Main Point: We will always have differences of opinions on subjects. What people don’t realize is that these differences many times are due to philosophical differences at the co

Main Point: We will always have differences of opinions on subjects. What people don’t realize is that these differences many times are due to philosophical differences at the core. So how you define life is a philosophical vantage point you take which may be different than someone else.

I bring up this discussion simply because of all of the debates that are raging on and people wasting their time on marches and rallies and all of this. In this situation it is when life begins. Then added to is is a women’s right to have control over her own body. Both of which have philosophical underpinnings and are intertwined. So as stated later here some believe life may begin at conception, heartbeat, birth etc. So if there is a philosophical disagreement between any two parties then inevitably there will be an impasse. Furthermore then added is a woman’s right to their own bodies. Again an impasse here as well. For me being in psychology the crux of the problem is people are not introspective/self-aware enough to recognize these base philosophical differences. Then they try to convince the other side with “evidence” that is valid to their agenda of which is not valid to the other side. 

It should be of no surprise that I am unhappy to say the least about the outcome of this. Now I am not one to get angry about this surprisingly. As an example regarding disagreements. I remember there was a person in my life years ago where we would get into similar arguments again and again. When she was in college she happened to be a philosophy major. I was a psychology major. However in my masters degree I started to study philosophy quite a bit. We would get into very vehement arguments. I finally came to realize that the reason we were getting into similar types of arguments even though on different subjects was due to philosophical differences.

If you were to study logic in philosophy you will see that a person will have a major premise or a main point or points. These main points/major premises drive the argument. I finally realized that this person in my life and I were simply disagreeing numerous times on a variety of topics because we came from different philosophical assumptions that are not necessarily based in science, facts etc. but on personal experience, preference, biases etc. I ended up sending a lengthy email pointing out that we simply have these base philosophical differences on these topics and subject matter. That ended the vehement brutal arguments that we would get into and instead we would just have cordial disagreements where we acknowledged, oh we just disagree on this.

Now, I give you that story because it applies to Roe v. Wade as well. People simply disagree on personhood as they use the term in bioethics. Is it the moment of conception, a heartbeat, actual birth etc? This is where philosophical differences matter. If you for example think it begins at conception and I think it begins upon heartbeat, and a third part believes once the being is born…. We always amongst the three of us will disagree! This is precisely why philosophical differences matter on a topic. A friend of mine pointed out how can we unite as a culture if the differences are so broad for example in this particular situation? It’s a very intelligent question and part of the point here is that I’m just I am simply deconstructing the problem at hand. I’m not giving a solution, but recognize the problem. I have no answer. One thing I have learned and for a separate entry is that people hate it when I deconstruct their position, show how it is flawed yet not give a solution.

As stated already, it is very much psychological in the sense that people many times are unaware of their own base philosophical positions on many issues in life. In therapeutic terms this where we come in as therapists/psychologists. We help people as an example in couples therapy figure out why couples are having arguments all the time. They don’t realize introspectively on their own, they have biases and they will always butt heads on a given topic. In Roe v. Wade it is the start of life (conception, heartbeat, birth etc.) In other topic areas such as with sex, when for example is age of consent. In this example I always ask why this age? No answer is ever given by the way that does not become self-contradictory or problematic.

I’m not trying to marginalize anyone here in Roe v. Wade. I am not one to try and persuade anyone in this discussion. My main point is that we will ALWAYS as a society simply disagree on Roe v. Wade due to how we define personhood. This is simply a philosophical difference between our opinions. In my mind it also harkens back to my discussion on age of consent sexually historically. 200 years ago it was normal for a 14/15-year-old girl to be having a child. Now we consider that to be statutory rape if the age difference is great enough and passes the age barrier given the state (which does differ state by state, look it up). Yes, there is no denying that there are religious underpinnings to some of these philosophical opinions on sex, love, procreation and so on and that is fine. My ending statement here that we will always have these differences of opinions on a variety of subjects due to our philosophical major premises (and minor premises for that matter). Again, I am giving no solution.

re. So how you define life is a philosophical vantage point you take which may be different than someone else.

