder, or it ISN’T murder.

Well legally it’s not murder in this (non-axiomed) world.

Well, in certain countries where it’s legal, anyway.

One of those two is true. However, people are still fighting over it.

For different reasons, yes.

The fact that one side is correct doesn’t mean that all of a sudden everyone gets along. My axioms never insist that the public is in agreement with the axioms, or that everyone is completely aware and accepting of them.

Except that axioms are that by definition.

The axiom applies ONLY to the reader and participant in this thread. The rest of the world remains the same.

Then why didn’t you make note of the before? (preferably in the form of an axiom.)

You, the participant in this thread, are approaching the world, as it is, under the assumption that those axioms are true.

Well, obviously, as axioms are by definition irrefutably true.

NOW, how do you go about changing the world?

Well not screaming like a madman, obviously, that would do nothing productive. Maybe share with the world the axioms that I know of. (Again, referring to the part of the definition of axioms that you can’t rationally deny it’s validity.)

 
Flag Post

Oh geez, tenco. I’m not going to argue about the context being in this thread. It’s easier to just amend my original post. Please note the new axiom on bottom.

Now you can shut up and answer the questions you know I was asking in the first place, or bugger off. Either is fine.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

Oh geez, tenco. I’m not going to argue about the context being in this thread. It’s easier to just amend my original post. Please note the new axiom on bottom.

There we go, now we can talk about the contradictions that arise from that… I think.

Now you can shut up and answer the questions you know I was asking in the first place, or bugger off. Either is fine.

Done.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NeilSenna:

What tenco said.

When something is axiomed down to a similar popularity and approval level as incestuous chicken rape, you don’t really have to work hard to stop it happening.

Neil, you aren’t raping chickens again, are you? LOL!

 
Flag Post

I think several of these axioms are superfluous; if you make the axiom that personhood begins at conception, you can conclude abortion is murder. Government-supported abortion would be equal to genocide. However, the latter implies that they both implemented a law where abortion isn’t allowed and still allow abortion to happen. Kind of contradictory. Furthermore, you made an axiom that “morality is objective”, but we don’t have a clue which morality is, and whether the other types of morality (aside from abortion and murder) are relevant to this thread. I don’t even get the last axiom. Axioms create a fictive world in which something is true. It has nothing to do with the real world any way.

Nevertheless, this sounds pretty easy:

How should we go about making abortion against the law?

Make it a law.

Seriously, does this need any discussion?

How can we increase public opposition to the heinous actions?

Show loaded, emotional advertisements to the public.

Should international action be taken against countries that support abortion?

The world already didn’t take too kindly to the USA playing the little policeman all over the world, I don’t think they’d want a further oppressive force coming in to tell them what to do. What you can do is shut down trade between the countries and similar actions, but don’t come in with an army.

How strongly should abortion clinics and doctors be resisted?

Considering it would be against the law, that’s simple; you shut them down. Naturally, there will be abortions in obscure locations when the woman’s life is in danger and they don’t really like that the government supports women dying over their holy fetuses. You can’t really stop that aside from anonymous tips (which can be jokes) or scouting policemen (which won’t really find it easily).

Should genocide be resisted with violence?

We currrently lock up murderers. Don’t see why it should be different here.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

Axioms:

Axiom: Abortion is murder.
Axiom: Personhood begins at conception.
Axiom: Morality is objective.
Axiom: Murder is morally wrong.
Axiom: Abortion is morally wrong.
Axiom: Massive government supported abortion amounts to genocide.
Axiom: The axioms listed in this thread only change the opinions within this thread. Public opinions in the world remain the same. (Axioms for our conversation, not the world’s conversation)

Topic:

How should we go about making abortion against the law? How can we increase public opposition to the heinous actions? Should international action be taken against countries that support abortion? How strongly should abortion clinics and doctors be resisted? Should genocide be resisted with violence?

