Are You For 86?

By -
One of the comments I accidentally deleted claim that I am abusing the notion of force if I intend to call the use of RU486 to "terminate a pregnancy" force!

I suppose the commentor would object if I plan to bludgeon him to death with a club, but be okay if I plan to kill him with arsenic instead, since I will use "no force."

Of course, this is absurd: "force" in this context certainly doesn't have to mean visible force. If I invade your body with a chemical that disrupts its normal functioning, that is force. If I poison you with radiation, that is force.


Comments

  1. Ken B3:05 PM

    RU486, voluntarily ingested in the first trimester, affects no human being other than the ingester.

    You are trying to elide the key point. If the fetus is not a human being, not a person, then force against another person is NOT required to terminate the pregnancy, but force might be required to prevent a woman terminating. That is the claim you are trying to rebut.

    Your hypothetical above can be answered of course. Consider an abortifacient which does not invade the fetus but causes the woman's body to shed it.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more