I bring up this discussion simply because of all of the debates that are raging on and people wasting their time on marches and rallies and all of this. In this situation it is when life begins. Then added to is is a women’s right to have control over her own body. Both of which have philosophical underpinnings and are intertwined. So as stated later here some believe life may begin at conception, heartbeat, birth etc. So if there is a philosophical disagreement between any two parties then inevitably there will be an impasse. Furthermore then added is a woman’s right to their own bodies. Again an impasse here as well. For me being in psychology the crux of the problem is people are not introspective/self-aware enough to recognize these base philosophical differences. Then they try to convince the other side with “evidence” that is valid to their agenda of which is not valid to the other side. 

It should be of no surprise that I am unhappy to say the least about the outcome of this. Now I am not one to get angry about this surprisingly. As an example regarding disagreements. I remember there was a person in my life years ago where we would get into similar arguments again and again. When she was in college she happened to be a philosophy major. I was a psychology major. However in my masters degree I started to study philosophy quite a bit. We would get into very vehement arguments. I finally came to realize that the reason we were getting into similar types of arguments even though on different subjects was due to philosophical differences.

If you were to study logic in philosophy you will see that a person will have a major premise or a main point or points. These main points/major premises drive the argument. I finally realized that this person in my life and I were simply disagreeing numerous times on a variety of topics because we came from different philosophical assumptions that are not necessarily based in science, facts etc. but on personal experience, preference, biases etc. I ended up sending a lengthy email pointing out that we simply have these base philosophical differences on these topics and subject matter. That ended the vehement brutal arguments that we would get into and instead we would just have cordial disagreements where we acknowledged, oh we just disagree on this.

Now, I give you that story because it applies to Roe v. Wade as well. People simply disagree on personhood as they use the term in bioethics. Is it the moment of conception, a heartbeat, actual birth etc? This is where philosophical differences matter. If you for example think it begins at conception and I think it begins upon heartbeat, and a third part believes once the being is born…. We always amongst the three of us will disagree! This is precisely why philosophical differences matter on a topic. A friend of mine pointed out how can we unite as a culture if the differences are so broad for example in this particular situation? It’s a very intelligent question and part of the point here is that I’m just I am simply deconstructing the problem at hand. I’m not giving a solution, but recognize the problem. I have no answer. One thing I have learned and for a separate entry is that people hate it when I deconstruct their position, show how it is flawed yet not give a solution.

As stated already, it is very much psychological in the sense that people many times are unaware of their own base philosophical positions on many issues in life. In therapeutic terms this where we come in as therapists/psychologists. We help people as an example in couples therapy figure out why couples are having arguments all the time. They don’t realize introspectively on their own, they have biases and they will always butt heads on a given topic. In Roe v. Wade it is the start of life (conception, heartbeat, birth etc.) In other topic areas such as with sex, when for example is age of consent. In this example I always ask why this age? No answer is ever given by the way that does not become self-contradictory or problematic.

I’m not trying to marginalize anyone here in Roe v. Wade. I am not one to try and persuade anyone in this discussion. My main point is that we will ALWAYS as a society simply disagree on Roe v. Wade due to how we define personhood. This is simply a philosophical difference between our opinions. In my mind it also harkens back to my discussion on age of consent sexually historically. 200 years ago it was normal for a 14/15-year-old girl to be having a child. Now we consider that to be statutory rape if the age difference is great enough and passes the age barrier given the state (which does differ state by state, look it up). Yes, there is no denying that there are religious underpinnings to some of these philosophical opinions on sex, love, procreation and so on and that is fine. My ending statement here that we will always have these differences of opinions on a variety of subjects due to our philosophical major premises (and minor premises for that matter). Again, I am giving no solution.