Well even with the Axioms(if one ignores the axiom Morality is objective), there is still the question if Abortion should be illegal. Since the axioms have no rational behind them and are just based on axioms, they don´t necessarily have the consequence you think.
The Axioms don´t change the fact that its the womens body and life that is being weighed against the life of the fetus. So unless you add the Axiom women are not People. That much does not change.
Abortion is now axiom-ed to be morally wrong, but making Abortion illegal and punishing it is still also morally wrong. We now have to wrongs to weigh against each other. And even with the axioms to me it would seem that a solution would be to either make Abortion illegal but without punishment(as done in some countries) or not illegal at all. Just like free speech.

But there are other implications. For regulating government subsides so they are not massive(because of the genocide axiom) and installing mandatory psychological counseling for the women that seek abortion and so on.

Now if we add the axiom Morality is objective(edited from subjective. thanks vika for pointing out my mistake), then free speech can´t nor does it need to exist. People that disagree with objective morality are sick and abnormal. Depending on the strength of their sickness different measures would apply. Those that can at least give the impression to follow the objective morality can go their way but might have to visit their Morality Doctor(Priest/Psychotherapist). Those who are a disturbance obviously need to be Quarantined, for their own good. As long as those are not to many Asylums could be enough. If the drain on the resources of the objective morality Society become to big and hinder it at following objective morality the next step is….
Also if the objective morality society is to weak to enforce its objective morality, because it is the “silent/jhco majority” being oppressed. Than clearly a secret/open war against the heinous heathens seems necessary.

 
Flag Post

Hooboy, this is a doozy. But it seems like a fun challenge. Now I interpret these axioms as some sort of convincing secret revelation. It’s a thought experiment guys, try to be a bit sporting hm? You’re tearing at things not out of any real confusion but just to get around addressing the nature of the idea.

I would have to say, guerrilla style sabotage and constant propaganda. Make everything as difficult as possible, make it as unpopular as possible.

Criminalizing abortion would merely require making it sufficiently unpopular; since the truth seems to be unconvincing or unreliable I would suggest basic lies being the mainstay of propaganda efforts. Equate abortion with unpopular things, make it seem expensive, and unhealthy, distort any perception of those numbers to whatever works.

Also run an awareness campaign of warm and fuzzy unaborted children. Make videos of them as heroes putting out fires, cute little children learning to walk. Ensure people are constantly bombarded with images of specifically kept children accomplishing great things and becoming promising young professionals. Ensure the suggestion that all unaborted kids grow up to be rich is constant. People who don’t abort children never die from cervical cancer and retire early being the optimal general perception.

Should international action be taken against abortion supporting countries? I don’t know how or by who. All the major political players support abortion, so I don’t know who would be doing what. I suppose lesser countries could forego trade relations, it seems rather self destructive – would get into utilitarian questions, would have to run the numbers on people who starve to death versus unaborted persons.

How strongly should abortion clinics and doctors be resisted? I would say with all nonviolent means, axiomatically. Destroy space, equipment, ect.

Should genocide be resisted with violence? Well not if Murder is Objectively Morally Wrong, no. I suppose you could hurt someone without killing them… but that’s getting into some grey zones.

 
Flag Post

I don’t really see much discussion value in this thread.

If abortion was murder and personhood began at conception and morality was objective then abortion would have to be made illegal. But if these axioms are only true within this thread and the real world was still exactly the same way it is now these axioms would simply not make any sense.

If they were objectively true there would be a way to show that they are objectively true and making abortion illegal would be the only reasonable way to act. Well, the thing is there is no way to show that these axioms – or rather assumptions – are true.

 
Flag Post

Brainwashing? Alien mind control? God himself comes down off his mountain? Strict orthodox upbringing? Come on… don’t play the card that believing these things is impossible. Lots of people do, run with it.

 
Flag Post

well, there are plenty of ways to legally protest stuff that’s going on. flyering, demonstrating, strikes, chaining yourself to the abortion clinic’s equipment or so, or barricading their doors…

definitely pressure the legislative branch to have it banned, and vote that way. genocide is obviously worse than taking away the right to commit genocide.

the only thing to discuss left is when the life of the mother is threatened…

outting the murderous doctors, boycotting them and the hospitals, hell this would be so big it’d be my life’s work, perhaps even above protesting the education system (although…is murder worse than torture, imprisonment and psychologic conditioning?…maybe not; no, education still takes presidence).

