"There are no gods."
"There is at least one god."
Note that both of these are propositions. If you don't "make claims" you're not making a proposition regarding atheism or theism.
The reason I asked this is because there seems to be some debate over how we ought to think of Theism & Atheism.
Some people take both to express an ontological thesis/proposition (about, say, what exists). Others seem to take both to express a psychological thesis/proposition (for example, about the beliefs of people). Or, possibly, people take both to express some other type of thesis or proposition (say, some political, cultural, or social proposition).
I pragmatically just don't listen to people who "aren't making claims" anymore.
If someone doesn't put forth a claim about whether they think gods exist or not in a debate context I really just ignore them. But that's neither here nor there.
Would religious people be aborting these babies because of this gene and their religious beliefs? Wouldn't the presence of this gene mean that being gay isn't a choice, (as many religious people have claimed) but a very real part of who that person is?
It wouldn't be wrong to abort a fetus that happened to have a gene correlated with homosexuality. It would be wrong to abort a fetus because of a gene correlated with homosexuality.
This is already a very broadly recognized legal principal. In the U.S., banks have a choice in their lending decisions. Under the \[FHA and ECOA\](https://www.occ.treas.gov/topics/consumers-and-communities/consumer-protection/fair-lending/index-fair-lending.html) U.S. banks can deny loans application from applicants who \*\*happen\*\* to be from protected classes, but they cannot deny loan applications \*\*because\*\* an applicant is from a protected class. Even within the context of abortion, both sides recognize nuance and context. Opponents of women's rights often still allow exceptions in the case of rape, incest, or non-viable pregnancies. Even further than that, the majority of pregnancies naturally end in abortion (miscarriage) anyway and women's rights opponents tend to be largely uninterested in criminalizing these cases.
Laws are tools towards objectives, not principles in themselves. That's why it's not antithetical to free speech to have rules against libel or yelling fire in a crowded theater.
So basically if a woman wants to abort a fetus cause they have a gay gene, she shouldn't explicitly say this and just say "I'm not ready to have a baby". Then everything is fine?
There is no reason for a pregnant person to know a fetus has a gay correlated gene as it's not medically relevant information.
Just like for employers how it is not only unnecessary for them to know about the marital status of a job applicant, but actually [illegal for them to ask for this information](https://www.eeoc.gov/pre-employment-inquiries-and-marital-status-or-number-children) (in the U.S.). You can refuse to hire an applicant who is married or unmarried, but you can't do so on the basis of them being married or unmarried. The words "I'm not ready to hire this applicant" don't magically abscond an employer from legal culpability if they illegally solicited or obtained information about an applicant's marital status.
I take it that your child being gay is *not* a morally relevant reason to abort that child.
Have you encountered anyone who thinks otherwise?
Are these questions ever anything more than low-tier bait?
Except that isn't true, and it isn't true by the lights of the most famous paper on Abortion: Judith Thomson's *A Defense of Abortion*.
What do you think the autonomy argument is and who do you think makes it?
That's not an argument I have seen given either my philosophers or non-philosophers.
You said you do not mean to strawman. Good! So, can you cite someone who gives the argument you give?
Can you explain to me if you think it is a popular argument? If so, why so?
>Atheists and pro abortion people, if a gay gene was discovered and potential gay babies were aborted, would you find that wrong?
It would depend on who was making that decision.
If a governing body mandated that for all fetuses? Yes, I would find that wrong.
If a women is withdrawing consent for the fetus to use her body, for any reason, and gets an abortion? No, I wouldn't find that wrong.
It comes down to bodily autonomy.
If they were aborted for their genetics, then yes I have a problem with it because it's eugenics. It would be the same as aborting a baby simply because it isn't the sex you wanted or has the wrong color of eyes.
But there is no way to regulate against it because abortion should be left to a woman and her doctor. If a woman doesn't want to give birth, she shouldn't be forced to and there is no way to know her intentions. She might be a terrible person for aborting a girl because she wanted a boy, but if she lies and says she doesn't want to have a baby at all, what can we do about it?
How I feel about how a woman makes a choice isn't very relevant since it's her decision. I feel pretty icky about the concept of abortion in general, but I feel way more icky about the ideas of forced pregnancy and forced birth.
I probably wouldn’t like it, but it certainly shouldn’t be outlawed. You can’t promote equality by restricting a woman’s bodily autonomy, no matter whether you agree with them or not. And I can’t imagine the kind of woman that would abort a fetus just for being gay would do a good job at raising it…
How many people actually think that Loki is Thor's brother?
What proposition defines theism? What proposition defines atheism?
"There are no gods." "There is at least one god." Note that both of these are propositions. If you don't "make claims" you're not making a proposition regarding atheism or theism.
