Militant Moderate
WF …
1) Regarding the Problem of Induction (and if I say something which you already know here, I apologize. Eventually, I’ll connect it to my point) …
Suppose you’re a swan researcher. Every swan that you’ve seen is white. Can you conclude (induce) that ALL swans are white?
Hume would say no, because you cannot check every place in the universe where swans may live.
Suppose that you at the scene of robbery at a convenience store in which the the assailant shoots and kills the clerk, a few feet away. Since you were there and close by, the set of possible explanations (other than what it was … murder) is very small. Maybe you unknowingly walked onto movie production set? (I gots nuttin’ besides that.)
But to others, like in a court room setting, they don’t have the same experience that you have. The set of all possible explanations expands, perhaps infinitely. All they have is evidence.
Video footage? Technology permits very realistic, fake video. And photography has been manipulated pretty much since the invention of film, including some very famous photos that many people don’t know are composites.
Eyewitness accounts? Perhaps they aren’t credible. Maybe being paid off. They weren’t wearing their glasses right then.
Fingerprints? Could be planted.
Maybe the detectives were crooked.
So all of that to answer, ‘No’ to your initial question, ‘Is it possible to have ZERO doubt about who perpetrated some crime?’ And as humans, the best that we can hope to attain is a level of knowing that is beyond REASONABLE doubt.
And all of this dovetails into Philosophy of Science, confirmation vs. corroboration, etc. But that’s another subject.
2) “As for how many women I would risk, the answer can still be zero. As clearly there are women who choose to end pregnancies without medical cause and those are not distinct in the law’s eyes from those that are.”
I don’t believe it is possible to concoct a system in which the only abortions performed are those in which the woman’s life is in danger.
Despite centuries of practice, our legal system, already overwhelmed, as it stands now, and it still screws up. Such a system might take too long and women end up dying, waiting for a verdict. This system would also necessitate attorneys fees which need to be paid. And what about privacy issues? As a dude, I’d hate to have to see a judge in order to get a prescription for my erectile dysfunction; my neighbors and coworkers might laugh at me should those legal records be made public. For women and abortion … embarrassment and giggling could turn into outright hostility and death threats.
And so we outlaw abortion because it’s murder. Is a woman who smokes during pregnancy guilty of child endangerment or attempted murder? What if she forgot to put on her seat belt? Went boating? Skipped taking her prenatal vitamins? Opts for hamburger instead of green leafy vegetables? And how does the State coerce a woman into caring for an infant that she didn’t want in the first place? Threaten her with jail time? Is the foster care system capable of handling millions of additional children?
(And again, will the GOP allow such an expansion of the “Welfare State?”)
There exists certain aspects of human life in which laws can create additional problems and unintended consequences. The “War on Drugs” is often cited as the premier example. I’d argue that the Republican “War on Women” and the contained battle over abortion is another, more relevant, example.
Any answer, other than leaving it up to a woman and her doctor, is the wrong answer, in my opinion.
And I apologize for my snark also. But I will say this … My experience: Nothing good ever comes from Internet abortion discussions. I’ve been in more than a few, and regretted it each and every time! On the bright side, I’m savvy-enough to also know that I will not change yours or anyone else’s mind. The best that I can hope for is to convince any (unfortunate) reader that I’ve given the issue a lot of consideration.
Cheers!