 
Flag Post

Believing in these things is not impossible. Proving it to be true seems to be.

As a side-note, objective morality isn’t proven by the existence of God.

 
Flag Post

Try to sue the government into repealing Roe vs Wade

 
Flag Post

Some of you are really being good sports. Thanks. This thread is just an attempt to put all of you into the shoes of a pro-life person. Imagine if you held it to be FACT that there were a constant and ongoing genocide of babies in your country.

I’m not surprised that some of you aren’t putting your heart into the discussion. “Make it illegal”. Lol. Why didn’t I think of that? Either participate, or don’t. But, if you’re not going to, then don’t bother posting.

To those that are participating, do you see the challenges facing the pro-life mentality? I’ve seen some ideas: outright lie, brainwash, guerrilla style sabotage. These are fun, but they aren’t quite realistic. In the end, I want you to empathize, by truly grasping the severity, and simultanious helplessness of the injustice of the situation.

 
Flag Post

This thread is just an attempt to put all of you into the shoes of a pro-life person. Imagine if you held it to be FACT that there were a constant and ongoing genocide of babies in your country.

Not quite right. You’re attempting to put us in a fictive world, and it’s kind of weird to think of people holding something as a fact when it is proven to not be.

I’m not surprised that some of you aren’t putting your heart into the discussion. “Make it illegal”. Lol. Why didn’t I think of that? Either participate, or don’t. But, if you’re not going to, then don’t bother posting.

What are you expecting? You ask “how to make this into a law?”. It is morally wrong. It is objectively wrong. Nobody needs to be convinced. So, why do you even ask? The lawmakers need to be told to get that law done. If this isn’t the question you wanted to ask, don’t ask it.

To those that are participating, do you see the challenges facing the pro-life mentality?

As I said above, it’s not quite the same. The pro-life position isn’t in a world where we’ve proven that objective morality exists (your AX implies it’s proven).

In the end, I want you to empathize, by truly grasping the severity, and simultanious helplessness of the injustice of the situation.

I truly get what you’re trying to do, but you’re not quite on the same track. Objective morality is key, and when that belief in objective morality depends on subjectivity, you’ve lost all validity. In your suggested world, morality is proven to be objective (and a certain type of morality at that). The pro-life position is inherently correct, in that world. Critics cannot rationally deny that objective morality exists, in that world. This is, at least, what you’re suggesting in your post. Again, I understand the relationship you’re putting, and I’m putting myself in the shoes of a person in that fictive world, but it doesn’t help me understand the pro-life position. Why? Because several of these AXes do not apply to the real world.

I respect your tries, and I am not trying to put you down. In fact, if scientists find out tomorrow morality is objective, and there’s a certain type of morality we cannot rationally deny (or be objectively wrong, just like with facts), and there is some sort of objective punishment system for this, like hell (otherwise there is no point in making abortion illegal, the inherent immorality of it is not restricing us from keeping it legal), then I’ll fanatically join your side in making it illegal.

 
Flag Post

That looks a lot like arguing against the AX, dark. There is no need to prove the axioms. They are axioms for this discussion.

 
Flag Post

No, I am arguing against your comparison towards the pro-life position. You’re pretty much forcing us into a position with the axioms, and I hope my answers to your questions are pretty clear in the post I made somewhere up above.

 
Flag Post

I’d like to know what you would do, if you were put in the position where you held those axioms true. That’s the point of this thread. Don’t tell me why those axioms should or shouldn’t be. That’s not the point of this thread. So stop picking at the axioms, accept them, and state what you would do with them.

 
Flag Post

Well, that’s quite a bit different of a question from the ones asked in the OP. But there’s still some things vague here, let me ask you some clarifying questions:

1. Is there any significant, objective punishment for those who commit these immoral actions? So, will you get sent to hell, will you get a disease? Something like that?
2. Will this significant, objective punishment also be invoked upon those who did not commit these immoral actions but “tolerated” them?

It is quite important to know if either of these are true.

 
Flag Post

Those remain unchanged from how they currently are. Abortion is just WRONG. The consequences for it are still debatable. What do you do, when you know it is wrong but are unsure of the consequences?