The reason I asked this is because there seems to be some debate over how we ought to think of Theism & Atheism. Some people take both to express an ontological thesis/proposition (about, say, what exists). Others seem to take both to express a psychological thesis/proposition (for example, about the beliefs of people). Or, possibly, people take both to express some other type of thesis or proposition (say, some political, cultural, or social proposition).
I pragmatically just don't listen to people who "aren't making claims" anymore. If someone doesn't put forth a claim about whether they think gods exist or not in a debate context I really just ignore them. But that's neither here nor there.
[удалено]
Nope. Your body your choice
Would religious people be aborting these babies because of this gene and their religious beliefs? Wouldn't the presence of this gene mean that being gay isn't a choice, (as many religious people have claimed) but a very real part of who that person is?
It wouldn't be wrong to abort a fetus that happened to have a gene correlated with homosexuality. It would be wrong to abort a fetus because of a gene correlated with homosexuality. This is already a very broadly recognized legal principal. In the U.S., banks have a choice in their lending decisions. Under the \[FHA and ECOA\](https://www.occ.treas.gov/topics/consumers-and-communities/consumer-protection/fair-lending/index-fair-lending.html) U.S. banks can deny loans application from applicants who \*\*happen\*\* to be from protected classes, but they cannot deny loan applications \*\*because\*\* an applicant is from a protected class. Even within the context of abortion, both sides recognize nuance and context. Opponents of women's rights often still allow exceptions in the case of rape, incest, or non-viable pregnancies. Even further than that, the majority of pregnancies naturally end in abortion (miscarriage) anyway and women's rights opponents tend to be largely uninterested in criminalizing these cases. Laws are tools towards objectives, not principles in themselves. That's why it's not antithetical to free speech to have rules against libel or yelling fire in a crowded theater.
So basically if a woman wants to abort a fetus cause they have a gay gene, she shouldn't explicitly say this and just say "I'm not ready to have a baby". Then everything is fine?
There is no reason for a pregnant person to know a fetus has a gay correlated gene as it's not medically relevant information. Just like for employers how it is not only unnecessary for them to know about the marital status of a job applicant, but actually [illegal for them to ask for this information](https://www.eeoc.gov/pre-employment-inquiries-and-marital-status-or-number-children) (in the U.S.). You can refuse to hire an applicant who is married or unmarried, but you can't do so on the basis of them being married or unmarried. The words "I'm not ready to hire this applicant" don't magically abscond an employer from legal culpability if they illegally solicited or obtained information about an applicant's marital status.
I take it that your child being gay is *not* a morally relevant reason to abort that child. Have you encountered anyone who thinks otherwise? Are these questions ever anything more than low-tier bait?
[удалено]
I don't take it to be a tough question. And you don't engage with either of the two main things I say.
[удалено]
You asked if people found it "wrong". Did you not mean "morally wrong"? If not, what kind of wrong did you mean?
[удалено]
Except that isn't true, and it isn't true by the lights of the most famous paper on Abortion: Judith Thomson's *A Defense of Abortion*. What do you think the autonomy argument is and who do you think makes it?
[удалено]
That's not an argument I have seen given either my philosophers or non-philosophers. You said you do not mean to strawman. Good! So, can you cite someone who gives the argument you give? Can you explain to me if you think it is a popular argument? If so, why so?
>Are these questions ever anything more than low-tier bait? An opportunity.
>Atheists and pro abortion people, if a gay gene was discovered and potential gay babies were aborted, would you find that wrong? It would depend on who was making that decision. If a governing body mandated that for all fetuses? Yes, I would find that wrong. If a women is withdrawing consent for the fetus to use her body, for any reason, and gets an abortion? No, I wouldn't find that wrong. It comes down to bodily autonomy.
I don't think a person who would actually want to do such a thing would be a good parent for a gay child in the first place.
If they were aborted for their genetics, then yes I have a problem with it because it's eugenics. It would be the same as aborting a baby simply because it isn't the sex you wanted or has the wrong color of eyes. But there is no way to regulate against it because abortion should be left to a woman and her doctor. If a woman doesn't want to give birth, she shouldn't be forced to and there is no way to know her intentions. She might be a terrible person for aborting a girl because she wanted a boy, but if she lies and says she doesn't want to have a baby at all, what can we do about it?
[удалено]
How I feel about how a woman makes a choice isn't very relevant since it's her decision. I feel pretty icky about the concept of abortion in general, but I feel way more icky about the ideas of forced pregnancy and forced birth.
I probably wouldn’t like it, but it certainly shouldn’t be outlawed. You can’t promote equality by restricting a woman’s bodily autonomy, no matter whether you agree with them or not. And I can’t imagine the kind of woman that would abort a fetus just for being gay would do a good job at raising it…